$427bn lost annually to tax evasion as UK hands out billions in Covid bailouts t

Started by Dynamis, November 21, 2020, 04:17:16 AM

« previous - next »

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Borg Refinery

Quote from: johnofgwent on November 26, 2020, 11:43:38 PM

Who ?


My point is, and always has been, if you have a beef with the way the tax system works, take it up with the people who set the rules.

I am, the govt..the point here is to change the rules.

What did you think my point was?
+++

Baff

Quote from: Dynamis on November 26, 2020, 05:36:25 PM
So who do you think is the biggest beneficiary by way of backhanders?
Professional lobbyists.

Poeple like the CBI.

johnofgwent

Quote from: Dynamis on November 26, 2020, 05:36:25 PM
You can repeat that again if you want, I know and have known for 5 years.

Here's a useful parallel, it would be legal for state electors in the states to pick Jo Jorgenson, then she'd be president.

Does that make it ok?

So who do you think is the biggest beneficiary by way of backhanders?


Who ?


My point is, and always has been, if you have a beef with the way the tax system works, take it up with the people who set the rules.



<t>In matters of taxation, Lord Clyde\'s summing up in the 1929 case Inland Revenue v Ayrshire Pullman Services is worth a glance.</t>

Borg Refinery

Quote from: johnofgwent on November 26, 2020, 04:42:44 PM

Well until you learn to tell the difference between the illegal actions behind a deliberate intent to evade the taxmans demands by methods out with the law, and the legitimate,legal actions of a person acting to minimise the ability of the taxman to rape them, we're not going to get any common ground are we.


Because legal minimisation of exposure to the taxmans robbery with menaces is facilitated by the government.

You can repeat that again if you want, I know and have known for 5 years.

Here's a useful parallel, it would be legal for state electors in the states to pick Jo Jorgenson, then she'd be president.

Does that make it ok?

QuoteIf you have a beef with those who use the tax laws to legally minimise their exposure, first ask why the state allows it and who is taking a backhander from those benefitting ...

So who do you think is the biggest beneficiary by way of backhanders?

+++

johnofgwent

Quote from: cromwell on November 22, 2020, 12:04:37 PM
All very well John but when the ambulances don't turn up ever,your grandkids don't get the education they deserve and the infrastructure has crumbled in to nothing you may well (and justifiably) blame Caerwyn the clod and his ilk but it's not all them is it?

So until we legislate against evasion properly and chase the cheaters we will continue in the downward spiral.


The point is mimising your exposure by all available legal means is merely making maximum advantage of the mechanisms the government provide.


If you have a beef with that, take it up with the politicians.


I will not pay a brass farthing more than I am forced to because the fuckers don't give a F@@@ about you when you're down.


I learned that when the shitholes in the Welsh assembly let me go blind - TWICE - while enjoying me lose  all my fucking savings because there were no machines in the private health service capable of giving me back my sight and the shitheads in the assembly fucking applauded as I went bankrupt. F@@@ them,F@@@ them all



<t>In matters of taxation, Lord Clyde\'s summing up in the 1929 case Inland Revenue v Ayrshire Pullman Services is worth a glance.</t>

johnofgwent

Quote from: Dynamis on November 22, 2020, 08:42:28 AM
Both.


Yes you've been a big pusher of that case for many years now, I remember seeing it over 5 years ago from ya. It doesn't change the fact that many companies either just about cross into avoidance territory or come as close as they can to it.


Well until you learn to tell the difference between the illegal actions behind a deliberate intent to evade the taxmans demands by methods out with the law, and the legitimate,legal actions of a person acting to minimise the ability of the taxman to rape them, we're not going to get any common ground are we.


Because legal minimisation of exposure to the taxmans robbery with menaces is facilitated by the government.


If you have a beef with those who use the tax laws to legally minimise their exposure, first ask why the state allows it and who is taking a backhander from those benefitting ...
<t>In matters of taxation, Lord Clyde\'s summing up in the 1929 case Inland Revenue v Ayrshire Pullman Services is worth a glance.</t>

Baff

My natural sympathies will always be with those who avoid paying taxes.

There is no such thing a a fair tax. That's not how it works.

patman post

Cheaters should be tracked down and their wallets and bank accounts squeezed until the pips squeak. But there are companies and people who hover on the fringes between efficient handling of business and money to minimise the amount of tax they have to pay.

