HSBC scandal: a system designed for tax fraud

GORDONSMITH7

Admin
Private Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Refreshingly clear and frank article which cuts through the utter pap I witnessed yesterday with Tory boy Andrew Neil's interviews on the subject of the HSBC scandal.

Friday, 13 February 2015 .....Written by Guy Howie (Socialist Appeal)


This week revelations on BBCs Panorama have sparked an explosive scandal: HSBC, the UKs largest and the worlds second largest bank, has been caught facilitating industrial-scale tax evasion, committed by some of its wealthiest clients. Thousands of leaked bank account files obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the BBC, The Guardian and others show that between 2005 and 2007 the banks Swiss arm colluded with clients to conceal money and whole bank accounts from their respective domestic tax authorities, whilst also marketing aggressive tax avoidance schemes for its wealthiest customers. The accounts involved were worth an estimated $119bn.

In addition, the Swiss subsidiary has been found to have offered its services to so-called high risk clients (i.e. criminals), such as international arms traffickers, those connected with blood diamonds and bribery, and those with links to the toppled dictatorships of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia. It offered unconditional non-disclosure of its clients activities to national authorities, even though some of them had a track records of corruption and the bank had clear evidence that many accounts were undeclared to tax authorities.

High profile public figures are now facing tax-dodging allegations in connection with HSBC in Switzerland, including: King Abdullah II of Jordan, members of the Saudi, Bahrain and Omani royal families; musicians David Bowie, Tina Turner and Phil Collins; actors Christian Slater, Joan Collins and John Malkovich; several Formula One drivers, tennis player Marat Safin, model Elle MacPherson; and numerous business moguls, the late Australian media tycoon Kerry Packer among them. Three of the Saudi clients were also members of what US intelligence called the Golden Chain, a list of twenty names with close ties to former Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Yet another banking disgrace

This story has caused an international news sensation and generated outrage from the British public; but it does not come as a surprise. HSBCs criminal accounting in Switzerland is just the latest in the long line of repugnant banking crimes which have been uncovered since ordinary British taxpayers saved the banks in 2008.

HSBC itself has a precedent in the last three years. In July 2012, it was revealed that the banks US subsidiary had helped Mexican drug cartels, along with organisations and states on UN blacklists, to launder billions of dollars. $7bn had moved between the Mexico and US divisions of HSBC, while the banks staff themselves admitted that the majority was from drug-trafficking. In fact, HSBCs anti-money laundering director testified that he thought ''60% to 70% of laundered proceeds in Mexico had gone through the bank! It was already being discussed in the US senate two-and-a-half years ago that HSBC was facilitating corrupt practices through its accounts, in particular in relation to criminal cartels and pariah states. The result? A $1.9bn slap on the wrist (amounting to less than 0.1% of the HSBCs total assets) and the resignation of the banks head of compliance no further action.

Meanwhile, in Britain, the Libor scandal broke in 2012, implicating a cartel of banks in the fraudulent manipulation of the average interest rate of London banks a practice which the Financial Times claimed had been happening since 1991. And, in November last year, five of the worlds biggest banks JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Citigroup, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and, once again, HSBC - were collectively fined $4.25bn by US, British and Swiss authorities for fixing foreign exchange rates. The scandal compelled Channel 4 Economics Editor Paul Mason to lament, as he stood outside RBS London headquarters, Why do we have to keep coming [back here]? The British banking system - along with rest of the capitalist establishment - seems embroiled in a never-ending series of scandals. In this case, again, no one was charged with any offence.

In fact, in the case of the current HSBC scandal, the French authorities intercepted the files in question from the IT expert who leaked them seven years ago, and they were passed onto the British government in 2010. In the five years since, only one out of the 1,100 wealthy British tax fraudsters has been charged! HSBC has never been prosecuted!

What is more, Herv Falciani, the former HSBC employee who hacked customer accounts to leak these files, claimed this week: This is only the tip of the iceberg. Theres more than [the thousands of pages] the journalists have. Several million transactions (between banks) are also in the documents I transmitted.

