Greed of the Super Rich, Lizzie in Trouble.

[Flanker7]

What is the argument, perhaps someone could restate it for me?

 

It's entirely legal for UK residents to invest in offshore funds, not in question. It's not aggressive tax avoidance, it's not misusing the legislation, or abusing it, it's quite clearly a think that is permitted, were it not permitted you'd drive away wealth from the country at a prodigious rate!

 

*my bold

 

Perhaps you could help us here. What is, in your opinion, aggressive tax avoidance? I know it goes against the grain for you admit to any grey areas where decisions/opinions can vary from case to case but thats how our legislatiuon evolves. Stated cases refine and redefine the legislation to deal with unintended use of laws.

 

IMO its aggressive tax avoidance when you . . . . .

- Land your personal jet in a location for 50 minutes to avoid tax and

lease a pair of diamond earrings to your wife when she wears them to avoid tax -

. . . . it goes against the spirit of the law AND that should make it illegal.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Flanker7

[I1L2T3]

What is the argument, perhaps someone could restate it for me?

 

It's entirely legal for UK residents to invest in offshore funds, not in question. It's not aggressive tax avoidance, it's not misusing the legislation, or abusing it, it's quite clearly a think that is permitted, were it not permitted you'd drive away wealth from the country at a prodigious rate!

 

That’s complete crap. Some of the usage of it clearly is aggressive avoidance, some is evasion, money laundering etc... Take your pick.

[L00b]

Not really the same thing are they.

 

One is virtuous behaviour encouraged by the government and readily accessible to any citizen.

 

The other is often a vehicle for aggressively avoiding tax, only accessible to people with sufficient wealth, and often requiring professional tax planners and lawyers to take advantage of it. Often in tax jurisdictions known for money laundering and processing criminal funds.

 

Try all you like but no way are you going to get away with directly comparing my 10 year old daughter with her ISA to an offshore investor aggressively avoiding tax.

 

Again.....not the same.

Offshore investing is not "a vehicle for aggressively avoiding tax, only accessible to people with sufficient wealth, and often requiring professional tax planners and lawyers to take advantage of it. Often in tax jurisdictions known for money laundering and processing criminal funds".

 

Forms of offshore investing (and other forms of 'offshoring', e.g. 'profit offshoring') are such vehicles as you claim. But not all. By very far.

 

I've had offshore accounts (defined as accounts overseas, not necessarily in 'tax havens') for decades and longer. Most anyone who has lived abroad for any length of time and/or travelled extensively has. A couple of those I top up every now and then (with after-tax UK money), because they're better-managed and/or cheaper to run than off-the-shelf UK bank products, e.g. ISAs (out-performing those on a non-tax free basis, i.e. after tax on earnings).

 

It's not hundreds or thousands, either: it's a complete fallacy to portray that accounts and other products overseas are only available to the 'super rich'. VAT on private jet-like dodges certainly are "only available to the 'super rich'", but then it's only the 'super rich' who can afford to buy and run private jets in the first place. That's not meant as defending the dodge, but simply putting a bit of perspective and calling for some nuance, here. Because, speaking of dog whistles, there's healthy doses of ignorance and outright envy pervading many opinions on this thread, tbh.

 

It's also a fallacy to claim or suggest that tax due on offshore earnings is never paid to the relevant authorities (which include the UK Tax Office, when you're UK resident and the earnings occur in countries which have bilateral fiscal agreements with the UK).

 

I get -and share to a large extent- your moral stance and views on the topic. But it's the system you need to get mad at, not those who avail of the system because it's there for the availing. Which -I may be wrong here- could have been Cyclone's point.

Edited November 9, 2017 by L00b

[Bob Arctor]

That’s complete crap. Some of the usage of it clearly is aggressive avoidance, some is evasion, money laundering etc... Take your pick.

 

I suspect the issue here is that corporate offshoring is bad because Cyclone doesn't do it, and personal tax avoidance is fine because Cyclone does do it.

[tinfoilhat]

Offshore investing is not "a vehicle for aggressively avoiding tax, only accessible to people with sufficient wealth, and often requiring professional tax planners and lawyers to take advantage of it. Often in tax jurisdictions known for money laundering and processing criminal funds".

 

Forms of offshore investing (and other forms of 'offshoring', e.g. 'profit offshoring') are such vehicles as you claim. But not all. By very far.

 

I've had offshore accounts (defined as accounts overseas, not necessarily in 'tax havens') for decades and longer. Most anyone who has lived abroad for any length of time and/or travelled extensively has. A couple of those I top up every now and then (with after-tax UK money), because they're better-managed and/or cheaper to run than off-the-shelf UK bank products, e.g. ISAs (out-performing those on a non-tax free basis, i.e. after tax on earnings).

 

It's not hundreds or thousands, either: it's a complete fallacy to portray that accounts and other products overseas are only available to the 'super rich'. VAT on private jet-like dodges certainly are "only available to the 'super rich'", but then it's only the 'super rich' who can afford to buy and run private jets in the first place. That's not meant as defending the dodge, but simply putting a bit of perspective and calling for some nuance, here. Because, speaking of dog whistles, there's healthy doses of ignorance and outright envy pervading many opinions on this thread, tbh.

 

It's also a fallacy to claim or suggest that tax due on offshore earnings is never paid to the relevant authorities (which include the UK Tax Office, when you're UK resident and the earnings occur in countries which have bilateral fiscal agreements with the UK).

 

I get -and share to a large extent- your moral stance and views on the topic. But it's the system you need to get mad at, not those who avail of the system because it's there for the availing. Which -I may be wrong here- could have been Cyclone's point.

 

I cant speak for Cyclone but if Ive £131m in the bank and Im arranging my shiney new plane to be delivered on the Isle of Man and not where I live in Monaco, purely to avoid paying VAT, thats aggressive tax avoidance and it would make me a bit of **** head.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The story proves:

a. the wisdom of reducing onshore tax levels, so that there's more money in the jurisdiction on which interest/income is taxable; and

b. the need to reduce the giant volume of tax legislation- thousands of pages of it- to eliminate all the dodges and tricks.

[Bob Arctor]

The story proves:

a. the wisdom of reducing onshore tax levels, so that there's more money in the jurisdiction on which interest/income is taxable; and

b. the need to reduce the giant volume of tax legislation- thousands of pages of it- to eliminate all the dodges and tricks.

 

I agree with your second point, our tax code is way, way more complex and lengthy than other countries, it's a loophole-finder's dream. I disagree with your second point though - unless the tax rate is zero there will always be somewhere (a tax haven) with lower rates so some people and corporations will still look for dodges. I don't understand why people with more money than they know what to do with still want more but they do, presumably there is something wrong with them. Simplify the law, police it a lot better and there is no need to reduce the rate.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I agree with your second point...I disagree with your second point though

Er, which is it?

[L00b]

I cant speak for Cyclone but if Ive £131m in the bank and Im arranging my shiney new plane to be delivered on the Isle of Man and not where I live in Monaco, purely to avoid paying VAT, thats aggressive tax avoidance and it would make me a bit of **** head.

And I've disagreed with that...how?

[Staunton]

The NHS is being structured into a corporate cash-cow under cover of austerity; a 999 call to the police is unlikely to gain a meaningful response since the police service has been eviscerated due to a supposed funding crisis in the public sector; the future for our children has been shunted into an immediate horizon of personal debt and dependence upon predatory landlords.

 

To argue on behalf of those who abuse the tax system is to saw through the branch we are most of us sitting upon.