Predictably Lord Fink has climbed down, looking at Miliband's comments it was difficult to see any libel - as he only 'accused' him of tax avoidance (which of course is legal and he's now admitted - the morality or otherwise of that being a separate question), with the 'dodgy donors' remark coming under fair comment I would think, as a fair minded person with strong views could think tax avoidance, even in its milder forms 'dodgy'.
@Morris_Dancer With the present technology, we are unlikely to see a substantial conventional hydrogen power station, though it might be possible to use it as a small scale energy storage system in combination with a "renewable" facility
Since one assumes that Hydrogen is produced by electrolysis, it would be strange to use it as a fuel in power stations, other than to provide localised power away from the grid or as a storage medium.
The days of Hydrogen requiring cracking for production will not last a whole lot longer.
Hydrogen-powered cars. Sometimes technology seems far too advanced.
I'm not especially old (indeed, towards the young end of the pb spectrum), but when I was a kid we didn't even have mobile phones (except yuppies, who were roundly mocked). Now we have computer glasses in development, VR is on the way, TVs that can record your conversations, e-readers which are basically the hand-held pads from Star Trek: The Next Generation, internet-connected fridges etc etc.
It's incredibly impressive, but the social upheaval (most obvious in the internet harming the high street) could be tumultuous due to the rate of change.
Just on the cars: could we have hydrogen powered trains? Or even hydrogen power stations?
While we're being futuristic they could make huge flying buses that use the hydrogen to make them float up in the air.
Peaks and troughs of individual parties indicate an outlier or a trend-setter or both.Vote of "big 2" over 70%,a big jump from Ashcroft.As I believe Asquith said,let's wait and see.
I think the criticism of Clegg and the Lib-Dems for going into government with the Tories is silly and childish.
The coalition was born out of the way the numbers stacked up. Nothing more, nothing less.
No other government was viable (except maybe an unstable Conservative minority government) and the Con/Lib coalition was the right decision.
However, Clegg's tactics since going into government has been terrible and I think "differentiation" has been a disastrous strategy because it leaves the Lib-Dems looking like complete and total hypocrites but most importantly it leaves the Lib's unable to take the credit for the things the Coalition have got right - And without sounding too much like Richard Nabavi it's actually been a pretty good governments, IMO.
Clegg should have listened more to the woman who represents the Lib-Dems on This Week and less to Dr Vince, Lord Oakshott, etc...
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Just had a call from Toyota announcing their new hydrogen powered car - available in the autumn with a range of 300miles. Only emission is water vapour.
Where does one refuel a Hydrogen car?
If the last two governments hadn't wasted a ridiculously fortune on dead end, out of date, stored energy electric vehicles, you'd be reguelling them at the same petrol station you use today.
That's the beauty of Hydrogen Fuel Cell. As they said on Top Gear, "it's the car of the future, because it works just like the car of today".
Right. It would have been better market economics to simply tax vehicle hydrocarbons some more and let the market decide between electric/hydrogen power to replace the hydrocarbons in vehicles.
But tax is politically bad, and government action by spending money to "support jobs and investment" is politically good, and so we still have governments picking winners out of competing technologies.
@edmundintokyo Hydrogen for lighter than air vehicles is probably a non starter after the airship disasters, though a British company has bought an experimental helium airship that also uses airflow to increase lift.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
Only if you're rich. Definitions of rich may vary.
Overall, this poll gives a big combined left-wing vote share of 50%, (Labour, Green, Nationalist) and a correspondingly low right-wing vote share of 43%, compared to an average of about 45/47% respectively.
That's presumably because there are fewer Lab -> UKIP switchers who are crossing the left-right divide.
About time we had a thread on the dismal Tory campaign.
I'm not sure the tory campaign has even started
It certainly has...
I've received Direct Mail from the Con PPC, and it is probably one of the safest Labour wards in the country - Labour are 1-10 best price here for the parliamentary seat. The ward would be 1-100 Lab, 25s UKIP, 100+ Conservative. Something like that.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
I am not convinced its going to move many votes anyway. The sort of voter that gets turned on by bashing the rich is going to vote Labour anyway. Most middle class wavers will be the sort of people that will be taking care of their own tax affairs as efficiently as they can and wont be looking favourably on a potential government implying they are going to be going after those optimisations. If anything it will drive the white van men with their "cash in hand" approach to life further away to UKIP.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
Tax Efficiency is not Tax Avoidance is not Tax Evasion.
What do those who claimed that Russia had nothing to do with the fighting in Ukraine make of Vlad declaring a ceasefire?
The Kiev government still refuses to talk directly to the rebels so who did you expect to make an announcement. Merkel also declared a ceasefire so I don't really understand your point, unless this is a deliberate confusion.
Clearly a fudge of an agreement driven by Europe to stop the US escalating the conflict. Either the Kiev government will now seriously negotiate with the rebels or the Ukrainian people will turf them out in due course if the rebels don't first. Europe has now washed its hands of the Kiev war party. Doubt the rebels will be too happy but they have the opportunity to consolidate recent gains and see how negotiations go. As it stands Kiev is more isolated, still bankrupt, it's armed forces crippled and is facing increasing internal opposition.
"Germany and France, France and Germany have shown together that we have made a contribution in line with Europe. I would like to thank most sincerely François Hollande. I think the fact that we have all agreed and worked together -- along with our Foreign Ministers -- has helped us to achieve this result." Shame Dave takes his position from the fruitiest nuts in Washington, we might have been a credible participant in encouraging Kiev to engage in jaw jaw not war war.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
No.
Labour aren't going after those with a couple of pennies to rub together, those with a couple of hundred million pennies to rub together may not like the Gov't though...
Tax avoidance..at any level, is legal..anyone who does not do it is a fool.
Tax Efficiency, using legislation to reduce tax paid as the legislation intended is perfectly fine. But Tax Avoidance, using unintended loopholes in the legislation is questionable and more importantly, even when legal can be closed down and backdated by the revenue.
"I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?"
For a well respected poster that's kindergarten stuff.
This site is surely too grown up for those sorts of reductio ad absurdum posts
@Morris_Dancer With the present technology, we are unlikely to see a substantial conventional hydrogen power station, though it might be possible to use it as a small scale energy storage system in combination with a "renewable" facility
There are some small power to gas systems in Germany. At the moment I think they are able to stuff the hydrogen into the natural gas network, because the quantities involved are quite small. That or they are converting the hydrogen to methane first.
It helps to even out the intermittencies in renewable energy supply.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Tax avoidance..at any level, is legal..anyone who does not do it is a fool.
Tax Efficiency, using legislation to reduce tax paid as the legislation intended is perfectly fine. But Tax Avoidance, using unintended loopholes in the legislation is questionable and more importantly, even when legal can be closed down and backdated by the revenue.
The line between Efficiency and Avoidance is blurred. Am I avoiding or just being more efficient? You're right, the law can change (not sure about the backdating point), but that is true for plain old nice'n'legal efficiency too.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
Tax Efficiency is not Tax Avoidance is not Tax Evasion.
So no.
Tax evasion is a crime.
I am avoiding tax. Legally.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Labour claims to be going after tax avoiders. What does that mean? On what basis can you or anyone else say they won't go after those who put their money into an ISA as opposed to those who put their money into a pension which is held on trust (as most pensions are)?
You can't because Labour are making it up as they go along. They are saying things for political effect using a lot of boo words - rich person - trust - Switzerland - Tory = bad dodgy person.
There is a reason why we have the rule of law. It would be nice if some Labour politicians - including even the leader - occasionally gave the impression that they understood this.
Labour aren't going after those with a couple of pennies to rub together, those with a couple of hundred million pennies to rub together may not like the Gov't though...
Such b8llocks.
Hollande was after the people will 100 million pennies. How many paid? none
@OblitusSumMe Separating hydrogen from oxygen is an expensive business, and unless someone develops another way of getting it on a large scale its use will be confined to storage of power rather than an actual fuel itself.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
Tax Efficiency is not Tax Avoidance is not Tax Evasion.
So no.
Tax evasion is a crime.
I am avoiding tax. Legally.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Labour claims to be going after tax avoiders. What does that mean? On what basis can you or anyone else say they won't go after those who put their money into an ISA as opposed to those who put their money into a pension which is held on trust (as most pensions are)?
You can't because Labour are making it up as they go along. They are saying things for political effect using a lot of boo words - rich person - trust - Switzerland - Tory = bad dodgy person.
There is a reason why we have the rule of law. It would be nice if some Labour politicians - including even the leader - occasionally gave the impression that they understood this.
The tricky area is what constitutes "aggressive tax planning". Maybe dial it back a bit when you shout at your accountant?
OGH is even now scrambling around looking for a tiny bit of good news for the LDs such as how Dorothy Thornhill will still win in Watford or how Sutton will return 2 Mps with increased majorities...
Tax avoidance..at any level, is legal..anyone who does not do it is a fool.
Tax Efficiency, using legislation to reduce tax paid as the legislation intended is perfectly fine. But Tax Avoidance, using unintended loopholes in the legislation is questionable and more importantly, even when legal can be closed down and backdated by the revenue.
Tax avoidance is legitimate and up to recently was accepted by the general public. Tax evasion is and always has been illegal. The problem is that what to one person is tax avoidance is to others evasion and its very hard to square the circle.
One prime example of the above was Chris Moyles claiming to be a car salesman. While he claims he was merely trying to avoid tax pretending to be incompetently bad at a job you clearly don't do isn't to most people taxavoidance...
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
I am not convinced its going to move many votes anyway. The sort of voter that gets turned on by bashing the rich is going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
None of which are avoidance.
Yes they are. They are lawful schemes which have the effect of avoiding tax.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), but it's a moral one that most reasonable people above the age of 15 are able to make without too much difficulty. There are plenty of grey areas that people can reasonably disagree on, but there are also areas which are very clearly one or the other.
That's why most people can see the difference between a cash ISA (doing exactly what the law intends) vs having accountants set up complex schemes to exploit obscure legal loopholes. And that's why the more CEOs and Tory donors publicly make this kind of transparently pathetic and disingenuous argument, the more people are going to go running to vote Labour.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
No.
Labour aren't going after those with a couple of pennies to rub together, those with a couple of hundred million pennies to rub together may not like the Gov't though...
If there is even the faintest risk of people with a hundred million pennies being cause by any new regulations they will be gone like an early morning mist to another country that will be more welcoming to their cash. Bashing the rich plays well with voters, but its economic idiocy, for every one of the 0.1% that say "fuck it" and moves to Monaco or where ever, how many new average income tax payers do we need to find to replace the tax they were paying ?
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
None of which are avoidance.
No all of it is legitimate tax avoidance (planning your affairs in such a way to avoid paying some tax). None of it is tax evasion...
'Clegg should have listened more to the woman who represents the Lib-Dems on This Week '
Agree she has far more political nous than any of their front benchers.
What's particularly stupid is the Lib Dems trying to be in government and opposition at the same time,just looks absurd.
Because the Conservatives are also in a coalition, they too are in government and opposition at the same time (listen to the Conservative backbenchers complaining about the government).
Any coalition will have the constituent party members opposing various government policies.
Even single party governments are coalitions of their right wing and left wing supporters who will oppose the government at times eg John Major and the EU sceptics.
"Labour claims to be going after tax avoiders. What does that mean? On what basis can you or anyone else say they won't go after those who put their money into an ISA as opposed to those who put their money into a pension which is held on trust (as most pensions are)?"
what a pity you and the many others on here didn't speak out so loudly in defense of Jimmy Carr when he was lawfully avoiding tax. It almost cost him his career.
Credit to him though. For all the blame he heaped on his accountant at least he never said " Well people put money into an ISA. That's avoiding tax"
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
I am not convinced its going to move many votes anyway. The sort of voter that gets turned on by bashing the rich is going to vote Labour anyway.
You're not familiar with the Green/SNP surge?
Yes, but they are both bashing the rich harder than Labour, because they wont get elected, and so wont have to pay for the NHS without the tax of the top earners if they piss them off too badly and they decamp.
What can Clegg do to stop the slaughter? Is it too late to resign?
Perhaps OGH can make suggestions, in a thread on the LibDems Death Spiral?
But where they work they win...if you say that often enough you will believe it i suppose. The national phone bank operation will help them though..tthey are the most effecient party at that.
"I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?"
For a well respected poster that's kindergarten stuff.
This site is surely too grown up for those sorts of reductio ad absurdum posts
It's a perfectly legitimate question which a number of Labour-supporting posters have been unable to answer.
Labour have deliberately - and apparently effectively - blurred the distinction between complying with the law (tax avoidance) and breaking it (tax evasion). They should not be surprised if others wonder where the law will be drawn should they be in government.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), but it's a moral one that most reasonable people above the age of 15 are able to make without too much difficulty. There are plenty of grey areas that people can reasonably disagree on, but there are also areas which are very clearly one or the other.
That's why most people can see the difference between a cash ISA (doing exactly what the law intends) vs having accountants set up complex schemes to exploit obscure legal loopholes. And that's why the more CEOs and Tory donors publicly make this kind of transparently pathetic and disingenuous argument, the more people are going to go running to vote Labour.
It's quite possible to get one's tax bill down sharply while doing exactly as the law intended.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), but it's a moral one that most reasonable people above the age of 15 are able to make without too much difficulty. There are plenty of grey areas that people can reasonably disagree on, but there are also areas which are very clearly one or the other.
As soon as we start running the country on the basis of what is "moral" rather than what is "lawful" its time to give up and turn out the lights, that the sort of idiocy that "social justice warriors" churn out, for their own view of what is moral of course.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
On the subject of tax, I read on the Guardian last night about Non Dom status being hereditary (I know. It is obvious when you think about it) This means that the status will increase at a faster rate with each passing generation and giving those who keep the option a financial advantage over UK tax payers. It may be worth looking at again, though governments of all stripes have said they will, but never do. (G.B. was the last of our party leaders to say he would do something about it)
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
Tax Efficiency is not Tax Avoidance is not Tax Evasion.
So no.
Tax evasion is a crime.
I am avoiding tax. Legally.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Labour claims to be going after tax avoiders. What does that mean? On what basis can you or anyone else say they won't go after those who put their money into an ISA as opposed to those who put their money into a pension which is held on trust (as most pensions are)?
You can't because Labour are making it up as they go along. They are saying things for political effect using a lot of boo words - rich person - trust - Switzerland - Tory = bad dodgy person.
There is a reason why we have the rule of law. It would be nice if some Labour politicians - including even the leader - occasionally gave the impression that they understood this.
The tricky area is what constitutes "aggressive tax planning". Maybe dial it back a bit when you shout at your accountant?
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), but it's a moral one that most reasonable people above the age of 15 are able to make without too much difficulty. There are plenty of grey areas that people can reasonably disagree on, but there are also areas which are very clearly one or the other.
As soon as we start running the country on the basis of what is "moral" rather than what is "lawful" its time to give up and turn out the lights, that the sort of idiocy that "social justice warriors" churn out, for their own view of what is moral of course.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Who said anything about running the country on that basis?
If there is even the faintest risk of people with a hundred million pennies being cause by any new regulations they will be gone like an early morning mist to another country that will be more welcoming to their cash.
Its genuinely astonishing to me that, with the example of Hollande so fresh, posters as bright at Mr Pulpstar genuinely think otherwise. How many times do we have to repeat this failed experiment?
"Labour claims to be going after tax avoiders. What does that mean? On what basis can you or anyone else say they won't go after those who put their money into an ISA as opposed to those who put their money into a pension which is held on trust (as most pensions are)?"
what a pity you and the many others on here didn't speak out so loudly in defense of Jimmy Carr when he was lawfully avoiding tax. It almost cost him his career.
Credit to him though. For all the blame he heaped on his accountant at least he never said " Well people put money into an ISA. That's avoiding tax"
How odd. You're saying what Jimmy Carr did was OK, whilst having pop at others for doing similar. Is that correct?
And that's why the more CEOs and Tory donors publicly make this kind of transparently pathetic and disingenuous argument, the more people are going to go running to vote Labour.
Labour going after tax avoidance could win back more votes than it loses. But it is no good winning back support from the left, if they don't bother to go out to vote.
I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
None of which are avoidance.
No all of it is legitimate tax avoidance (planning your affairs in such a way to avoid paying some tax). None of it is tax evasion...
Avoidance is about structuring your affairs in an 'artificial' way (usually inserting some bogus transactions along the way involving the setting up bogus entities like trusts and shell companies) as to avoid a certain tax.
ISAs, pension funds and charity donations are not artificial and are legislated for by the government to encourage certain behaviour.
It seems today as though Ed Miliband is channelling TSE. So far he apparently has said "I believe that children are our future" and "reach for the stars".
He needs more imagination. "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next" would have been far more stylish.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .
You've undermined your own argument right there.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
If there is even the faintest risk of people with a hundred million pennies being cause by any new regulations they will be gone like an early morning mist to another country that will be more welcoming to their cash.
Its genuinely astonishing to me that, with the example of Hollande so fresh, posters as bright at Mr Pulpstar genuinely think otherwise. How many times do we have to repeat this failed experiment?
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), but it's a moral one that most reasonable people above the age of 15 are able to make without too much difficulty. There are plenty of grey areas that people can reasonably disagree on, but there are also areas which are very clearly one or the other.
As soon as we start running the country on the basis of what is "moral" rather than what is "lawful" its time to give up and turn out the lights, that the sort of idiocy that "social justice warriors" churn out, for their own view of what is moral of course.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Who said anything about running the country on that basis?
You were just telling us all about what was moral, I assumed that was because you felt it had some relevance to the discussion. I contest that it doesn't, what is lawful is the only way to run a country.
While the site is going through an infantile stage why doesn't Ed sue CCHQ for the inaccurate press release suggesting he has 'climbed down' when a simple reading of their release shows that there is no truth in the claim whatsoever.
On the subject of tax, I read on the Guardian last night about Non Dom status being hereditary (I know. It is obvious when you think about it))
It's not obvious at all, and if the Guardian said that then you should find yourself a decent newpaper (I believe Mr Murdoch has one such on the UK market). Non Dom status is an exceptionally complicated part of tax law. The status of the parents (especially father) is just one of many elements to it.
Comments
Mr. Dair, huzzah!
Mr. Me, cheers for that.
The bulk of Hydrogen is currently created using methane, a process that produces high carbon emissions.
With the present technology, we are unlikely to see a substantial conventional hydrogen power station, though it might be possible to use it as a small scale energy storage system in combination with a "renewable" facility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production_(Algae)
Once Hydrogen is a source and not a store it changes... everything.
Unless some Environutter objects to "genetically engineered algae fuel", calls it Frankenfuel and the Daily Mail run with it.
The coalition was born out of the way the numbers stacked up. Nothing more, nothing less.
No other government was viable (except maybe an unstable Conservative minority government) and the Con/Lib coalition was the right decision.
However, Clegg's tactics since going into government has been terrible and I think "differentiation" has been a disastrous strategy because it leaves the Lib-Dems looking like complete and total hypocrites but most importantly it leaves the Lib's unable to take the credit for the things the Coalition have got right - And without sounding too much like Richard Nabavi it's actually been a pretty good governments, IMO.
Clegg should have listened more to the woman who represents the Lib-Dems on This Week and less to Dr Vince, Lord Oakshott, etc...
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?
I'm not sure the tory campaign has even started
But tax is politically bad, and government action by spending money to "support jobs and investment" is politically good, and so we still have governments picking winners out of competing technologies.
Hydrogen for lighter than air vehicles is probably a non starter after the airship disasters, though a British company has bought an experimental helium airship that also uses airflow to increase lift.
I think we can safely presume labour will be pursuing anybody who has the temerity to have a bit of money.
I've received Direct Mail from the Con PPC, and it is probably one of the safest Labour wards in the country - Labour are 1-10 best price here for the parliamentary seat. The ward would be 1-100 Lab, 25s UKIP, 100+ Conservative. Something like that.
Found a link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2570118/Worlds-longest-aircraft-revealed-300ft-long-airship-unveiled-UK-hailed-game-changer.html
So no.
They couldn't get it past the LibDems.
Meanies.
'Clegg should have listened more to the woman who represents the Lib-Dems on This Week '
Agree she has far more political nous than any of their front benchers.
What's particularly stupid is the Lib Dems trying to be in government and opposition at the same time,just looks absurd.
Clearly a fudge of an agreement driven by Europe to stop the US escalating the conflict. Either the Kiev government will now seriously negotiate with the rebels or the Ukrainian people will turf them out in due course if the rebels don't first. Europe has now washed its hands of the Kiev war party. Doubt the rebels will be too happy but they have the opportunity to consolidate recent gains and see how negotiations go. As it stands Kiev is more isolated, still bankrupt, it's armed forces crippled and is facing increasing internal opposition.
"Germany and France, France and Germany have shown together that we have made a contribution in line with Europe. I would like to thank most sincerely François Hollande. I think the fact that we have all agreed and worked together -- along with our Foreign Ministers -- has helped us to achieve this result."
Shame Dave takes his position from the fruitiest nuts in Washington, we might have been a credible participant in encouraging Kiev to engage in jaw jaw not war war.
Labour aren't going after those with a couple of pennies to rub together, those with a couple of hundred million pennies to rub together may not like the Gov't though...
"I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?"
For a well respected poster that's kindergarten stuff.
This site is surely too grown up for those sorts of reductio ad absurdum posts
It helps to even out the intermittencies in renewable energy supply.
You're right, the law can change (not sure about the backdating point), but that is true for plain old nice'n'legal efficiency too.
I am avoiding tax. Legally.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Labour claims to be going after tax avoiders. What does that mean? On what basis can you or anyone else say they won't go after those who put their money into an ISA as opposed to those who put their money into a pension which is held on trust (as most pensions are)?
You can't because Labour are making it up as they go along. They are saying things for political effect using a lot of boo words - rich person - trust - Switzerland - Tory = bad dodgy person.
There is a reason why we have the rule of law. It would be nice if some Labour politicians - including even the leader - occasionally gave the impression that they understood this.
Such b8llocks.
Hollande was after the people will 100 million pennies. How many paid? none
Who lost out in the end?
The people with a couple of pennies...
All my workings are with the rounded figures so it may even not be as dramatic as all that.
Lab 35.5%,
Con 33.5%
Something like that.
this yearsince September.Separating hydrogen from oxygen is an expensive business, and unless someone develops another way of getting it on a large scale its use will be confined to storage of power rather than an actual fuel itself.
One prime example of the above was Chris Moyles claiming to be a car salesman. While he claims he was merely trying to avoid tax pretending to be incompetently bad at a job you clearly don't do isn't to most people taxavoidance...
@paulwaugh: EdM says he was making 'general' attack on 'dodgy' Tories. Sounds like watering down charge on Fink. Tories will seize on that
Meanwhile...
@DPJHodges: Nick Robinson asks Ed about deed of variation.
@DPJHodges: Ed says he's avoided no tax on deed of variation. Big play.
That's why most people can see the difference between a cash ISA (doing exactly what the law intends) vs having accountants set up complex schemes to exploit obscure legal loopholes. And that's why the more CEOs and Tory donors publicly make this kind of transparently pathetic and disingenuous argument, the more people are going to go running to vote Labour.
@MrHarryCole: Norman Smith: Ed is determined not to back down. Ed Miliband: "I'm not calling Lord Fink dodgy". Wake up dude.
Any coalition will have the constituent party members opposing various government policies.
Even single party governments are coalitions of their right wing and left wing supporters who will oppose the government at times eg John Major and the EU sceptics.
"Labour claims to be going after tax avoiders. What does that mean? On what basis can you or anyone else say they won't go after those who put their money into an ISA as opposed to those who put their money into a pension which is held on trust (as most pensions are)?"
what a pity you and the many others on here didn't speak out so loudly in defense of Jimmy Carr when he was lawfully avoiding tax. It almost cost him his career.
Credit to him though. For all the blame he heaped on his accountant at least he never said " Well people put money into an ISA. That's avoiding tax"
The national phone bank operation will help them though..tthey are the most effecient party at that.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3527/Liberal-Democrats-at-lowest-level-of-support-since-1990.aspx
Labour have deliberately - and apparently effectively - blurred the distinction between complying with the law (tax avoidance) and breaking it (tax evasion). They should not be surprised if others wonder where the law will be drawn should they be in government.
Ta!
This means that the status will increase at a faster rate with each passing generation and giving those who keep the option a financial advantage over UK tax payers.
It may be worth looking at again, though governments of all stripes have said they will, but never do.
(G.B. was the last of our party leaders to say he would do something about it)
The Greens are in third place with all giving a Voting Intention.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-avoidance-schemes-currently-in-the-spotlight/spotlight-16-plan-green-car-benefit-scheme
Who said anything about running the country on that basis?
Its genuinely astonishing to me that, with the example of Hollande so fresh, posters as bright at Mr Pulpstar genuinely think otherwise. How many times do we have to repeat this failed experiment?
Its called the Roger-Guardian defence - lefty tax wheezes are good, Conservative ones are bad- very bad.
ISAs, pension funds and charity donations are not artificial and are legislated for by the government to encourage certain behaviour.
He needs more imagination. "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next" would have been far more stylish.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
Reread what I wrote.
Carefully this time
You were just telling us all about what was moral, I assumed that was because you felt it had some relevance to the discussion. I contest that it doesn't, what is lawful is the only way to run a country.