The Panama Papers: how the world’s rich and famous hide their money offshore Guardian analysis of leaked papers will show how influential people including heads of government have exploited tax havens

by Guest Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:06 pm

First topic message reminder :

The hidden wealth of some of the world’s most prominent leaders, politicians and celebrities has been revealed by an unprecedented leak of millions of documents that show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes.

The Guardian, working with global partners, will set out details from the first tranche of what are being called “the Panama Papers”. Journalists from more than 80 countries have been reviewing 11.5m files leaked from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm.

The records were obtained from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with the Guardian and the BBC.
Though there is nothing unlawful about using offshore companies, the files raise fundamental questions about the ethics of such tax havens – and the revelations are likely to provoke urgent calls for reforms of a system that critics say is arcane and open to abuse.
The Panama Papers reveal:

Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.
A $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin - is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married.
Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.
In the UK, six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to British political parties have had offshore assets.
The families of at least eight current and former members of China’s supreme ruling body, the politburo, have been found to have hidden wealth offshore.
Twenty-three individuals who have had sanctions imposed on them for supporting the regimes in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia, Iran and Syria have been clients of Mossack Fonseca. Their companies were harboured by the Seychelles, the British Virgin Islands, Panama and other jurisdictions.
A key member of Fifa’s powerful ethics committee, which is supposed to be spearheading reform at world football’s scandal-hit governing body, acted as a lawyer for individuals and companies recently charged with bribery and corruption.
One leaked memorandum from a partner of Mossack Fonseca said: “Ninety-five per cent of our work coincidentally consists in selling vehicles to avoid taxes.”

The company has flatly denied any wrongdoing. It says it has acted beyond reproach for 40 years and that it has had robust due diligence procedures.
The document leak comes from the records of the firm, which was founded in 1977. The information is near live, with the most recent records dating from December 2015.
Three hundred and 70 reporters from 100 media organisations have spent a year analysing and verifying the documents.
The British prime minister, David Cameron, has promised to “sweep away” tax secrecy – but little has been done. He is planning a summit of world leaders next month, which will focus on the conduct of tax havens.
The prime minister set out his line in 2011 when he said: “We need to shine a spotlight on who owns what and where the money is really flowing.”

Masses more at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/the-panama-papers-how-the-worlds-rich-and-famous-hide-their-money-offshore

I doubt very much Cameron will do the above as these papers show his father is one of them.

France’s president, François Hollande, has become possibly the first world leader so far to welcome the leak. According to AFP he thanked the “whistleblowers” who brought the files to light, adding: “All the information revealed will lead to investigations brought by the tax authorities and to legal proceedings.”

Makes WikiLeaks look like a comic book

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:39 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that having to pay a much higher percentage than others is paying more than you should, so maybe they should think about that and make it fairer.

Ah, so you want a regressive tax system.

Sorry, disagree. And I say that as not a tax Angel, myself. I've avoided a lot of tax over the years. And evaded.

But the truth is £50 a month makes all the difference between barely living and poverty.

Not regressive - a fairer system. Those earning a ton of money would still pay more if the percentages were fairer, and perhaps they wouldn't resent it as much.

It's not a good idea to confess to tax evasion on a public forum. Laughing

by Fuzzy Zack Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ah, so you want a regressive tax system.

Sorry, disagree. And I say that as not a tax Angel, myself. I've avoided a lot of tax over the years. And evaded.

But the truth is £50 a month makes all the difference between barely living and poverty.

Not regressive - a fairer system. Those earning a ton of money would still pay more if the percentages were fairer, and perhaps they wouldn't resent it as much.

It's not a good idea to confess to tax evasion on a public forum.

Unfortunately you won't be able to pay for the NHS, social care, let alone education, etc, without a progressive system.

So yes, the rich with their private health insurance should pay for the medical treatment of the relatively poor. It's a moral obligation. They'll just spend it on a bigger yatch while others die, literally.

Re: tax evasion. I've already paid my fine. I'm reformed, can't you tell? Wink

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:58 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Not regressive - a fairer system. Those earning a ton of money would still pay more if the percentages were fairer, and perhaps they wouldn't resent it as much.

It's not a good idea to confess to tax evasion on a public forum.

Unfortunately you won't be able to pay for the NHS, social care, let alone education, etc, without a progressive system.

So yes, the rich with their private health insurance should pay for the medical treatment of the relatively poor. It's a moral obligation. They'll just spend it on a bigger yatch while others die, literally.

