Register    Login    Search    FAQ



CTFC.com Official Site Cheltenham Town FC 500 Club

Other Useful Links:     Leo's Blog    Robins Trust    CTFC Chatter    Football Ground Guide    This is Gloucestershire    News Now    CTFC History Site

Board index » THE NEST » NON FOOTY/JOKES ETC




 Page 1 of 1 [ 31 posts ] 



Author Message
 Post subject: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 05 Nov 2017, 20:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
So whilst we work our asses off to see our taxes going to fund the Royal Family’s lifestyle, holidays and mansion repairs, some of the income they make (food, land rent, Common Agricultural Policy) is invested in tax havens.

UK is a nation ruled by spins for spivs. Enough is enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41876942


Top  Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 08:36 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Of course remembering the EU legislation on tax transparency and clamping down on offshore based tax avoidance comes in to play in 2019. No wonder Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and all the other financial elites and avoiders are agitating to leave before then!


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 08:54 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Of course remembering the EU legislation on tax transparency and clamping down on offshore based tax avoidance comes in to play in 2019. No wonder Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and all the other financial elites and avoiders are agitating to leave before then!


Please please please please point out a) where the Royal Family have done anything wrong and b) what is in anyway illegal about tax avoidance? you are quite at will to go on to the HMRC site and see those countries that fall into Category 3 (i.e. no tax transparency). You will find that none of those countries on that list, are what are freely labelled 'tax havens', in the article you quote.

If the category 3 countries do not wish to sign up, then there is little the EU, UK , UN Donald Trump, Putin, you, me can do about it.

The monies are not invested in 'tax havens', they are invested in funds which have their offices based, over seas, in what the popular left wing like to classify as Tax Havens. The reason why trusts are keen to set up in these places, is that the red tape, legislation etc. around running the aforementioned Trusts is less burdensome. Once the Money is brought back in to the UK, it is fully subject to UK tax. Therefore I fail to see what the issue is. The EU countries compete against each other by offering lower taxes and tax breaks to investors. What is the difference ? Our pension companies, invest in a variety of trusts in the hope that they can efficiently build up our pensions. Have you taken steps to make sure none of your pension fund, is being invested in Trusts that may be off shore ? Given that you would seem to be more than happy to take a reduced income, if it means investing in an inefficient way ?


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 10:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Never said it was illegal.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 11:34 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Then maybe you can explain why you are complaining and exactly what you are complaining about? The fact that financial advisors, advise on best way to maximise your funds? Hardly earth shattering news? What next! UNITE demand pension funds are invested poorly? I really can't see what you are getting so worked up about, unless you just resent people investing money as they see fit?


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 13:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
I am getting worked up by people using tax havens.

I personally would tell anyone who wants to enjoy life in Britain but doesn't want to contribute to the social contract being a resident requires to leave the countrya.

I would also advocate a global standard tax regime. Zero per cent corporation tax world wide and standardised income tax world wide paid in the country where residing/working.

The Royal Family should set a moral example. They give Royal Ascent to austerity and cuts to NHS/Schools/etc whilst actively hiding money and avoiding paying the treasury. Self serving hypocrisy.

Why all the secrecy, shell companies and anonymity if the individuals were proud and happy that what they were doing was respectable positive behaviour?

Plus the downright lies and deliberate misleading by those involved in politics: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41879422

Why should Ashcroft be a lord if he has no intention of contributing to society.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 14:51 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
I am getting worked up by people using tax havens.

I personally would tell anyone who wants to enjoy life in Britain but doesn't want to contribute to the social contract being a resident requires to leave the countrya.

I would also advocate a global standard tax regime. Zero per cent corporation tax world wide and standardised income tax world wide paid in the country where residing/working.

The Royal Family should set a moral example. They give Royal Ascent to austerity and cuts to NHS/Schools/etc whilst actively hiding money and avoiding paying the treasury. Self serving hypocrisy.

Why all the secrecy, shell companies and anonymity if the individuals were proud and happy that what they were doing was respectable positive behaviour?

Plus the downright lies and deliberate misleading by those involved in politics: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41879422

Why should Ashcroft be a lord if he has no intention of contributing to society.



You seem to somehow link the term ‘Tax Haven’ with, tax evasion – which is incorrect. Monies made by using these countries to operate the Trust in a more economical way, are subject to UK tax when brought back into the country. So you have yet to explain why people or pension funds should not use this administrative tool, to help build their portfolio.

