Left a property worth 1.7 million by their Marxist dad. Right on! Their Mum still has a 3/4 million place. "The pair have legitimately avoided more than £135,000 in capital gains tax on the sale of three properties by being unmarried", wrote the Sunday Times,
According to How Rich in the States, Eddy...
''...talks transparency and stripping the big millions from politics; however he owns a 1.6 million pound house in an exclusive London neighborhood and has used the inheritance rules of the land to his advantage. Some say his net worth might be 5 million pounds or US$ 8 million.
So will you agree he is a ''posh scum'' ''git'' that you ''detest'' too?
I dont know if you checked, but if you did, only three of the cabinet inherited their wealth. Not that there is anything wrong with that, or would you call David Beckhams kids (or any footballers/managers closer to home) names, when they inherit their millions?
Interesting news earlier this year about David, too
''David Miliband is channelling his earnings of up to £21,000 a day through a controversial tax loophole his own Government vowed to close.
The former Foreign Secretary uses an ‘income-shifting’ device that was condemned by Gordon Brown’s administration.
Last night Tory MPs accused Mr Miliband of hypocrisy for taking advantage of the tax-avoidance measure.'' and that was 6 months ago.
The Labour Party has published a list of 12 wealthy backers who lent the party almost £14 million in the run up to last year's (2006, when a million was worth something!) general election.
They are:
:: Dr Chai Patel, founder of Priory Clinics, who was nominated for a peerage which was blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, lent £1.5 million;
:: Barry Townsley, the millionaire chairman of financial services company Downay Day Townsley, lent £1 million;
:: Sir David Garrard, a property developer, who lent £2.3 million. Both Sir David's and Mr Townsley's nominations for seats in the House of Lords were also blocked by the commission;
:: Andrew Rosenfeld, who was a partner of Sir David in London property group Minerva, lent Labour £1 million;
:: Rod Aldridge, who lent £1 million, is the chief executive of IT technology giant Capita;
:: Richard Caring, the clothing tycoon and owner of the fashionable Ivy restaurant, who is worth a reported £300 million, lent the party £2 million;
:: Gordon Crawford, founder of London Bridge Software, who is reported to have made a personal fortune of more than £1 billion from banking and credit management software, lent the party£500,000;
:: Professor Sir Christopher Evans, the founder and chairman of Merlin Biosciences Ltd, lent £1 million;
:: Nigel Morris, the co-founder and former president of Capital One Financial Corporation and a governor of the London Business School, lent the party £1 million;
:: Sir Gulam Noon, the curry tycoon who helped make chicken tikka masala Britain's favourite dish, lent £250,000;
:: Derek Tullett, a veteran City figure and founder of the money-broking firm which bore his name and was bought by Collins Stewart Tullett in 2003, lent £400,000;
:: Lord Sainsbury, the science minister and member of the Sainsburys supermarket dynasty who is thought to have donated more than £6 million to Labour since 2002, lent £2 million.
An awful lot of work went into that post, FM. Phew!
The point I was failing to make is that to criticise one party for being 'posh' is utterly pointless. By that measure humble origins Thatcher would be less of a ''git'' than Viscount Tony Benn or the multi millionnaire Millibands. My partner's Dad bought a house for £9,000 in Bromley in the 60's, which is now valued at 1.5 million -is his father a posh git?
The same is true of what school politicians of any party went to. Posh public school Blair, Cameron and Brown vs state school Hague and Thatcher, independent school Michael Foot or grammer school Harold Wilson and Edward Heath. Which is better which is worse - you just cant throw a sterotype or media soundbite at it.
Its simply ridiculous to label people with name calling or bestow an emotion like hatred on anyone based on their wealth or education.
I would rather the ruling cabinet of any party included a large number of people who have made their fortune by their own endeavours. They are grounded, know what its like at the lower end of the social and economic pile because they started there, and have been smart enough to climb up it.
