In Iceland since we are such a tiny nation of only 330,000 people the % of people/companies in these papers has shocked an already skeptical nation. We are in fact WAY higher than other countries and this has been big news about Iceland in the EU, the level of corruption and tax evasion here is rampant.
This while our healthcare system is struggling, and the anger here is growing, even after the prime minister was forced to step down, now we see why the middle class burden tax wise is not enough because so many that can do hide their money elsewhere and IF they all did what the rest of us do and paid their taxes, then we would have a much better social system and could even look at lowering taxes for the middle class.
If such a significant amount of money is not being collected in taxes by the wealthy here in Iceland it has a significant impact on our society.
That's really interesting.
Is it limited to those employed in the banking industry that defaulted, or is it permeated through more industries?
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
This conversation is not going anywhere unless we agree on the definition of "rich". We tried it before and we cannot agree. Rich is always someone that makes more money than you. For a kitchen worker on minimum wage at a fast food restaurant pretty much everyone else is rich. For a university student everyone else is rich. But an engineer or accountant with a decent job earning $200K/yr salary, paying 38% in taxes, 45-50% of what's left in 30-yr mortgage, property taxes and insurance, saving a few dollars for kids' education and retirement does not consider himself rich. However; the government does and goes after the engineer and accountant. He maxes out his RRSP and can't hide anymore of his income to reduce taxes.
I always say that rich are those who do not have to work for money anymore (meaning that they have enough free capital to generate income sufficient to maintain their lifestyle). And this group can and will do everything in their power to reduce the amount of taxes owing through a myriad of available tax management tools (trusts, off-shore, business losses offsetting gains, personal corporations, dividends etc.). And rightly so. I would too, if I were them.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
To generalize is to be an idiot. William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
^ I find it bizzarely ironic that Murray Edwards has relocated to England (likely because of weather, but I suppose the favourable tax treatment of money may have also factored into it) but yet he is interested in receiving government funding for an arena.
what if we all moved like him?
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
I'd say my definition of rich is largely the same.
And yes, generally speaking few people would not take advantage of strategies available to them to reduce their tax burden. What I'm suggesting is that it's a bit of a shame that the CRA generally concerns themselves with making sure that they grab every dollar from that 200k/a engineer, and meanwhile you've got bs like this going on: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/k...nces-1.3540285
I'm not necessarily worried about what's fair, but what is sustainable. If the answer to "rich people are avoiding taxes" is "well you should avoid them too" then we have Greece to show us where that goes.
*** all uses of 'you' are general.
Equally annoying is "well, it's not illegal"
There have been some pretty terrifying things through our short history that have been legal, some still in effect.
"Well I'd do it too" would you if it was illegal, but you could afford it anyways. Is it being illegal the only reason you don't? Or do you think that everyone paying fair taxes is fundamental need to run a society the way we do/want to?
It's not the boogeyman "government's" fault this stuff exists (both tax loopholes and inefficient spending), the governments change all the time and these problems have remained through a lot of it. It's our fault. The government is a representative of us, and if we're too apathetic to actually care, to not make a stink about these types of situations, why would they ever change? There's a lot of powerful forces pushing to keep this stuff as it is, it won't change with people just sitting here going "booo bad!" or "well i'd do it too if I could." Maybe we should be trying to find a way so no one can, regardless of how well you pay your accountants.
You mean, what if we all had that kind of wealth? I think it would have been a dream come true.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
To generalize is to be an idiot. William Blake
There have been some pretty terrifying things through our short history that have been legal, some still in effect.
"Well I'd do it too" would you if it was illegal, but you could afford it anyways. Is it being illegal the only reason you don't? Or do you think that everyone paying fair taxes is fundamental need to run a society the way we do/want to?
It's not the boogeyman "government's" fault this stuff exists (both tax loopholes and inefficient spending), the governments change all the time and these problems have remained through a lot of it. It's our fault. The government is a representative of us, and if we're too apathetic to actually care, to not make a stink about these types of situations, why would they ever change? There's a lot of powerful forces pushing to keep this stuff as it is, it won't change with people just sitting here going "booo bad!" or "well i'd do it too if I could." Maybe we should be trying to find a way so no one can, regardless of how well you pay your accountants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indes
A horribly inefficient, bloated, money devouring system.
Trudeau spent 4.3b dollars abroad in his first 100 days and didn't even bat an eye.
Not that he personally is the whole problem. I'm not sure why I'm paying taxes
when the benefit is not even to our society, but I am sure I wouldn't if I didn't have to.
I think most people don't mind paying taxes but when the money just vanishes (either overseas or into a cluster#### of public services)
it's difficult to be commited.
Is there anyone who thinks we get good value on the dollar once it's in the governments hands?