Your second point is well made when referring to Apple, Google, Amazon etc. However has more to do with company structure and weak governments, than tax havens. Individuals and investment funds etc, will pay the income tax in their country of residence, even if they use an off shore based Trust.

I would think that the Royal family voluntarily paying income and corporation tax is setting a moral compass ? Especially, repeating myself once again, when monies coming from the off shore Trust is taxed on arrival in the UK. I could see into your argument, if the Queen and declared herself a non Dom and was being taxed elsewhere. A la Ashcroft. A matter on which we do find common ground. If he has failed to set himself up as a UK domicile, as he promised. Then he should have no public office / honour.

Do you publish your bank accounts or discuss openly what you do with your money? Do I have a right to know what you do with your money, your payment arrangements etc ? Do I object to your secrecy? Don’t think so. That’s a job for HMRC. If anything being done is illegal, they will be in court at some stage or served with an APN.

This is by and large a non story. I would think, every working person in this country, puts money in some form, into the hands of investment experts. Be it personal savings, personal wealth or pensions. I would be shocked if off shore Trust did not play a part in all of these areas. Indeed, it would be a poor employer of trust administrator, who did not use every tool possible to maximise their investment.

So, I think you can stop getting worked up about the use of ‘ Tax Havens’ and focus your ire on tax evasion, or those who attempt to deceive their true country of domicile


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 15:20 
Offline

Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:37
Posts: 3883
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 2 times
Rich people in overseas investment shocker.

Coming next week: an in-depth exposé on where bears sh1t.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 16:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
confused.com wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
I am getting worked up by people using tax havens.

I personally would tell anyone who wants to enjoy life in Britain but doesn't want to contribute to the social contract being a resident requires to leave the countrya.

I would also advocate a global standard tax regime. Zero per cent corporation tax world wide and standardised income tax world wide paid in the country where residing/working.

The Royal Family should set a moral example. They give Royal Ascent to austerity and cuts to NHS/Schools/etc whilst actively hiding money and avoiding paying the treasury. Self serving hypocrisy.

Why all the secrecy, shell companies and anonymity if the individuals were proud and happy that what they were doing was respectable positive behaviour?

Plus the downright lies and deliberate misleading by those involved in politics: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41879422

Why should Ashcroft be a lord if he has no intention of contributing to society.



You seem to somehow link the term ‘Tax Haven’ with, tax evasion – which is incorrect. Monies made by using these countries to operate the Trust in a more economical way, are subject to UK tax when brought back into the country. So you have yet to explain why people or pension funds should not use this administrative tool, to help build their portfolio.

Your second point is well made when referring to Apple, Google, Amazon etc. However has more to do with company structure and weak governments, than tax havens. Individuals and investment funds etc, will pay the income tax in their country of residence, even if they use an off shore based Trust.

I would think that the Royal family voluntarily paying income and corporation tax is setting a moral compass ? Especially, repeating myself once again, when monies coming from the off shore Trust is taxed on arrival in the UK. I could see into your argument, if the Queen and declared herself a non Dom and was being taxed elsewhere. A la Ashcroft. A matter on which we do find common ground. If he has failed to set himself up as a UK domicile, as he promised. Then he should have no public office / honour.

Do you publish your bank accounts or discuss openly what you do with your money? Do I have a right to know what you do with your money, your payment arrangements etc ? Do I object to your secrecy? Don’t think so. That’s a job for HMRC. If anything being done is illegal, they will be in court at some stage or served with an APN.

This is by and large a non story. I would think, every working person in this country, puts money in some form, into the hands of investment experts. Be it personal savings, personal wealth or pensions. I would be shocked if off shore Trust did not play a part in all of these areas. Indeed, it would be a poor employer of trust administrator, who did not use every tool possible to maximise their investment.

So, I think you can stop getting worked up about the use of ‘ Tax Havens’ and focus your ire on tax evasion, or those who attempt to deceive their true country of domicile


I was talking about avoidance (legal) rather than evasion (illegal).

You really think that people set up Trusts in tax havens then move the money back to UK to pay tax on, lol.

As for pension funds, I am against all offshore held trusts and accounts. Tax is the only reason they exist.

If the UK system is such a bad deal for our pension funds that they need to be based in low/zero tax locations then that system should be fixed!

No reason at all for low/zero tax jurisdictions to exist other than to reduce tax liabilities (ie avoidance) due in other locations.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 16:51 
Offline

Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:37
Posts: 3883
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 2 times
And now I see three of the cast of Mrs Brown's Boys are implicated. WILL THIS CRISIS EVER END????


