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

[ahinton]

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.

But how would it do that? Britain doesn't in any case have the kind of jurisdication over the islands that would enable such a change of status to arise as a consequence of its desire to bring it about, as I assume you al;ready apprecaite by reason of your wormongering talk. What you've yet toi do, however, is explain how any unilaterla British action of any kind could in any case bring about the end of the tax haven status for those islands.

I don't accept that it would be illegal.

OK, you might be able to distinguish such action from that in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of legal acceptability, but I doubt that the majority of people would.

I don't expect anyone to fight back unless the tax elites have their own nuclear weapons.

I wasn't referring to this kind of fighting back. You'd not need nuclear weapons to defeat gunboats anyway, but that's hardly the point; any such combative action against the islands would simply ensure that the wealthy with assets held there would move them electronically or make sure that such action would not result in any change in terms of seizing their assets or altering the legal status of the islands.

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.

Possibly, but that's something that would ned to be thought about first before action be taken; who's to say what recourse wealthy people under such potential attack might have to armed forces and weaponry?

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.

You might not worry about that, but many would. Do please remember that the untaxed assets held there are not all British and due to the British Treasury. Britain moving in on its own to try to cause havoc would raise the question of other nations' interests, with whatever consequences might arise. Do you seriously advocate the calling of a UK General Election on this specific mandate? It would be laughable even if it were possible - but, more importantly, which party would do it when it's perfectly possible that it would be aiming to act against the interests of some of its supporters by trying this on?

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.

Mon Dieu! Heil Latler! But again you are at least referring only to wealth held by British nationals as distinct from others, although how you think that the action that you contemplate would somehow be capable of distinguishing between that wealth and anyone else's that's there in a tax shelter I have no idea. Even if that could happen, there'd be a rush for people to change their nationality.

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.

If you want to consider starting WWIII, you go ahead; all that I can hope is that you don't end up as Foreign Secretary! If you did, I'd want to leave the country, even though I have no assets sheltered from any country's tax anywhere.

[ahinton]

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

The point is that I have evidence for neither but that there's no evidence against either either; there ain't no guarantees here in either direction for anyone with anything. Would I want to pay taxes in a country so that it could use some of them to fiund the invasion of a tax haven and to try to wreak havoc there? No, most emphatically I wouldn't!

[ahinton]

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

Not entirely; as I've pointed out on several occasions, tax sheltered wealth held in the Caymans is not all wealth that should be taxed by Britain - and Lat is referring to unilateral action by the British (and, of course, the Caymans are not the only tax haven and tax havens are not all islands in any case).

You can just hear it in respect of closer shores, though, can't you? - the voice of our Dave, uttering - in tones as portentous as he can manage (after a little RSC training) - "I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and consequently this country is at war with the Isle of Man"...

No, seriously - the only way to persuade a nation to end its tax haven status would have to be a peaceful one and I do not for one moment believe that any country that acts as a tax haven for the wealth of citizens and corporations from many others (as distinct from just one other) is likely to decide to do this of its own volition otherwise it would probably have done so already - and no one appears yet to be suggesting that the additional carefully limited co-operation offered recently by Switzerland and Liechtenstein, for example, has had much effect on their respective status as tax havens.

What might also happen is that, in the unlikely event that tax havens did indeed begin to disappear, those with taxable wealth that's not being taxed will
(a) hide it - and I mean really hide it - anywhere (even in the countries where tax might be due on it)
(b) spend some of it in defending its tax sheltered status
(c) change citizenship in order to be taxed openly elsewhere but at much lower rates or
(d) simply act disobediently by refusing to stump up the tax due.
This last isn't necessarily quite as difficult as it might seem to sound if one has sufficient funds to protect and sufficient determination to exercise a policy of "stop, thief" on them.

Do I advocate tax evasion? No. Do I think that it can be stamped out completely and permanently? Again, no.

That said, £13+tn is one heck of a lot of money by anyone's standards; what trust can anyone have in any nation's taxation system and régime if it is shown to allow or be incapable of preventing amounts of that magnitude escaping from its coffers?

Furthermore, the suggestion is being made that a mere £180bn or so is being lost in taxes as a consequence; now that's a large sum, too, but it's less than 1.4% of the alleged tax sheltered sum. Oh, to be taxed at a mere 1.4%!...

Another aspect of this issue is that there appears to be little evidence or even allegations about how much of this vast sum of money has escaped the tax net through tax avoidance schemes and how much is the consequence of illegal tax evasion; any solution to this state of affairs (is there is one or could be one) would need to take this aspect of the matter on board first. Why? Because evasion is illegal anywhere and the full force of the law should be brought to bear on it as effectively as possible but, as avoidance schemes are by definition legal, they have to be identified and fully understood with a view to closing the tax loopholes that they offer by effecting changes to tax law in each country concerned - i.e., they need to be made illegal so that taking advantage of them becomes tax evasion. The principal problems with closing tax loopholes by changing the law are that (a) the moment one such loophole is closed, another series is opened and (b) the cost of implementation of every such change in tax law has always to be met by the already long-suffering taxpayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18949788 mentions new British proposals to clamp down on the use of "aggressive avoidance schemes"; the two questions that this immediately raises are (a) what is the precise definition of "aggressive" in this context? (i.e. what's to be deemed to fall on the wrong and what on the right side of whose dividing line?) and (b) if only 14% of lost UK tax revenue is supposed to be down to the use of such schemes, what on earth is behind the loss of the other 86%? Is the government really trying to persuade us that as much as 86% of revenue lost to the Treasury is down to tax evasion?

Whilst this, if true, is obviously a matter of considerable gravity (and indeed one of even greater seriousness when one realises that the sum involved will indeed be very much higher if all of the tax evaded and avoided by people and firms other than "the world's super-rich" is taken into consideration and added to whatever figure is alleged for the tax avoided and/or avaded by the world's wealthiest), effective and sustainable solutions are neither easy to devise and implement and (b) will have to be put into practice by every country in the world that has culprits, however few - and that alone will require the full co-operation and concerted action of almost every country involved rather than mere messy meddlings by individual nations seeking to follow their own interests.

If this really does get to the stage of the kind of international "war of financial terror" that would arguably be the only way of trying to address this problem, my greatest fear would be that a particular country might seize on it as a golden opportunity to feather its own nest by assuming tax haven status - Russia or Iran, anyone? - on the basis that other nations will hopefully shrink from declaring war on them, especially if by so doing they can encourage at least some of those wealthy zillionaire tax dodgers to put some of the ill-retained gains into the armaments necessary to fight one. No - I doubt that anyone other than people prepared for WWIII to erupt as a consequence of going in with all guns (or gunboats) blazing) will sanction attempts to overcome this problem by means of military interventions, so it would hardly be a vote-winner.

Great care, skill and imagination, pragmatism and international willingness to agree on all manner of co-operation will need to be the over-riding considerations if any serious and potentially successsful attempts are to be made to address this issue; noisy sabre-rattling, on the other hand, could ultimately prove disastrous.

It's also worth bearing in mind that undue publicity given to massive sums being invested (at their expense) into dealing with this might well encourage taxpayers investing it to examine their own tax and benefits affairs more closely and wth the help of advisers where possible (and I'm talking small IFAs or even Citizens' Advice here, not fancy expensive tax laywers); let's not forget the other (albeit equally unproveable) allegations that, were all taxpayers to claim all the tax allowances and rebates to which they're legitimately entitled and all benefit claimants to claim the full amount of state benefits to which they're legitimately entitled, Treasury and DWP would be in a considerably more parlous state than they are now.

[amateur51]

The Treasury will announce today a crackdown on tax avoidance schemes by HMRC in the wake of the row over the tax affairs of the comedian Jimmy Carr.

Promoters of aggressive tax avoidance schemes may be forced to disclose client lists to inspectors, according to David Gauke, the minister with responsibility for tax matters.

It follows revelations about the financial loopholes used by the rich and famous to legally sidestep large tax bills. In one scheme, Carr was paying 1% tax on his income.

The plan, which is going out to consultation, has been greeted with scepticism by Labour. One shadow minister said the Tories were so closely associated with tax avoiders they would not have the political will necessary to change the tax system.

Gauke will tell the Policy Exchange thinktank that scheme operators will be "named and shamed" for sharp practice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/23/tax-avoiders-may-be-named-and-shamed

Well, well. well :ok:

[ahinton]

The Treasury will announce today a crackdown on tax avoidance schemes by HMRC in the wake of the row over the tax affairs of the comedian Jimmy Carr.

Promoters of aggressive tax avoidance schemes may be forced to disclose client lists to inspectors, according to David Gauke, the minister with responsibility for tax matters.

It follows revelations about the financial loopholes used by the rich and famous to legally sidestep large tax bills. In one scheme, Carr was paying 1% tax on his income.

The plan, which is going out to consultation, has been greeted with scepticism by Labour. One shadow minister said the Tories were so closely associated with tax avoiders they would not have the political will necessary to change the tax system.

Gauke will tell the Policy Exchange thinktank that scheme operators will be "named and shamed" for sharp practice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/23/tax-avoiders-may-be-named-and-shamed

Well, well. well :ok:

All interesting stuff but one point is being systematically sidelined here. The preservation of the dividing line bewtween tax avoidance (however "aggressive" certain avoidance schemes may appear to be or be deemed to be) and tax evasions must be preserved at all costs - and that includes shying away from applying new legislation retrospectively. If a particular avoidance scheme is legal and the government pushes through legislative changes that make it illegal, no one should be punished for flouting the law until after it has changed; failure to ensure this will be unjust and any efforts to try to punish or even "name and shame" tax avoiding clients and/or their advisers for actions that they may have taken before the change in the law shold be exposed for what they are - abuse of due legal process.

Of course, it's only the "rich and famous" that we're going to hear about as the intended targets of this kind of new legislation because that's what makes news; it should not, however, be forgotten that tax avoidance and tax evasion is by no means the exclusive province of wealthy people and companies with high profiles, for all that the media won't be interested in reporting schemes and other facilities that enable savings of a few hundreds here and a few thousands there.

[amateur51]

All interesting stuff but one point is being systematically sidelined here. The preservation of the dividing line bewtween tax avoidance (however "aggressive" certain avoidance schemes may appear to be or be deemed to be) and tax evasions must be preserved at all costs - and that includes shying away from applying new legislation retrospectively. If a particular avoidance scheme is legal and the government pushes through legislative changes that make it illegal, no one should be punished for flouting the law until after it has changed; failure to ensure this will be unjust and any efforts to try to punish or even "name and shame" tax avoiding clients and/or their advisers for actions that they may have taken before the change in the law shold be exposed for what they are - abuse of due legal process.

I park my car in a street quite legally. The Council announces it is going to undertake tree pruning in a week's time and serves notice that all cars should be removed from this area so that the pruning may take place, otherwise cars will be removed.

This happens round here quite a lot and cars have been removed.

So just serve notice that from such-and-such a date certain described forms of tax avoidance will no longer be legal.

End of. :smiley:

Surely :erm:

[Serial_Apologist]

I park my car in a street quite legally. The Council announces it is going to undertake tree pruning in a week's time and serves notice that all cars should be removed from this area so that the pruning may take place, otherwise cars will be removed.

This happens round here quite a lot and cars have been removed.

So just serve notice that from such-and-such a date certain described forms of tax avoidance will no longer be legal.

End of. :smiley:

Surely :erm:

Unfortunately that would leave beneficiaries untouched, and their gains locked away, coughing up the divis untaxed to the end of time. :sadface:

[ahinton]

I park my car in a street quite legally. The Council announces it is going to undertake tree pruning in a week's time and serves notice that all cars should be removed from this area so that the pruning may take place, otherwise cars will be removed.

This happens round here quite a lot and cars have been removed.

So just serve notice that from such-and-such a date certain described forms of tax avoidance will no longer be legal.

End of. :smiley:

Surely :erm:

Indeed so - that's absolutely correct and fair (except, of course, in cases where appeals againsts legislative changes are lodged, in which cse this situation would apply after they've been dismissed, if inded they are). But this is not what always happens, especially when the politicians creating the new legislative amendments want to make an effort to be seen as occupying the high moral ground, having put them in place.

[ahinton]

Unfortunately that would leave beneficiaries untouched, and their gains locked away, coughing up the divis untaxed to the end of time. :sadface:

How? It would surely close each tax loophole with effect from a declared date beyond which an avoidance measure becomes evasive (i.e. illegal) action, as am51 says. OK, as one loophole closes, another set opens, because no one who creates them ever gets complacent and lazy - there's always some people thinking up new ones which will be lawful until Parliament gets around to deciding otherwise following due process, which always takes time, of course.

[Serial_Apologist]

How? It would surely close each tax loophole with effect from a declared date beyond which an avoidance measure becomes evasive (i.e. illegal) action, as am51 says. OK, as one loophole closes, another set opens, because no one who creates them ever gets complacent and lazy - there's always some people thinking up new ones which will be lawful until Parliament gets around to deciding otherwise following due process, which always takes time, of course.

I understand now. Thanks for explaining, ahinton

[Lateralthinking1]

The TV's been on for a change. I could lighten up by describing the rather good bits of Coast and Countrywise I saw this evening. Or I could admit to finding some enjoyment from a few minutes spent with the Olympics, particularly a remarkable brief interview with a young swimmer who was so overjoyed about getting gold that she was completely lost for words. I could even mention the moments when my mind wandered and I started to look out of the window. There a sky so Turner like in its colour, I had to fetch my camera and take photos of it from my front garden. Photos never do the real thing justice. It's still worth making an effort.

But I won't lighten up.

Instead I just want to say that if anyone hasn't seen the programmes on BBC2 and C4 this evening about assessments of people for disability benefits, they should try to do so. They were so disturbing that the images will burn into my mind for many hours and are likely to displace everything else. I feel that the people in Government who are responsible for this policy are pure evil. Surely it is time that organisations representing the most severely disadvantaged go to the courts with reference to laws on harassment, intimidation, discrimination, negligence, assault and/or manslaughter. Whatever it takes for simple nasty name calling it is not.