This is the thing, when you're expecting certain people to bear the tax burden they have to get something for that money. Even if that something is nothing more than 'Perceived Value.'
Its difficult to quantify the value of all of the benefits we receive but when you have people of very high net worth and you want them to pay more in taxes it cant be perceived that you are throwing that money away.
The type of person who has that kind of money is pretty typically the same type of person. They're wealthy through whatever means it took them but they've also probably sacrificed to get the money they have and they are averse to just 'throwing it way.'
If you have that perception and stigma, and Government certainly has that in spades, then the type of person we're trying to get money out of would certainly rather keep it as opposed to letting someone else 'waste' it.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
This is the thing, when you're expecting certain people to bear the tax burden they have to get something for that money. Even if that something is nothing more than 'Perceived Value.'
Its difficult to quantify the value of all of the benefits we receive but when you have people of very high net worth and you want them to pay more in taxes it cant be perceived that you are throwing that money away.
The type of person who has that kind of money is pretty typically the same type of person. They're wealthy through whatever means it took them but they've also probably sacrificed to get the money they have and they are averse to just 'throwing it way.'
If you have that perception and stigma, and Government certainly has that in spades, then the type of person we're trying to get money out of would certainly rather keep it as opposed to letting someone else 'waste' it.
Yes, but what I'm saying is that the "waste" is our fault. Everyone's from poor students to Murray Edwards. There's always this blame on the "government", but the government is (supposed to be) a representative of us. If the actions are not representing the will of the majority, then the broken system is not the tax system, it's the system used to choose who makes the decisions, and the system that allows people with more money to have more of a voice. It's on the citizenry to change that, not "the government". We've had governments ranging from Harper to Douglas, and this stuff has seen no significant change due to the power held by a few people who can warp even the most ideological people. You could argue it's a systemic issue, or a human nature issue, or a mix of both, but that is the issue. Bloated government and tax loopholes are symptoms of a much larger problem. Most people agree these loopholes should be closed, so why do they never get closed?
...Bloated government and tax loopholes are symptoms of a much larger problem. Most people agree these loopholes should be closed, so why do they never get closed?
Because the wealthy people fund political parties and have enormous amount of influence on the political decision makers no matter which political party is in power.
As for the people being responsible for the governments they elect: not entirely accurate. USSR and China had 100% elected governments for close to a century - initially, on belief, later on fear and, finally, out of ignorance, because there were no other choices. On the opposite side of the planet - US will soon have two choices: Trump or Clinton, none of whom are liked much by the majority of their population, as well said by Obama at the WHCD. At some point, elections become a formality and people elect whoever has the wits, means and connections to get on the ballot. And then 200-300 elected officials raise their hands like puppets to approve the budget decisions made by 10-12 appointed ministers based on the advice given to them by their staff/their donors/their bosses. Good? Bad? Who knows.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
To generalize is to be an idiot. William Blake
Because the wealthy people fund political parties and have enormous amount of influence on the political decision makers no matter which political party is in power.
As for the people being responsible for the governments they elect: not entirely accurate. USSR and China had 100% elected governments for close to a century - initially, on belief, later on fear and, finally, out of ignorance, because there were no other choices. On the opposite side of the planet - US will soon have two choices: Trump or Clinton, none of whom are liked much by the majority of their population, as well said by Obama at the WHCD. At some point, elections become a formality and people elect whoever has the wits, means and connections to get on the ballot. And then 200-300 elected officials raise their hands like puppets to approve the budget decisions made by 10-12 appointed ministers based on the advice given to them by their staff/their donors/their bosses. Good? Bad? Who knows.
Seems to me the overall problem is money in general (or the way we view/value it).
Good or bad, I don't think is the question. You could say it's good because pretty much everyone is better off then they were 100 years ago as far as health and opportunity goes. But does that mean it can't improve? Drastically?
I feel the same about money. We haven't really been using it very long, and it's becoming increasingly worthless with the speed at which it moves and the sheer amount of it. Is it the best thing we've come up with as a means of exchange? Yes. Can it be altered or improved upon? Absolutely IMO. It's not some fundamental law of nature that we can't break, but there are a lot of people who can't see a world beyond something like that.
You mean, what if we all had that kind of wealth? I think it would have been a dream come true.
I was thinking more along the lines of what if we all did everything we could to sidestep all the tax we possibly could.
I am sure I could go to an account/lawyer that could help me set up some type of structure to make this possible - it may take me a couple of years to make this arrangement pay for itself, but presumably it would.
as a Canadian, I accept the responsibility of paying taxes - it is a tradeoff for roads, schools, hospitals, trails in banff etc. to me, murray is not fulfilling his role as a citizen.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
I'm not being defensive! You're the one who's being defensive! Why is always the other person who's being defensive? Have you ever asked yourself that? Why don't you ask yourself that?
