[Closed] The Panama Papers.

No GF - VAT is levied on expenditure not income. It's is a different form of tax.

Kimbers, is dave turning into Gavin Henson or are the colours on my screen distorted?

No GF - VAT is levied on expenditure not income. It's is a different form of tax.

Yes I know that but I'm still trying to get my head around the maths that comes to the conclusion that the average indirect tax rate paid by an individual is HIGHER than the rate that is applied to the vast majority of goods and services.

booze, fags, fuel

booze, fags, fuel

See my earlier point on those. First two are discretionary, and for the third I'm amazed that anyone in that bracket can run a car (Fuel for domestic use is taxed at a lower rate)

Sky News. Tony Benn left £5m and used offshire funds to reduce tax liability.

Andrew Marr: Have you asked your shadow cabinet whether they have offshore investments
Corbyn: No

Well there you go, clearly a not regarded as a critical issue if Corbyn hasn't even asked

Awful picture JHJ but I lack the mental agility to link that to the agitation over the delay in Dave publishing his tax [s]return[/s] summary

Maybe you're a selective reader?

What links Honeywell to Mossack Fonseca?

And in the bigger picture, can you name any Prime Ministers in the last 50 years who haven't had extensive ties to the Arms industry?

1. You have told me the link, thanks. They invested in AIG as well (you told me that too), so did my pension at one point. Should I sack my pension fund managers and then burn them?

2. No

now, back to the issue at hand....

Have you lot all been up all weekend taking hallucinagenics?

Anyway....whatevs.... Back on topic....A great (very very sweary) rant by Russel Kane

I do like his description of Dave as a planet-faced **** 😆

See my earlier point on those. First two are discretionary, and for the third I'm amazed that anyone in that bracket can run a car (Fuel for domestic use is taxed at a lower rate)

How exactly do you think people get to their minimum wage jobs then?

And actually it fit's the gist of the graph nicely, the rich can afford the latest Blu-Motion VAG doing 60mpg and paying zero [s]road tax[/s] Vehicle Excise duty, the poor are driving round in a 1.8 Focus doing 30mpg paying £200/year.

They there hobble on their rag wrapped stumps of course

now, back to the issue at hand....

The Panama Papers you mean...

or your unrelenting bollocks on how there is no tax avoidance and Dave is a stand up guy, which by association means that all of the dodgy dealings within the Panama Papers and the network of offshore tax havens in general have no impact in the real world and are just a matter of politics of envy?

Yep, well jel I can't afford to do shit like this with money that has been handled by the City of London and offshore Tax Havens under jurisdiction of the British Crown:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

or your unrelenting bollocks on how there is no tax avoidance

What's the expression? sauce?

and Dave is a stand up guy

Ditto, I am waiting for the real stuff to come out first before making any conclusions. There must be some..otherwise as ^ I struggle to fathom what Dave stands for or what kind of guy he is.

which by association

Funny you should mention that. Guilt by association seems very relevant here doesn't it?

means that all of the dodgy dealings within the Panama Papers and the network of offshore tax havens in general have no impact in the real world and are just a matter of politics of envy?

If you say so, I wouldn't agree personally but hey ho.

How much has money in offshore tax havens contributed to this?

[url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/08/the-melting-of-greenland-and-antarctica-isnt-just-raising-seas-its-changing-the-earths-rotation/ ]Greenland and Antarctic melt isn’t just raising seas — it’s changing the Earth’s rotation[/url]

And what are the 1%, with their wealth, power, influence and taste for environmentally damaging war and the profits of resource plunder, doing to counter such issues?

How exactly do you think people get to their minimum wage jobs then?

Walking, cycling, public transport to name but three. To be fair though I could have been clearer that I wasn't trying to treat petrol/diesel in the same way as fags and booze.

I've always wanted to dig into that calculation though to see how it is done. I've seen the outputs but never the detailed calculation or even the methodology behind them.

Dividing the population into fifths doesn't tell the full story. Its the top 2% who are getting away with it.

HMRC's brand new chief exec is in trouble this morning; seems he was a tax partner at law firm Simmons & Simmons in the City at the time the firm was acting as advisors to Blairmore Holdings. Previously quoted as writing that tax is 'legalised extortion' by the state.
Seems the perfect person to get to grips with unacceptable avoidance.

GF - sorry not sure I have got your question.

Are you asking why indirect taxes expressed as a % of income are higher than the rate of VAT itself?

Theres always been a revolving door between HMRC and the big accountancy firms. They write the rules, complete with loopholes, then make a fortune advising those with deep enough pockets how to exploit said loopholes to pay no tax

The accountancy firms right the rules?? Another scandal brewing....or is it HRMC advising Dave and his dodgy mates?

(Here's a thought since its all so complicated - how about a nice simple flat rate of tax with a punchy threshold??? )

Theres always been a revolving door between HMRC and the big accountancy firms. They write the rules, complete with loopholes, then make a fortune advising those with deep enough pockets how to exploit said loopholes to pay no tax

Exactly, but it's all legal, so everything is hunky dory and issues like this can be swept to one side...

How much has money in offshore tax havens contributed to this?

[url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/08/the-melting-of-greenland-and-antarctica-isnt-just-raising-seas-its-changing-the-earths-rotation/ ]Greenland and Antarctic melt isn’t just raising seas — it’s changing the Earth’s rotation[/url]

And what are the 1%, with their wealth, power, influence and taste for environmentally damaging war and the profits of resource plunder, doing to counter such issues?

[img] [/img]

HMRC's brand new chief exec is in trouble this morning

I posted this on the other thread.

This is again completely unfair as he was arguing the case for simplification as the best way to reduce avoidance and was just explaining the legal framework which allows governments to tax. Likewise, his GAAR point was simply that a GAAR completely in the power of HMRC was unfair. At the time most professionals were in favour of a pre-clearance system, but HMRC have always resisted this because of its cost. Now the concern is met by requiring HMRC to go to an independent panel before trying to apply it.

He was a tax partner at a medium sized City firm though, but everyone is entitled to advice, his reputation was a very straight adviser.

The accountancy firms right the rules?? Another scandal brewing....or is it HRMC advising Dave and his dodgy mates?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/29/socialism-for-the-rich ]Pretty much, yes. [/url]

[i]The Big Four accountancy firms – EY, Deloitte, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) – have been slammed for their role in tax avoidance. But their response is instructive. "We don't ever condone tax avoidance or support tax avoidance," pledges EY's Steve Varley. "Fundamentally, parliament has to legislate what parliament wants to happen … And people like us can follow the legislation and provide advice to our clients."

But what Varley conveniently fails to mention is that firms such as EY help design the law in the first place, and then go off and help advise their clients on how to get around it. "We have seen what look like cases of poacher, turned gamekeeper, turned poacher again," declared the Public Accounts Committee in April 2013, "whereby individuals who advise government go back to their firms and advise their clients on how they can use those laws to reduce the amount of tax they pay." This is an astonishing finding. Senior MPs have concluded that accountants were not simply offering governments their expertise: they were advising governments on tax law, and then telling their clients how to get around the laws they had themselves helped to draw up.[/i]

Are you asking why indirect taxes expressed as a % of income are higher than the rate of VAT itself?

Pretty much yes. Looking at it fairly simplistically VAT can only be paid out on Net earnings so if VAT was paid at the same rate on everything (say 20% as it currently is) the most anyone could pay would be 20% of their Net pay. When expressed as a percentage of Gross pay however, this would be less than 20% as Gross pay is greater than Net pay. So the situation where those with lower incomes pay a percentage that is higher than this doesn't make any sense.

Now this does get a bit complicated when you look in more detail as there are some things that liable for higher rates of tax (fags, booze, petrol) and it's further complicated by Council tax, but there are also many that are subject to lower or zero tax (food, fuel, rent/mortgage). There is also the way that benefits (which the poorer would be more likely to be in receipt of) are treated. Are they treated like income and added to the gross income figure or are they included in expenditure but omitted from the gross income figure?

Great,

Cameron doesn't like the pressure so "finds" £10 million pounds for a government department to help him get out of a political fix. (and we thought the cupboard was bare).

But it'll all come to nothing because the head of HMRC is himself a notorious tax avoider. So they'll probably fritter away a bit of public money (although the £10 million probably doesn't exist), and then admit there's probably nothing to be done about avoidance and conveniently ignore the evasion and money laundering because that's far too hard to prove.

