Question on buying from Amazon

[Meldrew2]

Remember, if you are using a tradesman, cash is tax free. Between you and me, you can forget the vat too.......

Most small tradesmen aren't VAT registered.

That's fine in theory for small jobs, but cash generally means no receipt which equates to no comeback. You still pay the VAT on materials.

Good points - but I wasn't actually being serious

 

[Scott_F]

Firstly... you can create a tax avoidance scheme based on an existing loophole, but you can't create the loophole - only governments can do that

And if your accountants have to go to vast amounts of time and trouble to create avoidance schemes for you then you have failed the ethics test.

Then, MPs simply lied about their expenses, no loophole there.

As unpalatable as this may be to some, the fact remains that none of these arguments - that companies can 'create' loopholes, or that MPs cheating by fiddling expenses can be called 'tax avoidance scheme' - pass the common sense test...

Most MPs who abused the system didn't lie (only 4 or 5 were convicted of an offence). The rest "flipped" homes, spent four figure sums each month on meals etc. and yet stayed within the poorly-drafted (and even more poorly-enforced) rules.

So your "common sense" test is failed by the corporations and MPs who insist that they are breaking no rules but can't or won't see the lack of basic morals displayed in their behaviour.

In other words, there are occasions when you shouldn't need rules to tell you that some things are just plain wrong.

 

[grober]

The point being that most of the legislation governing international tax regimes were set out by the league of nations in the 1920s. The basic idea being to avoid companies with activities in more than one country paying tax twice NOT to avoid paying tax at all. Almost a century on, the way that multinational companies conduct their business has changed beyond recognition. The most obvious manifestation to the common man is the purchase of goods and materials over the internet- the stuff of science fiction in the early 20th century.
Most international bodies admit to the problem the G7 G20 OECD the IMF etc recognise this is a threat to world political stability particularly in the third world . Why-- because in the main the worlds economy is being run by unelected people governed by self interest. This is dangerous because it leads ultimately to conflict where those with no effective voice eventually refuse to play by the rules and decide to take back a little of what they feel they are entitled to. It won't be identified as such - it will be an Islamic revolution, an Arab Spring, A Syrian uprising a Burmese revolution a Thailand Riot, a Mexican drug cartel war, a Boko Haram kidnapping a Rwandan Genocide a Ukrainian revolution, but its seeds will have often taken root in the pastures of economic deprivation.
Why would they embark on such a seemingly destructive path leading to death disease and destruction for many thousands and maybe themselves in the process - well they will simply take a leaf out of the multinational's play book - because they can.
The evidence is clear and acknowledged by most international bodies and Western governments and they talk of the necessary reform of the system as being a priority . Needless to say the many vested interests--- governments of tax haven countries , international banking concerns and multinational companies are lobbying hard to maintain the status quo.

 

[markjay]

grober, not trying to derail this thread, but just to your point about Islamic groups and economic deprivation, modern day Al-Qaida and the Mujahideen that preceeded them came from wealthy oil-rich Saudi Arabia, including Bin-Laden himself who made millions for himself working in his family's successful construction business before turning to spreading the word of Alla by the sword.

Similarly, tensions in Palestine are about land, not wealth, there was prosperity on both sides of the border during the short-lived peace agreement that followed the Oslo Accord, but wealth in itself was not enough to prevent the territorial conflict from re-emerging.

And North Koreans did not rebel in 50 years in spite of very harsh economic conditions for the ordinary citizens.

I do not disagree that economic conditions are a factor in instability, as can be demonstrated by the war in Europe that followed the 1920' post-war depression in Germany, but the overall picture is very dynamic and to say that globalisation is responsible even in part to current tensions around the world is in my view an oversimplification of a complex situation.