Any decent society would not be treating severely ill and disabled people as if they were machines, dragging them back for amateur assessments on whether they can use one finger and hence work while they are undergoing cancer treatment and waiting for heart operations. And they should not be pretending that there are work opportunities for such people when many of the able bodied with PhDs are unable to find employment. Morally, where limbs are lost, sticks are being used, sight and hearing are very seriously impaired and people can't breathe, there should be no room at all for making ludicrous distinctions. Cutbacks in this area should have been a matter of last resort and it is nothing less than outrageous that these people have been cruelly picked on first.

[Serial_Apologist]

The TV's been on for a change. I could lighten up by describing the rather good bits of Coast and Countrywise I saw this evening. Or I could admit to finding some enjoyment from a few minutes spent with the Olympics, particularly a remarkable brief interview with a young swimmer who was so overjoyed about getting gold that she was completely lost for words. I could even mention the moments when my mind wandered and I started to look out of the window. There a sky so Turner like in its colour, I had to fetch my camera and take photos of it from my front garden. Photos never do the real thing justice. It's still worth making an effort.

But I won't lighten up.

Instead I just want to say that if anyone hasn't seen the programmes on BBC2 and C4 this evening about assessments of people for disability benefits, they should try to do so. They were so disturbing that the images will burn into my mind for many hours and are likely to displace everything else. I feel that the people in Government who are responsible for this policy are pure evil. Surely it is time that organisations representing the most severely disadvantaged go to the courts with reference to laws on harassment, intimidation, discrimination, negligence, assault and/or manslaughter. Whatever it takes for simple nasty name calling it is not.

Any decent society would not be treating severely ill and disabled people as if they were machines, dragging them back for amateur assessments on whether they can use one finger and hence work while they are undergoing cancer treatment and waiting for heart operations. And they should not be pretending that there are work opportunities for such people when many of the able bodied with PhDs are unable to find employment. Morally, where limbs are lost, sticks are being used, sight and hearing are very seriously impaired and people can't breathe, there should be no room at all for making ludicrous distinctions. Cutbacks in this area should have been a matter of last resort and it is nothing less than outrageous that these people have been cruelly picked on first.

Caught 'em both Lat. Panorama did a better job of the issue I think, though coming from a different pov from Ch4 - that of the abused claimants. Absolutely appalling, I completely agree. The Tory minister either in denial or saying those repeatedly reassessed (though it was obvious their conditions would at best never impove) had to be reassessed seemed more suited to the Kommandant's job in a Nazi POW camp.

(One man had died after the same woman assessing him and strongly advising him to see his doctor urgently, signed him off as suitable for work. Although extreme, this was not atypical of the cases we were presented).

[Lateralthinking1]

Caught 'em both Lat. Panorama did a better job of the issue I think, though coming from a different pov from Ch4 - that of the abused claimants. Absolutely appalling, I completely agree. The Tory minister either in denial or saying those repeatedly reassessed (though it was obvious their conditions would at best never impove) had to be reassessed seemed more suited to the Kommandant's job in a Nazi POW camp.

I totally agree Serial_Apologist and I blame DWP far more than I blame ATOS. Where is Chris Grayling's mind? People who need assistance with going to the toilet as well as walking are now fit for work. Those who have lost "just" one eye and one arm and one leg are now fit for work. Those who are "only" having orally administered treatment for cancer are now fit for work. Those with emphysema whose spouses have been told they have two days to live are now fit for work. Those who are declared by GPs to be about to drop down dead from a heart attack, and then immediately drop down dead from a heart attack, are now fit for work.

Every one of those people had been active and had worked for years. Every one had made financial contributions for their future welfare. Many had been assessed as being fit for work, had fought that and won in the courts, were again assessed as being fit for work, had fought that too and won in the courts, were called for an assessment again, and even then declared fit for work. What the hell is this place now? Where is the decency and the compassion? The emotional strain on all the individuals and their families must be enormous and in many cases it is a killer. I wonder if every member of the Cabinet and the senior civil service had a leg cut off how quickly each of those would adjust physically and emotionally? How soon could they return to a guaranteed day job? And what would they be like if they also had to fight to find work while being forced to contemplate as an alternative starvation?

I hope for your sake you get to see something pleasant tonight. A significant diet of these programmes, crucial as they are, is enough to send the entire population completely berserk. In that light, no wonder so many people escape into the Olympics.

[amateur51]

A think-piece by George Monbiot headed:

"Our economic ruin means freedom for the super-rich. Cameron and Osborne's neoliberal agenda promised prosperity for all, but created a totalitarian capitalism that feeds on crisis"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/30/economic-ruin-super-rich-totalitarian-capitalism

Do you think he reads this thread? :erm::whistle:

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

actually the one thing we are truly in together is the climate and environment innit .... and it is about as friendly as our society and economy .... same old CORPOCATS run everything eh ...