So, is avoiding tax by banking in Switzerland any different from buying stuff while on holiday in Orlando which is cheaper than it is in the UK primarily because Florida sales tax is 8% while UK VAT is 20%?
Yes. The main reason foreigners bank in Switzerland is because they know such banks will be complicit in helping you not reveal your funds, or income from their deposit, to the authorities in the country were you are a tax resident.
I wonder whether most people who shop in Orlando even know the reason things are cheaper is because of tax. Anyway that may not even be right. I regularly shop in Germany. The price gap due to currency has narrowed, but often things remain cheaper because the German market is huge and efficient compared to the Czech one, and sometimes prices of consumer goods are cheaper simply due to the bizarre pricing politics of the multinationals.
So, is avoiding tax by banking in Switzerland any different from buying stuff while on holiday in Orlando which is cheaper than it is in the UK primarily because Florida sales tax is 8% while UK VAT is 20%?
Yes. The main reason foreigners bank in Switzerland is because they know such banks will be complicit in helping you not reveal your funds, or income from their deposit, to the authorities in the country were you are a tax resident.
I wonder whether most people who shop in Orlando even know the reason things are cheaper is because of tax. Anyway that may not even be right. I regularly shop in Germany. The price gap due to currency has narrowed, but often things remain cheaper because the German market is huge and efficient compared to the Czech one, and sometimes prices of consumer goods are cheaper simply due to the bizarre pricing politics of the multinationals.
Even if you spend more than the £390 allowance and swan through the "nothing to declare channel"? (BTW, the allowance doesn't apply if you enter the UK by private plane or boat which is a bit harsh.)
In any event to turn around your phrase, foreigners shop in the outlet stores in Florida because they know that Tommy Hilfiger will not be complicit in revealing your expenditure to the customs authorities in the UK.
Putting aside tax evasion and Banks facilitating the practice, which should result in criminal charges, the case for immorality of “Vanilla” tax avoidance or any other flavour, is much more problematic.
I think you have to start by examining the State’s tax raising powers and rules. You can then question the very legitimacy of tax raising powers and whether it is right to challenge them indirectly by arranging affairs to mitigate them.
Just thought I would put an argument forward in support of tax avoidance on those grounds. In case anyone suggests, I have never been involved in tax avoidance, only evasion when fiddling my expenses (only a joke honest).
If I am an entrepreneur and I choose to risk everything I have on a business venture, and it eventually succeeds after being made bankrupt on the way and losing my house, and end up with wealth of £5m after taxation, I probably don't feel guilty. Someone else wins the lottery and gets £5m tax free and has potentially contributed nothing to society. If they have been 100% supported by the State do they have to repay anything? In a few years it might have been spent on drugs cars and women for all the State cares. Any encroachment to prevent that scenario would be a restriction on personal freedoms and is a non-starter. Why isn’t tax seen as an encroachment on personal freedoms and why should it be off limits for challenging the rules?
If I am the entrepreneur what is my perception of all this when I have risked all to generate jobs and wealth and paid tax along the way to support society and regarded as a parasite for arranging my affairs to optimise my personal gain. Whose fault is it that we are not generating enough wealth to pay for the benefits and investment that the State commits itself to, not mine.
Income was never taxed before the mid 19th century. Before that it was a one off levy to fund a war. Social taxation began when Elizabeth 1 levied a tax to pay for the Poor Law provisions. Those provisions have remained to this day updated as social welfare has developed. No one ever rioted against this tax and it would have been morally wrong to have avoided it knowing the consequences. Today we do not have that clarity on what our taxes are being used for to establish any moral imperative.
The point about taxation is that it is an infringement on personal liberty, that’s what Parliament said when income tax was first raised to pay for the Napoleonic wars and why it was repealed as soon as the wars ended. Parliament even tried to destroy all evidence the law had ever existed, so fearful were they of abuse by the State. One-off taxes raised for wars before that were even repaid afterwards, if there was money left over.
If it wasn’t an attack on personal liberty there would not have been riots and wars over taxation. The 100 years war with France, was in large part over the taxation by the English Kings. America fought the war of Independence over the legitimacy of taxation powers. King Charles was beheaded essentially over a dispute between the tax raising powers of the King and Parliament.
Until modern times those being taxed always knew why they were being taxed and what the money would be spent on. If you objected you rioted or went to war. Today tax is raised and then politicians decide how to spend it so we don’t know exactly what we are paying for in advance. If we object to this then today we employ accountants to mitigate the objection and legally avoid tax if we can. Rather better than a riot or a war.
Taxation is appropriation of a person’s property legalised by the State. Only difference compared to being mugged is that there is no violence, you know when it is coming, it is legal and you accept it because you wouldn't give up the money voluntarily and you will receive some benefit as a result. Once you stop seeing the benefit of being mugged your attitude will change. If you accept being mugged because their need is greater than mine, then you will not be objecting to paying whatever tax you are asked to pay and will sermonise those of a different persuasion.
Today we have the State no longer required to justify what it is going to spend the taxes on, we accept we are taxed, Parliament makes the rules and we live with it. Politicians seek to maximise revenue and often decide expenditure on political grounds to retain votes and power. Problem is politicians promise more than they can deliver so there needs to be a scapegoat – evasion OK - but "it's the immoral rich bastards fault in not volunteering to pay more tax" - is just scapegoating..
The only way that legalised theft by the State to support political objectives can be acceptable is to have rules in place that limit the power. It is possible to argue that there is no moral imperative to bow to the state’s unfettered power to raise tax if they can’t get the rules to do what they want. It is easy to argue that those in disagreement should not be forced by HMRC to bow to the Parliament's intentions in raising tax when the intention is open to different interpretations. It is easy to argue that there are no moral grounds for bowing to tax raising powers that require a voluntary submission to erosion of personal freedom not authorised by law.
We are being brainwashed by the Politicians under the guise of the State having “moral” powers of taxation. It is not moral, it is political. The implication that increasing tax revenues is the default solution to over extend spending plans should be a legitimate challenge.
So tax avoidance is entirely justifiable in the minds of those who challenge the presumption that we bow to the State’s tax raising powers whatever they might want to do with the money. Taxation is so fundamental a restriction on personal freedom I do not think it is right to imply that those who resist greater intrusion are unquestionably morally in the wrong. Few, I suggest, seek not to pay for essential services and infrastructure, it is the creep of politically motivated ventures requiring ever more State funding which many object to.
In our flawed Parliamentary democracy, there can never be the universal support of all voting taxpayers on how the State spends taxation revenues, and to create the perception that those legitimately challenging the State by not fitting in with the rules that permit legalised theft are immoral is simply part of the political smokescreen.
When politicians start spewing hot air about moral duties to bow to Parliaments wishes on taxation the smoke occasionally lifts and exposes their sheer hypocrisy.
There have been many intelligent and interesting posts and debates on this thread. But, this pious 'Tea Party' libertarian twaddle is utterly stunning in its stupidity!
As I have stated before, if any entrepreneur sincerely believes all taxation is legalised theft why don't they take their ideas and energy to a society which has not collected and invested taxes over the last 150 years or so on infrastucture, law making and enforcement institutions, health, education etc, and go and live in a society like Afghanistan?
I was making an argument for a contrarian point of view to the "moral" argument. Rebut the idea if you want, but why is a point of view stupid just because you don't have a counter argument?
150 years ago when the national railways system was being built, along with water supply, electricity supply, sewerage systems, London underground system etc etc income tax represented less than 8% of State revenue and all this infrastructure was being built by Victorian capitalists. Mass State infrastructure programmes didn't really begin until after WWII.
Disraeli 1858 budget speech on income tax measures in place - 'unjust, unequal and inquisitorial' and 'to continue for a limited time on the distinct understanding that it should ultimately be repealed'.
I will not call you stupid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and can make up their own minds, might just call you a numpty.
I didn't call you stupid. Clearly you are not as you have posted many of the intelligent posts on this thread that I referred to. I was making the argument that the philosophy behind the ideas on that particular post, variants of which I have heard been spouted many times before by swivel headed right wing libertarian nut jobs on Fox News, was stupid.
I didn't call you stupid. Clearly you are not as you have posted many of the intelligent posts on this thread that I referred to. I was making the argument that the philosophy behind the ideas on that particular post, variants of which I have heard been spouted many times before by swivel headed right wing libertarian nut jobs on Fox News, was stupid.
I think Mr Dippy is on a wind up, mate. I certainly nearly choked on my soup when I read it, but have vowed not to even go near it until after I've done my cross-country ski training this evening, and am feeling suitably mellow.
For now I think we must just concede that Sarah Palin could never have put her case with anything like the elegance he has. We might need those skills, should we ever get into a dialogue with Roland Duchatelet.
150 years ago when the national railways system was being built, along with water supply, electricity supply, sewerage systems, London underground system etc etc income tax represented less than 8% of State revenue and all this infrastructure was being built by Victorian capitalists. Mass State infrastructure programmes didn't really begin until after WWII.
That's not really true. For example the Metropolitan Board of Works, a public body and predecessor to the London County Council, constructed the Capital's sewerage system and the Embankment, rebuilt various bridges and constructed lots of other bits and bobs.
Prior to the 1850s, the only real infrastructure constructed was by private bodies - largely canals and railways. Pollution, cholera etc led to people realising that we really did need public investment if we were going to have safe water etc.
It's true that taxation was much lower then but in exchange for paying a higher proportion of our incomes for tax we get a lot of benefits such as education, health etc. The vast majority prefer that to minimal taxation.
OK. I wasn't repeating anyone else's views and I have not taken any effort to follow any such views, they were my thoughts.
I voted for Harold Wilson in his 1966 landslide, but a different time and different ideas. Not subscribing to every socialist ideal does not make me a follower of rabid libertarians. Times change, views alter. Life is not black and white.
@ cafcfan I still don't understand quite how "vanilla" Fink's arrangement was, but rightly or wrongly, this is the test I'd apply as a voter: He says he did this arrangement while he was on a four year posting to Switzerland. He implies that he just happened to be there and was at the life stage where he needed to make decisions for his kids etc.
So the interesting test would be, had he been posted to, say Germany, rather than Switzerland, would this option have been open to him? If yes, fair enough. If no, it was an option that existed only because of Switzerland's notorious strategy of messing up Europe's tax regimes, so no, it is dodgy, in my book.
Miliband has already backtracked on referring to Fink's arrangements as dodgy.
Fink raised no objection after Miliband's Commons statement in relation to being lumped in with "dodgy" donors. He objected at the time to the use of "tax avoidance activities" in relation to his arrangements. Something that Miliband was happy to publicly restate and indeed Fink has described as being something we all do. Apparently.
It's only since he realised, presumably with advice from Conservative head office, that he was indeed involved in tax avoidance and this might not reflect well on the post of party treasurer, that he has attempted to go back and focus on the generic description of "dodgy" instead.
Personally, I think the term "dodgy" is so "vanilla" as he puts it that it borders on the pathetic to even bother responding to, which was his default position until he realised 24 hours later he was unable to defend his financial arrangements.
Are we now not allowed to refer to Thuram as a decidedly dodgy keeper for fear of a libel action???
...There is no evidence he has ever used a financial product to avoid paying tax on income that would in normal circumstances expected to be taxed.
Apart from his own admission that he indulged in tax avoidance that is. And yes it may well have been "legal", although the various schemes set up by HSBC in Switzerland are of course currently being investigated in several countries.
And whilst in your opinion, probably most of us tbf, it is a "demonstrable fact" that Thuram is "dodgy" there will be plenty out there who believe differently. In the same way there are plenty that believe those wealthy clients of HSBC who operated even at the "vanilla end of the spectrum" are also in fact a bit dodgy....
@ cafcfan I still don't understand quite how "vanilla" Fink's arrangement was, but rightly or wrongly, this is the test I'd apply as a voter: He says he did this arrangement while he was on a four year posting to Switzerland. He implies that he just happened to be there and was at the life stage where he needed to make decisions for his kids etc.
So the interesting test would be, had he been posted to, say Germany, rather than Switzerland, would this option have been open to him? If yes, fair enough. If no, it was an option that existed only because of Switzerland's notorious strategy of messing up Europe's tax regimes, so no, it is dodgy, in my book.
Miliband has already backtracked on referring to Fink's arrangements as dodgy.
Fink raised no objection after Miliband's Commons statement in relation to being lumped in with "dodgy" donors. He objected at the time to the use of "tax avoidance activities" in relation to his arrangements. Something that Miliband was happy to publicly restate and indeed Fink has described as being something we all do. Apparently.
It's only since he realised, presumably with advice from Conservative head office, that he was indeed involved in tax avoidance and this might not reflect well on the post of party treasurer, that he has attempted to go back and focus on the generic description of "dodgy" instead.
Personally, I think the term "dodgy" is so "vanilla" as he puts it that it borders on the pathetic to even bother responding to, which was his default position until he realised 24 hours later he was unable to defend his financial arrangements.
Are we now not allowed to refer to Thuram as a decidedly dodgy keeper for fear of a libel action???
...There is no evidence he has ever used a financial product to avoid paying tax on income that would in normal circumstances expected to be taxed.
Apart from his own admission that he indulged in tax avoidance that is. And yes it may well have been "legal", although the various schemes set up by HSBC in Switzerland are of course currently being investigated in several countries.
And whilst in your opinion, probably most of us tbf, it is a "demonstrable fact" that Thuram is "dodgy" there will be plenty out there who believe differently. In the same way there are plenty that believe those wealthy clients of HSBC who operated even at the "vanilla end of the spectrum" are also in fact a bit dodgy....
Yes, he admitted avoiding tax but in the context that there are many HMRC approved ways of avoiding tax. Hence in normal circumstances he wouldn't be expected to pay tax. This is different to dodgy methods used to avoid tax, like the one that was used to exempt Miliband from paying IHT. My expectation is that Miliband should pay the full amount of tax on his inheritance he received just like any other member of the public has to.
@ cafcfan I still don't understand quite how "vanilla" Fink's arrangement was, but rightly or wrongly, this is the test I'd apply as a voter: He says he did this arrangement while he was on a four year posting to Switzerland. He implies that he just happened to be there and was at the life stage where he needed to make decisions for his kids etc.
So the interesting test would be, had he been posted to, say Germany, rather than Switzerland, would this option have been open to him? If yes, fair enough. If no, it was an option that existed only because of Switzerland's notorious strategy of messing up Europe's tax regimes, so no, it is dodgy, in my book.
Miliband has already backtracked on referring to Fink's arrangements as dodgy.
Fink raised no objection after Miliband's Commons statement in relation to being lumped in with "dodgy" donors. He objected at the time to the use of "tax avoidance activities" in relation to his arrangements. Something that Miliband was happy to publicly restate and indeed Fink has described as being something we all do. Apparently.
It's only since he realised, presumably with advice from Conservative head office, that he was indeed involved in tax avoidance and this might not reflect well on the post of party treasurer, that he has attempted to go back and focus on the generic description of "dodgy" instead.
Personally, I think the term "dodgy" is so "vanilla" as he puts it that it borders on the pathetic to even bother responding to, which was his default position until he realised 24 hours later he was unable to defend his financial arrangements.
Are we now not allowed to refer to Thuram as a decidedly dodgy keeper for fear of a libel action???
...There is no evidence he has ever used a financial product to avoid paying tax on income that would in normal circumstances expected to be taxed.
Apart from his own admission that he indulged in tax avoidance that is. And yes it may well have been "legal", although the various schemes set up by HSBC in Switzerland are of course currently being investigated in several countries.
And whilst in your opinion, probably most of us tbf, it is a "demonstrable fact" that Thuram is "dodgy" there will be plenty out there who believe differently. In the same way there are plenty that believe those wealthy clients of HSBC who operated even at the "vanilla end of the spectrum" are also in fact a bit dodgy....
Yes, he admitted avoiding tax but in the context that there are many HMRC approved ways of avoiding tax. Hence in normal circumstances he wouldn't be expected to pay tax. This is different to dodgy methods used to avoid tax, like the one that was used to exempt Miliband from paying IHT. My expectation is that Miliband should pay the full amount of tax on his inheritance he received just like any other member of the public has to.
What is it with you and this Miliband fixation/fetish?
Close, although the geezer in the muffler, would be doing work on the side and getting paid in folding stuff to avoid paying tax!
By any measure the black market costs the HMT more than Fink and his ilk could hope to squirrel away.
According to the Institute of Economic Affairs, Britain's black market accounts for about 10pc of the economy, or more than £150bn a year, depriving the country of billions of pounds of lost taxes.
Of course muffler man and Fink may well have deprived the likes of Cameron & Miliband the opportunity of wasting some money. But what they have put back into the economy as entrepreneurs, large and small, more than makes up for it.
According to the Institute of Economic Affairs, Britain's black market accounts for about 10pc of the economy, or more than £150bn a year, depriving the country of billions of pounds of lost taxes.
I suspect most of that is hookers and blow, rather than plumbers doing cash in hand jobs though. And so we're back to the bankers again :-)
On the Today programme this morning the excellent Richard Murphy revealed that the key KPI for HMRC officers is the number of tax investigations they open. That in a nutshell is the problem and is so easy to fix. This why they go after so many little guys and small companies while leaving the big offenders alone. The solution, of course, is to remunerate according to the amount of tax retrieved. that of course would be the focus of any private business.
He also mentioned that many of the HMRC Board are not tax specialists and come from the private sector. I'm less sure about his point here, having looked at it. I certainly think more private sector people in HMRC are important, but at the sharp end, where the investigations take place. I can certainly see his point about somebody with this cv. Whose interests does this man serve? Where is the person on the board representing the perspective of SMEs? Edwina Dunn is a business person I admire, but again, is she there to provide expertise in the use of Big Data, or to represent the interests of people who have become fabulously wealthy?
So, is avoiding tax by banking in Switzerland any different from buying stuff while on holiday in Orlando which is cheaper than it is in the UK primarily because Florida sales tax is 8% while UK VAT is 20%?
Yes. The main reason foreigners bank in Switzerland is because they know such banks will be complicit in helping you not reveal your funds, or income from their deposit, to the authorities in the country were you are a tax resident.
Prague that is an assertion that you can't possibly know to be true. You may believe it but that's as far as it goes.
Also I wonder why you assert that Richard Murphy is "excellent". He certainly has been successful at promoting himself and his own views but a little research shows you he has an agenda and what it is.
What Dippenhall wrote is fair comment and well argued if a bit too long in its analysis for a forum like this, so if you disagree why not pick holes if you can? What he says in a nutshell is that the Govt should not have an inalienable right to take subjects' money to spend on whatever political projects suit its latest whim but as long as it does this why should anyone pay the maximum amount they could when a lower figure is legally achievable?
It's all very well to say "schools and hospitals" but it was reported that on the first day of the RAFs involvement against so-called ISIS that a missile was dropped on a pick up truck at a cost to the British taxpayer in excess of £1m. Taxpayers have to accept that the Govt can do this even though the Govt may have polled less than 50per cent of the votes cast in the last election. So to me it is not surprising that some may feel that they can put part of their modest contribution to better use.
Why else would foreigners who do not live in Switzerland, bank in Switzerland?
I assert that Richard Murphy is "excellent" because he makes salient points about tax in a precise and rational way. By his "agenda" I suppose you mean that he has views on other matters that don't coincide with yours. That's of no concern to me in this thread.
Dippenhall's post was an MA level wind up, As you say, it's too long for this forum, so I can't be assed. I'm too excited by the enthralling flood of tweets from the VIP meeting
So, is avoiding tax by banking in Switzerland any different from buying stuff while on holiday in Orlando which is cheaper than it is in the UK primarily because Florida sales tax is 8% while UK VAT is 20%?
Yes. The main reason foreigners bank in Switzerland is because they know such banks will be complicit in helping you not reveal your funds, or income from their deposit, to the authorities in the country were you are a tax resident.
Prague that is an assertion that you can't possibly know to be true. You may believe it but that's as far as it goes.
Also I wonder why you assert that Richard Murphy is "excellent". He certainly has been successful at promoting himself and his own views but a little research shows you he has an agenda and what it is.
What Dippenhall wrote is fair comment and well argued if a bit too long in its analysis for a forum like this, so if you disagree why not pick holes if you can? What he says in a nutshell is that the Govt should not have an inalienable right to take subjects' money to spend on whatever political projects suit its latest whim but as long as it does this why should anyone pay the maximum amount they could when a lower figure is legally achievable?
It's all very well to say "schools and hospitals" but it was reported that on the first day of the RAFs involvement against so-called ISIS that a missile was dropped on a pick up truck at a cost to the British taxpayer in excess of £1m. Taxpayers have to accept that the Govt can do this even though the Govt may have polled less than 50per cent of the votes cast in the last election. So to me it is not surprising that some may feel that they can put part of their modest contribution to better use.
Meanwhile I am pretty impressed by Peter Oborne, who has resigned from the Telegraph over their pathetic coverage of the HSBC scandal. Calls it a fraud on their readers
Based on this @ShootersHillGuru I think you should start a thread offering an alternative view of how positive the network, I mean HMRC have been for the club. Sorry I mean taxpayer
Why else would foreigners who do not live in Switzerland, bank in Switzerland?
But the bloke Fiiish and you had been argueing about DID live in Switzerland. I assume you bank in Prague? Just as I bank in Kunming.
This thread is about far more than just Fink, however I already acknowledged that I'm not yet convinced his banking arrangement in Switzerland prove he was up to something, I wrote (with emphasis added)
I still don't understand quite how "vanilla" Fink's arrangement was, but rightly or wrongly, this is the test I'd apply as a voter: He says he did this arrangement while he was on a four year posting to Switzerland. He implies that he just happened to be there and was at the life stage where he needed to make decisions for his kids etc.
So the interesting test would be, had he been posted to, say Germany, rather than Switzerland, would this option have been open to him? If yes, fair enough. If no, it was an option that existed only because of Switzerland's notorious strategy of messing up Europe's tax regimes, so no, it is dodgy, in my book.
Just FYI I bank (and pay income tax) in both CZ and UK. You and I are at different life stages but if I can offer you a tip I'd say it is well worth you maintaining a simple UK bank account. A Brit mate of mine out here who has not done so cannot do various things I do, such as make sensible investments in unit trusts (I'm constantly trying to save him from "financial advisers' who prey on expats), run a Sky sub through a UK debit card( I cancelled it a couple of years ago, though) have an Oyster card PAYG if you visit regularly, generally protect your argument to be "domiciled" in the UK, and head off criticism on here that you have left the UK and therefore have no right to say this or that.
He instead twisted Fink's words regarding 'everyone avoids tax in some way', which is a fair point given ISAs, pensions and trusts are all legitimate tax avoidance instruments that ordinary people use everyday, which was the point Fink was making.
