[Red Richie]

(Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ily-tax-havens

This is on the front page of the guardian, and they have linked directly to Ian Cameron's will on their website.

They are not suggesting that David Cameron himself has been avoiding his taxes, that he HIMSELF has done anything wrong, instead they are looking at a bloke who made his money in the 80s and trawling over his will and pointing out who got what in the Cameron family.

I always get a little annoyed when people talk about "tax avoidance" and say that it is morally wrong, because it is a simple fact NO ONE pays more tax than they HAVE TO. If you feel a company isn't paying enough tax, then change the tax law, simply put.

The reason poor people don't "tax avoid" is because they do not A) have enough money to make it worth it, and B) do not have the leeway with regards their assets.

I guarantee you that a small business owner "tax avoids" in the same way as a huge corporation simply on a smaller scale. He will pay an accountant who will say "you can minimise you tax bill by putting that asset there, offsetting that loss against that and not claiming this particular benefit"

Its fairly black and white, there is no such thing as a "Moral Tax Bill" in law and if there was it would be up to the politicians to implement, to fix the BAD LAW they created. Show me one person who has on principle chosen to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to do so?

But that is a side note. What I do not like the idea of is trawling through a dead man's will, poring over his assets in a fit of jealousy to see his older NON-POLITICIAN son kept the 2.5m mansion where-ever etc. It seems distasteful to me, a vague sense of invasion of privacy.

The purpose of probate was not so everybody could nose into your business, but to ensure no heirs were defrauded because the testator was dead and could not gainsay the word of dishonest family members.

I feel there are much more cogent attacks to be made on Cameron's policies, his approach to the NHS, his lack of addressing the tax loopholes we feel are morally unacceptable, his approach to the banks etc.

Trawling through a dead mans last will and testimony is not the way of going about this in my view.

Agree all, except the bit on 'change the law, simply put'. Thats quite a naive thing to say, because it is never as simple as that, the tax laws are already ridiculously complicated as it is. I doubt the government could ever do anything to genuinely stamp out major tax avoidance by rich people and companies. There are simply too many loopholes and areas to be exploited. The only way in which tax avoidance can ever be reduced significantly is if all the countries from around the world come together to unify their tax laws, and that is just wishful thinking.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by L i b)
Of course the poor avoid tax. If you take cost considerations into buying, say, unheated food (VAT exempt) instead of ready-to-eat food (which has VAT applied), then you're avoiding tax. If you buy beer under a certain percentage limit where duty becomes higher, then you're avoiding tax. Businesses thrive on tax avoidance, and the poor are the beneficiaries.

Within those conditions the poor have no option but to avoid paying that tax since it makes economic sense to them that buying unheated food is the best, and perhaps the only option available to them under financial circumstances. If money or lack of it is the issue then within the limits of spending power, or what a person can afford without becoming destitute or bankrupt at some point down the line, it makes sense to avoid tax, and to buy the cold pasty. The poor simply cannot avoid it, or simply starve, if not immediately then during the course!

But the super-rich have a surplus of money which they can play with, which they would do well for the benfit of society (since it is morally objectionable to horde money), to put into worthwhile enterprise. By and large, the super-rich do not have the same kind of economic insecurities felt by the poor. They do not starve if and when they make the wrong decisions. The rich can always sell their assets, they have the means and resources to turn an unfortunate tide of events in their favour, with the effect that they can reinvest or pool resources to plan ahead. The poor cannot do this and the only option, failing they should seek help from a neighbour perhaps not much different to themselves in terms of poverty and wealth or lack of, is full reliance on the state for all their needs.

[RyanT]

If they had linked it more to his passive attitude towards industrial scale tax avoidance it would of served perhaps as an indictator of his corrupted self interest.

Instead it just reads as a diary on his father, all I found out was that Cameron legally inherited less then I thought he did.

It is the guardian however, the same people that championed then turned on Assange.

[L i b]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Within those conditions the poor have no option but to avoid paying that tax since it makes economic sense to them that buying unheated food is the best, and perhaps the only option available to them under financial circumstances.

Yes, tax avoidance is the best option available to everyone in light of their financial circumstances.

If money or lack of it is the issue then within the limits of spending power, or what a person can afford without becoming destitute or bankrupt at some point down the line, it makes sense to avoid tax, and to buy the cold pasty. The poor simply cannot avoid it, or simply starve, if not immediately then during the course!

Of course they can 'not avoid it' - even the British poor have more money than they need to survive day to day.

But the super-rich have a surplus of money which they can play with

I suspect it's logic like that which keeps people in poverty.

[najinaji]

(Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
I expect better from the guardian.

Why? These days it is pretty similar to a left-wing Daily Mail.

[Planar]

I was always under the impression that Cameron inherited something in the region of £30m.

[LiveFastDieYoung]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Right. But we are also taking about who pays tax and who avoids it, that is, does tax avoidance go-on amongst those for whom paying tax, under economic justice and the rule of law also, should not be avoidable? It certainly does. Osborne himself as admitted as such, and the Treasury have reported on it stating that out of the 200 taxpayers earning more than £10m a year, 12 of them are paying less than 10% in tax. But does the rich (the super-rich, in this case) pay more or less tax than they have to? They should, based upon economic justice and the rule of law, pay more (because they have the resources and knowledge), or they should put more of their money into free and worthwhile enterprise that will benefit everyone (i.e., so that living standards are raised), and not just the few. At the moment it seems that the super-rich are not totally willing to put their big monies into either tax or free and worthwhile enterpise.

Urgh come on! economic justice? That's just a political value judgement! don't try to attach the dry amoral legitimacy of the rule of law to something which is essential a subjective moral value judgement.

If you think the super rich need to pay more tax, argue it in politically and have the legislative change the law. the definition of justice is so protean as to be meaningless and many lawyers avoid the use of the word as much as possible.

the courts exist to adhere to the law. If you create a GAAL (general anti-avoidance law) to suit your political ideology you still need to define WHAT IS TAX AVOIDANCE.

and you really really do need to define what you mean by tax avoidance. like fairness it otherwise just becomes a meaningless buzzword anyone can bandy about to rile up the masses.

[LiveFastDieYoung]

(Original post by najinaji)
Why? These days it is pretty similar to a left-wing Daily Mail.

pretty much agree, it used to be a nice slightly left leaning good read. I cannot stand the anti-EU, Human rights hating torygraph. May have to jump ship to the independent but their online content isn't as good.

[LiveFastDieYoung]

(Original post by Red Richie)
Agree all, except the bit on 'change the law, simply put'. Thats quite a naive thing to say, because it is never as simple as that, the tax laws are already ridiculously complicated as it is. I doubt the government could ever do anything to genuinely stamp out major tax avoidance by rich people and companies. There are simply too many loopholes and areas to be exploited. The only way in which tax avoidance can ever be reduced significantly is if all the countries from around the world come together to unify their tax laws, and that is just wishful thinking.

True, I wasn't really making a comment on the ease of changing the law, simply that arguing a moral obligation to pay more than you legitimately are obliged to is stupid as no-one has come up with a satisfactory definition of tax avoidance as of yet. If they dislike the idea of shell companies used to avoid income tax, the politicians are going to have to get the law commission to address it and then legislate against it. it wont be simple as you say, and new gaps will arise, but then the legislature, if it wants to, will have to plug those as well and so on and so forth.

Its like computer security, the game always changes but the security firms don't just give up!

[Kalliope]

(Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
x

Exactly how I felt this morning. I read the Guardian in paper form twice a week and the top articles on the site daily - but this definitely did not get my approval and I felt more than a little frustrated and disappointed with them.

[LiveFastDieYoung]

(Original post by Time Tourist)
Then stop being such a pansy leftie-liberal

There's something very emasculating and unmanly about such leftie-liberals.

Liberalism is the don! I get to do what I want when I want, the consequences of my actions are my business and my business alone (within the rule of law).

A combination of the harm principle, plus enough of a state in place to give everyone the OPPORTUNITY of the freedom I enjoy through education and the ability to work for wealth that I may or may not accrue, is the way forward. This does involve taxation, as individual self interest results in unfair oligarchies at the top (unfair being more talented individuals further down not getting the rewards their talents are due), but it does not necessitate total equality of outcome.

If I wanna do drugs, that should be up to me, if i become addicted and die, thats my problem. If i wanna not get married and sleep with loads of women (or men if i were gay) thats up to me. I am educated enough to know the risks and to guard my self interest. If I want to spend all my money on spidermen figurines and be a total nerd again that is up to me.

The righties inherent tendency to ban stuff and to want harsher punishments etc is understandable but flawed. As a liberal I want the same things. It is better if people don't do drugs or don't sleep around, they should be educated of the risks, and that would hopefully result in more of a reduction in people using drugs than prohibition, which DOES NOT WORK.

Same with crime. death sentences and harsh prison condition DO NOT DETER. look at america! one of the harshest and most brutal prison regimes in the civilised world, death penalty and all, yet their crime rates, and the rate of incarceration are HIGHER than more liberal countries such as Germany.

[internetguru]

All tax avoidance should be frowned upon, however it is the fault of the government for allowing these loop holes to exist. It is also the fault of the people for electing governments that allow loop holes to exist.

[najinaji]

(Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
pretty much agree, it used to be a nice slightly left leaning good read. I cannot stand the anti-EU, Human rights hating torygraph. May have to jump ship to the independent but their online content isn't as good.

Come, now.

I've found that the Guardian (and the majority of their readership) tend to be more anti-human rights (when it comes to freedom of speech/expression anyway). Though I suppose that's probably a natural byproduct of being leftist anyway. It's quite difficult to keep a calm and orderly society if everyone keeps fighting amongst themselves all the time.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
Urgh come on! economic justice? That's just a political value judgement! don't try to attach the dry amoral legitimacy of the rule of law to something which is essential a subjective moral value judgement.

If you think the super rich need to pay more tax, argue it in politically and have the legislative change the law. the definition of justice is so protean as to be meaningless and many lawyers avoid the use of the word as much as possible.

the courts exist to adhere to the law. If you create a GAAL (general anti-avoidance law) to suit your political ideology you still need to define WHAT IS TAX AVOIDANCE.

and you really really do need to define what you mean by tax avoidance. like fairness it otherwise just becomes a meaningless buzzword anyone can bandy about to rile up the masses.

Economic justice is both objective; and also subjective, owing to the fact that people are individuals as well. But it is important that we realise that we need to establish a liveable order for as many people as possible, and not let the subjective get the upper-hand. What we have now, however is the complete opposite: economic imperialism and huge markets. I am in favour of the rule of law, but the balance of justice in society needs to be addressed by the State proper, and not by private individuals of the Imperialist Markets.

[internetguru]

(Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
Same with crime. death sentences and harsh prison condition DO NOT DETER. look at america! one of the harshest and most brutal prison regimes in the civilised world, death penalty and all, yet their crime rates, and the rate of incarceration are HIGHER than more liberal countries such as Germany.

People don't want harsher sentences to deter people they want it because they want justice. America has a number of private prisons that want more people in prison for essentially slave labour, and they send people to jail for minor drug offences etc. If you put people in jail for minor things your crime rates will always appear higher.

I don't think most criminals care much about the death penalty, I'm sure many would prefer it to life imprisonment. I don't consider the death penalty to be inhumane as it is no more brutal than forcing someone to live in a prison forever.

If done correctly the death penalty could save the state a lot of money. When our technology is capable of proving someone committed a crime without any doubt it is definitely worth having. Until then though the risk of killing an innocent person is too high.

[LiveFastDieYoung]

(Original post by internetguru)
People don't want harsher sentences to deter people they want it because they want justice. America has a number of private prisons that want more people in prison for essentially slave labour, and they send people to jail for minor drug offences etc. If you put people in jail for minor things your crime rates will always appear higher.

I don't think most criminals care much about the death penalty, I'm sure many would prefer it to life imprisonment. I don't consider the death penalty to be inhumane as it is no more brutal than forcing someone to live in a prison forever.

If done correctly the death penalty could save the state a lot of money. When our technology is capable of proving someone committed a crime without any doubt it is definitely worth having. Until then though the risk of killing an innocent person is too high.

what is the difference between justice and vengeance? surely it just shows the definition is subjective between nation states that some countries consider cutting hands off to be justice and others think such an act is a tad barbaric? Isn't a better more objective assessment of the criminal justice system crime reduction? If you can say that through a combination of justice being seen to be done, deterrence and rehabilitation crime rates (or a more effective measure of crime if one exists) is lower than in comparable nation states?

If america focuses purely on "justice" as they define it, but their crime rates are higher, shouldn't they consider altering their mix slightly to be more effective for the good of society? Recidivism in america is stupidly high due to the brutal prison system and lack of provision for prisoners to compound the issues relating the punitive element of the system in addition!

[internetguru]

(Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
what is the difference between justice and vengeance? surely it just shows the definition is subjective between nation states that some countries consider cutting hands off to be justice and others think such an act is a tad barbaric? Isn't a better more objective assessment of the criminal justice system crime reduction? If you can say that through a combination of justice being seen to be done, deterrence and rehabilitation crime rates (or a more effective measure of crime if one exists) is lower than in comparable nation states?

If america focuses purely on "justice" as they define it, but their crime rates are higher, shouldn't they consider altering their mix slightly to be more effective for the good of society? Recidivism in america is stupidly high due to the brutal prison system and lack of provision for prisoners to compound the issues relating the punitive element of the system in addition!

The only effective way to reduce crime is to make society entirely equal, but we don't want that because it means less money for the smarter and harder working people. Communism is definitely not a desirable system by the vast majority of people in the UK anyway.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by internetguru)
All tax avoidance should be frowned upon, however it is the fault of the government for allowing these loop holes to exist. It is also the fault of the people for electing governments that allow loop holes to exist.

Government has a tricky situation to deal with; they are almost at the whim of a ruthless media, and they are influenced (or let themselves be influenced by), and have been bought by private companies. When the government starts to clamp down on the super-rich over the issue of not paying tax or avoiding it, it must be met with some kind of mutual compromise. The result can be that Government may have to allow certain existing loopholes to remain in place (or create new ones), which allows private individuals (entrepeneurs, and the like) some room to maneouvre.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Martyn*)

Government has a tricky situation to deal with; they are almost at the whim of a ruthless media, and they are influenced (or let themselves be influenced by), and have been bought by private companies. When the government starts to clamp down on the super-rich over the issue of not paying tax or avoiding it, it must be met with some kind of mutual compromise. The result can be that Government may have to allow certain existing loopholes to remain in place (or create new ones), which allows private individuals (entrepeneurs, and the like) some room to maneouvre.

Reducing tax rates whilst removing all loops holes is the best solution.

[Time Tourist]

(Original post by bananaterracottapie)
such a good reason for basing your political opinions on.....

It's not a reason, it's an observation.