At least £21tn in being hidden in global tax havens

Ellis Dee

Diego Maradona wrote: »

What's a trillion?

It's a one with three fiddy noughts after it.:):):)

Capt'n Midnight

Michael O'Leary ranting about paying over 50% tax on his €1.1m a year http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oleary-ill-quit-ireland-if-they-raise-income-tax-2853865.html

http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-richest-people-in-ireland/
on the rich list he's worth £355m (€455) so he'd have to have been saving all his nett pay since 1169 OR it's been acquired in a more tax efficient way.

Invested in a savings account here at 3% the DIRT from €455 would be over €4m a year.

Diapason

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

on the rich list he's worth £355m (€455) so he'd have to have been saving all his nett pay since 1169 OR it's been acquired in a more tax efficient way.

I'm no fan of O'Leary nor his ranting, but this isn't necessarily true. He could have made capital purchases out of after-tax earnings, and they could have accumulated in value significantly. If so, I'm sure he'll pay capital gains in full on their disposal.

(I'm sure this is what's happened. Definitely.)

Blowfish

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Michael O'Leary ranting about paying over 50% tax on his €1.1m a year http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oleary-ill-quit-ireland-if-they-raise-income-tax-2853865.html

http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-richest-people-in-ireland/
on the rich list he's worth £355m (€455) so he'd have to have been saving all his nett pay since 1169 OR it's been acquired in a more tax efficient way.

Indeed. He owned stock in Ryanair. His 'tax efficient' way of increasing his wealth was by building Ryanair from being virtually worthless to being one of the biggest airlines in Europe, which now has a market cap of 8.2Billion. The vast, vast majority of his €455 million is made up of assets, not income.

This is exactly why touting the 21Tn figure is nonsense.

Capt'n Midnight

Diapason wrote: »

He could have made capital purchases out of after-tax earnings, and they could have accumulated in value significantly. If so, I'm sure he'll pay capital gains in full on their disposal.

Like I said it's done in a more tax efficient way.

Remember that you can write off losses against income tax, so there is less downside for someone at higher rates of tax to gamble on the markets than for someone on minimum wage. Unless I'm mistaken that means a guaranteed return of at least 42% of what you invest.

Johnny Cage

squod wrote: »

Speculators create 0 jobs. Plenty of them are super rich.

This is completely wrong, Speculators are vital to an economy. Speculators on commodity futures allow producers and manufacturers to hedge against risk thus protecting their businesses which protects jobs.

Speculators investing in equity or debt allows company's to grow which creates jobs and provides new goods and services to consumers. They invest in businesses and hope to get a return. They make money if the business grows and becomes successful. These businesses provide jobs that were created due to business expansion from investment by the speculator.

The problem is when cronies use their political influence and get the state to make the taxpayers pay for there losses. Because the state has so much power it's very profitable for cronies to buy politicians and get them to enact legislation and regulations to benefit them.

If the state didn't have the power which can be bought by cronies, corporations would actually have to spend their time improving their goods and services instead of lobbying.

And all you socialists want is for the state to have more power:rolleyes:

titan18

Shryke wrote: »

Titan the last part of your post is really terrible and I hope you're messing.

?

Shryke

titan18 wrote: »

Shryke wrote: »

Titan the last part of your post is really terrible and I hope you're messing.

?

You don't think the super wealthy should contribute to society except to pay road tax. That's what you said. I can't believe you even have to ask for gods sake.
I'm writing this off as a piss take. You got me.

squod

Johnny Cage wrote: »

And all you socialists want is for the state to have more power:rolleyes:

All you what now? Since when am I a socialist?

Johnny Cage wrote: »

This is completely wrong, Speculators are vital to an economy. Speculators on commodity futures allow producers and manufacturers to hedge against risk thus protecting their businesses which protects jobs.

Speculators investing in equity or debt allows company's to grow which creates jobs and provides new goods and services to consumers. They invest in businesses and hope to get a return. They make money if the business grows and becomes successful. These businesses provide jobs that were created due to business expansion from investment by the speculator.

