Tax Havens

I have never avoided paying tax Nonnie, I still do, pay tax, we all have choices and I could not avoid paying tax then declare concern for the homeless or anger at disabled people having their mobility allowance taken off them , I have many faults but hypocrisy is not one

Annie I'm not right wing but have explained that many people have money in offshore accounts even though they don't know they do. I suspect many of the very rich also have their money invested in companies in the UK who invest it offshore and don't know it. My bosses in a huge company had KPMG do their tax every year and I doubt they had a clue what actually happened. DH has no idea where his saving are, he just signs what I give him to sign and he is far from dim, just trusts me to look after the money.

The point is, I think, that doing anything inside the law is OK, I have ISAs on which I pay no tax and it is tax avoidance. DC has been working for some time on getting laws changed to stop tax evasion but can only do it with international cooperation which takes a long time. Recent announcements about what the EU is doing are part of that. It is a shame that previous governments have done nothing about it but at least now something is being done.

It was interesting listening to a phone-in about IHT that one person commented that those who wanted it were the ones who had nothing to be taxed. Those who were against it had enough assets to pay IHT. Human nature, if it is legal to avoid tax people will do it.

The right wing posters still have not answered my question , pity, I only ask for an explanation as to why people hold off shore accounts when they pay their tax in this country - allegedly

Nonnie did say as I do not have oversea investments or a pension I wouldn't understand, so I am asking for it to be explained , thank you

"lots of people who do offshore also give money to charities, and expect praise for it." I totally disagree and how do you know they "expect praise for it.", totally unreasonable assumption. Many, many people quietly give to charity and don't tell anyone so certainly do not expect praise.

I sometimes wonder if these daft comments say more about the person who makes them than anything else.

Eloethan you say "It is ridiculous to compare people who quite openly hold ISAs and pensions - as encouraged by the government - to people who hide their money away in tax havens or who use all sorts of devious schemes to avoid paying tax. " I agree, but then I didn't do that did I? I made the point that most people probably have money in offshore accounts, that is all. Please don't decide what I think or mean for me, that is plain wrong.

The issue surely is not about whether DC paid the appropriate taxes when selling his shares. It is about a disconnect between what he says in public and what he does in private, and about what could be considered to be a conflict of interest in that he made representations to the EU to protect offshore trusts.

Accountancy Age, and other media outlets, reported a few days ago:

"DAVID CAMERON continues to be the subject of extreme criticism regarding the Panama Leaks, after it was discovered that the prime minister went out of his way to protect offshore trusts from EU tax avoidance measures.

"........... An apparent supporter of tax transparency, in 2013 Cameron wrote to Herman Van Rompuy, European council president at the time, arguing that offshore trusts should be exempt from an EU clampdown on money laundering, creating a loophole that could be exploited by tax evaders."

Accountancy Age further reported on 11 April:

"According to the Financial Times, Blairmore issued an investment prospectus in 2006 making clear that the fund would not be subject to UK tax on its profits. It said: “The directors intend that the affairs of the fund should be managed and conducted so that it does not become resident in the UK for UK taxation purposes.”

In my view, it is quite possible to do something that many people would consider to be "wrong" without it being illegal. Making pronouncements as to the morality of others while not being exactly squeaky clean yourself, and making official representations on behalf of your country about issues in which you may be considered to have a personal interest may not necessarily be punishable by law but it would still be assumed by many people to be "wrong".

The context in which these tax returns were submitted for open scrutiny is what is important.

I have given my views on Dave and his fathers tax dodging , I will say rather sweet he defending his father who left one son £200,000 more than his second son .

Duncan's comment like so many 'new money' People was typical of that sort of person, one hears it often, shows a shallow, selfish minded person who cannot understand there are people who care more for their fellow human being than for themselves , we call 'new money' people Jack

No Corbyn has not done anything wrong but he did file his tax return late , big deal, not at all. By publicly publishing his tax return, I believe for 1 year?, that is what happened and will be reported. The openness so desired will mean scrutiny and any consequence that follows is part of that process if it is full disclosure.

