We're All In This Together .....

[Lateralthinking1]

.....So the bus drivers are now going to get extra money for working during the Olympics. This has been a huge story in London with many people arguing that they have been holding the capital to ransom. Actually, that leverage was handed to them by senior managers who simply gave themselves a big extra sum first, thereby encouraging ordinary workers to claim unfairness.

BUT - The reality in Britain is now this. If you fight to stop savage cuts to what you have, you lose. If you stick out a hand and say 'give me more', you are likely to win. In such a culture, it is no more easy to support the unions than it is to support their bosses. We are not all in this together. Brothers leave that particular room as soon as they join the red braces brigade on a grab.

[Serial_Apologist]

.....So the bus drivers are now going to get extra money for working during the Olympics. This has been a huge story in London with many people arguing that they have been holding the capital to ransom. Actually, that leverage was handed to them by senior managers who simply gave themselves a big extra sum first, thereby encouraging ordinary workers to claim unfairness.

BUT - The reality in Britain is now this. If you fight to stop savage cuts to what you have, you lose. If you stick out a hand and say 'give me more', you are likely to win. In such a culture, it is no more easy to support the unions than it is to support their bosses. We are not all in this together. Brothers leave that particular room as soon as they join the red braces brigade on a grab.

Another way of looking at this is that the bus drivers are being excluded from economic benefits said to accrue from the Olympics, at the same time as being subject to the additional pressures of operating London's crowded roads and extra passengers. Why should that be right? It's only for a couple of weeks, after all.

[Lateralthinking1]

Another way of looking at this is that the bus drivers are being excluded from economic benefits said to accrue from the Olympics, at the same time as being subject to the additional pressures of operating London's crowded roads and extra passengers. Why should that be right? It's only for a couple of weeks, after all.

No, they are Tories in disguise. Might as well be bankers.

Essentially, this is the unionised version of the stereotypical London cab driver. No interest in supporting the unemployed whatsoever, although they will whinge at length if their offspring can't get work and deny they have contributed to that situation.

Most are on salaries above the national average so their attitude towards low paid workers is equally reprehensible.

(I never went on strike to get more and always went on strike to prevent getting less!)

[Lateralthinking1]

.............Anyhow, we're all in this together.

Here is the breathtaking extent of the problem. Solve this and it would be "Crisis. What Crisis?"

A global super-rich elite has exploited gaps in cross-border tax rules to hide an extraordinary £13 trillion ($21tn) of wealth offshore – as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together – according to research commissioned by the campaign group Tax Justice Network.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore......a staggering $21tn in assets has been lost to global tax havens. If taxed, that could have been enough to put parts of Africa back on its feet – and even solve the euro crisis........Half of it is 'owned' by just 92,000 people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens?intcmp=239

[teamsaint]

The contents of these reports are eaxctly the reason we need to be deeply cynical about the actions and motives of politicians, and their banking and industrial masters.
Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
what they do is RELENTLESSLY take money from people on the bottom 80/90% and grab it for themselves.

The latest bank bail out in spain, £100Bn of it, is just the latest example.
"Work them hard, feed them lard, build them a little hutch..."

[ahinton]

.............Anyhow, we're all in this together.

Here is the breathtaking extent of the problem. Solve this and it would be "Crisis. What Crisis?"

A global super-rich elite has exploited gaps in cross-border tax rules to hide an extraordinary £13 trillion ($21tn) of wealth offshore – as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together – according to research commissioned by the campaign group Tax Justice Network.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore......a staggering $21tn in assets has been lost to global tax havens. If taxed, that could have been enough to put parts of Africa back on its feet – and even solve the euro crisis........Half of it is 'owned' by just 92,000 people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ens?intcmp=239

I wonder from what source/s Tax Justice Network has gleaned its information. After all, if the money's "hidden" offshore (as indeed most of it would need to be in order to avoid the eagle eyes of tax people the world over), how come this particular organisation has "found" it - or at least found that it exists where it does and knows precisely (or at least to the nearest billion of so) how much money is stashed away there? Does this not strike anyone here as rather suspect? Of course there is moeny in tax havens and has been for a very long time and I have little dount that the research that's gong into trying to find out how much and where has been well-intentioned, but it's this "hidden away yet transparent" bit that seems to have the hollow ring of questionable veracity about it.

OK, but what's to do; if certain corporations and individuals have vast resources of wealth that's not attracting tax, it has first to be determined which countries' tax coffers are suffering as a result of each and if, in some cases, the corporation or individual is wealthy enough to counter any attempts to rein in tax on it by buying or selling nations, there's not much that can be done about it other than by mutual consent - and, after all, if the figure could actually be £20tn or maybe much more than thi, that situation might not be entirely beyond the bounds of possibility; after all, you'd hardly need sums well in excess of the combined GDP of US and Japan to buy some places!...

[Lateralthinking1]

I wonder from what source/s Tax Justice Network has gleaned its information. After all, if the money's "hidden" offshore (as indeed most of it would need to be in order to avoid the eagle eyes of tax people the world over), how come this particular organisation has "found" it - or at least found that it exists where it does and knows precisely (or at least to the nearest billion of so) how much money is stashed away there? Does this not strike anyone here as rather suspect? Of course there is moeny in tax havens and has been for a very long time and I have little dount that the research that's gong into trying to find out how much and where has been well-intentioned, but it's this "hidden away yet transparent" bit that seems to have the hollow ring of questionable veracity about it.

OK, but what's to do; if certain corporations and individuals have vast resources of wealth that's not attracting tax, it has first to be determined which countries' tax coffers are suffering as a result of each and if, in some cases, the corporation or individual is wealthy enough to counter any attempts to rein in tax on it by buying or selling nations, there's not much that can be done about it other than by mutual consent - and, after all, if the figure could actually be £20tn or maybe much more than thi, that situation might not be entirely beyond the bounds of possibility; after all, you'd hardly need sums well in excess of the combined GDP of US and Japan to buy some places!...

Well the key people were at McKinsey!

It appears that Hague could be the Chancellor soon so expect a 'solution' of everyone paying 'happily' at 18%. Is there anyone who will tell me what the odds are for placing my remaining money on the option 'The policy won't work'?

Personally I would say that I would send gunboats to the Cayman Islands unless there was root and branch change in 48 hours. Many will argue that the problem is widespread and money in any case would move elsewhere.

It is still very well worth doing - a moral signal to put the wind up dodgers and show that anywhere could be next.

[ahinton]

Well the key people were at McKinsey!

It appears that Hague could be the Chancellor soon so expect a 'solution' of everyone paying 'happily' at 18%. Is there anyone who will tell me what the odds are for placing my remaining money on the option 'The policy won't work'?

Personally I would say that I would send gunboats to the Cayman Islands unless there was root and branch change in 48 hours. Many will argue that the problem is widespread and money in any case would move elsewhere.

It is still very well worth doing - a moral signal to put the wind up dodgers and show that anywhere could be next.

What use would gunboats be when money can be moved electronically? - and why just the Cayman Islands? (and gunboats to Liechtenstein, anyone?!). How would you actually seize the assets? And how would you first get international agreement from every country in the world that's not a tax haven to implement concerted action on this? - and, even if that were possible, who'd decide which how to distribute the seized assets (assuming even that they could be seized) between which nations? - it's not a straightforward matter to determine which country is being denied how much in tax revenue as a consequence of advantage being taken of offshore tax avoidance measures.

One of the problems here is the gullible and witless assumption that money hoovered into nations' tax coffers will all be sensibly spent for the public good and that which is in offshore tax havens won't; that's surely far too simplistic a view.

[Lateralthinking1]

What use would gunboats be when money can be moved electronically? - and why just the Cayman Islands? (and gunboats to Liechtenstein, anyone?!). How would you actually seize the assets? And how would you first get international agreement from every country in the world that's not a tax haven to implement concerted action on this? - and, even if that were possible, who'd decide which how to distribute the seized assets (assuming even that they could be seized) between which nations? - it's not a straightforward matter to determine which country is being denied how much in tax revenue as a consequence of advantage being taken of offshore tax avoidance measures.

One of the problems here is the gullible and witless assumption that money hoovered into nations' tax coffers will all be sensibly spent for the public good and that which is in offshore tax havens won't; that's surely far too simplistic a view.

It would be a purely British action. It is one of our overseas territories after all so I doubt that it would need a UN mandate. I am speaking here not as a voter but as if I were the Foreign Secretary. If the Cayman Islands were so stupid as (a) not to throw out the postbox people and (b) change their laws in 48 hours, then I would bomb all the main buildings, thereby sending shock waves through the entire dodgy international system. Many islanders would probably welcome it as they themselves pay very high tax.

We would also have the tremendous television spectacle of Mitt Romney being asked where he had transferred his money electronically at the last minute. In that way, I would imagine the action would not only send out a signal that no tax haven was safe but have a direct impact on who will be the world's most powerful man between 2013 and 2016. That's political clout!

I have to inform you again that it isn't for individual British voters to determine what is in the public good when paying tax. If the overwhelming majority of people wanted their taxes to go on pouring concrete over every acre of green land, I would be appalled and thoroughly against it. But what I thought in that instance would be irrelevant just as your concern about where the current taxes go is irrelevant. That is what democracy means. The will of the majority should take precedence over all. Let's make a start!

[amateur51]

One of the problems here is the gullible and witless assumption that money hoovered into nations' tax coffers will all be sensibly spent for the public good and that which is in offshore tax havens won't; that's surely far too simplistic a view.

Hyperbole aside ( I would never describe Lat's contributions as 'gullible and witless') do you think that these are good reasons why these people's affairs should not be publicised and attempts should not be made to close down these tax evasion scams?

Or are you perhaps 'extremely relaxed' about some people being extremely, dangerously and destructively wealthy? :smiley:

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i have been reading the Sansom novels aboiut Shardlake the lawyer set in the 16th century and images of heads on pikestaffs abound .... if we set about the modern fincial system we could ring the M25 at fifty yard intervals ....

[ahinton]

It would be a purely British action. It is one of our overseas territories after all so I doubt that it would need a UN mandate. I am speaking here not as a voter but as if I were the Foreign Secretary. If the Cayman Islands were so stupid as (a) not to throw out the postbox people and (b) change their laws in 48 hours, then I would bomb all the main buildings, thereby sending shock waves through the entire dodgy international system. Many islanders would probably welcome it as they themselves pay very high tax.

But it would have to be done at the British taxpayers' expense; as sending gunboats to the Caymans (uesless an action though that would be) would be expensive as they're a long way away, wouldn't it be better to start with the Isle of Man (although its residents do not pay high taxes). As for your suggesed bombing raid, wouldn't that make it a hat-trick for Britain in illegal warmongering after its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? And do you think that no one would fight back?

We would also have the tremendous television spectacle of Mitt Romney being asked where he had transferred his money electronically at the last minute. In that way, I would imagine the action would not only send out a signal that no tax haven was safe but have a direct impact on who will be the world's most powerful man between 2013 and 2016. That's political clout!

But you've not answered the question as to how you'd seize the assets! BOmbing buildings won;t do that!

I have to inform you again that it isn't for individual British voters to determine what is in the public good when paying tax. If the overwhelming majority of people wanted their taxes to go on pouring concrete over every acre of green land, I would be appalled and thoroughly against it. But what I thought in that instance would be irrelevant just as your concern about where the current taxes go is irrelevant. That is what democracy means. The will of the majority should take precedence over all. Let's make a start!

But shouldn't it be for British voters to determine whether their money should be spent on war in the Cayman Islands? And, in any case, what makes you think that all funds held there instead of being paid in taxes are the rightful property of the British Treasury? Surely tax evaders and avoiders from many countries use the Caymans and other places to salt away their funds? With that in mind, mightn't unilateral British action cause more aggravation and upset more other countries that it could possibly be worth?

[Lateralthinking1]

ahinton - I am sure you can answer in your sleep the questions you have raised. Yes, it would be done at taxpayers' expense which in turn should lead to very significant gains for taxpayers. That would not be through seizing assets but by ending the Cayman Islands tax haven and providing a major disincentive to there being ongoing tax havens elsewhere.

I don't accept that it would be illegal. I don't expect anyone to fight back unless the tax elites have their own nuclear weapons. Come to think of it, when it comes to the potential for a dirty bomb in Piccadilly Circus, is there any reason at all given their wealth why the elites should not be regarded as the biggest terrorist threat? Let's find them in their bunkers worldwide.

I am not worried about upsetting countries. I am worried about upsetting the majority of people in countries. This would not upset but rather please the majority of people in the majority of countries. I agree that it would need a democratic mandate. I believe that it would get it. We should have a general election immediately so that the common citizen can decide.

I would certainly support strong action being taken against the Isle of Man in parallel and the same action being taken against Jersey should it become independent to maintain its old tricks. I as Foreign Secretary retain the right to define what wealth belongs to British nationals as opposed to other individuals where it is being kept in all Overseas British Territories.

And I am entirely serious. In 2012 to protect British interests from direct attack might well currently be seen as ludicrous or a dangerous fantasy. As you know, many argue for wars in the middle east which only impacts on us indirectly. That in itself shows the extent to which people have become warped. Such white flag attitudes can be cured overnight by offering other options.

[amateur51]

But it would have to be done at the British taxpayers' expense;

But the status quo is being maintained at the expense of the same people :smiley:

[Serial_Apologist]

One of the problems here is the gullible and witless assumption that money hoovered into nations' tax coffers will all be sensibly spent for the public good and that which is in offshore tax havens won't; that's surely far too simplistic a view.

First assertion about public spending obvously right. But what evidence do you have for your second?