M103 - Tax Avoidance Motion
TSR's model parliament.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,515
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance MotionBecause they are almost impossible to legislate for. You are proposing to ban UK residents from putting any money in non-UK banks whilst banning non-UK residents from owning businesses in the UK. I'd imagine the immediate effects to be a severe worsening of relations with other banking nations and a huge outflow of businesses from the country.(Original post by internetguru)
Yes banning offshore bank accounts and blatant fraud such as having your wife listed as the business owner whilst she lives in Monaco are two easy measures to prevent tax avoidance. Yet you oppose banning it why? -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 3,453
- Warning points: 1000
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance MotionNon UK residents can own businesses in the UK if they truly are non UK residents. The problem is that they are UK residents for half of the year yet claim not to be UK residents. Banning British people from keeping money in offshore bank accounts would have no negative consequences. Foreign banks have no right to shield people from their tax contributions.(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Because they are almost impossible to legislate for. You are proposing to ban UK residents from putting any money in non-UK banks whilst banning non-UK residents from owning businesses in the UK. I'd imagine the immediate effects to be a severe worsening of relations with other banking nations and a huge outflow of businesses from the country. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,515
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance MotionThe solution to the use of offshore accounts to avoid tax is not to ban use of non UK banks, as this would probably cause other countries to reciprocate, damaging our financial sector hugely. The only way to beat offshore tax evasion is to secure agreements with the governments of the nations involved.(Original post by internetguru)
Non UK residents can own businesses in the UK if they truly are non UK residents. The problem is that they are UK residents for half of the year yet claim not to be UK residents. Banning British people from keeping money in offshore bank accounts would have no negative consequences. Foreign banks have no right to shield people from their tax contributions.
As to adjusting the requirements for UK residence, we would simply cause businessmen to avoid the UK entirely, which would be damaging for business in the UK. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 3,453
- Warning points: 1000
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance MotionYou really think tax havens are going to negotiate over this?(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
The solution to the use of offshore accounts to avoid tax is not to ban use of non UK banks, as this would probably cause other countries to reciprocate, damaging our financial sector hugely. The only way to beat offshore tax evasion is to secure agreements with the governments of the nations involved.
As to adjusting the requirements for UK residence, we would simply cause businessmen to avoid the UK entirely, which would be damaging for business in the UK. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,515
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance Motionhttp://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxtreaties/ukswiss.htm(Original post by internetguru)
You really think tax havens are going to negotiate over this?
Yes. I think they will. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Jupiter
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance MotionThis motion is pointless since the Tax Act (2011) changed the TSR tax system. That being said though, the idea that's being peddled that Jimmy Carr paid loads of money for some hyper-intelligent lawyer to find a secret mistake-turned-loophole is quite funny. It's simple: the current IRL tax system is directed at income, more specifically income that is gained by a UK resident. It doesn't take a genius to realise that if you don't earn anything you don't pay tax, and if you create a company in a low tax country which 'earns' the money for you, you pay peanuts. This isn't a loophole, it's just a basic limitation (or weakness) of income-based taxes and is part of the reason why LVT is a much better tax system.
Another example is Sir Philip Green having his wife as the one who owns his company and then having her declare her residence as Monaco. No secret bank accounts necessary, most people who have secret bank accounts do so to dodge legal scrutiny anyway - there is nothing illegal about any of this. You can't pass a law to stop people from living in other countries or starting businesses there, and neither can you negotiate with so-called 'tax havens' to disclose activities which are not illegal or to synchronise their tax levels with our own.
That being said though, I completely support Jimmy Carr's and Sir Philip Green's actions - avoiding being raped by a stupid tax system is admirable endeavour. -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- Deputy Secretary General of the Model UN
- Location: South London
- Posts: 2,735
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance MotionLabour are currently writing a bill internally and will get it into the House for debate very soon. The main purpose of this motion was to start debate.(Original post by AspiringGenius)
I think this is all well and good, but what are Labour proposing we actually do? You've outlined nothing at all.
The socialist party could propose to end world hunger, but without any plan, how is this realistic?
By shutting this tax avoidance scheme you are opening others. What are you going to do to change the fundamental problems?
We will outline the problems that we are going to deal with in the bill and notes at the end. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 3,453
- Warning points: 1000
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance Motionhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...e-tax-backlash(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxtreaties/ukswiss.htm
Yes. I think they will. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Idol
Re: M103 - Tax Avoidance MotionOh... Sorry(Original post by RoryS)
Labour are currently writing a bill internally and will get it into the House for debate very soon. The main purpose of this motion was to start debate.
We will outline the problems that we are going to deal with in the bill and notes at the end.
(hides head in shame)
