Tax Havens

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/04/13/the-big-4-in-the-firing-line/

This is a good idea.
Take the big four accountancy companies out of tax havens and the problem will all but disappear.
You take them out of the equation by refusing to give them government contracts unless they do it. Then you will find where their loyalties lie.

Why not just string 'em up?

Cameron doesn't debate. He's just nasty and has a pack of hyenas behind him, egging him on. They'll stop if Vote Leave win the referendum. But they will not.

I do not believe in stringing people up. Rehabilitation can work much better.
Lots of people who do the wrong thing do so because of the environment they are in. Change the environment. Make those who are found to be doing wrong redundant. They will have enough money to live on in their tax havens to not add to the unemployment figures.

You make it sound so simple dj, bit like waving a magic wand! I'm afraid changing the environment is like most things, easier said than done, as all politicians discover when they actually have to do something instead of just saying it. Perhaps Jeremy and Co have this magic wand to create this perfect society but I doubt it, and lots of people will be disappointed, as they have in the past by labour governments.

This will never be agreed on, some care that taxes are not paid but could make such a difference to the homeless, disabled, the closure of women's refuges, the fact the NHS is being privatised , others think it right as much tax as possible should be avoided and no matter the above because it doesn't affect them personally

I thought it might have been about the Big 4 accountancy firms DJ.

I believe you and Whitewave mentioned Price Waterhouse Cooper / PWC on the Steel Debacle Thread making connections to Cameron even on a thread about steel. You both gave the ' impression ' Price Waterhouse Cooper / PWC is ' dodgey' and the two were made for each other.

Price Waterhouse Cooper, one of the Big 4 accountancy firms , was the Labour Party's biggest non union donor last year. Two interesting stories to 'refresh' some memories.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31162869

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/pricewaterhousecoopers-tax-structures-politics-influence

A good read and a reminder 'We are all in it together'

Do you think the money which PWC donated to the Labour Party had been sheltered in a tax haven and that tax had not been paid on it?

Or is it counted as a charitable donation and therefore tax deductable?

Did you red the links , as a good friend of mine always asks.

POGS, I'm not convinced by your argument. The compensation was awarded to your friend's father to compensate for suffering or disability, not your friend. It's sad the process took so long and that he didn't live long enough to benefit, but I still don't see why your friend should benefit from her father's misfortune. Any property he owned would probably not have been earned wealth.

I agree with Eloethan. Inheritance continues inequality from one generation to the next between the wealthy and the poor and between people living in different areas of the country.

Nonnie, I don't know whether the rules about withdrawing funds from offshore accounts have changed, but you used to be able to withdraw 5% per year tax-free. This means that if you have £2 million, you can withdraw £100,000 without ever having paid any tax on it, which I would have thought most people would find reasonably adequate.

Did you read the link which shows that the accontancy firms have given to all parties, not just Labour?

Are you saying it's wrong to stop UK accountancy firms from helping UK people to avoid paying UK tax?

theconversation.com/the-new-tax-laws-planned-in-wake-of-panama-papers-and-the-crucial-role-of-public-opinion-57696

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/08/19/who-did-the-big-4-fund-before-the-general-election/

Jalima, the accountants paid this before the 2010 election. Can't find a comparable one for this election.

daphnedil

Then that is your view. Mine is different. I saw a family who were loving and caring and spent 'years' watching their dad die slowly from lung disease before them. Quite rightly he was compensated for loss of earnings , the ability to work and earn a decent wage . I wouldn't begrudge them one penny of his compensation as they were living the hell he was going through also.

We will agree to disagree perhaps.

Durhamjen

Interesting your chosen economic guru Richard Murphy comes up with different sums for the Labour donation than many. If you read my link you will see an official Labour statement giving a different sum, unless I have misread information.

I raised the point re Labour donations as your link mentioning the words of Dianne Abbot the Shadow Secretary for International Development saying

"There is a clear conflict of interest in DFID spending aid through 'these firms' to reduce global poverty because 'these companies' are themselves fuelling 'legal theft' of the developing worlds public finances"

The link gives an impression that Labour are so disgusted in the Big 4 they are going to make this pioius, aren't we good decision but I see the hypocrisy when Labour was happy to take money from 'these firms' when it suited.

Labour MP Margaret Hodge when she was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said it was ' inappropriate ' for Labour Shadow Cabinet Ministers to accept support from PWC.

Yes, you are correct, it is not only Labour in the frame , all parties have faults , that is the point. But if the perpetual finger is directed towards everything Labour saintly, everything Conservative evil don't be surprised if somebody posts to point out that is not how everybody views it.

Richard Murphy is an accountant, and the sums are audited.
I think I will believe him. He's not a member of any party, so has no axe to grind, and he checked up on his sources.
I do not have any gurus. By the way, he is a follower of Margaret Hodge as well.
I am pleased you appreciate her work and his.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/05/13/why-the-tax-profession-hate-margaret-hodge-is-that-she-represents-democracy-and-the-really-loathe-that/

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/05/21/on-margaret-hodge-and-the-pac/

"If trust is to be restored in the fairness of our tax system, much greater transparency is essential. We need to open companies’ tax affairs to public account. HMRC always refuses to disclose the details of its tax deals with companies by hiding behind the legal obligations to keep taxpayers’ affairs confidential.

That will no longer wash. When we know the assets that companies hold in every country, the revenues they earn in every country and the profits they make from those revenues, we will be able to see if the tax they pay is fair.

I don’t think greater transparency will destroy or even harm capitalism, but it will help to persuade the 85% of the UK population who pay their tax through PAYE that everybody is truly equal under the tax laws."

Margaret Hodge said this in January about Google's tax. It's a shame she is not still the chair of the PAC, although Andrew Tyrie does quite well.

You've hit a nerve, POGS. My father died from a lung disease and I had to watch him suffering for years. He had never been awarded any sort of compensation. Maybe I should have sued his employer for allowing smoking in the workplace, but I'm not that money grabbing. Compensation is awarded to the person who is ill, not grieving relatives.

"Money grabbing"? Extremely unpleasant thing to imply!

And we are talking about tax avoidance/evasion no money grabbing there then

Man from Mars comes down and looks at the UK revenue and benefit system.

He recognises that there is fraud and evasion taking place.

He understands that the UK is very strapped for cash - or so he's told.

He looks at where the biggest problem is and decides it is with tax evasion at £34bn per annum. Benefit fraud comes in at £1.3bn per annum.

He then discovers that the UK has chosen to spend more money chasing benefit fraud than tax evasion.

I wonder what his conclusion would be as to the competence of the U.K. Government

I have used evasion very carefully in my post above. The figure of £34bn does not include any aggressive tax avoidance. There is a suggestion that if we included that in the figures it wou ld amount to 120bn per annum.

All our deficit/ debt problems solved and GOs surplus would materialise, by a massive amount.

Yes, Jane10, I would have considered it money grabbing if I had benefited by one penny from what my father suffered. Why is that such an extremely unpleasant idea?

I know how you feel Daphne, my father suffered from Miners lung disease - as it's known here -the thought of benefitting one penny from his suffering fills me with horror , there was a long battle by the NUM for compensation , the battle won as my father was dying, my mother refused to allow the claim to go forward , we agreed, we couldn't have spent it after his death , too horrible

Yes Anniebach I do know about Pneumoconiosis or otherwise referred to as black lung disease and I do know varying compensation settlements have been awarded . There are two forms of pneumoconiosis Simple CWP and Complicated CWP which causes massive fibrosis. Horrible .

It was your families choice not to proceed with a claim and any compensation due to your father . Had he lived long enough to have received compensation I for one would not have begrudged him or his family one penny.

If those who have stated that the family should not benefit from compensation payments after the death of the awardee what do you expect families to do, give it back to the government or Insurance Company or whom ever paid it out ?

DaphnedilI.

I have COPD/Broncheactasis so I am well aware of living with a lung disease thank you. I would estimate quite a few GN posters have lost loved ones due to lung disease.. I was saddened to read your post which was unpleasant in tone.

I did not expect you to benefit from the compensation for your father's illness daphnedil the poor man was entitled to it to make his last years more comfortable.

POGS, if my father had lived longer we would supported his claim 100% , what we didn't agree with or want was Mum having the money ,neither did she , she said she could not and would not benefit from the years of suffering my father endured. Now I think I would have made a different decision, encouraged mum to accept the money and give every penny to charity, we were to emotional at the time watching Dad die. No way can I agree that children should benefit from these sorts of compensation though