Why indirect taxes expressed as a % of income are higher than the rate of VAT itself?

That's easy... the VAT has no relation to someone's income, only the value of the item.

Taxes are cumulative... income tax, council tax, VAT, Fuel Duty etc, so even accounting for the increase in income tax for higher earners, a higher overall proportion of lower earners income goes on taxes that are not necessarily immediately obvious.

What is immediately obvious is that if we don't do something about the several crises that the current management of the planet are inflicting through their foolish actions, we're all dry bummed.

From the [s]Bandits[/s] horses mouth,

Because indirect taxes are taxes that are paid on items of expenditure, the amount of indirect tax each household pays is determined by their expenditure rather than their income. While the payment of indirect taxes can be expressed as a percentage of gross income, in the same way as for direct taxes shown in Table B, this can be potentially misleading. This is because some households have an annual expenditure that exceeds their annual income, particularly those towards the bottom of the income distribution. For these households, their expenditure is not being funded entirely from income. It is possible that, for these households, expenditure is a better indicator of standard of living than income. Therefore, payment of indirect taxes is also presented as a percentage of expenditure to give a more complete picture of the impact of indirect taxes.

Source

But be careful, apparently they are dodgy RW folk rather than a reputable and independent source

That's easy... the VAT has no relation to someone's income, only the value of the item.

Not quite. The amount of VAT that someone can pay, assuming that they spend all their money but don't run up any debts, is limited by their income.

Income tax is treated separately as a direct tax rather than an indirect one.

This is because some households have an annual expenditure that exceeds their annual income, particularly those towards the bottom of the income distribution.

So probably linked to my second point that they are determining the tax based on a combination of income plus benefits but then recalculating it as a percentage of income.

Dodgy politics and economics I can just about handle but dodgy maths is unforgivable.

The amount of VAT that someone can pay, assuming that they spend all their money but don't run up any debts, is limited by their income.

You'd have to be in a pretty special position to spend all of your money where VAT is the only tax

Do we get any graphs where something like a Brimstone Missile or per hour costs of a Tornado Jet are broken down into percentage paid for by different income brackets of the population (and the financial benefits bestowed by such equipment on different income brackets of the population)?

It's not dodgy Maths

Expenditure taxes should be assessed in relation to the base ie expenditure

But people like to see how they relate to income - despite the caveats expressed ^ and by the ONS about being misleading - so they do that too.

It's a stat - IMO more misleading than useful - but it's not dodgy Maths just an odd choice of numerator and denominator

They don't determine the tax in income. The ONS do show tables, however, in which they express direct and indirect taxes as a percentage of income for (odd) illustrative purposes but with the caveat that I quoted

So the HRMC takes advice from experts in the field - (subtlety different from whose writing the rules, but lets pass on that) - how odd???

Fortunately the FSA appears to avoid such a crazy situation hence the various rules that seem so divorced from the reality of the world that the mind boggles, but phew, no CoI. And guess what, the banks still run rings round them.

Reminds me of the expression, "if you think hiring professionals is expensive (or dodgy in this case), wait until you see the cost of hiring amateurs"

Handy timing...

[url= http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/11/obama-under-pressure-to-declassify-the-9-11-report-s-secret-28-pages.html ][b]Obama Under Pressure to Declassify the 9/11 Report’s Secret 28 Pages[/b][/url]

Ten days before Obama heads to Saudi Arabia, a new report explores the making of the 28 pages that reveal Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers—and shows why they should be made public.

An exchange between Kroft and Graham goes to the heart of the dispute. “You believe that support came from Saudi Arabia?” Kroft asks. “Substantially,” Graham replies. “And when we say, ‘The Saudis,’ you mean the government…rich people in the country? Charities?”

“All of the above,” Graham replies.

There are real-life implications for the 9/11 families in these 28 pages and their potential impact on a lawsuit being heard in New York. The U.S. government holds the position that a sovereign government cannot be sued, and that has so far shielded the Saudi government. Lehman told 60 Minutes that he has no doubt some high Saudi officials knew assistance was being provided to al Qaeda, but he doesn’t think it was ever official policy. He also doesn’t think it absolves the Saudis of responsibility, Kroft said in his commentary.

“It was no accident that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. They all went to Saudi schools. They learned from the time they were first able to go to school—of this intolerant brand of Islam,” Lehman said, referring to the ultra-conservative form of Islam known as Wahhabism. After oil, Kroft says, Wahhabism is one of the kingdom’s biggest exports. Saudi clerics have billions of dollars to spread the faith, and the mosques and religious schools that the Saudi government builds all over the world are recruiting grounds for violent extremists.

[b]So, back to Al Yamamah and the cash made from oil for weapons being invested in a complex offshore network of shell companies, allegedly used to support Al-Qaeda in the run up to 9/11:[/b]

Admittedly, some of [url= http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2014/4121charles_arabia.html ]this article[/url] should be taken with a pinch of salt, but it does contain significant truth:

"In 1979 Usama Bin Ladin went to Prince Turki for advice after he became infuriated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Following Prince Turki's suggestion that Bin Ladin use his financial assets to aid the Afghan resistance, Usama traveled to neighboring ****stan to wage jihad on the Soviet Union."

In an interview in 2002, Prince Turki stated, "In 1980, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we in the Kingdom, with the United States, initiated a program of countering the Soviet invasion and helping the Mujahideen to repel the Soviets. I was directly involved in that situation."

An article in the March 1, 2003 Observer reported that lawyers for 11 relatives of 9/11 victims served legal papers on Prince Turki, which state, according to the Observer: "Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen."

While Turki, as head of Saudi Intelligence and Osama bin Laden's handler, is suspected of playing a commanding role in 9/11, Prince Bandar played the critical role inside the United States itself, as Ambassador from 1983-2005. It was Turki and Prince Sultan (Bandar's father and Defense Minister), who, in 1978, helped bring Bandar into a position of power in Washington. At that time, they were negotiating Saudi Arabia's purchase of 50 F-15 fighters from the United States. William Simpson, Bandar's biographer, writes: "Assisting Prince Turki bin Faisal, Bandar quickly made his mark in Washington. He quickly became very close to the Bush family, to the point of being called Bandar Bush by the Bush family itself."

In the late 1970s, when George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA, Bandar worked with Turki in support of what later became al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. [b]Then, as the architect of the 1985 Al-Yamamah arms-for-oil barter deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia, Bandar gained control of a huge offshore slush fund for covert operations[/b]. During the 1980s, when the U.S. Congress cut off funding for the Contra operation in Nicaragua, it was Prince Bandar who supplied the funding, at the request of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush.

Evidence of Bandar's involvement in 9/11 is further reinforced by the disclosure that his wife, Princess Haifa, the sister of Prince Turki, passed between $51,000 and $73,000 to Saudi intelligence operative Omar al-Bayoumi, which money in turn was used to help establish the first two 9/11 Saudi hijackers to arrive in the U.S., Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, in San Diego, Calif.

[img] [/img]

Also worth reading the part of the Article which goes into extensive details of the long relationship between Prince Charles and Bandar Bin Sultan, from their time at RAF Cranwell.
[img] [/img]

Also note that Turki Bin Faisal went on to become the Saudi Ambassador to the Court of St James, after resigning his post as head of Saudi Intelligence 10 days before 9/11:

[img] http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/britains-prince-charles-flanked-by-prince-turki-al-faisal-bin-al-of-picture-id100483940 [/img]

That Tony Blair shut down the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal ([url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/30/prince-andrew-wikileaks-cables ]Prince Andrew also got involved[/url]), then [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23622364 ]several documents went missing[/url], further muddies the waters:

The UK agency said it lost 32,000 pages of data and 81 audio tapes linked to a bribery probe into BAE's al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia.

The investigation into the huge arms deal was discontinued in 2006 after intervention from then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The SFO said the lost material comprised 3% of data about the deal.

[b]What if we were to add into the mix that one of the Saudi Princes involved appears to have financed and supported Barack Obama from the earliest stages of his career?[/b]

So, the man who wants to be PM cannot:

i) use the right form
ii) fill it in online
Iii) return it on time
iv) find where he put it

[IMG] [/IMG]

Doddery old fool!

Bet he can't even eat a bacon sarnie properly.
🙄

@ninfan, careful I described his oerformace st pmq's once as flacid. Those here don't like that at all -'apparently age-ist despite me pointing to US politicans much older and much more energetic

@ernie I really struggle with those studies to explain their results - a low paid person gets 10k tax free, no taxes on rent or food and low taxes on heating etc plus any welfare/income support is tax free. See the other thread on Boris taxes/total income and compare it to someone on £25k. Throughout this discussion people repeatedly use examples of what are the super rich and then infer someone on say £100k is in the same "rich" bracket

And there you betray your complete and utter ignorance of reality, not to mention your underlying hatred of the poor.

when one adds the word old to an insults it pretty hard to defend a claim of ageism - though you did try - you were ageist
Here let me give you an example you will get

How about stupid Jewish fool - thankfully no antisemitism there eh - Few lucky me.
That is how poor your argument and logic is here.

I really struggle

Good result for you boys at the weekend - LVG was surely trolling with Young up front 😯

@jambayla...sorry to say but you haven't a clue what the 'poor' need...I wonder what exposure you have to the 'poor' besides what you read in the newspaper etc? Judging by the comments you make, i have to guess very little.

Not knocking you for it...you just need to realise you're talking about something you haven't got a clue about...you're just repeating political rhetoric..

I won't say my family was ever poor but we lived in a council house before we emigrated to Austalian as £10 POMs in fhe 60's. I personally think the welfare budget is large enough to help the poor and the needy if it was better allocated. What worries me greatly is a deep recession in Europe with central bankers "out of aummunition" and national debt levels which preclude further borrowing. That will be a real disaster for fhe poor.

I saw Corbyn was right on message with the key politics of all of this - if the rich paid their taxes there woukd be no budget cuts. Nonsense of course as the tax returns of Boris/Cameron/Osbourne clearly demonstrate the wealthy are paying a lot of tax, the real issue is corporate tax avoidance.

Here a cartoon on seeking refuge. Panama papers where akways about government corruption (or donations for musical instruments if you are Russian)

[img] [/img]

The majority of people in that boat are depicted as women when in fact the majority are men. The women being left behind with the kids in camps in Jordan and Turkey.

You are perhaps my long lost cousin, Jamby, half my family got on a boat in 69 leaving a council house in Birmingham. I met a couple from down under on the way of St James last week with the same not-uncommon surname as me which caused the husband much excitement.

Compare the treatment of Jérôme Kerviel who whilst doing his job to the best of his ability lost a few euros for a corrupt bank that has been fined several times for not respecting the rules and lied about who knew what according to the police. Kerviel got prison time and disproportionate fine to the guy's earning ability. And Cahuzac, still walking free despite defrauding the government for personal gain and lying about it to the national assembly.

Cameron was obliged to declare stuff but didn't but it isn't illegal because it was only some kind of professional obligation rather than a law. Will let's tear up all the rules concerning the behaviour of MPs because if there are no laws to back them up they are pointless.

I won't say my family was ever poor but we lived in a council house before we emigrated to Austalian as £10 POMs in fhe 60's

So you were a beneficiary of the post-war consensus that was the welfare state? The same welfare state that the Tories are systematically dismantling. Their present housing bill will probably finish the entire concept of social housing for ever. Even their own councillors are asking them to think again about forcing housing associations to sell off houses at huge discounts, and councils to sell their properties. Even they can see that Its madness!

I saw Corbyn was right on message with the key politics of all of this - if the rich paid their taxes there woukd be no budget cuts. Nonsense of course as the tax returns of Boris/Cameron/Osbourne clearly demonstrate the wealthy are paying a lot of tax, the real issue is corporate tax avoidance.

No, the issue is both. The fact that the rich pay a large amount of tax is due to the large amounts they 'earn'*. And this reflects the massive growth in income inequality, which has accelerated since the crash. The richest have seen their 'earnings'* skyrocket while everyone else's income stagnates. So proportionally they should be paying more. Thats the most simple, basic arithmetic, surely?

The question is whether they are paying the taxes they should be paying? And it would appear that they're not. By using a selection of maybe-legal but certainly morally dubious methods. Methods unavailable to the rest of us, who have no option but to pay our full tax bill.

Just saying 'I pay a lot of tax' is disingenuous, to say the least. In fact its just plain evasive whataboutery, put out there as smoke screen to disguise flagrant tax evasion/avoidance/whatever

In fact it might even be

[img] [/img]

😀

* If accumulating the benefits of owning assets is now classed as 'earning' an income?

Cameron was obliged to declare stuff but didn't but it isn't illegal because it was only some kind of professional obligation rather than a law. Will let's tear up all the rules concerning the behaviour of MPs because if there are no laws to back them up they are pointless.

He wasn't there is a £70,000 threshold.

[img] ?w=900[/img]

More than £70 000! FFS. So why isn't he suing all the media who said he was obliged to declare?

Edit, and that implies the total investment was over £200 000. Do both conditions i. and ii. have to be met? All that is as clear as mud. And what's to stop you having multiple £30 000 investments. Rules made for the boys by the boys.

So why isn't he suing all the media who said he was obliged to declare?

I imagine he has got better things to do and it would only keep the story going.

[img] [/img]

Just saying 'I pay a lot of tax' is disingenuous, to say the least.

'I don't fraudulently claim the majority of my benefits'

Edukator - where are you getting the £200K investment from?

Binners the Tories are not systematically dismantling the welfare state, what they are doing is reigning in its uncontrolled and unaffordable expansion. If they (we) don't do that in very short order the whole country is going to have a very big problem which will impact those at the bottom the hardest and much harder than they are being impacted today. Labour's strategy of investing our way out of the deficit was and remains pie in the sky. Labour did pretty much nothing about tax evasion in their 13 years and the number of non-doms exploded under their rule, they increased stamp duty on property without taking the blindingly obvious step of closing the offshore loophole. Remember at the GE the Tories trumped Labour's extra £2bn for the NHS by promising the £8bn the NHS was asking for.

As we've said this Panama debate has become totally political - its not about facts or numbers or obeying the law its about trying to score media points against "rich Tories"

@Edukator Small world indeed, we where in Newcastle initially in Gateshead, as my father worked for BHP's steel business. We went out in 66 on an Italian boat Castelle Felice - your relations may well have taken the same boat

its not about facts

😆

@grum Franky Boyle makes a very good point. Two comments (edit and well played 😀 )

1) We should have regular forensic tax audits on [b]everybody[/b] - French and US do and the Australians have some innovative techniques like comparing your income to your assets/lifestyle and seeing what income you decalred on tour mortgage application
2) Instead of focusing so much energy on what we think is being hidden we should deal with the hundreds of billions in taxes being legally avoided via tech, internet and other companies

This second point really shows this is an envy driven debate - folk here are very happy o buy from internet sellers avoiding uk taxes and drstroying uk small business but work themselves into a frenzy over Tory MPs taxes

Binners the Tories are not systematically dismantling the welfare state, what they are doing is reigning in its uncontrolled and unaffordable expansion.

By effectively ending social housing, thus forcing everyone into the the private rented sector, thus sending the housing benefit bill into the stratosphere?

Is that the kind of 'reigning in its uncontrolled and unaffordable expansion' they had in mind?

The more cynical might suggest they're just 'reigning in its uncontrolled and unaffordable expansion' that G4S, Capita, Serco, or people with private rented property portfolios can't make a handsome taxpayer-funded profit out of.

Like disabled people. They're shit for generating revenue. The useless ****s!!!

Give up Binners. This is what you're up against.

Don't give up Binners please, the comedy value is excellent. In tact are you Frankie Boyle??

It either comedy gold or bare-faced cheek (hypocrisy?) to include in the same post that

The Tories are dismantling the welfare state
Income inequality has increase massively after the state

...and then accuse Jamba of talking bollocks

I think I will go for comedy gold - a bit edgy and rude (like Boyle) - but ironically amusing at the same time

Don't stop please....

By effectively ending social housing, thus forcing everyone into the the private rented sector, thus sending the housing benefit bill into the stratosphere?

Yes, but then there is a nice straightforward pipeline from tax-payers to rental property owners. Result!!

I think I've sussed out the true identity of the Jammmyhurtmore axis of right wing nutterdom..

[img] [/img]

.... and I claim my food bank voucher and benefits sanction 😆

There are import duty dodgers on STW but as many who are happy to pay the tax, [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/duty-on-light-bicycle-rims ]see[/url]. The threshold for declaring is £80 rather than £70 000.

When MSP referred to down in the cesspool on that thread, that's where Cameron is.

I was a little miffed at the amount of import duty I had to pay on a guitar neck, but only because they'd taxed me on the American sales tax - a tax on a tax.

[img] [/img]

You forget the picture of the dining club, common keep up.

But nice consistency. Just call people nutters, the sign of a lost debate - resort to insults.

But you are ok - rules allow nut jobs, nutters etc

How are you getting on with your answers Dr?

[img] [/img]

Cmon you can definitely do better than that....don't let the standards slip

So, the man who wants to be PM cannot:

i) use the right form
ii) fill it in online
Iii) return it on time
iv) find where he put it

The man who is actually PM left his child in the pub.

Have you stopped beating your wife, th?

For the benefit of anyone who may have taken that last post seriously,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

And only works when there has to be a yes/no answer.

So 0/10.

tl;dr thread, but looks like a right chuckle 😀

Anyway, I'll chuck this one in...

"Taxation is legalised extortion" - Edward Troup quote from 1999, HMRC boss looking into the Panama papers, being quoted in the press currently.

😉

... but, let's look at the context: https://fullfact.org/economy/taxation-legalised-extortion-discuss/

[I]“Tax law does not codify some Platonic set of tax-raising principles. Taxation is legalised extortion and is valid only to the extent of the law. Tax avoidance is not paying less tax than you ‘should’. Tax avoidance is paying less tax than Parliament would have wanted. Avoidance is where Parliament got it wrong, or didn’t foresee all possible combinations of circumstance. The problem of tax avoidance is reduced to the problem of finding an answer to the question of what parliament intended and making sure that this is complied with. I would not pretend this is a simple task. But recognising this as the issue and dealing with it equitably and constitutionally would be a significant step on the way to tackling avoidance effectively.”[/I]

Okay, the original article was actually about how to handle avoidance, but there's some lovely ones in there that I agree with / can use in my defence 😀 (I'm not an aggressive tax avoider. I do however seek to minimise my tax bill within the law 😉 ).

Simply that reinforces you are not obliged to pay as much tax as possible (as Lord Clyde c.1929 also said), and that avoidance is a problem of law which I've said all along. If the government doesn't like it, plug the holes or make whatever you think is immoral simply illegal (or rather what Joe Public and the press get their nickers in a twist about being immoral. Immoral is just a point of view, not a point of law).

Things are all a bit Sheriff of Nottingham these days, but on a more global scale...

If the quote is true DD, he was probably mis-quoting Robert Nozick the libertarian philosopher who had entertaining debates with John Rawls. In [i]Anarchy, State and Utopia[/i], Nozick argued

“[b]Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor[/b]. Some persons find this claim obviously true: taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose. Others find the claim absurd. But even these, if they object to forced labor, would oppose forcing unemployed hippies to work for the benefit of the needy. And they would also object to forcing each person to work five extra hours each week for the benefit of the needy…

Even if you don't agree, it and the debates with Rawls are fascinating reading.

I'm going to go out on a limb here Hurty, and suggest that you probably also find the theories of Ayn Rand 'fascinating', as opposed to the insane ramblings of an absolute maniac

[u][b]teamhurtmore[/b][/u] - Member
-shrugs-

I find all types of philosophy interesting (with econ and politics) binners, even did a Havard course on-line a few years back. My old man was taught Rawls when he was at Harvard in the 70s and I was intrigued by the debates. Having said that I have never read Rand, indeed the last time you asked I had to google to find out who Rand was 😳

You know only too well where I come for the insane rankings of an absolute maniac

To dismiss two of the most prominent US political philosophers of the 20C out of hand would be shame, although I understand fully why you might choose to do so.

although I understand fully why you might choose to do so.

Ooooh. Sneaky little slap there. 8)

You going to take that shit, Binners?

