Rooney24
Full Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 8,345
Nope. Just applying some objective thinkingWere you named as well?
Nope. Just applying some objective thinkingWere you named as well?
Stopping voting for them would be a start, the UK public is currently giving this behaviour the green light.What could us normies actually do (In a make believe reality where a significant percentage of us gave enough of a shite to act) to start clawing this nonsense back? The world is twisted, yet they're such a small percentage of the population.
Serious question.
There really isn’t because as you have clearly described that is a clear separation of his personal assets and the financial situation of the state of Jordan.So the king of Jordan has a multi multi million dollar property empire whilst his country receives £650 million of aid from britain, yep, nothing to see here
Were you named as well?
99% the two are related at that level. The absolute worst case would be tax evasion/avoidance.There really isn’t because as you have clearly described that is a clear separation of his personal assets and the financial situation of the state of Jordan.
It’s the equivalent of asking the Queen to help out from her personal assets to repay loans of the UK.
Now if the King of Jordan was siphoning off assets of the state and transferring them all offshore and personally benefitting then that’s an entirely different story. Which is what happened in the Malaysian 1MDB case. Then by all means throw the book at them.
Im absolutely in favour of that, although it wouldnt be asking, it would be forcibly removing assets from her, her noncey parasitic offspring and associated toadies and hangers on and relocating her to some shithole sink estate in leeds.There really isn’t because as you have clearly described that is a clear separation of his personal assets and the financial situation of the state of Jordan.
It’s the equivalent of asking the Queen to help out from her personal assets to repay loans of the UK.
Now if the King of Jordan was siphoning off assets of the state and transferring them all offshore and personally benefitting then that’s an entirely different story. Which is what happened in the Malaysian 1MDB case. Then by all means throw the book at them.
Im absolutely in favour of that, although it wouldnt be asking, it would be forcibly removing assets from her, her noncey parasitic offspring and associated toadies and hangers on and relocating her to some shithole sink estate in leeds.
Would that cause a housing dip? Tbh I've given up on the whole "waiting for a price crash". If covid can't do it nothing can.The government really ought to restrict house buying to U.K. nationals only.
Yep, me and my partner are trying to buy a property and it’s been a nightmare, every single house is being snapped up so quickly by others like me. The cnuts.Would that cause a housing dip? Tbh I've given up on the whole "waiting for a price crash". If covid can't do it nothing can.
And what about those in government taking advantage of these loop holes? Which they created themselves?
Me also. And I don’t want to come off like I am defending these people - I’m not. I’m simply saying they are taking advantage of the loop holes that their governments fail to close. That’s the real issue not that Tony Blair saved some stamp duty.
until the loop holes are closed and the punishments are severe enough to really be a deterrent nothing will change and it will just continue.
that’s mainly who I’m talking aboutAnd what about those in government taking advantage of these loop holes? Which they created themselves?
Who are we kidding though. Those that aren't in government have the government in their pocket. Them creating legislation to minimise their tax is a shit, shit justification for this being ok.
What?It’s an absolute non story and poor journalism. One of the lead stories on the bbc this morning is about the president of Kenya.
then you read beyond the headline that he has made all declarations the law requires of him, it’s not illegal to own offshore companies, and there is no evidence he did anything wrong.
morally questionable? For sure.
a crime ? Not at all
The point is, the law is not always the best compass for measuring right and wrong.It’s an absolute non story and poor journalism. One of the lead stories on the bbc this morning is about the president of Kenya.
then you read beyond the headline that he has made all declarations the law requires of him, it’s not illegal to own offshore companies, and there is no evidence he did anything wrong.
morally questionable? For sure.
a crime ? Not at all
The same way the Emir of Qatar. Do you think it makes an iota of difference to him or any of the Sheiks in the Middle East or for that matter majority of the public there?I feel like the way these things are put out always make it harder for them to have much of an impact. Always a huge, intimidating amount of data that includes a mix of illegality, legal loopholes, grey areas and often completely legal transactions.
Sachin Tendulkar and Shakira have been named and both have said that all their holdings were legal and reported to the tax authorities. But because they are famous names, you'll get them mentioned in the same article as people who have actually broken the law. You dilute the impact by including cases like these.
Agree. But neither are peoples individual morals and ethics.The point is, the law is not always the best compass for measuring right and wrong.
Exactly, which is why the law is not always up to speed with the collective views of the population.Agree. But neither are peoples individual morals and ethics.
I listened to the Washington Post Post Reports podcast about the South Dakota aspect. I knew Delaware and Nevada were onshore tax havens, but the easy corruption of South Dakota by the trust industry demonstrates how unprepared most state legislatures are for handling these types of things. They don't have the knowledge or resources, especially in GOP states where they refuse to fund them, to create fair laws on complex legal and regulatory matters. It's why they outsource so much legislation to ALEC and other groups. It's much cheaper to buy off a state like South Dakota, Alaska, or Wyoming than it is to manipulate New York or California.
They design the rules as well, so it can't be illegal.The sad thing about all this is that while relatively speaking it's unethical and corrupt it wasn't actually illegal, all this.
What a mockery of the whole system, we've seen panama papers doesn't actually ended up with anyone being jailed, not even frowned upon.
Not breaking laws… easier when you influence what the laws should beI would understand if the people are using the tax payers money but in some countries there are no tax payers money and they are not breaking any laws.
They're not paying the tax as they should have, so in a way they're stealing tax payer's money.I would understand if the people are using the tax payers money but in some countries there are no tax payers money and they are not breaking any laws.
There is no income tax in some countries. So they do not have to pay tax.They're not paying the tax as they should have, so in a way they're stealing tax payer's money.
If 100bn is needed for the running of the country, them not paying 2bn among them is 2bn additional burden on the taxpayer.