Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[prowla]

5 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

 

If this is your logic, so is putting money into a tax-free investment vehicle like an ISA.  Terms like "tax avoidance" are used pejoratively.

 

Graveyard of ambition this country...

Yes they are; just government-sponsored incentives. 

Tax avoidance is used pejoratively by people who conflate it with tax evasion. 

[prowla]

4 hours ago, oldslapper said:

To go out of one’s way to avoid/evade/minimise tax contributions speaks volumes to me about the “evolution” of society. 

To be able to contribute and help fund basic social needs such as health care, housing, safety, education, transport, sanitation, etc is a privilege and one that should be celebrated. 

I hate this world more and more. 

See - that's conflating avoidance and evasion. 

I would suggest that it is everybody's duty to avoid paying as much tax as they possibly can. 

[Steve Browning]

16 minutes ago, prowla said:

See - that's conflating avoidance and evasion. 

I would suggest that it is everybody's duty to avoid paying as much tax as they possibly can. 

 Without wanting to draw this out too much. The Duke of Westminster case states it is everyone's 'right'. Duty suggests you should always pay the most for everything because that maximises the amount of tax paid for anything. Noone in their right mind does that.

 

Whatever the moral rights or wrongs, avoidance, in all its forms is legal, and noone can be criticised as long as they act within the Law. The onus is on any Government to construct Laws such that they achieve the aim of the Government enacting that Law. If there is a presumed loophole, it is for the Government alone to a) recognise it and b) legislate against it. Whether a Government will do that might be dependent on who lobbies who and whether they can convince the lawmakers that it should remain or not. Possibly (for us cynics) a perfect example of 'who you know'.

[Dad3353]

22 minutes ago, prowla said:

... I would suggest that it is everybody's duty to avoid paying as much tax as they possibly can. 

 

That's quite a strong statement. Would you care to explain your rational..? 

 

(And 'No, I don't agree with such a notion of 'duty' ...).

[SteveXFR]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/eggs-fentanyl-border-seizures-b2716917.html

 

This could be slightly embarrassing for Trump

[tegs07]

21 minutes ago, SteveXFR said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/eggs-fentanyl-border-seizures-b2716917.html

 

This could be slightly embarrassing for Trump

I think you will find that it’s all Biden’s fault.

[martthebass]

21 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

I think you will find that it’s all Biden’s fault.

Yup, no doubt the ‘ministry of truth’ will be rewriting documents and destroying old ones to support this as we speak.

[SteveXFR]

41 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

I think you will find that it’s all Biden’s fault.

 

Fair point. Best close down another federal department and lockup Biden. 

[JoeEvans]

In reality the lines between acting without regard for tax; tax avoidance; tax evasion; and downright fraud and criminality are pretty grey and blurred. They denote broad ideas not precisely defined activities.

[TimR]

Meanwhile he's just announced a new 6th generation fighter plane will be built (actually planned 5 years ago) and named the F-47.

 

Even the Generals are trolling him.

[Steve Browning]

7 minutes ago, JoeEvans said:

In reality the lines between acting without regard for tax; tax avoidance; tax evasion; and downright fraud and criminality are pretty grey and blurred. They denote broad ideas not precisely defined activities.

That's true up to a point but the ever increasing amount of case law brings more focus. The overriding principle is whether something is done purely for a tax advantage. 

 

Back in my day, the case that established this was that of the Halifax Building Society. They established a complex structure that enabled them to recover VAT that would otherwise be lost. 

 

The case went all the way to the European Court where the structure was deemed to be purely for tax and the Court looked through the structure and found against them.

[SteveXFR]

27 minutes ago, TimR said:

Meanwhile he's just announced a new 6th generation fighter plane will be built (actually planned 5 years ago) and named the F-47.

 

Even the Generals are trolling him.

 

He also said export models will be downgraded because "who knows when they'll be enemies" Lockheed Martin's share value immediately crashed because he instantly killed the export market.

[prowla]

2 hours ago, Steve Browning said:

 Without wanting to draw this out too much. The Duke of Westminster case states it is everyone's 'right'. Duty suggests you should always pay the most for everything because that maximises the amount of tax paid for anything. Noone in their right mind does that.

 

Whatever the moral rights or wrongs, avoidance, in all its forms is legal, and noone can be criticised as long as they act within the Law. The onus is on any Government to construct Laws such that they achieve the aim of the Government enacting that Law. If there is a presumed loophole, it is for the Government alone to a) recognise it and b) legislate against it. Whether a Government will do that might be dependent on who lobbies who and whether they can convince the lawmakers that it should remain or not. Possibly (for us cynics) a perfect example of 'who you know'.

 

I conflated "right" and "duty" to minimise the tax you pay.

I certainly didn't say you should pay the most for everything and thereby maximise it!

[Steve Browning]

6 minutes ago, prowla said:

 

I conflated "right" and "duty" to minimise the tax you pay.

I certainly didn't say you should pay the most for everything and thereby maximise it!

Quite so. My apologies. 

 

Probably should leave this to the main subject now. 

[Agent 00Soul]

4 hours ago, TimR said:

 

Don't let Trump know that. Atheists are next on the Enemies of the State list...

 

I'm probably safe in the UK - Sir Kier will no doubt protect me.  Everyone else back in the US....?

 

Edited Sunday at 20:18 by Agent 00Soul

[prowla]

Just now, Steve Browning said:

Quite so. My apologies. 

 

Probably should leave this to the main subject now. 

I agree - it is an interesting discussion, but best elsewhere.

Then again, the main subject appears to be somewhat elastic; I guess that's one of the issues with interweb chats, ie. they seem to branch off in all softs of directions and sub-topics.

[tegs07]

3 minutes ago, prowla said:

I agree - it is an interesting discussion, but best elsewhere.

Then again, the main subject appears to be somewhat elastic; I guess that's one of the issues with interweb chats, ie. they seem to branch off in all softs of directions and sub-topics.

To be fair 63 pages solely focused on tariffs would be tricky to fill …. even with someone erratic as Trump.

[Agent 00Soul]

8 hours ago, oldslapper said:

To be able to contribute and help fund basic social needs such as health care, housing, safety, education, transport, sanitation, etc is a privilege and one that should be celebrated. 

 

I don't think I've heard anybody say something like that since Michael Dukakis in 1988.

[TimR]

22 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

To be fair 63 pages solely focused on tariffs would be tricky to fill …. even with someone erratic as Trump

 

It would basically be 64 pages of;

 

Trump: We are putting Tariffs on Canada.

Carney: We are putting Tarrifs on USA.

Trump: As Canada are going to do some things they already were going to do, we are going to delay tarrifs.

Carney: As America are going to delay Tarrifs for a few weeks, so are we...

 

Repeat...

[Count Bassy]

13 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

Making Tax Digital means we all have to use systems like Xero or Quickbooks. They’re fiddly and annoying.

 

In my case I have found that the digitisation has made life an awful lot easy.

 

Still use Excel for my books/records and use 100PcVATfreebridge to submit it.

Brilliant!

[prowla]

46 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

To be fair 63 pages solely focused on tariffs would be tricky to fill …. even with someone erratic as Trump.

It could be quite taxing…

[Downunderwonder]

6 hours ago, JoeEvans said:

In reality the lines between acting without regard for tax; tax avoidance; tax evasion; and downright fraud and criminality are pretty grey and blurred. They denote broad ideas not precisely defined activities.

Yeah,nah. Tax law does get tested from time to time but in the main it is very clear, not at all blurry. If you need accounts staff they should be right on top of it.

 

If you tell them to send funds not to the taxnan but to your other entity then you risk being found to be a criminal. It's very rare for the taxman to lose patience with a criminal and go to court and far rarer still that he loses.

 

Mostly they get theirs without a whole lot of fuss. If there is jail time on the table most criminals make accommodations before it gets to court. Not even bankruptcy court.

 

Big time tax criminals occasionally get away too long and spent too much of it, take them on in court vainly hoping to reduce the bill, and mostly lose big time. Not many get jailed but the mansions are no more.

 

Property developers who mess up a deal wind up unable to pay taxes. The clients going them from the other side tips them over. If they misrepresented something they can wind up in jail owing both. Not pretty.

 

[Steve Browning]

5 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

Yeah,nah. Tax law does get tested from time to time but in the main it is very clear, not at all blurry. If you need accounts staff they should be right on top of it.

 

If you tell them to send funds not to the taxnan but to your other entity then you risk being found to be a criminal. It's very rare for the taxman to lose patience with a criminal and go to court and far rarer still that he loses.

 

Mostly they get theirs without a whole lot of fuss. If there is jail time on the table most criminals make accommodations before it gets to court. Not even bankruptcy court.

 

Big time tax criminals occasionally get away too long and spent too much of it, take them on in court vainly hoping to reduce the bill, and mostly lose big time. Not many get jailed but the mansions are no more.

 

Property developers who mess up a deal wind up unable to pay taxes. The clients going them from the other side tips them over. If they misrepresented something they can wind up in jail owing both. Not pretty.

 

Tax law is far from clear in most cases. It becomes more so as a result of case law, but they often fail to be precise, for fear of drawing the line in the wrong place. 

 

There will be some clear situations but many will be open to interpretation. Hence the evolution through Tribunals and, ultimately, the Courts. 

 

Sorry, getting drawn in again. I'll get off my soapbox now!!

[JoeEvans]

5 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

Yeah,nah. Tax law does get tested from time to time but in the main it is very clear, not at all blurry. If you need accounts staff they should be right on top of it.

 

If you tell them to send funds not to the taxnan but to your other entity then you risk being found to be a criminal. It's very rare for the taxman to lose patience with a criminal and go to court and far rarer still that he loses.

 

Mostly they get theirs without a whole lot of fuss. If there is jail time on the table most criminals make accommodations before it gets to court. Not even bankruptcy court.

 

Big time tax criminals occasionally get away too long and spent too much of it, take them on in court vainly hoping to reduce the bill, and mostly lose big time. Not many get jailed but the mansions are no more.

 

Property developers who mess up a deal wind up unable to pay taxes. The clients going them from the other side tips them over. If they misrepresented something they can wind up in jail owing both. Not pretty.

 

I think 'tax planning' shades pretty gently into 'tax avoidance', and as mentioned above, HMRC often have to go to court to clarify the boundary between avoidance and evasion.

More broadly, it's an argument about the meaning of words, and words don't have fixed definitions - people use them in different ways and dictionaries just report those usages.

[tegs07]

Bringing this all back to Trump and tariffs. One of the big reasons Trump was elected was the belief that the cost of living crisis was down to the Democrats economic policies. The same reason driving a resurgence of right wing parties throughout the western hemisphere.

 

Basically demographic change has made the number of people paying taxes, driving consumption, investment, productivity and fuelling economic growth shrink in proportion to the demographic planning for retirement and drawing down on their savings and spending.

 

In middle age people tend to look for ways of paying for their retirement. This can be via investment in assets such as property or stocks and shares ISAs, SIPs etc. As the discussion so far has illustrated there are plentiful opportunities to take money out of the hands of the taxman and into these investments. The very low costs of borrowing due to the actions of central banks during the financial crisis has been an asset acquisition bonanza for anyone able to borrow.

 

Simultaneously the baby boomers are retiring, getting sick and generally drawing down on their investments.

 

When added together in means that growth is much slower, tax take is less and social spending higher compared with a younger demographic. This shift is crucial in understanding why people are struggling and economic growth is weak. Simply paying people more in isolation will not help as it will stoke inflation during a very volatile period (cost of living crisis anyone).

 

Governments need to cut costs, raise taxes, increase growth and productivity, invest more. This is a bit like saying we need to eat more, get slimmer, spend less but consume more. It’s contradictory and incredibly difficult to plan a route out of. 

 

Its also a very good reason why people should be very cautious about potential leaders who have empty promises and whose policies and agenda are sound bites, blame and bile.

 

Is there genius behind the small government, low tax and tariff based philosophy? I can’t find any economists who agree that this policy will work. The only article I found that was pro MAGA and tariff was referring the past (as far back as 1789)!

 

As for small government. There have been many people (particularly in the USA) that have had sensible and pragmatic ideas about this. I am not convinced that the roughshod Musk treatment is effective or ethical. It just seems like a power grab, deeply flawed and beset with moral hazard.

Edited Monday at 08:18 by tegs07