BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
SpaceMarine93
Jedi Knight
Posts: 585
Joined: 2011-05-03 05:15am
Location: Continent of Mu

BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by SpaceMarine93 »

It's ridiculous, really, how utterly irresponsible people are to society. From BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18983010
The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax
By Colm O'Regan
Comedian and writer


Can you imagine it filled with $1 bills?
Continue reading the main story
In today's Magazine

Meet the 'bots' that edit Wikipedia
What's behind the Rorschach inkblot test?
Viewpoint: Europe's plague of plagiarism
A 23-year, 500,000-mile drive
It's been a taxing few days. Advisers who promote "aggressive tax avoidance" have been berated by the British government. Meanwhile a new report claims there could be $21tn (£13.5tn) stored away worldwide in offshore accounts.

The mind can't comprehend the amount. If it was denominated in $1 bills, it would fill nearly 10,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Provided the pools were empty and that it was possible to provide enough security personnel to guard all of the pools. (It would probably be better to use the Army and police rather than a private security firm.)

Put another way, 21 trillion seconds ago, the world was 600,000 years younger and experiencing the Lower Palaeolithic period. This was the time of Homo Heidelbergensis, one of mankind's early ancestors.

Archaeologists say Heidelbergensis was in some ways quite advanced, with rudimentary language and, maybe, a habit of burying the dead.

Continue reading the main story
How much is a trillion?


The BBC measures this number in doormats

But they were also extremely primitive. There is a lot of evidence to suggest he had not yet discovered the ability to measure large quantities of anything in terms of how many Olympic-sized swimming pools would be filled - a skill we would regard as essential now.

Overwrought quantification metaphors aside, $21tn is a lot of money to stash.

How would you even go about hiding it? With the entire output of the world's economy only being about $60tn (£39tn) or so, surely like an elephant hiding behind a curtain, you would notice the bulge somewhere?

Except now the elephant isn't even in the room, or in a room on an island somewhere. According to the Tax Justice Network report - offshore "refers not so much to the actual physical location of private assets or liabilities, but to nominal, hyper-portable, multi-jurisdictional often quite temporary locations of networks of legal and quasi‐legal entities and arrangements".

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

When your tax is deducted from your wage bill, while you are aware the money was taken and would love to have it back, it was never in your hot little hand”

So it sounds like some tax advisers have found the entrance to The Matrix.

Wherever it is, it's not in the real world experiencing real things, like tax. The report estimates that if tax was paid on the investment returns, it would yield more than the twice the amount OECD countries are spending at the moment on overseas development aid.

That's probably not how the money would have been spent in the first place. According to the report, a wide range of people might be availing themselves of these schemes: 30-year-old Chinese real-estate speculators, Silicon Valley software tycoons, Dubai oil sheiks, Russian presidents, mineral‐rich African dictators and Mexican druglords.

It conjures up the image of a group of baddies gathered in uneasy truce around a table in a secret location with only one item the agenda: How Do We Stop Superman? Just as they are about to agree a strategy, Superman himself appears and causes chaos for the participants with a selection of his superpowers.


I need all these books, OK?
Superman can use lasery eyes to melt all the guns he wants, but he can do nothing about a basic human urge best encapsulated by "plebianbob" one of the commenters on the £21tn story when it was first published earlier this week: "If you were very rich would you willingly pay tax?"

The very rich don't want to pay tax for three reasons:

First, money is lovely and having lots of it is better than not having lots of it.

Second, some very wealthy people collect money and giving it away ruins the aesthetic of the pile they have. It's an inclination common to all collectors.

For example, over time I have accumulated a few hundred books. Although they are of varying quality and there are many I will never read again (or read at all), the prospect of giving any of them away makes me very protective. There'll be a hole in the shelf where it was. I would miss any of them - even the Twilight series.

It's unlikely the Mexican druglords, Chinese property developers and mineral-rich African dictators sit in a library of money, rearranging the bills by alphabetical order and genre, but the impulse to hoard is the same.

Finally, it's about trust. Wealth gives people confidence. Confidence makes them sure of their opinions, and one of their opinions is that they are much better at spending their money than the government is. Allied to this is the fact that for many wealthy people, the tax is not deducted at source. They have to volunteer it.


When your tax is deducted from your wage bill, while you are aware the money was taken and would love to have it back, it was never in your hot little hand. The best you can do is to imagine the good work that money will do to support essential public services - to buy medicine in a hospital or pay the wages of a librarian who suggests a wonderful book to a child who goes on to become a Nobel Laureate poet.

When you're self-employed, it's a different story. You don't have to file until the end of the year, during which time you've become very attached to your money and you would like to see it well-treated.

This attachment convinces you that if you give it to the government, it's going to meet a sticky end. You picture your poor forlorn little notes being grasped in the meaty hand of a politician as they spend it on new curtains for the ministerial office.

By the time it comes to filing day, you are in a spitting rage. Which leads to aggressive tax avoidance.
Life sucks and is probably meaningless, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to be good.

--- The Anti-Nihilist view in short.
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Grumman »

Mind providing a translation from stream-of-consciousness gibberish to English?
User avatar
Spoonist
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2405
Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Spoonist »

Grumman wrote:Mind providing a translation from stream-of-consciousness gibberish to English?
That article was horrible, go here instead:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickal ... tudy-says/
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring.
“shows that at least £13tn [$21 trillion] – perhaps up to £20tn [$31 trillion] – has leaked out of scores of countries into secretive jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands with the help of private banks, which vie to attract the assets of so-called high net-worth individuals. Their wealth is, as Henry puts it, “protected by a highly paid, industrious bevy of professional enablers in the private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries taking advantage of the increasingly borderless, frictionless global economy“. According to Henry’s research, the top 10 private banks, which include UBS and Credit Suisse in Switzerland, as well as the US investment bank Goldman Sachs, managed more than £4tn [$6.2 trillion] in 2010, a sharp rise from £1.5tn five years earlier.
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Starglider »

Shortly after I arrived at university this darkly humorous, tremendously inspirational and in retrospect quite prophetic piece was published;
Welcome to the Brave New World
Party Political broadcast on behalf of SPECTRE

given to Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada on October 2, 1998
by Professor Ian O. Angell (Personal advisor to Ernst Stavro Blofeld)

Introduction

Welcome to the future. Welcome to a world as different from today, as today is from the pre-industrial age. Welcome to Spectre: We are NOT the Special Executive for Counter-Espionage, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. The James Bond myth, that the state is good and global corporations (we in Spectre) are bad, is blatant propaganda on behalf of the nation-state; a morality tale told by tax collectors.

We're merely global capitalists, and we are tired of the vicious lies pouring out of the nation-state; lies that categorize global business as criminal, just because we refuse to kow-tow to mere politicians. The nation state is dead. James Bond, the patron saint of civil servants, the thug of state, is now just another dirty old man. Welcome to our Brave New World.

But why new? New, because new technology is forcing new order upon an unsuspecting world. The future is being born on the so-called information superhighways, where everyone in the world (at least those who can afford it) can talk to everyone else. Anyone bypassed faces ruin. We're on the verge of a new revolution, an Information Revolution, that is taking us out of the Machine Age, into who knows what .... into that Brave New World.

But why Brave? Brave, because this is not a world for the timid. None but the brave will win here. The certainties of the twentieth century are collapsing. The twentieth century is over. It ended at the Berlin Wall in 1989. Everything is changing, and I really do mean everything: politics, economics, society as a whole. And I really do mean change; not the nice neat change that snake-oil salesmen peddle in their change management seminars; not nice tidy transition, but severe and total dislocation with the past.

Organizations, like Spectre do not identify with, are indifferent to, any particular country, and relocate (physically, fiscally or electronically) to where the profit is greatest and the regulation least. We think globally, because we communicate globally and because our shareholders, our executive, and our employees are spread out across the globe!

We are virtual enterprises at the hub of loosely knit alliances, all linked together by global networks: electronic, transport and human. We assemble to take advantage of any temporary business opportunity; and then we separate, each company moving on to its next major deal. We are project-based, and developed around complex information systems.

The information system IS the virtual enterprise; it IS the headquarters; and it can be based virtually anywhere in Cyberspace. And while in cyberspace the apparent size of the firm can be amplified far beyond the physical reality. You are what you claim to be; you are what you can deliver via telecommunication networks.

Global business will desert factory or office if the demands of workers are excessive just like Timex did when it abandoned its Dundee site. They sent in the helicopters and took what they wanted; they waved to the demon-strators fuming below, and left the local authority with useless real estate. We are changing the nature of work. With the networked portable comp-uter and the mobile phone, we are turning office workers into road warriors, and squeezing 30% more work out of them. The virtual office is merely a mobile node in a telecommunications network. Cars, homes, airports, aeroplanes are now just extensions of the office.

The all-knowing company (just-in-timeshare) information system will establish the exact location of each and every employee, and messages for her will be delivered directly, just-in-time, no matter where she is in the building, no matter where she is in the world. I say she, because the workplace (whatever that is) will be feminized. In the UK women already take up 44% of the jobs. Because of the changing nature of work, and the freedoms delivered by home-working, the Henley Centre predicts that women will take on 80% of all new jobs being created in the next decade.

Companies will shed office space. Offices can be hired on short time scales perhaps within even just a few hours. Hotels, railway stations and airports are already supplying temporary office space. We in Spectre don't pay any rent at all. We hold our meetings in the lobby of the best hotel in town, and all for the price of afternoon tea?

The demand for space is a tiny fraction of the supply: And so the value of commercial real estate will enter free-fall. There are going to be very bad times ahead for the owners of office blocks. So don't get tied into long-term office leases; there are bargains galore around the corner. Sell your property shares quickly before the meltdown.

No office, means: no rent, heat and light, insurance, and the number of support jobs can be slashed: tea ladies, security men, cleaners, receptionists, canteen staff, porters, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, janitors. All the jobs that supported the workplace of the Machine Age are now endangered species in the Information Age.

Companies will use fewer workers to cover the same work load. Those lucky enough to be in work, will have to work harder, for more hours each week, for less pay, in less secure jobs: and they had damn well better be grateful for it. No longer tied to a single location, we are free to exploit the workers. Management can finally get its revenge and kill off those damn trades unions. We can really shaft troublesome workers. In Spectre we don't even look them in the eye. We fire them by E-mail.

For humanity is polarizing into two employment categories: the financial, intellectual, cultural and business elite (the knowledge workers) the Alphas; and the rest (the service workers). It is time to rid ourselves of the backward looking idea that work involves physical effort. Of course labour is needed - but there is a world full of labourers out there. It is that rare commodity - human intellect - that is the stuff of work in tomorrow's world.

No company can survive without its Alphas, but it can replace service workers with roots or export the jobs anywhere on the globe. Offices, factories and headquarters will move from high cost areas to low cost. British Telecom Directory Enquiries for London is based in Scotland. Companies can just as easily move abroad. ICL, the British computer company, runs main-frame help line from Poona in India. Courage, British institution, makes all its toys in China. A host of countries are out there making you an offer you can't refuse.

Meanwhile, money, which is merely a means of facilitating economic transactions, has itself become electronic information. What constitutes money can no longer be monopolized by the state. Money does not have to be created legal tender by governments. Like law, language and morals it can emerge spontaneously. Such private money has often been preferred to government money, but government has usually soon suppressed it (Hayek). In the age of Internet can government keep suppressing it? Hayek's vision of the Denationalization of Money can now become a reality.

The real issue is not dollar bills, but Bill's [Gates] dollars; every corporation will issue its own electronic money. Such trends make taxation of profits and regulation of the process almost impossible. But a real competitive advantage for those who are willing to trade their expertise in this electronic market.

We Alphas are the real generators of wealth. Our income will increase substantially. We will be made welcome anywhere in the world. Foreign entrepreneurial investors with 1 million at their disposal can bypass the usual entry rules into the UK.

But poor Britain has been very slow off the Mark, with the added embarrassment that none of the migrant rich want to live there. In the United States, there is a fast-track immigration policy for businessmen who can offer $1 million and employ 10 people. In 1993 six hundred million-aires emigrated to America.

However, service workers are a net loss. There are a billion new workers in the global marketplace. It is no accident that most Western companies are instigating major downsizing, delayering and outsourcing programs.

The motto for everyone is "add value or perish!"

There is no room for sentimentality in this Brave New World. Companies must ask, and answer, some very brutal questions concerning which workers are resources and which are liabilities. Acting in this way they are not being callous, unscrupulous, unprincipled or immoral. "Nature is not immoral, when it has no pity for the degenerate." (Nietzsche).

Of course, out-of-touch politicians, both the knaves and the naive, incant the words - training - in New Technology and - jobs - through growth, pretending they can conjure up new jobs for the huge number of soon-to-be-unemployed - it's not that simple. For technology is the problem, not the solution. Productivity is delivered by a technology needing only a few machine minders growth comes from the intellect of knowledge workers, not from the labour of service and production workers.

States must learn that they are now just a form of commercial enterprise and they will have to be run like corporations. Governments, like all other organizations will have to survive economically on the efforts of an elite few and no nation-state has an automatic right to exist.

Now the Alpha chooses to give his loyalty freely and voluntarily; loyalty is no longer an accident of birth. It is individual, not tribal; contractual not judicial; it is made consciously on the basis of unashamed rational self-interest. If the state can't produce quality people products, in sufficient quantities, then it must buy it from abroad.

Each state must scour the globe for elite knowledge workers, no matter what their age, sex, religion or race. Drag them off the planes if necessary. These entrepreneurs, who can flee, will be immune to taxation. Tax credits and tax holidays will be the name of the game everywhere.

Governments have no choice. They must submit to the will of global enterprise. The British government had to bribe the Chung Hwa Picture Tube Company with 80 million to open a factory in Scotland.

In order to attract the elite with their knowledge and money to enliven the economy, Alphas will be expected to be less taxed and not more! Arbitrage pressures, exploitation of price/tax/regulation differentials mean the end of progressive taxation. Companies can demand that its senior executives be given diplomatic status: no income tax! When Leona Helmsley said only the little people pay taxes she was making a prediction. Strapped for cash, governments will tax anything in solid form: we will see taxes on fuel, food and clothes. Property taxes will rise: in 1913 60% of US tax revenues came from property; today it is 10%; in 2013 will it be back at 60%?

But nobody wants more service workers; each state has a surplus of its own to support. Barriers will be thrown up everywhere to keep out alien service workers. It is already happening. In California, proposition 187 bars nearly two million illegal immigrants from schools, welfare services, and all but emergency health care.

How long before there are differential rights, for differentiated citizens, identified in data base, and policed by smart cards? How long before the notion of Human Rights is as outdated as the Divine Right of Kings?

The fact is - many too many are born.

The state was devised for the superfluous ones. Mass-production methods needed an over-supply of humanity; the Machine Age spawned the nation-state, but with its demise what is to be done with the glut as we enter the Information age? Not only will state be pitted against state, but also against area, town against town, even suburb against suburb.

Global corporations have shown that the nation-state is too small for the big things and too big for the small things. Nation-states will fragment. Rich areas will dump poor areas. The number of states in the United Nations will increase from its present number of 184 to over a thousand. Belgium will break up. So will Italy, Spain, France and Germany. and what about the United Kingdom(?) which has never been truly united. How soon before the rich South-East of England realize the benefits of discarding that black hole for taxes north of Watford?

And what will replace the nation state? We Alphas, tired of supporting the ungrateful masses, are on the move to hot spots modeled along the lines of Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein. We are reinventing the medieval City
State as the Smart City at the hub of global electronic and transport networks.

An independent cosmopolitan City State of London makes real economic sense. Think of it! Home rule for London inside the M25 orbital motorway.

The Free City of London can be a tiger economy attracting in global corporations, but only if we chop off the dead hand of the Mother of Parliaments, the sleaze-machine of Westminster. If the House of Commons really wants to help London, then they should move to Birmingham.

The lights are going out for wide sectors of society, And for whole categories of employment. Involvement in the black economy, in essence an alternative economy, is the only option open to the losers who are surplus to requirements in the legitimate economy. We re entering a new Dark Age: an age of hopelessness, an age of resentment, an age of Rage. Redundancy Rage is appearing among the unemployed. Newly redundant workers attack
senior management and their ex-colleagues in the workplace, on the street and in their homes. A certain Los Angeles company has had five senior executives murdered in the past two years. Grudge terror, whether the grudge is real or imagined, is reality: just think of the unabomber in the US and the Mardi Gras bombers' attacks on Barclays Bank in the UK.

Societies re stratifying; new elite's are appearing. The rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer. We are already witnessing the emergence of a rapidly expanding underclass. The streets of London are again littered with beggars. In the transition we can expect massive civil unrest and disorder. The >soon-to-be-have-nots - have nothing to lose and will riot. This is what happened in France in the winter of 1995, when workers and students took to the streets in defense of their cradle-to-grave welfare system.

It happened in Belgium, South Korea and Germany. German coal miners re subsidized to the tune of 150,000DM each year! It can't go on. This is the economics of the madhouse, and the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. These crazy politicians cannot indefinitely keep buying votes and still hope to fend off the inevitable.

Real world crime is finding a counterpart in Cyberspace: computer variants of protection rackets, blackmail, murder, kidnapping, smuggling, counterfeiting, fraud, threatening behaviour, vandalism (fax graffiti) and pornography will inevitably appear.

Don't look to the police for help. With the lack of government resources, the main role for state police, perhaps the only role, will be the maint-enance of civil order. Governments are control freaks, they will never give up pushing the population round. But because of the lack of revenue, other police duties, such as solving crime, which today you take for granted, will increasingly be outsourced.

Today in the US there are nearly three times as many private security guards as there are public police - even in the UK the figure is two to one. The eleventh biggest police force in the US is the New York Schools Authority.

The natural order is reasserting itself: the police are not there to protect the masses, they are there to protect the property of the rich from the masses. Lack of government funding may mean the end of the Welfare State, but the rich will always find money for security. The security of Alphas is going to be big business, perhaps the only growth business in the Information Age. Whenever anyone asks me for career advice I always say: if you can't be a knowledge worker... be a policeman.

So this is not a time for despair, quite the opposite. It is a time of great opportunity for the few, a great opportunity for YOU. It is in such times that new empires are made - today that means new global business empires. For a few companies the future looks very bright.

Information technology has liberated the elite few, from the mind-set and the moralities of the tribe. We ignore tribal loyalties. There are enormous opportunities for those who have the vigour and vitality, the nerve, to break free of the limitations of tribal boundaries drawn from the past, and who have the vision to redraw their own orders, their own future.

