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.

 Steve steveson wrote:


What? That makes no sense at all. If the tax is legally due then it's not their money, it's the governments.

Uhm...no. It always is your money. Taxes is forcing you to pay a certain amount of your money, but it's still yours.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


What? That makes no sense at all. If the tax is legally due then it's not their money, it's the governments.

Uhm...no. It always is your money. Taxes is forcing you to pay a certain amount of your money, but it's still yours.

Well, I have my rent money in my pocket. It is technically my money. But if I do not give it to my landlady, she may not be too happy with me. She may also do things in order to get that money, or just stop providing me with a place to live. So I mean, sure, I guess you are right?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No... what private people/companies do with their wealth is their business. The simple fact is that people *HATE* paying taxes will do what is feasible to mitigate their tax liabilities.

If a country is finding that their wealthy citizens are doing this enmassed, then said countries need to look at their own tax laws as to why.

Simply stated: A person's money belongs to them, not the government, just as their other freedoms.

What? That makes no sense at all. If the tax is legally due then it's not their money, it's the governments.

Why do people do this? Because they can. No matter what your tax rate someone will not want to pay it, and try and avoid it.

I'm rendering this as simplistically as possible to explain my previous statement you highlighted...

Lucky guy earned $100,000,000 in income.

Lucky guy pays his government 39.6% in taxes: $39,000,000 to US Treasury.

Lucky guy lives in State of NY and is tax at 8.82%: which is... $8,820,000 to NY Treasury.

Lucky guy is left with $52,180,000 after income tax.

At this point... didn't Lucky guy pay his taxes?

So... Lucky guy wants to mitigate FUTURE tax liabilities by moving it to an offshores account where the US government doesn't know how much he has or does't have....

That's legal.

 whembly wrote:
Lucky guy earned $100,000,000 in income.So... Lucky guy wants to mitigate FUTURE tax liabilities by moving it to an offshores account where the US government doesn't know how much he has or does't have.... That's legal.

Probably yes. But unless he got that money from a lottery he probably used something tax-sponsored to get it. 20,000 employees educated with tax money. Government-maintained roads? Government-guaranteed bank loans? Government-run ports?

He doesn't live on an island where all he ever earned wasn't in some fashion sponsored by someone else. If he does then tell him to stay off public roads and shoot him if he doesn't.

Spetulhu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Lucky guy earned $100,000,000 in income.So... Lucky guy wants to mitigate FUTURE tax liabilities by moving it to an offshores account where the US government doesn't know how much he has or does't have.... That's legal.

Probably yes. But unless he got that money from a lottery he probably used something tax-sponsored to get it. 20,000 employees educated with tax money. Government-maintained roads? Government-guaranteed bank loans? Government-run ports?

He doesn't live on an island where all he ever earned wasn't in some fashion sponsored by someone else. If he does then tell him to stay off public roads and shoot him if he doesn't.

Not sure where you're going this...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


What? That makes no sense at all. If the tax is legally due then it's not their money, it's the governments.

Uhm...no. It always is your money. Taxes is forcing you to pay a certain amount of your money, but it's still yours.

Uhm...no. The law in most places says otherwise. That's why non payment of tax is a criminal offence. The law in most places makes a clear distinction between payment of debt and payment of taxes and regards most debt as your money owed and tax debt as you holding government money, which is why non payment of debt is a civil offence and non payment of tax a criminal offence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No... what private people/companies do with their wealth is their business. The simple fact is that people *HATE* paying taxes will do what is feasible to mitigate their tax liabilities.

If a country is finding that their wealthy citizens are doing this enmassed, then said countries need to look at their own tax laws as to why.

Simply stated: A person's money belongs to them, not the government, just as their other freedoms.

What? That makes no sense at all. If the tax is legally due then it's not their money, it's the governments.

Why do people do this? Because they can. No matter what your tax rate someone will not want to pay it, and try and avoid it.

I'm rendering this as simplistically as possible to explain my previous statement you highlighted...

Lucky guy earned $100,000,000 in income.

Lucky guy pays his government 39.6% in taxes: $39,000,000 to US Treasury.

Lucky guy lives in State of NY and is tax at 8.82%: which is... $8,820,000 to NY Treasury.

Lucky guy is left with $52,180,000 after income tax.

