21 trillion pounds

[DubaiSpur]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/03/offshore-secrets-offshore-tax-haven

21 trillion pounds stashed in overseas tax havens by the world`s super-rich. Twenty-one trillion pounds, a fair chunk of which is certain to be British in origin. At the same time, benefits `scroungers`are being mercilessly assaulted by the papers, a bedroom tax is being introduced, the NHS is being rapidly privatised, schools, government services, the police,and the fire and emergency services are all being cut to the bone, and Iain Duncan Smith is pompously suggesting that people are perfectly capable of getting by on 53 pounds a week. Britain may be about to enter (or possibly is already in) an unprecendented `triple`depression as well.

So, why exactly are the poorest parts of society being stripped of their dignity and their chances of ever lifting themselves out of the hole they find themselves in? Why is the welfare state which so many people were determined to create after the horrors of the Great Depression and the Second World War being stripped away in the name of `austerity`? And why exactly are the British public being repeatedly told that there is no more money left, that they must not be so childish, that they should buckle up and accept the swinging cuts in living standards and future prospects being forced upon them?

If you fiddle a couple of hundred pounds of your taxes while struggling to pay the rent, you are likely to be hunted down by a government determined to make you suffer for your heinous misdeeds. Yet it seems that if you multiply that sum by millions, you are given a hearty slap on the back while you exit the country through one of the many tax loopholes open to you, leaving behind a broken, bitter Britain in your wake.

Is there a possible explanation for this that is reasonable? I`m certainly open to ideas, and far be it from me to suggest that people who have already paid their fair dues should be charged again. But if there aren`t any....is it reasonable to expect the British public to remain placid and accepting of this for much longer?

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/03/offshore-secrets-offshore-tax-haven

21 trillion pounds stashed in overseas tax havens by the world`s super-rich. Twenty-one trillion pounds, a fair chunk of which is certain to be British in origin. At the same time, benefits `scroungers`are being mercilessly assaulted by the papers, a bedroom tax is being introduced, the NHS is being rapidly privatised, schools, government services, the police,and the fire and emergency services are all being cut to the bone, and Iain Duncan Smith is pompously suggesting that people are perfectly capable of getting by on 53 pounds a week. Britain may be about to enter (or possibly is already in) an unprecendented `triple`depression as well.

So, why exactly are the poorest parts of society being stripped of their dignity and their chances of ever lifting themselves out of the hole they find themselves in? Why is the welfare state which so many people were determined to create after the horrors of the Great Depression and the Second World War being stripped away in the name of `austerity`? And why exactly are the British public being repeatedly told that there is no more money left, that they must not be so childish, that they should buckle up and accept the swinging cuts in living standards and future prospects being forced upon them?

If you fiddle a couple of hundred pounds of your taxes while struggling to pay the rent, you are likely to be hunted down by a government determined to make you suffer for your heinous misdeeds. Yet it seems that if you multiply that sum by millions, you are given a hearty slap on the back while you exit the country through one of the many tax loopholes open to you, leaving behind a broken, bitter Britain in your wake.

Is there a possible explanation for this that is reasonable? I`m certainly open to ideas, and far be it from me to suggest that people who have already paid their fair dues should be charged again. But if there aren`t any....is it reasonable to expect the British public to remain placid and accepting of this for much longer?

It is scary but i agree alot more with what the guardian says these days. We have a national trust membership and have visited a few of our countries great estates and the ones the interest me are the ones that were built by successful people but especailly ones from the victorian era who even though they often made money they put back into their communties, often building homes for their workers and allotments and trying to help them make better lives for themself.

Now it seems that the rich just want to make as much money as possible and not give anything back and i find this distasteful, always considered myself one of maggies tories and although not from essex i would have put myself into the category she described at one election as the "essex man". This is not an anit foriegn thing here but i always thought it wrong that we went out of our way to attract russian oil billonaires here and allow them to pay such little tax.

