Paradise Papers

economic

westernpromise wrote: »

An Oxbridge graduate who's older than 30 and on £80k a year has failed.

sometimes its not just about the money. an oxbridge grad can do whatever he/she wants with his/her life. as can a kingston grad. i expect the oxbridge grad to be earning more but the oxbridge grad may choose to have a nicer job paying less. life it not all about money.

Arklight

westernpromise wrote: »

The top 10 per cent also pay 59% of all income tax, while the top 55% pay all of it. About 45% pay absolutely no income tax at all, but some of them certainly believe that despite their paying nothing other people should pay even more.

In fact there is a good argument that all public sector workers in reality pay nothing. Their entire salaries are funded by tax taken from others so they don't produce a thing of taxable value; they just receive the taxes paid by others. When you subtract the value of their gold-plated final salary pensions these alone will far exceed the value of any nominal tax they may have paid. So the only real taxpayers are private sector taxpayers; everyone else is just a mouth to feed.

I actually feel sorry for you. You appear to inhabit a world entirely composed of spite and hatred toward everyone other than yourself.


Whatever "success" you think you have achieved and the money you have made from it has clearly bought you no happiness at all.

.string.

michaels wrote: »

So not only does one have to obey the law but one also has to obey the unwritten intention of the law as understood by....who? when? Perhaps Moby has some insight into both what the lawmakers were intending when every law was passed since the birth of UK parliaments plus also an understanding of how any changes in society since the laws were passed now mean they 'should' be interpreted at this moment in time but I suspect that the rest of us don't have this vast historical and current social knowledge.

Yes I agree with you.

The law should be the determining factor, not an imaginary unwritten law.

If it were not so any government, could lock up people on a pretext, and as you say, anyone can make up their own moral intent behind a law. Had unwritten laws been necessary, they should have been written into the law in the first place.

That's not say I think that laws should not be improved method found wanting, but that's for Parliament to decide, with scrutiny and debate and vote, not individuals on a self important whim.

In this I think the BBC is setting a very bad example.

Seabee42

Those espousing only tax payers should have the vote? What about civil servants they are totally net receivers as are most of the low paid? If you just need to contribute to pay surely the rich (as in mega rich offshore loot etc) can just chuck in a penny to comply. The poor only need to buy something to pay VAT or does that not count?


When I see a company like Apple paying an effective 3.7% tax on profits you know the system is broken.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Moby
There shouldn't be any such thing as legal tax avoidance......and before anyone starts on ISA's, pensions etc don't bother, they are not the same as what Apple does, Louis Hamilton etc. There is no moral equivalence between ISA's and the tax avoidance vehicles being exposed.

One of my late Uncle's never paid a penny in tax or national insurance. He was extremely gifted with his hands. Mastered many trades. Worked for cash only or bartered for goods such as pigs and sheep etc. When someone is off the radar very difficult to pin anything on them.

Likewise remember many years ago when a gypsy came into to see my then boss where I was working. As a traveller did the normal tarmacing of drives etc for a living. After many years he decided that he wanted to go straight. My boss arranged for them both to go and meet an Inspector of Taxes at what was the then the Inland Revenue. At the meeting after around 40 minutes of discussion. The Inspector asked how he intended to remedy the past. As obviously without any records assessing the liabilities due was problematic to him. The gypsy picked up a suitcase that he brought with him. Put it on the table. Opening it. Then said "There's a £125k in here. Will this do". A deal was struck and the gypsy thereafter paid his dues. Funny old world we live in at times.

economic

Arklight wrote: »

I actually feel sorry for you. You appear to inhabit a world entirely composed of spite and hatred toward everyone other than yourself.


Whatever "success" you think you have achieved and the money you have made from it has clearly bought you no happiness at all.

whilst i disagree with pretty much all your posts, this post i do agree with.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The Inspector asked how he intended to remedy the past. As obviously without any records assessing the liabilities due was problematic to him. The gypsy picked up a suitcase that he brought with him. Put it on the table. Opening it. Then said "There's a £125k in here. Will this do". A deal was struck and the gypsy thereafter paid his dues. Funny old world we live in at times.

If you put it in a movie, nobody would believe it.

The incredibility of that reminds me of the Leonard v Duran fight, when Leonard was circling his arm, then hit Duran with his the other fist, the commentator said 'If they put this in Rocky, no one would believe it'. That just about summed up how great Leonard was (against another opponent with fantastic ability).

Thrugelmir

chucknorris wrote: »

If you put it in a movie, nobody would believe it.

On the counter side I've witnessed a fair few people who've been on the receiving end of an investigation. Thought that they were cleverer than the tax authorities. As with anything in life. Up to ones self to assess the risk and decide whether to
take a chance.

Nick_C

Arklight wrote: »

I actually feel sorry for you. You appear to inhabit a world entirely composed of spite and hatred toward everyone other than yourself.


Whatever "success" you think you have achieved and the money you have made from it has clearly bought you no happiness at all.

I don't see any evidence of spite or hatred in the post you refer to.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

On the counter side I've witnessed a fair few people who've been on the receiving end of an investigation. Thought that they were cleverer than the tax authorities. As with anything in life. Up to ones self to assess the risk and decide whether to
take a chance.

I've always found the inland revenue to be magnificently understanding and bend over backwards to help, when you need it. Although it can be difficult to speak to the relevant person at times, but overall my experience with them is totally satisfactory.