At this point... didn't Lucky guy pay his taxes?

So... Lucky guy wants to mitigate FUTURE tax liabilities by moving it to an offshores account where the US government doesn't know how much he has or does't have....

That's legal.

Appart from the fact that you have completely misrepresented the situation. This is not about people with wealth paying all taxes due then moving the money overseas to avoid the risk of wealth taxes or arbitrary government wealth seizure.

If you don't understand what people are doing I gave an explanation a few pages back about how the money is moved around to avoid tax.

Wait Jackie flippin Chan?

Also, the fact that taxes aren't a flat rate, you pay in brackets.

 Steve steveson wrote:


Uhm...no. The law in most places says otherwise. That's why non payment of tax is a criminal offence.

It cannot be both not our own property and a criminal offence. It was not your money to begin with, then there's no ground to sue you on. You're getting sued because paying taxes is mandatory. It's ike a parking ticket. You gotta either dispute or straight-up pay up. Where I'd argue is stuff like the statuory healthcare in Germany - if you aren't wealthy, you have to pay a mandatory fee for statuory healthcare, whether you want it or not. You lose 15.5% of your wage and there's no chance to get it back or get around this, it's dedacted of your wage even before it hits your account. In that case, it isn't your money. Seeing that you can get around taxes, I'd argue differently.

We might just be discussing semantics, tho.

 whembly wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
He doesn't live on an island where all he ever earned wasn't in some fashion sponsored by someone else. If he does then tell him to stay off public roads and shoot him if he doesn't.

Not sure where you're going this...

Sure, don't ACTUALLY shoot him. That would be counterproductive and not really justified. But rich people acting like they never got anything from their country just because they themself had private schooling, daddy paid for their stuff and they then started a business is a good part of this mess. Where did their workers get their education? Is the business located where workers use public transport, or the business benefits from public roads, ports, airports? Do the workers use public health care?

Things don't exist in a vacuum after all.

Spetulhu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
He doesn't live on an island where all he ever earned wasn't in some fashion sponsored by someone else. If he does then tell him to stay off public roads and shoot him if he doesn't.

Not sure where you're going this...

Sure, don't ACTUALLY shoot him. That would be counterproductive and not really justified. But rich people acting like they never got anything from their country just because they themself had private schooling, daddy paid for their stuff and they then started a business is a good part of this mess. Where did their workers get their education? Is the business located where workers use public transport, or the business benefits from public roads, ports, airports? Do the workers use public health care?

Things don't exist in a vacuum after all.

Ah... now I understand.

He was trying to make a point that I wasn't arguing over...

*shrugs*

 whembly wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
He doesn't live on an island where all he ever earned wasn't in some fashion sponsored by someone else. If he does then tell him to stay off public roads and shoot him if he doesn't.

Not sure where you're going this...

Sure, don't ACTUALLY shoot him. That would be counterproductive and not really justified. But rich people acting like they never got anything from their country just because they themself had private schooling, daddy paid for their stuff and they then started a business is a good part of this mess. Where did their workers get their education? Is the business located where workers use public transport, or the business benefits from public roads, ports, airports? Do the workers use public health care?

Things don't exist in a vacuum after all.

Ah... now I understand.

He was trying to make a point that I wasn't arguing over...

*shrugs*

Now you understand how we feel about your post.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
He doesn't live on an island where all he ever earned wasn't in some fashion sponsored by someone else. If he does then tell him to stay off public roads and shoot him if he doesn't.

Not sure where you're going this...

Sure, don't ACTUALLY shoot him. That would be counterproductive and not really justified. But rich people acting like they never got anything from their country just because they themself had private schooling, daddy paid for their stuff and they then started a business is a good part of this mess. Where did their workers get their education? Is the business located where workers use public transport, or the business benefits from public roads, ports, airports? Do the workers use public health care?

Things don't exist in a vacuum after all.

Ah... now I understand.

He was trying to make a point that I wasn't arguing over...

*shrugs*

Now you understand how we feel about your post.....

No... he went on a different tangent.

Spetulhu wrote:

Sure, don't ACTUALLY shoot him. That would be counterproductive and not really justified. But rich people acting like they never got anything from their country just because they themself had private schooling, daddy paid for their stuff and they then started a business is a good part of this mess. Where did their workers get their education? Is the business located where workers use public transport, or the business benefits from public roads, ports, airports? Do the workers use public health care?

