The term in general should be possibly legal off shore investments, it a) depends on how they operate b) how the person uses them.

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean that its automatically legal or legitimate. Its a lot more complicated than that. Certainly in some practices used in the Panama case would be sufficient evidence to present a case of evasion over avoidance, because it involves false reporting and deception. It was only 'legal' because HMRC couldn't obtain the information from the foreign company - If that information was made available in the UK, HMRC could and probably would have prosecuted.

It is illegal, for example, to have things like false directors and employees who don't actually work for the company, but exist entirely for tax purposes.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Whoosh.... and my main message goes flying over your head whilst you once again concentrate on the accurate description of one of the terms I used........

EDIT: Good to see you read the rest eventually... after your nerdy desire for completeness was satisfied

Edited by Hoof Hearted (13 Apr 2016 10.32am)

I don't know if this is for another thread or if it's too small a subject.

I have never been in favour of Inheritance tax - being taxed again after it being taxed once or several times before. I was aware of the 7 year rule about 25 years ago.

The only reason for IHT Inheritance Tax is surely (obviously) to stop the very very wealthy staying wealthy and remove the barriers people below them face financially reaching those levels (all valuable property or its capital from sale never leaving the family).

In quiet streets with detached houses a few decades ago you'd more than likely only hear posh accents. That isn't the case now in some areas, or on this side of Surrey at least, but I doubt that is the reason in the heads of politicians. It's easy tax revenue that requires no effort, albeit only £3 billion and 1% of tax revenue.

Problem now is that if you're very rich you can plan and put measures in place in time or have accountants and advisers do it for you. The people in the middle at just over the £325,000 threshold no doubt hand over tens or hundreds of thousands when grandparents pass on. It's all a bit of a game for those informed and aware.

The 40% rate is too high IMO and given that couples who have money tend to have 2 children or more, the money is shared equally in these times rather than handed down to the oldest son after the others have got the message and moved towns. Effectively house is sold and money is spread, although grandchildren still get a leg up the housing ladder. Why shouldn't they unless you're John McDonnell, in public anyway.

Does make me laugh though when I see Tory posters of Tory MP sitting with old lady in her lounge. 'We'll make sure you can pass something onto your children', as if they currently can't pass anything on at all, £325,000 tax free and 40% thereafter.

There is a problem with abolishing IHT altogether in that the old folk will stay longer in their oversized properties during our housing crisis. It's a tricky one but I do see the arguments from both ends of society.

COYP

There is an issue with Cameron and the Tories blocking EU efforts to clamp down on tax avoidance. Who donates to the Tories? How much money do you need to live on a year? Where does the rest go for after retirement and burn out?

There is an issue IMO with Cameron, even though he's done nothing illegal, having investments offshore when he's commenting on people who have aggressively avoided tax using very similar methods, at the same blocking the clampdown of it. He is within the rules but would he be so rule abiding if he were in another industry before being a career politician?

And it's a little whiffy that he decided to clear the decks months before the inevitable 2010 General election victory. Planned austerity, having offshore investments growing year on year, "We're all in this together."

He is in no way as bad or as opportunistic as Blair but I suppose Cameron has always been surrounded by wealth and is used to it whereas Blair is intoxicated by money and there's enough fools on the planet to keep gifting it to him.

COYP

He didn't directly invest in anything on the basis that it was offshore. It's a fund comprised largely of US and UK stock, with the fund itself for tax efficiency, domiciled in Panama.

Absolutely no one has bothered delving in to their own (public sector) pension funds which likely contain constituent funds with similar arangements, yet everyone feels they're entitled to chastise Cameron because he is the PM. These are the same people who want Corbyn, because he's a man of morals and thus poor, making him a hero.

It might be me, but why do councils have shares in companies. Shouldn't councils be funded entirely by taxation revenue, and not holding external investments?

When I pay my council tax, I expect it to be spent on local services or allocated to future projects. Not invested - even if that returns a profit for the council to spend later.

After all, if a council holds investments doesn't that automatically mean they have a bias towards the interests of those investments.

I think the issue needs to remain the focus, not on the fact people are wealthy or better off, but how they have avoided contributing their share to the country in which they live and dwell - and how easy it is for the wealthy to avoid paying 'their fair share' by exploiting situations that are only accessable to a few.

Alternatively, the government could change the system so that everyone can take advantage of tax avoidance schemes.

Also, the left do need to remember there is a difference between established state approved methods of tax avoidance (such as ISA's and legitimate self employed expenses), schemes which are set up to create tax avoidance and those schemes that essentially 'hide evidence' of actual tax evasion.

Focusing on the Prime Minister is just political bulls*** and media spin, to focus attention away from the fact that the real players in this are corporations and businesses - many of whom are facilitating payments to people in exchange for service through these kinds of schemes.

The third case and then the second case, the first isn't a problem. This isn't a moral issue, its one of securing income that is due the state.

Where people are just making a bit extra, its not a problem, not for me. But that's who we end up focusing on. We should applaud the fact that Cameron actually paid the CGT on those shares etc

Its like doing a bit of work for cash when you're on benefits. As opposed to the fraudster making multiple claims on different addresses.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]