The Rich According to the Guardian

[Judy1234]

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/04/workandcareers.executivesalaries

'why on earth do rich people spend so much time getting and keeping their money? Why do many of them have such an ignorant and insulting view of those less well off than them '

when you can provide some evidence for the above statements, perhaps there can be some intelligent debate here!
How do you know that 'rich' people spend a lot of time getting and keeping their money? Many of them may have inherited it - hardly time consuming!
And finally, why does this keep returning to the idea of rich people not paying the tax they owe?? If they don't, that's tax evasion!

Actually coco, much though I hate the thought there is thought to be some correlation between being successful and being attractive. There is also some correlation between being successful and being tall ... I'll try to find a link to the study which I found fascinating.

Dittany there is something that is true in the "politics of envy" line of thinking. Because it is forecast that by taxing the uberwealthy more, the exchequer may well lose out. Is that not cutting off one's nose to spite ones face?

interesting that you want other people to provide forecasts, but avoid providing evidence to support your own sweeping statements dittany

Dittany, if you are a non-dom, not paying tax in the UK on your worldwide income is not immoral or unethical.

With respect, I don't think you grasp the issue. A non-dom will pay tax in the UK on UK income. In many cases they pay literally hundreds of thousands in tax to the UK exchequer. He will not pay tax in the uk on income not earned in the UK. He will be paying tax elsewhere in the world on that income, just not in the UK unless he remits the funds to the UK.

I simply don't understand how or why you can think that it is in some way immoral for the non-dom not to pay tax in the UK on assets owned outside the UK where funds are not remitted to the UK.

I read an article (I think) in the FT on an operational impact assessment of the tax on non-doms, but I'm having trouble finding it. This article says it all in simple enough terms for me though.

taxing non-doms

Dittany is making complete sense to me

Well is she can explain why putting money in an ISA is acceptable and putting money in an offshore account isnt, then maybe it would make some sense to the rest of us!

Isn't it obvious that tax avoidance, however legal, is clearly unfair when it is only available to a few people, of which a disproportionate number are billionaires. Ordinary people cannot buy their houses via an offshore trust and so avoid CGT. These peole would not be able to get up to these tricks in any other country in the world. There is substantial pressure on the government to change the law, yet the law is not changed, partly because the rich claim they will leave the country if they are made to pay the same taxes as 'the little people'. Something I regard with great scepticism.

Isn't it obvious that tax avoidance, however legal, is clearly unfair when it is only available to a few people, of which a disproportionate number are billionaires. Ordinary people cannot buy their houses via an offshore trust and so avoid CGT. These peole would not be able to get up to these tricks in any other country in the world. There is substantial pressure on the government to change the law, yet the law is not changed, partly because the rich claim they will leave the country if they are made to pay the same taxes as 'the little people'. Something I regard with great scepticism.

So, are things 'unfair' MsDemeanor, simply because they are not available to everyone? Is it unfair that I can put some money away in my ISA each month? I don't think so; after all, I earn the money, I worked hard to get where I am in my career, and I am confident that I use my money wisely.
Is it unfair that my neighbour opposite can afford a brand new BMW and I can't? (Actually I wouldnt choose to spend on one anyway, but you see my point).

yeah, yeah, yeah, anyone who thinks that special tax avoidance plans that only billionaires can get might be unfair is just jealous. Ner, ner, ner, ner, ner
Such a clever and incisive argument.
Why do you think no other country in the world allows a small section of its population, which happens to include some of the richest people on earth, to avoid paying exactly the same taxes as the poorest?

Dittany, you are contradicting yourself left right and centre here!
You now seem to be saying that ISAs are ok, because the Govt makes everyone aware of them. Putting money in an offshore account isnt so widely advertised, therefore it is unacceptable! But hang on, you and many others have been discussing on this thread the whole issue of putting money in offshore accounts. So this method of tax avoidance clearly is widely known!!

MsDemeanor - in the face of absolutely zero logical response to the question of why ISAs are ok, but other methods of tax avoidance aren't... I can see why SWC might be tempted to come to that conculsion!!

But it isn't a loophole. Why has the popular press siezed upon this. It's just normal - it's how different tax jurisdictions interact.

A loophole is an unintended consequence. This is how it goes. A short, thin, balding and bespectacled (STBB) lawyer/accountant will find a tiny bit on the footnote of page 458 of a finance act.

He will, for example, have worked out that a simple bit of law that was intended to give legitimate relief for a foreign exchange loss, actually has an unintended consequence. He will think, well a convertible here, a yen derivative there, and that will yield a couple of squillion of tax savings. Bob's yer uncle

The STBB will contact his likeminded friends and they will test the loophole. They will go to tax counsel (another STTB). Then they will "market" the idea. Or, in other words, phone other STTBs that work in banks and multinational corporations. They will sell the tax saving idea and make millions by saving squillions. Now that's immoral.

Using the law legitimately for the purpose that was intended is not immoral IMO.

'Putting money is an ISA is a legal way to dispose of your money in order to ensure you pay less tax. Putting money in an offshire account is also a legal way to dispose of your money in order to pay less tax. Please explain why one is wrong and the other is OK. '

still waiting......