Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Here's the "Tax Research" table. It seems extremely unlikely to me that there's £6.6 billion of estates tax out there being avoided.
Have a look at who funds Tax Research and for who they have undertaken work.........
Are you implying (without actually saying so) that Richard Murphy is bent?
Or is this just some Tory wheeze because he's had dealings with the Labour left?
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Here's the "Tax Research" table. It seems extremely unlikely to me that there's £6.6 billion of estates tax out there being avoided.
Have a look at who funds Tax Research and for who they have undertaken work.........
Aye. However I'm not too bothered that it's funded by the Unions. I am bothered that the underpayment of inheritance tax is said to be almost 3 times the amount of inheritance tax paid in 2011. That seems inherently unlikely. It seems to me that their working assumption must be along the lines that any gift from or spending by a parent is avoidance of tax and/or they're dragging in assumptions about property being held elsewhere
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Here's the "Tax Research" table. It seems extremely unlikely to me that there's £6.6 billion of estates tax out there being avoided.
Have a look at who funds Tax Research and for who they have undertaken work.........
Are you implying (without actually saying so) that Richard Murphy is bent?
Or is this just some Tory wheeze because he's had dealings with the Labour left?
Nope, just pointing out that there is potential for bias. Whenever I read anything I always take in to account who is funding it and who the author is. I don't know Richard Murphy, his work or background.
Last edited by Mellsblue on Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Here's the "Tax Research" table. It seems extremely unlikely to me that there's £6.6 billion of estates tax out there being avoided.
Have a look at who funds Tax Research and for who they have undertaken work.........
Aye. However I'm not too bothered that it's funded by the Unions. I am bothered that the underpayment of inheritance tax is said to be almost 3 times the amount of inheritance tax paid in 2011. That seems inherently unlikely. It seems to me that their working assumption must be along the lines that any gift from or spending by a parent is avoidance of tax and/or they're dragging in assumptions about property being held elsewhere
Yep, it seems that planning to minimise tax within the law has been deemed illegal by some.
Mellsblue wrote:
Have a look at who funds Tax Research and for who they have undertaken work.........
Aye. However I'm not too bothered that it's funded by the Unions. I am bothered that the underpayment of inheritance tax is said to be almost 3 times the amount of inheritance tax paid in 2011. That seems inherently unlikely. It seems to me that their working assumption must be along the lines that any gift from or spending by a parent is avoidance of tax and/or they're dragging in assumptions about property being held elsewhere
Yep, it seems that planning to minimise tax within the law has been deemed illegal by some.
Only if you have completely missed the point. I thinks its been quite clear that what this discussion following the Panama Papers leak is about is whether what the law currently deems legal is morally correct, and hence whether said laws need to be tightened.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Aye. However I'm not too bothered that it's funded by the Unions. I am bothered that the underpayment of inheritance tax is said to be almost 3 times the amount of inheritance tax paid in 2011. That seems inherently unlikely. It seems to me that their working assumption must be along the lines that any gift from or spending by a parent is avoidance of tax and/or they're dragging in assumptions about property being held elsewhere
Yep, it seems that planning to minimise tax within the law has been deemed illegal by some.
Only if you have completely missed the point. I thinks its been quite clear that what this discussion following the Panama Papers leak is about is whether what the law currently deems legal is morally correct, and hence whether said laws need to be tightened.
Excuse my hyperbole, I wasn't being literal. All I meant was that people are being vilified because they legally minimised their tax.
Mellsblue wrote:
Yep, it seems that planning to minimise tax within the law has been deemed illegal by some.
Only if you have completely missed the point. I thinks its been quite clear that what this discussion following the Panama Papers leak is about is whether what the law currently deems legal is morally correct, and hence whether said laws need to be tightened.
Excuse my hyperbole, I wasn't being literal. All I meant was that people are being vilified because they legally minimised their tax.
Yes, although in fairness the main people being vilified (Cameron) for legally minimising their taxes are wealthy politicians who also have control over the laws on what is legal and illegal. You can see the conflict of interest here?
jared_7 wrote:
Only if you have completely missed the point. I thinks its been quite clear that what this discussion following the Panama Papers leak is about is whether what the law currently deems legal is morally correct, and hence whether said laws need to be tightened.
Excuse my hyperbole, I wasn't being literal. All I meant was that people are being vilified because they legally minimised their tax.