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 16:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
asl wrote:
And now I see three of the cast of Mrs Brown's Boys are implicated. WILL THIS CRISIS EVER END????


Not until the 'something for nothing' culture that has infested Britain ends.

Imagine if we all decided not to contribute to public infrastructure: these actors would have had no acting schools to go to and no BBC to work for. Yet having taken from society they now try and avoid paying back.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 17:37 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I applaud your utopian ideals. However am of the belief if everyone was offered a way of reducing the tax they pay. The majority would take it. What's the difference between what you complain about and people not taking a pay rise, because it forces them into a higher tax bracket. People not taking a job because the tax hit leaves them worse off. Doing a deal when buying a house to avoid the stamp duty? As far as I can see, nothing. If there is an ability and an option to plan your tax affairs and investment affairs, why not take that option.
Think you will find all the Queens money came back to UK banks


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 06 Nov 2017, 19:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
confused.com wrote:
I applaud your utopian ideals. However am of the belief if everyone was offered a way of reducing the tax they pay. The majority would take it. What's the difference between what you complain about and people not taking a pay rise, because it forces them into a higher tax bracket. People not taking a job because the tax hit leaves them worse off. Doing a deal when buying a house to avoid the stamp duty? As far as I can see, nothing. If there is an ability and an option to plan your tax affairs and investment affairs, why not take that option.
Think you will find all the Queens money came back to UK banks


Nothing. No difference.

I personally don't see the logic of not taking a higher paid job. You only pay a higher tax rate on the earnings above the threshold boundary, so still better off from taking the higher pay. So say you go from £44k to £46k in earnings. £1k of that is taxed at 20% (so £200 tax) and £1k at 40% (so £400). If someone resents having to contribute an additional £200 quid so much that they turn down a better job an an additional £1,400 for themselves then I pity them quite frankly. What on earth goes through their minds when waiting for a Dr's appointment..."boy am I glad I turned down £1,400 quid in my pick to make sure this hospital £200 less money than it could have done". Seems like the ultimate cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

As for stamp duty, only time I gave it thought was when the estate agent forced us to see their in-house advisor before giving us a viewing. He was some graduate pleb from Countrywide who amongst other Daily Mail style things and lying about having full market coverage called the government "thieving gypsies" in relation to stamp duty. I reported him to the FCA.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 08:01 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Simple fact is, as far as I have seen, nobody is doing anything illegal. I find it very very disturbing, given that fact, that the BBC and media, are happy to use stolen personal data to create a news story. They may try and sex it up by calling them the paradise papers. But it is nothing short of stolen personal data. Which in my mind is slightly more concerning that an off shore investment fund.
Don't think this theft has not been planned to coincide with the latest EU attempt to weaken UK's financial industry and just as they are meeting to discuss all our bank accounts being visible. The Crown depebdencies have all signed up to the OECD transparency rules many many years ago. HMRC has full vision of any trust based here. Strange how the EU are not banging on the doors of Malta and Lux who are much much less regulated.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 08:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Are they proactively transparent? Why did it take stolen data to know Ashcroft lied and Apple moved it's money from Ireland to Jersey.

Not illegal but definitely grubby. Sooner tax havens are closed and people contribute to the countries they live in the better.

The reason you find it so disturbing I would suggest is because you are in the minority who is happy for these types of legal avoidance schemes to exist. Whether it is your ideology or personal/professional interest I don't know, but I would say the simple fact is that the majority of people who work and pay tax and use services do not support those who could easily and comfortably contribute the most paying advisors through the teeth to ensure they contribute the least.

And noted the only paper not to run the tax avoiding schemes stories on their front page...the Telegraph, owned by tax avoiders supreme the Barclay Brothers, barons of Sark.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 08:57 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Yes they are fully complaint with HMRC's regulations and are in the process of signing up to the latest set of regulations. It should be noted that it was the UK who pushed for these regulations.
I am not defending Apple’s methods – but why should we be privy to their financial transactions? If they are legal, then so be it. I am sure the various governments around the world are well aware of their dealings, so it is up to them to stop it if they want. It is certainly obvious that the so pro EU Republic of Ireland are happy to make new laws and facilitate Apple’s desire to move their money around.

I would hazard a guess RCS, that if you have an ISA, shares, pension that some of the funds these are invested in are off shore. The reason being, the companies find it easier and financially beneficial to operate in a lower taxed environment. However, when you cash in your pension or ISA, that’s when the UK gets its tax. Most of these people seem to have invested in off shore Funds or Trusts. That is the key thing, they are not hiding money, or attempting to launder it. They have simply invested in an off shore trust or fund. The offshore trust or fund, locates itself where it can most easily administer those funds, end off.

I can only presume, you don’t bank with any of the major banks, have policies with any of the major assurance companies, never use Amazon, never use Uber, never buy an apple product (behind you on that one). Doing any of these will involve your money going offshore in some respect.

Ashcroft, I have no time for as he declared himself a non dom to avoid tax while looking to benefit from being in UK society. This is a very different matter.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 09:35 
Offline

Joined: 17 Aug 2017, 12:15
Posts: 28
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I’m just hoping that they find £millions in investments in my name and expose me. I’ll quite happily take the flak and put my hands up, pay the tax and bring the net amount back. :) :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 10:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
confused.com wrote:
Yes they are fully complaint with HMRC's regulations and are in the process of signing up to the latest set of regulations. It should be noted that it was the UK who pushed for these regulations.
I am not defending Apple’s methods – but why should we be privy to their financial transactions? If they are legal, then so be it. I am sure the various governments around the world are well aware of their dealings, so it is up to them to stop it if they want. It is certainly obvious that the so pro EU Republic of Ireland are happy to make new laws and facilitate Apple’s desire to move their money around.

I would hazard a guess RCS, that if you have an ISA, shares, pension that some of the funds these are invested in are off shore. The reason being, the companies find it easier and financially beneficial to operate in a lower taxed environment. However, when you cash in your pension or ISA, that’s when the UK gets its tax. Most of these people seem to have invested in off shore Funds or Trusts. That is the key thing, they are not hiding money, or attempting to launder it. They have simply invested in an off shore trust or fund. The offshore trust or fund, locates itself where it can most easily administer those funds, end off.

I can only presume, you don’t bank with any of the major banks, have policies with any of the major assurance companies, never use Amazon, never use Uber, never buy an apple product (behind you on that one). Doing any of these will involve your money going offshore in some respect.

Ashcroft, I have no time for as he declared himself a non dom to avoid tax while looking to benefit from being in UK society. This is a very different matter.


I bank and insure with Nationwide (moved from co op when they went bad). Sold up my Fidelity and M&G Trusts to buy our house (and pay for living/studying/etc in London with no job) so out of that game years ago. Have never used Uber. The few times I have used Amazon I feel dirty. Same way I try and not eat cheap meat or shop in Primark - tax avoiding, environmental destruction, poor labour standards are all sides of the same coin for me.

As for other consumer brands and basic high street financial products, what leaks of data which people keep secret enable is more information for consumers to make their choice about who to shop with. Freedom of information for customers is one of the tenets of free markets. So having this information in the public domain is a good thing to enable free markets. People can choose to shop elsewhere if corporate behaviour is an issue to them. Secrecy by the biggest brands is tantamount to rigging and distorting the market against smaller businesses. If any revelations come out regarding brands I respected I may change my purchasing behaviour. A good thing for free-marketeers like myself!

I see Lewis Hamilton is being investigated by HMRC. Even the Italians got Cellino on the same charge, so let's see if our rulers are willing to.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 14:57 
Offline

Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:15
Posts: 827
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Was the plane bought by an EU VAT registered company?

Was it solely for business use by this company?

If it was, then VAT would not be paid.

If it was used privately then it would be considered as a benefit in kind and there would be tax to pay similar to having a company car.

Were these rules applied by IOM?


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 15:02 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Red Duke wrote:
Was the plane bought by an EU VAT registered company?

Was it solely for business use by this company?

If it was, then VAT would not be paid.

If it was used privately then it would be considered as a benefit in kind and there would be tax to pay similar to having a company car.

Were these rules applied by IOM?


Time will tell.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 16:47 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Re: the "but it is not illegal" defence. Slightly disingenuous, in that loopholes have not been made legal by law, just people have found unintended loopholes which are not illegal.

View it a bit like synthetic drugs. Drugs are illegal. So people develop synthetic compounds to mimic them. Eventually all legal highs were made illegal, but there are still loopholes (changing molecules, selling it as plant food, etc) that mean some synthetic drugs are technically not illegal when produced but generally get banned after a while.

The government has not decreed any synthetic drugs legal , just that people find loopholes and make substances which are technically not illegal, until the authorities find out and ban that substance.

Tax avoidance schemes are the same as synthetic drugs. Not of these schemes have been passed as legal or decreed as legal. People have just managed to find stuff which is technically not illegal, for now, and once the schemes are closed down they will spend time and money trying to find other loopholes.

I don't think there is much moral ground in saying "I haven't done anything illegal, I have just gone massively out of my way to circumvent the law".


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 16:51 
Offline

Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:15
Posts: 827
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Re: the "but it is not illegal" defence. Slightly disingenuous, in that loopholes have not been made legal by law, just people have found unintended loopholes which are not illegal.

View it a bit like synthetic drugs. Drugs are illegal. So people develop synthetic compounds to mimic them. Eventually all legal highs were made illegal, but there are still loopholes (changing molecules, selling it as plant food, etc) that mean some synthetic drugs are technically not illegal when produced but generally get banned after a while.

The government has not decreed any synthetic drugs legal , just that people find loopholes and make substances which are technically not illegal, until the authorities find out and ban that substance.

Tax avoidance schemes are the same as synthetic drugs. Not of these schemes have been passed as legal or decreed as legal. People have just managed to find stuff which is technically not illegal, for now, and once the schemes are closed down they will spend time and money trying to find other loopholes.

I don't think there is much moral ground in saying "I haven't done anything illegal, I have just gone massively out of my way to circumvent the law".


The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 has been enacted to close the loophole of legal highs.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 16:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Red Duke wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Re: the "but it is not illegal" defence. Slightly disingenuous, in that loopholes have not been made legal by law, just people have found unintended loopholes which are not illegal.

View it a bit like synthetic drugs. Drugs are illegal. So people develop synthetic compounds to mimic them. Eventually all legal highs were made illegal, but there are still loopholes (changing molecules, selling it as plant food, etc) that mean some synthetic drugs are technically not illegal when produced but generally get banned after a while.

The government has not decreed any synthetic drugs legal , just that people find loopholes and make substances which are technically not illegal, until the authorities find out and ban that substance.

Tax avoidance schemes are the same as synthetic drugs. Not of these schemes have been passed as legal or decreed as legal. People have just managed to find stuff which is technically not illegal, for now, and once the schemes are closed down they will spend time and money trying to find other loopholes.

I don't think there is much moral ground in saying "I haven't done anything illegal, I have just gone massively out of my way to circumvent the law".


The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 has been enacted to close the loophole of legal highs.


As I said above, "all legal highs were made illegal". There are still loopholes though which can be found. As referenced in this article amongst others: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1910244/s ... e-illegal/

So like tax avoidance schemes, these loophole drugs are not technically illegal even though when the law was made it was intended to make them illegal.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017, 23:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Re: my remarks about free-marketeers and perfect information for consumers. Firms with strong CSR principles are getting worried about being associated with the avoiders in the Paradise link. So much so that they are starting to work on de-risking themselves from links to avoiders, the same way big brands try and de-risking themselves from conflict minerals, modern slavery and other sustainability/CSR issues.

Thomson Reuters just one service company offering consultancy/training on this: http://financial-risk-solutions.thomson ... fo/LP=4143

If the decent businesses in the world start to avoid dealing with avoiders, hopefully the demise of tax dodging schemes will be expedited.

Be great to see someone produce a full list of companies/individuals to boycott or campaign against.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 08 Nov 2017, 08:45 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Red Duke wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Re: the "but it is not illegal" defence. Slightly disingenuous, in that loopholes have not been made legal by law, just people have found unintended loopholes which are not illegal.

View it a bit like synthetic drugs. Drugs are illegal. So people develop synthetic compounds to mimic them. Eventually all legal highs were made illegal, but there are still loopholes (changing molecules, selling it as plant food, etc) that mean some synthetic drugs are technically not illegal when produced but generally get banned after a while.

The government has not decreed any synthetic drugs legal , just that people find loopholes and make substances which are technically not illegal, until the authorities find out and ban that substance.

Tax avoidance schemes are the same as synthetic drugs. Not of these schemes have been passed as legal or decreed as legal. People have just managed to find stuff which is technically not illegal, for now, and once the schemes are closed down they will spend time and money trying to find other loopholes.

I don't think there is much moral ground in saying "I haven't done anything illegal, I have just gone massively out of my way to circumvent the law".


The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 has been enacted to close the loophole of legal highs.