These figures could give an idea of what lies at the bottom of the iceberg. Several hundred times what has been reported this week could be what lies at the bottom of this scandal. And this is only for one bank - one of the many which have been implicated in criminal activity over the last decade.
What this relatively small amount of evidence points to is the collusion of the global banking system, big business, wealthy individuals and the British government, among other governments and states, in the practice of money laundering and tax evasion on a colossal scale, beyond the wildest imaginations of the majority who are not part of this super-rich elite.

Government of the bankers, by the bankers, for the bankers

David Cameron would do well to recycle his campaign slogan from the last general election: Were all in it together. This time maybe it wouldnt ring so hollow; it would be very clear what he means. It is easy for most people to see that the Tory government, the banks and big business are all in it together, as they always have been. The Independent reported last week that 27 of the richest 59 hedge fund managers in Britain had donated a combined 19m to the Conservative Party, including 10m since 2010. These incredibly wealthy businessmen are essentially buying their say in the governments policies, including their right to evade millions of pounds in taxes each year.

We have already seen this Tory governments propensity for hiring criminals, as well as its ability to play down or cover up crimes in which it could be implicated, with the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. Andy Coulson was editor of the News of the World until 2007, when he resigned amidst allegations of phone-hacking engulfed him before Cameron duly appointed him Downing Street Director of Communications. He has now been released early from prison after being convicted of phone-hacking, Downing Streets fall guy as only thirteen others of the 104 arrested on suspicion of being involved in that highly-organised criminal operation were convicted. The rest got off scot-free, including David Camerons personal friend Rebekah Brooks.

Similarly, not only has this government failed to bring the perpetrators of this HSBC scandal to justice, but they employed as a Trade Minister the man who was Executive Chairman of HSBC Group from 2006 until 2010, for a whole eighteen months during the period the scandalous evidence was recorded. Lord Green, who was appointed a Tory life peer in 2010 and acted as Minister of State and Investment for two government departments between 2011 and 2013, has refused to make a statement since the scandal broke this week. He previously came under scrutiny when he was part of the government as the money laundering scandal involving HSBCs US and Mexico subsidiaries broke in 2012. At the time he said that he shared in the regret that the bank professed to have, whilst also affirming how proud he was of his banking career.

Likewise, leading cabinet ministers have been thoroughly unrepentant this week over the government negligence involved in the scandal and the employment of Green. The Prime Minister himself jumped to Greens defence on Monday, describing him as an excellent Trade Minister. He spent Wednesdays Prime Ministers Questions shirking any blame the government deserved for having known about the scandal for five years and managing to keep the whole thing quiet whilst avoiding the prosecution of any of their wealthy friends.

And why would any of them repent? The line was drawn from the very beginning: this is the government of the financiers and big business, not of the people. Turning a blind eye as billions of pounds are swindled from the public purse is what these politicians are there to do; it is how they earn their 13m a year in private donations to the Tory party and cushy board positions after they retire from public life.

Indeed, in 2011 the government negotiated a deal with Switzerland apparently meant to tackle offshore tax evasion, which included immunity from prosecution for HSBC bankers. The man who brokered this deal, Dave Hartnett, at the time Permanent Secretary for Tax at HMRC, later stepped down from his post after being accused of making sweetheart deals with multinational firms, giving them huge tax cuts. In January 2013, he was then given a job as a special advisor at HSBC!

Even if bank bosses are not fully aware that super-rich Saudis with direct links to Al-Qaeda or Mexican drug cartels have been laundering money through their accounts, or that more than $100bn went missing from tax revenues around the world in just three years, which is highly dubious, their negligence is born out of the system - a system that their friends in the Tory Party are there to defend. Their insatiable drive for profit, for broadening the quantity of assets at their disposal, the number of fingers they have in the number of pies, makes all other concerns incomparably secondary. HSBC bosses didnt care who their Swiss bank was catering for, as long as the flow of capital was greater and they were getting richer. This is a symptom of the disease of capitalism: regulation can never be a priority where there are profits to be made.

