Pandora Papers ! .

[Staunton]

22 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Nobody has pressed any legal charges no has anybody proven in a court of law they  committed  any crime.

A crude summation of neoliberalism would highlight hostility to taxation, resentment at the very existence of a public sector - which they wish abolished (with any potentially profitable services being privatised), and deregulation.

 

Well, here are each of these features manifest in ECCOnoob's claim. George Osborne hollowed out HMRC (effective deregulation by sacking the regulators), where there were thousands of redundancies (public sector cuts). Then private sector staff were seconded from the very City accountancy firms that had been gaming the tax system (privatisation). These personnel, remunerated by the taxpayer (that's us little people) then wrote tax law, complete with loopholes which, upon returning to their employers, they exploited (tax abuse).

 

Of course no one has been prosecuted, that is Tory policy, cheating the system in the interests of wealth and privilege.

 

See: 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/26/accountancy-firms-knowledge-treasury-avoid-tax

 

'Big four' accountants 'use knowledge of Treasury to help rich avoid tax'

Rajeev Syal, Simon Bowers and Patrick Wintour report, 26 Apr 2013
 

Experts offering advice on legislation they helped to create is a 'ridiculous conflict of interest', says select committee chair Margaret Hodge.

 

The so-called "big four" accountancy firms are using knowledge gained from staff seconded to the Treasury to help wealthy clients avoid paying UK taxes, a report by the influential Commons public accounts committee says.

 

Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers have provided the government with expert accountants to draw up tax laws. But the firms went on to advise multinationals and individuals on how to exploit loopholes around legislation they had helped to write, the public accounts committee (PAC) found.

 

The accountancy giants employed almost 9,000 staff and earned £2bn a year from their tax work in the UK, and £25bn globally, the report claims. MPs found that Revenue and Customs had far fewer resources, particularly in the area of transfer pricing: complex transactions deployed by multinational companies in order to shift taxable profits to low tax jurisdictions. "In the area of transfer pricing alone, there are four times as many staff working for the four firms than for HMRC," the report says.

 

The committee highlights the way the firms seconded staff to the Treasury to advise on issues in the drafting of legislation. "Through their work in advising government on changes to legislation they have a detailed knowledge of UK tax law, and the insight to identify loopholes in new legislation quickly," it said.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Staunton
Typos corrected.

[altus]

For those who don't think releasing things like the Panama/Panama papers has any effect, remember, it's really about pressuring governments to make taxation fairer. Just today Nations agree to 15% minimum corporate tax rate.

[trastrick]

2 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

So @trastrick , What do you think of:

 

1. everybody paying their fair share of tax;

2. political figures who having previously talked about fairer taxation who are then found to have engaged in tax avoidance;

3. the uncovering of astronomical sums in the control of  foreign leaders, who would seem to have no legitimate excuse for having such sums;

4. the fact that British overseas territories (ie where the UK government's writ still runs) facilitate the secrecy these leaders need to hide their possibly ill-gotten gains.

There's too much there to deal with in a forum such as this, but:

 

"Fair" is a subjective term, defined by the government of the day.

 

In a free society, there is a fine balance between taxation and the incentive to produce wealth. Too high taxes and government regulation and private investment and risk dries up. Productive jobs are shifted from wealth creation to government dependency. Factories lie empty and shops are bnoarded up. How much of one's day labour should be given to the government to spend?

 

A successful society requires the creation of wealth (properity) in order to garner the taxes it needs to support its societal safety net, and pay the bills the government runs up.

 

Like the farmers cow that provides the town with its milk, the wealth creators and enterpeneurs must be respected, treated well, and not run into the ground, or they will just give up producing.

 

"Rich" is another term arbitarily applied. A young working family in the London area with a house can be considered "rich", but they may be struggling and even failing to pay their bills.

And after working hard all their lives, should they have the right to save and accumilate wealth for themselves and their family for the time when they are too old to work anymore? Wealth tax anyone?

 

A large corporation, such as Tesco receives a return on it's sales of around 2% That's hardly a corporate vulture.

 

Big Foods provides 100% of convenient access to foods from around the world in your neighborhood.

 

Big Pharm, another favorite target of the the left, came through with the COVID vaccines.

 

Big Oil supplies 76% of the UK's energy needs (Oil, gas, coal.) and the plastics that are indispensible to your appliances, food storage containers and wraps. Even your recycling bin.

 

Big Tech provides 100% of your TVs, appliances, computers and phones, at a reasonable price and puts you in instant touch with the World.

 

They are NOT all scheming to rob you of everything you own.

 

So be careful what you wish for.

 

But Government?
 

[Carbuncle]

Oh @trastrick you let me down there, falling at the first hurdle. This is a Pandora papers' thread, I wasn't asking you to think about what was fair but to consider whether you agreed fairness, however determined, should apply to everyone.

[trastrick]

It's your "however determined" qualification that renders your question moot.

 

So no, I don't believe it is "fair" to stone gays and women adulterers to death, and cut off the hands of petty thieves, even though some who subscribe to certain dogmas, determine it to be "fair ", even Godly!

 

I don't believe that kind of "fairness" should apply to everyone. Do you?

 

Lol

Edited October 8, 2021 by trastrick

[ECCOnoob]

4 hours ago, Staunton said:

A crude summation of neoliberalism would highlight hostility to taxation, resentment at the very existence of a public sector - which they wish abolished (with any potentially profitable services being privatised), and deregulation.

 

Well, here are each of these features manifest in ECCOnoob's claim. George Osborne hollowed out HMRC (effective deregulation by sacking the regulators), where there were thousands of redundancies (public sector cuts). Then private sector staff were seconded from the very City accountancy firms that had been gaming the tax system (privatisation). These personnel, remunerated by the taxpayer (that's us little people) then wrote tax law, complete with loopholes which, upon returning to their employers, they exploited (tax abuse).

 

Of course no one has been prosecuted, that is Tory policy, cheating the system in the interests of wealth and privilege.

 

See: 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/26/accountancy-firms-knowledge-treasury-avoid-tax

 

'Big four' accountants 'use knowledge of Treasury to help rich avoid tax'

Rajeev Syal, Simon Bowers and Patrick Wintour report, 26 Apr 2013
 

Experts offering advice on legislation they helped to create is a 'ridiculous conflict of interest', says select committee chair Margaret Hodge.

 

The so-called "big four" accountancy firms are using knowledge gained from staff seconded to the Treasury to help wealthy clients avoid paying UK taxes, a report by the influential Commons public accounts committee says.

 

Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers have provided the government with expert accountants to draw up tax laws. But the firms went on to advise multinationals and individuals on how to exploit loopholes around legislation they had helped to write, the public accounts committee (PAC) found.

 

The accountancy giants employed almost 9,000 staff and earned £2bn a year from their tax work in the UK, and £25bn globally, the report claims. MPs found that Revenue and Customs had far fewer resources, particularly in the area of transfer pricing: complex transactions deployed by multinational companies in order to shift taxable profits to low tax jurisdictions. "In the area of transfer pricing alone, there are four times as many staff working for the four firms than for HMRC," the report says.

 

The committee highlights the way the firms seconded staff to the Treasury to advise on issues in the drafting of legislation. "Through their work in advising government on changes to legislation they have a detailed knowledge of UK tax law, and the insight to identify loopholes in new legislation quickly," it said.

Wow. Absolutely astounding. A load of hysterical nonsense about neoliberalism followed by an eight-year-old opinion piece from The Guardian.

 

Couldn't be any more desperate.

[Carbuncle]

So @ECCOnoob, what do you think of:

 

1. everybody paying their fair share of tax;

2. political figures who having previously talked about fairer taxation who are then found to have engaged in tax avoidance;

3. the uncovering of astronomical sums in the control of  foreign leaders, who would seem to have no legitimate excuse for having such sums;

4. the fact that British overseas territories (ie where the UK government's writ still runs) facilitate the secrecy these leaders need to hide their possibly ill-gotten gains.

[ECCOnoob]

14 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

So @ECCOnoob, what do you think of:

 

1. everybody paying their fair share of tax;

2. political figures who having previously talked about fairer taxation who are then found to have engaged in tax avoidance;

3. the uncovering of astronomical sums in the control of  foreign leaders, who would seem to have no legitimate excuse for having such sums;

4. the fact that British overseas territories (ie where the UK government's writ still runs) facilitate the secrecy these leaders need to hide their possibly ill-gotten gains.

1. define what is fair?   I think fair is paying what the the law dictates you have two. Not a penny more.  Lower earners don't get morally blackmailed or shamed by the media into paying more than they hmrc says they have to. Why should just making lots of money change that position.

 

2. Political pressure, hysterical Media, maintaining Public Image by saying what the people want to hear rather than giving a reality check.

 

3 and 4.  Nothing at all since it's all speculation, uncorroborated assumptions and presently without any merit. I work in a world of facts. Come back to me when there are some actual charges and a genuine reliable case for prosecution and I might be interested.

Edited October 8, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Box11]

15 hours ago, Anna B said:

The working class used to stick together and there was strength in that.

The Elite/Conservaties have done a fine job in destroying that mentality and setting people against each other. 

Divide and conquer.

Works every time. 

That’s exactly what the elites have done the deep division’s amongst the general public is massive especially in the way people think !!!!...

 

I know someone who does a lot of work (Professional Fixer of sorts) for a consortium of millionaires....

 

He states that one of them told him over a glass of very expensive whiskey in Scotland that....

 

“everyone wants money and that people don’t care where it comes from whether it’s putting your parents into a home so you can get your hands on their house or business or even stealing from family members and many other financial crimes !!!!....

 

I wonder who they learnt it from to be so deceitful,untrustworthy,scheming scumbags !!!!...

 

Oh yeah I know the elites !!!!....

 

 

[tinfoilhat]

11 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

1. define what is fair?   I think fair is paying what the the law dictates you have two. Not a penny more.  Lower earners don't get morally blackmailed or shamed by the media into paying more than they hmrc says they have to. Why should just making lots of money change that position.

 

2. Political pressure, hysterical Media, maintaining Public Image by saying what the people want to hear rather than giving a reality check.

 

3 and 4.  Nothing at all since it's all speculation, uncorroborated assumptions and presently without any merit. I work in a world of facts. Come back to me when there are some actual charges and a genuine reliable case for prosecution and I might be interested.

You don't think any of it is worth the relevant authorities investigating then?