[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 13850)
Message
File  []
close
Tax-Evasion-for-Dummies300px.jpg
138501385013850
>> No. 13850 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 6:35 pm
13850 Paradise Papers
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/paradise-papers-leak-reveals-secrets-of-world-elites-hidden-wealth

>The details come from a leak of 13.4m files that expose the global environments in which tax abuses can thrive – and the complex and seemingly artificial ways the wealthiest corporations can legally protect their wealth.

>Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people.

>Extensive offshore dealings by Donald Trump’s cabinet members, advisers and donors, including substantial payments from a firm co-owned by Vladimir Putin’s son-in-law to the shipping group of the US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross.

Deja vu, anyone?
Expand all images.
>> No. 13851 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 6:57 pm
13851 spacer
>>13850
Does it even matter anymore? It isn't something new to find out that it is one rule for the trash and another rule for the rich?
>> No. 13852 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 7:05 pm
13852 spacer
Wasn't there something from HMRC the other week which said most tax evasion in this country is by tradesmen, hairdressers, cabbies and the like working cash in hand and not declaring their income?
>> No. 13854 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 7:08 pm
13854 spacer
>>13851
Why would the extent of it not being a surprise to the cynical make it matter less? Of course it matters.
>> No. 13855 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 7:39 pm
13855 spacer
>>13850
All I'll say is that the bit on Panorama with Lord Ashcroft is a bit bizarre.
>> No. 13856 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 8:14 pm
13856 spacer
>>13852
Government in league with the people that run it.

SHOCKER!
>> No. 13857 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 9:15 pm
13857 spacer
>>13856
The country is run by hairdressers?
>> No. 13858 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 9:27 pm
13858 spacer
>>13857
Why do you think Fallon's hair looks so good?
>> No. 13859 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 9:29 pm
13859 spacer
>>13854
Not him but it only further confirms a commonly held view. Everyone already knows of tax avoidance operations but neither the political will nor the resources exist to put a stop to it.

I'd even go further and use it as a reminder that raising taxes is a different animal to raising revenue. Then I'd go slightly batshit and say the real challenge is taming tax avoidance into more beneficial avenues than tax islands (although not too much, British overseas territories need revenue) and vacant land.
>> No. 13860 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 9:30 pm
13860 spacer
>>13857
Well they're not cutting the deficit are they.
>> No. 13861 Anonymous
5th November 2017
Sunday 10:00 pm
13861 spacer
>>13860
They're not going to want to, if the Queen's investing in BrightHouse.
>> No. 13862 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 1:28 am
13862 spacer
>>13859
Depends what model you follow, I'm of the opinion that the tax man should operate in the most economically efficient model possible, that is to say he should make an assessment as to how to fight his battles, if he thinks he needs to spend 4 million on legal and dish out a few prison sentences to get 5 million out of an oligarch then it is worth it. If he needs to do more than send a few angry letters to the prowl who owes 500 quid then it probably isn't worth his time. And once in a while there needs to be the occasional over the odds bringing the hammer down enforcement to make an example keep everyone honest.

I also believe the tax laws should also get progressively more complicated and the implications of fucking up more arbitrary, and draconian the larger the revenue, until at the top tier they change without warning every couple of months with tax declared every month, this is to keep all the high priced accountants busy and second guessing to there really is no way to conceal any money or find a loophole in time before system changes since the method that was okay for concealment one week is punishable by the a day in the stocks where local primary school children pelt you with vegetables whilst singing nursery rhymes lead by the dreaded Evader-finder general the next, so it becomes really just easier and cheaper and less humiliating to declare and pay tax on everything rather than risk it.
>> No. 13863 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 1:53 am
13863 spacer
>>13862
Unfortunately, if we operated a system like that nobody would want to do business here. So no tax dodging, but no tax either.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Introduce a presumption of avoidance and a power of plain sight. Anything which doesn't look kosher is presumed not to be unless the taxpayer can show otherwise, and "paper transactions" can be treated as if they never happened.
>> No. 13864 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 1:58 am
13864 spacer
>>13850
I'm surprised to see talk of Americans in there. There weren't many in the last dump, and in general American citizens in good standing don't need to go offshore when they can set up a Delaware company overnight for a reasonable fee.
>> No. 13865 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 4:39 am
13865 spacer
>>13863

Loath as we might be to admit it, Britain is the world's leading tax haven. Our basic rate of corporation tax is relatively low, we offer extremely generous terms to non-domiciled residents, we have comically lax taxation of capital gains and the City of London provides an easy gateway to zero-tax jurisdictions.

The Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands are British soil and are subject to our jurisdiction. The Channel Islands are independent, but they're property of the crown. Our government can't pretend that this is just a vagary of international taxation the they're powerless to fix unilaterally. We're the international nexus of tax avoidance. We're the villain of the piece.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27187398
>> No. 13867 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 5:18 am
13867 spacer
>>13865

It's not "we". We shouldn't consider ourselves a part of the same group as us. They're parasites, and we are the host.
>> No. 13868 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 6:52 am
13868 spacer
>>13865
The whole point of corporation tax is to encourage businesses to come here and get money through the likes of PAYE and National Insurance.

Even with low rates you're still going to get multinationals avoiding it by claiming they're loaning image rights from a subsidiary in Luxembourg and funnelling off revenue there.
>> No. 13869 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 2:30 pm
13869 spacer
>>13863

I think the 'people will just move and not start businesses here' is a bit of a fallacy created by the same people who argue trickledown economics works and minimum wage ruins economies from a position of self-interest. I'm not suggesting that we gouge people for all they are worth, merely that the system is set up in a way where it is cheaper and easier to co-operate than game the system, if tax evasion is opportunist in nature you remove the insentives.
>> No. 13870 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 2:42 pm
13870 spacer
>>13869
>I think the 'people will just move and not start businesses here' is a bit of a fallacy created by the same people who argue trickledown economics works and minimum wage ruins economies from a position of self-interest.
The very existence of offshore suggests you think wrong.
>> No. 13872 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 2:59 pm
13872 spacer
>>13870
I don't think you know what an off shore business is. It is not the same as moving your business somewhere else. Offshore businesses don't operate offshore, that is the point, they are just a way of avoiding tax for onshore operations, what I am suggesting is that you deliberately make it harder and more expensive to run things by that model than to be taxed onshore.
>> No. 13873 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 3:14 pm
13873 spacer
>>13872
The only way of doing that is to slash your tax rates to low levels. We're already seeing banks looking at moving their business presence out of London as a consequence of Brexit. If you make it burdensome to be based here, then those with the means to base themselves elsewhere will just do so. The argument used to be that the UK market is too lucrative to pass up, but we're beginning to see that this argument has its limits.
>> No. 13874 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 4:36 pm
13874 spacer
>>13873
>The only way of doing that is to slash your tax rates to low levels.

No it isn't as I said you just need to make it more of a pain then being honest, leaving the EU actually helps in that respect as we can pull a load of shit that forces groups to pay UK tax to operate that wasn't allowed before.

>We're already seeing banks looking at moving their business presence out of London as a consequence of Brexit.

I was in a bank (a real one not a high street one) previously when papers were printing rumours about us all moving to Switzerland to avoid higher tax were made, collective reaction was "where on earth do they come up with this stuff?"

Frankly I fail to see the threat offered by a company who wasn't paying tax anyway As long as there is still profit to be made people will do business here. Boots isn't going to shut down there entire UK operation to dodge tax it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. And the employment rate is high enough right now to absorb any potential losses.
>> No. 13875 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 5:32 pm
13875 spacer
>>13874
>No it isn't as I said you just need to make it more of a pain then being honest
So what's your idea for making that happen? I'm not convinced this is anything more than a slogan. (No, rendering tax accountancy prohibitively expensive is not a practical possibility.)
>> No. 13876 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 6:02 pm
13876 spacer
Surely we can just use the massive state surveillance apparatus of the Five Eyes network to just blackmail corporations into tugging their forelock? I'm sure all those wealthy CEO types have plenty of dirt floating around, if they can't just directly lift accounting data.
>> No. 13877 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 6:08 pm
13877 spacer
>>13876
They've got to protect the secret, just like Coventry.
>> No. 13878 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 6:08 pm
13878 spacer
>>13876
Sounds like a surefire way to ignite an effective opposition to Five Eyes.
>> No. 13879 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 6:41 pm
13879 spacer
>>13877
Coventry is not a very well kept secret, loads of people know it's there.
>> No. 13880 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 6:59 pm
13880 spacer
>>13879
>loads of people know it's there
That's what they want you to think.
>> No. 13881 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 7:21 pm
13881 spacer
>>13880
Are you saying Coverntry is a Bielefeldverschwörung?
>> No. 13882 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 8:05 pm
13882 spacer
Coventry? What? I'm afraid now. What's special about my town?
>> No. 13883 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 8:08 pm
13883 spacer
>>13882
Don't you have double red lines instead of double yellows?
>> No. 13884 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 8:39 pm
13884 spacer
>>13862
>I also believe the tax laws should also get progressively more complicated and the implications of fucking up more arbitrary, and draconian the larger the revenue, until at the top tier they change without warning every couple of months with tax declared every month, this is to keep all the high priced accountants busy and second guessing to there really is no way to conceal any money or find a loophole in time before system changes since the method that was okay for concealment one week is punishable by the a day in the stocks where local primary school children pelt you with vegetables whilst singing nursery rhymes lead by the dreaded Evader-finder general the next, so it becomes really just easier and cheaper and less humiliating to declare and pay tax on everything rather than risk it.

You're a man after my own heart. This year I've often thought of creating accepting a whole political theory of chaos that deliberately creates absurd law. Think of how many unusual customs and festivals it would breed in our culture where, for example, stovepipe Tuesday becomes an annual norm.

Why yes, I am in the legal profession.

>>13863
Just set it so occasionally you win a jackpot of tax avoidance. I've noticed that money bags are often natural gamblers who won't pass up the opportunity, however small, of winning big.

>>13863
Well we can't be expected to prop these places up with direct funding from the taxpayer. We're not running a charity here.
>> No. 13885 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 9:35 pm
13885 spacer
>>13881
Do you know anyone from Coventry? Have you ever been to Coventry? Do you know anyone who has been to Coventry?

Think about it, lad. If the place were real, being "sent to Coventry" wouldn't be so isolating, would it?
>> No. 13886 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 11:05 pm
13886 spacer
>>13884

It may be better to have a ludicrously simple tax system.

Information security experts refer to the "attack surface" of a system - increasing the complexity of a system causes an exponential increase in the risk of some sort of vulnerability. The same logic may well apply to taxation; the more byzantine the rules, the easier it is to find a loophole.

English law relies to a very great extent on broad, common-sense definitions. The word "reasonable" is ubiquitous in the statutes. We rely on the discretion of judges to interpret the meaning of "reasonable force" or "reasonable suspicion". Tax law may be far easier to enforce if it is simple and broad rather than complex and specific.
>> No. 13887 Anonymous
6th November 2017
Monday 11:52 pm
13887 spacer
>>13886
The difficulty is that life is complex. A flat system is perhaps one of the least fair options.

Also, most of the so-called "loopholes" that allow the offshore stuff to work aren't really loopholes but asymmetries. A big chunk of the tax dodging within Europe is basically just arbitrage. Bacon is cheaper in Tesco, eggs are cheaper in Asda. VAT on private jets is zero in the Isle of Man, corporation tax is zero in Jersey.
>> No. 13888 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 1:12 am
13888 spacer
>>13875

Lots of little pie in the sky ideas.

At a certain size companies should be taxed based on revenue not income the only acceptable deductible being employees’ wages under a cap most people would consider more than reasonable pay.

Only companies registered in the UK can sell to the consumer market.

A huge annual fee that needs to be paid to the UK to be the owner of an offshore company.

Taxation on money or assets over a certain value being moved in or out of the country.

Several simultaneous rules structures for tax, nearly contradictory in their loopholes, which ever yields the greatest tax is the one that is applied.

You know the kind of shit that makes people decide their money is best left where it is. None of these ideas are obviously thought about that hard, I would hardly consider it much achievement to pick them apart, it isn't like I've stress tested them with a FCA team, but these are the kinds of styles of regulations that I feel would make people think it is just easier to just go along with the system, and yield appropriate tax revenues.
>> No. 13889 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 1:38 am
13889 spacer
I'll bet Labour HQ are hoping some of their people are implicated. If you had to choose one over the other, would you rather be on the tax dodger list or the sex pest list?
>> No. 13890 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 7:19 am
13890 spacer
>>13888
>companies should be taxed based on revenue not income

U wot, matey?
>> No. 13891 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 8:42 am
13891 spacer
>>13890
They mean "revenue not profit" and that's a terrible idea that would certainly prompt any large company to move their operations from this country and/or end them entirely. Likewise most of the other suggestions, unfortunately. Rich people have the money to spend on creative approaches to tax avoidance, no matter how you set up the tax system. They would not "think it is easier just to go along with the system", they would simply go somewhere else. I am not arguing for lower tax and (probably naively) hope that this "revelation" will lead to more stringent tax regulations, but brutally blunt approaches to taxation of the kind >>13888 suggests would definitely have a net negative impact on our tax revenue and economy.

>>13889
I know you're joking, but labour will be shitting themselves about any of their lot being implicated. They're supposed to be the party that combats all of this kind of behaviour, if they are shown to be equally complicit in it then the ground troops of Momentum etc. will be deeply unimpressed.
>> No. 13892 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 12:16 pm
13892 spacer
>>13891

As I said before, I fail to see the great loss if they aren't paying their taxes anyway you are being an appoligist. Why is taxing on revenue a "terrible idea" it isn't, it is just a different way of measuring things that hasn't been implemented before. If your revenue is over 100 million a year but you apparently haven't made any profit, you are probably running some sort of con.
>> No. 13893 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 1:45 pm
13893 spacer
>>13892
>I fail to see the great loss if they aren't paying their taxes
The employees who will find themselves out of a job might not see it the same way.
>> No. 13894 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 2:11 pm
13894 spacer
>>13892
>Why is taxing on revenue a "terrible idea"
Because no company in their right mind would ever operate in such a country. Revenue is not a good measure of profit.
>> No. 13895 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 2:30 pm
13895 spacer
>>13892
>If your revenue is over 100 million a year but you apparently haven't made any profit, you are probably running some sort of con.
This is a post from a few years ago that I saved because it was fascinating, so full credit to whoever wrote it. It also explains why corporations may have incredible revenue and negative profit:

>Amazon are psychotically aggressive about price. They will undercut anyone, regardless of what it costs them. They're pursuing a strategy of total market dominance and their shareholders are backing them. When people accuse Amazon of tax avoidance, they're missing the point - Amazon genuinely don't make a profit most years, which is far more worrying. They're buying any company that might conceivably compete with them; If they can't buy the company, they'll crush them by selling products at a loss. Amazon's investors saw how successfully they destroyed their competition in the book trade and they're happy to patiently wait while they dominate other markets in that way.

>The heart of their strategy is Amazon Prime. This, again, is something they lose money on, but it makes perfect business sense. Once you've paid your annual Prime subscription, you get unlimited next-day delivery for free, so there's an obvious incentive to go straight to Amazon. Prime members buy vastly more from Amazon than they did before joining Prime, in large part because they start buying all sorts of odds and ends that they would have previously bought elsewhere. Getting you to buy more has intrinsic value to Amazon even if they make no profit on that sale, because it provides them with valuable information about your purchasing habits.