It isn't going to be easy, and it isn't going to be nice. "I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws" (Nietzsche). Societal evolution is not benign. Evolution is by nature red in tooth and claw; it spawns carnivores as well as herbivores. The carnivores of Spectre care nothing for democracy or the rules of parliament, that are representative of herbivores. Grass eaters beware, the jackals are circling, the hyenas are laughing. Specter's time has come. Why not join us?

In this brutal and brutish world remember Baudelaires' words: "one is punished for being weak, not for being cruel."

>From your expressions I seem to have shocked many of you

It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit. I'm discouraged, but not surprised.

But whether you like it on not, you are faced with a very simple choice: create your own future, or fall into somebody else's; take control of your own destiny, or be at the mercy of another's whim.

Grab hold of the future. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw).

SPECTRE is very unreasonable. And Spectre is going to win. Global business is not your enemy - populist governments are. Petty politicians are merely moving the deckchairs on the Titanic: we've already launched the lifeboats.

Spectre is the government in waiting. We will create our own new world order. Don't think you can deny global business. For remember, those who are not with us are against us.

Take the advice of Niccolo Machiavelli. On his deathbed, a priest asked him : do you renounce the devil and all his works? To which Machiavelli replied : "This is no time to be making enemies."

Don't make an enemy of global business. Why not join us? The choice is yours.

Where will you fit in? will you fit in?
Rising structural unemployment, companies working fewer workers harder, commercial real estate crash, tax hikes, globalisation, commoditisation of industrial labor, rising income inequality, civil unrest, frictionless capital flow, it's all there. The part about 'you are what you can deliver through information networks' and lean companies not needing conventional support structures is exactly what has happened for IT & finance start-ups.

Of course the automatic socialist knee-jerk response to someone saying 'we don't want or need you' was to murder them - or rather to demand someone else murder the dissenters as they personally 'don't have the stomach for it';
M.Blackmore (Futurework mailing list, December 1998 wrote:A nasty thought: And isn't it about time "we" started up cells to develop hit lists, and think about sytematically carrying them out? I'm sure there are people around who'd be quite happy to do that (Odd thing for a erstwhile NVDA peace activist to be saying, but... I've personally not got the stomach for it though. All I can remember is that the last time we faced Nietschian-inspired fascists passive resistance didn't do much good on its own :-(( Perhaps we ought to harness and tame a few psychopaths for our side and give them some pointers of where to aim...).

As he says, weakness is contemptible. Perhaps we ought to be doing a bit of cleaning out of the gene pool ourselves of those people with a disposition to social pathologies such as global businessmen. He wants to setup a game to play without rules, "we" can play without rules too.. ???

My my, reading this sort of speech leads to some thoroughly nasty lines of thought, doesn't it?

Unfortunately though Professor Angell was a bit too optimistic in expecting state to starve for cash, shrink and break up. Credit issuance and market manipulation on a historically unprecedented scale has allowed nation states to become more bloated and obese than ever, thrashing and screaming, trampling liberties and desperately grasping for tax revenue. It can't go on forever though; fiscal cliffs and demographic declines are bearing down across most of the first world. We look forward to breaking the euro and derailing the eurosocialist mega-state project.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Simon_Jester »

Starglider wrote:Rising structural unemployment, companies working fewer workers harder, commercial real estate crash, tax hikes, globalisation, commoditisation of industrial labor, rising income inequality, civil unrest, frictionless capital flow, it's all there. The part about 'you are what you can deliver through information networks' and lean companies not needing conventional support structures is exactly what has happened for IT & finance start-ups.

Of course the automatic socialist knee-jerk response to someone saying 'we don't want or need you' was to murder them - or rather to demand someone else murder the dissenters as they personally 'don't have the stomach for it...'

Unfortunately though Professor Angell was a bit too optimistic in expecting state to starve for cash, shrink and break up. Credit issuance and market manipulation on a historically unprecedented scale has allowed nation states to become more bloated and obese than ever, thrashing and screaming, trampling liberties and desperately grasping for tax revenue. It can't go on forever though; fiscal cliffs and demographic declines are bearing down across most of the first world. We look forward to breaking the euro and derailing the eurosocialist mega-state project.
Is it really worth writing as a parody of the anarcho-corporatist, when everyone can predict ahead of time that you're going to do it? If you're aiming for Swift you're missing; if you're aiming for much of anything else, it's not even dignified enough to count as missing.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Magis
Padawan Learner
Posts: 226
Joined: 2010-06-17 02:50pm

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Magis »

BBC Article wrote:The very rich don't want to pay tax for three reasons:
I don't think anyone wants to pay tax in the sense that nobody enjoys doing it. It's something that people do reluctantly because it's necessary to maintain a healthy society. It's sort of like the financial equivalent of flossing.

That said, there is a world of difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. If someone is illegally evading taxes, then by all means let's direct some outrage at them. But using legal means to reduce your tax burden is a whole other thing. If you have outrage over that, it should be directed toward the people who wrote the tax laws and regulations.

The reason why I don't like paying tax is because while a lot of the money is well-spent (on universal healthcare, some infrastructure, research, education, etc.), there is also a non-trivial amount that's just totally fucking wasted. That's what pisses me off. I also have my own well-being to consider. In addition to non-negotiable things like saving for retirement, I also want to live in a nice neighbourhood, take some vacations here and there, and basically have an easy life. Obviously having money facilitates some of that, so obviously I want to keep as much of the money that I earned as possible. So why would I pay more taxes than I'm told I have to?

This year I'm going to pay about $23,000 less in taxes than I would normally if I didn't take advantage of various tax breaks - deductions, credits, tax-free investment instruments and so on. That is all legal and all available to me. If the people in government (who supposedly know what they're doing, which is why they collect my money and decide what to spend it on in the first place) tell me that I only have to pay a certain tax bill, can you think of a reason why I should decide on my own to pay more than that?

So I really can't get very worked up about people doing what's legal to maximize their resources.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Magis wrote:So I really can't get very worked up about people doing what's legal to maximize their resources.
Okay. But where do you draw the line? I mean, many of these schemes are taking advantage of loop-holes in the law. So it is technically not illegal by the letter of the law, but it is by the spirit. How do you treat those cases, with hidden overseas accounts and such, compared to people like you who just fill out the paperwork you're given?
User avatar
gizmojumpjet
Padawan Learner
Posts: 447
Joined: 2005-05-25 04:44pm

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by gizmojumpjet »

If it's not technically illegal, it's not illegal, period. If you don't like it how people take "advantage" of the law, work to get the law changed. Don't try painting people as criminals because they're not adhering to the "spirit" of the law, however the fuck you're defining that.
amigocabal
Jedi Knight
Posts: 854
Joined: 2012-05-15 04:05pm

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by amigocabal »

Magis wrote: The reason why I don't like paying tax is because while a lot of the money is well-spent (on universal healthcare, some infrastructure, research, education, etc.), there is also a non-trivial amount that's just totally fucking wasted.
And even money towards ostensibly good causes can be wasted.

Money spent on health care ended up being spent on the Tuskegee Experiments.

Money spent on education ended up being spent requiring cheerleaders to cheer for their rapists.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Don't try painting people as criminals because they're not adhering to the "spirit" of the law, however the fuck you're defining that.
Quote me where I said that they are criminals, asshole. My point was obviously that things are not as cut and dried as "legal/illegal" because of the complexity and idiocy of tax laws.
User avatar
gizmojumpjet
Padawan Learner
Posts: 447
Joined: 2005-05-25 04:44pm

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by gizmojumpjet »

Ziggy Stardust wrote:So it is technically not illegal by the letter of the law, but it is by the spirit.
It's pretty obvious to me. You said what they're doing isn't technically illegal, but is illegal according to the spirit of the law. That's painting people as criminals, you fucking clown.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22465
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Mr Bean »

gizmojumpjet wrote:
Ziggy Stardust wrote:So it is technically not illegal by the letter of the law, but it is by the spirit.
It's pretty obvious to me. You said what they're doing isn't technically illegal, but is illegal according to the spirit of the law. That's painting people as criminals, you fucking clown.
Theoretical for you except it's not a theoretical, what if I being rich decided to invest money in a few politicians who sneak a provision in the farm bill so Rich people just like me are allowed to take something as a deduction which was not a deduction before, for example I want to buy lets say a very nice expensive sports car of some sort, but I want to deduct it as a business expense. Now if I get my pet politicians to change the law so that any car you use to meet clients can be fully deducted as a business expense and thus my hundred thousand dollar sports car becomes a hundred thousand dollar deduction is that okay?

Or if I as a rich person set up my own charitable foundation and then donate large sums of money to it to make it tax free then spend that charity money on myself indirectly. And if you need an example I have two good ones.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Phantasee
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
Posts: 5777
Joined: 2004-02-26 09:44pm

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Phantasee »

If something isn't illegal, does that make it right? Or do you believe that things can be wrong without being illegal under current laws?
XXXI
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by weemadando »

There are various loopholes that can only be exploited by spending outrageous amounts on maintaining the appearance of proprietary that goes along with them.

