Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Paradise Papers leak reveals secrets of world elite's hidden wealth Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    I do understand that they are doing so in a legal manner, but I don't think that makes it excusable still. It also doesn't negate the issues caused by people avoiding paying tax, and the impact that has.
    If you understand that it is legal then you understand that this is the level of tax they must pay. It is completely excusable that they as individual people and companies pay this amount as it is what is required by law.

    I’m not having a go at you, after all who wants to wealthy and corporates to pay little tax? The point is to focus the mind on the real issue rather than the moral panic and that is the tax law that legally allows them to do this
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It doesn't make it excusable. It makes it justified. No excuse is needed for legal action with one's own property.
    A matter of opinion at this stage - one that I suspect we won't be agreeing on any time soon :dontknow:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    A matter of opinion at this stage - one that I suspect we won't be agreeing on any time soon :dontknow:
    Well I invite you to explain why you feel they should pay more money in taxes than the law actually requires of them.

    Exactly how much extra money, on top of what the law requires, is a person required to pay before he can be said to have satisfied his moral duty, and how is he to ascertain that amount?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Well I invite you to explain why you feel they should pay more money in taxes than the law actually requires of them.

    Exactly how much extra money, on top of what the law requires, is a person required to pay before he can be said to have satisfied his moral duty, and how is he to ascertain that amount?
    I think they should pay the amount they would have paid without any avoidance, which doesn't seem a particularly unreasonable stance.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    I think they should pay the amount they would have paid without any avoidance, which doesn't seem a particularly unreasonable stance.
    Of course it is an unreasonable stance. You're suggesting that people shouldn't take any steps to manage liabilities attaching to their income or assets at all, even according to the law. This is entirely unrealistic and arbitrary. And, in the absence of any particular reason coming from you as to why people should pay whatever arbitrary tax obligation happens to fall on their negligently unmanaged affairs, I assume you're also dead opposed to people sheltering their money from tax in ISAs.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    I think they should pay the amount they would have paid without any avoidance, which doesn't seem a particularly unreasonable stance.
    You avoid tax if you buy a Jaffa Cake rather than a Jamie Dodger. Jamie Dodgers are Vatable. Jaffa Cakes aren't. Therefore every time you choose a Jaffa Cake you avoid paying VAT.

    Someone who decides to set up a company in the UK with a low corporation tax rate rather than Monaco with a stonkingly high corporation tax rate (yes I have got that the right way round) is avoiding tax. So the next time you see a jobbing plumber, ask him why he is avoiding Monegasque Corporation Tax by setting up his Company here?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You avoid tax if you buy a Jaffa Cake rather than a Jamie Dodger. Jamie Dodgers are Vatable. Jaffa Cakes aren't. Therefore every time you choose a Jaffa Cake you avoid paying VAT.

    Someone who decides to set up a company in the UK with a low corporation tax rate rather than Monaco with a stonkingly high corporation tax rate (yes I have got that the right way round) is avoiding tax. So the next time you see a jobbing plumber, ask him why he is avoiding Monegasque Corporation Tax by setting up his Company here?
    Monegasque, that made me laugh 😂
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Of course it is an unreasonable stance. You're suggesting that people shouldn't take any steps to manage liabilities attaching to their income or assets at all, even according to the law. This is entirely unrealistic and arbitrary. And, in the absence of any particular reason coming from you as to why people should pay whatever arbitrary tax obligation happens to fall on their negligently unmanaged affairs, I assume you're also dead opposed to people sheltering their money from tax in ISAs.
    Your argument on this issue essentially seems to be 'don't blame the player, blame the system'. That, it is reasonable for individuals to do what they can legally, to avoid tax.

    At a glance, that's partially convincing but the reality, as i'm sure you well know, is that those who benefit from tax avoidance are very often the ones making the rules. I've mentioned this to you before, and i'll do so again. In 2013, a Parliamentary Committee conducted an investigation of the role of the big four accountancy firms in drafting tax laws. The findings were that big accountancy firms were being invited to draft our tax laws and then they were using those same laws that they'd drafted, to help others avoid paying tax, generating a huge income from their clients by using loopholes in the laws that they'd just designed.

    How can it be deemed acceptable for a firm to draft our laws in a way which allows them to benefit financially from them at the expense of others? So the whole idea of 'don't blame those who exploit' loopholes is rather unconvincing since the firms benefiting from the loopholes, are the ones drafting them.

    Would you not think it would be reasonable, as a matter of common sense, to prevent the big four being invited to draft tax laws, given that they have an incentive to allow for loopholes for their own financial benefit?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You avoid tax if you buy a Jaffa Cake rather than a Jamie Dodger. Jamie Dodgers are Vatable. Jaffa Cakes aren't. Therefore every time you choose a Jaffa Cake you avoid paying VAT.

    Someone who decides to set up a company in the UK with a low corporation tax rate rather than Monaco with a stonkingly high corporation tax rate (yes I have got that the right way round) is avoiding tax. So the next time you see a jobbing plumber, ask him why he is avoiding Monegasque Corporation Tax by setting up his Company here?
    That's a rather unconvincing example.

    For starters you are conflating consumption taxes with income/profit taxes.

    There's a rather clear difference between buying biscuits and paying an accountant a big sum to put your income into a complex scheme aimed at disguising the true status of your money by exploiting the tax codes, with the effect being that you pay far less tax than you normally would, costing our public services and taxpayers millions.

    You know, there's plenty on here who love to moan about those at the bottom who play the system and rely on taxpayers, without paying their own share. Yet those same individuals seem to have little issue with justifying those at the top paying next to no income tax, despite making use of public services and taxpayers money.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That's a rather unconvincing example.

    For starters you are conflating consumption taxes with income/profit taxes.
    Haven't all the attacks on Lewis Hamilton been about exactly this consumption tax? Are VAT avoidance schemes in some way superior to Income Tax avoidance schemes?


    There's a rather clear difference between buying biscuits and paying an accountant a big sum to put your income into a complex scheme aimed at disguising the true status of your money by exploiting the tax codes, with the effect being that you pay far less tax than you normally would, costing our public services and taxpayers millions.
    What is the relevant difference?

    Is it between thinking of a scheme yourself or paying an accountant to think of it? How does that work when a scheme is devised by a company's own accountants department? Is that okay?

    Is it that simple tax avoidance schemes are okay but complex ones aren't? Where does the boundary lie?

    What is the true status of your money? Who determines that?

    When does using the tax code become abusing it?

    What tax would you normally pay on a snack? Aren't you back to Jaffa Cakes and Jamie Dodgers?

    I don't think all these questions are unanswerable, but the journalistic mob aren't asking them.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Would you not think it would be reasonable, as a matter of common sense, to prevent the big four being invited to draft tax laws, given that they have an incentive to allow for loopholes for their own financial benefit?
    No, I agree, Parliament certainly shouldn't should employ expert accountants in the drafting of complex tax laws. I personally think they should employ, I don't know, let's say plumbers, or carpenters.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Rather predictable response. I should think you, of all people, should be familiar with the concept of conflicts of interest. Clearly a conflict arises when those who draft the tax laws, have an incentive to draft them in a way which maximises the potential for tax avoidance.

    Why not employ accountants who don't work for a big four firm and thereby don't have an incentive to create loopholes in the tax codes?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    There is no meaningful news in this story for anyone who didn't start out ridiculously ignorant of how anything works.

    The silliest part of the coverage that I've seen so far is the suggestion that the Queen is doing something wrong by investing in the Cayman Islands. She is literally the monarch of the Cayman Islands. How could it possibly be wrong for her to keep assets there?
    Well she's not paying taxes even though millions of taxpayers money are spent refurbishing her mansion whilst she sits on her ar se feeding her dogs
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    If you understand that it is legal then you understand that this is the level of tax they must pay. It is completely excusable that they as individual people and companies pay this amount as it is what is required by law.

    I’m not having a go at you, after all who wants to wealthy and corporates to pay little tax? The point is to focus the mind on the real issue rather than the moral panic and that is the tax law that legally allows them to do this
    There's no tax laws that allow them to do this. They structure their business in such a way, or create anonymous countries to exploit loopholes.

    I'd be convinced by your argument at sucking up to the rich even though you're a broke 33yo on TSR if it wasnt for the fact that these offshore tax havens offer ridiculous amounts of anonymity and secrecy that makes it a simple job for corporate lawyers to fight off any govt agency trying to get access to their records.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offsetWHOOP)
    There's no tax laws that allow them to do this. They structure their business in such a way, or create anonymous countries to exploit loopholes.

    I'd be convinced by your argument at sucking up to the rich even though you're a broke 33yo on TSR if it wasnt for the fact that these offshore tax havens offer ridiculous amounts of anonymity and secrecy that makes it a simple job for corporate lawyers to fight off any govt agency trying to get access to their records.
    Back with another name, yay!

    And completely missed my point as usual
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Oxford and Cambridge offshore investments now identified in the Paradise Papers...

    "The universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and nearly half of all Oxbridge colleges, have secretly invested tens of millions of pounds in offshore funds, including in a joint venture to develop oil exploration and deep-sea drilling, leaked documents from the Paradise Papers reveal."

    "The leaked papers show 29 Oxbridge colleges have invested in offshore partnerships, with most of these participating in the university-run, oil-and-gas-linked fund managed by Coller. A few of the wealthier colleges have invested in their own right. They are led by Trinity College, Cambridge, the university’s richest college, which committed $13m via two separate A and B funds.
    Other Cambridge colleges that invested in fossil fuels include Clare, Downing, Gonville & Caius, Jesus, Murray Edwards (formerly known as New Hall), Newnham, Pembroke, St Catharine’s, St John’s and Trinity Hall. The Oxford list includes All Souls, Christ Church, Corpus Christi, Exeter, Lincoln, Magdalen, Merton, Nuffield, Somerville, St Antony’s, St Catherine’s, Queen’s, Trinity, University, Wolfson and Worcester."

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...funds-oxbridge
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Back with another name, yay!

    And completely missed my point as usual
    Incorrect. I take it you concede, again.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Oxford and Cambridge offshore investments now identified in the Paradise Papers...

    "The universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and nearly half of all Oxbridge colleges, have secretly invested tens of millions of pounds in offshore funds,..."
    These investments have been kept secret by a a dastardly trick invented by their accountants and wholly wrongly sanctioned by their auditors, by the Charity Commission and by the Higher Education Funding Agency for England. The device comes at no little cost in accountancy fees

    This wholly unwarranted cloaking device goes by the nickname of:

    "including the information in their published accounts"

    In 2016,Univ for example, hid £51,315,000 of offshore funds by describing the money wholly misleadingly as "Investments held outside the UK".

    How could a member of the public, let alone a financial journalist, be expected to realise that these were sums of money invested offshore?

    The college would have had to pay a lot of to have their accounts drawn up in such a way as to obscure where this money is held.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    It is somewhat troubling the sheer number of people who seem to be involved in this, to say the least.
    Yes, tens of millions of people, there are very few households in this country who will not be benefiting from offshore investment.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 13, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.