Paradise Papers

Rather difficult for HMRC to go after HM
It's rather difficult for HMRC to go after any of them! They've been asking for access to the papers for nearly 2 weeks, but the journalists will not pass it on.
This is all about sensationalism to sell papers, not about collecting taxes.

The Queen isn't a billionaire. She's not even particularly wealthy when compared with others in the top 1%

HMRC won't be going after HM, or after any of these tax avoiders as they are not actually doing anything illegal. Though no doubt HMRC will be checking them out to make sure they're above board...

The Queen, who today becomes the longest-serving monarch in British history, is worth £277m, a mere 3pc of the wealth of the richest Briton, Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/18/how-wealthy-is-the-queen-not-as-rich-as-you-think/

I don't think that 380 investigative journalists working on these leaked papers for more than a year is just 'sensationalism to sell papers'.

www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/about/

Investigative journalism has a vital role in society. It shines light into very murky corners.

Of course, if you are perfectly happy to trust in the benevolence of governments and the moneyed classes I can see why you would belittle it...

I'm not against investigative journalism at all - I've been castigated on GN for revealing I have a family member who is a journalist!
380 journalists didn't do that work without wanting to be paid for it. A law firm was hacked - it's probable that most of these transactions are legal, given it's a law firm. The only story left is tax avoidance. That's not front page news.

380 journalists didn't do that work without wanting to be paid for it.

Bit of a non sequiter, Primrose?

I'm sure your relative expects to be paid for their work whether it is regurgitating crap for the Daily Mail or doing a serious piece for a 'quality' paper (if we have any left...)

The only story left might be 'tax avoidance' but it is on a massive scale and deserves to be brought to the attention of the public again and again and again until 'the public' stop sitting down supinely under regimes which favour the rich and punish the poor.

There is still a moral question to debate on wealth and fairness in society, however ancient the debate might be. After all, 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?'..

The comment about my relative regurgitating crap for the Daily Mail is uncalled for. Why do you feel the need to try to undermine the work of a family member in order to promote your opinion?
It's a vicious circle of vitriol here sometimes. Told I know nothing, explain family work in the business, family insulted.
And you feel you're justified in discussing the morals and ethics of others?

Why is 'tax avoidance' downgraded to the 'only' story left. It is the story. It is taking place on an industrial scale. Why do you see it as so unimportant Primrose? Every pound these extremely rich people avoid paying has to be paid by you or me. I think that is very important.

I still fail to understand why those who are already filthy rich need to be even filthier and richer?

What can you do with £200 million that you can't do with £150 million ? or whatever.

I really don't understand. Why put your good name (???) at risk for the sake of a gain that will make little or no difference to your lifestyle?

The comment about my relative regurgitating crap for the Daily Mail is uncalled for. Why do you feel the need to try to undermine the work of a family member in order to promote your opinion?

OMG Primrose Is that who your relative works for? I had no idea.

And where did I tell you that you 'know nothing' Primrose?

That was John Snow

Commiserations to your relative primrose

What can you do with £200 million that you can't do with £150 million ? or whatever
Buy a big yacht and sail around the world? (as the advert said years ago)

Couldn't you still do that with £150 million though Jalima?

Well okay the yacht might have to be a teensy bit smaller but....

Well, you could, but what about keeping some money on one side for paying the captain and the crew?
One has to live in style.

Maizie used the DM to insult my family member. It could easily have been any tabloid, I assume. You're right - you have no idea. So why speculate?

Commiserations to your relatives too whitewave

Gillybob I don't think they want the money because they want to spend it on anything . I think they just see the owning of the money as an end in itself, not to put to any purpose, useful or otherwise.

....and there's always the diamond encrusted taps to think of Jalima silly me.

Actually I think you are probably right Ilovecheese having more money is just like a game and it's not about needing it or spending it any more.

How can they even enjoy sitting on hundreds of millions, while people in their own country are on the bones of their backsides.

Remember the days when Business owners provided for their workers, schools, infirmaries, houses with gardens - etc. It was accepted that 'bosses' would earn more than good living- but that they had responsibility for their workers and families. Most of us were happy to see the back of 'paternalism' - but sometimes I do wonder.

I read today that two large Labour Councils have money invested in off shore accounts to save paying tax / stamp duties ( about £12 million) and there are sure to be other Councils up and down the land doing the same.
It’s legal.
We can’t be cherry picking who is bad and who is good when it comes to legal tax avoidance.
If the rules need changing, they need changing for all.

And I'd totally agree with tham Lemongrove.

But do Councils pay tax?

They certainly should pay stamp duty when purchasing property!

Who was cherry picking?

jura councils only pay tax on their business activities. Most of what they do is done by dint of the precept.

Yes, the councils bought malls, and other properties.