Tax Havens

Yes, that's the one. Nice man, isn't he?

He certaintly is a charmer Jen , but hey, what's £4,000 ? Peanuts !

I liked the question by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve who asked David Cameron to

" Encourage the Leader of the Opposition to write to him to set out in detail the allegations he makes against him, either of breaking the law or propriety or breaking the rules of this house, because I have to say that I have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition I fail entirely to comprehend what it is he is going on about."

Does he still have shares in Zimbabwe?

So Dominic Green doesn't know how few people cannot afford to buy a home, how many people hsve to use good banks etc,, he can't have if he didn't know what Corbyn was talking about. Wonder if Green has asked the Sunday Mail editor what he means by saying what Dsve did was immoral

George Osborne only gave one year's tax return. This is last year's.

"George Osborne has received a dividend pay-out worth £1,230 from his family’s wallpaper business, despite the company not paying any corporation tax for the last seven years, according to reports.

The Sunday Times says it has analysed the accounts of Osborne & Little Group Ltd – the parent company of the family business – and found it paid out dividends worth £335,000 to shareholders, including the Chancellor, on 30 May 2014.

Mr Osborne's parents, Sir Peter and Lady Felicity Osborne, reportedly received dividend pay-outs of over £270,000.

The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments.

The Chancellor has previously spoken out against “morally repugnant” tax avoidance, making it a major part of his 2012 budget speech.

He has recently called a £130 million tax settlement with Google a “major success”, despite critics calling the arrangement a "sweetheart deal" with the amount being an effective tax rate of just 3 per cent..

The latest accounts allegedly show Osborne & Little Group paid £6,000 in tax overseas – it also has deferred a “tax charge” of £173,000."

Cameron said today that this is the sort of company that we should encourage - ones that do not pay any tax?
Note they paid tax overseas but not here.

They disgust me , surely the most immoral and shameless government

I have just asked on another thread this question.

Can somebody tell me why the Data Protection Act doesn't apply if we were 'all' required publicly to disclose our tax returns and indeed all of our finances as has been the call on Cameron .

We can't even put the names addresses of proposed new members on the notice board at our local club, because of the Data Protection Act. If a piddly action like that is deemed to be against our human right , how the heck does making us all publicly publish our finances work with the Data Protection Act.???

This is very funny.

fullfact.org/economy/taxation-legalised-extortion-discuss/

Troup has been complaining that his words about tax being legalised extortion are being taken out of context. So Full Fact asked for a copy of the article so they could check. It was published in the FT. The FT said that Troup had the copyright, so they asked. But he will not give them a copy of the full article.
Make of that what you will. I am.

There would be a new law to say that we had to. Have you not heard about the NHS selling our details to anyone who wants them unless we opt out?
I don't think the idea would be to pin our tax returns up in the library or community centre.

They would probably bring the law out at 5.00 p.m. on a Friday night just before parliament broke up for the summer.

It might not be pinned up on a wall in a library but if is a requirement to make our tax returns public knowledge then why won't I be able to view anybody else's information. After all there would be no protection because the Data Protection Act will be gone presumably. Or will it be replaced by another law that all states all Tories must publicly publish theirs but nobody else, that seems to be the crux of the matter as I read certain posts. I haven't noticed one voice on GN call for ' all ' Parliamentary MP's to publish their finances , why not.?

I could be a right nosey b---h and look up my neighbours finances or somebody I don't like. Why not? I could be a nosey b--h and wonder what a neighbour claiming benefits gets. If we can't look at other peoples financial records what is the reason for making it law.

You mention the NHS and opting out, what do you mean, we could opt out?

POGS, You would have to read the Data Protection Act for the answer to your question. I agree with not putting addresses on a public notice board, so I wonder why the addresses of anybody seconding a local councillor is on the internet for all to see. The Data Protection Act only covers specified information, so it might well be the case that income and wealth isn't covered. I don't know, so let us know if you find out the answer.

Nope I don't know the answer and I am not going to wade through the Data Protection Act either.

I asked the question as I thought some clever dick/soul could give an answer but it looks unlikely so far.

I doubt income and wealth isn't covered, many have been wanting to find what Farage is up to

dj, The records which the NHS sold aren't covered by the Data Protection Act, because they don't identify individuals - in theory. A determined researcher could find out details of an individual, especially if he/she happens to have a rare illness.

Ah well, POGS! Sorry, I'm not in clever dick mode! ;-( However, I might have found your answer from the Information Commissioner's Office.

"Sensitive personal data means personal data consisting of information as to -

(a) the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,

(b) his political opinions,

(c ) his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,

(d) whether he is a member of a trade union (within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992),

(e) his physical or mental health or condition,

(f) his sexual life,

(g) the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or

(h) any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings."

In other words, financial details aren't covered by the Act.

I suspect that your club is being over-cautious and has misinterpreted the Act, in the same way that many 'elf and safety rules are actually over-zealous interpretations of the law.

Daphnedil

I will ask about it when I go next.

Thanks for answering, you clever dick.

ab, There is no law which states that Farage MUST declare his income and wealth. Likewise, any income he has should already be in the public domain, unless he's been taking backhanders (and I'm not suggesting for one moment that he has). It wouldn't take long to collate it all and I wouldn't mind betting it will be in the media in a couple of days.

MPs' publishing their legal income isn't actually a big deal. Anybody with a few hours to spare could work it out from public records. Salaries from directorships and dividends from shares should also be available. Banks wouldn't publish details of interest, but I think (and I'm too tired to check) that's a result of confidentiality agreements between banks and their customers and nothing to do with the Data Protection Act.

Companies like the one in Panama are shielding information from the public domain which would normally be available if money were only in the UK.

POGS Why do you consider inheritance tax to be "a shit tax"?

Alan Duncan can't present a reasoned argument but instead resorts to flinging around insults:-

"Shouldn’t the Prime Minister’s critics really just snap out of their synthetic indignation and admit that their real point is that they hate anyone who’s even got a hint of wealth in their life?” he asked.

“.... we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low achievers, who hate enterprise, hate people who look after their own family and who know absolute nothing about the outside world.”

Well, Alan Duncan certainly could never be accused of not being enterprising. This multi-millionaire ex oil trader with some very controversial financial supporters thought it quite in order to claim more than £4,000 for expenses incurred in relation to garden maintenance. When this claim was questioned, he complained that MPs were having to "live on rations and are treated like shit".

He resigned from a ministerial post following controversy surrounding property deals. In particular, he lent an elderly Westminster neighbour money to buy his 18th century council home under the Right to Buy scheme - the neighbour sold it to Alan Duncan three years later.

Frankly, I think the country can do without such "enterprise" and "high achievement".

I, and I'm sure many other people, take great exception to the implication that those whose lives are not devoted to obtaining as much money as possible by whatever means are "low achievers" who are incapable of looking after themselves and their families.

The comments by Duncan left me breathless. Should such people be allowed in Parliament. Dreadful little man.

Didn't expect anything else, he is a Tory and showed the true blue colours of a Tory yesterday

Of course they shouldn't, whitewave. And what can we do about those wretched voters who elect them? Let's just have party apparatchiks we can rely on, so much safer than demicracy, which relies on trusting the people.

I'm afraid twits like Duncan, and others in all parties, are the price we pay.

We have got that corrupt money grabbing ex Tory MP standing in our constituency for UKIP in the Welsh elections this May