>One of Amazon's cleverest strategies in this respect is Amazon Family. They heavily promote this scheme to expecting mothers, which gives you three months of free Prime membership and a 15% discount on nappies. It's all about creating purchasing habits - once you're buying your nappies through Amazon it becomes automatic; Amazon also get to do their algorithmic "People who bought X also bought Y" magic to sell you all sorts of other stuff. They'll continue to market stuff at you for the rest of your child's life, picking up all sorts of data about your child along the way.

>In a similar vein, Amazon are massively expanding their Subscribe & Save programme. On thousands of consumable items, Amazon offer a discount if you subscribe to have that product sent to you automatically on a regular basis. They offer all sorts of products in this way, from razor blades to dog food. Amazon know that this arrangement is so convenient that you're unlikely to ever bother unsubscribing, even if Amazon are no longer the cheapest.

>Jeff Bezos has said that his goal is to create a company that knows what you want to buy before you do. He envisions a future in which Amazon just send you stuff without you asking, because they can perfectly predict your wants and needs. People will be delighted with that arrangement, because Amazon will consistently pick out nicer things than they would have bought for themselves. That goal is both creepy as fuck and entirely plausible.

>To give you a sense of the scale of Amazon's ambitions, check out the following video. Last year, Amazon bought Kiva Systems, a company that makes intelligent, autonomous shelving. Watching it all in motion is utterly unnerving, like a sneak preview of the Robocalypse. Amazon aren't a retailer in the conventional sense, they're a technology company that uses machine intelligence to sell stuff. Everyone else is focussed on today or the next financial quarter, but Amazon are planning for the far future.
>> No. 13896 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 2:37 pm
13896 spacer
>>13891

>if they are shown to be equally complicit in it then the ground troops of Momentum etc. will be deeply unimpressed.

I have no doubt that the party faithful will concoct some suitable doublethink.

>>13892

Many high-growth tech companies make no profits for years, because they're aggressively re-investing in further growth. Amazon took 20 years to become profitable, by which point they were worth $300bn with revenues of $107bn. Tesla is worth $50bn with annualised revenues of ~$12bn, but is running at a substantial loss. For these companies, profitability can be seen as a sign of weakness, as it suggests that they've run out of opportunities to re-invest in further growth.

Taxing by revenue is simply untenable. You'd instantly kill off a lot of high-volume, low-margin businesses, with supermarkets being the obvious casualty - they only make about 3% gross.

There's a strong case to be made for abandoning corporation tax entirely and just taxing capital gains more aggressively.
>> No. 13897 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 3:39 pm
13897 spacer
>>13895

Here's the Kiva Systems video, in case anyone is curious.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UxZDJ1HiPE

Since that post was written, Amazon launched Prime Now (one hour delivery to most cities) and Echo, which is creepy fuckery squared.

We've also seen immense improvements in artificial intelligence, thanks mainly to Nvidia GPU performance and Google's decision to open-source their TensorFlow library. Researchers are regularly demonstrating order-of-magnitude improvements in tasks like object recognition, natural language processing and spatial navigation. Things are going to get really, really weird over the next few years.
>> No. 13898 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 4:02 pm
13898 spacer
>>13896
In any other line of business, a company making no profits for 20 years would be considered insolvent. Plus there's no doubt that right now they are highly profitable once you disregard the paper exercise of shuffling their money through half a dozen places.

Ultimately the problem is greed, and we can't really engineer that out. I mean, Tim Cook was happy to lie to Congress about it.
>> No. 13899 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 4:18 pm
13899 spacer
>>13893
>employees who will find themselves out of a job might not see it the same way.
You are treating it like my goal is to get more money out of honest businesses and it isn't it, should be about the same, just to make sure businesses actually pay. The ones who are negatively affected and choose to leave the economy could probably do without. As a 2nd point we have the lowest unemployment in 40 years, the work force would be able to absorb the hit better than you give credit.
>>13894
>Revenue is not a good measure of profit.
I'd say in a large business it is probably a better measuring stick than declared profit. Or do you believe Ikea, boots and Amazon are less profitable ventures than your local corner shop?

>>13896
>any high-growth tech companies make no profits for years, because they're aggressively re-investing in further growth. Amazon took 20 years to become profitable, by which point they were worth $300bn with revenues of $107bn. Tesla is worth $50bn with annualised revenues of ~$12bn, but is running at a substantial loss. For these companies, profitability can be seen as a sign of weakness, as it suggests that they've run out of opportunities to re-invest in further growth.

High growth tech companies frequently represent the worst kind of venture capitalist speculative bubbles. It is about time they burst. The start-up business model is frequently never to actually make anything meaningful and in 5 years’ time be bought out by google. If this tax model means adverting the dystopia described by >>13895 win/win.
>You'd instantly kill off a lot of high-volume, low-margin businesses, with supermarkets being the obvious casualty - they only make about 3% gross.

I think the tax man is capable of categorising tax based on industry and adjusting the rates accordingly.
As I said above the goal isn't to get more money out of those following the rules it should remain about the same just to remove the opportunity to avoid paying.
>> No. 13900 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 4:45 pm
13900 spacer
>>13897
>Researchers are regularly demonstrating order-of-magnitude improvements in tasks like object recognition, natural language processing and spatial navigation.
http://www.labsix.org/physical-objects-that-fool-neural-nets/
>> No. 13901 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 5:00 pm
13901 spacer
>>13891
>I know you're joking, but labour will be shitting themselves about any of their lot being implicated.

Isn't their HQ owned offshore?
>> No. 13902 Anonymous
7th November 2017
Tuesday 5:21 pm
13902 spacer
>>13901
Given their value, I don't think you're going to find many office buildings for rent in London that aren't connected to offshore entities.
>> No. 13903 Anonymous
8th November 2017
Wednesday 2:03 pm
13903 spacer
The BBC have dropped some details of business that Appleby declined. You know you're in murky waters when you have to write this in a client risk assessment:
>Client may want to use precision guided bombs to communicate.
>> No. 13904 Anonymous
8th November 2017
Wednesday 10:05 pm
13904 spacer

Taxes are for poor people.png
139041390413904
I got a good chuckle out of this image
>> No. 13905 Anonymous
8th November 2017
Wednesday 11:47 pm
13905 spacer
I have some doubts (on a very sort of ad-hoc basis) that the problems of higher taxation are as great as they're said to be. I feel like the problem is more cultural and historical with Britain. I mean, other European countries manage. But the problem with - say - the Swedish model is that Swedish culture is less individualist, less class based, and so on. That's not something you can change overnight. (Actually on a tangential point, during the inflation of the 1970s I'm sure Sweden had a process akin to "Okay, guys at the top get squeezed more because they can afford it" while in Britain, a good number of disputes were over pay differentials rather than pay itself - i.e. "The typists are on strike because even though their pay went up in line with inflation, while the cleaner's pay went up by more to stop them falling into poverty." It does much to disillusion you with everyone in a country to see such a line of thinking...)

If the City does move due to Brexit, I think we should eventually go all out and experiment with some kind of financial transaction tax. That's partially to solve "this problem", but also just to see what happens.

>>13895
I have become convinced of the merit not only of taxation by revenue, but that this taxation should be levied at "1970s unearned income" levels. (That is, up to 95%)
>> No. 13906 Anonymous
9th November 2017
Thursday 3:07 am
13906 spacer
>>13905

>I have become convinced of the merit not only of taxation by revenue, but that this taxation should be levied at "1970s unearned income" levels. (That is, up to 95%)

I'm not sure that making every British company instantly bankrupt would be great for the economy.
>> No. 13907 Anonymous
9th November 2017
Thursday 5:17 am
13907 spacer
>>13906
Better than the alternative of the economy being rebranded the Amazon productflo™.
>> No. 13909 Anonymous
9th November 2017
Thursday 6:48 am
13909 spacer
>>13907

In the same sense that setting fire to your car is better than changing the spark plugs.
>> No. 13910 Anonymous
9th November 2017
Thursday 9:41 am
13910 spacer
>>13909
I choose to infer from this that replacing spark plugs is an arduous process.
>> No. 13911 Anonymous
9th November 2017
Thursday 12:05 pm
13911 spacer
>>13910
I think it's a reference to a /mph/ thread where some child decided to burn out his car and claim another on his insurance just because his paintwork got scratched.
>> No. 13912 Anonymous
9th November 2017
Thursday 3:55 pm
13912 spacer
>>13911

I don't think he actually did that, some div was just trying to make the case that it would somehow be better to do so.

We do have some strange threads here.
>> No. 14044 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 1:21 pm
14044 spacer
> and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families and vulnerable people.


Not wanting to defend such practices, but as a statement, that just sounds wishy washy.

In what way does that retailer exploit poor families and "vulnerable people"? And how does that differ from any other employer, both here in Britain and abroad?

Moreover, if they are just accusations, then it stands to reason that there is another side to that story. These days, you can accuse just about anybody of just about anything.
>> No. 14045 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 1:42 pm
14045 spacer
>>14044

I'm usually willing to defend companies that lend to high-risk and low-income customers, but Brightouse are undoubtedly wrong'uns. The Financial Conduct Authority have recently ordered them to repay a total of £14.8m to 249,000 customers who had been unfairly treated. Brighthouse are clearly falling far short of the standards expected of a responsible lender.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/rent-to-own-provider-brighthouse-14-8-million-redress-249000-customers

I think that the government are also partly culpable; the Citizens Advice Bureau's social policy unit has identified a substantial increase in problem debts since the abolition of the Social Fund in 2013. Until that point, people on low incomes could borrow small sums of money interest-free to cover a shortfall in income or an unexpected expense. Especially vulnerable people could claim a non-repayable grant to buy essential items like a bed or a cooker. The government devolved responsibility for these payments to local authorities, whilst also slashing the grant from central government and capping council tax rates. Unsurprisingly, the lack of provision from government led to a huge increase in the number of lenders targeting vulnerable people.
>> No. 14046 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 2:23 pm
14046 spacer
Seems like the media have forgotten about this. Will the government enact any legislation?
>> No. 14047 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 2:28 pm
14047 spacer
>>14045

My great-great-great-uncle was actually a private moneylender. This was at the turn of the last century. His business model was to lend money to farmers who couldn't get loans from a bank. And then of course oftentimes, those farmers couldn't repay him, in which case the land that was used as collateral would fall to my great-great-great uncle. He would then sell on the land at a premium.

He became one of the wealthiest men in his whole area. He died in France in WWI, in his mid to late 20s. But the wealth that he passed on was close to £1m. In early 1900s money, mind you. And plus 100 acres still of prime farm land that he didn't get to sell on before his death. All that money was enough to last for generations after him and was divided up among his siblings and their families (he himself was childless). Yes, that wealth was obtained through shady moneylending practices, although perfectly legal at the time. But it meant that that whole side of my family could live in prosperity long after him.
>> No. 14048 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 4:25 pm
14048 spacer
>>14047

Not who you're replying to and whilst that's mildly interesting I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make?

That moneylending is good?
>> No. 14050 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 6:15 pm
14050 spacer
>>14048
Why does there need to be a point beyond telling a mildly interesting story?

1916 £1m = 2016 £80m btw.
>> No. 14051 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 6:44 pm
14051 spacer
>>14050
'scuse me mate have you got a pound?
>> No. 14052 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 7:02 pm
14052 spacer
>>14050

There doesn't I suppose. Fair play. Enjoy you filthy lucre.
>> No. 14053 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 7:15 pm
14053 spacer
>>14047
Your great uncle was what we call a loan shark.
>> No. 14054 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 9:28 pm
14054 spacer
>>14053

> Your great uncle was what we call a loan shark.

So very different to how the banks work today of course.
>> No. 14055 Anonymous
22nd November 2017
Wednesday 10:46 pm
14055 spacer
>>14054
I don't think it's wise to talk about 'the banks' as a monolith. Triodos is different from Barclays which is different from Wonga.
>> No. 14056 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 1:44 am
14056 spacer
>>14055

They all still take your collateral if you fail to keep up loan payments, though. Unless Triodos is so fucking ethical that they send someone round with a nice cup of tea to have a chat about when you feel like you might be able to toss them a few coppers.
>> No. 14057 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 2:11 am
14057 spacer
>>14056

>They all still take your collateral if you fail to keep up loan payments, though.

Not if it's an unsecured loan. I don't think that many loan sharks honour IVAs and bankruptcies, nor do they do affordability checks in line with the BBA Lending Code.
>> No. 14058 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 2:41 am
14058 spacer
>>14057

> Not if it's an unsecured loan.

They might as well call themselves a charity.
>> No. 14059 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 3:36 am
14059 spacer
>>14058

Banks can't take your stuff if you default on an unsecured loan. Their only lawful means of enforcement is to take you to county court. A county court can permit bailiffs to recover goods to the value of the debt, but only if the magistrate has already issued a judgement and has good reason to believe that all other means of enforcing that judgement have been exhausted.

A creditor cannot refuse any reasonable offer of repayment. If you're genuinely flat broke, then £1 a month will be considered reasonable by the county court. As far as a magistrate is concerned, it's a creditor's own stupid fault if they lent money to someone who can't afford to repay it. If you simply refuse to pay then they'll unleash the dogs of war, but they're extremely accommodating if you show a modicum of good will.
>> No. 14061 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 3:41 am
14061 spacer
I remember asking a friend for money so I could file for bankruptcy (it actually costs about 500 quid) he asked me if I would pay him back, I don't think he understood the premise at all.
>> No. 14062 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 3:21 pm
14062 spacer
>>14061

Sounds like the government don't get it, either.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't people filing for bankruptcy likely to have no money? Do you have to have an income to do it?
>> No. 14063 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 4:50 pm
14063 spacer
>>14062
Respectable people are dead broke long before they run out of their last £500 of credit, which as was just pointed out would be written off anyway.
>> No. 14064 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 4:58 pm
14064 spacer
>>14063

What do you mean? Surely 'dead broke' means 'no money', right?

If you're bankrupt when you're down to your last grand in the current account then I was bankrupt for most of my early twenties.
>> No. 14065 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 6:40 pm
14065 spacer
>>14059

> it's a creditor's own stupid fault if they lent money to someone who can't afford to repay it

Quite, and the great-great-great uncle in question here was apparently not stupid, didn't give out unsecured loans, and thus got very rich.

Cunts like Wonga are giving out unsecured loans because it's for petty amounts to people who likely have nothing worth repossessing anyway. They'd have you sign over your firstborn for indentured servitude as collateral if they could get away with it.
>> No. 14066 Anonymous
23rd November 2017
Thursday 11:15 pm
14066 spacer
>>14065

So I asked my grandparents again about my loan shark ancestor. If £1m in early 1900s money was £80 in today's money, then surely that can't be. Although he got some starting capital from his forebears, you don't just amass personal wealth the size of a major company's balance sheet in the short time until your death at age 28ish. Unless you're Mark Zuckerberg. But oh well.

So my grandparents did say that that money would be worth around one million in today's money, not early 1900s. So we're talking about liquid assets of some £12,000 to £13,000 in 1915. Still, together with the land that was sold off subsequently by later generations, nobody in the family starved.

>and the great-great-great uncle in question here was apparently not stupid, didn't give out unsecured loans, and thus got very rich.

Nobody who will give you a sizeable amount of money will do so without collateral. Even if you want to buy a car for £10K, somewhere in the loan agreement, it will say that if you default on your payments, the bank has the right to take possession of that car and have it sold off to cover your debt.

My great-great-great-uncle's stroke of luck came with a slump in land prices in the early-early 1900s. The more that the price for land was slipping, the more land he could take as collateral. And haggle the price down even further, because there were no buyers in that tight market. And then sell the land for a higher price as the market was recovering, but not only that, he had also leased land back to farmers in between acquiring it and selling it, so he was making money off them doubly.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password