It's why the loop holes exist. Government and tax agencies didn't foresee billionaires able to burn seven figure sums to create ways to hide eight figure sums.
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Stark »

They didn't have to; they just needed to react appropriately. Too bad politics control tax and the rich exist by fucking the poor, I guess.
streetad
Padawan Learner
Posts: 240
Joined: 2011-06-12 01:02pm
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by streetad »

There's a whole spectrum of tax avoidance measures and unless you use the point at which it becomes illegal, it's hard to say exactly when it becomes immoral. I don't think anyone would argue that it's immoral to alter your behaviour (eg give up smoking) to pay less indirect tax. Is it immoral to arrange to have part of your salary in pension contributions to avoid the extra income tax? How about using offshore banking to defer income tax until later in life when you may be in a lower income bracket? Making gifts into trust to avoid estate taxes? All pretty small potatoes but driven by the exact same motive as the ultra rich tycoon who uses complex offshore arrangements to hide millions/billions.

You could start from the assumption that some or all of the above measures are deliberately allowed by governments to drive certain behaviours (eg stop smoking/start putting money aside for retirement) but then we run across the suspicion that more complex loopholes are also deliberately created/left in place to prevent scaring off internationally mobile 'wealth creators', again creating a sort of moral equivalency.

It is not satisfying to me to conclude that morality is simply a matter of the magnitude of the amount of tax avoided - which leaves us with legality/illegality.
User avatar
Magis
Padawan Learner
Posts: 226
Joined: 2010-06-17 02:50pm

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Magis »

Mr Bean wrote:... what if I being rich decided to invest money in a few politicians who sneak a provision in the farm bill so Rich people just like me are allowed to take something as a deduction which was not a deduction before ...
If the electorate disapproves of those provisions they should throw that person out of office during the election, now shouldn't they?
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22465
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Mr Bean »

Magis wrote: If the electorate disapproves of those provisions they should throw that person out of office during the election, now shouldn't they?
Would you even know? If I as the rich also own the mass media and chose not to report on it how will you know unless you went through the bills themselves and found the two lines in the eight hundred page bill. The Media is owned by multinationals run by the rich, the people who run ads on those stations and fund them are multinationals themselves. Even ignoring the direct owner if Rich Guy W in charge of Company X gets that exception passed why would Rich Guy Y in charge of media outlet Z report on it when he or she might be able to take advantage of it themselves?

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by mr friendly guy »

Magis wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:... what if I being rich decided to invest money in a few politicians who sneak a provision in the farm bill so Rich people just like me are allowed to take something as a deduction which was not a deduction before ...
If the electorate disapproves of those provisions they should throw that person out of office during the election, now shouldn't they?
That really isn't relevant to his point that the rich can (but the poor can't) effectively alter the law so that the spirit is violated but the letter remains. Its irrelevant because whether the electorate really wants to get rid of these loopholes, or maybe not, isn't really relevant to his implied moral impropriety that the loopholes provide. Popularity doesn't equate to morality after all.

Just for the record, I am a bit ambivalent towards where I draw the line between what should be allowed as a tax minimisation, however I find your statement very simplistic. But however lets play along with your statement. For example can you explain how

a. The electorate will throw out the person giving these benefits to the rich when some countries political system are structured in such a way to heavily favour 2 party system, AND if both parties believe in giving these benefits to the rich. Let me guess, you going to suggest people simply form a third party, in which case I would ask where is the funding going to come from? Big business, oh wait.

By extension arguably the person with the most money can convince most (not all obviously) people to see things his way via advertising.

b. Lets pretend the person of average knowledge wants to get rid of these loopholes. How would you go about it? Which laws do you target when tax legislation runs into hundreds of pages? How would the electorate know which politician is going to successfully get rid of these loopholes?
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Starglider »

Simon_Jester wrote:Is it really worth writing as a parody of the anarcho-corporatist, when everyone can predict ahead of time that you're going to do it?
Angell and myself both enjoy a little black humor to spice things up but the message is serious. The mass employment cradle-to-grave nation state model is well down the road to failure. The morality of whether socialism is evil and whether crushing depression following sovereign bankrupcy is worse is frankly academic. Barring a technological miracle, there is nothing any individual can do to prevent it. As an individual your choice is whether to keep sitting in the nearly dried up socialist oasis, hoping you can somehow force someone to fill it up again, or strike out for somewhere better.

Fortunately the majority of this board has the opportunity to join the globalised value creator class. Most posters have a first-world upbringing, degree, conventional and technology literacy, and are relatively young. With persistence and the right attitude chance of getting highly compensated, stimulating work are good. You just have to want it and let go of the old single-employer 'company and state will organise my life for me' paradigm.
User avatar
Magis
Padawan Learner
Posts: 226
Joined: 2010-06-17 02:50pm

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by Magis »

