Search results

Quite. If anything, it shows how vulnerable we are to a rotten national and global financial system if the extra debt incurred by their failures approaches the cost of two world wars (and the undertaking of massive national social programs). Either way, the point is not how we got here...

Likewise, I often wonder why many private sector companies are run less efficiently than public sector organisations... There are no quick conclusions to be drawn on efficiency by private/public ownership. I couldn't agree with you more (although I would happily settle with a massive...

So why don't you two explain why he's wrong instead of casually dismissing his opinions? To say one of you (Theophany) is suggesting that politics is separate from economics further suggests it is you who lacks understanding...

They are all natural monopolies. The barriers to entry are too high for other firms to compete no matter how much regulators try to induce competition. It's akin to putting a square peg into a round hole. I fear my opinion of the health of these industries isn't as positive as yours. I mean...

Can't tell if serious. Its nothing to do with importance... Water, energy, transport and communications; nationalise the bloody lot!

It seems you aren't reading my posts thoroughly enough. I, or nobody else, classifies ISA's as facilitating tax avoidance. Here, I'll summarise the issue again: Tax mitigation is tax structuring within the spirit of the law (often using government sanctioned tax instruments). Tax...

If you read the guys blog then it appears the Times bought it up in asking about topical issues instead of his book. So by his account at least, you are wrong. In any case, I couldn't care less about the motive as long as his tax affairs are structured within the spirit of the law.

The examples I've given clearly flout the spirit of the Ramsey principle (ie. the legislative tool we have to determine mitigation or evasion). If you don't think these given schemes that reduce tax liability down to 1% is "aggressive [tax] planning" then what is? .5%? .25%? Claiming that...

You are backpeddling now Pudney. You initially said that 'tax efficiency' didn't involve abusing legislation (or the lack of it) and was simply tax mitigation. Sure these schemes may currently be legal (in that they exploit the existence of legislative gaps) but similarly they might also be...

So if tax efficiency never abuses legislation (or lackthereof) then why did Amazon and Northern Shell describe their tax avoidance as "[structuring] its tax affairs in a tax efficient manner"? Why did Jimmy Carr's lawyer responding to his clients tax avoidance as "managing his affairs in a tax...

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is nothing that indicates he isn't using any of those accepted instruments for tax mitigation. He did however instruct his accountant to "pay all tax that was due". This suggests that he didn't want a series of steps introduced into his tax affairs which were...

Efficiency has nothing to do with it. He is simply refusing to exploit the gaps that exist within current legislation in order to deliver higher rates of profit at the expense of everybody else. If more high wealth individuals took such a positive moral stance then the nation would be much...

What we are getting at here is that some tax avoidance becomes tax evasion when the Ramsey principle is applied to a particular scheme.

You missed the best bit directly underneath the paragraph you quoted: :)

There is a legal precedent called the Ramsey principle which states that any introduction of artificial pre-ordained transactions which serve no purpose than to minimise tax liability are unlawful. The problem is as its only a legal principle, and not a legal rule, it doesn't stretch that far...

Many of these schemes are not legal (or illegal) irrespective of whether they are proposed by tax professionals. Let's not give them legitimacy by claiming that is the case. Again, the problem is having enough will and resource to determine the legality of these schemes under legislation that...

That would be a true perception then. I'm not convinced that you appreciate the issue here. Some of these avoidance schemes may well be evasion schemes. The problem is there just hasn't been enough will or resource to legally test them yet.

That's an irrelevance. The point is that adequate measures should be put in place so that: a) people aren't tempted because they have no longer got the chance to avoid b) people aren't tempted because they know they'll get caught

Strikes remain extreme and relatively rare. However you appear against them even if they achieve your goals. That suggests you are not so concerned with your interests as you claim. I was using a bit of creative license to make my point. Again, I'm back to you the point about it's their...

But I thought you were complaining that your interests were not being served? What should it matter how easily strike days are threatened or undertaken providing you gain from it? In any case, I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion here that strikes are called easily. You do realise that fewer...