Charl91 Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I hate these bloody threads on Foxes Talk. Even before I open it (I have no idea why I do, maybe I'm a little sadistic), I can guarantee that it's going to be a huge love in for benefits scroungers from the lefties, while the righties try and give handjobs to the cheating bankers/businesses. I swear you're all as bad as politicians, just towing the bloody party line all the time. Why can't we just accept that actually, benefit scroungers and bankers are both disgraceful, rather than arguing about which one's worse. Maybe if we did that the country would actually do something about either of them.
Rincewind Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I have never suggested that benefits should be allowed to get away with it.I just think the number doing it have been over hyped. The ones that should be punished are too clever to be caught as are the ones at the top dodging tax. It is the bloke who makes an error on his tax return and sent an over payment bill of £2000 that suffers. They will be sent repeat demands and made to feel like a criminal. The bloke at the top apologises and pays a fraction of what they owe back. So I agree with the above post of Chars.and Oz it will never happen. They will cover their backs by having friends and contacts from all parties. You have to be naive to think they would not.
bovril Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I hate these bloody threads on Foxes Talk. Even before I open it (I have no idea why I do, maybe I'm a little sadistic), I can guarantee that it's going to be a huge love in for benefits scroungers from the lefties, while the righties try and give handjobs to the cheating bankers/businesses. I swear you're all as bad as politicians, just towing the bloody party line all the time. Why can't we just accept that actually, benefit scroungers and bankers are both disgraceful, rather than arguing about which one's worse. Maybe if we did that the country would actually do something about either of them. I think people are just slightly tired of being told to be good little economic units by hypocrites.
MooseBreath Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I hate these bloody threads on Foxes Talk. Even before I open it (I have no idea why I do, maybe I'm a little sadistic), I can guarantee that it's going to be a huge love in for benefits scroungers from the lefties, while the righties try and give handjobs to the cheating bankers/businesses. I swear you're all as bad as politicians, just towing the bloody party line all the time. Why can't we just accept that actually, benefit scroungers and bankers are both disgraceful, rather than arguing about which one's worse. Maybe if we did that the country would actually do something about either of them. It's not really like that at all. The lefties claim to support the benefit scroungers because they think it makes them look kind, progressive and cool. It doesn't it makes them look like idiots who haven't got the life experience to recognise that lots of them are taking the piss. The right wingers appreciate that banks are pretty useful establishments and are a major part of the economic growth and prosperity of the country.
leicsmac Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 It's not really like that at all. The lefties claim to support the benefit scroungers because they think it makes them look kind, progressive and cool. It doesn't it makes them look like idiots who haven't got the life experience to recognise that lots of them are taking the piss. The right wingers appreciate that banks are pretty useful establishments and are a major part of the economic growth and prosperity of the country. Until they make horrific errors and have to be propped up with taxpayer money. Again. Well, the taxpayer money they haven't helped their rich clients "avoid", anyway. (That being said, a banking system is of course necessary). As an addenum, black and white morality on this is a pretty gross generalisation, don't you think?
Rincewind Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 What Moose seems to be saying that people at the lower end of society are just scum and do not deserve any consideration or sympathy yet those at the top are well bred and it is acceptable to let them get away with fiddling their taxes and pissing on the poor. Sort of how it was when there used to be aristocracy and servants a couple of centuries ago. Sounds like cuckoo land to me but who am I to argue. I am just a pleb. A nobody.
MooseBreath Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Until they make horrific errors and have to be propped up with taxpayer money. Again. Well, the taxpayer money they haven't helped their rich clients "avoid", anyway. (That being said, a banking system is of course necessary). As an addenum, black and white morality on this is a pretty gross generalisation, don't you think? Somebody needs to measure the banks contribution to the economy over the last 20 years against what they cost in 'bailouts'. I reckon the ratio would be hundreds of thousands to one at least, possibly even billions to one.
MooseBreath Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 What Moose seems to be saying that people at the lower end of society are just scum and do not deserve any consideration or sympathy yet those at the top are well bred and it is acceptable to let them get away with fiddling their taxes and pissing on the poor. Sort of how it was when there used to be aristocracy and servants a couple of centuries ago. Sounds like cuckoo land to me but who am I to argue. I am just a pleb. A nobody. wow. Talk about putting words into somebodies mouth. You've just invented all of that to give yourself an excuse to feel sorry for yourself. Typical labour voter.