So this lot are very little different than the other lot and their wealthy sponsors.
top 10 richest cabinet ministers 2012
Lord Strathclyde 9.6 Inherited Wealth, stake in family's estate management company, Auchendrane Estates. Also private directorships.
Philip Hammond 8.2 Stake in healthcare and nursing home developer Castlemead; consultancy work
William Hague 4.8 Income from public speaking, two books, a newspaper column and various business advisory roles
Jeremy Hunt 4.8 Stake in Hotcourses, a publisher of guides and websites for educational courses, which he co-founded
Caroline Spelman 4.5 Wealth figures primarily reflect the value of properties owned by Spelman and husband, a Senior Partner at Accenture
George Osborne 4.5 Property (inherited); stake in family-owned fabric and wallpaper designer Osborne & Little (inherited)
David Cameron 3.8 Property, most likely funded from parents/inheritance
Francis Maude 3.2 Work as managing director at morgan stanley and various directorships
Dominic Grieve 2.9 Private investment, funded by salaries as barrister and QC
Andrew Mitchell 2.2 Former investment banker, owns a number of homes, contributing to most of his wealth.
Cameron and the rest of the cabinet are all multi millionaires and I just wonder how they and or their families accrued their wealth without using tax efficient methods. Bunch of hypocritical gits.
It wouldnt take you more than 5 minutes research to find out, but I suppose that would spoil your indignation. how many Liberal members of the cabinet are multimillionnaires exactly?
FYI Osbourne's family built up a successful high end wallpaper company. I am sure all us ordinary folk would aim to make money from our business. And I would bet if we became successful every one of you who have children would leave your money to them. What are you moaning about? Should Osbournes family given it all away? To you perhaps? would that shut you up?
These 'hypocritical gits' you know sod all about - how many can you even name? - are the ones who are dedicated to eliminating these loopholes. Unlike the previous decade of snout-stuffing ''new'' labour in particular the endless measures instigated by Brown to help his multi millionnaire mates (including multimillionnaire Blair)
From the BBC about the scheme the Times highlighted ''Chancellor George Osborne wants to strengthen rules against this and similar schemes by introducing a General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR).
This aims to act as blanket legislation to allow the taxman to differentiate between what counts as responsible tax planning and what is abusive tax avoidance. Consultation on the plans has now been published, with the government intending to bring in the rule in 2013.''
Remember this rule tightening was instigated long before the Times brought the subject up.
Why didnt you socialist Darlings do something?
A socialist Darling called Alastair shafted us with bailing out the Euro and Blue labour Cameron didn't have the balls to reverse it or have the referendum on Lisbon that he promised because he was in complete agreement.
You expect the left to shaft Great Britain because they hate it and all it's institutions but not somebody whom claims to be a Conservative.
That is why I view Cameron with complete and utter contempt. He hates this country as much as the left does yet pretends to be something different.
Absolute hypocritical scum. Posh scum but still scum.
Len, for most of your posts you come across as a very decent, civilised human being, the sort of bloke I would be proud to call a friend.
As a result it makes me very sad when you post this sort of thing, just because people have different political views to you does not mean that they hate their country and its very wrong of you to say so.
We should never make the mistake of defining each other solely by our politics, that is the pathway to a lot of problems.
FM hit the nail on the head in the last page and on this one has returned to nail it well and truly in. I can only say I'm glad some people on this forum aren't running the country, it's scary.
9/10 of us would pay less tax if we could. That doesn't mean we would pay NO tax, just less. Why not keep a little bit more of your hard earned cash?
FM hit the nail on the head in the last page and on this one has returned to nail it well and truly in. I can only say I'm glad some people on this forum aren't running the country, it's scary.
9/10 of us would pay less tax if we could. That doesn't mean we would pay NO tax, just less. Why not keep a little bit more of your hard earned cash?
Hard earned cash? You're a student aren't you? You want to get into the film business if I remember rightly.
The only thing FM "nailed on the head is that he is a hyper Partisan one eyed Tory (who claims to be a Liberal) that toes the Conservative line on every issue.
I am Labour but freely admit that they got it wrong on a number of issues, its called being a grown up.
Here's the bottom line to all the Tory, flag waving "patriots" out there, the country you claim to love is in a huge fiscal hole and right now needs every pound it can muster.
Therefore, people who claim to "love" their country should be paying what they owe in order to aid the recovery and should not be looking to avoid doing so.
Quite honestly that is what most "scary" on this whole thread.
That doesn't mean we would pay NO tax, just less. Why not keep a little bit more of your hard earned cash?
And the effect of this would be what KA? I'm sorry but who's replacing those services that cannot be funded any more because everyone's paying less tax? Charities? The private sector? I think it's a fair bet your tax payer subsidised education would cost you a hell of a lot more if you had to pay privately for it.
Aliwibble's made a start outlining the many, many things that our taxes pay for, and there are 100's of others too. Some benefit us all, some our families and others people we would probably it didn't benefit being honest.
I think too many people assume that most of their tax is going to some drug addicted, dole claiming single mother and use this to justify their support for avoidance.
Cameron and the rest of the cabinet are all multi millionaires and I just wonder how they and or their families accrued their wealth without using tax efficient methods. Bunch of hypocritical gits.
It wouldnt take you more than 5 minutes research to find out, but I suppose that would spoil your indignation. how many Liberal members of the cabinet are multimillionnaires exactly?
FYI Osbourne's family built up a successful high end wallpaper company. I am sure all us ordinary folk would aim to make money from our business. And I would bet if we became successful every one of you who have children would leave your money to them. What are you moaning about? Should Osbournes family given it all away? To you perhaps? would that shut you up?
These 'hypocritical gits' you know sod all about - how many can you even name? - are the ones who are dedicated to eliminating these loopholes. Unlike the previous decade of snout-stuffing ''new'' labour in particular the endless measures instigated by Brown to help his multi millionnaire mates (including multimillionnaire Blair)
From the BBC about the scheme the Times highlighted ''Chancellor George Osborne wants to strengthen rules against this and similar schemes by introducing a General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR).
This aims to act as blanket legislation to allow the taxman to differentiate between what counts as responsible tax planning and what is abusive tax avoidance. Consultation on the plans has now been published, with the government intending to bring in the rule in 2013.''
Remember this rule tightening was instigated long before the Times brought the subject up.
Why didnt you socialist Darlings do something?
A socialist Darling called Alastair shafted us with bailing out the Euro and Blue labour Cameron didn't have the balls to reverse it or have the referendum on Lisbon that he promised because he was in complete agreement.
You expect the left to shaft Great Britain because they hate it and all it's institutions but not somebody whom claims to be a Conservative.
That is why I view Cameron with complete and utter contempt. He hates this country as much as the left does yet pretends to be something different.
Absolute hypocritical scum. Posh scum but still scum.
Len, for most of your posts you come across as a very decent, civilised human being, the sort of bloke I would be proud to call a friend.
As a result it makes me very sad when you post this sort of thing, just because people have different political views to you does not mean that they hate their country and its very wrong of you to say so.
We should never make the mistake of defining each other solely by our politics, that is the pathway to a lot of problems.
I agree so much with Ormiston. I had rather admired the way that Len would stand up for what my gran would have called 'common decency and good manners'. It's not a popular thing to do but Len took it on and that's rather brave and praiseworthy. You may define me by my politics if you wish, but I would have much preferred that Len, as a person, would allow others to hold differing views and not insult them by labelling 'the left' as shafters of Great Britain. That's just not nice so I'm treating his latest post as an aberration and expect normal service to be resumed shortly ;-)
Another saucer of milk for the Australian name-caller (hyper what??) Why the name-calling? I was trying to counter the blind ''posh git'' nonsense with some reality and balance - why does that offend your party allegiance to the extent you have to invent names for me?(not that you've voted recently, I imagine) Also you say'claims to be' - I think you mean 'is' as my pm to you explained.
Also, ''toes the conservative party line''? I think you mean ''adds balance to previous bigoted statements''.
Well clearly tax is an emotive topic. We all no doubt feel we pay too much but why people have to blur the issue with party politics is beyond me. People are entitled to their prejudices I suppose but for me there has been a cigarette papers difference between their policies for all my working life.
Having lived under 3 tax authorities the pursuit of a reduced tax burden by the wealthy is common, but in all honesty is it just their sole preserve? Is it not just a question of scale? I infer no illegality to such actions but by comparison whether you steal 500 or 50000 it is still theft.
Stateside it made an Obama State of the Union address as he condemned the US psyche for accepting it was OK for a company CEO earning millions to pay the same tax rate as his secretary. The US obsession with avoiding a "nanny" state embodies a "survival of the fittest" mantra and the self justification of the avoidance of any sense of social integrity.
I worked for a US company operating in 90 countries that paid corporation tax only in the US. It exploited every conceivable tax break. I advised on business development projects which invariably had a tax attorney in tow with whom I would endlessly have to do battle as they sought to deliberately breach prevailing international financial services legislation to protect their tax position. Tax avoidance was a religion. On posing the question why the company placed itself above the societies in which it operated and profited from, I was merely met with a few wry smiles. The answer is "because we can".
I have little doubt this religion is followed by nearly every major corporation. In the US with all of corporate tax incentives/breaks it bordered an art form. The UK cannot be far removed when the likes of the predominately British company Boots trading as a chemist in nearly every high street in the UK registers itself for tax in Klug.
Governments in their wisdom have ratified and promoted corporate "tax breaks" for decades (the current Irish economy is 90% built on them), so once you have established the principle and the mechanism for tax avoidance it is hardly surprising everyone able to do so exploits it. Judging from the comments on here many would do the same.
In truth tax havens and tax avoidance practices have been in place for decades. Working for 15yrs in a high street bank I lost count of the number of business lending applications supported by "fictional" balance sheets. With such accounting flexibility do I really believe the comparable submissions to the HM revenue were any less fictional? No
As others have suggested have we not all participated in tax avoidance at one level or another at some time? Used "duty free" shops, shopped in the local markets, gained the odd "discount for cash". Whole rafts of trading are conducted within "underground economies" where enormous sums are lost to the tax authorities.
In Texas fellow residents regularly went to "get a Mexican" for manual labouring paying a fraction of the cost charged by legitimate local business. The entire North Texas house building industry would have collapsed had they deported the "illegals". One of the most reputable US legal firms (Jenkins & Gilchrist) ceased trading after being fined $180mn by the INS for operating an illegal tax shelter for its clients.
In northern France ex-pat Brits are legend for working in the underground economy. For many however, they could not survive without doing so because they simply could not get the work if they charged enough to the cover the crippling French "cotizations" for small business.
So while acknowledging the different "personal benefit" scale, Messrs Carr and Barlow etc., are simply exploiting an opportunity .............."because they can". Does that lack social integrity? Yes ..but in the scheme of things they are far from alone.
Hot topic for the summer? No, it was just a good story line for the tabloid media. Was Cameron unwise to have risen to the bait? Probably, but for the guy responsible for managing the nations revenues responding to the public revelation of a questionable tax practice, what else would really expect him to say?
The question of how societies address more equitable tax regimes is a wholly different debate.
If you would pay a builder in cash for a lower price then you would be hypocritical to criticise J Carr and his ilk. Perhaps some are so upstanding that they would never consider such a thing.
In my opinion (it's all just opinions) aiding and abetting tax fraud is worse than legally reducing your tax.
I think too many people assume that most of their tax is going to some drug addicted, dole claiming single mother and use this to justify their support for avoidance.