Ed Miliband is right to draw attention to the Tories close ties with big business and the banking sector; Labour MPs are right to put questions about Lord Green to the Prime Minister. But if these things are to beyond the pantomime charades typical of Parliament then there must be calls for the nationalisation of the banks under democratic workers control. It has already been established that the ground swell of public opinion in Britain is in favour of re-nationalising rail and energy companies.

In the wake of these latest galling revelations there has never been a better opportunity to place this opinion on a concrete basis: to demand that the banks and their assets become property of the people; that account books are opened to the general public, and those found to have broken the law are brought to justice; and that the vast sums of wealth currently being withheld by these private institutions and individuals be taken into public ownership and reinvested in a better society for the majority to whom these scandals are completely alien and repulsive.


BIG G
 
Refreshingly clear and frank article which cuts through the utter pap I witnessed yesterday with Tory boy Andrew Neil's interviews on the subject of the HSBC scandal.

Friday, 13 February 2015 .....Written by Guy Howie (Socialist Appeal)


This week revelations on BBCs Panorama have sparked an explosive scandal: HSBC, the UKs largest and the worlds second largest bank, has been caught facilitating industrial-scale tax evasion, committed by some of its wealthiest clients. Thousands of leaked bank account files obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the BBC, The Guardian and others show that between 2005 and 2007 the banks Swiss arm colluded with clients to conceal money and whole bank accounts from their respective domestic tax authorities, whilst also marketing aggressive tax avoidance schemes for its wealthiest customers. The accounts involved were worth an estimated $119bn.

In addition, the Swiss subsidiary has been found to have offered its services to so-called high risk clients (i.e. criminals), such as international arms traffickers, those connected with blood diamonds and bribery, and those with links to the toppled dictatorships of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia. It offered unconditional non-disclosure of its clients activities to national authorities, even though some of them had a track records of corruption and the bank had clear evidence that many accounts were undeclared to tax authorities.

High profile public figures are now facing tax-dodging allegations in connection with HSBC in Switzerland, including: King Abdullah II of Jordan, members of the Saudi, Bahrain and Omani royal families; musicians David Bowie, Tina Turner and Phil Collins; actors Christian Slater, Joan Collins and John Malkovich; several Formula One drivers, tennis player Marat Safin, model Elle MacPherson; and numerous business moguls, the late Australian media tycoon Kerry Packer among them. Three of the Saudi clients were also members of what US intelligence called the Golden Chain, a list of twenty names with close ties to former Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Yet another banking disgrace

This story has caused an international news sensation and generated outrage from the British public; but it does not come as a surprise. HSBCs criminal accounting in Switzerland is just the latest in the long line of repugnant banking crimes which have been uncovered since ordinary British taxpayers saved the banks in 2008.

HSBC itself has a precedent in the last three years. In July 2012, it was revealed that the banks US subsidiary had helped Mexican drug cartels, along with organisations and states on UN blacklists, to launder billions of dollars. $7bn had moved between the Mexico and US divisions of HSBC, while the banks staff themselves admitted that the majority was from drug-trafficking. In fact, HSBCs anti-money laundering director testified that he thought ''60% to 70% of laundered proceeds in Mexico had gone through the bank! It was already being discussed in the US senate two-and-a-half years ago that HSBC was facilitating corrupt practices through its accounts, in particular in relation to criminal cartels and pariah states. The result? A $1.9bn slap on the wrist (amounting to less than 0.1% of the HSBCs total assets) and the resignation of the banks head of compliance no further action.

Meanwhile, in Britain, the Libor scandal broke in 2012, implicating a cartel of banks in the fraudulent manipulation of the average interest rate of London banks a practice which the Financial Times claimed had been happening since 1991. And, in November last year, five of the worlds biggest banks JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Citigroup, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and, once again, HSBC - were collectively fined $4.25bn by US, British and Swiss authorities for fixing foreign exchange rates. The scandal compelled Channel 4 Economics Editor Paul Mason to lament, as he stood outside RBS London headquarters, Why do we have to keep coming [back here]? The British banking system - along with rest of the capitalist establishment - seems embroiled in a never-ending series of scandals. In this case, again, no one was charged with any offence.

In fact, in the case of the current HSBC scandal, the French authorities intercepted the files in question from the IT expert who leaked them seven years ago, and they were passed onto the British government in 2010. In the five years since, only one out of the 1,100 wealthy British tax fraudsters has been charged! HSBC has never been prosecuted!

What is more, Herv Falciani, the former HSBC employee who hacked customer accounts to leak these files, claimed this week: This is only the tip of the iceberg. Theres more than [the thousands of pages] the journalists have. Several million transactions (between banks) are also in the documents I transmitted.

These figures could give an idea of what lies at the bottom of the iceberg. Several hundred times what has been reported this week could be what lies at the bottom of this scandal. And this is only for one bank - one of the many which have been implicated in criminal activity over the last decade.
What this relatively small amount of evidence points to is the collusion of the global banking system, big business, wealthy individuals and the British government, among other governments and states, in the practice of money laundering and tax evasion on a colossal scale, beyond the wildest imaginations of the majority who are not part of this super-rich elite.

Government of the bankers, by the bankers, for the bankers

David Cameron would do well to recycle his campaign slogan from the last general election: Were all in it together. This time maybe it wouldnt ring so hollow; it would be very clear what he means. It is easy for most people to see that the Tory government, the banks and big business are all in it together, as they always have been. The Independent reported last week that 27 of the richest 59 hedge fund managers in Britain had donated a combined 19m to the Conservative Party, including 10m since 2010. These incredibly wealthy businessmen are essentially buying their say in the governments policies, including their right to evade millions of pounds in taxes each year.

We have already seen this Tory governments propensity for hiring criminals, as well as its ability to play down or cover up crimes in which it could be implicated, with the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. Andy Coulson was editor of the News of the World until 2007, when he resigned amidst allegations of phone-hacking engulfed him before Cameron duly appointed him Downing Street Director of Communications. He has now been released early from prison after being convicted of phone-hacking, Downing Streets fall guy as only thirteen others of the 104 arrested on suspicion of being involved in that highly-organised criminal operation were convicted. The rest got off scot-free, including David Camerons personal friend Rebekah Brooks.

Similarly, not only has this government failed to bring the perpetrators of this HSBC scandal to justice, but they employed as a Trade Minister the man who was Executive Chairman of HSBC Group from 2006 until 2010, for a whole eighteen months during the period the scandalous evidence was recorded. Lord Green, who was appointed a Tory life peer in 2010 and acted as Minister of State and Investment for two government departments between 2011 and 2013, has refused to make a statement since the scandal broke this week. He previously came under scrutiny when he was part of the government as the money laundering scandal involving HSBCs US and Mexico subsidiaries broke in 2012. At the time he said that he shared in the regret that the bank professed to have, whilst also affirming how proud he was of his banking career.

Likewise, leading cabinet ministers have been thoroughly unrepentant this week over the government negligence involved in the scandal and the employment of Green. The Prime Minister himself jumped to Greens defence on Monday, describing him as an excellent Trade Minister. He spent Wednesdays Prime Ministers Questions shirking any blame the government deserved for having known about the scandal for five years and managing to keep the whole thing quiet whilst avoiding the prosecution of any of their wealthy friends.

And why would any of them repent? The line was drawn from the very beginning: this is the government of the financiers and big business, not of the people. Turning a blind eye as billions of pounds are swindled from the public purse is what these politicians are there to do; it is how they earn their 13m a year in private donations to the Tory party and cushy board positions after they retire from public life.

Indeed, in 2011 the government negotiated a deal with Switzerland apparently meant to tackle offshore tax evasion, which included immunity from prosecution for HSBC bankers. The man who brokered this deal, Dave Hartnett, at the time Permanent Secretary for Tax at HMRC, later stepped down from his post after being accused of making sweetheart deals with multinational firms, giving them huge tax cuts. In January 2013, he was then given a job as a special advisor at HSBC!

Even if bank bosses are not fully aware that super-rich Saudis with direct links to Al-Qaeda or Mexican drug cartels have been laundering money through their accounts, or that more than $100bn went missing from tax revenues around the world in just three years, which is highly dubious, their negligence is born out of the system - a system that their friends in the Tory Party are there to defend. Their insatiable drive for profit, for broadening the quantity of assets at their disposal, the number of fingers they have in the number of pies, makes all other concerns incomparably secondary. HSBC bosses didnt care who their Swiss bank was catering for, as long as the flow of capital was greater and they were getting richer. This is a symptom of the disease of capitalism: regulation can never be a priority where there are profits to be made.

Ed Miliband is right to draw attention to the Tories close ties with big business and the banking sector; Labour MPs are right to put questions about Lord Green to the Prime Minister. But if these things are to beyond the pantomime charades typical of Parliament then there must be calls for the nationalisation of the banks under democratic workers control. It has already been established that the ground swell of public opinion in Britain is in favour of re-nationalising rail and energy companies.

In the wake of these latest galling revelations there has never been a better opportunity to place this opinion on a concrete basis: to demand that the banks and their assets become property of the people; that account books are opened to the general public, and those found to have broken the law are brought to justice; and that the vast sums of wealth currently being withheld by these private institutions and individuals be taken into public ownership and reinvested in a better society for the majority to whom these scandals are completely alien and repulsive.


BIG G

Nicked for Facebook :Sparkle_Cool:
 
I am not on Facebook. I read it in
Socialist Appeal erm.. As it says at the top of this thread
.

BIG G

I nicked it for and posted it on Facebook G. Not accusing you of nicking it from Facebook :thumbgrin
 
I just love a whoooosh moment :-)

- - - Updated - - -

... and when fine men about my age are described as young!
 
Correct me if I'm wrong (very good chance, btw) but is the UK the ONLY country out of all involved in this tax-con that ISN'T instigating 'Criminal-proceeding's ?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong (very good chance, btw) but is the UK the ONLY country out of all involved in this tax-con that ISN'T instigating 'Criminal-proceeding's ?

saw figures showing spain france and germany had recovered vastly more dosh than UK, though admittedly well short of what was owed

If anyone think HSBC is the only bank at it then they kidding themselves - they will all be at it...that is the crux of the matter....this countries problem is the failure to realise that this is the tip of the ice berg... like paedos on 70s TV, of course there are paedo MPs and Police Chiefs and judges... of course most MPs fiddled expenses not just one of two. I'd be amazing if most sitting in the house of lords and commons haven't tried a bit of tax avoidance (not necessarily evasion) which is morally corrupt for someone in such a position....to often the media slings us the couple of rotten apples line....rotten to the core - any country that allows the concept of non-doms whilst being run by the banks is in my eyes corrupt.

over 1M benefit fines and charges in the Con-Lib 5 yrs - ONE, feckin ONE, HSBC charge.

if you are SUSPECTED - not proven - SUSPECTED of misclaiming benefits then your benefits are stopped until it is proven otherwise.
 
saw figures showing spain france and germany had recovered vastly more dosh than UK, though admittedly well short of what was owed

If anyone think HSBC is the only bank at it then they kidding themselves - they will all be at it...that is the crux of the matter....this countries problem is the failure to realise that this is the tip of the ice berg... like paedos on 70s TV, of course there are paedo MPs and Police Chiefs and judges... of course most MPs fiddled expenses not just one of two. I'd be amazing if most sitting in the house of lords and commons haven't tried a bit of tax avoidance (not necessarily evasion) which is morally corrupt for someone in such a position....to often the media slings us the couple of rotten apples line....rotten to the core - any country that allows the concept of non-doms whilst being run by the banks is in my eyes corrupt.

over 1M benefit fines and charges in the Con-Lib 5 yrs - ONE, feckin ONE, HSBC charge.

if you are SUSPECTED - not proven - SUSPECTED of misclaiming benefits then your benefits are stopped until it is proven otherwise.