Things don't exist in a vacuum after all.

Ye know, the problem with a lot of us isn't that we don't want to pay zero taxes at all (although we wouldn't mind...), it's that we pay a government that is absolutely incapable of dealing with my cash. The fitting equivalent is you going to a playground and giving a random kid 50$. That's how it feels to pay a lot of taxes. I'll always vouch for direct taxation, i.e. you not paying money to someone you know you cannot trust with a single cent, but rather the other person telling you "Hey, we need this school built!" and you directly invest in a project, still having full control of your money knowing that it doesn't drown in bureaucracy. Find the best person for the job, let said person handle it. Need to maintain a highway or build a new one? Let people with actual knowledge on it do it.

I will gladly pay a tax for stuff I can get behind. As long as that isn't the case, however, and I know that most of my taxes will be wasted, I will gladly try to save every single cent that I can.

 Sigvatr wrote:

I will gladly pay a tax for stuff I can get behind. As long as that isn't the case, however, and I know that most of my taxes will be wasted, I will gladly try to save every single cent that I can.

Which completely undermines democracy.

Rationality and democracy can go hand-in-hand very well. Until then...that's the deal you got with the government. They get to rob...eh...tax us, we give them the minimum amount.

Days of ducking and weaving and now Cameron admits what we all thought he was trying to avoid answering all along.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35992167

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Days of ducking and weaving and now Cameron admits what we all thought he was trying to avoid answering all along.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35992167

11 months ago when the Tories won the election, I cautioned numerous times on this forum, that Cameron should savour victory as the honeymoon would be short and sweet.

Fast forward and we see a civil war in the Tory party over Europe, a budget shambles, Panama Papers, and Cameron squirming like a worm on a fishing hook.

What a difference a year makes.

 whembly wrote:
No... what private people/companies do with their wealth is their business. The simple fact is that people *HATE* paying taxes will do what is feasible to mitigate their tax liabilities.

Of course, it is expected and accepted that people will minimise their tax. But there's a difference between using legal and illegal means. Offshore accounts are in many cases plainly illegal

If a country is finding that their wealthy citizens are doing this enmassed, then said countries need to look at their own tax laws as to why.

You answered that yourself - because people hate paying taxes, and for many cases they hate it so much that they'll do illegal things. It seems pretty fething obvious to me that when you catch people doing illegal stuff you prosecute them. I am genuinely at a loss as to why you'd try to imagine an alternative argument.

Simply stated: A person's money belongs to them, not the government, just as their other freedoms.

There's no god given, absolute notion of ownership. If you think you own something good for you, but if you want to actually exert control over that thing then you need to establish your ownership in government courts, using government written laws, and if you win then government paid policemen will enforce your ownership claim. If you sign a contract with someone else, the only way that contract gets enforced is by going those same government courts, and using the government written laws to enforce your claims in the contract.

So if our government laws say 'you get $3, but then you have to give one $1 to government' then it's a total nonsense to say 'all $3 are mine, and government is taking what is rightfully mine' is total nonsense. THe only way in which the $3 are yours in the first place is through government laws, courts and police. You can't take all that for granted and then get annoyed that the same system is taking $1.

This doesn't mean we can't talk about what the right amount of taxes should be, and there's good arguments for lower taxes. But that debate needs to be based around arguments for economic growth and individual incentives. Arguing that all taxes are taking what is yours are about as useful as arguments that all property is theft.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... Lucky guy wants to mitigate FUTURE tax liabilities by moving it to an offshores account where the US government doesn't know how much he has or does't have....

Not quite. Its more 'lucky guy earns $100m, but has his tax affairs established so that he isn't paid a cent, but instead has his $100m paid to an incorporated entity, which is wholly owned by another incorporated entity, which is listed in BVI with a single owner - the lucky guy. Because of this the guy pays 10% to move the money out of the USA and 1% tax to BVI, for 11% tax instead of paying 40% odd in NY. This is despite spending the whole year in NY, earning the money in NY, and having never visited the BVI in his life.

That's legal.

The point is that many of these arrangements are illegal, and involve paying little to no tax where he lives and earns money. When these things are exposed then investigation and possible prosecution is just obvious and natural.

The bigger debate is in closing down these tax havens, and making any corporate structures in these countries are made transparent to prevent these shenanigans in future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Ye know, the problem with a lot of us isn't that we don't want to pay zero taxes at all (although we wouldn't mind...), it's that we pay a government that is absolutely incapable of dealing with my cash. The fitting equivalent is you going to a playground and giving a random kid 50$. That's how it feels to pay a lot of taxes. I'll always vouch for direct taxation, i.e. you not paying money to someone you know you cannot trust with a single cent, but rather the other person telling you "Hey, we need this school built!" and you directly invest in a project, still having full control of your money knowing that it doesn't drown in bureaucracy. Find the best person for the job, let said person handle it. Need to maintain a highway or build a new one? Let people with actual knowledge on it do it.

Problematically, you're vouching for an unworkable mess.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

Sure, don't ACTUALLY shoot him. That would be counterproductive and not really justified. But rich people acting like they never got anything from their country just because they themself had private schooling, daddy paid for their stuff and they then started a business is a good part of this mess. Where did their workers get their education? Is the business located where workers use public transport, or the business benefits from public roads, ports, airports? Do the workers use public health care?

Things don't exist in a vacuum after all.

Ye know, the problem with a lot of us isn't that we don't want to pay zero taxes at all (although we wouldn't mind...), it's that we pay a government that is absolutely incapable of dealing with my cash. The fitting equivalent is you going to a playground and giving a random kid 50$. That's how it feels to pay a lot of taxes. I'll always vouch for direct taxation, i.e. you not paying money to someone you know you cannot trust with a single cent, but rather the other person telling you "Hey, we need this school built!" and you directly invest in a project, still having full control of your money knowing that it doesn't drown in bureaucracy. Find the best person for the job, let said person handle it. Need to maintain a highway or build a new one? Let people with actual knowledge on it do it.

I will gladly pay a tax for stuff I can get behind. As long as that isn't the case, however, and I know that most of my taxes will be wasted, I will gladly try to save every single cent that I can.

You're conflating 'person who is best for the job' with 'person who can convince some others who are motivated enough to put their money in that they are best for the job whilst at the same time convincing sufficient others that even though incompetent, they are less incompetent than the alternatives'.

In other words, normal government.

Schadenfreude? Never heard of it.

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:
and to his credit moved them onshore some years ago, BEFORE being forced to do so or exposed.

It only took him 13 years and tax evasion/tax avoidance is a very thin line, especially when the individual in question is the Prime Minister who supposedly taking such a hard line on "aggressive tax avoidance". Remember when Dave called Jimmy Carr "morally wrong" for avoiding paying tax?

He must have shat a kidney when news of this leak hit the papers

 sebster wrote:


Problematically, you're vouching for an unworkable mess.

Nah, there's multiple plans proposing a solution, a lot of them suggesting the, very reasonable, idea to cut power from the government and give it to an economics "committee" with economic representatives deciding stuff. It's a simply money for direct power deal where everyone wins - the public finally gets stuff done for a proper price at a proper speed and proper quality, which satisfies voters (except leftists, but who cares for them anyway?) and thus satisfies politicians.

Who would determine who sat on this committee? And to whom would it be accountable?

OT: My schadenfreude levels are over 9000.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
and to his credit moved them onshore some years ago, BEFORE being forced to do so or exposed.

It only took him 13 years and tax evasion/tax avoidance is a very thin line, especially when the individual in question is the Prime Minister who supposedly taking such a hard line on "aggressive tax avoidance". Remember when Dave called Jimmy Carr "morally wrong" for avoiding paying tax?

He must have shat a kidney when news of this leak hit the papers

Yes the leak hurt because it has been badly spun and Labour are flogging this for all they can. i dont blamer them for that, though it is more dishonest of them than anything Cameron has done.

Let us break it down.

1. Cameron inherited the account from his late father. He did not set up a dodgy offshore account.

2. Cameron sold the account before moving into Number 10 as PM, sweeping his house before he took office. He should actually be commended for that as he was not culpable

3. Cameron did not declare the Blairmore holdings as they were under the financial ceiling by which one must do so. This is playing openly by the rules, just as the other MPs do.


Now if you want to find people with dodgy accounts and dodgy dealings, I would look no further than Alex Salmond, particularly what he was raking in while first minister. Second take a look at John Prescott who not only decided he was too important to pay council tax but the Labour government at the time insisted he get away with it when caught doing so.
Now the Tories are no economic angels but compared to those accusing them they damn well are. Yes there was the espenses scandal and bills of several thousand for a duck house, but those exposures were dwarfed by the amount of blatant direct tax evasion by Geoff Hoon. And don't get me started on cash for peerages.

cameron actually hasnt done anything illegal, or even wrong, he is on the bad end of a spin cycle. Wielded by a dishonest press which insists on relabelling what he has done as tax evasion, when in fact it isnt even tax avoidance. From what we are seeing he dealt with the tax avoidance situation he inherited and did so before he came to power. Yet the braying never stops from the mouths of those who will havbe no problems giving someone a peerrage if they give a couple of million to the labour party, and believe that unlike you and I members of their elite don't have to contribute to council tax contributions.

There is always a thin line between right and wrong, but Cameron wasnt even close to the line and a false perspective has been used against him by people evidently less honest than he is.

Corbyn claims under a tenner in expenses, generally. You can't say all of those accusing him are equally in the wrong.

 Orlanth wrote:

Yes the leak hurt because it has been badly spun

No, the leak hurt because it has shown that Cameron had been potentially avoiding tax, he may even be avoiding it still (at least until about a week or so ago ...) something that he himself has described as "immoral". It also took him 5 days to admit to the shares existence after a series of precisely worded denials.

No one needs to spin that to make it look bad because it is bad.

Cameron overlooked one of the golden lessons of politics: the cover up is always worse than the crime.

 Da Boss wrote:
Corbyn claims under a tenner in expenses, generally. You can't say all of those accusing him are equally in the wrong.

No Corbyn has some principles on some issues that are very positive. No contest there. His problem is the rest of his baggage.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Yes the leak hurt because it has been badly spun

No, the leak hurt because it has shown that Cameron had been potentially avoiding tax, he may even be avoiding it still (at least until about a week or so ago ...) something that he himself has described as "immoral". It also took him 5 days to admit to the shares existence after a series of precisely worded denials.

No one needs to spin that to make it look bad because it is bad.

He said it was an non issue and a private matter, both those statements are true. MP's are expected to disclose finacial arrangement that fit certain criteria, Camerons holdings did not fit the criteria so the matter is a private matter between him and the Inland Revenue. it doesn't appear in any way that Cameron has attemtped to deny or failed to declare anything the Inland Revejue has right to know about. Which is entirely different from what the press have a right to know about. Even poltiicians are entitled to a measure of privacy. If Camerion denials in sums smaller than those he must declare to parliamentary standards he is doing no wrong.

It is also time the press acknowledge that the Blairmore account was not set up by him, and he disposed of the offshore assets lawfully prior to taking up office as Prime Minister even though those assets themselves were not illegal.

He has done nothing wrong, the story has been spun into something it is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Cameron overlooked one of the golden lessons of politics: the cover up is always worse than the crime.

What crime?

What cover up?

He has commited no crime, unlike some officials from the previous admin istration that have been airbrushed out of the parliamentary ethics story.

There is no cover up either. He publically declared precisely what needed to be publically delacred accourding to parliamentary rules, even if that weas nothing. There is no evidence that the Inland Revenue was not told the sums he must declare as a Uk citizen, which is private information between the tax payer and the Inland Revenue.

Come back whern there is a story and not a made up one. Corbyn is telling the people that Cameron has lost their trust, he has not asked them if they have. He and the left wing press have not being telling the truth to the people by which they can actually make that decision by themselves. And if the Guardian keeps on labeling Cameron a tax evader that lie will stick and no amount of facts will wash it out. The lack of integrity on this issue comes from Labour and their mouthpieces, and thuis is nothing less than a smear campaign based on deliberately mislabeled evidence. I am not suprised Cameron isn't handing over his full financial details to the press, it's not like his opponents will look at them wirth honest critique if they do; and on their track record it is entirely likely they wont.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-says-david-cameron-has-misled-the-public-and-lost-their-trust-a6975531.html

Accusing Cameron of tax evasion isn't a typo from the Guardian, its a smear and a lie. Handing over more private financial information which an individual has a right to confidentiality over to a patently dishonest press entirely bent on willfully misreading it doesn't aid transparency in any way.