 |
| Welcoming Tax Dodgers |
|
| Written by Sheila Killian | |
| Friday, 22 February 2008 | |
|
A depressing little story from The Irish Examiner notes that “Ireland Inc is well positioned to benefit from new tax laws aimed at foreigners living and working in Britain, which may result in an exodus of wealthy expatriates.” The background to this story is straightforward. Resident, non-domiciled individuals in Britain pay tax only on income arising within the country and on foreign income only when it is remitted into the UK. Many are extremely wealthy, and keep this wealth offshore, avoiding tax. There has been considerable moral outrage in Britain at the fact that very rich people are enjoying life in London while paying virtually no tax. In response, the government now proposes a levy of £30,000 per year on such individuals, which many consider remarkably low. According to the article in Saturday's Examiner, this represents an opportunity for Ireland. The idea is that these tax-dodging moguls will drift over west, and set up home in Dublin. This is, at best, implausible. Dublin and London are very different cities, and multimillionaires rarely relocate on foot of a £30,000 tax bill. More fundamentally, the idea is depressing. These wealthy individuals, to be clear about it, are in the news because they have been avoiding tax in London, and now an Irish newspaper expresses the hope that they can be enticed to avoid tax in Dublin instead. I’ve written before about how Ireland has tailored its tax system to meet the needs of multinational corporations. However, getting excited at the prospect of welcoming in tax-dodging individuals would represent a new low in the Irish attitude to taxation. Apart from buying property, it’s difficult to see what contribution such people would make to the country. But of course, the article doesn't mention the country. It’s not about Ireland. It's about “Ireland Inc,” whatever that is. This matters even if you've never been to Ireland, even if you don't avoid tax by manipulating residence rules. It matters as an indicator of attitudes towards tax, government, citizenship and residence. Tax is part of the social contract, part of democracy. Governments collect it and use the revenue to serve the needs of those they serve; the country's residents. There are people to whom residence means only tax status, who roam the world paying tax only when and where they choose. They are living outside of that social contract, while enjoying its benefits. They are undermining it in a very real way. It is the essence of social irresponsibility. If the article in The Examiner is not simply hyperbole, if we have really reached a point where countries welcome such residents, then that's a milestone to be sadly noted. Disclosure: I live in Ireland. I pay tax. I do not hold shares in Ireland Inc., and I am unsure where it is incorporated. Site disclaimer. Photo:Toastyken , Creative Commons, Flickr 
Photo:MikeSchinkel, Creative Commons, Flickr Ireland 
Opinions 
Sheila Killian 
Taxes 
Comments
(6)
...
written by TC , February 25, 2008
"Ireland Inc" is incorporated in our hearts.
...
written by Adam Waitt , February 28, 2008
First two paragraphs were very interesting. The third I completely disagree with.
My opinion on the subject: Most of society are the victims of the government school system who has indoctrinated us with the belief that taxes are essential to the continuation of a successful society. Taxes, especially income tax, in addition to being unconstitutional are not part of the social contract. It is a highly evolved form of mob rule that the vast majority of individuals has accepted as requisite and ineludible. Although they take great measures to make you believe otherwise, governments do not serve the residents. They use all of that revenue not to protect you, but rather to protect the state; to ensure the continuation of their organization. Now it is a matter of opinion on whether or not this practice is the best course of action. It is my personal opinion that individuals are entitled to 100% of the fruits of their labor. In addition, each of us are inherently better at protecting our interests then a centralized entity that must generalize policy in order to institutionalize "law". It is very convenient for governments that the more they "provide" for citizens, the more those citizens rely on the government to provide. This justifies their unquenchable thirst for expansion of both power and taxes. Not to mention that governments are incessantly inefficient and rarely follow through with what they promise. The nanny state is in full effect. We passed that milestone a while back. People still have the ability to provide for themselves but are either to lazy to do so or have been so conditioned to fear, they believe they can not. Do you remember the first time you heard Benjamin Franklin's quote, "nothing is certain but death and taxes"? The reason that was funny and ironic is because deep down inside everyone knows that in reality taxes are not certain, are not a necessity, we just have put up with them for so long we feel like they are.
...
written by Adam Waitt , February 28, 2008
The way the current social contract is set up... you may be right, it probably wouldn't function with out taxes.
This only solidifies my point however. The majority of the programs that taxes fund are completely unnecessary, and the programs which are legitimate would be more then compensated for in a anarcho-capitalist society. Anarcho-capitalism is built on the tenets of self-ownership, no initiation of force, voluntary transactions of property motivated by personal gain. The theory on how this system of society would work are relatively simple (the nonaggression axiom) but require each issue to be explored separately to have thorough understanding. Google anarcho-capitalism and you will find too much literature. I agree it is a very important discussion. I also believe it is a bigger topic then just taxes. All forms of force can be categorized similarly. Disclaimer: I recognize that this is my opinion and in no way am I trying to preach.
...
written by Adam Waitt , February 28, 2008
Anarcho-capitalism is not prefect. There are problems with all systems. However, I believe we would be much better off, and we would have fewer problems in a purely voluntary society. It would be a ethically sound society based on natural law.
Tag it:           | |
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 02 March 2008 ) | |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Company Profiles |
| Individual Profiles |
| Movie Reviews |
| Culture-Celebrity |
| Opinions |
| Staff Recommendations |
| Resources |
 ThePanelist Latest Postings Alternative Energy Christian Investing Climate Women Neubert's Trades Social Culture Technology |
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed