Paradise papers ... "Austerity" for some

Discussion in 'Business, Economics and Trade' started by Big Andy, Nov 15, 2017.

  1. Big Andy

    Big Andy Senior Member Staff Member

    With the recent uproar about the super rich avoiding some tax using legal but some may say immoral measures it occured to me that the loopholes may actually be a good thing.

    The super rich are generally in a position to have the freedom to live wherever they choose and the tax they have to pay could be a major factor in their choice.

    If we squeeze them too hard they will simply go elsewhere. Surely it is better to get some tax, still large amounts, from them rather than nothing?
  2. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    Squeeze too hard and the smart money decamps to friendlier fiscal climes.
    Tax take goes up where taxes are reasonable.
    Nobody but a fool pays more tax than they legally should.
  3. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    Hold the front page!
    "The world’s biggest businesses, heads of state and global figures in politics, entertainment and sport ... have sheltered their wealth in secretive tax havens ..."
    And that never happened... when?
    Talk about a non-news 'story'. Nobody but a fool pays more tax then they should.
    If those richos were evading tax then they'll get nicked.
    Fact is most of em are legally avoiding tax, and fair play to them for doing so.
  4. kirkdale

    kirkdale Regular Member

    Live on the breadline, screw a couple of quid out the benefits system? Your scum, lowest of the low. Responsible for all societies ills.

    Avoid millions in tax, depriving the NHS etc? Fair play.
    IIP likes this.
  5. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    From a simple humanitarian perspective I cannot see how anybody can think that one person should sleep here;
    While another sleeps here;

    To have that boat, (By the way I don't know if Roman avoids tax , it's a general point) while another human has a doorway and to still want to move heaven and earth to avoid paying anymore than you can possibly get away with, I find it difficult to comprehend frankly.
    kirkdale, Aitch and Jezza like this.
  6. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

  7. Aitch

    Aitch Member

    FFS. On a practical level you can stop voting for a party that cuts taxes for the rich, promotes tax avoidance laws and toadies to the greedy.
    IIP, kirkdale, Nazz and 1 other person like this.
  8. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    I think we can start by not admiring them for it. Last night 50m was raised by, in general, ordinary men and women putting their hands in their pockets in an effort to help those less fortunate. How much do the super rich avoid, in fact perhaps more relevant, how much do the super rich pay to avoid helping those less fortunate?

    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
    Jezza likes this.
  9. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    Absolutely agree.
    It would be a poor elector indeed who did not support their own particular party of preference.
    For preference my support and votes go to a party that promotes minimal state interference, free enterprise, personal liberty within a framework of tradition, self-discipline and family values coupled with low taxes and value for money 'rates'. Towards national prosperity and the common good.
    Others prefer to support a party promulgating spending money that they don't have- after the manner of a drunken sailor on shore leave. Towards Venezuelan-style national impoverishment for all save their own party apparatchiks.
    Democracy innit?
  10. OP
    Big Andy

    Big Andy Senior Member Staff Member

  11. alecstilleyedye

    alecstilleyedye New Member

    tax is what you pay too less of and what i pay too much of...
  12. OP
    Big Andy

    Big Andy Senior Member Staff Member

    It does seem many people are happy for others to pay more tax, less so if they have to though. Human nature I suppose.
  13. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    Would you expand on this post?
    Which party has over the best promoted and worked towards "national prosperity and the common good"?
    Jezza likes this.
  14. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    Since I've been taking notice and voting (1960) that'd be the Conservatives.
    Every time Labour has been in, during my voting lifetime thus far; we've ended up in a right old mess.
    Conservatives understand that national prosperity hinges on wealth creation rather than Labour's idea of borrowing, in order to waste; money whilst at the same time hampering wealth-creators via tax hikes.
    Cognitio likes this.
  15. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    Thanks for the reply, particularly considering the atrocious English in my post, I really should proof read.
    I asked you specifically about your claim of national prosperity and the common good. My definition of that would be a country which is better for all it's citizens, measured by those with the least.

    Health inequality has grown since 2010
    Income gap has almost doubled
    Rough sleeping has risen every year since 2010

    National prosperity does not hinge on wealth creation for a few select individuals who then hide it away in off shore bank accounts. Your claim that Labour hampers wealth creators via tax hikes implies the opposite is true for the Torys, that would be almost believable if there was any evidence at all of there being less tax avoidance under a Tory government. The tax avoidance of the super wealthy has a direct negative effect on national prosperity and the common good, the Conservatives have done nothing to address this.
    Fido likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice