Letter to Cameron and Osbourne

[Hope]

Earlier, I sent a letter, by email, to the Prime Minister (copied to the Chancellor, and my own [Tory] MP, asked them come down heavily on people who use means, such as those provided by Mossack Fonseca, to avoid tax that they are morally obliged to pay here in the UK.

If we could get a trend from various people to do this, thus flooding the Downing Street and Treasury email systems, I wonder whether it would get the Government (and the Opposition) to get their fingers out.

[L.A.]

I wouldn't hold your breath Hope, I'm sure that they have junk mail filters just like the rest of us - probably a damned sight better!

[Shaker]

Also unlikely given that Cameron senior was up to his eyeballs in it: http://goo.gl/np05L4

[Hope]

I wouldn't hold your breath Hope, I'm sure that they have junk mail filters just like the rest of us - probably a damned sight better!

I'm not sure that letters to official addresses can be filtered in this way. 

[Hope]

Also unlikely given that Cameron senior was up to his eyeballs in it: http://goo.gl/np05L4

The article on the BBC website seems to indicate that, although he was involved as a broker in setting up one or more funds for investors, he wasn't one of the investors himself.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure that letters to official addresses can be filtered in this way.

It's called staff

[Hope]

It's called staff

I suspect that, if there were enough individual emails, they would have to treat them as they have to treat letters.  Iirc, 100 letters count as the opinion of 1 member of the electorate.

[Nearly Sane]

The article on the BBC website seems to indicate that, although he was involved as a broker in setting up one or more funds for investors, he wasn't one of the investors himself.

I only tied the victims up and sold the murderer the knife nothing to do to me what he did with the knife.

[Hope]

I only tied the victims up and sold the murderer the knife nothing to do to me what he did with the knife.

Just because 'your' father was involved in the Great Train Robbery does it mean that 'you' can't (or shouldn't) investigate the event?

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect that, if there were enough individual emails, they would have to treat them as they have to treat letters.

Which means the staff send an email back saying 'thank you for the enquiry, it will be looked at, have you considered the Clean for the Queen project?' and delete

[Nearly Sane]

Just because 'your' father was involved in the Great Train Robbery does it mean that 'you' can't (or shouldn't) investigate the event?

Indeed but just because you've been PM and not done it for 6 years and your Chancellor has put in measures to support it, probably does mean you shouldn't.

Oh and BTW your answer is a complete non sequitur to the point that my post replied to which was entirely about your defence of DC's dad. Why did you change the subject? Why did yo use use strawman for what I said?

[Hope]

Indeed but just because you've been PM and not done it for 6 years and your Chancellor has put in measures to support it, probably does mean you shouldn't.

Oddly enough, the Coalition and the current Tory governments have done stuff to combat the avoidance and evasion of taxes.  The current admin. banned 'bearer shares' last year; the Chancellor has closed a number of both evasion and avoidance loopholes in the 6 years he's been in the position - and Parliament has voted yes to all of the propsals.

Oh and BTW your answer is a complete non sequitur to the point that my post replied to which was entirely about your defence of DC's dad. Why did you change the subject? Why did yo use use strawman for what I said?

There is a difference between being a broker and an investor.  At the time, what IC did was legal, albeit immoral; what the investors did was - in my view - a more serious crime, in that if IC hadn't done it for them, that wouldn't have stopped their intentions.  You argued that DC wouldn't do anything because of being related to someone who had acted immorally; I simply gave a different context to the idea.

[Hope]

Which means the staff send an email back saying 'thank you for the enquiry, it will be looked at, have you considered the Clean for the Queen project?' and delete

Well, I've known some pretty effective email campaigns over the years.  Campaigns on subjects like bank bailouts, human trafficking, cuts in welfare, etc.  I seem to remember seeing that there is an email campaign regarding the future of Port Talbot Steel.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, I've known some pretty effective email campaigns over the years.  Campaigns on subjects like bank bailouts, human trafficking, cuts in welfare, etc.  I seem to remember seeing that there is an email campaign regarding the future of Port Talbot Steel.

Didn't suggest there wasn't, suggested that the idea that the amount of letters/emails would be difficult to deal with was incorrect.

[Nearly Sane]

Oddly enough, the Coalition and the current Tory governments have done stuff to combat the avoidance and evasion of taxes.  The current admin. banned 'bearer shares' last year; the Chancellor has closed a number of both evasion and avoidance loopholes in the 6 years he's been in the position - and Parliament has voted yes to all of the propsals.
There is a difference between being a broker and an investor.  At the time, what IC did was legal, albeit immoral; what the investors did was - in my view - a more serious crime, in that if IC hadn't done it for them, that wouldn't have stopped their intentions.  You argued that DC wouldn't do anything because of being related to someone who had acted immorally; I simply gave a different context to the idea.

I didn't argue that David Cameron wouldn't do an thing because of being related. Please retract.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hope,

Not sure how many people would join your email campaign. My experience is that it's not just the hugely wealthy who use off-shore companies in tax havens - because of the huge rise in property prices. The threshold for inheritance tax on the family home has recently been raised to reflect this but ordinary people were using them to try and ensure their children could avoid inheritance tax in the future on their PPR and investment property.

Off shore companies are not that expensive to set up and run, especially in comparison to the tens thousands your children save in future inheritance tax. The cost of running an off-shore company can be as little as £2k per year - it is dependent on tax haven jurisdiction and level of activity.

Compared to 40% inheritance tax on an investment property worth £1m (3 bed flats in London or 4 bed detached house in West London are worth more than £1m), ordinary people who had subscribed to the concept of property as an investment and source of income into old age (after paying whatever annual income tax was due) to pay privately for their old age care costs in their own  homes would be interested in passing the wealth to their children without their children paying say £400k to the government/ their fellow citizens in tax on a £1m property investment portfolio.

Also the firms that facilitate them and the ordinary people who work for these firms are not that interested in policing this for the government since it's their bread and butter.

[Aruntraveller]

Hope,

Not sure how many people would join your email campaign. My experience is that it's not the hugely wealthy who use off-shore companies in tax havens - because of the huge rise in property prices. The threshold for inheritance tax on the family home has recently been raised to reflect this but ordinary people were using them to try and ensure their children could avoid inheritance tax in the future on their PPR and investment property.

Off shore companies are not that expensive to set up and run, especially in comparison to the tens thousands your children save in future inheritance tax. The cost of running an off-shore company can be as little as £2k per year - it is dependent on tax haven jurisdiction and level of activity.

Compared to 40% inheritance tax on an investment property worth £1m (3 bed flats in London or 4 bed detached house in West London are worth more than £1m), ordinary people who had subscribed to the concept of property as an investment and source of income into old age (after paying whatever annual income tax was due) to pay privately for their old age care costs in their own  homes would be interested in passing the wealth to their children without their children paying say £400k to the government/ their fellow citizens in tax on a £1m property investment portfolio.

Also the firms that facilitate them and the ordinary people who work for these firms are not that interested in policing this for the government since it's their bread and butter.

Once again proving that London and the SE is another country to most of us.

£1m property investment portfolio's not being the norm in the majority of the rest of the population outside the SE.

'Ordinary people' outside the SE do not have the luxury of subscribing to these sorts of benefits on the back of rampant housing inflation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes I agree. There is nothing much to be gained by owning property that has an exaggerated market value in London - you are asset rich but cash poor and the tax bill needs to be paid in cash.

The culture in the 80s onwards was that people liked to own the house they lived in while they are alive and they would also like a source of income to live off such as rental income. It just got crazy when house prices shot up in London and SE and suddenly IHT was a huge cash flow burden on children.

Also, I don't know who qualifies as 'ordinary people' but people I come across are SME owners - they work really hard and take what are for them are huge risks - financial as well health risks and sacrifice time spent with family and loved ones, rest, and a stress-free life to build up assets - stress contributes to high blood pressure, diabetes. They employ people, pay employers taxes, business rates and income tax and often corporation tax as well. They have no intention of gifting the results of their hard work and sacrifice to the taxman or their fellow citizens - if they could not find a loophole to be able to pass it onto their kids they probably wouldn't bother working so hard for little benefit.

This is probably why the government is treading carefully about closing legal avenues of avoiding tax in order to keep entrepreneurs in the UK - without entrepreneurs the economy would be in a lot worse shape than it is now - there is only so much redistribution of wealth will do for the poor if the money runs out because of lack of generation of money.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, we haven't yet found the solution to the fact that wealth creation is essential for there to be anything to redistribute. God alone knows what that will be but we'd better find it; the current system is both precarious and unsustainable.

[floo]

I do  hope they find some evidence to implicate the nasty Trump and that tax scam firm. I can't believe he is squeaky clean where his tax affairs are concerned. It might knock his Presidential ambitions off course if that were to be the case.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, we haven't yet found the solution to the fact that wealth creation is essential for there to be anything to redistribute. God alone knows what that will be but we'd better find it; the current system is both precarious and unsustainable.

It's hard given that society needs to protect the geese in order to get the golden eggs that the rest of us feed off.

If you are a net generator of wealth you are more valuable to society's survival than a net consumer. On the other hand wealth doesn't need to be in monetary form - if you have something else of value to your fellow members of society - ideas, knowledge (especially technology related to improve productivity to service larger populations), physical labour, an ability to nurture and protect future wealth generators then there is an incentive to spend money on you. There is even some resources left over to look after those who aren't contributing to society in some useful way, provided their numbers are small. An imbalance caused by too many people becoming net consumers becomes a problem.

The solution for an aging population is making it easier for more young immigrants to come in to add to the labour force if local people aren't having enough kids or locals are not entering the workforce.

One solution to needing more wealth generation for society  is tax breaks and avoidance schemes for entreupreneurs - so long as there is still a net benefit to society.

[Brownie]

Hope,

Not sure how many people would join your email campaign. My experience is that it's not just the hugely wealthy who use off-shore companies in tax havens - because of the huge rise in property prices. The threshold for inheritance tax on the family home has recently been raised to reflect this but ordinary people were using them to try and ensure their children could avoid inheritance tax in the future on their PPR and investment property.

Off shore companies are not that expensive to set up and run, especially in comparison to the tens thousands your children save in future inheritance tax. The cost of running an off-shore company can be as little as £2k per year - it is dependent on tax haven jurisdiction and level of activity.

Compared to 40% inheritance tax on an investment property worth £1m (3 bed flats in London or 4 bed detached house in West London are worth more than £1m), ordinary people who had subscribed to the concept of property as an investment and source of income into old age (after paying whatever annual income tax was due) to pay privately for their old age care costs in their own  homes would be interested in passing the wealth to their children without their children paying say £400k to the government/ their fellow citizens in tax on a £1m property investment portfolio.

Also the firms that facilitate them and the ordinary people who work for these firms are not that interested in policing this for the government since it's their bread and butter.

I agree with Gabriella.
Everyone with an earned income, investments or pensions, pays tax.  The higher the income, the more tax paid.  Most are quite happy to support our welfare system, the health service, education and a degree of public protection.  Then there is council tax which is spent locally and ensures we have (hopefully), reasonable public services, roads etc.  However if someone is able to earn more, they are not going to want to pay most of it to a government which will spend it as they see fit, eg fighting wars which cannot be won.  It is hardly an incentive to generate more wealth if a large slice of that is going who knows where.

Inheritance tax is scandalous.  There's not much point in trying to ensure that our descendants have a reasonable standard of security, maybe less struggle than we had, if the government is going to claim so much - which they have not earned.

We pay enough tax already, are happy to do our bit.  The cost of living, including housing for those who haven't yet got onto the property ladder, is very high and it seems unfair to try to penalise anyone who wants to better themselves materially.  I am talking about fairly ordinary people, not unscrupulous money grabbers.

(Floo:
I do  hope they find some evidence to implicate the nasty Trump and that tax scam firm. I can't believe he is squeaky clean where his tax affairs are concerned. It might knock his Presidential ambitions off course if that were to be the case.

I didn't know about Mr Trump's tax scam firm.  I'll look-see what the presidential candidate has been up to .)

[floo]

I was only speculating as to whether Trump had dealings with Mossack Fonseca.

[Brownie]

Well you said he had some sort of tax avoidance scam firm.  I can't see anything, on quick perusal, about him being involved with Mossack Fonseca.  I've no doubt he has good accountants who try to save him money, nothing wrong with that.  Whatever people think of Trump as a potential president (& the mind boggles at that), there's no reason that I can see that he does anything illegal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's hard given that society needs to protect the geese in order to get the golden eggs that the rest of us feed off.

On balance though they are feeding of us.