Mr Bean wrote:Would you even know? If I as the rich also own the mass media and chose not to report on it how will you know unless you went through the bills themselves and found the two lines in the eight hundred page bill.
The people that would know about it include: every tax lawyer in the country, all the opposition members of government, the banks, academics that study tax policy, hordes of employees that work for the government tax collection agency, and think tanks to name a few. You're not trying to claim that the only people that are aware of tax loopholes are the people who wrote them and the people who exploit them do you? This stuff does get out there and does get reported. Hell, this whole discussion started from an article in the OP that was.... published in the media!
Mr Bean wrote: The Media is owned by multinationals run by the rich
"The Media" is owned by millions of individual shareholders, most of whom are not rich and most of whom don't have the slightest personal incentive to want the cover up tax loopholes that benefit some special interest group or other individual. Of course, the actual media also includes internet bloggers, university newspapers, local radio journalists and a few million other people that don't belong to any large media organization.
mr friendly guy wrote:Its irrelevant because whether the electorate really wants to get rid of these loopholes, or maybe not, isn't really relevant to his implied moral impropriety that the loopholes provide. Popularity doesn't equate to morality after all.
The point I was trying to make is that some compartmentalization of problems is necessary here. Just because the rich may have an advantage due to, say, poorly written or poorly designed campaign financing laws doesn't mean that it becomes immoral to ask your elected representative to represent your interests. It is perfectly ethical for me to ask my representative for anything - even something that would only conceivably benefit me. If a politician makes the wrong decision, that's a separate problem and it's the politician that should be blamed, not the person that made the request of his elected official.
mr friendly guy wrote:For example can you explain how

a. The electorate will throw out the person giving these benefits to the rich when some countries political system are structured in such a way to heavily favour 2 party system, AND if both parties believe in giving these benefits to the rich. Let me guess, you going to suggest people simply form a third party, in which case I would ask where is the funding going to come from? Big business, oh wait.
Whether it is practical to do that depends on the country and the system of government and how elections are conducted. But just because some country might have a shitty system of government doesn't make it immoral to ask your representative to make policy that benefits your interests.
mr friendly guy wrote:By extension arguably the person with the most money can convince most (not all obviously) people to see things his way via advertising.
I don't agree with that at all.
mr friendly guy wrote:b. Lets pretend the person of average knowledge wants to get rid of these loopholes. How would you go about it? Which laws do you target when tax legislation runs into hundreds of pages? How would the electorate know which politician is going to successfully get rid of these loopholes?
There are politicians who campaign to reform taxes and eliminate loopholes. I think in most cases they don't get elected because in most cases the electorate just doesn't really care about it that much.
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: BBC: The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax

Post by mr friendly guy »

Magis wrote:The point I was trying to make is that some compartmentalization of problems is necessary here. Just because the rich may have an advantage due to, say, poorly written or poorly designed campaign financing laws doesn't mean that it becomes immoral to ask your elected representative to represent your interests. It is perfectly ethical for me to ask my representative for anything - even something that would only conceivably benefit me.
The moral impropriety being implied isn't in the asking of the politician for something, its what you are asking that is being criticise. Saying you have a right to ask a politician for something is about as valid as a Creationist saying while I have a right to say what I want when their "theories" are criticised.

Do you really want me to give a far out example to illustrate the difference between what someone asks for and their right to ask for something?
Magis wrote:If a politician makes the wrong decision, that's a separate problem and it's the politician that should be blamed, not the person that made the request of his elected official.
This is somewhat tangential to my point, but I have to ask. Why just the politician? Why not both people whose actions ultimately led to this wrong decision. I am not saying the blame should be split 50-50, but you pretty much said its a 100-0 split.
Magis wrote: Whether it is practical to do that depends on the country and the system of government and how elections are conducted. But just because some country might have a shitty system of government doesn't make it immoral to ask your representative to make policy that benefits your interests.
In that statement you replied I didn't say it was immoral to ask your representative to do things for you. I did however question how easy it is that things would get change just because you ask. This was in reply to your statement earlier, to wit "If the electorate disapproves of those provisions they should throw that person out of office during the election, now shouldn't they?" The implication being of course that if these changes aren't made, its 1) because the electorate doesn't want to. Your main point (1), is however dependent on the proviso that it is easy to change the system no? If its not, then it may very well be that people do want to change the system, but because of a "shitty system" they can't. Or in other words, your whole argument falls down.

Your statement clearly gives the impression that its easy to change the policies. I put forward a situation where it would be difficult to do so (which I think is realistic), which you would describe as "a shitty system of government". If you disagree such a situation can exists, state it then and I will give examples (of political systems where 2 parties dominate and its hard for a third party to be established). Otherwise you aren't really addressing the point that its NOT necessarily easy to change the system.
Magis wrote: I don't agree with that at all.
Ok, I will bite. You are obviously disputing the effectiveness of advertising. Just to clarify, are you saying that advertising doesn't work in general, or only with political messages? In which case why do any political parties (or companies) bother with advertising at all?
Magis wrote:I think in most cases they don't get elected because in most cases the electorate just doesn't really care about it that much.
May be true, may be not. However I think there are quite a few other factors like how easy it is to change things (from our above conversation).
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Post Reply