Panama Papers

SwingsitlikeHogan said:
All in it together means the poor are all in it together. The poor lose a little but it can mean a lot. The better off might lose a little more than a little - but it still makes very little difference to them. The wealthy hide their money somewhere else and so lose zilch. So please let's not pretend that we are all in it together - and where we are is where the bankers put us - and most of them are in the 'losing zilch' category. Sweet.
Click to expand...

How are you defining poor? Where does it prove that most of the bankers are in the losing zilch?
 
Wildrover said:
As long as no laws have been broken I don't have a problem with it, I'd do it if I had that kind of money. I pay my share of tax but if there was a scheme that saved me money and was legal, sign me up. Makes me laugh when people get on their high horse about companies like Starbucks avoiding tax. If they aren't breaking the law, just working the system, then it's the system that needs fixing, they aren't running a charity.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Del_Boy said:
Exactly
Click to expand...
For myself, I'm more concerned with the fact that the people who should be looking to close these loopholes are actually exploiting them. There is a huge conflict of interest, and if the Media have the stones, then this could turn into another scandal like the recent expenses furore. Governments have fallen for less.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
And spiritually and ethically there is a very big difference between doing what you can and want to do - and doing what is right to do. As an individual even if I don't always want to do what is right, and that what is best for me may not be what is right, I try and always do the former. Many wealthy individuals and tax avoiding companies don't seem to particularly care about doing what is right - they just do what they want and what they can do - as long as it is to their own pecuniary benefit.
Click to expand...

Bit idealistic of you - and rather daft imo!

Publicly owned Companies (and their Directors) are actually legally compelled to act in certain ways - which may not be your 'right' way! There are, of course, other ways in which they can help 'the community'!

And Wildrover is spot on!
 
Del_Boy said:
How are you defining poor? Where does it prove that most of the bankers are in the losing zilch?
Click to expand...

I don't have a definition of poor - but you are of the poorer of society when a small monetary change in your income can have a major and often painful effect on your lifestyle.

Some bankers that screwed our economy may have lost their jobs and may still be out of work - but not many I might suggest. Some might not get paid quite so much as they did - but as their remunerations were often obscene and more than they could spend in any case - their loss is not theirs - it is a loss to their bank account and I suggest that not many will have lost that much from their lifestyle - certainly not enough to actually hurt. Unlike those at the bottom - the poor, poorer, poorest - for whom the pain of such as a benefit cut or loss of hours actually does really matter.
 
Reminds me of the Jimmy Carr situation. What he did to reduce tax was not illegal, otherwise he would've ended up in Nick. It was more like creative accountancy and was well with in the laws, although immoral nevertheless it was legal. To stop this happening the Goverment need to amend the laws.
If any of us had the chance to pay less tax then I'm sure we'd be tempted
 
Foxholer said:
Bit idealistic of you - and rather daft imo!

Publicly owned Companies (and their Directors) are actually legally compelled to act in certain ways - which may not be your 'right' way! There are, of course, other ways in which they can help 'the community'!

And Wildrover is spot on!
Click to expand...

There is nothing daft about doing what is right even although that may not be to your optimal benefit. Besides. Doing the right thing helps preserve my peace of mind - and having that is worth a lot more of the small benefits I might get out of doing what seems on the surface to be what is 'best' for me.

And yes - you are right - I do appreciate that there is conflict between companies doing 'what is right' and 'maximising shareholder value' - something the boards of PLCs must strive to do.
 
Jensen said:
Reminds me of the Jimmy Carr situation. What he did to reduce tax was not illegal, otherwise he would've ended up in Nick. It was more like creative accountancy and was well with in the laws, although immoral nevertheless it was legal. To stop this happening the Goverment need to amend the laws.
If any of us had the chance to pay less tax then I'm sure we'd be tempted
Click to expand...
But, if members of the Government (and their families) are directly benefitting from these Laws, then how can we trust them to change them?
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I don't have a definition of poor - but you are of the poorer of society when a small monetary change in your income can have a major and often painful effect on your lifestyle.

