Although I agree there needs to be a way for these companies to be made to pay their tax, not sure a tax on revenue would work, what if the company makes a genuine loss/break even? You can only tax profits of a company in my view, but we need a way of correctly obtaining profit numbers.
It's probably used much more widely than we think....... calling Roland reminds me of a number of IT Contractors who were employed through the IOM, such a crazy tax dodge that was.
Tax anyone with t/o of over £100m at 2%. If they have to put their prices up 2% to cover it, tough. It's only what any legitimately established tax payer in the UK would be doing anyway, and levels the playing field a little tiny bit.
And it might stop those c***s at HMRC fining upright citizens hundreds of pounds for sending their returns in a few days late while amazon skip off paying any tax at all.
The whole system is totally fucked.
Not sure business is quite that simple, your making the assumption a £100m and/or +2% turnover means making a profit.
For instance I work in insurance/reinsurance. Depending on many factors, but as an example take Hurricane's we might make or lose money. Last year we might have made $150m as there were none. This year we might lose $50m as theres been a few - don't think it would be right to tax a company that made $50m loss. Our turnover is near $1bn.
I'm sure theres 101 other types of business who for varying reasons each year could make or lose money.
I take your point. But some sort of turnover threshold takes small businesses out of the scope of this. And the turnover tax charged could be offset against a CT charge if and when incurred, so ups and downs would even out.
The problem is the different kinds of business (and globalisation). Some make a very small profit per unit sold but survive because they do it on a huge turnover. Others have a huge mark up but don't have such a big turnover. Some are staff heavy with associated costs, some not.
So a petrol retailer might only be getting - gross - about 4% of the price of a litre and maybe, for some, as low as 1.5%. A tax on t/o would probably just put most out of business. For those that didn't, you'd see a huge mark up on prices together with the associated increase in inflation. Which would not be lovely for any of us. Conversely you can see businesses in other sectors making 25% operating profit on t/o.
I'm still of the view that corporation tax is inherently unfair. "Taxation without representation is tyranny" as they say; and businesses don't get a vote - other than with their feet. Businesses are all paying other taxes for example business rates, employers NICs, VAT, Stamp Duty, CGT and whatever.
In any event, Companies would not take the hit themselves but pass on the new cost to its customers, as they do with everything else. If the Govt. needs more taxation it should take it from the voters by way of income tax or VAT.
BTW last year the UK Govt raked in £56bn in corporation tax, despite falling tax rates, an increase of 19% on the previous year. This is around half of what they get from VAT receipts. And make no mistake it is the consumer that is really paying this.
Massive new leak, dubbed The Paradise Papers.. Panorama ran the first programme on it tonight, which showed among other things compelling evidence that Usmanov has his fingers in Everton as well as Arsenal. Panorama runs two more programmes in the following two nights
Massive new leak, dubbed The Paradise Papers.. Panorama ran the first programme on it tonight, which showed among other things compelling evidence that Usmanov has his fingers in Everton as well as Arsenal. Panorama runs two more programmes in the following two nights
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
The queen is exempt from tax anyway, although does voluntarily pay the equivalent of income tax.
Those in a position of power (or some of them) are a part of this do don’t see it being sorted anytime soon. Didn’t even the labour party ‘avoid’ tax on their surplus the other year?
The queen is exempt from tax anyway, although does voluntarily pay the equivalent of income tax.
Those in a position of power (or some of them) are a part of this do don’t see it being sorted anytime soon. Didn’t even the labour party ‘avoid’ tax on their surplus the other year?
She is probably the single biggest benefit claimant in the country as well!
Yet again, I am amused and in equal measure bemused by the rich-bashing and general all-round hypocrisy. The BBC's misreporting by its know-nothing sofa jockeys on BBC Breakfast this am was truly epic.
So, we have the whole population en-masse quite happy to try to rip-off PPI providers when they knew very well that they had bought the product and why they had bought it (hey, its free money isn't it?). Did everyone who got back their PPI money (plus interest) declare the interest element on their tax returns as they should have done I wonder? People thinking Bitcoin is the place to be - can you get any more offshore than bitcoin?. The general "pay cash, I'll knock off the VAT" scenario and all the other little wheezes that add up to the equivalent of mega tax fraud.
But then we have the rich having the temerity to keep their money offshore! Hang them all!
So, just to be clear, anyone can keep any money they like anywhere they like. Whether that's in cash under the mattress, in coins in an old scotch bottle or in The British Virgin Islands. Until such time as a capital gain is crystallised or an income is earned from dividends or interest no tax is due to anyone anywhere.
The queen is exempt from tax anyway, although does voluntarily pay the equivalent of income tax.
Those in a position of power (or some of them) are a part of this do don’t see it being sorted anytime soon. Didn’t even the labour party ‘avoid’ tax on their surplus the other year?
She is probably the single biggest benefit claimant in the country as well!
She is paid by the public purse yes as are bloody minded, officious, obfuscating civil servants in central and local government who take great pleasure in making the lives of those they are meant to serve as difficult and unpleasant as possible.
Our beloved Queen is no more a 'benefit claimant' than those I have highlighted. Furthermore she has continued working and indirectly raising money for our country into her nineties. The bloody minded parasites I've mentioned are moaning because it's been suggested that they work beyond 60 like the rest of us poor mugs have to!
Yet again, I am amused and in equal measure bemused by the rich-bashing and general all-round hypocrisy. The BBC's misreporting by its know-nothing sofa jockeys on BBC Breakfast this am was truly epic.
So, we have the whole population en-masse quite happy to try to rip-off PPI providers when they knew very well that they had bought the product and why they had bought it (hey, its free money isn't it?). Did everyone who got back their PPI money (plus interest) declare the interest element on their tax returns as they should have done I wonder? People thinking Bitcoin is the place to be - can you get any more offshore than bitcoin?. The general "pay cash, I'll knock off the VAT" scenario and all the other little wheezes that add up to the equivalent of mega tax fraud.
But then we have the rich having the temerity to keep their money offshore! Hang them all!
So, just to be clear, anyone can keep any money they like anywhere they like. Whether that's in cash under the mattress, in coins in an old scotch bottle or in The British Virgin Islands. Until such time as a capital gain is crystallised or an income is earned from dividends or interest no tax is due to anyone anywhere.
I use bitcoins all the time, I also pay tax on every penny I earn, so I don't quite see the connection.
Just because you might screw the tax man by paying tax, doesn't meant everyone is at it.
Do you really think these people are pumping money offshore for the fun of it, or because it offers a significant financial benefit, at the expense of you, the tax payer? It might not be illegal, but it sure as **** ain't right.
The queen is exempt from tax anyway, although does voluntarily pay the equivalent of income tax.
From what I've read there's no suggestion anything illegal is going on with regards to what has happened with the queen, or more accurately the Duchy of Lancaster, however, if the QUEEN is going to be investing money, surely it should be invested at home! (No, I don't mean Germany, either)
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
What is wrong with the Queen investing in a project that is managed offshore. Hardly to avoid tax given she pays tax based on what she’s told she has to pay and not specific revenue or assets.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
What is wrong with the Queen investing in a project that is managed offshore. Hardly to avoid tax given she pays tax based on what she’s told she has to pay and not specific revenue or assets.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
I believe the queen should be held to higher standards than Joe Bloggs, maybe that's just me.
Yet again, I am amused and in equal measure bemused by the rich-bashing and general all-round hypocrisy. The BBC's misreporting by its know-nothing sofa jockeys on BBC Breakfast this am was truly epic.
So, we have the whole population en-masse quite happy to try to rip-off PPI providers when they knew very well that they had bought the product and why they had bought it (hey, its free money isn't it?). Did everyone who got back their PPI money (plus interest) declare the interest element on their tax returns as they should have done I wonder? People thinking Bitcoin is the place to be - can you get any more offshore than bitcoin?. The general "pay cash, I'll knock off the VAT" scenario and all the other little wheezes that add up to the equivalent of mega tax fraud.
But then we have the rich having the temerity to keep their money offshore! Hang them all!
So, just to be clear, anyone can keep any money they like anywhere they like. Whether that's in cash under the mattress, in coins in an old scotch bottle or in The British Virgin Islands. Until such time as a capital gain is crystallised or an income is earned from dividends or interest no tax is due to anyone anywhere.
Always have a lot of time for your views, and it's good you provide a contrarian view to what you see as hysterical over-reaction. I don't agree with what you have written here. The people who got their PPI money back probably didn't realise that the interest element would be taxable. And even if they did, they might reasonably take the view that they had lost the money in the first place due to a State which failed to protect them, so the State can go whistle now, to quote a leading tax avoider.
It is perfectly reasonable to rail against low level tax avoidance across society. Well the Scandis have an answer to that. All tax returns available in public, on line, for general inspection. A bit extreme for you? Doubtless. So then we have to find a less intrusive way to persuade society that tax is a necessary part of a healthy functioning society. How can you persuade the average plumber to think that way when he sees the richest, the most educated, the most privileged, doing everything they can to pay a quite pathetic amount of tax?The phrase "Leading by example" is your friend here.
The point about PPI wasn't that people didn't know what they were buying but that the people selling the PPI did not carry out the correct checks to determine whether PPI was suitable and that the customer understood what they were paying for. It is a financial product and is regulated as such, yet was being flogged wholesale by minimum wage counter staff at electronics and furniture stores on behalf of financial firms that absolved themselves of all responsibility in the checking process. It was also a massive scam perpetuated by creditors to milk even more money out of what are effectively glorified loan-shark vehicles.
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
What is wrong with the Queen investing in a project that is managed offshore. Hardly to avoid tax given she pays tax based on what she’s told she has to pay and not specific revenue or assets.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
For once I agree with you. Offshore has become a dirty word for some stupid reason. As you correctly point out, most pensions have invested offshore. Even councils do it with their money; remember all those councils that invested in that Iceland scheme that went tits up? Unless we know the specific arrangements of what the investor in question has put their money into, then it is wrong to automatically assume that there is an illegitimate activity going on here.
The queen is exempt from tax anyway, although does voluntarily pay the equivalent of income tax.
Those in a position of power (or some of them) are a part of this do don’t see it being sorted anytime soon. Didn’t even the labour party ‘avoid’ tax on their surplus the other year?
She is probably the single biggest benefit claimant in the country as well!
She is paid by the public purse yes as are bloody minded, officious, obfuscating civil servants in central and local government who take great pleasure in making the lives of those they are meant to serve as difficult and unpleasant as possible.
Our beloved Queen is no more a 'benefit claimant' than those I have highlighted. Furthermore she has continued working and indirectly raising money for our country into her nineties. The bloody minded parasites I've mentioned are moaning because it's been suggested that they work beyond 60 like the rest of us poor mugs have to!
It was a glib comment. I actually quite like her and I am certainly not advocating taking her out the back and shooting her, but she receives millions in tax receipts every year. A six million raise this year and an even bigger one last year to fund the refurbishment of her private residence. For her to take some of those receipts and invest them in such a structure that avoids the UK tax system to benefit her personal finances, when she has been given a pay rise to do up her house which few of her subjects have, hardly shows the common touch.
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
What is wrong with the Queen investing in a project that is managed offshore. Hardly to avoid tax given she pays tax based on what she’s told she has to pay and not specific revenue or assets.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
What pray was "pathetic" about the part of Panorama which showed the compelling evidence that Usmanov is involved with Everton as well as Arsenal, and emphasised the issue at stake by being able to film from the actual Everton v Arsenal fixture?
I agree however that the Queen element seems a bit of a non-issue. But again it might be better if she did not allow her advisors to use offshore instruments. Lead by example, again. In the same way that you do not expect her to cruise around in a Daimler Maybach.
The papers might lead with a front page headline about the Queen but they are somewhat missing the point, allowing the likes of @Dippenhall and others to dismiss the whole thing.
Real stories such as the one on page 6 of the Times today allege that Lord Ashcroft "apparently avoided millions of pounds in tax by putting his money in an offshore haven"
He's now at risk of an HMRC investigation and is well known as the Conservative party's largest donor.
Meanwhile the poorest families in society have just had a £930 per annum cut due to the "need" for austerity.
The reduction of tax base erosion by corporations and rich individuals will obviate the need for austerity which in turn will undermine one of the driving forces for populism.
That isn't socialism, just a common sense approach to maintaining the fabric of our society and democracy.
Amusing on so many levels that the Mail headline mentions HM getting "dragged into" a tax row . That's pathetic journalism! You have to be seriously stupid to buy that paper.
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
What is wrong with the Queen investing in a project that is managed offshore. Hardly to avoid tax given she pays tax based on what she’s told she has to pay and not specific revenue or assets.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
Seems to me that tax is the fee set by the elected Government for each member of the population for being a member of U.K. Society and getting its benefits. The passport is the membership card. If you don't pay that fee then you can't expect to be a member, so when caught should lose access to the benefits of that Society.
The queen is exempt from tax anyway, although does voluntarily pay the equivalent of income tax.
Those in a position of power (or some of them) are a part of this do don’t see it being sorted anytime soon. Didn’t even the labour party ‘avoid’ tax on their surplus the other year?
She is probably the single biggest benefit claimant in the country as well!
She is paid by the public purse yes as are bloody minded, officious, obfuscating civil servants in central and local government who take great pleasure in making the lives of those they are meant to serve as difficult and unpleasant as possible.
Our beloved Queen is no more a 'benefit claimant' than those I have highlighted. Furthermore she has continued working and indirectly raising money for our country into her nineties. The bloody minded parasites I've mentioned are moaning because it's been suggested that they work beyond 60 like the rest of us poor mugs have to!
I've got no problem with people putting money offshore - its not illegal, its not tax evasion, its tax avoidance. Virtually all UK Taxpayers have avoided paying tax one way or another - an ISA is avoiding tax (capital gains tax for S&S & tax on the interest on Cash ISA's) and the Government promote them.
The thing that I find is wrong is the latest allegation I heard on the lunchtime news regarding 3 actors from Mrs Brown's Boys (never watched it so couldn't tell you who they are). The Panorama programme says that they have been sending their earned income offshore & then receiving some back, tax free, as a loan (which is assumed they will never pay back) One individual received £360k over a 16 month period. They wouldn't comment but the actor who plays Mrs Brown & owns the production company that pays them says that all income paid out has gone into a UK bank account. If this is the case, and they haven't paid income (or corporation tax) on this money, then I see that as blatant tax evasion.
More revelations out later today, supposedly naming more media & sports stars. I bet there are a few worried individual currently ringing their financial / tax advisors asking if they have any money offshore or in any of these schemes.
The queen is exempt from tax anyway, although does voluntarily pay the equivalent of income tax.
Those in a position of power (or some of them) are a part of this do don’t see it being sorted anytime soon. Didn’t even the labour party ‘avoid’ tax on their surplus the other year?
She is probably the single biggest benefit claimant in the country as well!
She is paid by the public purse yes as are bloody minded, officious, obfuscating civil servants in central and local government who take great pleasure in making the lives of those they are meant to serve as difficult and unpleasant as possible.
Our beloved Queen is no more a 'benefit claimant' than those I have highlighted. Furthermore she has continued working and indirectly raising money for our country into her nineties. The bloody minded parasites I've mentioned are moaning because it's been suggested that they work beyond 60 like the rest of us poor mugs have to!
Cheers Len. Love you too mate
67 for me btw.
Should say present company excepted!
HMRC are the bane of my life one way and the other at the moment which perhaps influenced my rhetoric just a little!
Virtually all UK Taxpayers have avoided paying tax one way or another - an ISA is avoiding tax (capital gains tax for S&S & tax on the interest on Cash ISA's) and the Government promote them.
You've come out with this several times, and each time someone has to point out to you how fallacious it is. The schemes you recommend help people avoid tax in the way Parliament intended, are argued to be for the greater good (in this case promoting savings) and as such arguably represent the Will of the People.
It definitely isn't the Will of the People when you buy your DVD from Amazon using a UK payment card and it is delivered to your UK address from a UK location using the taxpayer-funded UK infrastructure, and the resulting profit is minimally taxed in Luxembourg.
Please tell me you are able to grasp the distinction.
The rich, getting away with it, again. Their advisors will probably be devising plans and seeking new loopholes as I type this.
Don't think they'll ned to, the crazy thing about it all is the vast majority according to the articles are doing nothing illegal with these investments.
That's why this thread is called the "politics of tax" thread. The solutions are 100% political, and 100% trans-national.
And 100% never going to be fixed, the people with all the power are the ones at it.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
What is wrong with the Queen investing in a project that is managed offshore. Hardly to avoid tax given she pays tax based on what she’s told she has to pay and not specific revenue or assets.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
What pray was "pathetic" about the part of Panorama which showed the compelling evidence that Usmanov is involved with Everton as well as Arsenal, and emphasised the issue at stake by being able to film from the actual Everton v Arsenal fixture?
I agree however that the Queen element seems a bit of a non-issue. But again it might be better if she did not allow her advisors to use offshore instruments. Lead by example, again. In the same way that you do not expect her to cruise around in a Daimler Maybach.
Why are you trying to twist and misrepresent what I post? I was responding to the Queen issue, nothing else.
Haven't even seen the Panorama programme and didn't mention it. From what I've read why is it news that football has a corrupt director? Given tax enquiries underway on many clubs, agent and manager bungs, ignoring FFP rules - am I excited or surprised about an Arsenal director breaking FA rule - frankly no, seems a minor issue in comparison to how the other stuff actually affects grass roots football.
On tax havens generally they are no longer places where you can hide money as was the case in the recent past. The tightened up international banking regulations mean everything gets reported back to your home tax authority. The tax savings are on the tax paid by the companies who look after the money, and the absence of transaction taxes like stamp duty, not the tax due to be paid by the investors. It means the overheads of the wealth managers are lower and costs are lower so less is deducted from gross returns.
That's exactly why your fund manager might use an offshore base to manage your UK investments, typically Ireland, the difference with a rich investor is that he has a personal portfolio and personal records will exist, whereas you will just be a number in a collective investment account, oblivious to the shady tax avoidance you benefit from.
The US is now a tax haven and is benefiting from the inflow of funds to be serviced by advisers, accountants lawyers and banks. Are we going to ban using US based investment managers?
The ignorance of the reporting in the media and trial by paper hacks is par for the course. This gets sucked up by social media and regurgitated as informed comment, that's the point I was making. Panorama is not have the quality or gravitas it once had, now a bit like the Daily Mail of the TV screen.
Comments
So a petrol retailer might only be getting - gross - about 4% of the price of a litre and maybe, for some, as low as 1.5%. A tax on t/o would probably just put most out of business. For those that didn't, you'd see a huge mark up on prices
together with the associated increase in inflation. Which would not be lovely for any of us. Conversely you can see businesses in other sectors making 25% operating profit on t/o.
I'm still of the view that corporation tax is inherently unfair. "Taxation without representation is tyranny" as they say; and businesses don't get a vote - other than with their feet. Businesses are all paying other taxes for example business rates, employers NICs, VAT, Stamp Duty, CGT and whatever.
In any event, Companies would not take the hit themselves but pass on the new cost to its customers, as they do with everything else. If the Govt. needs more taxation it should take it from the voters by way of income tax or VAT.
BTW last year the UK Govt raked in £56bn in corporation tax, despite falling tax rates, an increase of 19% on the previous year. This is around half of what they get from VAT receipts. And make no mistake it is the consumer that is really paying this.
What a sad state of affairs when even the fecking queen is investing offshore.
Those in a position of power (or some of them) are a part of this do don’t see it being sorted anytime soon. Didn’t even the labour party ‘avoid’ tax on their surplus the other year?
So, we have the whole population en-masse quite happy to try to rip-off PPI providers when they knew very well that they had bought the product and why they had bought it (hey, its free money isn't it?). Did everyone who got back their PPI money (plus interest) declare the interest element on their tax returns as they should have done I wonder? People thinking Bitcoin is the place to be - can you get any more offshore than bitcoin?. The general "pay cash, I'll knock off the VAT" scenario and all the other little wheezes that add up to the equivalent of mega tax fraud.
But then we have the rich having the temerity to keep their money offshore! Hang them all!
So, just to be clear, anyone can keep any money they like anywhere they like. Whether that's in cash under the mattress, in coins in an old scotch bottle or in The British Virgin Islands. Until such time as a capital gain is crystallised or an income is earned from dividends or interest no tax is due to anyone anywhere.
Our beloved Queen is no more a 'benefit claimant' than those I have highlighted. Furthermore she has continued working and indirectly raising money for our country into her nineties. The bloody minded parasites I've mentioned are moaning because it's been suggested that they work beyond 60 like the rest of us poor mugs have to!
Just because you might screw the tax man by paying tax, doesn't meant everyone is at it.
Do you really think these people are pumping money offshore for the fun of it, or because it offers a significant financial benefit, at the expense of you, the tax payer? It might not be illegal, but it sure as **** ain't right.
I hope no one on here invests in a global pension fund investment, shame on you letting your money be managed from tax havens to reduce administrative costs and increase the return. Using efficient financial management services and not disclosing taxable revenue and assets are two entirely different conversations.
