Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Reckon it'd be good if they did. If they're dodgy, remember it and vote 'em out.

There's no reason to tolerate dodgy politicians.

 Da Boss wrote:
I reckon it should be common practice. In fact it'd be quite interesting if tax returns were public information.

I guess that might put richer people at risk of crime.

Yeah...because it is a good idea to invade other people's privacy? What you're asking for is on the same level as making your wage, social security, health insurance etc. public. It's a private matter and there's no reason to make anything public bar leftist jealousy trying to bemire wealthier people.

I'd be fine with my wage and all that being public knowledge. I've nothing to hide.

Why should it be private? We've seen that there's a fair bit of misbehaviour when there is too much secrecy.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I reckon it should be common practice. In fact it'd be quite interesting if tax returns were public information.

I guess that might put richer people at risk of crime.

Yeah...because it is a good idea to invade other people's privacy? What you're asking for is on the same level as making your wage, social security, health insurance etc. public. It's a private matter and there's no reason to make anything public bar leftist jealousy trying to bemire wealthier people.

Well, that sounds just like something the fascist right would say!




Do you see how silly that looks?

But to be absolutely clear, I'm not really advocating for that. I'm not that interested in private individuals wealth. It would be mildly interesting, but I can see the downsides with opening people to harassment and crime. Not worth it, so private individuals should probably be able to keep their wealth a secret.

Go nuts.

Polticians, senior civil servants and political groups and lobby groups though? Total transperancy.

I'd agree there. If you hold a public position, then you should be able to hold reponsible for it as you are expected to represent the people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Well, that sounds just like something the fascist right would say!

Do you see how silly that looks?

No, actually. It's one of the things leftists usually ask for, and it ain't a secret either. What they don't understand is that this would backfire pretty darn hard at the middle class, not the upper tiers. Ask for a raise? See your employer check your financial background first. You're not in debt? Sorry, no raise. Want to get employed? Let's have a look at your health insurance info first. Oh wait, a cardiac arrest? Ah, no, thanks, we're not hiring at the moment.

Then again, what do you expect of leftists, reasonable thinking?

 Sigvatr wrote:
I'd agree there. If you hold a public position, then you should be able to hold reponsible for it as you are expected to represent the people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Well, that sounds just like something the fascist right would say!

Do you see how silly that looks?

No, actually. It's one of the things leftists usually ask for, and it ain't a secret either. What they don't understand is that this would backfire pretty darn hard at the middle class, not the upper tiers. Ask for a raise? See your employer check your financial background first. You're not in debt? Sorry, no raise. Want to get employed? Let's have a look at your health insurance info first. Oh wait, a cardiac arrest? Ah, no, thanks, we're not hiring at the moment.

Then again, what do you expect of leftists, reasonable thinking?

Such illustrious and enlightened reasonable thinking as throwing invectives around when people disagree with you? I think I'll stay leftist, thankyouverymuch.

I dunno, I'm not sure that's a stated policy of any left wing group I know of.

Why should your health records be available in that level of detail though, theoretically? Surely just acknowledging your source of health insurance (public or private) would be enough.

With bosses and raises, I can't see how it would really effect things that much. I could be wrong though as I've never been in the posiiton to give someone a raise deny them! I'd probably base it on their worth to my organisation if I was in that situation, not their debt level?

But like I say, this is not something I really want to see because I think the benefit would be pretty limited and the downsides could be serious.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Such illustrious and enlightened reasonable thinking as throwing invectives around when people disagree with you? I think I'll stay leftist, thankyouverymuch.

No worries. People either start questioning things around them one day and apply critical thinking or pointlessly complain about anything they don't like / are jealous of and stay leftist.

Would you believe my left wing beliefs are not motivated by jealousy? I reckon I'm well paid for my enjoyable job and have lots of free time. I can afford the things I'd like to own and save money at the same time.

I'm left wing because I believe it's important to reduce inequality and give people a fair shake in life.

If you've worked hard at something to earn a pile of money, more power to you in my opinion. Progressive taxation might be a bit of a bear for you, but the benefits for the society you live in are huge.

Oh, I'm not talking about you as a person, in particular. It's not like all of our friends were conservative either, in the contrary, my sister is quite the left-leftist

I'm referring to the leftists that operate at the higher level, the ones I have to occasionally deal with; mostly politicians and the like. Their political opinion is a problem because they can't be reasoned with as they are public representatives...and if you gotta deal professionally with people that you know cannot budge an inch (in public), who want to make you change despite not knowing how the stuff they talk about works...then that's tiring; for all sides involved.

The general leftist mindset just isn't a reasonable one. Being leftist is totally okay, you can be a super nice person and do what you want, noone got a problem with dat. Problems start when said mindset suddenly tries to get in economics - where the fun ends and reality kicks in. Where rationality is in high demand and rationa thinking and leftism are mutually exclusive in economics.

Stuff like higher taxation for wealthy is one example, it's the #1 (and most often sole) means by leftists to finance anything they ask for. Introduce something the sheep want to believe (more child support, awesooooome!), tell them to raise taxes for the rich...etc. Yawn.

You know that a policy isn't feasible when people would immediately stop supporting it if they had to pay for it themselves. I.e. the whole refugee disaster - public opinion was "Hey, man, those poor people, let's help them!" at start and at the very moment when it was proclaimed that due to cover cost of taking in refugees, they'd have to raise taxes / step back from less taxes, boom, it all caved and people suddenly weren't so positive anymore. It's hilarious. The entire thing is a super ugly mess and it's getting even worse next election. The CDU lost major supporters from the economy, including very high profile companies that operate internationally. Next election will be the first one neither of us two will vote as there no longer is a party that represent conservatism in Germany - which is troubling to say the least.

The problem is that this isn't our problem, high tier companies operate on a different level than regular ones and know how to deal with pesky politicians. The problem is that everything gets back at the middle class which is taking hit after hit right now with no end in sight. We don't care, our pension will be higher than most people's wages nowadays, but with so many cuts to the middle class, as a regular employee working right now, you have to worry about how you gotta pay the bills when you're old. A lot.

Another great example is renewable energies. Leftists love them. A lot. Where can you find stuff like solar panels mostly? On houses owned by the government or by upper tier citizens - solar panels are expensive to buy. Now...they get subsidized...a lot. By the government aaaaaand (that's important): the energy producers. They increased their energy prices by a good amount to free up cash for solar panels. Now...who pays for those subsidies? You. And everyone else. Everyone pays for them in their energy bill. The upper tiers don't care. People with an already low income do.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Recent history shows us that Labour were rotten to the core.

More than the tories?

Yay, apparently Mossack Fonseca is even shadier than earlier thought...
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-04-10/reports-panama-firm-usurped-name-of-red-cross-to-hide-money

Seems they've also used the name of the Red Cross to hide the true ownership of two foundations with noble-sounding names - the Faith Foundation and Brotherhood Foundation. Some 500 different customers have put their shares in off-shore companies these two foundations so they can hide behind an aura of do-good nobility with the Red Cross marked as "owner". Other charities might also have been used like this. I especially like this quote:

"Mossack Fonseca didn't immediately return an email seeking comment, but a leaked email cited by the publications appeared to lay out the firm's reasoning."

"Given that banks and financial institutions are today asked to obtain information about economic beneficiaries, it has become difficult for us not to divulge the identity of those of the Faith Foundation's," the email said, according to the papers. "That's why we've implemented this structure designating the 'International Red Cross.' It's easier that way."

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Recent history shows us that Labour were rotten to the core.

More than the tories?

Hell yes.

Links were already given. And the New Labour spin machine at the time insisted that the story when in the press stayed for but one day and moved on BBS comlied as did most papers that knew what was good for them.

If George Osborne had refused to pay council tax and bullied inland revenue workers that tried to do their official duties, how long would that run in the press? And how much effort would be placed on removing him? There would be fething riots and you know it. but when Prescott did it he just 'paid it back' several yerars later. This was a crime you know, if you full on defraud the taxman you dint just pay it back, you go to court and are lucky if they demand it back at 4X rate, and are luckier yet if you escape prison.

When Labour do their dodgy doings, its the problem of those who know about it not those who do the deals.

Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours

...hmmm ...


must be dreadful.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Schadenfreude? Never heard of it.

Tax evasion and tax avoidance are two completely different things. One is illegal one is not.

As separate as borrowing and theft, as separate as invitation and trespass, as separate as .... well you should get the idea.

This is embarassing for Cameron, but quite unfairly, first he did not set up the accounts he inherited them, and to his credit moved them onshore some years ago, BEFORE being forced to do so or exposed.

What Cameron should have done in an ideal world is to have announced his inheritance, and moving it onshore, as part of his parliamentary declaration of interests, at the time when his government proposed to sort out tax avoidance several years ago.

The second best thing to do would have been to announce straight away when the Panama news came out that he used to have these accounts and moved them on shore several years ago, and that he doesn't have any more of them.

However what he actually has done is to say he won't profit from them in the future (i.e. he did profit from them in the past) and to say he's learned a lesson for the future. What does that mean? If he hasn't got any more offshore accounts, it's meaningless. If he has got some more offshore accounts, he's still dissembling.

The only positive thing you can say about it is that lots of people already thought Cameraon was a useless lying gak anyway, and having more proof doesn't make their opinion worse. However their may be some Conservative supporters, like my parents, whose opinion of Cameron actually has been damaged by the affair, which is what my parents were saying to me at the weekend.

 Orlanth wrote:

Hell yes.

Quantify it then, being sure to include all the brown envelopes that are doubtless getting passed around Westminster.

Today's headline sare full of woe for Cameron and especially Osborne, since they have been fored by public opinion to publish their tax returns.

Osborne took nearly £45,000 out his family firm Osborne & Little last year, although the company hasn't paid any corporation tax since 2008 due to not making a profit and other tax avoidance measure deferring tax payments.) Also it's been found that Osborne will be £2,500 a year better off thanks to the tax changes he put into the recent budget.

This of course is tangential but it's fallout from the overall Panama revelations.

Some theories I heard (dont know how true) suggested that us firms named earlier in the thread, providing the same services as the ones in the panama papers leak funded the journalists who did the investigation, to drum up public preassure for increased regulations on overseastax havens, therefore regulating their compeditors out of the market. Forgive me if this was mentioned earlier haven't read through the full thread yet

I'm sure that if you worked your way through the money trails of corporate America, you'll certainlly find such firms with investments in various news agencies, but that's true of literally everything corporate.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Hell yes.

Quantify it then, being sure to include all the brown envelopes that are doubtless getting passed around Westminster.

Puffin, stop trolling. I already quantified it with facts. You just don't like facts.

As for the brown envelopes 'doubtless' being pased around. Got any evidence of that? Notice the difference, you make flat assumptions and dont back them up, I gave supporting links highlighting known events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Osborne took nearly £45,000 out his family firm Osborne & Little last year, although the company hasn't paid any corporation tax since 2008 due to not making a profit and other tax avoidance measure deferring tax payments.) Also it's been found that Osborne will be £2,500 a year better off thanks to the tax changes he put into the recent budget.
.

We should look at what that means. Is the company on hold while Osborne conducts his other career, or has he fethed up his business, which would be embarassing for a chancellor.

However what you are saying a company is not generating profit there is no ;tax avoidance' if they arent paying profit related tax. These measures are normal and common place and are not a dodge. A large number of businesses rely on not having to pay tax on non existant profits, I would conder that a default logical position. Conpanies can have earnings and have liabilities that need paying, and it might be enough for a company to break even for a while, in fact a number of companies do exactly that, especially small businesses. But this system has to be the same for all. A lot of LLC's rely on not being hit by the taxman if they break even, and the Treasury has long understood it is best not to tax break even companies because you will only possibly force them to fold, which means employees suffer and liabilities get unresolved further weakening the economy.
It is very likely Osborne and Little is on furlough due to George Osborne's primary job, the company could remain dormant this way for as long as necessary.

If you can prove that Osborne and Little had undeclared profits you would have a major scandal, becauyse that would be tax evasion. But if the comapny is just treading water it isnt even tax avaoidance, its just the system working normally for all.
Osborne is also still liable for personal tax on the £45K. As fro being £2.5K better off, that is ancilliary, as far as business is concerned its not even small change. It is a desperate stretch to imply that Osborne changed the tax system to personally profit by £2500.

Osbourne is a snake, but you need better evidence on him than this.

Well, we can't see how clean the Labour bench is - the shadow cabinet have said they will not release their returns.

The Tories have had their information publicised,scrutinised and debated now the narrative is moved to privacy and how much access the public should have - the poor dears.

Good job, people.

There has to be a way for members of the public to be assured that members of the government are fully above-board with their finances.

Ideally the opposition front bench should be able to be seen to be in the clear, but this is a counsel of perfection.

Finland has public tax records for all people working and paying tax in the country. I would be happy for such a system to exist in the UK.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Well, we can't see how clean the Labour bench is - the shadow cabinet have said they will not release their returns.

The Tories have had their information publicised,scrutinised and debated now the narrative is moved to privacy and how much access the public should have - the poor dears.

Good job, people.

This is fairly clever, the principle here is to constantly be on the offensive, always attack, never defend. The spin machine works a bit like a net troll, constantly accusing highlighting only a portion of the responces to do so, and never responding to return questions. The populace shouldn't even think about Labour possibly having fingers in pies, scandals are for Tories. I spin methodology was VERY successful in the late 90's there was a lot of Labour sleaze, often in plain sight, but it wasn't worth reporting somehow, and if it was it stepped through the press back into the darkness, even when criminal culpability was concerned. We will have to see how much press control Labour actually have, which is likely to be a lot.
If the spin machine is working as intended only the Daily Mail and possible the Express will be talking about undisclosed Labour tax returns 48 hours after the story breaks, for everyone else especially the BBC it will be ex-news.
The wildcard here is the Sun, the grand policy on Labour spin worked because the Sun defected to Labour, they mighty do so again, but I don't see them backing Corbyn frankly.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Finland has public tax records for all people working and paying tax in the country. I would be happy for such a system to exist in the UK.

As would I. I would also love to see the tax system massively simplified to eliminate tax avoidance.

 Orlanth wrote:
I already quantified it with facts.

Given prior experience, you seem to have an interesting relationship with 'facts'.

 Orlanth wrote:

As for the brown envelopes 'doubtless' being pased around. Got any evidence of that?

Nope but its a certainty that inappropriate behaviour has gone unreported and therefore its an impossiblity to say that 1 party is more corrupt than another.

Going by past experience the two main parties both have their share of corruption but the Tories are worse.

However things may have changed since the early 1990s.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I already quantified it with facts.

Given prior experience, you seem to have an interesting relationship with 'facts'.

Ok, puffin I asked you nicely to stop trolling. If you disagree with what I post, and you are certainly free to do so, at least attempt to give reasons, especially when I back up what I say with LINKS to EVIDENCE.
I am yet to see you do anything remotely like that. The only thing you have a 'prior experience' of is posting opinion without any evidence and dismissing evidence actually reported without any counter-evidence. You evidently have NOTHING INTELLIGENT TO CONTRIBUTE, so give it up, and stop pestering those who do with baseless attacks on their credibility.

GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING:

IF you see a post that you think breaks the rules of the site - report it.

Generally speaking, that is the ONLY 'proper' response.

 Orlanth wrote:
You evidently have NOTHING INTELLIGENT TO CONTRIBUTE,

Heh.

I always appreciate irony.