The Chronicles of Rishi

[Sephiroth]

@John:

The two cases bear no relation to each other. Where’s your evidence that Sunak diverts attention from governing to pursue additional wealth?

The other things that you cited as being wrong in the UK are indeed wrong. That’s down to bad government as a whole not down to Sunak’s wealth.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@John:

The two cases bear no relation to each other. Where’s your evidence that Sunak diverts attention from governing to pursue additional wealth?

The other things that you cited as being wrong in the UK are indeed wrong. That’s down to bad government as a whole not down to Sunak’s wealth.

The burden should be on those in power to demonstrate they place aside their own personal interests from decision making - not the other way round.

Bad government leaves a massive cloud of incompetence where someone could reasonably hide nefarious decision making. Nobody is saying he’s sleeping at the wheel - so ‘attention diverted’ isn’t required. He could reasonably have two decisions in front of him with good and bad evidence to support both outcomes and lean more into the ones that generate personal wealth for his own interests. This could be extremely difficult to evidence - I’m certainly not making an accusation but that’s why we call for higher standards and ethics in public life - so even the appearance of being potentially grubby is avoided.

I wonder if - anywhere in the world - there’s evidence of a democratically elected politician supporting a policy or outcome where someone can directly point to it costing their own financial interests that predate their lives in politics.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@Ian

Sorry, but your last was a disgusting post. It was personal and, indeed, rabid.

Whete is the evidence that Sunak has avoided any tax he should have paid? Or is it just the envy that he is rich and most others are not?

Sunak came onto politics rich and that’s no reason not to stay rich anr reap the benefits of his past investments.

You’ve surpassed any of you other vitriolic replies.

To the New Seph, you need to wind in the hyperbole here. Your words, disgusting and rabid, are so over the top as to be humorous

To the Old Seph, you deliberately deflect into tax evasion. I am not addressing this here, rather I am addressing the moral position of an ultra-wealthy person paying a lower effective tax rate than a nurse (or similar). Saying that the ultra-wealthy should not pay the same tax as the rest of us because the laws that were created from their sponsorship allow them to is not a cogent argument.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

<SNIP>

To the Old Seph, you deliberately deflect into tax evasion. I am not addressing this here, rather I am addressing the moral position of an ultra-wealthy person paying a lower effective tax rate than a nurse (or similar). Saying that the ultra-wealthy should not pay the same tax as the rest of us because the laws that were created from their sponsorship allow them to is not a cogent argument.

Yours is entirely a polemic argument that cannot be resolved.
Sunak and his wealth are facts. Same goes for any wealthy person who is not a politician and there is nor reasonable basis for attacking this.

However, you have said (or implied) that the governing party has allowed laws that favour the rich (aka Tory party donors), for example not closing tax loopholes. It would be difficult for me to refute that - the VIP scheme for Covid speaks to that.

But, for me, the choice is being governed by the Conservatives (admittedly more Thatcher and less the present muppets), or Labour who pretend to support the "masses" but is similarly (to other parties) only interested in power, which they would use to kick people who have worked hard to rise in society.

Sadly, this awful government of incompetents have blown it for the Conservatives and you will get, in part, what you wish for.

Regards - Old Seph.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am addressing the moral position of an ultra-wealthy person paying a lower effective tax rate than a nurse (or similar). Saying that the ultra-wealthy should not pay the same tax as the rest of us because the laws that were created from their sponsorship allow them to is not a cogent argument.

As long as it’s legal, what’s the problem?

Originally Posted by Pierre

As long as it’s legal, what’s the problem?

No one said it isn't legal, they are saying the tax system should be changed.

[Pierre]

I thought Ian was suggesting it was immoral that a wealthy person should pay so little tax. I was merely highlighting that morality shouldn’t come into it. It’s ether legal or it isn’t.

As it’s legal, I see no reason to change it.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I thought Ian was suggesting it was immoral that a wealthy person should pay so little tax. I was merely highlighting that morality shouldn’t come into it. It’s ether legal or it isn’t.

As it’s legal, I see no reason to change it.

Well, people are going to pay as little as legally possible in tax. It's not immoral for someone not to overpay their taxes.

The fact it's legal is the reason to change it if you want them to pay more.

Originally Posted by Damien

Well, people are going to pay as little as legally possible in tax. It's not immoral for someone not to overpay their taxes.

The fact it's legal is the reason to change it if you want them to pay more.

Actually, most of the tax avoidance cases are usually firms trying to find loopholes in existing legislation, which are later proven not to exist, thus they/their customers have to pay back the tax they tried to avoid (often with interest and/or fines)*.

So, often, they were never legal in the first place, it was just people trying it on…

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...oidance-scheme

If you are involved in any of the tax avoidance schemes shown on this page, or recognise any of the promoters, enablers or suppliers, and are not already talking to HMRC about your tax position you should contact HMRC as soon as possible. There is more information about how to do this below. You can also report a tax avoidance scheme to HMRC.

There are other schemes, promoters, enablers and suppliers that HMRC cannot publish information about at this time. This may be because:

HMRC is gathering information about the promoter, enabler, supplier or avoidance schemes being marketed

HMRC is considering representations from a promoter, enabler or supplier
the appeal period for not withdrawing a stop notice has not ended

HMRC is not aware of the tax avoidance scheme, promoter, enabler or supplier

If a tax avoidance scheme is not shown in the list, this does not mean that the scheme works or is in any way approved by HMRC. HMRC does not approve tax avoidance schemes for use.

*this info comes from a close friend, who is a Senior Tax Partner in one of the Big Four accountancy firms, so I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s talking about

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well, people are going to pay as little as legally possible in tax. It's not immoral for someone not to overpay their taxes.

The fact it's legal is the reason to change it if you want them to pay more.

It’s not immoral for someone to not overpay tax - I don’t think Pierre claimed it was.

However the question of who pays tax, where and when in a country does result from the morals or values that have driven policy making.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

As long as it’s legal, what’s the problem?

Just because it is legal does not make it right. Just look back into history for all the proof you need to validate this point.

But on a wider point here, those small number of people who think that they should not contribute to this society in the same way the vast majority do, specifically rely on people, like Pierre here, to parrot lines like:

- it's legal, where's the problem
- they "earned" their money, they should be able to keep it
- if we upset the rich people they will leave and we will be doomed

This line of thinking by a population groomed over the centuries is exactly what is needed to be challenged.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

I thought Ian was suggesting it was immoral that a wealthy person should pay so little tax. I was merely highlighting that morality shouldn’t come into it. It’s ether legal or it isn’t.

As it’s legal, I see no reason to change it.

You misunderstand the definition of morality here:

"morality"

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

The distinction between right and wrong over the years has always been a societal one based on the consensus at the time. I am confident that a significant majority of the population would agree with the proposition that an ultra wealthy individual should contribute, at a minimum, the same as a Nurse.

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s not immoral for someone to not overpay tax - I don’t think Pierre claimed it was.

However the question of who pays tax, where and when in a country does result from the morals or values that have driven policy making.

A good summary

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

Here is some interesting data on UK Wealth Inequality:

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-e...-inequality-uk

One of points made is this:

By 2023, the richest 50 families in the UK held more wealth than half of the UK population, comprising 33.5 million people. If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP.

Is this "Moral"?

[Sephiroth]

Old Sep here:

An ultra-wealthy individual contributes fare more than a nurse.

Ian’s basic premise, as stated, is false.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Just because it is legal does not make it right.

That’s all I was after.

I’ve just been fishing over here and I knew it wouldn’t be long before I caught what I wanted.


Now, if everyone can apply the above sentence to the Huw Edwards thread, I’d appreciate it. My work here is done.

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s all I was after.

I’ve just been fishing over here and I knew it wouldn’t be long before I caught what I wanted.


Now, if everyone can apply the above sentence to the Huw Edwards thread, I’d appreciate it. My work here is done.

Well, since not everyone* applied that philosophy in that thread, why should everyone do so?

*in fact, very few did…

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Old Sep here:

An ultra-wealthy individual contributes fare more than a nurse.

Ian’s basic premise, as stated, is false.

Nope, that was New Seph! Old Seph would listen to the logic of the argument and try and reason based on worked examples rather that generic, unsupported, statements.

---------- Post added at 20:38 ---------- Previous post was at 20:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s all I was after.

I’ve just been fishing over here and I knew it wouldn’t be long before I caught what I wanted.


Now, if everyone can apply the above sentence to the Huw Edwards thread, I’d appreciate it. My work here is done.

Not quite Mr Holmes. When you come back with the supporting evidence that Huw Edwards did something wrong, people might listen to you.

When you rant & rage based on an incorrect clickbait article from a Tabloid Rag then I am not surprised no one took you seriously.