Yes, although in fairness the main people being vilified (Cameron) for legally minimising their taxes are wealthy politicians who also have control over the laws on what is legal and illegal. You can see the conflict of interest here?
There will always be conflicts on interest whoever are our politicians.
As for Cameron, he sold his 'Panama' interest prior to becoming PM....
I'm looking at doing a year of working remotely, living in France, paid in Canada.
One of the things I'm trying to get my head around is how this would all work from a tax perspective. From what I can make out so far, the rules are a complete cluster fck, at best overlapping, at worst, outright contradictory to one another. No wonder there are loop holes.
Mellsblue wrote:
Excuse my hyperbole, I wasn't being literal. All I meant was that people are being vilified because they legally minimised their tax.
Yes, although in fairness the main people being vilified (Cameron) for legally minimising their taxes are wealthy politicians who also have control over the laws on what is legal and illegal. You can see the conflict of interest here?
There will always be conflicts on interest whoever are our politicians.
As for Cameron, he sold his 'Panama' interest prior to becoming PM....
It isn't a conflict of interest. It's worse.
These are the very people that are pushing austerity (decreased social spending) on the general public with the (manufactured) line that the government's fiscal balance is of vital importance. But their tax minimisation schemes directly contribute to said fiscal balance.
And more than that again, these are the same people who maintain the whole tax haven structure, write the law making the practices possible and oversee the havens themselves.
Most of these places are under direct British rule. Panama is a tiny speck compared to the British administered tax havens. And it's in the $US zone.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Seems to be dying a death. European debate dominates and all gets forgotten. Once again, Dave and chums left laughing. Nothing ever happens. Nothing really changes.
jared_7 wrote:
Yes, although in fairness the main people being vilified (Cameron) for legally minimising their taxes are wealthy politicians who also have control over the laws on what is legal and illegal. You can see the conflict of interest here?
There will always be conflicts on interest whoever are our politicians.
As for Cameron, he sold his 'Panama' interest prior to becoming PM....
It isn't a conflict of interest. It's worse.
These are the very people that are pushing austerity (decreased social spending) on the general public with the (manufactured) line that the government's fiscal balance is of vital importance. But their tax minimisation schemes directly contribute to said fiscal balance.
And more than that again, these are the same people who maintain the whole tax haven structure, write the law making the practices possible and oversee the havens themselves.
Most of these places are under direct British rule. Panama is a tiny speck compared to the British administered tax havens. And it's in the $US zone.
I know what austerity is. I don't think the reasons for austerity are manufactured. Tax minimisation is a central plank of Conservative policy - people know how to spend their money better than government. You must agree that taking spending power away from corrupt MPs is a good thing. It would be difficult for a Conservative government not to minimise tax and that's before evidence that lowering taxes such as cooperation tax actually increase tax take, either directly or indirectly, and some taxes, a prime example being stamp duty, have actually risen.
Cameron is holding a summit in the near future to look at tackling tax havens. A summit that was organised far in advance of the Panama leak. I doubt he's going at it as vociferously as you'd like but that's like me hoping for a Labour government not to be so friendly towards the Unions.
Mellsblue wrote:
There will always be conflicts on interest whoever are our politicians.
As for Cameron, he sold his 'Panama' interest prior to becoming PM....
It isn't a conflict of interest. It's worse.
These are the very people that are pushing austerity (decreased social spending) on the general public with the (manufactured) line that the government's fiscal balance is of vital importance. But their tax minimisation schemes directly contribute to said fiscal balance.
And more than that again, these are the same people who maintain the whole tax haven structure, write the law making the practices possible and oversee the havens themselves.
Most of these places are under direct British rule. Panama is a tiny speck compared to the British administered tax havens. And it's in the $US zone.
I know what austerity is. I don't think the reasons for austerity are manufactured. Tax minimisation is a central plank of Conservative policy - people know how to spend their money better than government. You must agree that taking spending power away from corrupt MPs is a good thing. It would be difficult for a Conservative government not to minimise tax and that's before evidence that lowering taxes such as cooperation tax actually increase tax take, either directly or indirectly, and some taxes, a prime example being stamp duty, have actually risen.
Cameron is holding a summit in the near future to look at tackling tax havens. A summit that was organised far in advance of the Panama leak. I doubt he's going at it as vociferously as you'd like but that's like me hoping for a Labour government not to be so friendly towards the Unions.
Of course it's manufactured. It's a hoax that defies macroeconomic mathematics.
Why must I? In a sovereign democracy we (notionally) elect people to do exactly that. The government's main power is held in its ability to create credit for public purpose.
The Laffer Curve is a lie. Don't give me that nonsense. I don't particularly care about the 'tax take' anyway. Taxes don't pay for anything.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Decreased social spending is an entirely manufactured concept that is presented as justification for public wealth being given into private hands. "We (you) need to tighten our belts so the government will save money by giving education/health/water/land to these nice for profit entities run by people who I went to school with".
Austerity is the biggest pile of BS since "trickle down".
UGagain wrote:
It isn't a conflict of interest. It's worse.
These are the very people that are pushing austerity (decreased social spending) on the general public with the (manufactured) line that the government's fiscal balance is of vital importance. But their tax minimisation schemes directly contribute to said fiscal balance.
And more than that again, these are the same people who maintain the whole tax haven structure, write the law making the practices possible and oversee the havens themselves.
Most of these places are under direct British rule. Panama is a tiny speck compared to the British administered tax havens. And it's in the $US zone.
I know what austerity is. I don't think the reasons for austerity are manufactured. Tax minimisation is a central plank of Conservative policy - people know how to spend their money better than government. You must agree that taking spending power away from corrupt MPs is a good thing. It would be difficult for a Conservative government not to minimise tax and that's before evidence that lowering taxes such as cooperation tax actually increase tax take, either directly or indirectly, and some taxes, a prime example being stamp duty, have actually risen.
Cameron is holding a summit in the near future to look at tackling tax havens. A summit that was organised far in advance of the Panama leak. I doubt he's going at it as vociferously as you'd like but that's like me hoping for a Labour government not to be so friendly towards the Unions.
Of course it's manufactured. It's a hoax that defies macroeconomic mathematics.
Why must I? In a sovereign democracy we (notionally) elect people to do exactly that. The government's main power is held in its ability to create credit for public purpose.
The Laffer Curve is a lie. Don't give me that nonsense. I don't particularly care about the 'tax take' anyway. Taxes don't pay for anything.
We'll obviously have to agree to disagree on the first point.
From what I've read from you and all those against the 'elite' you think MPs corrupt. I just assumed you'd want power taken away from them.
If taxes don't pay for anything why worry/complain when they're reduced.
Mellsblue wrote:
I know what austerity is. I don't think the reasons for austerity are manufactured. Tax minimisation is a central plank of Conservative policy - people know how to spend their money better than government. You must agree that taking spending power away from corrupt MPs is a good thing. It would be difficult for a Conservative government not to minimise tax and that's before evidence that lowering taxes such as cooperation tax actually increase tax take, either directly or indirectly, and some taxes, a prime example being stamp duty, have actually risen.
Cameron is holding a summit in the near future to look at tackling tax havens. A summit that was organised far in advance of the Panama leak. I doubt he's going at it as vociferously as you'd like but that's like me hoping for a Labour government not to be so friendly towards the Unions.
Of course it's manufactured. It's a hoax that defies macroeconomic mathematics.
Why must I? In a sovereign democracy we (notionally) elect people to do exactly that. The government's main power is held in its ability to create credit for public purpose.
The Laffer Curve is a lie. Don't give me that nonsense. I don't particularly care about the 'tax take' anyway. Taxes don't pay for anything.
We'll obviously have to agree to disagree on the first point.
From what I've read from you and all those against the 'elite' you think MPs corrupt. I just assumed you'd want power taken away from them.
If taxes don't pay for anything why worry/complain when they're reduced.
Because the purpose of taxation is to control inflation as well as influence where money, and therefore power, resides within the private economy.
The government doesn't need money from taxes, in fact taxation simply destroys it - but "redistribution" to create a fair and equal society is part of their mandate and the very wealthy avoiding that action unduly grows their relative influence in society.
Well you can disagree with mathematics all you want but I won't agree. Austerity is class warfare, not economics.
I want more democracy. Not less.
Jared has covered the third point admirably.
The government needs to remove its money from the private sector. The accumulators and hoarders should bare the major burden if for no other reason than to stop them wielding undue influence.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