Re: tax evasion. I've already paid my fine. I'm reformed, can't you tell?

I haven't worked out the statistics, but maybe if all those people who were avoiding tax didn't have to pay so much as a percentage, so they actually paid it instead of putting their money in an offshore account, it would make up for it.

by Guest Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:37 pm

Not a chance, why would they when they can get away with paying nothing.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:57 pm

sassy wrote:Not a chance, why would they when they can get away with paying nothing.

Well charging them a higher percentage isn't really working is it? They're just putting the money offshore anyway. I think there's more chance of them paying their tax if they didn't have to pay so much. Think about the psychology of it.

by Guest Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:39 pm

You could make it 2% and they wouldn't pay, they think they are entitled not to pay. The point is not to lower the percentage of tax but to stop ways they can avoid paying it. It seems UK is at the heart of not only tax evasion and avoidance, but money laundering as well, and the Virgin Islands need to be regulated from Britain. Being a British territory we can do that, we did it in the case of the Turks and Caicos Islands after an inquiry found evidence of government corruption and incompetence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8202339.stm

This is far too big to sit back and ignore. The money could pay off the national debt, fund the health service and have some left over for steel.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:46 pm

Is there any evidence of money laundering or evasion in these leaks?

by Guest Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:47 pm

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:49 pm

From the UK? Then that's a different issue isn't it?

by Guest Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:50 pm

Isn't a different issue at all.

Eleven million documents were leaked from one of the world's most secretive companies, Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.
They show how Mossack Fonseca has helped clients launder money, dodge sanctions and avoid tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35918844

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:52 pm

sassy wrote:Isn't a different issue at all.

Eleven million documents were leaked from one of the world's most secretive companies, Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.
They show how Mossack Fonseca has helped clients launder money, dodge sanctions and avoid tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35918844

Of course it is. Money laundering and tax evasion are different issues to tax avoidance.

by Guest Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:Isn't a different issue at all.

Eleven million documents were leaked from one of the world's most secretive companies, Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.
They show how Mossack Fonseca has helped clients launder money, dodge sanctions and avoid tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35918844

Of course it is. Money laundering and tax evasion are different issues to tax avoidance.

But all handled in the same way by the same firm for the same reason and all able to be stopped at the same time by the same action.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:56 pm

If people are going to evade tax or launder money, of course it won't make a different what percentage of tax they're charged. It might make a different re tax avoidance though.

by Fuzzy Zack Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:42 pm

If you can lower your tax bill, anyone will.

So while the rich can pay lower taxes offshore, they will.

The long term Tory plan is to compete with these "offshore" countries by lowering Corp tax and making the UK a tax haven in its own right to attract foreign investment.

The Americans are trying to do the same.

by Major Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:21 pm

by veya_victaous Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:31 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:Not a chance, why would they when they can get away with paying nothing.

Well charging them a higher percentage isn't really working is it? They're just putting the money offshore anyway. I think there's more chance of them paying their tax if they didn't have to pay so much. Think about the psychology of it.

raggs is right ... in a way Cool

you need to fix the psychology
by making an example of those that commit treason via tax evasion Twisted Evil

if they had been some 'chav' and had stolen less than 1% of the value from some gov't facility or office you be saying send them to jail.
these people are criminals on 100 times the scale or more.

by Irn Bru Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:35 am

Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron.

Oh deary me Laughing

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron

by nicko Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:47 am

Untill it's proven that Cameron is guilty you should not pre-judge.

by 'Wolfie Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:02 am

nicko wrote:Untill it's proven that Cameron is guilty you should not pre-judge.

NEVER stops you pre-judging 'lefty'/liberal/Labour/Green/socialist identities, policies or proposals, does it nicko ?

The Panama Papers: how the world’s rich and famous hide their money offshore Guardian analysis of leaked papers will show how influential people including heads of government have exploited tax havens - Page 2 3177564460

The Panama Papers: how the world’s rich and famous hide their money offshore Guardian analysis of leaked papers will show how influential people including heads of government have exploited tax havens - Page 2 3177564460

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:08 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well charging them a higher percentage isn't really working is it? They're just putting the money offshore anyway. I think there's more chance of them paying their tax if they didn't have to pay so much. Think about the psychology of it.

raggs is right ... in a way
you need to fix the psychology
by making an example of those that commit treason via tax evasion

if they had been some 'chav' and had stolen less than 1% of the value from some gov't facility or office you be saying send them to jail.
these people are criminals on 100 times the scale or more.