Totally agree with you on the disproportionate way benefit fraud is handled compared with scandalous corruption at the other end of the scale. But I don't think tax avoidance is morally wrong - surely it's within everyone's rights to organise their affairs within the law?

See Irvine Welsh on not paying tax in Ireland:
"Anybody would agree with a scheme where they don't have to pay tax. I didn't move here for tax reasons, but obviously as a writer I would take advantage of it."

I don't see much moral difference in that and avoiding tax you're not due to pay if you're an MP if I'm honest.
 
Totally agree with you on the disproportionate way benefit fraud is handled compared with scandalous corruption at the other end of the scale. But I don't think tax avoidance is morally wrong - surely it's within everyone's rights to organise their affairs within the law?

See Irvine Welsh on not paying tax in Ireland:
"Anybody would agree with a scheme where they don't have to pay tax. I didn't move here for tax reasons, but obviously as a writer I would take advantage of it."

I don't see much moral difference in that and avoiding tax you're not due to pay if you're an MP if I'm honest.

there's a line though....

i was active in tax avoidance when i was in receipt of childcare vouchers - (a govt scheme whereby you don't pay tax on nursery fees)

but if you are going out of your way, setting up a charities or abusing pension regulations to avoid paying tax then you've gone to far and should just pay your way.

both are legal but really, grow a pair and pay your share... a culture where it is acceptable (legally and morally) to not put into society is only going to burn everyone in the long run.
 
Totally agree with you on the disproportionate way benefit fraud is handled compared with scandalous corruption at the other end of the scale. But I don't think tax avoidance is morally wrong - surely it's within everyone's rights to organise their affairs within the law?

See Irvine Welsh on not paying tax in Ireland:
"Anybody would agree with a scheme where they don't have to pay tax. I didn't move here for tax reasons, but obviously as a writer I would take advantage of it."

I don't see much moral difference in that and avoiding tax you're not due to pay if you're an MP if I'm honest.

Irvine Welsh isn't the benchmark though H. He openly stated that he moved to Ireland to be with his partner and that the move was temporary but while he was there he took advantage of the Irish Govs tax breaks for writers scheme. That doesn't even remotely begin to compare with banks or other financial institutions actively looking for ways to avoid paying taxes, not only for their institutions but also for their clients [regardless of the clients dodginess factor] and if you can't see that there is a difference then perhaps your moral compass needs realigned :hmmm

EDIT: I realise of course that tax avoidance is merely a game rich people play to stop themselves becoming less rich and that they use loopholes expertly sought out by their advisers to facilitate said avoidance. They can hold their hands up and state that they were only doing what is lawful and in that respect they may be considered to be the same as Irvine Welsh although I'm not buying it.

The tax laws need a severe overhaul to stop firms using the "our head office is in another country" type excuse or to stop one part of a company selling items at a loss to another part of the company so they can write the loss down.

Morals play no part in the avoidance because the most important thing for a corporate giant such as Vodafone is to pay as little tax as possible regardless of how they reach the final figure and it needs to be stopped.
 
there's a line though....

i was active in tax avoidance when i was in receipt of childcare vouchers - (a govt scheme whereby you don't pay tax on nursery fees)

but if you are going out of your way, setting up a charities or abusing pension regulations to avoid paying tax then you've gone to far and should just pay your way.

Well, there are a lot of grey areas, but it's not legal to set up a charity that doesn't actually do charitable works. There are some scams that are more often abused - film financing etc - but for me it's up to a government to close loopholes, not for individuals to just voluntarily surrender their money.

both are legal but really, grow a pair and pay your share... a culture where it is acceptable (legally and morally) to not put into society is only going to burn everyone in the long run.

I agree. But for example the Irish scheme was conceived to support impoverished artists, not millionaire writers. Pay your share counts there, I would hazard, just as much as it does for google.

The point also is that we're not talking about a zero sum game. My company for example paid a six-figure tax bill this year but we were able to mitigate some in various completely legal ways. We contributed, quite fulsomely. But we also took steps to limit our exposure, and I don't think that's in any way morally corrupt.
 
Sounds like what a private school is.

Fair point, although they have an exceptional status related to their goals and - although I'm opposed to their position as charities - many do in fact carry out charitable work.

You can't just set up a charity as a wealthy individual though and then use it to pay zero tax. Well, you can, but it's against the law and you'll almost certainly be caught. Not sure what the authorities can do beyond that.
 

Their status is exceptional because their goal - education - has I suppose been viewed as standing somewhere outside the commercial realm.

My point was that they are an exception though, and not one I agree with. Their existence does not contradict my general argument that you can't just stop paying tax as a wealthy individual by 'abusing the charity system'.
 
Rich using bogus charities to avoid tax, says David Cameron's spokesman | Business | The Guardian

at the time there was anecdotal evidence on the radio of people in London setting up charities to restore listed buildings - the buildings in question being one building - that being their house - they then made massive tax free charitable donations and used the money to do up their Kensington gaff.

it might be different nowadays though.

Interesting, thanks for the link. I'm of course not saying that something like charity set-ups isn't going to be open to some abuse, just that it's not a carte blanche to pay zero tax if you're rich. And a robust Charities Commission and govt oversight need to be built in - which I think they generally are.

I hadn't heard about the listed building scam tbh and that used to be my job. Not saying it didn't happen, but I doubt it was very widespread. To play devil's advocate on it though, sometimes people who live in Listed buildings have onerous costs imposed on them and the tax system acknowledges that by providing grants on repairs for VAT. Not saying something like the charity scam is ethical though!

I guess we're going round in circles a bit and I think we mostly agree. I'd personally like to see a simpler tax code that encouraged participation and 'paying your way'. At the moment tax is complicated, which creates a culture of accountants around it who all beaver away at reducing it and creating avoidance. Most businesses and individuals would just prefer to pay a fair lump and forget about it, rather than sit in interminable meetings discussing how to eke out 4% less here and there with various dull mechanisms.

I'd also have much tougher penalties for tax evasion and some kind of attempt at transnational cooperation on business taxes. Someone once suggested to me that we should just do away with business tax entirely and only tax individuals. Which would effectively curtail business tax havens, as oligarchs don't care about having their company in the Caymans as long as they can live in London. Ask them to move there though and it's a bit different, presumably.
 
Their status is exceptional because their goal - education - has I suppose been viewed as standing somewhere outside the commercial realm.

My point was that they are an exception though, and not one I agree with. Their existence does not contradict my general argument that you can't just stop paying tax as a wealthy individual by 'abusing the charity system'.

However, doesn't that seem a faintly ironic claim (for them, or those who condone their status) to make, given that the condition of access to this wonderful charitable offering is wholly based on having enough money to buy entry? What is that, if not the absolute definition of the commercial realm?! It would seem ridiculous to have to pay to get into a soup kitchen, eh?!

I'm not disagreeing with your larger argument, by the way. I was merely musing on this specific instance of "charitable status" which I find an abhorrent contradiction-in-terms.
 
However, doesn't that seem a faintly ironic claim (for them, or those who condone their status) to make, given that the condition of access to this wonderful charitable offering is wholly based on having enough money to buy entry? What is that, if not the absolute definition of the commercial realm?! It would seem ridiculous to have to pay to get into a soup kitchen, eh?!

I'm not disagreeing with your larger argument, by the way. I was merely musing on this specific instance of "charitable status" which I find an abhorrent contradiction-in-terms.

Yeah, it's completely ridiculous. I can on the other hand see some kind of value to schools like Christ's Hospital as institutions but the whole thing's hard to square into an obviously acceptable framework.
 
Yeah, it's completely ridiculous. I can on the other hand see some kind of value to schools like Christ's Hospital as institutions but the whole thing's hard to square into an obviously acceptable framework.

That was nearly the school I went to!

I don't think it's wrong for schools to have charitable status so long as there's no shareholder dividends or other way of profit from investing.