Offshore Tax Avoidance: Mike Garlick

[BennyD]

The people who make the rules do so to benefit themselves and others like them. That's why such glaring loopholes are left in there, loopholes that the 'normal' person doesn't know about and can't afford the accountants that can unravel Them. It's always been the case and it still is; you can bet your left bollok all senior politicians are using these twists.

[Sidney1st]

I like my left bollock, can I bet with my right instead?

He caused me a great deal of pain recently and i haven't forgiven him for it yet.

[Paul Waine]

Nobody has said that these practices are illegal. They are legal, but they shouldn't be. The aim of investigative journalism is to inform the general public. If an informed general public leads to pressure on the politicians and law makers to correct an injustice such as this, then so be it. We'll be a much better country for it.

Using your logic, nobody should have ever made a fuss about the slave trade, because it was legal at the time.

Some of these "legal" tax avoidance schemes should be illegal. Paying money to an offshore company and taking a loan from that company instead of receiving pay from that company should have been made illegal when this type of scheme first got started (preferably before it got started). Why wasn't it - because (1) most MPs don't understand the tax rules that they turn into law and (2) the journalists who report on "tax avoidance/tax evasion" don't understand the rules. The "Mrs Brown's Boys" trio and repeating the same scheme that Jimmy Carr was called out for - and a similar scheme that Glasgow Rangers used some years ago - and was a favourite of many of the bankers in the early 2000s. It should have been stopped then.

The "tax free" advantages of most "personal" trusts should be abolished - whether offshore or onshore. The only ones that should be retained are those that everyone, even a non-taxpayer/person on benefits can participate in. (Pension schemes held in trust should continue, inheritance received by minors should continue).

The "investigative journalists" fail to inform the public because they "sensationalise" what they are reporting: what does it matter that QEII held (small) investments in Bright House (which has been fined for misspelling hire purchase deals) and Threshers (which went bust); neither Bright House or Thresher are relevant to the "offshore tax avoidance" story - if there has been any tax avoidance in these examples. Of course, the stories are "sensationalised" because the media doesn't properly understand the issues. If they did, maybe the "tax avoidance" wouldn't have happened in the first case - instead the journalists would have been reporting (soberly) about weaknesses in the tax regulations.

There's talk today (J Corbyn) that all MPs should be trained in "sexual harassment laws" when they are elected - I'd have thought it's a better idea to make sure that all candidates are trained before they are put up as candidates - a similar approach should apply to MPs understanding of tax laws: they should all be trained to understand what they are legislating on. Jeremy Corbyn has been in parliament since the early 1980s (as have others). Did he not think it would be a good idea to speak out about "tax evasion" and "tax avoidance" gaps in the tax laws when the MPs were voting on these laws after every budget? I'd have all prospective parliamentary candidates subject to a test on their tax understanding before they are eligible to stand for election.

And, I would not allow anyone who is a non-dom, or has every been a non-dom, stand for parliament - or sit in the House of Lords.

Taking John's comments on board - it's up to us as the electorate to demand these standards from all politicians - and demand them before we will elect any of them.

[Paul Waine]

I used to get Mortgage Interest Relief At Source. That's not legal any more. Are my arrangements shady?

Did you plant a tree or build a garden shed? These will provide shade.

[Claretforever]

Jack Walker at Blackburn avoided paying £132m around 1990 by residing in Jersey for the majority of the year. Despite half owning the company with his Lancashire residing brother, they were able to avoid paying the tax on the profits, and that money helped purchase a title.

Hands up if the family should hand the money in, and the Club hand the trophy back.

[Dy1geo]

Individuals and companies if wealthy enough will take the advice of their accountants to lower their tax bill.

What we have to ask is why they are doing it, is it because personal and business taxes are perceived too high in the UK. Will raising corporation tax to 26% increase revenue or will it encourage more companies such as Bright House to domicile in a lower tax country.

Unfortunately we are in a globalised world where companies at the drop of a hat can switch countries of residence.

The people who are most outraged at blatant tax avoidance, will naturally not have any Apple products, had a drink in Starbucks or bought anything from Amazon.

Perhaps if we leave the EU we can set our tax rates to encourage companies to locate here to raise more tax to pay for our Social Services

[evensteadiereddie]

So does anyone know if the outrage bandwagon can be fired up yet and to what level?

All those critics of Lineker seem to have gone mighty quiet.............

[Hipper]

I'd have all prospective parliamentary candidates subject to a test on their tax understanding before they are eligible to stand for election.

MPs are our representatives. They are laymen, not experts. They are supposed to receive expert advice from civil servants and others. An MPs job is to judge that advice and make decisions accordingly.

If there's been a failing it is in either the advice MPs have been given or MPs' decisions themselves. In theory if you don't like an MP's decision you can remove him. What can be done about poor advice I don't know.

I wonder what would happen if ordinary bank accounts, at High Street banks, were hacked and discussed in the media. It could happen.

[bluelabrador16]

Paul Waine

"... I'd have all prospective parliamentary candidates subject to a test on their tax understanding before they are eligible to stand for election....."

One could also consider checking the candidates knowledge of Money/Banking.

"Shocking ignorance" from MPs who don't know where money actually comes from...... Jasper Jolly

"The majority of Britain's politicians don't know where money comes from, despite being tasked with deciding how much of it ends up being spent, according to a poll of MPs published today.

Only 15 per cent of MPs surveyed answered correctly when asked a true/false question on whether banks create money when they make loans.

Almost two-thirds of the 50 MPs surveyed by Dods for campaign group Positive Money wrongly thought banks can't create money, while a quarter admitted they didn't know...

More than three-quarters of the MPs surveyed incorrectly believed that only the government has the ability to create new money...."

http://www.cityam.com/274631/shocking-i ... ally-comes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

MPs are our representatives. They are laymen, not experts. They are supposed to receive expert advice from civil servants and others. An MPs job is to judge that advice and make decisions accordingly.

If there's been a failing it is in either the advice MPs have been given or MPs' decisions themselves. In theory if you don't like an MP's decision you can remove him. What can be done about poor advice I don't know.

I wonder what would happen if ordinary bank accounts, at High Street banks, were hacked and discussed in the media. It could happen.

Hi Hipper, interesting view point. Do the prospective candidates promote themselves as candidates by saying they are laymen/women? I agree, very few of them claim to be tax experts - however, that doesn't appear to stop any of them saying these are the taxes that should be paid, or this is "tax evasion/avoidance." I still think it would be a good idea if they had an understanding of the tax laws - and, of course, many other laws - these situations of "bad laws" might be more limited if this was the case.

Re "expert advice:" I understand that Gordon Brown took advice from Arthur Anderson - at the time one of the "big five" accountancy firms - when he became chancellor in 1997. GB wanted to know what he could tax, without too much political opposition. AA came up with the idea of taxing pension fund income, mostly dividends from equity investment. GB went ahead with that change - and set off the destruction of the final salary pension schemes in the private sector. I'm sure many of us would rather GB hadn't consulted AA and he hadn't destroyed the final salary pension schemes. I guess there was some justice when Arthur Anderson went out of business with their involvement with the Enron scandal.

[RMutt]

Growing up in the seventies I watched comedians on TV making fun of the 'tax man' weekly. Only later did I realise that millions of ordinary people on low incomes, paying as they earned, were being encouraged by wealthy celebrities, with their accountants and own selfish interests in mind, to hate these servants of the state who collected the means for us to have an NHS, police, education, etc, etc. That attitude still lingers with many. We need to change the views of people so that they actually want to to pay their contribution to the services we all at some point will need. Tax needs to stop being a dirty word.

[Hipper]

Hi Hipper, interesting view point. Do the prospective candidates promote themselves as candidates by saying they are laymen/women?

Whatto Paul.

No, of course they don't! MPs are not allowed to say 'I don't know' to questions and very few have the self confidence to do so (Enoch Powell and Ken Livingstone come to mind - hardly good examples of balanced MPs).

However laymen are what MPs are. The idea is that anyone of us could become an MP providing enough people vote for us. In practice of course most need a party to support them, and therefore they must support the party!

In reality many MPs are very knowledgeable on some subjects because they are mostly highly capable types. Maybe I'm naive but, based on the very few MPs I've met, they seem to be generally interested in improving the lot of people.

I must admit I'm not a lover of accountants when I've read about some of their activities. Enron was one. Robert Maxwell another. His accountants (Coopers & Lybrand) colluded on his devious financial activities. They knew he was bending the rules but because Maxwell paid them more then the going rate this was overlooked, according to the book.

Edited to change accountants - Coopers & Lybrand were taken over to become Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC).

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Dark Cloud]

Nobody in their right mind would pay more tax than they absolutely need to, even though as has been stated, if everyone was truly altruistic we would possibly all "choose" to because we know it goes to the NHS, armed forces, education and so on. But why would Mr Bloggs chose to when he knows full well that Mr Smith next door has no intention of doing so? Hence it's very normal to minimise what you pay and if you're rich enough to afford the advice required to LEGALLY minimise your tax bill then fair enough, because we all would if we could. It's just like looking at that Bentley driving past and thinking "now if I had the money I would". Same goes for tax minimalisation. The rules which are apparently full of holes are at fault, not really the people.

[thatdberight]

In the same vein, I understood there were moves to introduce a 'general' tax law that would criminalise any structure that was obviously designed to avoid a legitimate tax obligation, even if the said practise wasn't strictly forbidden in statute. Seems to have gone off the radar, though.

We already have this. GAAR 2013.

[dsr]

The people who make the rules do so to benefit themselves and others like them. That's why such glaring loopholes are left in there, loopholes that the 'normal' person doesn't know about and can't afford the accountants that can unravel Them. It's always been the case and it still is; you can bet your left bollok all senior politicians are using these twists.

MPs are less subtle than that, Benny. They just exempt themselves.

Example 1 - pensions. They brought in a law a few years back that anyone with a pension pot worth over £1m has to pay vast amounts of tax on the excess - 55%, I think. But then they realised that their final salary pensions were worth quite a lot more than that - so they amended the law. It still applies almost as it did before - but MPs are exempt.

Example 2 - redundancy. If your job gives you a contractual payment of over £30,000 on redundancy, it's taxable. But when an MP leaves his job, whether by retirement, sacking, or the order of the boot by his electorate, he gets paid a full year's salary. That's £75k. They would have to pay over £20,000 tax on that, under the laws passed for the rest of us - but under the special law for MP's, that particular redundancy payment is tax free.

Example 3 - expenses. Anyone else who gets expenses has to pay tax on them unless they are actually incurred for the purpose of your work. Even the 'legitimate' expenses that MPs get - so I'm not talking about porn videos or duck houses - are tax free. You try getting your employer to pay your mortgage on, and to furnish, your second home. You'll be paying tax on the benefit. MPs don't, and they get to keep the house and the furniture too.

So don't worry too much about MPs making the rules to benefit themselves and others like them. They're quite happy just to make the rules to benefit themselves alone.

[Lancasterclaret]

The biggest issue is that even the most basic accountant can run rings around HMRC.

Turn that into a massive accountancy firm, staffed full of the brightest chartered accountants going and its not hard to see why the very, very, very rich can avoid shed loads of tax.

[lesxdp]

Off topic, but are you back from your trip?
If not, when you due back?

Home Friday 10th Mid afternoon

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

I would be genuinely distraught (a very rare personal emotion for me) if Corbyn was caught up in all this.

Paul Waine and Hipper both make a very persuasive case. I expect many of us would want MPs to pass a test on tax matters, I agree with bluelabrador, that an even more pressing matter is an understanding of the origin and function of money (it's not at all what you'd imagine), I expect a lot of people would like some form of test before the electorate are allowed to vote on something as momentous as Brexit.

Ultimately, though, you have to trust democracy, and once you require qualifications before you are allowed to take part, it's no longer a democracy. Just how difficult should these tests be? And by extension, what percentage should therefore be excluded from democratic process?

Hi iibyw, I doubt JC has been doing any offshore tax dodging - though it isn't unknown amongst Labour party MPs. However, I'd like JC - and all other MPs - to be more concerned with the tax laws that they pass and understand the issues when they allow badly phrased clauses.

While I'd like MPs to be better informed - and, I agree with Hipper, that many are motivated by making things better for the electorate (and the wider humankind) - we've got to accept that the electorate come in "all shapes and sizes" and a great range of knowledge, and none at all. This is democracy, however much or little the electorate is capable, each of their votes should be equal (within the approved electoral system) and none should be excluded whether for being too old, too educated, or not enough or for any other reason.

[brigante]

MPs are less subtle than that, Benny. They just exempt themselves.

Example 1 - pensions....But when an MP leaves his job, whether by retirement, sacking, or the order of the boot by his electorate, he gets paid a full year's salary. That's £75k. They would have to pay over £20,000 tax on that, under the laws passed for the rest of us - but under the special law for MP's, that particular redundancy payment is tax free.

An MP gets a full years pay tax free when he is voted out?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Nobody has said that these practices are illegal. They are legal, but they shouldn't be. The aim of investigative journalism is to inform the general public. If an informed general public leads to pressure on the politicians and law makers to correct an injustice such as this, then so be it. We'll be a much better country for it.

I agree with that. Morally there is no reason this should happen and the public seem to be at a tipping point with this sort of thing.

The danger is that when we need to attract inward investment after Brexit, too tough a regime may deter firms and cause more harm than good. After all, an offshore firm may avoid paying much Corporation Tax, but the real goodies comes from the huge amount of income tax payable from staff working in the UK.

p.s. this is a plum story for virtue signalling, the Guardian are always up for it, so how funny it was to hear that they have been getting up to similar stuff?

[Paul Waine]

So there is. Just been reading about it, and it turns out to be a fairly useless piece of legislation to stop people like you or I flagrantly avoiding tax. The threshold for action is high, and there are no penalties! It doesn't apply to what the Paradise Papers report.

As the TUC points out https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/GAAR.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

As a result transfer mispricing, the use of tax havens, putting intellectual property offshore solely for tax reasons, making use of loan arrangements to strip profit from the UK and other such activities commonly used by multinational corporations to abuse the UK tax system have all been ruled to be beyond the scope of the Rule

So what we need is a proper version of this.

I disagree, GAAR is a pretty aggressive, broadly cast law - and there are penalties, quite severe ones if you get caught up in it. Of course, the UK can only enact laws that apply to people who fall with UK jurisdiction, if you don't the laws don't apply to you.

Multinational corporations are a difficult area. There are, for obvious reasons, international agreements between nations on the taxation of international/multinational corporations. These agreements preclude any government for creating new corporation tax laws that don't comply with these agreements. So, whatever the UK government does, it isn't capable of "dragging" Amazon or Google or Starbucks (to give a few examples) into the UK tax net except in accordance with the international tax treaties. Transfer pricing, intellectual property and debt financing are all subject to these treaties; the treaties also establish that each nation can establish it's own tax laws and own rates of tax - hence the "tax havens" of Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands and, of course, many more (it's not just a number of UK overseas territories).

It's publications suggest as the TUC's that you quote above that I feel let the electorate down. Just as the MPs they should show more knowledge about the tax laws and the reasons for the international treaties. If they did this the tax loop holes that permit UK citizens to avoid (as well as evade) taxes that should be due could be more successfully tackled and the loop holes closed.

[Paul Waine]

An MP gets a full years pay tax free when he is voted out?

I thought it was 6 months pay, but she/he also get office costs allowance - which amongst other things will include the redundancy pay for their staff.

Unless I'm mistaken, they can qualify for these payments (1) if the choose not to stand for re-election; (2) they stand but are voted out and (3) they are de-selected by their party.

[Paul Waine]

I agree with that. Morally there is no reason this should happen and the public seem to be at a tipping point with this sort of thing.

The danger is that when we need to attract inward investment after Brexit, too tough a regime may deter firms and cause more harm than good. After all, an offshore firm may avoid paying much Corporation Tax, but the real goodies comes from the huge amount of income tax payable from staff working in the UK.

Agree. I'd be happy with Amazon, Google and Starbucks (and the rest) employing people who then are subject to (1) PAYE income tax; (2) Employees NIC and (3) Employer's NIC. The government also collects VAT on their sales - and, this should be the case whether it is a coffee bought at the coffee shop or a book ordered over the internet.

Corporation tax is only taxable if a profit is made - and, as mentioned above, debt finance is often arranged to minimise profits in high tax jurisdictions. I contend there is a strong argument for abolishing corporation tax - which also eliminates the tax benefits from debt finance - which would also eliminate the dividend tax credit when dividends are paid to shareholders.

Ireland's motivation for the Dublin international Financial Services Centre was the employment benefits as described above.

[thatdberight]

So there is. Just been reading about it, and it turns out to be a fairly useless piece of legislation to stop people like you or I flagrantly avoiding tax. The threshold for action is high, and there are no penalties! It doesn't apply to what the Paradise Papers report.

As the TUC points out https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/GAAR.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

As a result transfer mispricing, the use of tax havens, putting intellectual property offshore solely for tax reasons, making use of loan arrangements to strip profit from the UK and other such activities commonly used by multinational corporations to abuse the UK tax system have all been ruled to be beyond the scope of the Rule

So what we need is a proper version of this.

I disagree . Some of what's being report today (e.g. offshore trust's under a person's control funnelling back effectively unrepayable loans) will exactly fall foul of a general "You know that's not what's intended" general anti avoidance / anti abuse rule.

The TUC are lobbying about something else. I don't dispute the mess multi-national taxation is in. I think it's time to play hardball with these big corporations and, for some, have a default taxation based on turnover which they then could get relief on. However, there are treaties to consider and this can't be done unilaterally. That's just the way it is. The paralysis and failure to react quickly enough to evolving situations at a national level... now take that and multiply it by the number of nations, vested interests and general incompetence and that's why it's going to take forever.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Agree. I'd be happy with Amazon, Google and Starbucks (and the rest) employing people who then are subject to (1) PAYE income tax; (2) Employees NIC and (3) Employer's NIC. The government also collects VAT on their sales - and, this should be the case whether it is a coffee bought at the coffee shop or a book ordered over the internet.

Corporation tax is only taxable if a profit is made - and, as mentioned above, debt finance is often arranged to minimise profits in high tax jurisdictions. I contend there is a strong argument for abolishing corporation tax - which also eliminates the tax benefits from debt finance - which would also eliminate the dividend tax credit when dividends are paid to shareholders.

Ireland's motivation for the Dublin international Financial Services Centre was the employment benefits as described above.

I would agree.

Corporation Tax raises about £50bn (ironically more than when Labour charged about 30% rather than the current 20%).

Arguably a cut to 15% would send a huge message to big business around the world, businesses that have employees that pay income tax and NI. We would probably be better off. An even bigger cut would start to remove the attractiveness of these overseas areas (several of which I am advising in unrelated matters so I cannot be too opinionated).

The trouble is, if we have twice as many billionaires and millionaires, the left will be up in arms and view it as a bad thing due to inequality. I cannot see it happening. I sometimes wonder if the likes of Owen Jones would be happy with an equal share of bugger all rather than an unequal share of a huge sum of money? Sadly we have to go through the process of educating the likes of him which will mean a failed socialist experiment first. I struggle to see any other outcome.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Rowls]

Congratulations to Mike Garlick and anyone else who has managed to successfully avoid paying tax within the law.

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

But that's the same argument you always make: we must tax corporations less and it will increase total tax takes. Intuitively attractive, but there is no evidence for this, and no serious economist believes this to be true, not even the IMF or the IFS. This 'supply side' theory held sway for 40 years, and has been proven time and again to be false, written off by as 'voodoo economics' by no other than G. Bush senior himself. It was nothing more than a political tool to reduce taxes on the wealthy. (Please don't quote the Cato institute paper as evidence again, it was an awful and woolly piece! The Cato institute was founded by a multi-billionaire and produces propaganda, it's not something to be taken seriously!)

We can either cravenly give in to multinations, or we can get tough and start taxing turnover as thatberight, AndrewJB and others have suggested on this board. At least then we give them a real choice: either you pay tax or you leave, but you can't trade here and book profits in Jersey. It has to stop, and it will eventually stop, because the electorate have simply had enough.

Good morning, iibyw. I fear you are missing the argument re corporation tax; for the corporations it is just another business expense and as for most business expenses it is considered in the context of the decisions made about their locations. The debate about legal tax avoidance by corporations is all about the corporate structures they adopt to minimise their average corporation tax rate, thus the small islands, that have otherwise nothing else to offer, offer favourable corporate tax arrangements. And, larger countries, including Ireland and Netherlands in Europe offer, in Ireland's case 12.5% corporation tax and in Netherlands case offers no tax on dividends. On the other side of the coin (do you think that's a good use of the phrase?) Apple and many others hold cash outside the USA because if they return it to their headquarters the corporation tax rate is above 30%. (That's part of the reform PDT is offering, I believe - though I'm not watching this debate closely. I don't know where he stands now). You also need to understand that in the UK (and maybe many other countries) that all shareholders receive a basic tax credit when they receive dividends, to avoid "double taxation" of corporate profits. If corporation tax was abolished this tax credit would also disappear - and the tax would be collected from the shareholders when they receive dividends. (I'm not suggesting that these sums are equal, but the second will offset any direct "loss" on the first).