Guest MattP Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Aren't the banks that were taken back into public ownership predicted to actually make a profit for the taxpayer anyway when we sell? What Moose seems to be saying that people at the lower end of society are just scum and do not deserve any consideration or sympathy yet those at the top are well bred and it is acceptable to let them get away with fiddling their taxes and pissing on the poor. Sort of how it was when there used to be aristocracy and servants a couple of centuries ago. Sounds like cuckoo land to me but who am I to argue. I am just a pleb. A nobody. This is just pathetic Ken, he hasn't said that at all.
leicsmac Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Somebody needs to measure the banks contribution to the economy over the last 20 years against what they cost in 'bailouts'. I reckon the ratio would be hundreds of thousands to one at least, possibly even billions to one. Factor in the amount they've managed to bilk for their more wealthy clients using creative accounting and it might make for an interesting comparison. As I said above, banks are an integral and necessary part of a modern economic system, and having them separate from the hands of government is a damn good thing too. But when they do bad stuff, regulation should be in place to make sure there is punishment for it. The right wing is in favour of punishment for criminal activity, right? The issue isn't black and white.
Strokes Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 My opinion is that, what I earn is mine. The less I can give away in tax to pay for shit, the better. I have no faith in what it is spent on and given alternatives would seek to avoid anything state funded. I expect the same from others and disagree that we should allow parasites in society. I get the argument about wealth distribution but I don't agree with its principles.
MooseBreath Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Factor in the amount they've managed to bilk for their more wealthy clients using creative accounting and it might make for an interesting comparison. As I said above, banks are an integral and necessary part of a modern economic system, and having them separate from the hands of government is a damn good thing too. But when they do bad stuff, regulation should be in place to make sure there is punishment for it. The right wing is in favour of punishment for criminal activity, right? The issue isn't black and white. If a crime has been committed then there should be a punishment. Banks advising clients on how to avoid tax isn't a crime though. They do it in very mainstream ways like ISAs and pensions as well so tax avoidance isn't the exclusive domain of the evil rich.
Guest MattP Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 When you think about it the government encourages it's citizens to avoid tax. We get tax breaks for paying our wages into a pension scheme. People are making more out of this than it is, Miliband is getting desperate.
Strokes Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Its irrational, who wants to pay tax? If it can be avoided legally, then where's the issue? These are huge sums, and that is getting in people heads. This money will be taxed eventually, the companies will employ more, expand faster, its no different to kickbacks and government incentives really.
ADK Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 If it's legal then it's legal. If it's illegal then they should be prosecuted. If the government is allowing individuals or businesses to pay very little tax then that should be criticised as policy, not those businesses or individuals smeared by the press for not volunteering to pay more tax.
Ross-Kemp Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Anyone who has an ISA is willingly avoiding tax. It's exactly the same, we're just talking about bigger sums of money. People jealous of the rich, sounds like it to me.
Monk Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Anyone who has an ISA is willingly avoiding tax. It's exactly the same, we're just talking about bigger sums of money. People jealous of the rich, sounds like it to me. True story. And pensions, dividends, any kind of inheritance planning The journos and politicians love a good rant about tax avoidance. Nice to victimise people for following the law. Lord Fink actually LIVED in Switzerland for Christ sake. What do you want him to do? Crack down on corporate geographical tax avoidance first, it will easily have the biggest upside and is easily the least moral. Then maybe they can tackle tax evasion in the buy to let market where people don't declare their capital gains...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 16 February 2015 Author Posted 16 February 2015 ISAs and pensions are legitimate vehicles designed to encourage people to save, with tax free growth and tax relief (on pensions anyway) as an incentive. Enterprise Investment Schemes and Venture Capital Trusts have fantastic perks, but again with good reason - the intention is to encourage investment in potentially risky start up businesses. Trust laws allow some scope for mitigating inheritance tax, which is more dubious politically as I'm sure the exchequer would love to bring in as much as it can, and I'm not sure what the economic benefits of passing wealth down through the generations are to society. With all these things the rules are perhaps complicated to the layman but it's all out in the open and if in doubt you can ring up the relevant HMRC department and they'll tell you if it's legit or not. What HSBC is being accused of is completely bypassing the law, and actively assisting its clients in effectively hiding money that the law dictates they should pay tax on. As an aside, buy to let owners, unless you have some cunning way of keeping property deals off the land registry then there's a risk HMRC will have a look at them. I've no idea how much effort they actually devote to this but given the profits folk have made on property over the years, I imagine it's more than token
leicsmac Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 My opinion is that, what I earn is mine. The less I can give away in tax to pay for shit, the better. I have no faith in what it is spent on and given alternatives would seek to avoid anything state funded. I expect the same from others and disagree that we should allow parasites in society. I get the argument about wealth distribution but I don't agree with its principles. In short, you're a believer in economic Darwinism then, right?
Benji Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 Anyone who has an ISA is willingly avoiding tax. It's exactly the same, we're just talking about bigger sums of money. People jealous of the rich, sounds like it to me. The difference is mechanisms such as ISAs are inclusive saving vehicles intended to encourage saving by everyone (their purpose being that we are a country that incentivises people to save in the good times so we are not reliant on credit) and they are usually capped at a fairly modest sum. A lot of very wealthy people use investment vehicles / tax relief laws etc. in a way that was never intended when the legislators brought established them and its the professional advisers that turn poor tax drafting into a loophole for people to pay little or no tax whatsoever, while benefitting from the society in which they make their fortune. As I said above, I have no issue whatsoever with the people that do this, people will always look after number one. But we should not be accepting of a tax system where the majority of people lose 20/40% of their earnings at source (let's say effective rates between 15-30%) while some (not all) so much better off pay to manage their affairs such that they manage to pay effective tax rates of nil-5%.
Strokes Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 In short, you're a believer in economic Darwinism then, right?Pretty much, I know its cold but I do think it would eventually enhance society.
leicsmac Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 Pretty much, I know its cold but I do think it would eventually enhance society. Agreed, it works really well and does cause exceptional and societal development. Right up to the point that 98% of other species that have inhabited our planet have experienced. That's the whole thing regarding evolutionary theory, especially as it applies to modern society and indeed economics - no one mentions the fact that most often it ends with every single member of a particular species going extinct. There is going to come a point in human development where we won't be able to stand individually, where the only choice is working as one race or the certain collapse of civilisation and possibly the extinction of humanity. Sadly, I think too many people will be so enamoured by the idea of Darwinism as applied to modern society to not realise the choice when it comes, and so humanity will end up choosing the former out of fear.
MooseBreath Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 Agreed, it works really well and does cause exceptional and societal development. Right up to the point that 98% of other species that have inhabited our planet have experienced. That's the whole thing regarding evolutionary theory, especially as it applies to modern society and indeed economics - no one mentions the fact that most often it ends with every single member of a particular species going extinct. There is going to come a point in human development where we won't be able to stand individually, where the only choice is working as one race or the certain collapse of civilisation and possibly the extinction of humanity. Sadly, I think too many people will be so enamoured by the idea of Darwinism as applied to modern society to not realise the choice when it comes, and so humanity will end up choosing the former out of fear. So what you're saying is, legal tax avoidance will cause the extinction of the entire human race?
leicsmac Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 So what you're saying is, legal tax avoidance will cause the extinction of the entire human race? Nope. I'm saying that the philosophy of social and economic Darwinism, tax avoidance being one microscopic facet of that, may well do so. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with most advocates of it in that it has encouraged innovation, aspiration and by extension the techonlogical boom of the last couple of centuries. But history has shown time and again there is a time when a problem too big for that comes along, and the species that obey the rules of evolution and try to safeguard themselves as individuals and those around them end up dying just a little bit later than those that don't. Sorry if this appears off topic, but I think it's related - the thinking that facilitates and encourages tax avoidance is the same kind of thinking that relies on individualism of that kind. And that kind of thinking is fine (and encouragable in some areas) right now for the advancement of the human race, but there will come a time when the opposite will be true.
MooseBreath Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 It's in an individual's interests to avoid extinction though, so when the time comes that there is a clear threat that definitely requires global collaboration to eradicate, that's what we'll all want and so that's what a species acting in self-interest would do. We already work together for the same reason in many ways. Religion might have other ideas of course but hopefully that'll be gone by the time we face such a threat.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.