The Tax Enforcement Society

[Loz]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> More tax than they need to? Errr no it's the tax

> they should be paying.

No it's not. As far as I know, PG pays the tax that the rules say he should pay. If you don't like the rules, then fine, tell the government to change them. But don't blame PG and the like for playing the game within them.

[Loz]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah I know, I was trying to wind you up.

Well... it worked. Ngggggh. >:D<

(At last he gets to use that smiley for it's true purpose.)

[tog_in_sox]

Errata: Arcadia paid ?300-400m in tax over past 5 yrs.

I'm not so much worried about privacy of PG's taxes but that he is due the same absence of interference with his legal affairs as any other private citizen, so perhaps I should have said "private individual". Again if you want to prevent his and many others' exploitation of the regime then please vote for those who will change this. N.B. the ?1.2bn dividend everyone seems to be so outraged by took place in 2005 under a Labour government. The legality under scrutiny may be questionable but it remains officially legal.

Anyhoos, I'd like to raise some connected questions ;)

What's more contemptible, claiming what you're not legitimately entitled to or not paying what you're not legally obliged to?

Who would you rather see brought to book, someone who profits from the labours of those gainfully employed by them or someone who profits from our labours by refusing to legitimately labour at all?

[zeban]

Loz- I'm a 'she', god knows why you presumed I was male.

And Tog in sox I don't think your 'connected' question is connected at all. In fact I'd see it as a typically pathetic response to this debate. It's not an either/or situation.

If you want to use this as a way of lashing out at the welfare state then the government are already doing that so there's really no need. I also hope you are talking about benefit fraud rather than people legitimately claiming job seekers allowance because they're hardly the same thing.

Apart from anything else, what sort of crazy person needs 1.2 billion? what would have been his tax liability without his monaco stunt-he'd still be insanely rich. It's just utterly obscene greed.

Fair tax collection is the price for a civilised society and it's utterly scandalous that Labour didn't implement change when they could have.

[Loz]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz- I'm a 'she', god knows why you presumed I was

> male.

Sorry, Zeban - more of a thoughtless use of a pronoun than any concious decision on my part.

[Mick Mac]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> Fair tax collection is the price for a civilised

> society and it's utterly scandalous that Labour

> didn't implement change when they could have.

Actually labour did more than any previous government to reduce the benefits and attractions of tax avoidance schemes.

[zeban]

Mic Mac I'm a Labour voter, and I agree. I just think it's a shame that they didn't go far enough because I doubt the current government will do much!

[Loz]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> zeban Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> >

> > Fair tax collection is the price for a

> civilised

> > society and it's utterly scandalous that Labour

> > didn't implement change when they could have.

>

> Actually labour did more than any previous

> government to reduce the benefits and attractions

> of tax avoidance schemes.

That's true, but on the other hand they vastly increased the number of tax regulations which inadvertently created a whole new set of loopholes. Simplifying that would make a big difference in what accountants can get away with.

[tog_in_sox]

zeban,

It's a shame that my "pathetic" attempt is simply dismissed in your rabid need to persecute one wealthy person. What exact harm has he done to you or I? Arcadia Grp is not Selfridges or Harrods or any of the luxury marques, he sells to the masses those affordable goods they find attractive and useful enough they buy it, whether at full or sale price. The Independent profile on him includes "Hence acts of spontaneous generosity such as the ?60,000 he donated to charity for a one-minute kiss with Kate Moss which he "gifted" to Jemima Khan to enjoy, though detractors saw it as evidence merely of his genius for self-promotion. He gives ?1m a year to the charity Jewish Care, donated his private jet to Madeleine McCann's family and gave ?100,000 in cash and ?1m in clothes to help victims of the tsunami. He has also spent ?5m setting up the Fashion Retail Academy and ?1.25m to promote business teaching in schools. "

I'm an ordinary bloke with an above average job but with bills and debts to repay I have bugger all to give without living in penury, am I therefore more reprehensible because I help very few and employ no-one?

Personally my socialist temper is more greatly piqued by the spongers (not the genuinely out of work, actively wanting to find new gainful employment or otherwise participate in society), the welfare fraudsters and the bone idle who are able to take from our system because we seem incapable of running it effectively enough for the good of those who truly need a leg up or helping hand.

Just because I chose to raise what I believe to be greater moral affronts you chose to rudely respond.

What of your contempt for tax evaders (~?70bn)? PG may well be a Tax Avoider or perhaps a Mitigator but what of all the others in this country? What about Tax protesters and resisters?

Fair tax is indeed what we want all people to adhere to but squandering of tax revenues is a far greater priority. We could do so much more with the amount we do collect if we spent it more wisely. Then the Government (whatever it's colour) could stand expectantly before us and say "Are you willing to pay more for what we want to provide?"

Perhaps you should direct your ire at the likes of Mukesh Ambani, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, George Soros? Where is you invective for all the purveyors of super luxury goods and brands, the oligarchs who have wrested the natural resources from the former Soviet peoples to obscene personal gain, the various criminal overlords on all the inhabited continents, the bankers, the car makers, the plane builders, the sports moguls, the tabacco pedlers, the Sainsburys, the alcohol makers?

There are so many more people in the world to despise for their wealth above and beyond one little man called Philip Green. Some may indeed now be seeking to assuage their guilt by great works of charity but they remain fabulously wealthy and secure. Do you forgive them their former avarice and exploitative ways?

[zeban]

Well I'm glad you've elaborated, and I agree with most of what you've said. I'm sure it is true that 'We could do so much more with the amount we do collect if we spent it more wisely' although I would say this could be a whole different debate as I'm sure we've all got different opinions on where we'd rather taxes were/weren't spent. I wouldn't want to the person who actually has to make these decisions.

In regards to Philip Green I was using him as an example for all major tax avoiders so I certainly wasn't 'persecuting one man.' I didn't know Philip Green did so much for charity- thank you for letting me know. But I'm still against the existence of tax havens and such loopholes in the law.

[MrBen]

I'm liking the reasoned, rational sanity of tog-in-sox all the way on this thread.

['bout now]

T-I-S, I appreciate all you say about Philip Green, you're right he is a wealth creator for the government and for his employees. As a wealth creator he is already privy to tax breaks that you or I (I'm presuming) can only wish for and has then taken advantage, legally, of one major other loop hole in which he evades all tax whatsoever.

No wrongdoing there. However he is a Government advisor on how to stop monies leaking out of the public purse and when that man has personally sidestepped around ?200million tax in one hit that smells of rank hypocrisy. That I think is why he is a target of protests.

Legally nothing is wrong with how he conducts his affairs, morally however I disagree.

P.S I'm confused over the Bill Gates thing, as his foundation has so-far donated $28 Billion to charitable works.

[tog_in_sox]

Hi zeban, I'm glad we're seeing more eye-to-eye than toe-to-toe.

'bout now,

I'm not trying to hold PG up as some unsullied saint. His infamous actions are morally questionable to say the least but the fact that he's being made such a target only supports the radical nature of the protestors, thus detracting from any measured yet momentous attempt that they might make to rally the electorate and it's servants to a march for true fairness. Something far more effective would be the Wikileaks of Evaders, Avoiders, Fraudsters and Exploiters. Mass marching in the real World is too easily co-opted and subverted. It's time for Revolution 2.0 (perhaps that should be 3.0 or 9 or 2011 to follow the erratic nomenclatures of the tech world and the irony that they deal in computers that supposedly know how to count), it's time to show what social networking and the exposure by Internet media can truly, democratically do.

My point about BG? Yup despite putting more than $38 billion into his charitable foundation his current worth still stands at $54bn. Hence my question towards the end of my last entry. This man and his wife are irrefutably doing amazing things for the betterment of millions of people BUT he still has at least $16 bn of his own or perhaps $54 depending on how the foundation is accounted for. I'm inclined to let him off the hook but how much do you think he's managed to avoid in the 23 yrs he's been a billionaire?

Perhaps rather than protest and occupation we should instead instigate a love-in at John Lewis? Or transfer all our banking to the Co-operative Bank?

[Huguenot]

I don't think it's fair to call the UK's progessive taxation principle a 'moral' one.

A 'moral' tax is a poll tax - where each individual pays for the goods and services he/she receives from the state. Since we all have equal opportunity for health, education, welfare and defence under the state, in terms of moral obligation all should pay equally.

Taxing one person $10m a year and the next one $800 on the grounds that he's a bit skint isn't 'moral', it's convenient.

"From each according to their abilites.. etc." wasn't promoted as a 'moral' ethic, and it didn't even apply to tax - it was actually about labour.

Progressive taxation is enlightened self-interest, but it's still an act of charity. Stompy footed righteous protestors are simply, and self-indulgently, biting the hands that feed them. Something about looking in the mirror or casting stones springs to mind.

I'm all for progresssive taxation BTW, I just don't think we should pretend it's moral.

[Huguenot]

Oh, and... here's that estimable 'righteous' tome known by many pious moralists as 'The Bible'

Matthew 25:15 And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to each according to his ability. And he went abroad at once.

Five talents was about 100 years average salary.

Seems to me Jesus reckons clever blokes deserve to keep more cash, and disproportionately, and well beyond their ability to spend it. ;-)

[pk]

tog_in_sox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> My point about BG? Yup despite putting more than

> $38 billion into his charitable foundation his

> current worth still stands at $54bn. Hence my

> question towards the end of my last entry. This

> man and his wife are irrefutably doing amazing

> things for the betterment of millions of people

> BUT he still has at least $16 bn of his own or

> perhaps $54 depending on how the foundation is

> accounted for. I'm inclined to let him off the

> hook but how much do you think he's managed to

> avoid in the 23 yrs he's been a billionaire?

as part of the 'giving pledge' that BG and Buffett have initiated they've both publicly pledged to give away most of the wealth (Buffett's said 99%)

i see that zuckerberg recently made a pledge too

tho it's not legally enforceable i don't think, i'm pretty impressed by what they've done/are doing

http://givingpledge.org/

['bout now]

TIS i agree with your point, however I was talking specifically about how Tax avoidance affects the UK. Taking it to a global level is of course correct, sadly my brain cannot cope with global issues, not on a Thursday anyway!

[tog_in_sox]

Hi pk, thanks for the link, great to see so many exerting their consciences and humanity and despite all the bad press and mis-steps looks like Mr Zuckerberg is showing his.

H, sure a progressive tax is a convenient imposition and it's morality can certainly be disputed but I hope that the majority of the wealthy will and do contribute according to their ability to pay and support the communities upon whose shoulders they have been elevated.

Off to huff and puff at the gall of those pesky "students"...