Tax Avoidance 101: Investing in British film

[ahinton]

But you're not talking merely about the movement of capital, ahinton, you're talking about the creation of excess value through that movement, innit

Only to the extent that such excess value can be one of the by-products of movement of capital; there are and have always been those who seek to make something out of something, those who seek to make something out of nothing and those who do both.

[Beef Oven]

But you're not talking merely about the movement of capital, ahinton, you're talking about the creation of excess value through that movement, innit

I think you're getting your surplus value mixed up with excess value (that's to say say nothing of super-normal profits). Honestly, the standard of Marxism in this thread is very poor

[JohnSkelton]

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article287

http://davidharvey.org/2008/08/capital-class-10/

[Beef Oven]

http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...php?article287

http://davidharvey.org/2008/08/capital-class-10/

How quaint. And to think we took it all so seriously back then!

[JohnSkelton]

How quaint. And to think we took it all so seriously back then!

I'd have thought back then you were too busy doing prog rock and stuff, Beef Oven, to have time for anything else!

[ahinton]

http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...php?article287

http://davidharvey.org/2008/08/capital-class-10/

David Harvey is undoubtedly one of the foremost contemporary writers on Marxism and on capitalism from a broadly Marxist standpoint and his work is, without question, recommended reading for all those interesed in the kinds of issue of which this thread invites responses on just one small part; however (and you sensed a "however" coming, did you not?!), the problem that I find with most people who refer to his writings is that they appear to believe that the Marxist way and the Harvey interpretations thereof and commentaries thereon represent the only possible ways in which society can hope to move forward to its advantage. It's important to recognise that, rather like Jesus Christ and his disciples, Marx commented on Western society as he saw it at the time of writing (albeit with the benefit of their knowledge of the history of those societies up that that point), yet the writings of all of them are taken by some Christians and many Marxists respectively as though "gospel" and somehow immutable, ineffable and for all times, people and places - a kind of universal panacea - which is one aspect of the matter that I find the least convincing; that's not to recommend that we can ignore any of these writings - far from it, indeed - but to accept them passively in some kind of splendid isolation from any contradictory ones and/or while casting to one side the relevance to them of the manifold social, industrial, cultural et al changes that have continuously occurred throughout the world since their publication is, to my mind, tantamount to seeking the best available mortgage deal on a home in cloud-cuckoo-land.

This thread is not in any case about theoretical or practical capitalism or anti-capitalism in general terms but specifically seeks to address one single sector of the movement of capital, namely taxation and, even then, its' not about taxation principles in general but about what is moral or legal at any given time in terms of ever changing tax laws and the evasion and avoidance of liability to tax in one country only; whilst whatever Marx and Harvey might have to say about that kind of thing may be all very well, what we'e invited to address in the here and now is (a) what rates of the various taxes (income tax, NI, CGT, IHT and all the rest) are the most appropriate and just at any given time, (b) which tax avoidance schemes (whether government sponsored or not) may or may not be deemed generally acceptable and (c) whether those who contrive to reduce their personal and corporate tax liabilities to the barest minimum by legal means are really contributing thereby to social ills that might, at least in theory, be amenable to cure by means of effective limitations on tax avoidance (if any) and more effective clampdowns on tax evasion.

One measure that has, I believe, received scant attention so far here is that of the kind of tax avoidance by firms and individuals that manifests itself not as tax avoidance per se but avoidance of some or all liability to British taxes in favour of acquiring more beneficial tax liabilities in other less punitive administrations - in other words, the issue of those who don't like paying taxes under the present British tax régime because they believe them to be unresonably onerous and who prefer instead to pay them in another country where they are less so. With large firms, this most often manifests itself in relocation of head offices to less punitive corporation tax régimes and, with individuals, the usual way is in having domiciliary arrangements in more than one country. Rules about the latter have quite rightly tightened up in recent times, partly as a consequence of inter-country agreements (rather like some of the double taxation relief arrangements agreed beween pairs of countries) and it is now far more of a requirement that each individual chooses correctly and fairly to which tax régime he/she will submit. The 186-day residence rule is by no means as hard and fast in its application or as simple as once it was, partly because laws have sensibly been tightened with a view to reducing its abuse; however, anyone who can manage to have homes in more than two countries and never spend as much as half the year in any one of them can still usually get away with the easiest option, even though they are far more often charged with having to make or be subjected to a decision on where to pay taxes. In Isle of Man, for example, no individual is currently permitted to pay more than £100K p.a. in all taxes (other, I think, than VAT although I'm not quite sure about that) so, to anyone that might otherwise incur a liability to ten times that amount in Britain, being taxed there insead looks on the surface to be quite an attractive proposition. Could anyone reasonably suggest that electing to do this is somehow an "immoral" means of tax avoidance? I don't believe so, since it is broadly analogous in principle to reducing income tax liability by choosing to have a low income; as someone whom I know (who doesn't live in UK or IOM, incidentally) said to me some while ago, "I live in an entirely passive house with annual energy bills amounting to some -£1,500 p.a., I drive a fully electric car and I get various tax and other benefits in recognition of what's deemed to be my environmental friendliness, so I pay very little tax because all of this helps me to manage on a far smaller income than I used to need". I don't see that as "immoral"; do you?

[Beef Oven]

I'd have thought back then you were too busy doing prog rock and stuff, Beef Oven, to have time for anything else!

Nah, I always made time for a bit of socialism

[ahinton]

How quaint. And to think we took it all so seriously back then!

"Back then"? Mr Harvey's writings are recent and current, even if Marx's do indeed belong to another era!

[ahinton]

Nah, I always made time for a bit of socialism

Since this message has appeared twice, one could perhaps say that you've made two-timing for it...

[Beef Oven]

"Back then"? Mr Harvey's writings are recent and current, even if Marx's do indeed belong to another era!

I used to like Raymond Williams, and probably still do, but I've grown out of the paradigm Harvey subscribes to.

[amateur51]

I think you're getting your surplus value mixed up with excess value (that's to say say nothing of super-normal profits). Honestly, the standard of Marxism in this thread is very poor

I took dictation from the great man hisself but that beard made it werry muffled, innit.

Honestly kidz today

[amateur51]

Only to the extent that such excess value can be one of the by-products of movement of capital; there are and have always been those who seek to make something out of something, those who seek to make something out of nothing and those who do both.

Stop wriggling, ahinton

[amateur51]

David Harvey is undoubtedly one of the foremost contemporary writers on Marxism and on capitalism from a broadly Marxist standpoint and his work is, without question, recommended reading for all those interesed in the kinds of issue of which this thread invites responses on just one small part; however (and you sensed a "however" coming, did you not?!), the problem that I find with most people who refer to his writings is that they appear to believe that the Marxist way and the Harvey interpretations thereof and commentaries thereon represent the only possible ways in which society can hope to move forward to its advantage. It's important to recognise that, rather like Jesus Christ and his disciples, Marx commented on Western society as he saw it at the time of writing (albeit with the benefit of their knowledge of the history of those societies up that that point), yet the writings of all of them are taken by some Christians and many Marxists respectively as though "gospel" and somehow immutable, ineffable and for all times, people and places - a kind of universal panacea - which is one aspect of the matter that I find the least convincing; that's not to recommend that we can ignore any of these writings - far from it, indeed - but to accept them passively in some kind of splendid isolation from any contradictory ones and/or while casting to one side the relevance to them of the manifold social, industrial, cultural et al changes that have continuously occurred throughout the world since their publication is, to my mind, tantamount to seeking the best available mortgage deal on a home in cloud-cuckoo-land.

This thread is not in any case about theoretical or practical capitalism or anti-capitalism in general terms but specifically seeks to address one single sector of the movement of capital, namely taxation and, even then, its' not about taxation principles in general but about what is moral or legal at any given time in terms of ever changing tax laws and the evasion and avoidance of liability to tax in one country only; whilst whatever Marx and Harvey might have to say about that kind of thing may be all very well, what we'e invited to address in the here and now is (a) what rates of the various taxes (income tax, NI, CGT, IHT and all the rest) are the most appropriate and just at any given time, (b) which tax avoidance schemes (whether government sponsored or not) may or may not be deemed generally acceptable and (c) whether those who contrive to reduce their personal and corporate tax liabilities to the barest minimum by legal means are really contributing thereby to social ills that might, at least in theory, be amenable to cure by means of effective limitations on tax avoidance (if any) and more effective clampdowns on tax evasion.

One measure that has, I believe, received scant attention so far here is that of the kind of tax avoidance by firms and individuals that manifests itself not as tax avoidance per se but avoidance of some or all liability to British taxes in favour of acquiring more beneficial tax liabilities in other less punitive administrations - in other words, the issue of those who don't like paying taxes under the present British tax régime because they believe them to be unresonably onerous and who prefer instead to pay them in another country where they are less so. With large firms, this most often manifests itself in relocation of head offices to less punitive corporation tax régimes and, with individuals, the usual way is in having domiciliary arrangements in more than one country. Rules about the latter have quite rightly tightened up in recent times, partly as a consequence of inter-country agreements (rather like some of the double taxation relief arrangements agreed beween pairs of countries) and it is now far more of a requirement that each individual chooses correctly and fairly to which tax régime he/she will submit. The 186-day residence rule is by no means as hard and fast in its application or as simple as once it was, partly because laws have sensibly been tightened with a view to reducing its abuse; however, anyone who can manage to have homes in more than two countries and never spend as much as half the year in any one of them can still usually get away with the easiest option, even though they are far more often charged with having to make or be subjected to a decision on where to pay taxes. In Isle of Man, for example, no individual is currently permitted to pay more than £100K p.a. in all taxes (other, I think, than VAT although I'm not quite sure about that) so, to anyone that might otherwise incur a liability to ten times that amount in Britain, being taxed there insead looks on the surface to be quite an attractive proposition. Could anyone reasonably suggest that electing to do this is somehow an "immoral" means of tax avoidance? I don't believe so, since it is broadly analogous in principle to reducing income tax liability by choosing to have a low income; as someone whom I know (who doesn't live in UK or IOM, incidentally) said to me some while ago, "I live in an entirely passive house with annual energy bills amounting to some -£1,500 p.a., I drive a fully electric car and I get various tax and other benefits in recognition of what's deemed to be my environmental friendliness, so I pay very little tax because all of this helps me to manage on a far smaller income than I used to need". I don't see that as "immoral"; do you?

Ahinton, we've locked horns over this before. Your writing style occasionally degenerates into what can only be described as bourgeois individualist juggernaut mode.

Can I suggest that you go to the top of this post of yours, squint slightly so that you can't actually read the content and then ask yourself the pertinent question : "Can I be arsed?"

Have a thought for your would-be reader, please

[ahinton]

Stop wriggling, ahinton

Where's the wriggle? The statement that you attribute it to seems pretty straightforward to me!

[ahinton]

Ahinton, we've locked horns over this before. Your writing style occasionally degenerates into what can only be described as bourgeois individualist juggernaut mode.

I don't even play the horn, so I have none to lock - but that's not really the point. What exactly is your point, though? And what, pray, is "bourgeois individualist juggernaut mode" and how does it impact upon anyone's writing style? That expression sounds to me at first reading as though it refers to content rather than style, but I will await your explanation of it with interest!

Can I suggest that you go to the top of this post of yours, squint slightly so that you can't actually read the content and then ask yourself the pertinent question : "Can I be arsed?"

Again, your point is lost on me; for what reason and to what end would I do that? (i.e. what might you expect to be achieved from such an exercise?)...

Have a thought for your would-be reader, please

If I didn't have one, I wouldn't have written anything.

You may not agree with all or some of it, but that's fine, surely?

The first paragraph deals with Marx and with Harvey's recent writings and questions the extent to which some of the former's ideas and the latter's commentaries on them could be applied in practice in present-day society.

The second points out that this thread is specifically about tax evasion and various manifestations of tax avoidance and asks how damaging to society they really are and how reasonable are the rates of taxes that are levied.

The last concentrates upon domiciliary arrangments as a means of tax "avoidance" (or more properly rescheduling) and ends with a kind of postscript about what some might regard as the best possible and most morally unquestionable method of tax avoidance, which is to incur less tax liability in the first place by reducing the need for those things on which tax might otherwise be charged.

What's your problem with that? (other, as I suggesed, than the likelihood that you might disagree with all or part of it). If it's that you prefer all answers to be wrapped up in tiny paragraphs comprising short sentences, it's surely best to avoid writing about subjects like this one altogether. Seeking undue simplicity where it cannot and does not exist is hardly a helpful way in which to approach topics such as this one; after all, isn't one of the underlying fundamental guiding principles of most tax avoidance and evasion the creation of webs of complexity?