Because that was the only part relevant to my reply.
You have then written a long diatribe confirming that I was correct.
Namely, that the same avoidance schemes are not available to 'ordinary people'.
Major EU governments shamed into crackdown on tax evasion
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
You have then written a long diatribe confirming that I was correct.
Namely, that the same avoidance schemes are not available to 'ordinary people'.
Sponsored Links
Yes, the U.S. requires all U.S. citizens to file income tax returns based on global income regardless of whether they're living in the U.S. or abroad, and regardless of how long they've been out of the United States (and it requires permanent residents of the U.S. who are not citizens to file as well, for as long as they remain resident in the country). Income tax paid to a foreign government is taken into account though. The only official way for an American living abroad to avoid filing for income tax is to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
Like all things in economies, I'm sure there is a cost too, not just an advantage. I'll suggest to you these tax avoidance/evasion scheme used by the stars also have a cost involved (perhaps a membership fee), and that cost is likely to outweigh any benefit that someone who is on £17k a year might otherwise think they are entitled to. PAYE for example, costs money to administer. A whole lot of money. Even more so now the Tax system is complicated by negative tax (Tax Credits). If it were not for PAYE, everyone would need either an accountant (a fee and with possible fines for errors) or DIY (with possible fines for errors).
Nozzle (FYI a PAYE-er)
You are quite correct but that does not negate the points I made.
Sponsored Links
You're inventing criticisms of me that simply don't apply.
You applied my comment to a tax avoidance/evasion opportunity which I had not.
I listed some of the tax avoidance opportunities to which I was referring, and are available to ordinary citizens, which you suitably ignored, and inserted your own example. You took a small part of my comment and applied it to a different example, completely out of context, in order to ridicule it.
How desperate is that?
Now if you think that my response is proof that you were correct, you have a very weird sense of what constitutes proof.
I'll remind you yet again of my full comment. See if you can find the example that you cited in there.
Perhaps this time you'll notice my reference to 'the system' meaning the UK taxation system.
Well, if you're going to omit and ignore that about which I was talking, I accuse you of doing the reverse.
I am not in a position to pay enough commission to agents to reduce my income tax to 3%, therefore the same opportunities are not available to me which are to the wealthy.
I am not in a position to pay enough commission to agents to reduce my income tax to 3%, therefore the same opportunities are not available to me which are to the wealthy.
There are different levels or degrees of tax avoidance.
There are allowances, etc, which I was obviously discussing, and I've already mentioned, and these are legal, ethical and morally acceptable. This is the class of tax avoidance that Cameron was accused of when he sold his shares before the CGT limit was reached. This was the topic of the discussion.
There are aggressive tax avoidance schemes, which you introduced, and accused me of talking rubbish, claiming I'd suggested that these schemes were available to anyone. That was an intentional twisting of my comment.
I intentionally omitted and ignored your examples because they obviously did not apply to my comment.
It's a poor show when you're so desperate to score points that you're reduced to distorting my comments and inventing criticisms.
I'll accept criticism when it's warranted. I'll apologise when I'm wrong. But I'll not accept intentional distortion of my comments as compensation for your inadequacies.
I was responding to this -
where you ignored what was meant and only included normal allowances available to all.
It is available to anyone who has a case or a cause to use it.Maybe I'm just suggesting that tax avoidance should be available to ordinary PAYE individuals as well as the wealthy.
If it's good enough for Cameroon......
where you ignored what was meant and only included normal allowances available to all.
You know what I meant then, better than me, when I wrote that?I was responding to this -
It is available to anyone who has a case or a cause to use it.Maybe I'm just suggesting that tax avoidance should be available to ordinary PAYE individuals as well as the wealthy.
If it's good enough for Cameroon......
where you ignored what was meant and only included normal allowances available to all.
How long have you been clairvoyant?
Your misinterpretation leading to your misunderstanding yet again.
I stated what I meant which was allowances available to all!
What did you think I meant when I said, "It is available to anyone who has a case or a cause to use it"?
I was talking in the context of Cameron using his CGT allowance. (See noseall's reference to Cameron?)
Next time you're unsure of a meaning, perhaps you could ask for clarification instead of opening your mouth and jumping in with both feet!
Your desire to attempt to ridicule me is getting in your way of sensible debate and logical deductions.
Tax allowances (miniscule gains) are available to all - wonderful.
Tax avoidance (massive gains) is available for the rich - splendid.
Great world innit.
Tax avoidance (massive gains) is available for the rich - splendid.
Great world innit.
Noseall wrote:
"Maybe I'm just suggesting that tax avoidance should be available to ordinary PAYE individuals as well as the wealthy."
You replied:
"It is available to anyone who has a case or a cause to use it."
It is not.
"Maybe I'm just suggesting that tax avoidance should be available to ordinary PAYE individuals as well as the wealthy."
You replied:
"It is available to anyone who has a case or a cause to use it."
It is not.
Again you're quoting a part of noseall's comment and a part of mine.
Noseall continued with, "If it's good enough for Cameroon"
Which prompted my response.
Cameron used his CGT allowance to avoid paying tax on his shares profit.
Exactly the same allowances and others are available to anyone who has a case or cause to use it.
I've reproduced the quotes in totality again for you to reconsider your comments.
Could be. Waddya think?
Maybe I'm just suggesting that tax avoidance should be available to ordinary PAYE individuals as well as the wealthy.
If it's good enough for Cameroon......
What will you resort to next, taking individual words out of sentences and apply them out of context, in order to make an unwarranted criticism.
You misinterpreted my comment leading to a load of misplaced criticism.
So, you are saying that the Birmingham factory worker can have a Panamanian off-shore trust?
Of course not. And the reason why...
Because if factory workers were savvy enough to do what the rich do, en msse, i.e. club their money together and ship it overseas in order to avoid income tax etc, the loophole would be firmly and instantly closed.
It's kept open presently because the rich like it that way.
Sponsored Links
