Elite Tax Haven Details Leaked

[roachcoach]

desolate said:

roachcoach said:

TIL this is the standard for "poor"

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-work-experien...

England and Wales - £22,917 to £38,633
Scotland - £22,416 to £43,845

I don't know if that was the thread or not but it was established you had to earn a lot more than that to be a 'net' contributor to the finances of the country.

Naturally.

I don't think teachers and nurses do earn enough, but as I've said already in the thread I think at large part of that is you need a certain mentality to do that kind of work and there is no elegant solve to pay them their worth without attracting people who are only in it for the money,

Certainly those, the ranges above are not what I'd consider "poor". Certainly not affluent either, but not poor.

[Halb]

steviegunn said:

What I as alluding to, perhaps clumsily is that if we had a more equal society then the tax burden would be more equal. When a very few earn vastly greater sums than everyone else then of course the tax will be unequal, if the rich want to pay less tax make the poor richer so they are able to pay more.

Ahh, soz.

What do you think of universal basic income?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/19/ba...

[Alpinestars]

Whilst I think there is a lack of understanding of havens and tax avoidance, I do think there need to be some rule changes on property held by non residents versus residents. Unlike the likes of Starbucks, Amazon etc, it's hard to see the value that some of the non resident property investors are bringing to the UK, whilst making huge gains and not paying UK tax on those gains like UK resident investors do. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a law change at some point.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

I think the figure was around £30k, but obviously contained a large number of caveats and assumptions.

Remember to add 20-25% to those salaries to take into account the value of the pension ...

There is also significant potential for substantial increases for additional responsibility, as shown by the ranges for head teachers in the same article.

If pension contributions are "tax free" and that those contributions result in a pension of less than 30k a year, surely an individual never becomes and "net contributor" so it doesn't matter whether we include the pension, does it?

(if we assume that 30k is the correct figure and that being a net contributor is a relevant measure)

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 10th November 12:16

[sidicks]

desolate said:

If pension contributions are "tax free" and that those contributions result in a pension of less than 30k a year, surely an individual never becomes and "net contributor" so it doesn't matter whether we include the pension, does it?

(if we assume that 30k is the correct figure and that being a net contributor is a relevant measure)

Well, in terms of adding net economic value, public sector workers would have to earn much more than £30k (or whatever) before they added net economic value.
And pension contributions are limited.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 10th November 12:23

[Guvernator]

Aren't we looking at this a bit backwards. We are arguing about who should pay more and fair share etc but why do we have such a large tax burden in the first place? Over my lifetime the tax burden has just got bigger and bigger. If making people pay more is unpalatable surely the alternative is to spend less. I know the Tories have been trying to make cuts but as far as I am concerned they really haven't gone far enough. We are in the hole to the tune of nearly £2 trillion, really how long can that go on?

We have a massively oversized and hugely inefficient state. I've worked in local and central government and the amount of money I've seen wasted makes we want to cry sometimes.

[sidicks]

Guvernator said:

Aren't we looking at this a bit backwards. We are arguing about who should pay more and fair share etc but why do we have such a large tax burden in the first place? Over my lifetime the tax burden has just got bigger and bigger. If making people pay more is unpalatable surely the alternative is to spend less. I know the Tories have been trying to make cuts but as far as I am concerned they really haven't gone far enough. We are in the hole to the tune of nearly £2 trillion, really how long can that go on?

We have a massively oversized and hugely inefficient state. I've worked in local and central government and the amount of money I've seen wasted makes we want to cry sometimes.

£2 trillion is small compared to the unfunded debt that is hidden!

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Well, in terms of adding net economic value, public sector workers would have to earn much more than £30k (or whatever) before they added net economic value.
And pension contributions are limited.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 10th November 12:23

I suppose that demonstrates that it's a stupid measure. Therefore a wast of time.

[sidicks]

desolate said:

I suppose that demonstrates that it's a stupid measure. Therefore a wast of time.

Why does ‘that’ demonstrate it is a stupid measure?
(Note that I should have said net contributor, rather than add net economic value).

If someone is getting an extra £7.5k ‘benefit’ (say £30k @ 25%) then they will need to be paying more income tax before they are a net contributor compared to someone who does not receive that pension benefit.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 10th November 12:55

[crofty1984]

I think the amount of value for money comes into it as well. Say the average person gets 20k of benefit (no s) out of the government pot a year. Roads being nice, the government running the country, state schools, the NHS, councils collecting the bins etc.
If someone's on bare arse minimum wage, it's reasonable for them to not pay that.
If someone's fairly well off and can pay so they're putting in exactly what they take out, that's fair.
If someone is very well off then I think most would agree they should pay their share and that of the poorer guy.
But then 10 other people's contributions while still getting one person's with of benefit? Probably.
What about 20 people? 100? 5000?

At what point does it become unpalatable to that person and they look elsewhere?

Also, what's done with the money? I bet if you said a 1% raise in tax would absolutely guarantee that the NHS would always be perfect for ever and for everyone. Nurses paid what they deserve and no waiting lists, you'd have a stampede of people running down Downing Street waving chequebooks to pay it.
But it must sting when you're seeing your large contributions to the pot getting pissed away.

[edh]

Alpinestars said:

Whilst I think there is a lack of understanding of havens and tax avoidance, I do think there need to be some rule changes on property held by non residents versus residents. Unlike the likes of Starbucks, Amazon etc, it's hard to see the value that some of the non resident property investors are bringing to the UK, whilst making huge gains and not paying UK tax on those gains like UK resident investors do. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a law change at some point.

All roads lead to Land Value Tax (also the way to fund basic income as without it the cash gets swallowed up in rents)

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Why does ‘that’ demonstrate it is a stupid measure?
(Note that I should have said net contributor, rather than add net economic value).

If someone is getting an extra £7.5k ‘benefit’ (say £30k @ 25%) then they will need to be paying more income tax before they are a net contributor compared to someone who does not receive that pension benefit.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 10th November 12:55

I suppose it's an irrelevant rather than stupid.

We are talking about a 'net' economic contribution only in terms of the cash. Those on the the positive side of the ledger could not make their contribution without the vast majority of those on the negative.

So to me, it seems like a poor measure that clouds any serious debate.

[roachcoach]

desolate said:

sidicks said:

Why does ‘that’ demonstrate it is a stupid measure?
(Note that I should have said net contributor, rather than add net economic value).

If someone is getting an extra £7.5k ‘benefit’ (say £30k @ 25%) then they will need to be paying more income tax before they are a net contributor compared to someone who does not receive that pension benefit.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 10th November 12:55

I suppose it's an irrelevant rather than stupid.

We are talking about a 'net' economic contribution only in terms of the cash. Those on the the positive side of the ledger could not make their contribution without the vast majority of those on the negative.

So to me, it seems like a poor measure that clouds any serious debate.

It cannot be taken in isolation, but it's a logical counterbalance to the ever fluid definition of "fair share".

People (not necessarily quoted posters) are often big on saying people should be paying "their fair share" but go really quite quiet when presented with actual numbers.

[sidicks]

desolate said:

I suppose it's an irrelevant rather than stupid.

We are talking about a 'net' economic contribution only in terms of the cash. Those on the the positive side of the ledger could not make their contribution without the vast majority of those on the negative.

So to me, it seems like a poor measure that clouds any serious debate.

Not sure about ‘the vast majority’, but I certainly echo the wider sentiment of your point!

[AW111]

Here's a cracker of a scheme : give your money away to a company in Mauritius, then advise them where to invest it - like the house you then live in, the cars you drive, the art on your walls, your wine "collection" etc. Even your personal shopper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41893764

I'm sure the apologists here will be queuing up to tell us it's all fine and dandy and a legitimate way to avoid the crushing burden of unfair taxes in 3, 2, 1...
But it sure smells fishy to me.

[roachcoach]

AW111 said:

Here's a cracker of a scheme : give your money away to a company in Mauritius, then advise them where to invest it - like the house you then live in, the cars you drive, the art on your walls, your wine "collection" etc. Even your personal shopper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41893764

I'm sure the apologists here will be queuing up to tell us it's all fine and dandy and a legitimate way to avoid the crushing burden of unfair taxes in 3, 2, 1...
But it sure smells fishy to me.

I'm no tax adviser but I'd expect and hope HMRC to be so far up their arse they're not going to be able to sit down for a decade or two.

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

Whilst I think there is a lack of understanding of havens and tax avoidance, I do think there need to be some rule changes on property held by non residents versus residents. Unlike the likes of Starbucks, Amazon etc, it's hard to see the value that some of the non resident property investors are bringing to the UK, whilst making huge gains and not paying UK tax on those gains like UK resident investors do. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a law change at some point.

It changed in 2015. Since then non residents lost CGT exemption on property. (Eta talking about individuals, no idea about foreign companies)

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 10th November 13:55

[RacerMDR]

desolate said:

If you are a teacher or a nurse or similar then your earning potential is limited.

yes, but you buy the ticket and take the ride.

Every teacher and nurse knew the deal going into that job. I would LOVE to be something other than what I am..........but I couldn't afford to be so I went a route doing what I absolutely hate.

I'd love nothing more than to be a Helicopter instructor - but it pays fk all, and so I haven't done it.

[andy_s]

AW111 said:

Here's a cracker of a scheme : give your money away to a company in Mauritius, then advise them where to invest it - like the house you then live in, the cars you drive, the art on your walls, your wine "collection" etc. Even your personal shopper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41893764

I'm sure the apologists here will be queuing up to tell us it's all fine and dandy and a legitimate way to avoid the crushing burden of unfair taxes in 3, 2, 1...
But it sure smells fishy to me.

You seem very emotional about the subject; it's been explained on here about the varying degrees of 'getting out of tax', legality and illegality, differences between 'schemes' and legitimate mechanisms employed by any large company operating globally and investment funds operating world-wide to secure our pension, but no one as far as I can see has been extolling the virtues of the various vehicles to do this when used in an illegal way, no one has said there is a crushing burden of tax and no one has been an apologist in regards to illegal scams.

[anonymous-user]

Roman Rhodes said:

Much misunderstanding around the subject of trusts. A standard UK discretionary trust of the sort you describe will pay 45% tax on all income and normal capital gains and dividend tax.

They appear to be more for IHT avoidance no? But it was the Mauritius trusts that really raise a suspicious eyebrow. I'm not sure why they are tolerated. I understand the very good reasons for legitimate businesses, like investment funds, being structured in transparent tax neutral jurisdictions, not so much trusts in secretive backwaters.