The 'context' of how that scrutiny is then reported on is the question and using terms such as ' Dodgey '. ' Bodgey' is pathetic in my opinion, when neither Corbyn or Cameron have done anything illegal , unless further information is forth coming to prove differently.

pogs you consistently miss the point. By letting your focus dwell on what you perceive incorrectly as jealously you are missing the real problem which I will reiterate by making the same point above. It is not the wealth that a large body of opinion in the UK is worried about, but what is being done with it. The wealthy are buying into the political system and thereby gaining influence outside of the democratic system. Through this they have to date ensured an extremely easy ride in relation to both evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

When giving thought to the tax system itself what the stakeholders in the UK want is fairness and the perception is that it isn't. You have only got to give thought to how you feel about the inheritance tax to understand this. Middle income people in particular are beginning to feel more and more that the tax burden falls heavier on them, and the poor through benefit cuts feel they are being more targeted then people at the upper income scale. It is nothing to do with jealousy, and everything to do with fairness. Now of course it is possible that we are all wrong, that all earnings are declared for tax purposes and everyone has the same % stake with regard to tax as everyone else. But the argument is that this is patently not the case. The onus is on the government to prove otherwise.

Oh right..... Had to think hard there for a few seconds, what a memory you have!
So, nothing doing on the tax avoidance front, Cameron is now being judged variously as too arrogant ( hanging offence) and he and his family once forgot a child at a family meal out .This is getting 'seriously' funny.

Forgetting your own child and leaving her alone in a pub is OK

So, Cameron paid all his tax and Corbyn paid his eventually , neither did anything wrong then.......?

Yes, poor choice of word 'bodger' is not really appropriate but probably chosen as it rhymes with 'dodger' which of course is false, inaccurate and would have been libellous.

A better description would be to say he had 'botched' the filing of his tax returns by returning them late and therefore incurring a fine. This is more a case of bungling, mismanagement of time, an informal mess up, hash, making a pig's ear of things than any dishonesty.

Though I'd worry that these traits are not something to be cherished in a future PM

Headline in the Metro today:

"Corbyn the tax bodger", together with the comment "the unfortunate Labour leader yesterday became the first top UK politician to be caught doing anything wrong since the scandal over offshore tax havens broke".

He did nothing dishonest or underhand. He filed his tax return late and duly paid the £100 fine. Does that constitute doing something "wrong"? How amazing that in the light of all the revelations re tax avoidance, once again Corbyn is the villain of the piece.

Nonnie People paying into occupational pensions have no control over where their money is invested and, in any event, most people (myself included) have a limited understanding of the complexity of fund management and pensions - and fund managers and financial institutions like it that way as they have in many cases been taking enormous commissions that are "hidden" within the figures. It is ridiculous to compare people who quite openly hold ISAs and pensions - as encouraged by the government - to people who hide their money away in tax havens or who use all sorts of devious schemes to avoid paying tax.

I find it unbelievable that some people continue to characterise those who are seriously fed up with the underhandedness and sheer greed of very wealthy individuals and companies who avoid paying taxes as being "jealous", "envious", etc. etc. I am sure there are many very comfortably off people on Gransnet who deplore these aggressive tax avoidance measures not because they are "envious" but because they think they are deceitful, unfair and just plain wrong. Many people In the Labour Party are extremely critical of Tony Blair and other Labour so-called "modernisers" who tend towards Peter Mandelson's intense relaxation about the filthy rich (though he did add "as long as they pay their taxes"). They would be equally as critical of any past or current Labour MPs who are revealed to have used similar tactics to avoid paying tax.

POGS In saying that you are not a "green eyed monster", you are again using the age old put down of implying that those who support inheritance tax - or any other attempt to distribute wealth more fairly - do so because they are envious. It's not an argument, it's an assumption based on your own rather jaundiced view of people on the left of the political spectrum.

To illustrate why you oppose inheritance tax you cite the example of a person known to you whose estate attracted inheritance tax because he owned a house worth £250,000 and had received compensation for a serious illness. First of all, inheritance tax was previously only payable on an estate worth more than £325,000 (£700,000 per married couple) and now £500,000 (£1,000,000 per married couple). Secondly, inheritance tax is only payable on the amount that exceeds the threshold, at a rate of 40%. Personally, I think it might be better to substantially reduce the threshold but also to have a sliding scale of rates, starting at, say, 5-10% and rising to, say, 25-30%. Our own house is worth in excess of £500,000 and we would most certainly want our children to benefit from some of that money but I think £325,000 is more than enough. Around 35% of people in this country do not own their homes (and this is the lowest percentage for 25 years) but at the same time the beneficiaries of the relatively small number of estates (around 6%) which attract inheritance tax continue to amass fortunes for themselves and their own children. So a system whereby wealth, power and influence is held in the hands of a very small number of people is perpetuated.

What I do think is a "shit tax" as you put it, is VAT, which is paid at a rate of 20% across the board - whether you have an income of next to nothing or whether you are a billionaire.

" Politicians choose to put themselves in the public eye. They choose the resulting publicity. And they should accept the resulting obligation to be accountable. If they do not, then it is my very simple and straightforward suggestion that they are not the appropriate people to be making decisions on our behalf.

We do expect to be governed by people who accept responsibility for their actions. And we do expect them to tell us the truth. What is more, we do believe they should act without conflicts of interest. We have this expectation in business. We have it even when it comes down to the level of being a school governor. So why should we not expect our politicians to be accountable for the risks that their private financial affairs might create in the exercise of their judgement?

Alan Duncan is just wrong: he is revealing his commitment to the politics of jealousy. Those who are making this demand are revealing their commitment to the politics of accountability. The two are based upon very different sentiments, and deliver very different outcomes, and we have a right to know who is committed to each."

I agree.

Have you read the link, POGS?

What about the other part of it?

Durhamjen

Your link Murphy is part headed ' We have a right to know who is committed to the politics of jealousy'

Another post of yours , quite fairly, refers to Alan Duncan who as you state said " 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 know absolutely nothing about the outside world".

Now I think he was a total ass in the the way he sounded so pompous but I think he was cack-handedly trying to make a point that for some people there appears to be such much hatred of wealth , public school education that they do not believe anybody of wealth, good education, aspiration belong in the Commons.

Then I read your post on the 'What's so special about a rich MP' where you said "Nothing special about a rich MP. They are 10 a penny at the moment. That's why we need to 'get rid of them' and make parliament more representative.

I am sure you and I and other posters will not agree but I find your last view makes Duncan's crass attempt at sarcasm rather convincing.

It is simply not believable that this company has run at a loss for so long and not become bankrupt. Ask any of the grans on here who own a business whether they could have survived for so long running at a loss, of course not. If I was a revenue officer I would investigate forthwith - oh better be a bit careful though as my boss owns some of it.

Not a surprise to me, granjura. I think I put a similar link before.
Cameron said that it's the sort of company we should be encouraging. I'm surprised nobody took him up on that.

Jalima, lots of people who do offshore also give money to charities, and expect praise for it. I'd rather they gave it to the taxman, so we didn't need to have foodbanks, etc., in this country. Then our charitable donations could go to developing countries.

I may have bought some of their wallpaper many years ago, but am glad to say that we have not used wallpaper in 30 years
(all painted walls)

grumppa has expressed it better than me

I don't own enough to pay IT - and any party which proposed taking the whole surplus from every person who dies would be unelectable anyway.

Well, surprise, surprise- fancy that!

scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12963801_10156719523435363_1809699698960147221_n.jpg?oh=c6b0ee27fa3be0c475007c3b8452aece&oe=57B78C80

I do like their wallpaper and paints- but ....