Some of the comments here saying "if you had a chance to pay less tax you'd take it" are utterly cringeworthy.
There's a little country called Greece where they had that opportunity - pretty much on a universal and annual basis - and guess what? They did pay less tax than they should - in many cases no tax at all - and I think we all know how that turned out.
Sorry, but I have HAD the chance to substantially lower my tax bill in one of these schemes and did not take it because, quite frankly, I would have been pretty ashamed of myself if I had done.
I have been lucky enough to be pretty successful in life and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying back my legally owed share, I took plenty from state on the way through in education, housing and the NHS so now I have to pay my share back.
People can drone on all they like about it "not being illegal" etc., but the fact is just because something is not legal does not mean its actually acceptable in practice.
Its perfectly legal for me (married, aged 39) to make the moves on the young and rather easily impressed young 20 year-old girls at my company when we are on an overseas conference, using my status and position in the company to do so - but I don't do it.
Part of that is because I am a fat, bald bastard, another part is because my Missus would happily cut my balls off whilst I was asleep but the most important part is that I know it would be absolutely wrong for me to behave in that way so I don't do it.
Best post? Did you read Grapevine's? :-) Why Willie? Because he benefitted from UK taxpayers but now pays taxes to another country? Or because he doesnt misbehave with girls half his age (cringeworthy) out of fear of rejection ''because I am a fat bald bastard'' or the fear of being caught doing it ''my Missus would cut my balls off''
I think too many people assume that most of their tax is going to some drug addicted, dole claiming single mother and use this to justify their support for avoidance.
You mean it's not?
I ticked the "drug-addicted, dole-claiming single mother" box on my "how would like us to spend your tax?" consultation form.
Well it was either that or the "caviar breakfasts in the Savoy for top-hat wearing toffs" box,
or
"internment camps for noisy standing football supporters" box.
Why Willie? Because he benefitted from UK taxpayers but now pays taxes to another country? Or because he doesnt misbehave with girls half his age (cringeworthy) out of fear of rejection ''because I am a fat bald bastard'' or the fear of being caught doing it ''my Missus would cut my balls off''
Oh, getting bitchy are we Tory Boy?
For what it's worth I still work for a UK company so the very large amount of revenues I helped generate last year in Asia actually does go back to the UK.
So, as they say here in Oz, get f*****d.
Tell you what, when you get a break from fellating the upper classes, why don't we arrange to meet for a beer when I am over in October?
We can see how brave you are then face to face, my bet is you're as weak as stale piss - but very, very good at going on bended knee to your social betters, it seems you've had a lot of practice.
Ormiston and his analogy argues a commendable set of morales. My challenge is where you draw the line. For example do we not all face the morale challenge of supporting and in our small way contributing to a football club whose parent holding company is registered in the Cayman Isles.
Why do you suppose it is registered in the Cayman Isles? Simply to suit the anonamity of the directorship or are there other benefits? Is it really necessary? Do we really care?
So, more name calling and threats, Ormiston. Great.
I entered this discussion (a second time) only because one group (it could have been the Tories, equally Labour or Charlton's Premiership players and managers) were being called 'detestable' 'gits' and 'posh scum'. I didnt see this as balanced or even reasonable.
When I point out that this venom is mindless, and add some other people's facts and interpretations, you start name calling without reference to the facts and opinions expressed. For the sake of reasoned discussion, which particular facts instigated your outrage?
I'll withdraw from this with a simple question for you then.
If lets say, Cameron and Osbourne, have to be called detestable gits and posh scum, why doesnt this apply to equally wealthy Blair or Milliband, Curbishley or Carr?
The whole name calling thing is utterly pointless, which was my point.
Comments
Milliband D
Milliband Edward Samuel
Left a property worth 1.7 million by their Marxist dad. Right on! Their Mum still has a 3/4 million place. "The pair have legitimately avoided more than £135,000 in capital gains tax on the sale of three properties by being unmarried", wrote the Sunday Times,
According to How Rich in the States, Eddy...
''...talks transparency and stripping the big millions from politics; however he owns a 1.6 million pound house in an exclusive London neighborhood and has used the inheritance rules of the land to his advantage. Some say his net worth might be 5 million pounds or US$ 8 million.
So will you agree he is a ''posh scum'' ''git'' that you ''detest'' too?
I dont know if you checked, but if you did, only three of the cabinet inherited their wealth. Not that there is anything wrong with that, or would you call David Beckhams kids (or any footballers/managers closer to home) names, when they inherit their millions?
Interesting news earlier this year about David, too
''David Miliband is channelling his earnings of up to £21,000 a day through a controversial tax loophole his own Government vowed to close.
The former Foreign Secretary uses an ‘income-shifting’ device that was condemned by Gordon Brown’s administration.
Last night Tory MPs accused Mr Miliband of hypocrisy for taking advantage of the tax-avoidance measure.'' and that was 6 months ago.
The Labour Party has published a list of 12 wealthy backers who lent the party almost £14 million in the run up to last year's (2006, when a million was worth something!) general election.
They are:
:: Dr Chai Patel, founder of Priory Clinics, who was nominated for a peerage which was blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, lent £1.5 million;
:: Barry Townsley, the millionaire chairman of financial services company Downay Day Townsley, lent £1 million;
:: Sir David Garrard, a property developer, who lent £2.3 million. Both Sir David's and Mr Townsley's nominations for seats in the House of Lords were also blocked by the commission;
:: Andrew Rosenfeld, who was a partner of Sir David in London property group Minerva, lent Labour £1 million;
:: Rod Aldridge, who lent £1 million, is the chief executive of IT technology giant Capita;
:: Richard Caring, the clothing tycoon and owner of the fashionable Ivy restaurant, who is worth a reported £300 million, lent the party £2 million;
:: Gordon Crawford, founder of London Bridge Software, who is reported to have made a personal fortune of more than £1 billion from banking and credit management software, lent the party£500,000;
:: Professor Sir Christopher Evans, the founder and chairman of Merlin Biosciences Ltd, lent £1 million;
:: Nigel Morris, the co-founder and former president of Capital One Financial Corporation and a governor of the London Business School, lent the party £1 million;
:: Sir Gulam Noon, the curry tycoon who helped make chicken tikka masala Britain's favourite dish, lent £250,000;
:: Derek Tullett, a veteran City figure and founder of the money-broking firm which bore his name and was bought by Collins Stewart Tullett in 2003, lent £400,000;
:: Lord Sainsbury, the science minister and member of the Sainsburys supermarket dynasty who is thought to have donated more than £6 million to Labour since 2002, lent £2 million.
By that measure humble origins Thatcher would be less of a ''git'' than Viscount Tony Benn or the multi millionnaire Millibands. My partner's Dad bought a house for £9,000 in Bromley in the 60's, which is now valued at 1.5 million -is his father a posh git?
The same is true of what school politicians of any party went to.
Posh public school Blair, Cameron and Brown vs state school Hague and Thatcher, independent school Michael Foot or grammer school Harold Wilson and Edward Heath.
Which is better which is worse - you just cant throw a sterotype or media soundbite at it.
Its simply ridiculous to label people with name calling or bestow an emotion like hatred on anyone based on their wealth or education.
I would rather the ruling cabinet of any party included a large number of people who have made their fortune by their own endeavours. They are grounded, know what its like at the lower end of the social and economic pile because they started there, and have been smart enough to climb up it.
So this lot are very little different than the other lot and their wealthy sponsors.
top 10 richest cabinet ministers 2012
Lord Strathclyde 9.6 Inherited Wealth, stake in family's estate management company, Auchendrane Estates. Also private directorships.
Philip Hammond 8.2 Stake in healthcare and nursing home developer Castlemead; consultancy work
William Hague 4.8 Income from public speaking, two books, a newspaper column and various business advisory roles
Jeremy Hunt 4.8 Stake in Hotcourses, a publisher of guides and websites for educational courses, which he co-founded
Caroline Spelman 4.5 Wealth figures primarily reflect the value of properties owned by Spelman and husband, a Senior Partner at Accenture
George Osborne 4.5 Property (inherited); stake in family-owned fabric and wallpaper designer Osborne & Little (inherited)
David Cameron 3.8 Property, most likely funded from parents/inheritance
Francis Maude 3.2 Work as managing director at morgan stanley and various directorships
Dominic Grieve 2.9 Private investment, funded by salaries as barrister and QC
Andrew Mitchell 2.2 Former investment banker, owns a number of homes, contributing to most of his wealth.
Source: Research by Wealth-X
As a result it makes me very sad when you post this sort of thing, just because people have different political views to you does not mean that they hate their country and its very wrong of you to say so.
We should never make the mistake of defining each other solely by our politics, that is the pathway to a lot of problems.
9/10 of us would pay less tax if we could. That doesn't mean we would pay NO tax, just less. Why not keep a little bit more of your hard earned cash?
The only thing FM "nailed on the head is that he is a hyper Partisan one eyed Tory (who claims to be a Liberal) that toes the Conservative line on every issue.
I am Labour but freely admit that they got it wrong on a number of issues, its called being a grown up.
Here's the bottom line to all the Tory, flag waving "patriots" out there, the country you claim to love is in a huge fiscal hole and right now needs every pound it can muster.
Therefore, people who claim to "love" their country should be paying what they owe in order to aid the recovery and should not be looking to avoid doing so.
Quite honestly that is what most "scary" on this whole thread.
Aliwibble's made a start outlining the many, many things that our taxes pay for, and there are 100's of others too. Some benefit us all, some our families and others people we would probably it didn't benefit being honest.
I think too many people assume that most of their tax is going to some drug addicted, dole claiming single mother and use this to justify their support for avoidance.
You may define me by my politics if you wish, but I would have much preferred that Len, as a person, would allow others to hold differing views and not insult them by labelling 'the left' as shafters of Great Britain. That's just not nice so I'm treating his latest post as an aberration and expect normal service to be resumed shortly ;-)
Why the name-calling? I was trying to counter the blind ''posh git'' nonsense with some reality and balance - why does that offend your party allegiance to the extent you have to invent names for me?(not that you've voted recently, I imagine)
Also you say'claims to be' - I think you mean 'is' as my pm to you explained.
Also, ''toes the conservative party line''? I think you mean ''adds balance to previous bigoted statements''.
Having lived under 3 tax authorities the pursuit of a reduced tax burden by the wealthy is common, but in all honesty is it just their sole preserve? Is it not just a question of scale? I infer no illegality to such actions but by comparison whether you steal 500 or 50000 it is still theft.
Stateside it made an Obama State of the Union address as he condemned the US psyche for accepting it was OK for a company CEO earning millions to pay the same tax rate as his secretary. The US obsession with avoiding a "nanny" state embodies a "survival of the fittest" mantra and the self justification of the avoidance of any sense of social integrity.
I worked for a US company operating in 90 countries that paid corporation tax only in the US. It exploited every conceivable tax break. I advised on business development projects which invariably had a tax attorney in tow with whom I would endlessly have to do battle as they sought to deliberately breach prevailing international financial services legislation to protect their tax position. Tax avoidance was a religion. On posing the question why the company placed itself above the societies in which it operated and profited from, I was merely met with a few wry smiles. The answer is "because we can".
I have little doubt this religion is followed by nearly every major corporation. In the US with all of corporate tax incentives/breaks it bordered an art form. The UK cannot be far removed when the likes of the predominately British company Boots trading as a chemist in nearly every high street in the UK registers itself for tax in Klug.
