Paradise Papers

Don't worry, gillybob, you are not a 'subject' of HM and haven't been for some while except in old-fashioned legal jargon.

You are a British Citizen.
I expect you will be relieved to know that

GGMK2 - yes - the longer the code is the more complex it becomes and the more loopholes develop to be exploited by accountancy experts - HMRC can hardly keep up.
It has increased exponentially in recent years but all Governments are the same - it was a mere 5,000 pages in 1997 when Gordon Brown took over and more than doubled under him to become 11,500 in 2009 - George Osborne criticised this but when he took over it increased yet again to the 17,000 it is now - ridiculous & I guess nearly impossible to manage.
On the basic point of legal avoidance - international co-operation is needed to stamp it out.

Yes I agree Lemongrove but all she ever had to do/say or make clear was that her investments should always be moral and ethical.

As has been said many times already, how many in the UK know where pensions for themselves are invested?
It’s legal, and until legal loopholes are closed if thought to be wrong ( and various governments haven’t wanted to do this) then accountants will continue their job of trying to make money for their clients.

their!

The UK had the longest tax code in the world in 2009 according to LexisNexis reaching 11,520 pages. By 2015 it had reached in excess of 17,000 pages.

Surely the only way we can clamp down on the unintended outcomes of taxation is by simplifying the system. I can only assume that governments have not done this in the past because it has not been in their interest to do so - otherwise they would have wouldn't they?

The rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer because of a system of unfettered capitalism. This is what we have been moving to since Thatcher. We were told those with little or no capital would benefit from globalisation and trickledown. This was pure sophistry.

In the scheme of things I doubt that anyone on GN - however much they may preen themselves for thier prudence and choose to see others as lazy, etc., - is actually rich. You may have benefited from the crumbs dropping from the table of those whose capital is unimaginable but you will not have benefited on the same scale as they have done.

We just need a taxation system that treats everyone the same and all money, earned and unearned the same and is simple and clear - but that won't win the government rich and powerful friends, will it?

gillybob I am not a Royalist, and if we should ever have a Republic I would welcome it.
However, since the Queen has people who do various jobs for her for almost everything, it’s not unreasonable to think that she leaves anything to do with her private money to a trusted firm of accountants.

At 91 the queen is indeed very fortunate to have enjoyed the luxury life she ( and her very extended family) have had. The best of everything life can offer including healthcare, food etc. So hardly surprising she is "so good or her age" I can't understand why a lady of her extreme wealth (and age) would need to make immoral investments ? Let's not pretend she is some doddery old woman who barely knows what day it is .

I agree Eazybee

The whole issue here concerns tax avoidance, which is, at present, legal.
Unsavoury, exploitative, some dubious practices and deserving of investigation and reform, but not illegal.
The people using these schemes do not deserve to have their identities splashed all over the media; they have not done anything illegal.
Many, many people unwittingly take advantage of such schemes via investments, notably pensions, not illegal.
Having discovered this, how many will now withdraw their money?
On a personal note I am more concerned to learn that £2,000,000 of BBC money is wasted spent on Mrs. Brown's Boys.

Not quite the same circumstances but the sordid HBOS/Lloyds merger robbed ordinary investors when this sordid and unethical deal took place. Many of these were ordinary people who were luck enough to come into a little nest egg by way of free shares because they legitimately held the right sort of bank account at the time the shares were offered. Halifax then offered more shares in a Rights Issue just before this merger. All that did was reduce their huge debt mountain using our money to make the merger a more attractive proposition. Only they knew the true state of affairs. Daylight robbery. If Lloyds shareholders win their case to be compensated, then so should all the former HBOS investors. And, to boot, where was the FSA to protect us? It was a corrupt deal and the people who engineered it should be brought to justice. Everyone is aware that shares rise and fall on the FTSE but this HBOS/Lloyds loss of money was nothing to do with FTSE - it was a totally corrupt deal. That's how low this country has sunk - no decency any more. And it is always the ordinary person who pays the price for corruption and immorality.

I paid tax throughout my working life, now pay tax on my pension because I'm lucky enough to have a work as well as state pension. I don't resent my taxes because I believe in good public services.

I watched some of the Panorama programme but found the way it was filmed and presented made poor television. I appreciate this makes me sound uncaring and shallow but if we're to be given a hard hitting programme let's have it presented professionally. Legal tax evasion schemes have always existed. Accountants train and make good livings advising those lucky enough to have loadsamoney how to hang on to it. If we want everyone to pay their fair share of taxes, we need to look at legal loopholes.

She’s 91, and lucky to be fairly healthy in all ways, but I doubt if money is very important to her in the grand scheme of things.She is more likely to be thinking of the health and happiness of all her family.

I don’t think that the Queen, especially at her age knows much about the investing side of her own private money

That's an extraordinarily ageist thing to say; especially on Gnet..... Are you implying she's a bit ga ga

Because it goes with the job of being a constitutional monarch.
If we ever decide to become a republic then we won’t need the trappings of royalty, but as it is, there are certain things the monarch is allowed to do ( not very many!)
I don’t think that the Queen, especially at her age knows much about the investing side of her own private money,but may take an interest now, or at least Charles will.

I would think very carefully before fiddling with our constitution, maryeliza, it can have unintended consequences. As a 'simple Yes/No referendum' demonstrated...

I think dj was bring tongue in cheek - why on earth should bills have to have the royal assent - as they do - it’s a pathetic constitutional nicety that makes the UK look like an idiot. Why not abolish that?

FGS dj, The Queen doesn't make the laws of this country she rubber stamps them and VERY rarely, if ever queries them. Perhaps you aren't aware that she's a constitutional monarch?! The clue is in the word 'Constitutional'!
All this gunning for the Queen is quite absurd when there are MUCH bigger fish to fry. FGS, turn your anger on them, and leave her alone. Enough is enough!

The Queen does not "make our laws" that is done by our elected representatives. I am surprised that those who are so politically astute seem to be unaware of this.

And it’s about what she symbolises as well isn’t it? Inherited privelege

Is she not? Her useless son certainly is

Anya First time anyone on here has suggested I'm politically to the right!!!

I was saying leave the Queen out of it because many of these wealthy people play a very dark role in politics which we should be concerned about because it both benefits no-one but themselves and is anti-democratic. For a collection of people who voted in the main to 'take back control' from 'unelected bureaucrats' Gnetters seem strangely unconcerned at their government being run by, and for the benefit of, unelected wealthy individuals. The Queen, foolish though someof her investments might have been, is not trying to subvert our democracy.

Their fair share.

So basically those who lean politically to the right say this is not an issue and leave the Queen alone, and those on the left think everyone should pay there fair share.

ISAs are NOT tax avoidance schemes. They were set up NOT to avoid the payment of tax but as an incentive to encourage saving. That is quite quite different from complex schemes set up operating in secret from off shore islands whose PRIME purpose is the avoidance of tax. Tax avoidance is legal - we know that - but it’s absolutely immoral. It strikes at the very heart of fairness between individuals in their proportionate contribution to the provision of services such as the armed services, police, motorways, NHS , education etc from which we all benefit. It’s not a witch hunt to name and shame those very very wealthy individuals who decide that they do not support fairness yet want to benefit from a society in which the rest of us do pay our fair share.if LH and LA were caught up in a terroist attack they would have all the benefits of the emergency services, they drive on our motorways. I’m appalled that governments are not tackling the problem in any meaningful way but that doesn’t excuse for one minute the selfish greedy immoral behaviour of obscenely wealthy individuals,As for ER what exactly is the point of her if not to embody ‘British’ values? Maybe some of you think she does - British values of greed, unfairness, sod the poor, sod individual responsibility for behaving morally, selfishness and entitlement, unearned inherited privilege? What a world we live in - PP, BJ, the whole sexual harassment abuse. I just despair but the worst of all are the apologists amongst ordinary people for this whole group of people and their behaviour