OMG must find that on youtube, one of the best!
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Is it limited to those employed in the banking industry that defaulted, or is it permeated through more industries?
Well its everywhere, a guy running a union, company owners, executives, famous celebrities, politicians, fishing barons (owners of huge quotas), Mid sized businesses, well known "wealthy/powerful" families, The wife of the President who's British (his position is like the governor general in Canada), the Prime Minister who stepped down, the Minister of Finance and his father and close relatives (still in charge of the conservative party), plus the files were opened yesterday and Facebook and the newspapers are a flood with big names in Iceland.
Just to give you an idea, of all the nations the lists of % per capita of names release was all around .1% to .4%, then there is Iceland around 2%!! Thats ENORMOUS.
The protests after CBC of Iceland RUV showed a documentary on the Panama leaks done by a team of investigative journalists in Iceland, which had an infamous moment where the PM was asked (and not expecting) a question by a Swedish journalist about his involvement in the holding company he and his wife have called Wintris. The moment he realizes he's caught is just so awesome.
The day after protests at Parliament numbered in around 35,000 to 40,000 people, this represents 10% of the population.
^ I find it bizzarely ironic that Murray Edwards has relocated to England (likely because of weather, but I suppose the favourable tax treatment of money may have also factored into it) but yet he is interested in receiving government funding for an arena.
what if we all moved like him?
Who moves to England for the weather?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to habernac For This Useful Post:
I disagree. You're doing well making $200k, but if you live within your means, are raising a family, socking away for retirement, maxing out RESPs, etc., then you have more in common with the guy making $60k per year than the guy with $10 mil in the bank.
You're far from the point of having your money earn an income of its own making $200k. You have to get up every day and go to work still. You have to budget. You have to plan for retirement. You can't spend willy-nilly if you want to be growing your net worth.
There are lots of guys that make that kind of money and certainly many in Calgary that look rich in that every second car is a BMW or Audi these days and the houses are beautiful. But if you're spending everything you make without actually growing your net worth, then you could hardly be called rich.
You're mistaking a high income with being rich. It's your net worth that should define whether or not you're rich.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
I disagree. You're doing well making $200k, but if you live within your means, are raising a family, socking away for retirement, maxing out RESPs, etc., then you have more in common with the guy making $60k per year than the guy with $10 mil in the bank.
You're far from the point of having your money earn an income of its own making $200k. You have to get up every day and go to work still. You have to budget. You have to plan for retirement. You can't spend willy-nilly if you want to be growing your net worth.
There are lots of guys that make that kind of money and certainly many in Calgary that look rich in that every second car is a BMW or Audi these days and the houses are beautiful. But if you're spending everything you make without actually growing your net worth, then you could hardly be called rich.
You're mistaking a high income with being rich. It's your net worth that should define whether or not you're rich.
You can try to play it any way you want, but if you make more money yearly than 97.2% of the taxable population, you are rich, even if you don't "feel" like it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
lol in the news today A University of Iceland Lecturer on Tax law was named in the panama papers today. ahahahahahahaha Iceland is such a joke.
Kinda makes sense that a expert on tax law is going to know the best ways to avoid it. Just because they're on this list doesn't mean they've violated any laws.
But it does kinda make sense that Iceland let their banks fail in 08, turns out none of their money was in them!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dan02 For This Useful Post:
Oh of course, but you have to understand Iceland has this prominent idealogy that we all contribute and pay our share to make sure we have a strong healthcare, welfare and social system.
In fact all the major parties speak often about this, lecturing people on everyone doing their part by working, paying taxes, buying Icelandic products when possible, etc.. All while of course lowering corporate tax rates, cutting taxes on the wealthiest.
Ironically the Finance Minister leader of the Independence party (our conservatives) before the election said its crucial that we are aggressive in seeking out those that avoid paying taxes, hide money offshore all the while having an offshore company.
In his case he became the Finance minister after the election, and was handling major sales of some of the banks assests and working to pay debtors all the while having massive conflict of interest within his own family who had claims on these banks and other institutions.
Then there is the long history of Icelands debt forgiveness, if you go under in your mortgage, lose the home, you still owe the bank most of your owing debt. Small businesses as well run in to this harsh non bankruptcy way of life. However the wealthiest and most powerful routinely have their debts cleared off when faced with failures, including our Finance minister who has had now in the last 10 years Millions of dollars simply written off by the banks.
Its infuriating, the level of backroom deals, corruption, powerful interests controlling the major parties and effectively making Iceland a Nordic banana republic.