Not sure I agree with that. Is buying food tax avoidance because it is zero rated? - children's clothing?
I wouldn't lump in VAT because people generally don't buy items just because they're zero-rated and it's an incentive to buy good food and keep your kids dressed.
Ah, you might think that, and it would be nice if it were the case, but have a wild guess at which ONE of these things has VAT on it when you buy it in the supermarket?
Iceland's Deep Pan Donner Kebab Pizza Family-size bag of Doritos Ginsters Cornish Pasty Rustlers Microwavable Quarter Pounder with cheese 500ml bottle of Buxtons mineral water
Edit: have just made myself hungry now typing that - apart from the water, of course!
He instead twisted Fink's words regarding 'everyone avoids tax in some way', which is a fair point given ISAs, pensions and trusts are all legitimate tax avoidance instruments that ordinary people use everyday, which was the point Fink was making.
Not sure I agree with that. Is buying food tax avoidance because it is zero rated? - children's clothing?
I wouldn't lump in VAT because people generally don't buy items just because they're zero-rated and it's an incentive to buy good food and keep your kids dressed.
Ah, you might think that, and it would be nice if it were the case, but have a wild guess at which ONE of these things has VAT on it when you buy it in the supermarket?
Iceland's Deep Pan Donner Kebab Pizza Family-size bag of Doritos Ginsters Cornish Pasty Rustlers Microwavable Quarter Pounder with cheese 500ml bottle of Buxtons mineral water
Edit: have just made myself hungry now typing that - apart from the water, of course!
Water -what do I win? Deep Pan Donner Kebab Pizza hopefully!
Comments
I wonder whether most people who shop in Orlando even know the reason things are cheaper is because of tax. Anyway that may not even be right. I regularly shop in Germany. The price gap due to currency has narrowed, but often things remain cheaper because the German market is huge and efficient compared to the Czech one, and sometimes prices of consumer goods are cheaper simply due to the bizarre pricing politics of the multinationals.
In any event to turn around your phrase, foreigners shop in the outlet stores in Florida because they know that Tommy Hilfiger will not be complicit in revealing your expenditure to the customs authorities in the UK.
As I have stated before, if any entrepreneur sincerely believes all taxation is legalised theft why don't they take their ideas and energy to a society which has not collected and invested taxes over the last 150 years or so on infrastucture, law making and enforcement institutions, health, education etc, and go and live in a society like Afghanistan?
150 years ago when the national railways system was being built, along with water supply, electricity supply, sewerage systems, London underground system etc etc income tax represented less than 8% of State revenue and all this infrastructure was being built by Victorian capitalists. Mass State infrastructure programmes didn't really begin until after WWII.
Disraeli 1858 budget speech on income tax measures in place - 'unjust, unequal and inquisitorial' and 'to continue for a limited time on the distinct understanding that it should ultimately be repealed'.
I will not call you stupid, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and can make up their own minds, might just call you a numpty.
For now I think we must just concede that Sarah Palin could never have put her case with anything like the elegance he has. We might need those skills, should we ever get into a dialogue with Roland Duchatelet.
Prior to the 1850s, the only real infrastructure constructed was by private bodies - largely canals and railways. Pollution, cholera etc led to people realising that we really did need public investment if we were going to have safe water etc.
It's true that taxation was much lower then but in exchange for paying a higher proportion of our incomes for tax we get a lot of benefits such as education, health etc. The vast majority prefer that to minimal taxation.
I voted for Harold Wilson in his 1966 landslide, but a different time and different ideas. Not subscribing to every socialist ideal does not make me a follower of rabid libertarians. Times change, views alter. Life is not black and white.
And whilst in your opinion, probably most of us tbf, it is a "demonstrable fact" that Thuram is "dodgy" there will be plenty out there who believe differently. In the same way there are plenty that believe those wealthy clients of HSBC who operated even at the "vanilla end of the spectrum" are also in fact a bit dodgy....
The deed of variation used by Milliband on his father's will was, at the time, perfectly legitimate, commonly used and not at all dodgy.
I don't know enough about Fink's transfer of shares to a trust to take a view.
This is a Vanilla forum.
Does that make me a bad person posting on Charlton Life?
Love and kisses
Len
By any measure the black market costs the HMT more than Fink and his ilk could hope to squirrel away.
According to the Institute of Economic Affairs, Britain's black market accounts for about 10pc of the economy, or more than £150bn a year, depriving the country of billions of pounds of lost taxes.
Of course muffler man and Fink may well have deprived the likes of Cameron & Miliband the opportunity of wasting some money. But what they have put back into the economy as entrepreneurs, large and small, more than makes up for it.
He also mentioned that many of the HMRC Board are not tax specialists and come from the private sector. I'm less sure about his point here, having looked at it. I certainly think more private sector people in HMRC are important, but at the sharp end, where the investigations take place. I can certainly see his point about somebody with this cv. Whose interests does this man serve? Where is the person on the board representing the perspective of SMEs? Edwina Dunn is a business person I admire, but again, is she there to provide expertise in the use of Big Data, or to represent the interests of people who have become fabulously wealthy?
Also I wonder why you assert that Richard Murphy is "excellent". He certainly has been successful at promoting himself and his own views but a little research shows you he has an agenda and what it is.
What Dippenhall wrote is fair comment and well argued if a bit too long in its analysis for a forum like this, so if you disagree why not pick holes if you can? What he says in a nutshell is that the Govt should not have an inalienable right to take subjects' money to spend on whatever political projects suit its latest whim but as long as it does this why should anyone pay the maximum amount they could when a lower figure is legally achievable?
It's all very well to say "schools and hospitals" but it was reported that on the first day of the RAFs involvement against so-called ISIS that a missile was dropped on a pick up truck at a cost to the British taxpayer in excess of £1m. Taxpayers have to accept that the Govt can do this even though the Govt may have polled less than 50per cent of the votes cast in the last election. So to me it is not surprising that some may feel that they can put part of their modest contribution to better use.
I assert that Richard Murphy is "excellent" because he makes salient points about tax in a precise and rational way. By his "agenda" I suppose you mean that he has views on other matters that don't coincide with yours. That's of no concern to me in this thread.
Dippenhall's post was an MA level wind up, As you say, it's too long for this forum, so I can't be assed. I'm too excited by the enthralling flood of tweets from the VIP meeting
I still don't understand quite how "vanilla" Fink's arrangement was, but rightly or wrongly, this is the test I'd apply as a voter: He says he did this arrangement while he was on a four year posting to Switzerland. He implies that he just happened to be there and was at the life stage where he needed to make decisions for his kids etc.
So the interesting test would be, had he been posted to, say Germany, rather than Switzerland, would this option have been open to him? If yes, fair enough. If no, it was an option that existed only because of Switzerland's notorious strategy of messing up Europe's tax regimes, so no, it is dodgy, in my book.
Just FYI I bank (and pay income tax) in both CZ and UK. You and I are at different life stages but if I can offer you a tip I'd say it is well worth you maintaining a simple UK bank account. A Brit mate of mine out here who has not done so cannot do various things I do, such as make sensible investments in unit trusts (I'm constantly trying to save him from "financial advisers' who prey on expats), run a Sky sub through a UK debit card( I cancelled it a couple of years ago, though) have an Oyster card PAYG if you visit regularly, generally protect your argument to be "domiciled" in the UK, and head off criticism on here that you have left the UK and therefore have no right to say this or that.
That's just good old fashioned smuggling!
Iceland's Deep Pan Donner Kebab Pizza
Family-size bag of Doritos
Ginsters Cornish Pasty
Rustlers Microwavable Quarter Pounder with cheese
500ml bottle of Buxtons mineral water
Edit: have just made myself hungry now typing that - apart from the water, of course!