Paradise Papers

[tintin]

Originally Posted by The_Laird

A whole load of things used to be legal: slavery; raping your wife; burning so called witches; apartheid. Leagality is no guide to morality. These super-rich people are bleeding our civilisation and the rape of the working classes will, ultimately, lead to its decline.

+1.

[27litres]

Originally Posted by mattylondon

Or do we want a country with no state services or benefits, no safety net for the ill, unemployed, no maternity leave, where it's dog eat dog and everything is PAYG. Personally I feel that makes for a poorer society with such inequalities.

That's the country we all came from pre 19th century.
Crazy capitalism, and you'll all be brainwashed to believe it's in your best interests!
Yet people continue to "Union Bash"... Ironic!

Back to topic:
There's no news here, just what wealthy people have been doing for decades. I remember similar news about Nigel Mansel 20 years ago.
Many of the loopholes they use have been created either by small countries to attract wealthy people and business (Monaco, Isle Of Man, Canary Islands) or by larger countries for the exploitation of those who created them and their mates.

My mate who is a financial planner and did a minor in accountancy has told me about tax rules that only exist for those above certain wealth thresholds. You have to ask why they have done that...

[HPsauce]

The thing is, above a certain threshold people are mostly very mobile so don't actually live, or earn, in any one country.

Thinking about Lewis Hamilton for example, he genuinely works all over the world and hasn't been a UK resident for many years. I would hope (and expect) that he pays his fair share of tax on income earned here (and in other countries he works in), but if he has a plane "registered" in the IOM so what, he's not a UK resident.

People/companies that are wholly or mainly based/trade in one jurisdiction are another matter entirely.

[Dezzy]

Originally Posted by The_Laird

And that's what will divide this debate. Even on my (now ceased) relatively insignificant income, I paid my taxes through PAYE and donated and raised significant sums for many charities. If I were exceptionally wealthy, of course I would look after my family first, but this level of wealth and greed, IMHO, is a moral disgrace. So, no, I would not behave in a similar manner. Why would you want to cheat less fortunate people from basic health, education and a very basic standard of living in order to maximise a level of wealth that is very difficult to imagine (and difficult to spend!).

Originally Posted by The_Laird

A whole load of things used to be legal: slavery; raping your wife; burning so called witches; apartheid. Leagality is no guide to morality. These super-rich people are bleeding our civilisation and the rape of the working classes will, ultimately, lead to its decline.

you're better with words than I am Jim

Originally Posted by HPsauce

The thing is, above a certain threshold people are mostly very mobile so don't actually live, or earn, in any one country.

Thinking about Lewis Hamilton for example, he genuinely works all over the world and hasn't been a UK resident for many years. I would hope (and expect) that he pays his fair share of tax on income earned here (and in other countries he works in), but if he has a plane "registered" in the IOM so what, he's not a UK resident.

People/companies that are wholly or mainly based/trade in one jurisdiction are another matter entirely.

It's not the TAX that's an issue I'm sure he pays a lot of it. But it's the 100% of the VAT claimed back through the legal loophole even though he was planning to use it a 3rd of the time. That's wrong. No different that using a company car for private use and then making out it was all business use.

[HPsauce]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's not the TAX that's an issue I'm sure he pays a lot of it. But it's the 100% of the VAT claimed back through the legal loophole even though he was planning to use it a 3rd of the time. That's wrong. No different that using a company car for private use and then making out it was all business use.

Who knows, where he lives/works are the rules the all same? (we know they are not) Maybe he pays tax in some jurisdictions where private/business use of others assets isn't distinguished? If he was a full-time UK resident then it would probably be seen as "dodgy" but in an international context it's not so easy.

[pete-p]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's not the TAX that's an issue I'm sure he pays a lot of it. But it's the 100% of the VAT claimed back through the legal loophole even though he was planning to use it a 3rd of the time. That's wrong. No different that using a company car for private use and then making out it was all business use.

It's the VAT on the purchase of the plane which was refunded, so presumably (I've not seen enough to know) VAT is paid by Lewis or other users on the usage when leasing it.

Wealthy individuals and businesses will always look for the most tax efficient way to manage finances. It's nothing new and is often reported, it may not be morally right and that's where businesses should have a good code of conduct/ethics, customers can always vote with their money. As for individuals, we are probably talking about the 0.01%, I'm not all that interested in how they conduct their private affairs to be honest and quite often they do a lot of charity work and help raise awareness of other issues anyway.

[tonupkid]

Imagine a world where all the nations got together and agreed a uniform and universally applied set of taxes.
Sounds great, sounds fair, sounds morally correct.

If this ever happened we'd be screwed, with taxes shooting up and up. An explosion of bureaucrats consuming ever more, while the dwindling number of productive people are taxed into oblivion.

Of course there are differences between national tax systems. And these differences are an opportunity used by those of wealth, to minimise the taxes they pay. Morally questionable I agree. But they and their schemes are the price we pay for some kind of tax competitiveness that keeps our respective governments in check.

If you don't believe how voracious government is, just look at the national debts. What they can't get in taxes they happily borrow at the expense of generations to come. Now that is what I call immoral.

[tintin]

Originally Posted by tonupkid

Imagine a world where all the nations got together and agreed a uniform and universally applied set of taxes.
Sounds great, sounds fair, sounds morally correct.

If this ever happened we'd be screwed, with taxes shooting up and up. An explosion of bureaucrats consuming ever more, while the dwindling number of productive people are taxed into oblivion.

Why? There's no reason logical reason why that should happen: the idea that unfettered capitalism - where global megacorporations play one nation against another and have "democratic" governments in their pockets through lobbying and paying for votes and thus avoiding taxes - is a more efficient way of running society is fast coming apart at the seams.

This country is the fifth biggest economy in the world, and yet, in the city I call home, 1 in 150 people are homeless. It's about time that the trillions* stashed in offshore jurisdictions were reclaimed and used to support the people that governments are meant to represent, not those who lined their pockets.

* https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/t...lion-offshore/

[mattylondon]

Originally Posted by tonupkid

If you don't believe how voracious government is, just look at the national debts. What they can't get in taxes they happily borrow at the expense of generations to come. Now that is what I call immoral.

Governmental debt is quite different to a personal loan / mortgage / house hold budget as we know. Governments don’t really pay back the debt. They just roll it over. Economic growth should reduce the percentage of debt to GDP, making previous borrowings increasingly less significant. It's a tool used by Governments all over. The young and future generations are actually paying the price due to austerity. Austerity does not produce strong economic growth and we have a lost generation due to it. If you have falling private spending and wealth and falling government spending the recession is more serious and longer. Governmental debt is a way of employing under-employed resources in a recession and help the economy to recover.

[steamship]

Originally Posted by tintin

This country is the fifth biggest economy in the world, and yet, in the city I call home, 1 in 150 people are homeless. It's about time that the trillions* stashed in offshore jurisdictions were reclaimed and used to support the people that governments are meant to represent, not those who lined their pockets.

* https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/t...lion-offshore/

Here, here. It's disgusting the way governments treat their own people. A quick search talks about 120,000 homeless children by Christmas, over 7,000 homeless service(wo)men [shows how much the government really cares], and families going into emergency B&Bs up 18% this year.