The point is that tax avoidance is not the same thing as tax evasion, and at least they're "stealing" their own money.

by Major Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:01 am

Is there anyone amongst you who would not save money on your income tax contributions if you had the legal opportunity?

I am hoping to sell this house any time now and I will have to pay more TAX as stamp duty and it will run into double figuz, several £THOUSANDS, I am sick of being ripped off.

by Guest Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:45 pm

sassy wrote:This is only the first bit coming out, there are 11.5 MILLION files to be read, bet there are a lot of people quaking in the their boots. David Cameron ranted at journalists today, won't surprise me in the least if he and other members of the cabinet are named.

Frankly...this shouldn't shock any of us; after the many years of the upper echelon using the Swiss backing system to hide wealth and capitol gain funding in order to defraud the very governments that would tax those funds accordingly --- this is the very same technique, just a different location

And after reading every post listed here, it's very evident that there's quite a few that miss the difference between what 'john q public' has to report {via our earned income tax reporting processes} and what those upper echelon are 'SUPPOSED' to report but due to tax loop holes/under-reporting actual income/capital gains earnings ... the wealthy are able to HIDE THESE FUNDS and are not paying their fair share of taxes! Yet, they use the same infrastructure that we all pay for with the taxes that the working poor provide. Evil or Very Mad

by Guest Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:47 pm

Exactly, they use the roads, sewage systeam, water system, electric, gas etc, but somehow they shouldn't have to pay for the upkeep!

by Original Quill Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:53 pm

The difference between a regressive and a progressive tax system, is that the wealthy want a free ride. The wealthy use the amenities of society--for their endeavors, luxury and protection--in much greater proportion than those of humbler means, but they don't want to pay taxes in proportion.

A flat tax, like water, would have to raise it's level higher in order to cover all of the costs associated with the community. It would weigh more heavily on those who don't use public advantages as much. A progressive tax is the only way to make it fair.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:05 pm

sassy wrote:Exactly, they use the roads, sewage systeam, water system, electric, gas etc, but somehow they shouldn't have to pay for the upkeep!

They presumably pay some tax though, just not on all of their income/assets.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:The difference between a regressive and a progressive tax system, is that the wealthy want a free ride. The wealthy use the amenities of society--for their endeavors, luxury and protection--in much greater proportion than those of humbler means, but they don't want to pay taxes in proportion.

A flat tax, like water, would have to raise it's level higher in order to cover all of the costs associated with the community. It would weigh more heavily on those who don't use public advantages as much. A progressive tax is the only way to make it fair.

How do wealthy people use amenities in a greater proportion?

by Syl Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:16 pm

Stormee wrote:Are you not TRUTHFULLY envious of their wealth?

Seriously..NOPE.
Money buys material things not happiness....some of the most miserable people I have known have been rolling in it, some of the happiest are skint.
Obviously if one is living from hand to mouth that's no fun, but I bet the majority of people who have enough to live comfortably on don't envy these fiddling power mad liars who live to work.

Is Camerons dad still with his mum? If so that makes her a bit of a hypocrite too.

by Guest Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:17 pm

Cameron's Dad died in 2010 and he left a lot of that money to Cameron.

by Guest Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:The difference between a regressive and a progressive tax system, is that the wealthy want a free ride. The wealthy use the amenities of society--for their endeavors, luxury and protection--in much greater proportion than those of humbler means, but they don't want to pay taxes in proportion.

A flat tax, like water, would have to raise it's level higher in order to cover all of the costs associated with the community. It would weigh more heavily on those who don't use public advantages as much. A progressive tax is the only way to make it fair.

How do wealthy people use amenities in a greater proportion?

Actually, they probably do. Huge houses, more water etc etc

by Guest Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:18 pm

sassy wrote:Exactly, they use the roads, sewage systeam, water system, electric, gas etc, but somehow they shouldn't have to pay for the upkeep!

Precisely... surely people wouldn't be FOOLISH enough to 'assume/presume'...that the weathly pay their fair share. Rolling Eyes

A basic economic class might be advisable prior to digging that The Panama Papers: how the world’s rich and famous hide their money offshore Guardian analysis of leaked papers will show how influential people including heads of government have exploited tax havens - Page 2 2686688521

DEEPER.

by Syl Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:20 pm

sassy wrote:Cameron's Dad died in 2010 and he left a lot of that money to Cameron.

Ahhh...thanks Sassy, tbh I don't read much about his private life, cant stand the man.
If his mother was aware that he had stashed his wealth away it does make her recent comments look hypocritical though imo.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:20 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

How do wealthy people use amenities in a greater proportion?

Actually, they probably do. Huge houses, more water etc etc

Do they not pay for water then? Having a large house doesn't necessarily mean they use more amenities.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:The difference between a regressive and a progressive tax system, is that the wealthy want a free ride. The wealthy use the amenities of society--for their endeavors, luxury and protection--in much greater proportion than those of humbler means, but they don't want to pay taxes in proportion.

A flat tax, like water, would have to raise it's level higher in order to cover all of the costs associated with the community. It would weigh more heavily on those who don't use public advantages as much. A progressive tax is the only way to make it fair.

How do wealthy people use amenities in a greater proportion?

In many ways. Roads, harbors, airports, rails, bridges---and many other things for production and transportation. They have greater homes, property, and assets in need of fire protection and police protection. Clean air and clean water, used in greater quantities for their larger estates. The EPA protects them from oil spills (remember BP in the Gulf?) in and around their many beach homes. And let's not get into policing the securities markets to assure them accountability and confidence. They simply use the community across-the-board for more things, of greater values.

And this does not even touch the fact that they have greater influence upon government, and so steer resources over into their markets and their properties in greater proportion, giving them still greater use of community resources. Think of the Koch Bros. Or, think of the Exxon-Mobil CEO blocking fracking in and around his home because of his property:

USA Today wrote:Exxon Mobil CEO: No fracking near my backyard
Exxon Mobil's CEO has joined a lawsuit to stop construction of a water tower near his home that would be used to in the fracking process to drill for oil.

While fracking -- hydraulic fracturing of rock to release pockets of oil -- has raised complaints from environmentalists around the country, Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson's opposition to a project in his own neighborhood is interesting, given how deeply Exxon Mobil is involved in the process.

There is no limit on the ways in which the wealthy make greater use of society and it's resources to benefit themselves.

by Major Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:33 pm

Exampul.

If the stinking rich use airportz moore then they are paying more.

if they use harbuz then they pay for them.

If they use MORE water then they are paying for more.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:39 pm

Yes, it's not as if they don't have to pay for all those things. They pay for petrol, road tax, water, community tax, etc.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:43 pm

Stormee wrote:Exampul.

If the stinking rich use airportz moore then they are paying more.

if they use harbuz then they pay for them.

If they use MORE water then they are paying for more.

But not more in proportion...and that is the point. Use fees do not begin to equate to actual costs.

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:46 pm

Those who pay very little tax, or none at all because they don't earn enough, probably use more amenities in proportion to what they pay for them.

by Guest Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Stormee wrote:Exampul.
If the stinking rich use airportz moore then they are paying more.
if they use harbuz then they pay for them.
If they use MORE water then they are paying for more.
But not more in proportion...and that is the point. Use fees do not begin to equate to actual costs.

Infrastructure = far more then the basic home based utilities that are being drug out into the topic here! Rolling Eyes

For some clarification {for those that can't quite grasp the concept} here's a prime example of what the US is facing for our federal highways >>>

In theory, infrastructure is not partisan, since both parties agree that it is highly necessary, and severely under-maintained. The divide is over which level of government should operate it. Since 1956, when the federal highway fund was formed, building transportation infrastructure, in particular, has been mostly a federal task, funded at 80 percent levels by the federal gas tax. But recent estimates suggest that the fund could soon run out, prompting the President that day to propose a new $300 billion plan.
http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/04/7-reasons-us-infrastructure-projects-cost-way-more-they-should/8799/

But as with all things pertinent to any adult discussion; if you aren't willing to expand the mind/read the articles/STFW and do some in depth reading --- then there's zero hope of moving you forward into the 'Gee, Look What I Learned Today' and engaging in the discussion.

