Earl Aelfheah

I think it's an individual judgment. My point is simply that it is not true that given any opportunity to reduce one's tax burden, 'everybody would'. Plenty of people have turned down opportunities to reduce their tax because schemes seem less than straight forward and (although legal) morally dubious. And again, I point to the final line in that article which I think it the whole point: "Perhaps it is not because the behaviour is criminal: tax evasion or money laundering or public corruption. Perhaps it is not. But ? and especially in the case of Panama ? very possibly it is."

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It might seem trite but its true. There is a > difference between acting legally and illegally. > If you want people on mass not legally reduce > their tax bill you have to change the laws that > allow and induce them to do so. Trying to plead > to some moral duty would be as effective as > telling an average person not to put money in an > ISA because the government needs more tax revenue. > It would seem absurd, because it is absurd. Tax free ISAs were created for the purposes of encouraging saving. They are intentionally and explicitly set up for the purposes of not paying tax on savings. Putting money in a cash free ISA complies with not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of it. Putting money into an ISA is completely different to off shoring money in Panama. The key point of that article is this: "What Panama has offered ? its USPs in the competitive world of tax havenry ? is an especially strict form of secrecy, a type of opacity of ownership, and (if the reports of backdating are correct) a class of wealth management professionals some of whom have especially compromised ethics. You go to Panama, in short, because, despite its profound disadvantages, you value these things. And the question you should be asking is, what is it about this Mr X or that Mrs Y and his or her financial affairs that causes them to prioritise secrecy or opacity or (if the reports are correct) ethically compromised professionals above all else? Perhaps it is not because the behaviour is criminal: tax evasion or money laundering or public corruption. Perhaps it is not. But ? and especially in the case of Panama ? very possibly it is." I agree that the law needs to be tightened. To imply that anything which is lawful is necessarily moral however, is quite different.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There a plenty of people who don't break the law > rahrahrah but everyone uses legal ways to minimize > their tax bill. Paying dividends from your > company is really no different than investing in a > tax free ISA. > > Some people's behavior might seem morally wrong to > you but the reality is they are simply using > government set up structures and policy like > everyone does. There is a world of difference between a tax free ISA and some of the more complex tax avoidance which takes place (which whilst not in breach of the letter of the law, is clearly not in the spirit of it). It is simply not true that 'everyone does it'. Plenty of people decide to pay more than they strictly have to, because they don't want to get involved in lawful, but unprincipled avoidance strategies. I guess you'll just have to take my word on this.

I thought this was an interesting early response to the leak. Notice that many of the predicted responses have been trotted out: http://waitingfortax.com/2016/04/04/some-thoughts-on-the-panama-papers/

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It isn't equivalent because using offshore > structures isn't illegal unlike what the plumber > is doing. In fact, the only reason it works is > because this country (as is the case with most > countries) have specific tax treaties with certain > offshore jurisdictions that make the entire > structure work. > > It is more equivalent to the self employed person > taking dividends-- and every self employed person > I know does that. No one pays more tax than they > are legally obliged to. > > The only solution if you don't like the status quo > is to end all of the treaties but that would need > to be done by not just the UK but every country > globally to have the desired effect. > > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > IMO it's ethically equivalent to the plumber > who > > asks to be paid cash, or the IT contractor who > > avoids tax by paying himself dividends. Almost > > everyone who can, does - so to blame the > > individuals seems rather pointless. Like BB > says.. > > you need to close down the loopholes... I agree that the loop holes need to be closed. It is not true however that everyone who can avoid tax does. Many people take a principled position on it.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IMO it's ethically equivalent to the plumber who > asks to be paid cash, or the IT contractor who > avoids tax by paying himself dividends. Almost > everyone who can, does - so to blame the > individuals seems rather pointless. Like BB says.. > you need to close down the loopholes... There are plenty of people who chose not to avoid tax believe it or not.

There is a big sign up now in the window of the old deli

Speak to my kids

horrible name.

To insist that a high performing school, who are happy with how things are organised, must restructure in order to please the whim of central government is crazy in my view. Totally unnecessary disruption / distraction.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you aren't on the road, I think you have an > extra 14 days. If you are currently parked on the > road, you are quite possibly stuffed (though I > imagine you have to be caught, first). It's an > ?80 fine. > > You could try ringing the DVLA (0300 123 4321) - > they might be able to help. Thanks for the number Loz. I managed to get it taxed over the phone in the end.

I'm on holiday and just realised that my car tax expires on Thursday. Stupidly I left the renewal form at home and from what I can tell, I need the reference number on the form in order to renew online. Does anyone know if DVLA have a grace period of a few days, or am I in trouble! Cheers

According to southwark's website all park gates should be opened by 7:30 http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200073/parks_and_open_spaces/600/opening_hours

No way. Toasted with butter and nothing else.

boulangerie jade also charging ?1.50. For what it's worth, i think it's perfectly reasonable for an eat in cafe. They're big, proper buns and no, you wouldn't need to eat more than one.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otherwise we could say yes, > those potholes in the road are dangerous and could > cause an accident, but if we repair them some > people will take advantage of the smooth road to > speed. Better to fill the holes and build speed bumps

a pack of seven buns from Lidl

dash

Wot Jeremy said. Seriously folks, if you think it's too expensive, don't go there.

I think gates are meant to be open from 7.30 am throughout the year.

You can disguise it as a plastic hedge: http://www.hidbin.ie/the-hidbin.php I like the idea of a giant lace dressed doll, like the ones people used in the 70s to hide toilet rolls, but bigger.

I'm sorry to hear that. People who do this sort of thing are absolute sh*tbags.

It's a shame I always thought it was a nice place. The upstairs 'morrocan' lounge was a hidden gem.

Eh?