If you accept that corporations are mobile and they can choose their locations, then the evidence that lower tax rates will increase total taxes collected exists in Ireland and Switzerland and Singapore - and, I'm sure many other countries that I'm not so familiar with. The evidence can also be deduced in some of the EU member states arguing against "tax competition" because they operate high corporation tax rates, where other countries' rates are lower.

As for taxing turnover, there already is a tax on turnover - it's called VAT. Yes, I know you (and others) intend something else, in addition. How's that going to work? Either the customers pay a higher price or the corporations make a loss - and if they make a loss they close down and the jobs disappear with them. Yes, I know people look at the enormous profits made by "tech giants" and say but we are only claiming our rightful share of those profits - But, you need agreement across all the major nations to be able to establish that sort of "profit sharing" change: it's hard to make that happen. So, why not collect taxes on the employment that arises from the corporations operations and just forget a second "voluntary" tax on corporate profits?

Then we can all focus on chasing the tax dodging by the high earning people. I'm no fan of the very wealthy getting richer by not paying their dues. I'm sure we can all agree on this?

[Paul Waine]

This was answered here, by the way, it had nothing to do with the Laffer effect, even though David Davis tried to make out as such on Question Time in the run up the the election. There is a much more mundane explanation: https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7 ... 8383da43b7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was the Laffer curve ever about corporations, or was Laffer only referring to individuals?

[CrosspoolClarets]

IIBYW makes some good points, but on the ideological beliefs as to the effect of tax rates we will probably all have to disagree and find out later. I pay Corporation Tax. Tomorrow, I fly off to Jersey for work. I could relocate there, but choose not to. If McDonnell makes me pay 26% corporation tax, then income tax on dividends, and perhaps this turnover tax talked about above, I’d be off in a shot. Bye bye to the £x that I pay net to HMRC over and above what I take out of public services. Thats the problem. If I choose to stay, I’ve decided to slow down my work under Corbyn and spend my businesses revenue on a new car (probably buying a German one again) and on building a home office (I can legitimately reclaim the VAT too). Perfectly legal and morally acceptable strategies not to pay excessive tax. Every one of the millions of corporations in the UK will be thinking the same way.

No matter what economist opinions each person puts up, they are just that, opinions, formed with a degree of evidence. I will try again though.

We can all agree that the IFS are neutral and neither left nor right? Their analysis of Labours plan to put rates up to 26% is interesting. It says money will be raised in the short term, but the long term may have damaging effects on workers. Specifically, they say:

The trade-offs
Increasing tax on corporations may appear to be an attractive way to raise revenue. But, as ever, there are trade-offs:
Increasing rates will raise less revenue in the medium to long run because firms would respond by investing less in the UK. This in turn would depress economic activity and lead to fewer jobs and lower wages. There is a very high degree of uncertainty about how large these effects are but estimates suggest that they may be substantial. The potential size of these effects is an indication of why the OECD and others judge corporation tax to have a particularly damaging effect on economic growth.
Of course, when considering longer run effects it is also important to consider how a government would spend revenue raised, since these decisions (such as higher spending on education) will also have effects on the size of the economy.
All taxes are paid by people and corporation tax is no different. Higher rates can reduce the returns to company owners (shareholders), but there is also evidence that a significant share of the burden is passed to workers in the form of lower wages.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9206

[Lancasterclaret]

True, but we are the only country in the western world who have almost full employment and shrinking wages.

Something isn't right somewhere

[aggi]

Hi iibyw, I doubt JC has been doing any offshore tax dodging - though it isn't unknown amongst Labour party MPs. However, I'd like JC - and all other MPs - to be more concerned with the tax laws that they pass and understand the issues when they allow badly phrased clauses.

It's a nice idea, and I agree that they need to be more knowledgeable to an extent (e.g. stop banging on about how much a company turned over when complaining about them not paying any CT) but the chances of any but a very small number really understanding the tax laws and the potential impact of bad phrasing is very optimistic.