Some bankers that screwed our economy may have lost their jobs and may still be out of work - but not many I might suggest. Some might not get paid quite so much as they did - but as their remunerations were often obscene and more than they could spend in any case - their loss is not theirs - it is a loss to their bank account and I suggest that not many will have lost that much from their lifestyle - certainly not enough to actually hurt. Unlike those at the bottom - the poor, poorer, poorest - for whom the pain of such as a benefit cut or loss of hours actually does really matter.
Click to expand...
just because someone earned shed loads it doesn't mean a cut in income won't affect them. 99.9% of the world I guess would certainly take an obscene salary if they were offered it.
 
Wildrover said:
As long as no laws have been broken I don't have a problem with it, I'd do it if I had that kind of money. I pay my share of tax but if there was a scheme that saved me money and was legal, sign me up. Makes me laugh when people get on their high horse about companies like Starbucks avoiding tax. If they aren't breaking the law, just working the system, then it's the system that needs fixing, they aren't running a charity.
Click to expand...

Del_Boy said:
Exactly
Click to expand...

And who has created this system? Oh yeah, that'll be the rich people avoiding the tax……… :rolleyes:

bluewolf said:
For myself, I'm more concerned with the fact that the people who should be looking to close these loopholes are actually exploiting them. There is a huge conflict of interest, and if the Media have the stones, then this could turn into another scandal like the recent expenses furore. Governments have fallen for less.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Wildrover said:
I would reduce the taxes for the super rich. It's better imho to tax them say 10% of their massive fortunes than 40-60% so they go elsewhere. 10% of millions/billions is better than 40% of nothing. Indeed more rich people would come here and we end up with a lot more tax revenue. Alas the PC brigade and Comrade Corbyn won't have any common sense like that. Similar to the link below.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/138011-tax-system-explained-beer-2/
Click to expand...

If you honestly believe that maybe I could sell you London Bridge at the same time? :rofl:

Tashyboy said:
As much as the good Homer in my head agrees with what you say. Bad Homer is shouting louder that these people would sooner not pay 1% never mind 10%
Click to expand...

Again, spot on.
 
bluewolf said:
Fair enough (although you appear to have Socialism and Communism mixed up), but we shouldn't fall at the feet of the "Wealth Creators" either. We don't have to accept the dodgy practices, scams and hidden deals, just to pander to a group who appear to find themselves above the law.
Click to expand...

I dont have Socialism and Communism mixed up. My tongue in cheek comments were a reaction to the rather paranoid comments about the wicked rich and how the proletariat are all numpties for falling for their lies. Bit rich from an upper middle class armchair warrior.
 
SocketRocket said:
...My tongue in cheek comments...
Click to expand...

Very often difficult to tell when you are posting 'tongue in cheek' and when it's in 'serious' mode. I suspect that it's often (t least bordering on) the latter, but with a convenient get-out of being able to claim it's the former!

Perhaps you should use Smiley's! :whistle: :rofl:
 
Foxholer said:
Very often difficult to tell when you are posting 'tongue in cheek' and when it's in 'serious' mode. I suspect that it's often (t least bordering on) the latter, but with a convenient get-out of being able to claim it's the former!

Perhaps you should use Smiley's! :whistle: :rofl:
Click to expand...

Wondered how long before you came along :rolleyes:

Problem with smilies is that some people tend to overuse them and it makes them appear a bit shallow and oddball
 
chippa1909 said:
Panorama was lightweight in my opinion, focussing on Iceland and Putin ( and Putins cellist friend), but not even a mention of HSBC (perhaps not surprising given that the head of BBC is a director of HSBC.
Click to expand...
I strongly suspect that if you want to follow this story, you'll have to follow the Guardian or the Independant. A bit like the expenses scandal, this could be a long, slow burner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lord Tyrion
Fog lights
Replies
18
Views
751
Billysboots
Billysboots
Lord Tyrion
What do you obsess over?
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
3K
Hobbit
Hobbit
Crazyface
Mobile Phones HELP !!!!!!!
Replies
14
Views
842
Robster59
Robster59
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
11K
kp17
kp17
S
Course recommendations - Aberdeen area
2
Replies
27
Views
816
kp17
kp17
Top