Tax avoidance in the UK is a big problem. We can't pay for our infrastructure because of these guys avoiding tax.
Tax avoidance is undefinable so this sort of statement is meaningless. The UK can't pay for its infrastructure due to a massive structural deficit. Even if you start defining legal behaviour as immoral and try to grab more money from targeted companies or individuals, the amounts of revenue collected would be trivial compared to the size of the problem - and it'd be a one off hit. Once a country demonstrates that the rule of law is optional, investors start to flee. And that's the sort of avoidance that you can't tackle with any law.
The exact line drawn between tax efficiency and immoral tax avoidance is hard to pin-point, but I'm certain that I know a bunch of crooks filling their boots when I see it.
These off-shore companies are not fair. Do your work, pay tax on it like the rest of us.
As for the rule of law being optional. I pay my taxes yet these guys choose not to by using loop-holes. That is not the spirit of the law.
I reject this kind of argument, it's very popular but it doesn't hold any weight with me.
They could stop this kind of rubbish but they don't want to because people like Cameron are using it.
Let's have land value tax now and stop this international hide and seek.
We don't want these "investors" in the UK. UK banking funnels dirty money into property which ramps the price for workers. Banks they "help" by lending us insane amounts which absorb all our income (and require ultra low rates forever). None of this is of any help to the normal working person who is doing stuff of actual use that makes the world turn, like food production, doctors, etc. These guys are taking and giving nothing back. Tax them!
"I know it when I see it" is not a basis for a legal system.
Look at it like this. You live in a country, you work there. Now imagine you go on holiday to a sunny destination. Whilst there, you open your work email and reply to a few mails.
If you are then arrested by the local police and told you are doing business in that country without paying taxes, and thus must now pay a big fine or be prosecuted for tax avoidance, would you be happy about that? I think not.
What if the locals didn't like your kind of people and thought your treatment was totally fair? "I know crime when I see it", they say. Would you roll over and meekly accept it?
No, you wouldn't. You'd extricate yourself as quickly as possible, and then leave and never go back. And you'd tell all your friends to stay the hell away from that banana republic.
Well, that behaviour applies to companies too. If you want them to employ people in your economy, there must be clear rules and those rules must be followed predictably.
I quite agree that interest rates are being artificially kept far too low around the world and this is driving property bubbles in places like Manhattan and New York. The solution to that is not to tax people who are just trying to shield themselves from inflation. The solution is to abolish central banks.
They lobby to add loopholes to the legal system because the banks control our "democracy".
Both major parties are captured by the banks. We have first-past-the-post system to keep it 2 party.
We need people to actually put their foot down.
I'm happy for every single one of these parasites to leave and never come back. The wealth of the UK is not in these guys with their paper it's in people doing actual work. If we need to issue more currency to facilitate this then fine, it's fiat.
Their paper is not facilitating work. We have smart people who are getting up in the morning and can do things. Their paper in fact allows them to claim a slice of the working man's labour.
I've seen these arguments on "what if". These guys are guilty, we all know it. We need tax payments to have a democracy, it's these guys who are breaking the law and undermining our country.
The UK is not a two party system. Right now the dominant parties in the UK Parliament are the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. The previous government was a coalition with the Lib Dems.
The banks do not control democracy. Governments control banks. I know this may be painful to hear, but just go talk to people who work in banking about how many of their banks staff work in "compliance" i.e. implementing the wishes of all the various government agencies. You will be amazed at how many thousands of people (in some big banks, tens of thousands) do nothing all day but implement various regulations.
I'm happy for every single one of these parasites to leave and never come back.
You say that now, but you wouldn't be. The UK has a very narrow tax base. That means most tax is paid by a tiny number of people.
In the UK the top 1% of earners pay about 30% of all income tax. In the USA the statistic is even worse, 1% of all earners pay 50% of the income tax. These figures have been going up over time.
In short, the government is paid for by ever fewer people, who pay ever more tax. This makes countries very vulnerable to them just leaving. That's the underlying reason why the British government fights so hard to defend the city, and why Osborne was willing to take the political hit of reducing corporation tax in his last budget. If the big earners leave, then any chance of ending austerity within the next 20 years is gone for good. The UK would need to start doing actual, serious austerity - like shutting down large parts of the NHS.
If we need to issue more currency to facilitate this then fine, it's fiat.
All that does is tax people through inflation instead of direct payments. The UK has been there before, in the 1970's. It resulted in the country going to the IMF for a bailout, Greece style. If you think people buying houses just to protect their wealth is a big problem now, a few years of trying to fund a massive deficit through money printing would show you what's truly possible when people get desperate.
These guys are guilty, we all know it.
That's right. Burn the witches. Worry about the consequences later.
>"I know it when I see it" is not a basis for a legal system.
It's the only basis for a legal system. All legal concepts and constructions are judged and implemented by human beings. Asserting that you have to be able to explain things without ever invoking intuitive concept classifications is unreasonable, since that basically can't be done yet.
> All legal concepts and constructions are judged and implemented by human beings.
But they have to be judged against written law. Your answer reduces to a situation where we can rip up all statutes and tell the judges "Don't worry about tax evasion. You'll know it when you see it."
Tax avoidance is undefinable so this sort of statement is meaningless. The UK can't pay for its infrastructure due to a massive structural deficit. Even if you start defining legal behaviour as immoral and try to grab more money from targeted companies or individuals, the amounts of revenue collected would be trivial compared to the size of the problem - and it'd be a one off hit. Once a country demonstrates that the rule of law is optional, investors start to flee. And that's the sort of avoidance that you can't tackle with any law.