I probably studied tax for about a year, I can prepare a simple income tax return or CT600 but anything complicated is going to get passed to the tax department with a few hundred years of collective knowledge. Even then, anything really complicated will get passed on to tax lawyers who may spend a week in the library researching the legislation.

I don't want an MP to have enough knowledge to be able to understand the impact that a badly, phrased clause will have, it would mean that they were neglecting other duties. They need highly competent professional advisers to brief them (which is going to be difficult when private firms pay much higher wages) and, I would suggest, it is also an area where the House of Lords can come into play.

[RingoMcCartney]

True, but we are the only country in the western world who have almost full employment and shrinking wages.

Something isn't right somewhere

It's called uncontrolled mass immigration, causing an over supply of cheap labour, which naturally leads to the suppression of the, already terminal race to the bottom, in workers wages and their bargaining ability.

As a Remoaner and blinkered europhile and radicalised mass immigrationist, you'll never admit it's true. Or even possible.

[deanothedino]

It's called uncontrolled mass immigration, causing an over supply of cheap labour, which naturally leads to the suppression of the, already terminal race to the bottom, in workers wages and their bargaining ability.

As a Remoaner and blinkered europhile and radicalised mass immigrationist, you'll never admit it's true. Or even possible.

Live view from Ringo's keyboard

[Lancasterclaret]

Cheers Ringo

I can rely on you to get to the depth of the matter, and to cut through all the big words and inconvenient facts.

Just a quick one though, every other rich EU country has migration issues like we have. Why is it not affecting them?

[CnBtruntru]

I do it, I live in Ireland, mind you I probably don't pay tax because I don't earn anything either.

[RingoMcCartney]

Cheers Ringo

I can rely on you to get to the depth of the matter, and to cut through all the big words and inconvenient facts.

Just a quick one though, every other rich EU country has migration issues like we have. Why is it not affecting them?

Nice sneering!

Is the 'immigration like we have" the same?

Is it like for like? As I said, you'll never admit wage suppression due to an over supply has been happening.

Till perhaps your boss your boss calls you into the office and says" I know you be got a British mortgage, a British car loan, university debts and British child care costs. But there's this highly educated and eloquent Lithuanian, willing to do your job for half your salary. Now pick your P45 up on the way out, good luck competing in the jobs market out there Lancs. And don't forget. We need uncontrolled mass immigration. It's vital to the economy. Maybe not your economy or your families. But heyho!"

Tell you what, you tell me why it's not affecting other countries. You sound like you have all the in-depth data and inconvenient facts to hand.

[deanothedino]

Nice sneering!

Is the 'immigration like we have" the same? Is it like for like? As I said, you'll never admit wage suppression due to an over supply has been happening. Till perhaps your boss your boss calls you into the office and says" I know you be got a British mortgage, a British car loan, university debts and British child care costs. But there's this highly educated and eloquent Lithuanian, willing to do your job for half your salary. Now pick your P45 up on the way out, good luck competing in the jobs market out there Lancs. And don't forget. We need uncontrolled mass immigration. It's vital to the economy. Maybe not your economy or your families. But heyho!"

Tell you what, you tell me why it's not affecting them. You sound like you have all the in-depth data and inconvenient facts to hand.

What about jobs that are British nationals only? Why are our wages suppressed oh great one?

[Rick_Muller]

....
Edited because I should know better...

[RingoMcCartney]

but does she have big t!ts, if so she can do what she wants

thought I'd bring the discussion right down as thats where its heading anyway... Why cant people have a valid discussion on here without returning to going over old ground again and again - we all know that Ringo hates immigrants he doesn't need to keep telling us.

There is a difference between being concerned about the EFFECTS of uncontrolled mass immigration.

And hating immigrants.

[RingoMcCartney]

What about jobs that are British nationals only? Why are our wages suppressed oh great one?

Which jobs are only available to British nationals only?

[deanothedino]

Which jobs are only available to British nationals only?

Quite a lot in the security industry

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

There is a difference between being concerned about the EFFECTS of uncontrolled mass immigration.

and hating immigrants

I quite agree, and we are getting somewhere!

Now if you see there is a difference between that, then surely you agree that it might not be as simple as "its all down to mass immigration"?

because it clearly isn't all down to that (though that is a factor in certain sectors)

[Lancasterclaret]

And one thing we do agree on I think, is that we should have immigration controls.

The difference is that I think we can do that within the EU (actually, not think, know we can) and you don't