Water - flows into your home via the faucet you turn on:
A.) it travels there via a piping system
B.) it's purified in a water treatment plant
C.) it's regulated by state & federal guidelines
D.) it takes many - many man hours to provide that luxury to all of our business & residential homes
E.) maintenance - has to be done daily - water line replacement is one of the most costly/procrastinated endeavors that any municipality or rural water supplier faces ---over runs for keeping the system up and running for everyone to enjoy {not just the wealthy}
F.) chemicals and the dispensers that provide the adequate portions per gallon --- very costly

My fair share of taxable income, sales tax that I pay, fuel excise tax that I'm charged, every tax that I'm paying yearly for my property is used for this single simplified example of infrastructure! And the number of wealthy people on our delinquent property tax rolls {just in my state} runs into the billions of dollars. The Panama Papers: how the world’s rich and famous hide their money offshore Guardian analysis of leaked papers will show how influential people including heads of government have exploited tax havens - Page 2 2086560741

by 'Wolfie Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:57 pm

Stormee wrote:Is there anyone amongst you who would not save money on your income tax contributions if you had the legal opportunity?

I am hoping to sell this house any time now and I will have to pay more TAX as stamp duty and it will run into double figuz, several £THOUSANDS, I am sick of being ripped off.

HERE in Australia the (State) stamp duty (where applicable) is added on to the purchase price, so effecticely it's paid by the buyer...

THERE'S also stamp duty paid on the purchase (or gifting..) of motor vehicles, paid wnen the registration is changed over to the new owner's name..

BECAUSE "stamp duty" is a State responsibilty down here, it has nothing to do with the Federal collection of Income taxes -- they end up in two different pots.

by 'Wolfie Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:21 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
But not more in proportion...and that is the point. Use fees do not begin to equate to actual costs.
Infrastructure = far more then the basic home based utilities that are being drug out into the topic here!

For some clarification {for those that can't quite grasp the concept} here's a prime example of what the US is facing for our federal highways >>>
In theory, infrastructure is not partisan, since both parties agree that it is highly necessary, and severely under-maintained. The divide is over which level of government should operate it. Since 1956, when the federal highway fund was formed, building transportation infrastructure, in particular, has been mostly a federal task, funded at 80 percent levels by the federal gas tax. But recent estimates suggest that the fund could soon run out, prompting the President that day to propose a new $300 billion plan.
http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/04/7-reasons-us-infrastructure-projects-cost-way-more-they-should/8799/

But as with all things pertinent to any adult discussion; if you aren't willing to expand the mind/read the articles/STFW and do some in depth reading --- then there's zero hope of moving you forward into the 'Gee, Look What I Learned Today' and engaging in the discussion.

Water - flows into your home via the faucet you turn on:
A.) it travels there via a piping system
B.) it's purified in a water treatment plant
C.) it's regulated by state & federal guidelines
D.) it takes many - many man hours to provide that luxury to all of our business & residential homes
E.) maintenance - has to be done daily - water line replacement is one of the most costly/procrastinated endeavors that any municipality or rural water supplier faces ---over runs for keeping the system up and running for everyone to enjoy {not just the wealthy}
F.) chemicals and the dispensers that provide the adequate portions per gallon --- very costly

My fair share of taxable income, sales tax that I pay, fuel excise tax that I'm charged, every tax that I'm paying yearly for my property is used for this single simplified example of infrastructure! And the number of wealthy people on our delinquent property tax rolls {just in my state} runs into the billions of dollars.

ROAD COSTS are another area where some of the more ignorant people are often confused...

WHILE many motorists (cars, trucks and motorcyclists..) would like to imagine that fuel taxes and weight taxes on rego' are paying for the construction and maintenance of roads, the simple fact is that those 'direct' levies only pay for a proportion of the total costs..

WHILST it will vary widely between countries and states, over here in NSW they only contribute around 15% -- meaning the bulk is contributed from the State's "general revenue", so that the state is effectively subsidising the heavier road users (e.g. trucking companies and mining companiies..).

THE government chooses to subsidise main roads and highways because it was decided some time ago (back in the Roman days, I believe..) that it is worthwhile for the nation's collective wellbeing to have decent infrastructure..

IT'S Also why no intelligent government will ever impose a registration/road tax on bicycles -- such a tax would cost a government more to impose than it could ever raise in taxes -- making it a "negative income" proposal.

The Panama Papers: how the world’s rich and famous hide their money offshore Guardian analysis of leaked papers will show how influential people including heads of government have exploited tax havens - Page 2 3738099605

by Guest Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:29 pm

To true all of that WYWolfie; and here in the states we have many a Interstate Hwy plan that we've been paying a 'TOLL' to access this expedited method of travel.
The Panama Papers: how the world’s rich and famous hide their money offshore Guardian analysis of leaked papers will show how influential people including heads of government have exploited tax havens - Page 2 Finalmap

This wasn't meant to go to infinity; there was supposed to be point of time that the 'FEE'S Would cease'...sadly that dog-gone ever increasing cost for material & labor just kept getting more expensive and the extreme weather is beating the hell out of our Interstate system.

And lets not forget about the impact of 'BIG AUTO' and what agenda they had to put a strangle hold on the earliest mass transit systems in our major cities > > >
All under the guise of their subsidiaries like: firestone tire/phillips petroleum...fascinating reading to be sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

by Original Quill Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Those who pay very little tax, or none at all because they don't earn enough, probably use more amenities in proportion to what they pay for them.

But you are referring an income based tax. If someone earns a lower amount, he or she is expected to pay proportionately less and is paying the appropriate amount (according to the formula) for the amenities used.

If you have a problem with the tax schedules, see a tax accountant. S/he can explain to you the methodology by which community and infrastructure costs are interpreted into taxes.

by veya_victaous Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:14 am

any rich person that whinges about taxes has never been poor Or is a selfish prick

really is that simple, you may whinge about how poorly the politicans spent it but i am happy enough to pay the tax rate simply because it means I am earning that much, I know I am far better off paying over of the the minimum wage in tax than just getting over the minimun wage in income.

by Guest Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:15 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/panama-papers-sarah-ferguson-simon-cowell-and-heather-mills-amon/

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:19 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Those who pay very little tax, or none at all because they don't earn enough, probably use more amenities in proportion to what they pay for them.

But you are referring an income based tax. If someone earns a lower amount, he or she is expected to pay proportionately less and is paying the appropriate amount (according to the formula) for the amenities used.

If you have a problem with the tax schedules, see a tax accountant. S/he can explain to you the methodology by which community and infrastructure costs are interpreted into taxes.

Yes, but the amenities cost the same for a person who doesn't pay tax, or very little tax, so they're not actually paying for what they use are they? I'm not saying they should pay more, although I think it's good for people to pay a little bit even if they're on low pay, I'm just saying that all this bleating about rich people not paying enough is a bit hypocritical. People want them to pay over the odds for the amenities that they use.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:36 am

Anyway, my point has always been about the percentage of tax paid. Let's just say the rate was 20% for everyone, regardless of how much they earned - after the personal allowance of £11,000. A person earning £15,000 a year would pay £800 a year in tax. A person earning £150,000 would pay £27,800 a year in tax. That's a lot of money, so what's wrong with having a standard rate?

by Guest Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:49 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, my point has always been about the percentage of tax paid. Let's just say the rate was 20% for everyone, regardless of how much they earned - after the personal allowance of £11,000. A person earning £15,000 a year would pay £800 a year in tax. A person earning £150,000 would pay £27,800 a year in tax. That's a lot of money, so what's wrong with having a standard rate?

Absolutely nothing; that 'flat tax rate' is what the former Gov. Jerry Brown used and what Ralph Nader ran on his agenda {twice} for POTUS...but the wealthy among us here in the states have cried FOUL - loud and clear!

They won't/don't want to give up all of their tax credits and loop holes that every republican president has provided those upper echelon wealthy residences...then toss in those hidden accounts - off shore banking places and they've not been paying their obligated 'fair share' period Evil or Very Mad

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:53 am

You see, I just wonder if people would stop hiding a lot of their money if the tax rate was fairer. OK, so they only pay 40% (or 45%) after they earn a certain amount, but that's not really the point. Paying such a high rate may well make them a bit resentful. It's like someone is saying - right, you deserve to keep 80% of the money you earn, but if you earn too much, we'll only let you keep 60% (or 55%). It makes no sense to me. Obviously, the more they earn, the more they'll pay in real terms anyway if the rate was fixed at 20%.

by Guest Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:12 am

I think this Elizabeth Warren quote says it best:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:15 am

sassy wrote:I think this Elizabeth Warren quote says it best:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

That's all very well, but those who have started businesses and built them up aren't necessarily going to see it that way if they're asked to pay huge percentages in tax. Remember that those people gave other people jobs - people who weren't going to start their own businesses or take any risks themselves. Without those who do build up businesses, there would be a load of people living in the streets because they wouldn't have jobs and there wouldn't be enough money to pay them benefits.

by Sponsored content