I'm not dismissing it at all. Far from it. I'm fundamentally objecting to its core principles, and seeing it as essentially dehumanising, and frankly dangerous, as it legitimises and promotes sociopathic behaviors.

Just have a look at the people who regularly trot Rand out as an influence. And see if any wouldn't personify the term Ultra Right Wing Nut-job?

You TEACH economics and didn't know who the leading light of the neo-liberal movement was?

Basically the a-hole in whose name all this shit is happening?

Even I know and I'm scarcely [s]clitoris[/s], [s]liqourice[/s], [s]licklespit[/s], read and write-y

pwned

You TEACH economics and didn't know who the leading light of the neo-liberal movement was?

What the left think is mainstream thinking on the right and what is - certainly in this country - are not the same thing.

What the left think is mainstream thinking on the right and what is - certainly in this country - are not the same thing.

It's just basic general knowledge. 😆

You TEACH economics and didn't know who the leading light of the neo-liberal movement was?

In limited self defence, this was a few years ago and I did include the 😳 😉

Basically the a-hole in whose name all this shit is happening?

I see. Despite my ignorance and lack of reading here, I seriously doubt that a Neo-liberal wold have been promoting excess levels of leverage being built up across all sectors, massive manipulation of financial markets (central bankers, regulators, bankers etc) etc

I must have a read, it will be a unique perspective from that school.

Even I know and I'm scarcely clitoris, liqourice, licklespit, read and write-y

You did well to hide it then.

Bins I will drop an email to Harvard and suggest that take reading Nozick off the syllabus. That's a very perceptive conclusion without having read any of his stuff though. Chapeau as they say!

Good to see so many people of one persuasion having intimate knowledge of the workings of a Neo-liberal A-hole.

[img] [/img]

I must have studied the (British) tax system at really bad time. The first tutorial was on "what constitutes a fair tax system?". By the end of the course we had all been brainwashed into thinking that a fair tax must be "progressive and based on the ability to pay". That wealth as well as income should be taxed and income from wealth should be taxed the most as it involved in no loss of human capital (part of your life). The brainwashing must have been effective because economists and philosophers have come and gone but I remain convinced.

One economist, Thomas Piketty, has taken into account everything I learned and much of what I've observed in this world and made sense of it. It's sad that even when politicians agree with him (François Hollande) they don't have the courage of their convictions and submit to all the grab, grab, grab, me, me, me lobby groups.

[img] [/img]

😀

I think we're actually in agreement on something Hurty. I know it does happen from time to time. We don't have neoliberal capitalism. Far from it. We have a bastardised form of corporatism that picks and chooses the bits of free-market ideology advantageous to the elite, and bollocks to the rest of it! i.e.: bank bailouts where they suddeny reverted to socialism. State supported socialism for the few anyway. The normal abject horror at the very notion of state support, or daring to interfere with the all-knowing, all-powerful 'Market soon returned where every other industry was concerned

Truly the worst of both worlds!

And I've not read Nozick, but I will. Where would be a good place to start? I personally think the neoliberal ramblings of Rand and the likes of Milton Friedman to represent a world view mired in the grip of insanity

It does indeed happen and preferably to recent niggle IMO

Nozick's is quite hard work IME. Even as someone who is broadly sympathetic to libertarian ideas, I have only read part of Anarchy... And largely in the context of his debates with Rawls, which personally, I find very interesting

http://www.amazon.com/Justice-Reader-Michael-J-Sandel/dp/0195335120

This reader has two readings from Nozick (and your friend Milton but no Rand 😉 ) and is a bloody good book as are Sandals accompanying book on "Justice- what is the the right thing to do?" and his podcasts. Ch 8 focuses on moral aspects of redistribution, but you would hate Ch 3 (Friedmann, Nozick and Hayek!!). Unfortunately his explanation on his views on tax are in Ch 3 😉

You wont like his conclusion but the logic does challenge assumptions the are too easily taken for granted and as a (clearly v bad economist) I like the interplay between ethics and labour theory.

No links to Friedmans critique of "equality of outcome" required!!!!

You're way behind the times guys.

[url= http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/27/this_week_panel_debates_thomas_pikettys_capital_in_the_21st_century.html ]Piketty viewed by Americans[/url]