Pandora Papers ! .

[Tony 10]

Asking once again, is it legal? Yes / No?

 

 

[Carbuncle 0]

5 hours ago, Tony said:

Asking once again, is it legal? Yes / No?

 

Again? You're asking the wrong question. Here are a couple of analogies to chew on.

 

(1) Back in 1990, it was not illegal for a man to rape his wife under English law. When the law is wrong it needs to be changed.

 

(2) It is not illegal to stand in the middle of your own kitchen holding a knife with you and the knife covered in somebody else's blood. Sometimes the evidence does not specify a particular crime but it should make you look further into matters as for example when the ruler of a country has more money than they might reasonably have been expected to be able to earn by legitimate means.

[Tony 10]

Of course it is the right question.

 

You are making a partial moral judgement and the reason why we have actual laws is that people make partial moral judgements.

[Carbuncle 0]

3 hours ago, Tony said:

Of course it is the right question.

 

You are making a partial moral judgement and the reason why we have actual laws is that people make partial moral judgements.

Curious, you had a view on Angela Rayner calling certain senior tories scum even though it was perfectly legal. You also thought that fracking would be a good idea even though it is illegal. You do seem capable of (partial) moral judgement despite what your statements on this thread might imply.

[Anna B 1,414]

4 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

Again? You're asking the wrong question. Here are a couple of analogies to chew on.

 

(1) Back in 1990, it was not illegal for a man to rape his wife under English law. When the law is wrong it needs to be changed.

 

(2) It is not illegal to stand in the middle of your own kitchen holding a knife with you and the knife covered in somebody else's blood. Sometimes the evidence does not specify a particular crime but it should make you look further into matters as for example when the ruler of a country has more money than they might reasonably have been expected to be able to earn by legitimate means.

Very good points. I think most people (except Tony) would agree with this.

[Staunton 18]

To repeat, the claim that no laws are broken in tax abuse is just another sleight of hand. George Osborne hollowed out HMRC (effective deregulation by sacking the regulators), from which there were thousands of redundancies (public sector cuts). Then private sector staff were seconded from the very City accountancy firms that have been and continue to game the tax system (privatisation). These personnel, remunerated by the taxpayer (that's us little people) then wrote tax law, complete with carefully crafted loopholes which, upon returning to their employers, they exploit (tax abuse).

 

And as the Pandora Papers reveal, the offshore world is not only a place to hide the spoils of tax abuse or engage in illicit deals, it's also a source of party funding. The tories have been in receipt of significant sums from this lucrative sewer of sleaze and corruption, and it's there on record thanks to the hard work of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

[trastrick 866]

15 hours ago, Anna B said:

Very good points. I think most people (except Tony) would agree with this.

The obvious problem is that the major recipients of this "unearned" income, are usually members of the Party in power, through "legal" campaign donations, speaking fees, "charitable" donations, sales of "art" work, book deals and the like.

 

(See the literally $billions that have poured into the Clinton and Biden families, while they have been in public office, from such sources as Russia, the Ukraine, China, Lybia and others)

 

And only they have the real power to investigate themselves. It's only the opposition Parties that scream bloody murder.

 

And with a partisan MSM, this "bloody knife" evidence of corruption can easily be dismissed,  "debunked", and "no evidence" found of anything "illegal".

 

If the MSM will not cover it, it doesn't exist.

 

And the populace left with a cynical distrust of government, that usually manifests itself, by a major turnover of government at the next election.

 

And on it goes.

Edited October 16, 2021 by trastrick

[Guest sibon]

On 15/10/2021 at 08:43, Tony said:

Asking once again, WHY is it legal? 

 

 

Edited to ask a better question.

Edited October 16, 2021 by sibon

[Anna B 1,414]

1 hour ago, sibon said:

Edited to ask a better question.

Yes, 'why is it legal?' is a much better question.

 

I once had a discussion on here about a legal situation which was quite obviously unjust.

The poster (a legal person) responded with 'the law is the law, it has nothing to do with justice.' I was fairly outraged at the time but the longer I live the more I can see what he meant. 

 

I would add that the law, it seems,  has nothing to do with morals either. 

Sad, disgraceful state of affairs even, but still true.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Anna B

[Tony 10]

6 hours ago, sibon said:

Edited to ask a better question.

You need to ask your question of the nations in question, not me. 

 

Do you see how it works yet? 

[Staunton 18]

Once again: the very suggestion that laws are not broken in the scandal of tax abuse is simply another bogus attempt to muddy the waters, a cynical and entirely empty claim. Tax laws have been deregulated. Laws that levy tax on businesses and wealthy individuals abolished, diminished or riddled with carefully introduced loopholes, that's what deregulation is all about - paving the way for people in positions of privilege to evade their legal responsibilities.

 

The conservative-led coalition hollowed out HMRC, sacking thousands of staff (those who policed the tax laws), using the lie of austerity to justify cuts to essential public services. Then private sector staff were seconded at staggering expense from the very City accountancy firms that facilitate tax abuse for and on behalf of their clients. As one might say, poacher turned gamekeeper turned poacher again since, once their contracted secondments were served, these people went straight back to their posts, cheating HMRC, and therefore the public, via the very loopholes they had devised, of the revenue necessary to fund education, healthcare, social services and the DWP.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

"evade their legal responsibilities"?

No, Read that word as "Avoid".

Rather than witter about 'tax abuse', focus on tax evasion.

If everyone did pay all tax lawfully demanded and properly payable, without evasion, the rest of us would pay far less tax.

This applies to just about every tax levied in the UK.