Some years ago Hunchman came on here regularly with the same warning. At the time the index was touching 4000. Nowadays he comes on infrequently saying pretty much the same but it'll always happen in about six months......
OK Rog, you DYOR and make your dispositions accordingly.
@felix And if what percentage would they pay if it wasn't for clever financial instruments? Don't split your sides laughing.
Oh dear, I'm talking mainly about PAYE taxpayers like many doctors, teachers, and middle managers who earn between 40 to 80 thousand a year. That's where most of the tax money comes from. There aren't enough super-rich to generate much real cash even if you tax em at 100%.! But never mind, you bask in the moral glow while the country goes down the pan.
That the vast majority might like to but are in no position to be able to afford to doesn't make avoidance right but then how many of us have paid cash in hand to a tradesman ?
One of the differences between a country like the UK, and many other countries in the world, is that generally speaking most people in the UK obey the law not out of fear but because of something close to habit. Perhaps even some residual sense of social duty.
I dislike this general acceptance of tax evasion. I have very rarely paid cash in hand to a tradesman, mostly paying with a cheque, and on the occasions when I have paid in cash I was not at all expecting the tradesman to avoid paying VAT due as a result. Instead I was reassured to be given a written receipt with a VAT number.
Society as a whole cannot function if most people do not voluntarily follow the rules. Sometimes you have to choose to do what is right, rather than what you can get away with. I do not tolerate a nudge and a wink that we are "all at it" in terms of tax evasion.
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep · 1h1 hour ago Interesting Times report on Treasury Select Committee today - admission that uncontrolled migration lowers working class wages. Fancy that!
LD leaflet arrived in the post, addressed to my wife, it focusses on Labour's failings.
Nearly bankrupted Britain.
I assume under this it makes no mention of the fact that for every year Labour was in office the Liberal Democrats attacked the government for not spending more money ?
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep · 1h1 hour ago Interesting Times report on Treasury Select Committee today - admission that uncontrolled migration lowers working class wages. Fancy that!
I seem to remember a TV interview with Charles Clarke where he said that open door immigration was a (Gordon Brown) Treasury policy intended to keep wages low.
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Second paragraph - what he did was "perfectly legal".
Smear away, in the style of tim. It's like he never left....
The Guardian newspaper reports that Ian Cameron, who died in 2010, left a fortune of £2.74m, from which the Prime Minister personally received a sum of £300,000.
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Second paragraph - what he did was "perfectly legal".
Smear away, in the style of tim. It's like he never left....
The Guardian newspaper reports that Ian Cameron, who died in 2010, left a fortune of £2.74m, from which the Prime Minister personally received a sum of £300,000.
I'd be a bit miffed with that if I was Dave !
Is the rest tied up in the house which is wife is still living in?
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Second paragraph - what he did was "perfectly legal".
Smear away, in the style of tim. It's like he never left....
The Guardian newspaper reports that Ian Cameron, who died in 2010, left a fortune of £2.74m, from which the Prime Minister personally received a sum of £300,000.
@MarqueeMark Legal, and moral are not the same thing to Dave and Ozzie according to the article? Dave surely must have a very good idea of what his fathers business entailed?
It is going to be very instructive to compare Ed Miliband's response to Trinity Mirror acknowledging that they engaged in industrial-scale phone-hacking, with his reaction to NewsCorps identical offences.
If anything Trinity Mirror are the worst* offender. Despite this there is nearly deathly silence from the people whose campaign put the NotW out of business. It certainly looks like the campaign was partisan.
* When this all started I said that the Operation Motorman report from the ICO suggested that the NotW was only the tip of the iceberg, and far worse behaviour would emerge.
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
They all say it and of course we all want an efficient tax system but it does not alter the fact that the bulk of tax revenues come from middle England and the additional tax to be gained from soaking private companies based abroad is very limited unless internationally controlled. no amount of bluster from Cam/Clegg?Miliband will alter it. And if overdone and companies go bust as a result you have lost jobs, less tax revenue and .. wait we're in France!