 

[grober]

In terms of islamic groups its true much of the funding comes from individuals whose wealth comes from oil rich countries--- but I would maintain the bulk of their foot soldiers---- the guys with Kalashnikovs and RPG's the suicide bombers with the truck load of Semtex are in the main rooted in societies were poverty is endemic, where education and health care is minimal- in other words people with nothing to lose. Its a complex issue sure and reforming the international tax legislation is not a magic panacea but its a way of rebalancing the system. To me the success and more importantly the stability of the capitalist system in western democratic societies over the last 100 years has involved a degree of redistribution or sharing of the wealth this system has produced. Your political stance may dictate the degree of distribution of this wealth of course but in the main its worked well for the bulk of its citizenry with major advances in their quality of life. I see this new economic model not as a further expression of capitalism as we know it but as a destabilising influence on a system that has worked reasonably well in the past. Our governments and institutions are failing to adapt to the rapidly changing conditions of world trade. To that end I would maintain its in most peoples interest to speak out against this phenomenon whether its Amazon in the UK or Barclays in Africa.
Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as 'gateway for investment' in Africa | Global development | theguardian.com

 

[markjay]

The 911 hijackers were all from middle-class family background, 15 of them were from Saudi. It is believed that they were chosen because they were accustomed to Western life and spoke good English which meant they had better chances of success. In fact one of the puzzling facts is that some of them were frequent visitors to 'Sin City' Las Vegas. What they all had in common was previous ideological commitment to Islamic figthing in places such as Afghanistan and Bosnia, not poverty or ignorance.

In Chechnya where Islamic suicide bombing first emerged the bombers were initially widows of dead Chechen fighters simply because in the backwards society of the region a woman without a husband is a social outcast and as good as dead.

I am not suggesting that poverty does not play into the hands of those who seek political instability, just that it is only one factor in a complex reality.

As for wealth distribution... I would say that Western Capitalistic society brought the most wealth to most people compared to any other system that has been tried so far, but at the same time it also created a huge disparity between those who have and those who have more.

I would also say that no one was made worse off by Capitalism in absolute terms, just worse off compared to others.

But this is an interesting conundrum. One of our customers - a large not-for-profit institutional organisation with a not inconsiderate IT budget - kept buying until recently 15-inch monitors in spite of them becoming rare and expensive - the rational of the IT buyer was that if they can't afford to upgrade everyone to 20-inch, they should not give them to anyone ie in order to avoid frustration among those users who were not upgraded. Which was odd since our poorer customers were buying 17, 19, and 20-inch monitors over the years simply because they were the cheapest. Thankfully they have all been finally upgraded to 23-inch in one go last year... who's to say which is right.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

And what about the loophole allowing Britons to retire in Spain and avoid paying tax on their UK Pensions...?

People that have worked hard all their lives and paid into the system out of their own pocket?

Or a corporate behemoth that rinses every last penny out of whichever country it's decided to attach itself to and rinse?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Firstly... you can create a tax avoidance scheme based on an existing loophole, but you can't create the loophole - only governments can do that.

Then, MPs simply lied about their expenses, no loophole there.

As unpalatable as this may be to some, the fact remains that none of these arguments - that companies can 'create' loopholes, or that MPs cheating by fiddling expenses can be called 'tax avoidance scheme' - pass the common sense test...

'Loopholes' are only found once certain people go looking for them; as Ed alludes to earlier, most loopholes are created by accident.

Politicians were the same, because a certain PM didn't think the public would stand for pay rises for politicians whilst the country was being raped, she created a nice little sideline in claiming for imaginary expenses to cover the 'shortfall'.

 

[markjay]

People that have worked hard all their lives and paid into the system out of their own pocket?...

I worked hard all my life and when I retire I expect to pay fair tax on my Pension income.

Why would someone who moves to Spain not pay the same tax as me?

This a tax avoidance loophole if I've ever seen one.

Granted, someone speeding at 90mph is not the same as someone speeding at 190mph, but speeding is speeding and the same principles apply.

 

[Meldrew2]

Import duty to Al Quaida.

This forum lives up to it's name - "off topic"

At least it's never boring……….