This whole topic is such a waste of breath; surely it is in every person (and company)'s interest to pay as little tax as legally allowed? If Government want to increase tax income, change the laws.

It is then down to individuals what they do with their profits. Bill Gates is an excellent example of this.

All this waffle and froth from envious under achievers!

Absolutely correct - but other posters like hedda/ITK seem to have different views!

no I don't have a different view. Of course people will pay what they can get away with legally.

But Google is a hideous ghastly corporate entity with it's idiotic slogan "Don't Do Evil" yet they are as evil as any corporation can be.

It's simple- politicians can pass laws that require companies to pay tax on profits earned in that country. As it is Google (Amazon and the others) are based basically, no-where and beholden to no-one.

In effect they only pay what they believe they can get away with...the manner in which they are set up (the perpetually morally pontificating News Ltd is the same)...they could actually pay absolutely nothing under the their own corporate set-up and it would still be legal.

So in reality : they choose to pay some tax for the sake of appearance, a privilege no salaried worker has.

The minimal tax they do pay is a sham and designed to give the appearance of behaving ethically.

The problem is politicians : they are beholden to corporate entities (that is the definition of Fascism)... they are terrified of corporations.

## I refer again to how post 9/11 the USA & allies threaten the world's tax shelters with all sorts of recriminations if they continued to channel funds to terrorist organisations posing as charities. Every tax haven caved in including Switzerland.

wise words from Abraham Lincoln (no wonder they shot him)

"In terms of the fruits of ones labour : labour came before capital and is not related to it. Capital is what’s acquired from labour, and would never have come about if it were not for labour. Therefore, labour is superior to capital and deserves the higher significance.”

hedda wrote:
no I don't have a different view. people will pay what they can get away with legally

The minimal tax they do pay is a sham


If you accept your first point, why is the second an issue?

Are you SURE you accept JK's points/view?

...alas, we all know what happens to people who avoid paying their taxes in the end.

So tell us why Ken, according to your biography, that you advise people to pay their taxes? Is it a case of once bitten twice shy?

I doubt if there were any green eyed monsters out there reading about your fiscal travails in the medja at the time!

Ben 8 wrote:
hedda wrote:
no I don't have a different view. people will pay what they can get away with legally

The minimal tax they do pay is a sham


If you accept your first point, why is the second an issue?

Are you SURE you accept JK's points/view?




politicians haven't caught up with the digital age:

US revelations that IT giant Apple is 'stateless' for tax purposes

as it is now- shareholders are more privileged than wage earners and salaried taxpayers subsidise many corporation's profits.

I agree with JK's (simplistic) view that politician's should change the law and people will pay as little tax as possible.

I didn't say it was good or moral.

Yes Lester; I was advised on the best legal way to pay as little tax as possible (David Frost was the other who utilised this method). So the Government at the time then changed the law and made it retrogressive so I ended up not only having to pay large taxes but with a huge bill for flights abroad, lawyers, accountants and local taxes.

Plus it was a pain in the arse having to fly off to Holland to sign documents.

I suspect retrogressive legislation would now not be allowed.

hedda wrote:
I agree with JK's view ..... people will pay as little tax as possible.

I didn't say it was good or moral


Well - if you don't think people paying as little tax as possible is good or moral - why agree with it?

Ben 8 wrote:Well - if you don't think people paying as little tax as possible is good or moral - why agree with it?

Rare for you hedda, no reply.

You couldn't possibly have been wrong?

Ben 8 wrote:
hedda wrote:
I agree with JK's view ..... people will pay as little tax as possible.

I didn't say it was good or moral


Well - if you don't think people paying as little tax as possible is good or moral - why agree with it?



stop doing my head in

I have no choice to accept many things..parking fines and so on. I can still not like them and hope they may change.

hedda wrote:

no choice to accept....still not like

Fair enough; but why agree with JK's original point - which tick both these boxes?

Ben 8 wrote:
hedda wrote:

no choice to accept....still not like

Fair enough; but why agree with JK's original point - which tick both these boxes?



help

Hedda - its so simple to say I MADE A MISTAKE

You can't

My ex-wife had no problem

Ben 8 wrote:
Hedda - its so simple to say I MADE A MISTAKE

You can't

My ex-wife had no problem




I deny i was ever married to you.

This is getting boring

True wrote:
This is getting boring

is that what your ex-wife said ?

hedda wrote:
True wrote:
This is getting boring

is that what your ex-wife said ?

I am the ex wife Veritas

JK2006 wrote:
All this waffle and froth from envious under achievers!

You got it in one, JK !

but ... when you say "under achievers" the implication is that they attempted to "achieve" something in the first place !

Many do absolutely nothing - except breed - and blame everyone else for their own problems.

Comrade hedda wrote:
wise words from Abraham Lincoln (no wonder they shot him)

"In terms of the fruits of ones labour : labour came before capital and is not related to it. Capital is what’s acquired from labour, and would never have come about if it were not for labour. Therefore, labour is superior to capital and deserves the higher significance.”

.... but Lincoln forgot to say that an investor comes before any capital is made from labour !!