How many companies were destroyed by long term investors?:rolleyes:

Johnny Cage

squod wrote: »

All you what now? Since when am I a socialist?

I don't know if you are a socialist, Are you? That was directed at all the people who are advocating socialist policies in this thread.

How many companies were destroyed by long term investors?:rolleyes:

Please explain how long term investors destroy companies?

squod

Johnny Cage wrote: »

Please explain how long term investors destroy companies?

dafuq did I just read?

Johnny Cage wrote: »

I don't know if you are a socialist, Are you? That was directed at all the people who are advocating socialist policies in this thread.

Look at it my way. In every other sector that's gone ''out of control'' we've levied taxes to relieve the problem. Example; This week some government idiot is going to make booze dearer so poor people can't afford to get as drunk as rich folk. Got it? Use taxation to stop abuse.

I don't see why speculators can't get the same treatment as any other citizen. If turning over a fast few quid is you're game then the potential effects of that speculation should be accounted for. Tax them. Seem fair?

titan18

Shryke wrote: »

You don't think the super wealthy should contribute to society except to pay road tax. That's what you said. I can't believe you even have to ask for gods sake.
I'm writing this off as a piss take. You got me.

Not sure how you thought I said that tbh. I was saying why should they pay a larger percentage of their income to pay for services, especially when they dont even use them. Pay the same percentage as everyone else is fair enough, but more is stupid imo

Scioch

titan18 wrote: »

Not sure how you thought I said that tbh. I was saying why should they pay a larger percentage of their income to pay for services, especially when they dont even use them. Pay the same percentage as everyone else is fair enough, but more is stupid imo

Because they are not just paying for services they are contributing to the growth and betterment of society as a whole by easing the burden on the rest of society which they depend on to keep their wealth, positions and luxury possible.

Society needs those services to function and even the super rich need society to function. Its not a restaurant tab to be paid for by whoever eat what. Its society which benefits everyone simply by running smoothly and keeping people happy and working and living a decent standard of life. Keep driving that wedge between those at the top and those at the bottom and where do you think we will end up ?

Either with those at the bottom deciding enough is enough and heading off on a tangent or those at the top all but enslaving those at the bottom forcing them into a position where they have no option but to work and pay taxes and consume in an endless cycle while other sit on there arses and hoover up the profit generated by that to live like kings.

The widening of the gap between rich and poor isnt in the best interest of society. I'm sure those with money or who have bought into the whole "lets all get rich" outlook dont care much about society or anyone in it as long as you get yours. But thats why the state exists, to protect people from each others greed and self interest and to try and keep society growing through innovation and peoples standard of living rising and stop it all from descending back in the dark ages where the haves bolstered their position and lives of luxury by keeping everyone else down.

Not that people who operate solely by self interest will give two shíts about any of that.

Johnny Cage

squod wrote: »

dafuq did I just read?

Lol, you are making no sense now. Please tell me how many companies were destroyed by long term investors and how they destroyed them?

Look at it my way. In every other sector that's gone ''out of control'' we've levied taxes to relieve the problem. Example; This week some government idiot is going to make booze dearer so poor people can't afford to get as drunk as rich folk. Got it? Use taxation to stop abuse.

I don't see why speculators can't get the same treatment as any other citizen. If turning over a fast few quid is you're game then the potential effects of that speculation should be accounted for. Tax them. Seem fair?

Increasing prices of alcohol won't stop alcoholics from paying for it, all that does is increase the prices for people who don't abuse it and is another easy target for the state to tax as they know we will pay higher prices for alcohol. Anyway the price of alcohol is high here compared to alot of countries.

We already have a tax on speculators, it's called capital gains and it is the same for all citizens. Its 30% at the moment. Taxing them means that the speculators have less money to use to invest in other assets which could be new businesses who need investment.
Instead the government gets to use this money probably to bail out their mates who lost their bets.

squod

Johnny Cage wrote: »

Lol, you are making no sense now. Please tell me how many companies were destroyed by long term investors and how they destroyed them?

Pot, kettle, black.

Johnny Cage wrote: »

We already have a tax on speculators, it's called capital gains and it is the same for all citizens. Its 30% at the moment. Taxing them means that the speculators have less money to use to invest in other assets which could be new businesses who need investment.
Instead the government gets to use this money probably to bail out their mates who lost their bets.

We have VAT on booze. The government are using an extra taxation as a control measure. Where's the control measure on making a fast buck by speculating in an inflated market?

Johnny Cage

squod wrote: »

Pot, kettle, black.

Fine don't bother explaining then

We have VAT on booze. The government are using an extra taxation as a control measure. Where's the control measure on making a fast buck by speculating in an inflated market?

If people want to speculate on an inflated market they are perfectly entitled too. They are taking a big risk but that's their decision.

squod

Johnny Cage wrote: »

If people want to speculate on an inflated market they are perfectly entitled too. They are taking a big risk but that's their decision.

We've seen the effects of this and you're posting in a thread about those effects. Your solution is fuhk it. Let it happen again.

You're a big help.

Johnny Cage

squod wrote: »

We've seen the effects of this and you're posting in a thread about those effects. Your solution is fuhk it. Let it happen again.

You're a big help.

No my solution is reducing the size and powers of goverment, you're solution is give them more power and take more money from people.

You blame the speculators for inflating the housing market yet who gave them the loans to bid up prices? The banks.

Who gave the banks the money? The ECB

Where did the ECB get the money? It created it out of thin air and can create as much money as it wants and fix the price of money by setting interest rates.

Who gives them this power? The Governments

Why did they give them this power? Because they get to borrow indefinitely as the ECB just creates the money they can always get finance where no sane investor would lend to them. They also get to spend the money first while prices are cheap, everyone else gets the inflation.

The Government actually encouraged people to buy houses and gave tax breaks. Banks engaged in wreckless lending because the more loans they gave the more money they made. They also knew they would be saved when the shtf.

The Government allows all this to happen and all you want to do is make them increase taxes to confiscate more wealth off people who earned it legitimately
all the while cronies like Seanie FitzPatrick and David Drumm aren't in jail.

squod

Johnny Cage wrote: »

No my solution is reducing the size and powers of goverment, you're solution is give them more power and take more money from people.

You blame the speculators for inflating the housing market yet who gave them the loans to bid up prices? The banks.

Who gave the banks the money? The ECB

Where did the ECB get the money? It created it out of thin air and can create as much money as it wants and fix the price of money by setting interest rates.

Who gives them this power? The Governments

Why did they give them this power? Because they get to borrow indefinitely as the ECB just creates the money they can always get finance where no sane investor would lend to them. They also get to spend the money first while prices are cheap, everyone else gets the inflation.

The Government actually encouraged people to buy houses and gave tax breaks. Banks engaged in wreckless lending because the more loans they gave the more money they made. They also knew they would be saved when the shtf.

The Government allows all this to happen and all you want to do is make them increase taxes to confiscate more wealth off people who earned it legitimately
all the while cronies like Seanie FitzPatrick and David Drumm aren't in jail.

That's about the size of it. If I've learned anything it's having no contingency plan is a bad idea. Levying taxes to discourage speculation on inflated markets is better than leaving speculators to regulate themselves.

''Legitimate'' is a cheap word now. It implies trust in the process of law making. As you pointed out, we can't trust lawmakers and governments generally.

Capt'n Midnight

Johnny Cage wrote: »

We already have a tax on speculators, it's called capital gains and it is the same for all citizens. Its 30% at the moment. Taxing them means that the speculators have less money to use to invest in other assets which could be new businesses who need investment.

If the super rich actually paid 30% on their capital gains then fair enough.

Residence and domicile are taken into account for a number of taxes including income tax, Deposit Interest Retention Tax, gift tax, inheritance tax and Capital Gains Tax.

By being non resident they can avoid most of those taxes.

The point is they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.