Individuals benefit from ISA's, personal pension savings, self employment, etc — and others try to push the limits but complain when caught.

Most companies play fair. But some do try it on, particularly a few multinationals. But it seems the skill comes in taxing at an amount that doesn't adversely affect other local businesses and employment...
On climate change — we're talking, we're beginning to act, but we're still not doing enough...

cromwell

Quote from: johnofgwent on November 21, 2020, 08:37:22 AM
EVASION ? Or AVOIDANCE


You need to take a HARD look at the judge's summing up in the case in my sig.
All very well John but when the ambulances don't turn up ever,your grandkids don't get the education they deserve and the infrastructure has crumbled in to nothing you may well (and justifiably) blame Caerwyn the clod and his ilk but it's not all them is it?

So until we legislate against evasion properly and chase the cheaters we will continue in the downward spiral.
Energy....secure and affordable,not that hard is it?

Borg Refinery

Quote from: johnofgwent on November 21, 2020, 08:37:22 AM
EVASION ? Or AVOIDANCE

Both.


QuoteYou need to take a HARD look at the judge's summing up in the case in my sig.

Yes you've been a big pusher of that case for many years now, I remember seeing it over 5 years ago from ya. It doesn't change the fact that many companies either just about cross into avoidance territory or come as close as they can to it.
+++

johnofgwent

EVASION ? Or AVOIDANCE


You need to take a HARD look at the judge's summing up in the case in my sig.
<t>In matters of taxation, Lord Clyde\'s summing up in the 1929 case Inland Revenue v Ayrshire Pullman Services is worth a glance.</t>

Baff


Borg Refinery

QuoteA report has highlighted the enormous amount of tax evasion that occurs across the world. This worrying news comes as it was revealed that the UK Government has handed out billions in Covid bailouts funnelled to companies based in tax havens.

Tax Justice Network reported that $427bn is stolen annually by companies and individuals who avoid paying taxes and called for the G20 to tighten rules.

The study published today, revealed for the first time how much public funding each country loses to global tax abuse and identifies the countries most responsible for others' losses.


It said that over half the losses ($245bn) came from companies shifting $1.38tn of profits out of the organisation's member countries to tax havens.

Additionally private individuals paid $182bn less tax by moving over $10trn in financial assets offshore.

The five jurisdictions most responsible for countries' tax losses are British Territory Cayman (responsible for 16.5% of global tax losses, equal to over $70bn), the UK (10%; over $42bn), the Netherlands (8.5%; over $36bn), Luxembourg (6.5%; over $27bn) and the US (5.53%; over $23bn).


UK firms
Almost a third of companies receiving coronavirus bailouts from the Bank of England are based in a tax haven or owned by someone living there, shocking research has revealed.

RelatedPosts
Eurozone growth soars by record 12.7% as IMF cuts growth predictions for UK
Squashing the sombrero of recovery? IMF cut UK growth due to Covid & Brexit
World beating? UK is worst hit major economy now 21.8% smaller than late 2019
Repressionomics: Get ready for the new permanent austerity

Analysis by TaxWatch UK, a thinktank, found that £4.79 billion in bailout cash has been handed to companies with links to tax havens, or that have been embroiled in financial controversy – close to 30 per cent of the money loaned out under the government's Covid Corporate Financing Facility.


One company – Baker Hughes, a subsidiary of American giant General Electric – was granted a £600 million loan, despite the fact that its parent company has been sued by HMRC over unpaid taxes dating back 16 years.

Luxury fashion brand Chanel – whose ultimate parent company is based in the Cayman Islands – also received £600 million, as did EasyJet – which is part-owned by a trust based in the Caribbean territory.

A further £25 million went to cruise operator Carnival, whose ships were registered in Panama.

George Turner, director of TaxWatch UK, said: "Unlike many other countries in the world the UK has decided not to put any conditions on the tax conduct of companies receiving government support.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/economics/427bn-lost-annually-to-tax-evasion-as-uk-hands-out-billions-in-covid-bailouts-to-firms-based-offshore/20/11/

The report:

https://www.taxjustice.net/2020/11/20/427bn-lost-to-tax-havens-every-year-landmark-study-reveals-countries-losses-and-worst-offenders/

Unconditional bailouts? Even Trump & Mnuchin forced conditionality for bailouts.. What does that say about our govt?

The tax rates of the past under certain Tory govts were much higher for the top percentiles than they are today. Was that theft and communism? Nope.
+++