 

[DubaiSpur]

It is scary but i agree alot more with what the guardian says these days. We have a national trust membership and have visited a few of our countries great estates and the ones the interest me are the ones that were built by successful people but especailly ones from the victorian era who even though they often made money they put back into their communties, often building homes for their workers and allotments and trying to help them make better lives for themself.

Now it seems that the rich just want to make as much money as possible and not give anything back and i find this distasteful, always considered myself one of maggies tories and although not from essex i would have put myself into the category she described at one election as the "essex man". This is not an anit foriegn thing here but i always thought it wrong that we went out of our way to attract russian oil billonaires here and allow them to pay such little tax.

I understand your point of view, and I agree. Being rich isn`t a crime, and shouldn`t ever be a crime if you have worked hard enough, and distributed fairly enough, to earn that wealth. However, an essential part of that is paying your fair dues to the country you live in, work in and rose to success in. Paying your taxes allows society to view you as contributing your fair share, when times are tough or when times are good.

Fine, maybe the government`s taxes are too excessive for your tastes. Fine. A lot of rich people felt they couldn`t invest in local industries in the late forties and early fifties due to high taxation by the government in the era of mass welfare implementation. So the government offered them a deal; invest in your local industries, and we`ll cut your taxes. You get more money to invest in local industry, and we get the taxation revenue from the jobs you create. Trickle-down economics.

But soon, investments in British industry started dropping. Sure, some of it was down to Thatcher and her swinging industrial cuts, but there were deeper underlying causes behind it. At the same time, the taxes being paid by the rich fell in relative terms, even as they rose in real terms.

That process gathered speed, then barrelled into an utter monstrouserty as the age of capital mobility finally dawned in the late eighties and early nineties. And today, we see the final results of that. The rich don`t invest in British businesses, or in their local areas. They don`t offer a leg-up to the ordinary British citizen through trickle-down economics. And now it turns out they`re exploiting enormous tax loopholes to apparently avoid paying even those taxes they`re obliged to pay, despite having even those relatively lowered in the name of `job creation`.

No, they`re all storing it in overseas tax havens and having a good laugh at our gullibility. While Broken Britain stutters on. This isn`t exclusively a British problem, and this is not a `foreigners`problem, as you pointed out. John O` Farrell put it best in his book, `An Utterly Exasperated History of Modern Britain`. When Thatcher unleashed her era of radical free-market policies, the Conservative party was held up by the flagpoles of `business`and `patriotism`. But as the 1990`s dawned, it became clear that those poles were pulling in opposite directions.

The mobility of modern capital has destroyed all notions of the rich paying their `fair share`. Which begs the question, then: with recessions, unemployment, welfare cuts, poverty, despair and depression rife in western countries, is it not time to change that system, before all our money is locked away in some fat-cat`s tax haven and we`re left scrambling over which parts of England can go without police services entirely and which wing of the military we can scrap?

 

[Hootnow]

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2013/04/mysterious-residents-one-hyde-park-london

Long but interesting article here.

 

[Roy1983]

Not sure why the comparison between the benefit scroungers and the super rich? Yes both deserve to be highlighted, and I guess your stance is that they're not fairly, but all the bad press the scroungers get is fully deserved.

The super rich part is disgusting I grant you.

 

[Superhudd]

The thing I find worrying about the living on £53.

How is someone supposed to look for work, go on interviews when they are given £53 a week to live on. Can people claim back travel costs for interviews for there benefits.

No wonder its a cycle of perpetual brick when you find yourself on that wheel.

 

[Roy1983]

Just read it as an article not your own view sorry should've seen the link. £53 quid a week what a joke from millionaire IDS!

 

[Richie]

The Guardian complains that the government loses billions to tax havens each year, and when the government does something about it like reducing the top tax rate they complain about that too. They don't have a clue.

 

[Richie]

It is scary but i agree alot more with what the guardian says these days. We have a national trust membership and have visited a few of our countries great estates and the ones the interest me are the ones that were built by successful people but especailly ones from the victorian era who even though they often made money they put back into their communties, often building homes for their workers and allotments and trying to help them make better lives for themself.

Now it seems that the rich just want to make as much money as possible and not give anything back and i find this distasteful, always considered myself one of maggies tories and although not from essex i would have put myself into the category she described at one election as the "essex man". This is not an anit foriegn thing here but i always thought it wrong that we went out of our way to attract russian oil billonaires here and allow them to pay such little tax.

When we have a welfare state, what is the point of the rich giving charitably? It is now accepted that it is the governments role to care for the poor, so why would the rich give away even more money when welfare is run on their taxes?

 

[Richie]

Just read it as an article not your own view sorry should've seen the link. £53 quid a week what a joke from millionaire IDS!

To be fair to IDS, his quote was that he could if he had to. Isn't that true for everybody?

 

[DubaiSpur]

When we have a welfare state, what is the point of the rich giving charitably? It is now accepted that it is the governments role to care for the poor, so why would the rich give away even more money when welfare is run on their taxes?

Who said anything about charity? There is a considerable difference between charity and social responsibility. But, assuming that the rich have relinquished any intention of properly feeding, housing and educating the people whose work made them wealthy (declaring that to be the government's role), then they should pay the taxes government imposes, should they not? Since the 'burden' of what you consider to be charity no longer applies to them, and has passed on to the government, surely they must pay higher taxes to make up for this 'passing of the buck'?

But no, they evade the taxes governments impose and flee to tax havens with their trillions. And then the solution is apparently to lower taxes so they come back again?

How does that work? I respect your arguments, and I've seen how effective they can be in the Eastleigh thread. So I'm genuinely curious.

 

[P.D.]

You mean £21 trillion based on the words of an anonymous ex employee of McKinsey, this is just more sensationalist reporting really. In fact its reporting by the same guardian media group that evaded tax themselves, their crusade is ironic really.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

When we have a welfare state, what is the point of the rich giving charitably? It is now accepted that it is the governments role to care for the poor, so why would the rich give away even more money when welfare is run on their taxes?

Im not talking about charity, from what i have read and learnt on the subject the "rich" in the past decided to try to make a nicer country to live in so the would be less crime, there workers would be healthier and i guess more able to work to a higher standard.

Why cant companies that operate in this country try to look after their staff better it is for their own benefit in the long run.

 

[Gordinho]

Im not talking about charity, from what i have read and learnt on the subject the "rich" in the past decided to try to make a nicer country to live in so the would be less crime, there workers would be healthier and i guess more able to work to a higher standard.

Why cant companies that operate in this country try to look after their staff better it is for their own benefit in the long run.

You're starting to sound like me now.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

You're starting to sound like me now.

well im not as smart as you and obviously we disagree on some political issues but not that many really

Im not against people going out and doing well for themselves, i did it to a smaller scale and improved my lot when i took a chance and got out of labouring. But it seems that people do not want to put anything back in now.

The one exception would be a company like John Lewis, do not know if that makes you a socialist, i would imagine the core customer base for that store is middle england ie tory voters and a lot of their staff seem a bit like that as well. You can make a profit but what about looking after the people who work for you. Why do some people seem to take pride in being nasty of bricking on people below them.

I made a decesion some years ago to go out and earn as much as i could, i do cash jobs and did not pay all my tax, i gave a contracts manager for a well know house builder a back hander so i fitted all the locks on new build houses they built in brighton in 2002. I did things i perhaps should not have done, but when i had a young fella come work for me i taught him well and paid for his N.V.Q because it was good for him to progress himself.

Will never understand why people seem to take pride in bricking on others, in the 80's it was the loads of moneyyyy thing. I saw that as people just wanting to get rich no problem with that. But now it has got to the point were people are just out and out mean for the sake of it. It is like they are trying to ape something from these fudging aful t.v. shows where people are catty for the sake of it.

I have always been my own man, i did things not moral perhaps but i never turned my back on anyone or went out of my way to treat people like dirt.

 

[Richie]

Who said anything about charity? There is a considerable difference between charity and social responsibility. But, assuming that the rich have relinquished any intention of properly feeding, housing and educating the people whose work made them wealthy (declaring that to be the government's role), then they should pay the taxes government imposes, should they not? Since the 'burden' of what you consider to be charity no longer applies to them, and has passed on to the government, surely they must pay higher taxes to make up for this 'passing of the buck'?

But no, they evade the taxes governments impose and flee to tax havens with their trillions. And then the solution is apparently to lower taxes so they come back again?

How does that work? I respect your arguments, and I've seen how effective they can be in the Eastleigh thread. So I'm genuinely curious.

I urge you to read the report HMRC did on the effects of the 50p top rate of tax. I talks about Taxable Income Elasticity (TIE) and how the rich are able to move their money. Here is the link. You can ignore all the regression analysis (much of which I don't follow completely myself) and just read the introduction and conclusion. The basic gist is that the increase from 40% to 50% has raised at most £1bn more in the best case and cost the exchequer £1bn in the worse case.

I think the problem is that people don't realise the majority of this kind of effect isn't about British people trying to screw over Britain, it's about companies wanting to recruit the best people and pay competitively. Companies need to recruit the best from around the world, and they need to compete on an after-tax basis. This means that in high tax jurisdictions, they need to pay a higher salary just to give the employee the same after-tax income, which makes the company less competitive.

A large number of the executives getting paid the big money in this country are not British, or are working for companies who are not British. These people or companies have no allegiance to Britain, who why would they think twice about moving their headquarters to a different country?

The rise in tax was a political stunt to try and win votes before the election, Gordon Brown didn't care that it very feasibly cost the Treasury money in the short term and almost certainly will cost the government in the long term. A " highly distortionary form of taxation" as described by the HMRC report.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I urge you to read the report HMRC did on the effects of the 50p top rate of tax. I talks about Taxable Income Elasticity (TIE) and how the rich are able to move their money. Here is the link. You can ignore all the regression analysis (much of which I don't follow completely myself) and just read the introduction and conclusion. The basic gist is that the increase from 40% to 50% has raised at most £1bn more in the best case and cost the exchequer £1bn in the worse case.

I think the problem is that people don't realise the majority of this kind of effect isn't about British people trying to screw over Britain, it's about companies wanting to recruit the best people and pay competitively. Companies need to recruit the best from around the world, and they need to compete on an after-tax basis. This means that in high tax jurisdictions, they need to pay a higher salary just to give the employee the same after-tax income, which makes the company less competitive.

A large number of the executives getting paid the big money in this country are not British, or are working for companies who are not British. These people or companies have no allegiance to Britain, who why would they think twice about moving their headquarters to a different country?

The rise in tax was a political stunt to try and win votes before the election, Gordon Brown didn't care that it very feasibly cost the Treasury money in the short term and almost certainly will cost the government in the long term. A " highly distortionary form of taxation" as described by the HMRC report.

Well i agree with the bit about brown, i always thought the reason labour raised to 50% was so that it would make it tough for the tories to drop it down again. I say this as someone who always voted tory but is now firmly UKIP.

Still think the main reason so many big business's wanted mass immgration was so they could keep wages low, another way of screwing the deserving poor you know the ones that do the right thing and go out and work for a living.

 

[Roy1983]

To be fair to IDS, his quote was that he could if he had to. Isn't that true for everybody?

Isn't what true? Anybody can live on £53 a week? Yes if you don't have to worry about rent, debts and bills. Are you seriously suggesting a family of say 3 could survive on that or am I missing something?

 

[Roy1983]

Chich I think most people who want our country to be great again are voting for ukip now too me inclusive.

 

[P.D.]

Of course the 50% introduction was a shame. They had been in power for 13 years and left it happily at 40% then when it was guaranteed they wouldn't win power again they introduced it 2 months before the election.