Spin Time

[Stevo 666]

They're non-doms. By definition they're avoiding large amounts of tax in this country.

You don't seem to understand the concept of avoidance.

When non-doms do not pay tax on their foreign source earnings they are within the law and that is not avoidance. A bit like me putting shares into an ISA and then having the dividends and capital gains not taxed is not avoidance. It is what parliament intended.

 

[Stevo 666]

The international order. Nearly all countries are fully signed up to the United Nations. The ones that are not are in effect rogue states. North Korea being one, and North America - where I am referring to the US.

There is a moral imperative that is reflected in the UNDHR. The Americans wanted to chair the table, but then didn't ratify the agreement.

Apparently it's more important to endorse the unlawful killing of 50 000 of their own citizens by gunfire each year. The USA protects wealth and not people.

I've met people like you before who want the benefits of the welfare state, but try hard to excuse themselves from paying their own contribution, citing nonsense like Laffer curve bollocks, and threatening to leave the UK for lower tax regimes. They also consider themselves patriots and paint Union jack images on their private jets.

What you advocate is indefensible.

The right answer is tax law.

One of the wrong answers is a random leftie cyclist on an Internet forum.

 

[Stevo 666]

Yes, everything left of ultra right is ''lefty bollocks'' isn't it.

I see you didn't try to rebutt the criticism of Oxfam as being far from impartial. A quick google on 'Oxfam political bias' or similar will tell you want you need (but don't want) to know.

 

[monkers]

You don't seem to understand the concept of avoidance.

When non-doms do not pay tax on their foreign source earnings they are within the law and that is not avoidance. A bit like me putting shares into an ISA and then having the dividends and capital gains not taxed is not avoidance. It is what parliament intended.

I didn't say that tax avoidance is illegal. Tax evasion however is illegal. It's a somewhat tired trope. It just wastes people's time.

Oh my mistake. I now see this was to Bob. Sorry Bob.

 

[Stevo 666]

I didn't say that that was what you were actually meaning to say. I said it is the case you are presenting. You presented the case that the system can not be changed by the UK acting alone, because wealth flight can move to other countries. Therefore you presented the case that it can only be stopped by means of a global reset. That being the case, I had no argument with what you said.

I think you're trying trying to put words in my mouth there.

But to address the point you raise, it seems like a nice idea, but there will always be competition for investment and business between countries and also you cannot stop movement of capital without global enforcement of draconian laws. Neither of which most countries will sign up to. So in reality what you want is pie in the sky.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

You don't seem to understand the concept of avoidance.

When non-doms do not pay tax on their foreign source earnings they are within the law and that is not avoidance. A bit like me putting shares into an ISA and then having the dividends and capital gains not taxed is not avoidance. It is what parliament intended.

Oh f*ck off you thick tw*t. I didn't say they're breaking the law, I said we won't miss them when they're gone. Try actually thinking before you spout your garbage.

 

[Stevo 666]

I didn't say that tax avoidance is illegal. Tax evasion however is illegal. It's a somewhat tired trope. It just wastes people's time.

That's true, but how is it relevant here? Imagine, talking about an arrangement that is legal. So not even avoidance, never mind evasion.

And don't worry, I am well aware of the differences.

 

[monkers]

I see you didn't try to rebutt the criticism of Oxfam as being far from impartial. A quick google on 'Oxfam political bias' or similar will tell you want you need (but don't want) to know.

However you didn't show that you'd read it, just searched for criticism of it.

That's true, but how is it relevant here? Imagine, talking about an arrangement that is legal. So not even avoidance, never mind evasion.

And don't worry, I am well aware of the differences.

When the argument is for the moral case - neither avoidance or evasion are acceptable.

 

[Stevo 666]

Oh f*ck off you thick tw*t. I didn't say they're breaking the law, I said we won't miss them when they're gone. Try actually thinking before you spout your garbage.

Calm down, dearie then appreciate the point I was making back. That's if you can. Maybe it's time to post the old tax parable of the ten menin a bar to help you understand?

 

[Stevo 666]

However you didn't show that you'd read it, just searched for criticism of it.


When the argument is for the moral case - neither avoidance or evasion are acceptable.

I guess you don't want to thread it then. Wonder why?

And thanks for 'no shoot sherlock' statement on tax evasion and tax avoidance. I don't need educating on that. Mitigation is OK though 🙂

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Calm down, dearie then appreciate the point I was making back. That's if you can. Maybe it's time to post the old tax parable of the ten menin a bar to help you understand?

Please don't. All you've done since you turned up here is post right wing banality. You make @CXRAndy seem like an intellectual heavyweight and all he does is repost X.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Please don't. All you've done since you turned up here is post right wing banality. You make @CXRAndy seem like an intellectual heavyweight and all he does is repost X.

Sorry that's not strictly true. I forgot about your sh*t jokes and your whining when noone laughed at them.

 

[Stevo 666]

Please don't. All you've done since you turned up here is post right wing banality. You make @CXRAndy seem like an intellectual heavyweight and all he does is repost X.

If you don't like my opinions, tough shoot. Seems to me that you're getting angry because you're incapable of debating properly.

 

[Stevo 666]

Sorry that's not strictly true. I forgot about your sh*t jokes and your whining when noone laughed at them.

Sorry to inform you that I don't need a pet troll just now

 

[Stevo 666]

Anyhow, by popular request from 'AngryBob' , here is the old tax parable of the ten men in a bar which can help some people with limited tax knowledge understand why it isn't a good idea to make the tax environment unfriendly towards high earners and wealth creators.

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, ‘but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, politicians, journalists and think tank professors, is how our tax system works!!

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."