As I said above, "all legal highs were made illegal". There are still loopholes though which can be found. As referenced in this article amongst others: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1910244/s ... e-illegal/

So like tax avoidance schemes, these loophole drugs are not technically illegal even though when the law was made it was intended to make them illegal.



I give up with you on this one. Hamilton if using his plane for private use - yes should pay VAT. Ashcroft - has to make his mind up if he is a non dom or not, shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. Investing your money in an off shore trust is not illegal, not a loophole. If the UK government want to stop people investing money overseas, good luck with that one. Hiding your money is illegal, laundering money is illegal. What you deem to be a loophole, is by your definition only, oh and that of the media who like to sex up anything. BBC invests 22% of its pension fund off shore, so really fail to see what a scandal they are trying to unearth using stolen information.
I would hazard a guess, that if you work with an amount of middle class , self employed people, there will be some who use an off shore trust, with the money being paid into a UK bank. Like I say, no real point in debating when you make up your own rules about what is legal and illegal, what the tax laws 'meant' to say , or what is (in your own mind) on its way to being illegal.
No body is asking you to make your financial affairs public, or have you paid a tradesman cash, or reported anyone who has offered you a cash price, to HMRC. So I still fail to see why somebody stealing another persons private financial details, is such a laudable act?


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 08 Nov 2017, 11:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Laudable because if the scale and value of money being held offshore becomes more apparent to the public, then it will add to pressure for these trusts to be closed down and be based onshore.

Be interesting to see, hopefully, analysis of the total tax value the treasury misses out on by offshore trusts and accounts. If that number creates outrage and public pressure then it's a good thing for the UK society.

I guess our difference in opinion come from our views on tax and society. I personally take pride in paying taxes in this country and contributing to the social and physical infrastructure of this country. You seem to support individuals and Trusts trying to opt out of this by legally operating offshore. So as you say, no point arguing.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 08 Nov 2017, 13:51 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
And your good self, fails to differentiate between a 'Trust' operating offshore and the actual monies invested in those trusts not staying offshore, but incurring tax in their own country of residence. As you put the Queen forward as an example, there is no suggestion that the money was not brought back to the UK and tax paid on it. A 'Trust' chooses to operate offshore, mainly to benefit those in control and operating the trust or fund. The costs saving made by the Trust or Fund, may or may not be passed on to the investor - who knows, that is their decision to make. Once the government prevents all pension administrators from using these Trusts / funds, then I may have time to listen to your views on tax and society. However, it seems to be your view that Pension administrators use these vehicles, to hide money and avoid paying tax ? A curious stance to take, as the money must return to the UK at some stage when those pensions are due. Unless of course there are swathes of people across the UK who are getting their company / personal pensions paid from a bank located offshore ??????? That, I would doubt


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 08 Nov 2017, 16:51 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
As a point of reference, my company is currently introducing a software solution, for a very reputable UK Assurance company. So I decided to have a quick count of the breakdown of the on and off shore Funds. Their multimillion £ portfolio has 29.4% of its funds, in what you would and have labelled ‘off shore tax havens’. 100% of that money is brought back into the UK and tax paid at source when paid in form of a pension , ISA or flexible savings plan. This is exactly what you deem to be illegal and should be stopped.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 08 Nov 2017, 17:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
ISA being tax free of course.

What purpose does being held offshore hold if not for reducing tax liabilities then?


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 10 Nov 2017, 13:57 
Offline

Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 08:16
Posts: 2495
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
ISA being tax free of course.

What purpose does being held offshore hold if not for reducing tax liabilities then?


The funds and trust administration operates off shore, hence reducing red tape, making the administration of it easier. Obviously the company operating the Fund / Trust pays it's 'corporation tax' equivalent, in the country it operates in. As I said, any savings may or may not be passed on to the investor. That is up to them, the main incentive is the lack of 'regulation around the running of the Trust.

The fact that ISA's are tax free, would seem to give weight to the fact that your perception of what 'off shore means, is incorrect. The so called Panama papers, did uncover a degree of illegal activity and laundering. As far as I can remember, this did not include anyone in the UK.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Rotten from the top down.
 Post Posted: 10 Nov 2017, 14:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 04:27
Posts: 15792
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Oh I see. A scheme for Trust managers to avoid UK regulations and tax. Clear now.


Top 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
 Page 1 of 1 [ 31 posts ] 




Board index » THE NEST » NON FOOTY/JOKES ETC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: