The Student Room Group

£13trillion: hoard hidden from taxman by global elite

Scroll to see replies

Original post by prog2djent
Yawn, given the opportunity, anybody and everybody tries whatever they can to pay as little tax or even avoid it, whenever possible. I would do it, you would do it, the rich do it, the middle class that can afford a private accountant now and then do it, and people who move up the ladder do it. This ostracization of people (only rich people BTW, why not the middle class, who avoid tax as much as possible and are perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of state welfare above anyone else)


This, although I doubt you're going to get a reply.
Original post by ThisIsTheLife
If I were involved in a fatal RTA, I'd be dead, so no bills need to be footed.

You're really not getting this.


you've not really thought this through, have you.

Whilst the largest portion of the total averaged cost of a fatal rta would probably be your loss of lifelong earnings, the remaining costs still amount to an awful lot. Most likely in the region of £1-2 million (road disruption, emergency services, psychological cost of outfall of that sort of tragedy re. family, emergency services, onlookers, others involved in accident), cost of damage etc etc.

The cost of the ambulance itself is minimal. After all, they're just driving a puddle of you to the morgue.

People that want to avoid paying any tax rarely take the time to properly research the complexities of what their tax is actually paying for.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 62
Original post by Mister Dead
Of course, but it would be disasterous for them personally and professionally.


Exactly hence why i dont see why they keep rambling on it, they do have the power to curtail the use of these places as demonstrated by the USA when it crapped all over the hidden banking practices of Switzerland and Lichtenstein... They have the power to stop these places being used so if they really dont want them being used as such they can but all this hot air is just a waste of everybodies time.
Although what i do find quite amusing is how the Government *******s the banks for their use of CDO, CDS's and the like but fails to put anything in place against them as incidently most of them come from these tax heavens through the use of SPV's which are all run through people like J.P.Morgan and the like. But, i digress in a nut shell if governments are to keep griping about tax avoiders when theyre perfectly able to do something about it then they should act on it untill then though why cant they simply gob up on the issue instead of inflaming peoples anger...
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
No right whatsoever, but these people have it within their grasp to literally SAVE THE ****ING WORLD and they're too greedy and apathetic to bother.


Well first of all - money doesn't solve problems the way you seem to think it does. You might look at that sum of money and think that it's the end of famine in Africa, the end of austerity in the Eurozone or the end of countless good causes that you believe in.

But it's not. Money alone doesn't solve problems - ESPECIALLY when the people that you want to put in charge of the money have continually shown themselves to be incompetent in looking after it and spending it wisely.

The fact is the charitable entrepreneurs do far more for good causes than governments, not just through their donations, but through the fact that they continually provide value to society. They create wealth in countless ways, not just for themselves, but for the people with whom they deal in business.

If you take away an entrepreneur's spare cash, then you're taking away his ability to invest. You're taking away his ability to create even more wealth and even more value in society. And you're giving that cash to governments who squander it on things which produce no returns, continually run at a deficit, and eventually crash under the weight of their own demands because they have no way of supporting themselves financially.

They could easily put an end to suffering on an unimaginable scale but they don't, that's a terrible thing, it's sick. Also, it's pure luck that they find themselves in such a privileged position and not in some godforsaken african **** hole.


You're absolutely right that it's pot luck where you're born and what circumstances you're born into. But at the same time, you can't force a burden upon people just because you see it as unfair that they were born in a more fortunate position than others. You can't make somebody assume a responsbility that, in no logical or morally righteous way, is their fault or their burden.

Life is tough, and that's a fact nobody will deny. The best way to ensure that it's as easy as possible for you and your family is to get wealthy and hoard it. I have absolutely no guilt in stating that that's how I live and how I intend to live in the future, because like any human being, I put me and my loved ones first. If that means that people who could use my cash can't get access to it, then that's a shame. Life has dealt them a bum deal and there's not a lot they can do about it. That still doesn't make it my responsibility.

You can form your own opinion of that if you like. You might find it sick. You might find it heartless. But even if you do form those opinions - what right does that give you to try to steal my property to pass it on to somebody else?

Your opinion may well burn inside you and create an intense rage, but that will not justify you and your ilk trying to arrest somebody else's possessions against their will.

I don't think there's a problem with recognising that and being angry about it. As for my "sense of entitlement", I'm just aware that none of us can do anything on our own. Anyone who gets anywhere in life has at some point been afforded opportunities completely through luck - whether that's the body they were born into, the mind the universe shaped for them, the country of their birth, the access to education/resources, whatever. They did none of that stuff on purpose. They find themselves in a position of massive, disproportionate privilege but they did not do that all by themselves, no ****ing way. They were helped by others and now they are in a position to repay the world that favour by helping people who never had the same luck as them, born into ****ty circumstances through no fault of their own, and who currently live in preventable misery.


I'm not saying they did do it all themselves, but I wouldn't say they had nothing to do with it. Okay, being born in 20th century Britain as an encouraging family was a VERY good basis for me. But there's no guarantee from there that I was ever going to be wealthy, educated or successful. I did a lot of that work myself. Yes, there were opportunities provided for me that would not have been provided elsewhere, but I still made the most of them.

The fact is that when I pay tax, it doesn't just go to people who didn't have the same opportunities that I did. I grew up on one of the roughest housing schemes in Europe, and most of the tax I'll pay over a lifetime won't even come CLOSE to the amount we spend on the welfare for the people I went to school with. People who had the same start in life, from the same area, with a family on the same income, and had the same access to education. Yet I'll be paying mountains of taxes, and they'll be paying nothing and taking more than I'll ever hand to the treasury.

They have no excuse and they don't deserve one penny of my money.

In any case, even if it was as simple as rich people had opportunities where poor people didn't... I still don't care. That doesn't give anybody the right to take my things against my will.

PS. I'm not talking about giving handouts to the layabout parasites we have so many of in this country. I'm talking about the huge number of people in the world who have essentially nothing, who starve to death by their millions every year. Those people can't get themselves out of that situation on their own. They need a leg up first if they are ever going to be able to look after themselves.


Well, if that's your argument, might I suggest that you START by convincing your government to STOP feeding parasites with taxpayers money?

In my opinion, it is ludicrous for you to want several billion pounds of EXTRA taxpayers cash, when you still don't trust the way that your government spends the money that it already has.

If you give untold millions more taxes to the current political system in most western countries, then a large proportion of it will just go to parasites.
Original post by prog2djent
Yawn, given the opportunity, anybody and everybody tries whatever they can to pay as little tax or even avoid it, whenever possible. I would do it, you would do it, the rich do it, the middle class that can afford a private accountant now and then do it, and people who move up the ladder do it. This ostracization of people (only rich people BTW, why not the middle class, who avoid tax as much as possible and are perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of state welfare above anyone else)


Original post by Mendeleev's Table
This, although I doubt you're going to get a reply.


Not only will I reply, but i'll give you an example, and a topical one (re. Boyle, Carr).

When Norman Wisdom moved to the IOM he opted to continue paying a United Kingdom tax rate.

Not everybody stoops to your level.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Mister Dead
you've not really thought this through, have you.

Whilst the largest portion of the total averaged cost of a fatal rta would probably be your loss of lifelong earnings, the remaining costs still amount to an awful lot. Most likely in the region of £1-2 million (road disruption, emergency services, psychological cost of outfall of that sort of tragedy re. family, emergency services, onlookers, others involved in accident), cost of damage etc etc.


That's all very true, but that's a symptom of the system you've created - nothing to do with me. If I had it my way roads would be private, and toll charges would reflect the costs of road disruptions. Emergency services would be private, meaning if I couldn't afford an ambulance, I wouldn't get one, unless such services were paid for by private individuals who donated their cash voluntary for just such occasions. As for the psychological cost - well I'm sure that's a real shame, but as I'm a careful driver, any RTA I'll be involved in will probably not be my fault, so I can't really accept the liability of their psychological damage... and again, I'm sure many people would voluntarily take care of these sorts of things if they weren't having to shell out a mint in tax.

The cost of the ambulance itself is minimal. After all, they're just driving a puddle of you to the morgue.

People that want to avoid paying any tax rarely take the time to properly research the complexities of what their tax is actually paying for.


I'm sure it's all very complex but it would work just as well (and in many cases, much better) if the system was privatised and the people who paid for this done so on a voluntary basis.
Reply 66
Original post by ThisIsTheLife
Good. Those trillians are far better off in the hands of those who earned it than in the hands of incompetent governments and welfare parasites.

I am only disappointed that the number is not as high as it could be.


In which case the government should cut tax rates. It's not for private citizens to decide what level of tax it is economically efficient for them to pay or which laws it's worth obeying. Tax avoidance/evasion subverts the free market by making bigger firms with better tax lawyers artificialy more competitive regardless of the quality or price of the goods and services they sell.
Original post by JacobW
In which case the government should cut tax rates. It's not for private citizens to decide what level of tax it is economically efficient for them to pay or which laws it's worth obeying.


Your argument is that private citizens have no moral authority over their own tax expenditure. Fair enough, but from where precisely do governments draw their moral authority on these issues?

I see no reason why they should be able to decide when I can't? I see no reason why I can't have presidence over my own possessions, whilst some inflated bully-group can? Please explain that.

Tax avoidance/evasion subverts the free market by making bigger firms with better tax lawyers artificialy more competitive regardless of the quality or price of the goods and services they sell.


That's a very nice chain of causality you have there. May I append something to the start?

The existence of tax naturally gives rise to widespread resistance and tax avoidance/evasion which subverts the free market by making bigger firms with better tax lawyers artificialy more competitive regardless of the quality or price of the goods and services they sell.

No tax, no artificially competitive firms with expensive tax avoidance lawyers.

You see - it's no so much that I'm in favour of tax avoidance, but more that I am strictly against tax in the first place.

I can see how a tax system which is avoided can cause issues in the free market. But I don't blame the tax avoidance, I blame the tax.
Original post by ThisIsTheLife
As for the psychological cost - well I'm sure that's a real shame, but as I'm a careful driver, any RTA I'll be involved in will probably not be my fault, so I can't really accept the liability of their psychological damage


right, what if it is your fault though?
I expected positive responses to this because it's TSR, but it's still so disheartening to see so many people buying into a myth which hurts them. Trickle down economics has got an almost religious aspect to it - "Submit to our authority, follow our teachings and in a later life you will be rewarded". But of course the rewards never materialise, and like the afterlife people are expected to take the existence of this wonderful world we're supposedly heading towards on faith, and as with God and natural disasters we're expected to believe that the big players in our economy are responsible for none of the bad that happens and all of the good.
Original post by ThisIsTheLife
nothing to do with me


how does this work. you're ideologically opposed to the current system, so you shouldn't have to pay?
Bull**** thats 13 years of Americas GDP
Original post by Chumbaniya
I expected positive responses to this because it's TSR, but it's still so disheartening to see so many people buying into a myth which hurts them. Trickle down economics has got an almost religious aspect to it - "Submit to our authority, follow our teachings and in a later life you will be rewarded". But of course the rewards never materialise, and like the afterlife people are expected to take the existence of this wonderful world we're supposedly heading towards on faith, and as with God and natural disasters we're expected to believe that the big players in our economy are responsible for none of the bad that happens and all of the good.


the correct way to handle the problem is to fix all tax loopholes and lower the tax a little.
tax revenue should increase enough to pay for expenditure.
Original post by Mister Dead
how does this work. you're ideologically opposed to the current system, so you shouldn't have to pay?


Almost.

But it's more along the lines of - the current system involves somebody arresting the property of others against their will. This is a moral outrage as it is a violation of the principles of non-aggression, and I can't see how we can justify it in the modern, supposedly "enlightened" world.

Although your version works too. Paying tax when you're ideologically opposed to it is like being forced to pray to a particular God when you don't adhere to that religion. How is that right? How is that justified?
Nevermind that, there's a couple of million unemployed scroungers to persecute.
Reply 75
Original post by ThisIsTheLife
By the same token, I refuse to accept responsibility for OTHER people's problems, and think that they, as I have done, should discard their false and inflated sense of entitlement, and realise that if they want something or need something, then they should work for it on their own terms.
What if they can't?
Original post by Mister Dead
right, what if it is your fault though?


Tough.

Witnessing things you don't necessarily want to witness is a part of life. Happens to me all the time. Deal with it.

Anyway, just because somebody CAUSES a display that somebody else doesn't want to see doesn't necessarily mean that they caused the subsequent trauma/distress. That's an individual thing - different people deal with different things in a different way, and if they happened to be standing at a point where they inadvertently view a display that occurs because of me, I can't be blamed if they take a bad reaction to it. That's their medical issue, so it should be their medical expense for treatment.

It's the same a private medical care in any other sense - if I were to suffer from a cancer that was not my fault, I'd still be liable for the medical expenses to treat it, because it's also not anyboldy else's fault I got cancer, and they shouldn't have to pay.
Original post by Redolent
What if they can't?


Then that's a real shame, but it's not my fault, it's not my problem, it's not my responsbility, and nobody is in a position to force their burden upon me.

Life is unfair. Life is tough. I acknowledge that, but I don't accept responsibility for having to offset the inherent unfairness in life.

If I had my tax back, I'd have quite a lot of disposable cash, and there's a few unfairnesses in life that are close to my heart that I'd personally want to put some money into. At the moment I can't afford that because I am taxed so much, and in addition, I feel that I shouldn't have to pay twice for the issue - once through tax, and again through charity, because the tax money is often squandered and doesn't go towards too many things I personally care about.

Many people would feel the same about a variety of different issues, and so a lot of people would still have money from volunteered donations.

And I'd much rather live in a society where people who need to be taken care of ARE taken care of - but by people who CHOOSE to take care of them, rather than people who are forced to.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by ThisIsTheLife
Yes, but what moral right and authority do YOU or any government have to force that responsibility upon someone?

None whatsoever. Get your own water, your own food, your own shelter and your own education and stop going about your life like the world owes you something.

The world owes you NOTHING.

It's your sense of entitlement that is wrong with the society.


No more rep!
Reply 79
I'm curious. Why do some people think it's okay to tax avoid, yet they will come down tough on benefit cheats?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending