Tax Avoidance 101: Investing in British film

[JohnSkelton]

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 first paragraph deals with Marx and with Harvey's recent writings ...."; it doesn't do anything of the sort - probably because you have zero acquaintance with them (in the old-fashioned sense of having read anything written by either of them). You didn't even recognise Beef Oven's quote from The Communist Manifesto!

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.

There's nothing actually about Marx or Harvey in there. And since no contemporary Marxist that I know of would be stupid enough to "accept them [Marx's writings] 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" you obviously haven't read any contemporary Marxist literature either (including Harvey, who does no such thing).

You are wonderfully familiar with various tax exempt savings schemes, though. I'll give you that .

[ahinton]

"The first paragraph deals with Marx and with Harvey's recent writings ...."; it doesn't do anything of the sort - probably because you have zero acquaintance with them (in the old-fashioned sense of having read anything written by either of them). You didn't even recognise Beef Oven's quote from The Communist Manifesto!

Since you do not know what I may or may not have read or when, it seems premature at the very least for you to assume as you do here; perhaps I would better have written that the first paragraph "refers to" rather than "deals with" those writings and ideas - that much I can and do accept - but it was what I felt to be the sheer inappropriateness of BeefOven's (corrupted) quote as well as the flawed assertion of the original with which I took issue, although, again, perhaps I should have been more straightforwardly honest about that at the outset!

There's nothing actually about Marx or Harvey in there. And since no contemporary Marxist that I know of would be stupid enough to "accept them [Marx's writings] 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" you obviously haven't read any contemporary Marxist literature either (including Harvey, who does no such thing).

None that you know of, perhaps - but never mind that for now. Since it was you who drew Marx and Harvey into the thread, might you care to enlighten us as to which Marxist principles and which of Harvey's ideas could and should be applied successfully to contemporary fiscal policy, economics et al - and how - for the unquestionably sustainable benefit of society as a whole and to the presumed exclusion of those that instead pertain today? - and, in so doing, do please bear in mind, as I have sought to do, that this thread is not in any case about those things in general but about various legalities and perceived moralities in the application of taxation and in tax planning exercises. You have, for example, elsewhere sought to draw attention to the plight of the world's poor on a number of occasions and, whilst there's no arguing with that and whilst salutary reminders of the world's economic woes and parlous human conditions never come amiss per se, it does not always help to drag such issues into arguments about much more specific issues - and, for example, continued poverty in the West today is hardly all down to a handful of grossly overpaid conductors and soloists and a clutch of fat-cat tax avoiders, is it?

You are wonderfully familiar with various tax exempt savings schemes, though. I'll give you that .

You flatter me unnecessarily! Yes, I know something about PEPs and ISAs, TESSAs (as were) and pension contribution tax relief (as well as a little about tax rates in IOM and elsewhere outside UK) but, since these things are all pretty common knowledge, having been as widely promoted as they were and are, it's a rather gross exaggeration to suggest that my understanding of them amounts to anything remotely approaching a "wonderful familiarity"!

But never mind me and my ideas; what about yours? What do you think about the various tax avoidance vehicles available - including savings schemes such as those - and the principles that you see as governing their introduction, promotion and continuation? Furthermore, do you see these specifically government sponsored and marketed (as distinct from government condoned) schemes as somehow existing in a separate category from other tax avoidance instruments? and what is your view of their respective "moralities"?

[JohnSkelton]

Since it was you who drew Marx and Harvey into the thread

Not really. Beef Oven made a distinction between "excess value" and "surplus value" and I posted two links which give explanations of what Marx meant by "surplus value" - one by Ernest Mandel the other by David Harvey.

continued poverty in the West today is hardly all down to a handful of grossly overpaid conductors and soloists and a clutch of fat-cat tax avoiders, is it?

No, of course it isn't. That's one of the points of a Marxist analysis; capitalism isn't something that can be fixed by clamping down on abuses and abusers. Because 'fixing' capitalism isn't the point (from a Marxist perspective). There's nothing wrong with capitalism in the terms of capitalism's own logic: capitalism relies on inequality and exploitation to sustain itself (and to sustain capitalists). It's just whether you think that's a bad thing or not, or whether you think it's inevitable or not, etc.

I agree with Hornspieler; these conversations became tedious for anyone other than our fascinated selves a long time ago. So I shall desist .

[ahinton]

Not really. Beef Oven made a distinction between "excess value" and "surplus value" and I posted two links which give explanations of what Marx meant by "surplus value" - one by Ernest Mandel the other by David Harvey.

Fair comment to the extent that your references were passive to the extent of being a response to BeefOven rather than active in the sense of drawing them in without such a prompt.

No, of course it isn't. That's one of the points of a Marxist analysis; capitalism isn't something that can be fixed by clamping down on abuses and abusers. Because 'fixing' capitalism isn't the point (from a Marxist perspective). There's nothing wrong with capitalism in the terms of capitalism's own logic: capitalism relies on inequality and exploitation to sustain itself (and to sustain capitalists). It's just whether you think that's a bad thing or not, or whether you think it's inevitable or not, etc.

I know that, of course; my issue here is with the notion that capitalism needs to be replaced rather than fixed, if for no better reason than that no one - not even Harvey in his The Enigma of Capital - has yet submitted any convincing, workable or sustainable alternative to capitalism that could justify its overthrow and wholesale replacement which would, if ever attempted, cost a fortune, take many years and, above all, depend upon prior international agreement (by which I mean the endorsement of every nation on earth, not merely the majority of them). What possible alternative would not rely on - or at least be prey to - "inequality and exploitation"?

I agree with Hornspieler; these conversations became tedious for anyone other than our fascinated selves a long time ago. So I shall desist .

Indeed - and so shall I! But thanks for your input on it anyway; my disagreement with some of what you write about it does not compromise my appreciation of it.

So - back to taxation matters, then!

[amateur51]

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!


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?)...


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?

I pologise for some of what I wrote early this morning. I'd just come back from a nice dinner with friends where drink had been taken, this being the only circumstances these days when I drink. When I looked at your post it was just such a huge wodge of text that it made me cross, hence my splenetic but ill-judged response.

[Beef Oven]

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?

Good grief!

Would you mind doing 'executive summaries' for your postings?

[Nick Armstrong]

I don't even play the horn, so I have none to lock

This somehow seems to sum up why these threads go on and on and on for pages and pages with no one convincing anyone else of anything....

[amateur51]

Good grief!

Would you mind doing 'executive summaries' for your postings?

[amateur51]

This somehow seems to sum up why these threads go on and on and on for pages and pages with no one convincing anyone else of anything....

The original post raised an interesting point, I thought but since then things have gone downhill - a bit like an episode of Last of the Summer Wine where you know that in the end it amounts to three old blokes deciding which hill to push the bath down today

[Lateralthinking1]

I see today that Jersey want independence (as a tax haven). Must have seen my post advocating constitutional change.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-18608218

(But did they lean on Argentina to campaign for the Falklands, knowing it would prompt a precedent setting referendum?)

[ahinton]

Good grief!

A contradiction in terms, surely?!...

Would you mind doing 'executive summaries' for your postings?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I would, but in any case see post #105 (which I presume you not to have read before you posted this)...

[ahinton]

I pologise for some of what I wrote early this morning. I'd just come back from a nice dinner with friends where drink had been taken, this being the only circumstances these days when I drink. When I looked at your post it was just such a huge wodge of text that it made me cross, hence my splenetic but ill-judged response.

Pologies accepted, sir! I hope that you enjoyed your evening. Perhaps I'd have been better to split it into smaller paragraphs (my post, that is, not your evening)...

[Beef Oven]

Perhaps I'd have been better to split it into smaller paragraphs (my post, that is, not your evening)...

OMG! It's Charles Pooter!!!

[amateur51]

OMG! It's Charles Pooter!!!

Steady now, Lupin

[ahinton]

OMG! It's Charles Pooter!!!

What is? I might as well have written of you "OMG! it's a gross myth!!!". But, as you no doubt noticed, I didn't...

Never mind that; what about Bart, who meant to write

"Better get some untaxed income,
You gotta buy an ISA or two"

...except, of course, that it's illegal to buy more than one of them in any one tax year...