Governments in their wisdom have ratified and promoted corporate "tax breaks" for decades (the current Irish economy is 90% built on them), so once you have established the principle and the mechanism for tax avoidance it is hardly surprising everyone able to do so exploits it. Judging from the comments on here many would do the same.
In truth tax havens and tax avoidance practices have been in place for decades. Working for 15yrs in a high street bank I lost count of the number of business lending applications supported by "fictional" balance sheets. With such accounting flexibility do I really believe the comparable submissions to the HM revenue were any less fictional? No
As others have suggested have we not all participated in tax avoidance at one level or another at some time? Used "duty free" shops, shopped in the local markets, gained the odd "discount for cash". Whole rafts of trading are conducted within "underground economies" where enormous sums are lost to the tax authorities.
In Texas fellow residents regularly went to "get a Mexican" for manual labouring paying a fraction of the cost charged by legitimate local business. The entire North Texas house building industry would have collapsed had they deported the "illegals". One of the most reputable US legal firms (Jenkins & Gilchrist) ceased trading after being fined $180mn by the INS for operating an illegal tax shelter for its clients.
In northern France ex-pat Brits are legend for working in the underground economy. For many however, they could not survive without doing so because they simply could not get the work if they charged enough to the cover the crippling French "cotizations" for small business.
So while acknowledging the different "personal benefit" scale, Messrs Carr and Barlow etc., are simply exploiting an opportunity .............."because they can". Does that lack social integrity? Yes ..but in the scheme of things they are far from alone.
Hot topic for the summer? No, it was just a good story line for the tabloid media. Was Cameron unwise to have risen to the bait? Probably, but for the guy responsible for managing the nations revenues responding to the public revelation of a questionable tax practice, what else would really expect him to say?
The question of how societies address more equitable tax regimes is a wholly different debate.
Grapevine49
Good to have a well expressed, balanced viewpoint.
In my opinion (it's all just opinions) aiding and abetting tax fraud is worse than legally reducing your tax.
F*** me as if "Celebrity Big Brother" wasn't bad enough.
You mean it's not?
Why Willie?
Because he benefitted from UK taxpayers but now pays taxes to another country?
Or because he doesnt misbehave with girls half his age (cringeworthy) out of fear of rejection ''because I am a fat bald bastard'' or the fear of being caught doing it ''my Missus would cut my balls off''
Well it was either that or the "caviar breakfasts in the Savoy for top-hat wearing toffs" box,
or
"internment camps for noisy standing football supporters" box.
For what it's worth I still work for a UK company so the very large amount of revenues I helped generate last year in Asia actually does go back to the UK.
So, as they say here in Oz, get f*****d.
Tell you what, when you get a break from fellating the upper classes, why don't we arrange to meet for a beer when I am over in October?
We can see how brave you are then face to face, my bet is you're as weak as stale piss - but very, very good at going on bended knee to your social betters, it seems you've had a lot of practice.
Why do you suppose it is registered in the Cayman Isles? Simply to suit the anonamity of the directorship or are there other benefits? Is it really necessary? Do we really care?
Grapevine49
Morals are a code of ethics.
Morale is "esprit de corps".
(c) Grammar Enforcement Office 2012: "Annoying you to make you better".
I entered this discussion (a second time) only because one group (it could have been the Tories, equally Labour or Charlton's Premiership players and managers) were being called 'detestable' 'gits' and 'posh scum'. I didnt see this as balanced or even reasonable.
When I point out that this venom is mindless, and add some other people's facts and interpretations, you start name calling without reference to the facts and opinions expressed. For the sake of reasoned discussion, which particular facts instigated your outrage?
I'll withdraw from this with a simple question for you then.
If lets say, Cameron and Osbourne, have to be called detestable gits and posh scum, why doesnt this apply to equally wealthy Blair or Milliband, Curbishley or Carr?
The whole name calling thing is utterly pointless, which was my point.