Absolute pathetic journalism and social media bollox.
It is perfectly reasonable to rail against low level tax avoidance across society. Well the Scandis have an answer to that. All tax returns available in public, on line, for general inspection. A bit extreme for you? Doubtless. So then we have to find a less intrusive way to persuade society that tax is a necessary part of a healthy functioning society. How can you persuade the average plumber to think that way when he sees the richest, the most educated, the most privileged, doing everything they can to pay a quite pathetic amount of tax?The phrase "Leading by example" is your friend here.
I agree however that the Queen element seems a bit of a non-issue. But again it might be better if she did not allow her advisors to use offshore instruments. Lead by example, again. In the same way that you do not expect her to cruise around in a Daimler Maybach.
Real stories such as the one on page 6 of the Times today allege that Lord Ashcroft "apparently avoided millions of pounds in tax by putting his money in an offshore haven"
He's now at risk of an HMRC investigation and is well known as the Conservative party's largest donor.
Meanwhile the poorest families in society have just had a £930 per annum cut due to the "need" for austerity.
The reduction of tax base erosion by corporations and rich individuals will obviate the need for austerity which in turn will undermine one of the driving forces for populism.
That isn't socialism, just a common sense approach to maintaining the fabric of our society and democracy.
If you don't pay that fee then you can't expect to be a member, so when caught should lose access to the benefits of that Society.
67 for me btw.
The thing that I find is wrong is the latest allegation I heard on the lunchtime news regarding 3 actors from Mrs Brown's Boys (never watched it so couldn't tell you who they are). The Panorama programme says that they have been sending their earned income offshore & then receiving some back, tax free, as a loan (which is assumed they will never pay back) One individual received £360k over a 16 month period. They wouldn't comment but the actor who plays Mrs Brown & owns the production company that pays them says that all income paid out has gone into a UK bank account. If this is the case, and they haven't paid income (or corporation tax) on this money, then I see that as blatant tax evasion.
More revelations out later today, supposedly naming more media & sports stars. I bet there are a few worried individual currently ringing their financial / tax advisors asking if they have any money offshore or in any of these schemes.
HMRC are the bane of my life one way and the other at the moment which perhaps influenced my rhetoric just a little!
Virtually all UK Taxpayers have avoided paying tax one way or another - an ISA is avoiding tax (capital gains tax for S&S & tax on the interest on Cash ISA's) and the Government promote them.
You've come out with this several times, and each time someone has to point out to you how fallacious it is. The schemes you recommend help people avoid tax in the way Parliament intended, are argued to be for the greater good (in this case promoting savings) and as such arguably represent the Will of the People.
It definitely isn't the Will of the People when you buy your DVD from Amazon using a UK payment card and it is delivered to your UK address from a UK location using the taxpayer-funded UK infrastructure, and the resulting profit is minimally taxed in Luxembourg.
Please tell me you are able to grasp the distinction.
Haven't even seen the Panorama programme and didn't mention it. From what I've read why is it news that football has a corrupt director? Given tax enquiries underway on many clubs, agent and manager bungs, ignoring FFP rules - am I excited or surprised about an Arsenal director breaking FA rule - frankly no, seems a minor issue in comparison to how the other stuff actually affects grass roots football.
On tax havens generally they are no longer places where you can hide money as was the case in the recent past. The tightened up international banking regulations mean everything gets reported back to your home tax authority. The tax savings are on the tax paid by the companies who look after the money, and the absence of transaction taxes like stamp duty, not the tax due to be paid by the investors. It means the overheads of the wealth managers are lower and costs are lower so less is deducted from gross returns.
That's exactly why your fund manager might use an offshore base to manage your UK investments, typically Ireland, the difference with a rich investor is that he has a personal portfolio and personal records will exist, whereas you will just be a number in a collective investment account, oblivious to the shady tax avoidance you benefit from.
The US is now a tax haven and is benefiting from the inflow of funds to be serviced by advisers, accountants lawyers and banks. Are we going to ban using US based investment managers?
The ignorance of the reporting in the media and trial by paper hacks is par for the course. This gets sucked up by social media and regurgitated as informed comment, that's the point I was making. Panorama is not have the quality or gravitas it once had, now a bit like the Daily Mail of the TV screen.