Major EU governments shamed into crackdown on tax evasion

[Himaginn]

So, you are saying that the Birmingham factory worker can have a Panamanian off-shore trust?

An apology that you aimed unwarranted criticism at me because you misinterpreted and misrepresented my comments would be good.
What do we get instead? Just even more ludicrous nonsense. You've taken your out of context misrepresentations to new heights.

The same tax avoidance that Cameron used i.e. CGT allowance is available to anyone, and other allowances.
That was the context of my comment! Not aggressive tax avoidance/evasion schemes.
Cameron has not exploited those type of aggressive tax avoidance/evasion schemes. So your application to those types of schemes is your contextual application , and yours alone.

 

[EFLImpudence]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/201...-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers



Have I complied with all mandatory conditions necessary to be allowed to argue with you?

 

[Himaginn]

View attachment 99002
http://www.theguardian.com/news/201...-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers



Have I complied with all mandatory conditions necessary to be allowed to argue with you?

He paid income tax on the dividends but there was no capital gains tax payable

From your source. He used his CGT allowance! Exactly the same CGT allowance that is available to all and sundry.
Plus the other allowances, and more that I mentioned.

Further:

he confirmed a direct link to his father’s UK-tax avoiding fund

That link was that he held shares, the shares which he sold, which did not incur CGT.
Additionally, there is no evidence that his Father set up the trust to benefit from tax avoidance.
Also, as Cameron said, when the trust was set up, "Rules have changed, culture has changed,” he said. “And I welcome that."

It's a sad day when someone has to resort to exploiting a misrepresentation in attempting to discredit another poster.
Then they don't have the courage to admit their mistake, even when it's pointed out to them.
You're relying on your assumption of what you think I meant. I know what I meant, and it's only your misunderstanding that's a problem.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Additionally, there is no evidence that his Father set up the trust to benefit from tax avoidance.

Would there be evidence of intentions?
What do you suggest they were? Philanthropy to the people of Panama?

Let me get this straight.
Because income tax and CGT applies to everyone, the method of any 'investments' irrelevant.

It's a sad day when someone has to resort to exploiting a misrepresentation in attempting to discredit another poster.
Then they don't have the courage to admit their mistake, even when it's pointed out to them.
You're relying on your assumption of what you think I meant. I know what I meant, and it's only your misunderstanding that's a problem.

Don't be vague then.

 

[Himaginn]

Additionally, there is no evidence that his Father set up the trust to benefit from tax avoidance.

Would there be evidence of intentions?
What do you suggest they were? Philanthropy to the people of Panama?

Who's talking about intentions. There is no evidence of tax avoidance! Despite the accusations that that is why it was set up.

He also said it was a misconception that Blairmore had been set up to avoid tax. “It wasn’t,” he said. “It was set up after exchange controls went so that people who wanted to invest in dollar denominated shares and companies could do so.”

From your source. You should read it!

Let me get this straight.
Because income tax and CGT applies to everyone, the method of any 'investments' irrelevant.

Income tax only applies to those earning more than the personal allowance. CGT applies to those who have made some capital gains, but there is an allowance, £10k per person. But they are available to anyone who has a case or cause to use them. Which is what I said originally!
There are many other allowances, some of which I mentioned.

It's a sad day when someone has to resort to exploiting a misrepresentation in attempting to discredit another poster.
Then they don't have the courage to admit their mistake, even when it's pointed out to them.
You're relying on your assumption of what you think I meant. I know what I meant, and it's only your misunderstanding that's a problem.

Don't be vague then.

Pot, kettle black.
Don't put your own spin on my comments.

That reminds me, the last time someone took my post out of context and they accused me of racism, when I used that phrase pot, kettle, black. It was davy jones.
I credited you with a bit more commonsense than him.

 

[EFLImpudence]

He also said it was a misconception that Blairmore had been set up to avoid tax. “It wasn’t,” he said. “It was set up after exchange controls went so that people who wanted to invest in dollar denominated shares and companies could do so.”

And, without being clairvoyant, you believe that? What else would he say.

Income tax only applies to those earning more than the personal allowance. CGT applies to those who have made some capital gains, but there is an allowance, £10k per person. But they are available to anyone who has a case or cause to use them. Which is what I said originally!
There are many other allowances, some of which I mentioned.

Yes, but that is not what Noseall had in mind with the original comment, is it?

Obviously, the same rules apply to everyone but if the factory worker is in no position to take advantage of them, then, in fact, they only apply to the wealthy - as is the intention.

 

[Himaginn]

He also said it was a misconception that Blairmore had been set up to avoid tax. “It wasn’t,” he said. “It was set up after exchange controls went so that people who wanted to invest in dollar denominated shares and companies could do so.”

And, without being clairvoyant, you believe that? What else would he say.

His comments fitted the facts - no evidence of tax avoidance, selling of shares, etc. No reason to not believe him.
Or are you subscribing to PBC's theories of anyone and every one being evil conniving monsters?

Income tax only applies to those earning more than the personal allowance. CGT applies to those who have made some capital gains, but there is an allowance, £10k per person. But they are available to anyone who has a case or cause to use them. Which is what I said originally!
There are many other allowances, some of which I mentioned.

Yes, but that is not what Noseall had in mind with the original comment, is it?

I've no idea what noseall had in mind. I'm not clairvoyant and I don't second guess what he meant to say.
He referred to Cameron's tax avoidance, which was the use of his CGT allowance.

Obviously, the same rules apply to everyone but if the factory worker is in no position to take advantage of them, then, in fact, they only apply to the wealthy - as is the intention.

Nonsense, inheritance tax allowances is another example. £325,000 at current threshold. most people's homes are worth that, and more, these days. But husband and wife can apply their individual allowances. by leaving some to charity any tax applicable can be reduced. Similarly bY using gifts 7 years prior to death (13 years in France) can reduce the tax due.
Savings account interest free of tax, for those not earning up to their personal allowance, is another example.
Use of trust funds for personal injury awards for those on benefits is another example of avoiding tax, for instance, suppose someone is awarded £100,000 for personal injury. By using a trust fund, they could avoid the loss of benefits, and the interest could be paid gross because their personal income would be less than their personal allowance. Yet the trust fund could be increasing by about £4,000 per year (at current interest rates), tax free.
All these allowances, schemes, etc, and many more, are available to the man-in-the-street.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Obviously, the same rules apply to everyone but if the factory worker is in no position to take advantage of them, then, in fact, they only apply to the wealthy - as is the intention.

Nonsense,

No, it isn't.

inheritance tax allowances is another example. £325,000 at current threshold. most people's homes are worth that, and more, these days.

Really. Sources? links?

What colour is the sky in your world?



Put it this way, then.

Can everyone, including my factory worker, let alone anyone on the minimum (living?) wage, do what Jimmy Carr did?

 

[PBC_1966]

£325,000 at current threshold. most people's homes are worth that, and more, these days.

Really? In London and similar areas, perhaps, but even allowing for rapidly rising house prices since I left the U.K., I find it hard to believe that the majority of people live in homes over that amount.

 

[EFLImpudence]

There seems to be some doubt but I think the top one is correct.

Either way - the average is way below Himmy's assertion.

 

[Himaginn]

Can everyone, including my factory worker, let alone anyone on the minimum (living?) wage, do what Jimmy Carr did?

Of course not. But that wasn't what was in my mind when i was referring to tax avoidance, by using various tax allowances built into the system, such as Cameron used.
The type of aggressive tax avoidance/evasion schemes such as those used by Jimmy Carr, may have been in your mind when you read my comment, bu8t it wasn't in my comment!
I can't be responsible for you having something else in your mind when you're reading peoples' comments, despite that 'something' not being in that comment.

 

[Himaginn]

There seems to be some doubt but I think the top one is correct.

View attachment 99054

Either way - the average is way below Himmy's assertion.

OK, I exaggerated a little, by about 1% in one of my examples.
The basic tenet still applies. Most people's homes are approaching the inheritance tax threshold. Given current house price increases, they will reach that threshold by 2018. And London houses, and in other southern areas, are already well past that threshold.
By the time the rest of their estate (I did say "homes", not "house") is considered that threshold is easily reached.

And as I said, it was an exaggeration in only one of my examples. I quoted it merely as an illustration.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Can everyone, including my factory worker, let alone anyone on the minimum (living?) wage, do what Jimmy Carr did?

Of course not.

Right - Q.E.D.

But that wasn't what was in my mind when i was referring to tax avoidance, by using various tax allowances built into the system, such as Cameron used.

But it was in mine.
We do not know how far Cameron senior has gone down this road - allowing his son to purchase and sell a few shares which he has declared/had exposed.

The type of aggressive tax avoidance/evasion schemes such as those used by Jimmy Carr, may have been in your mind when you read my comment, bu8t it wasn't in my comment!

I am sure it was in Noseall's mind when he asked the question to which you replied.
Your comment was therefore selective and incomplete.

You will say I am incorrect in thinking this but, if that were the case, then about what is Noseall complaining?

I can't be responsible for you having something else in your mind when you're reading peoples' comments, despite that 'something' not being in that comment.

Unless it is you who is mistaken.

 

[blightymam]

 

[empip]

An interesting program very recently 'Newshour extra' BBC R4 World Service.

The cost of corruption
"This week, Owen Bennett Jones and his guests tackle the world of tax havens, financial transparency and money laundering. World leaders, activists and experts met in London for a major conference on fighting global corruption, but what practical measures can be taken to make financial flows more transparent, prevent the proceeds of corruption from being hidden away, whilst at the same time allowing legitimate business to flourish?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03t6np4

Sarah Chayse was an interesting participant.

Judge Mark Wolf from the USA - Some ideas on an International Corruption Court.

-0-