Seriously - forget moral guidance leave that to the 'impoverished' Church of England, etc.
There are an awful lot of comments on this site along the lines of "Oh yeah? Well I bet in X situation you'd totally say Y! Wow, based on the way I just imagined you behaving in that made-up scenario, you're a total hypocrite!"
A Labour Chancellor could do a deal with the Banks. Pay your *ankers as much bonus as you like but the tax @50% to be paid by the employer. They can use any "avoidance" scheme they want for the employee. Even send the monies to Mars.
Are banks not covered by PAYE rules ?
You haven't heard about offshore trusts and then the money comes back as an interest free loan ? I know that particular wheeze has been stopped but another has started I am sure.
My point is let them pay whichever way they like. Any "bonus" has to be taxed at 50% [ on the employer ] regardless whether the employee pays or not.
Any "bonus" thus not taxed should not be allowed as a tax deductable expense for the employer.
The cycle to work scheme is probably the most ridiculous middle class subsidy one could imagine. Whoever came up with it must be such a joy at dinner parties...
Anyone can use it – just a cheap way of getting a bike. Keeps cars of the roads. What's the problem?
The value in the scheme is not in getting a bike to commute. It is in subsidising the purchase of bikes in at least the £500+ mark but doesn't really become worth the effort till you're up above the £1000 mark.
That's not the price range of commuter bikes.
A Brompton is the best commuter bike and is £800 to £1200 depending on specification. I got a bike on the scheme myself, mostly used at the weekend.
My latest tax dodge is to avoid air passenger duty by taking a 24 hour stopover in a European city. This means paying only the short haul rather than long haul rate. The money saved pays for the overnight stay. Well worth it.
Even better is routing a trip to the US via Paris.
London - New York in business class (only when someone else is paying): £5,000 return
Paris - New York via London (return): £2,000 in business class
The one caveat here is that the betting markets appear to be rather skewed towards the tories. That's great if you're placing value bets now and waiting until may 8th to collect - less good if you're wanting to trade in & out of positions during the campaign.
It's just something to consider - the market may not *rationalise* any time soon.
Remember - the Romney/Intrade price was wildly optimistic all the way through the campaign, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The market never did readjust.
On that note, there's been £10k looking to back the Tories at 1.8 on betfair for some time.
I'd be interested to know what the country gains from bankers earning a few millions in bonuses for trading money?
I understand that the great majority of "bankers" are involved in normal day to day transaction that facilitate movement of money but I'm talking about the ones involved in gambling, the ones who earn silly money?. What value-added are they contributing?
They're the ones who work for private investment firms and aren't "bankers" at all!
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Second paragraph - what he did was "perfectly legal".
Smear away, in the style of tim. It's like he never left....
The Guardian newspaper reports that Ian Cameron, who died in 2010, left a fortune of £2.74m, from which the Prime Minister personally received a sum of £300,000.
I'd be a bit miffed with that if I was Dave !
He should see a lawyer and get the will chnaged.
He should ask Ed for his solicitor's phone number next PMQ's.
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Second paragraph - what he did was "perfectly legal".
Smear away, in the style of tim. It's like he never left....
The Guardian newspaper reports that Ian Cameron, who died in 2010, left a fortune of £2.74m, from which the Prime Minister personally received a sum of £300,000.
I'd be a bit miffed with that if I was Dave !
I think we can take that £2.74m is the small change left after some "vanilla" inter vivos transfers from him to his off spring.
He had £1m just from flogging a couple of Greuzes in 2006 ish, frinstance. Bet that wasn't part of the estate when he died.
@TheWatcher Probably not as hard as I am laughing about some on here wanting to open up an investigation into Ed's inheritance and possible tax avoidance. An investigation would of course be entirely appropriate for all the leaders of our country in that case?
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Second paragraph - what he did was "perfectly legal".
Smear away, in the style of tim. It's like he never left....
The Guardian newspaper reports that Ian Cameron, who died in 2010, left a fortune of £2.74m, from which the Prime Minister personally received a sum of £300,000.
I'd be a bit miffed with that if I was Dave !
I think we can take that £2.74m is the small change left after some "vanilla" inter vivos transfers from him to his off spring.
He had £1m just from flogging a couple of Greuzes in 2006 ish, frinstance. Bet that wasn't part of the estate when he died.
Good man. They were lovely pictures.
Always amuses me when the Daily Mail rakes up an individuals tax affairs, in view of it's proprietor's interesting non-dom status.
The root of most UK tax avoidance is that taxes on labour are much higher than taxes elsewhere. For logical reasons - if you need to raise the money, you need to do it on things that aren't that mobile. [Land value tax would be a good idea; but it's probably too politically difficult to implement].
However this does tend to leave the PAYErs feeling a bit screwed.
The root of most UK tax avoidance is that taxes on labour are much higher than taxes elsewhere. For logical reasons - if you need to raise the money, you need to do it on things that aren't that mobile. [Land value tax would be a good idea; but it's probably too politically difficult to implement].
However this does tend to leave the PAYErs feeling a bit screwed.
Well, there's a price for paid holidays, job security, sick pay, pension, payroll, PAYE, etc.
I try to swerve as much tax as possible and couldn't care less... anyone who doesn't is a fool in my eyes
For the love of god, won't you think of the nurses!!! Poor Cathy, working in intensive care, could have a few more hours overtime if you stopped your evil 'swerving'. You heartless, immoral cad, you.
@felix I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Second paragraph - what he did was "perfectly legal".
Smear away, in the style of tim. It's like he never left....
Oh the good old days. 'Man cries at funeral'. How we laughed.
That and 'man shops at Morrisons'.......
Mind you, what with the deafening silence that has greeted Trinity Mirror's (very belated) admittance of hacking, I'm not surprised that some on the left are inured to the stench of hypocrisy and are happily oblivious to Ed's......
@TheWatcher Probably not as hard as I am laughing about some on here wanting to open up an investigation into Ed's inheritance and possible tax avoidance. An investigation would of course be entirely appropriate for all the leaders of our country in that case?
Eh? Ed's tax affairs deserve looking at for all the shrieking he's done on the evils or avoidance.
I couldn't care less if Tony Student and Petra Florist have a shag, but if the Father Patrick is sharing his bed with Dan Builder then his flagrant hypocrisy would make it an issue.
The root of most UK tax avoidance is that taxes on labour are much higher than taxes elsewhere. For logical reasons - if you need to raise the money, you need to do it on things that aren't that mobile. [Land value tax would be a good idea; but it's probably too politically difficult to implement].
However this does tend to leave the PAYErs feeling a bit screwed.
Well, there's a price for paid holidays, job security, sick pay, pension, payroll, PAYE, etc.
If you don't like all of that, give it up!
If I could earn as much as I do in my salaried employment then I might.
But most of the costs you refer to fall on my employer, not the state. Labour tax is high because it can be, not because it needs to be to cover the state's costs with respect to employment.
High labour taxes ultimately discourage work (in the UK) at the margins - mostly via early retirement, sometimes via physical relocation.
This seems an undesirable outcome but obviously the system is (sort of) in a political and financial equilibrium.
I try to swerve as much tax as possible and couldn't care less... anyone who doesn't is a fool in my eyes
For the love of god, won't you think of the nurses!!! Poor Cathy, working in intensive care, could have a few more hours overtime if you stopped your evil 'swerving'. You heartless, immoral cad, you.
Ha! I've paid my share down the years, enough is enough
I don't know anyone who doesn't try and get the best deal for themselves, be it tax or paying cash in hand etc... why wouldn't you?
Some years ago Hunchman came on here regularly with the same warning. At the time the index was touching 4000. Nowadays he comes on infrequently saying pretty much the same but it'll always happen in about six months......
I don't know who @hunchman is, but I would suspect that Crispin has been rather more successful at making money out of his read of the market than him (or most - if not all - of us)*
* Except my Dad, who ended up as the #3 performer in the UK stockmarket from 1970-1999 when he stepped down from managing the firm's pension fund
1) Greed 2) The feeling that they contribute disproportionately 3) The feeling that government priorities are wrong
Government efforts to reduce tax avoidance are almost exclusively geared towards the first of these. Perhaps governments should consider addressing the second and third of these, either by explaining their approach or by reconsidering it. It's not just the poor who can be socially excluded.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep · 1h1 hour ago Interesting Times report on Treasury Select Committee today - admission that uncontrolled migration lowers working class wages. Fancy that!
I seem to remember a TV interview with Charles Clarke where he said that open door immigration was a (Gordon Brown) Treasury policy intended to keep wages low.
The root of most UK tax avoidance is that taxes on labour are much higher than taxes elsewhere. For logical reasons - if you need to raise the money, you need to do it on things that aren't that mobile. [Land value tax would be a good idea; but it's probably too politically difficult to implement].
However this does tend to leave the PAYErs feeling a bit screwed.
Is that actually true? I know we should not generalise from a sample of one but I recently discovered that I pay almost precisely the same income tax as an American colleague (to within £75 a year) on the same salary (which might just be a quirk of the exchange rate). Of course, in America, what we call income tax is for them an amalgam of different local, state and national taxes so that their headline figure sounds lower.
One difference here -- and perhaps why tax avoidance is so politically toxic -- is that most voters are on PAYE so any avoidance looks like a fiddle only open to "toffs and bosses".
The root of most UK tax avoidance is that taxes on labour are much higher than taxes elsewhere. For logical reasons - if you need to raise the money, you need to do it on things that aren't that mobile. [Land value tax would be a good idea; but it's probably too politically difficult to implement].
However this does tend to leave the PAYErs feeling a bit screwed.
Is that actually true? I know we should not generalise from a sample of one but I recently discovered that I pay almost precisely the same income tax as an American colleague (to within £75 a year) on the same salary (which might just be a quirk of the exchange rate). Of course, in America, what we call income tax is for them an amalgam of different local, state and national taxes so that their headline figure sounds lower.
One difference here -- and perhaps why tax avoidance is so politically toxic -- is that most voters are on PAYE so any avoidance looks like a fiddle only open to "toffs and bosses".
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that taxes on labour are higher than taxes on capital.
Some years ago Hunchman came on here regularly with the same warning. At the time the index was touching 4000. Nowadays he comes on infrequently saying pretty much the same but it'll always happen in about six months......
I don't know who @hunchman is, but I would suspect that Crispin has been rather more successful at making money out of his read of the market than him (or most - if not all - of us)*
* Except my Dad, who ended up as the #3 performer in the UK stockmarket from 1970-1999 when he stepped down from managing the firm's pension fund
I remember Bob Beckmann giving financial advice on LBC several decades back. The exchange went something like this. Presenter: one listener, Fred Jones (say), has written in to say if you're so clever, why aren't you rich? To which Beckmann replied, "Mr Jones: I am *very* rich."
Some years ago Hunchman came on here regularly with the same warning. At the time the index was touching 4000. Nowadays he comes on infrequently saying pretty much the same but it'll always happen in about six months......
I don't know who @hunchman is, but I would suspect that Crispin has been rather more successful at making money out of his read of the market than him (or most - if not all - of us)*
* Except my Dad, who ended up as the #3 performer in the UK stockmarket from 1970-1999 when he stepped down from managing the firm's pension fund
I remember Bob Beckmann giving financial advice on LBC several decades back. The exchange went something like this. Presenter: one listener, Fred Jones (say), has written in to say if you're so clever, why aren't you rich? To which Beckmann replied, "Mr Jones: I am *very* rich."
That's a rather churlish response to a churlish question.
My Dad was only ever paid a modest salary for his work
"* Except my Dad, who ended up as the #3 performer in the UK stockmarket from 1970-1999 when he stepped down from managing the firm's pension fund ""
My Mother was pretty good. She'd notice that Next had smartened up so bought 'Next'. She'd go to a dinner and notice everyone was smoking so she bought 'BAT' Then there was the coffee bar explosion so she bought 'Whitbread'....just a pity I wasn't a chip off the old block
But I can categorically say that in my experience the worst professional tipper of is WH Ireland. Fortunately forearmed is forewarned.....
*Hunstman is indeed a poster on here. That you haven't met him shows he at least has some shame.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep · 1h1 hour ago Interesting Times report on Treasury Select Committee today - admission that uncontrolled migration lowers working class wages. Fancy that!
I seem to remember a TV interview with Charles Clarke where he said that open door immigration was a (Gordon Brown) Treasury policy intended to keep wages low.
Just not his own wage.
The anecdote seems unlikely, simply because if it were, then CCHQ and UKIP would have it on posters up and down the land, but it does remind us of the different approaches to recruitment difficulties -- the highly-paid must be given ever higher salaries to attract the cream, whereas the lower-paid are workshy scroungers so must be replaced from abroad or threatened with sanctions, and perhaps both.
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
That a definition may be "mainstream" does not stop it being meaningless or incoherent. The reduction of a charge or assessment to tax is by definition the avoiding of tax. "Avoid" is a natural and ordinary word in English, and there is no reason for giving it a different meaning without good reason. The reason suggested is incoherent.
It is trite law that the intention of Parliament is to be determined objectively. The intention of Parliament is not the subjective intention of the government or of a majority of MPs. It is determined by construing the meaning of words used by Parliament in a statute. The presumption in this country, rightly, is that no activity or property is taxed. It is for Parliament to say what is charged to tax. It is therefore immensely rare, if not impossible for tax to be avoided by taking advantage of a relief that was not intended by Parliament, since if Parliament had intended something to be taxed, it would have said so. The fallacy with the suggested definition is that it conflates forms of tax avoidance which the Revenue approve of and those which they do not with the intention of Parliament, which is quite separate.
The definition of tax arrangements in the Finance Act 2013, s. 207(1) is, by contrast, a coherent definition of tax avoidance: is it "reasonable to conclude that the obtaining of a tax advantage was the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the arrangements"?
Decent looking bet in the New Zealand game tonight, NZ over 5.5 sixes, you can get 23/20 with Betfair Sportsbook:
They got over that number in 4 of the recent 6 matches against SL, and had already got 5 in the 7th game that was abandoned after 28 overs, so safe to say they would have ended up with a 5/7 record.
I see some errors of principle have seeped into much of the recent analysis.
Owen Jones was advancing this 'against the intention of Parliament, but within the letter of the law' nonsense on the Daily Politics - Toby Jones complimented him on a 'more nuanced approach than Ed' - then proceeded to raise the tax affairs of the Guardian, Ed Miliband, John Reid, Lord Mandelson, Unite.....wondering whether Owen had criticised them too......
In Castle Point, you can back UKIP at 11/8 with Betfair and the Conservatives at evens with Ladbrokes for a pretty well guaranteed return in three months of nearly 9%.
In Castle Point, you can back UKIP at 11/8 with Betfair and the Conservatives at evens with Ladbrokes for a pretty well guaranteed return in three months of nearly 9%.
In Castle Point, you can back UKIP at 11/8 with Betfair and the Conservatives at evens with Ladbrokes for a pretty well guaranteed return in three months of nearly 9%.
Cheers antifrank.
Since Ladbrokes have just moved their price [to evens], I'd suggest the 11/8 UKIP is the pick here if you only want to back one side.
In Castle Point, you can back UKIP at 11/8 with Betfair and the Conservatives at evens with Ladbrokes for a pretty well guaranteed return in three months of nearly 9%.
Cheers antifrank.
Since Ladbrokes have just moved their price [to evens], I'd suggest the 11/8 UKIP is the pick here if you only want to back one side.
In Castle Point, you can back UKIP at 11/8 with Betfair and the Conservatives at evens with Ladbrokes for a pretty well guaranteed return in three months of nearly 9%.
Cheers antifrank.
Since Ladbrokes have just moved their price [to evens], I'd suggest the 11/8 UKIP is the pick here if you only want to back one side.
I've moved my book to +£1.60 CON/ +£9.99 UKIP on the seat.
'Toby Jones complimented him on a 'more nuanced approach than Ed' - then proceeded to raise the tax affairs of the Guardian, Ed Miliband, John Reid, Lord Mandelson, Unite.....wondering whether Owen had criticised them too...... "
I'm afraid these people are soon not going to have to worry about the nuances of an Owen Jones interview on The Daily Politics they're going to have to justify themselves to some very angry people with pitchforks...The Tories are reaping what they've sown. We've never "All Been in this Together"
Mike can basically recycle his header from November...
The changes are broadly in line with what we have been seeing in national polls so did not greatly add to our understanding.
What the pollster could have done to make this a lot more valuable was to have used the two-stage voting intention question that was first deployed in Politicshome polling ahead of GE10. After the standard party choice question you ask those sampled to think specifically of their own constituency.
'Toby Jones complimented him on a 'more nuanced approach than Ed' - then proceeded to raise the tax affairs of the Guardian, Ed Miliband, John Reid, Lord Mandelson, Unite.....wondering whether Owen had criticised them too...... "
I'm afraid these people are soon not going to have to worry about the nuances of an Owen Jones interview on The Daily Politics they're going to have to justify themselves to some very angry people with pitchforks...The Tories are reaping what they've sown. We've never "All Been in this Together"
Pah Roger metropolitan posturing. Round Ludlow the paperboy gets a pitchfork up the jacksy if he distributes the tax planning Guardian.
"avoid" implies some conscious decision or plan to keep away from or to circumvent.
Merely accepting the tax reliefs created by Parliament is not therefore avoidance.
There are two problems with this. Firstly, "avoid", in the context of tax avoidance (since "tax avoidance" is not a legal term of art) does not bear its legal meaning in the sense of, say, avoiding a contract. It bears its natural and ordinary meaning, in the sense of preventing something from happening.
Secondly, tax may be avoided either (a) because something may not charged to tax at all or (b) because there may be a statutory relief from a tax liability. In the first case, Parliament has chosen not to impose a tax. In the second, it has chosen to relieve what would otherwise be a liability to tax. Tax avoidance can only occur in cases (a) and (b). If your argument were really true, there would be no such thing as tax avoidance since it is all authorised by Parliament.
The key is surely in looking at the GE 2010 vote splits
Con has split C 63 L 5 LD 0 UKIP 20 GRN 1 DK/WS 11 Lab has split C 3 L 76 LD 2 UKIP 8 GRN 1 DK/WS 10 LD (a much smaller block) has split C 6 L 26 LD 26 UKIP 14 GRN 9 DK 20
Edit: Not quite as bad for the Tories after turnout weighting (see table 6)
Rod Crosby I retired at 32..when I got my own film crew..Every day after that was a highly paid fun day...still is. If you retired so early and had the world to choose from why do you still live in that shit heap called Liverpool.
1) Greed 2) The feeling that they contribute disproportionately 3) The feeling that government priorities are wrong
Government efforts to reduce tax avoidance are almost exclusively geared towards the first of these. Perhaps governments should consider addressing the second and third of these, either by explaining their approach or by reconsidering it. It's not just the poor who can be socially excluded.
Re no 1: it is not greed to want to keep your own money.
Buti I would suggest a 4th reason: The feeling that the government does not spend wisely what it collects. This particularly irks me. For instance, think of the amounts wasted over the years on daft IT projects - billions and billions which could either have been put to better use or not taken from taxpayers in the first place.
Governments need to address this. Labour, in particular, are wedded to the idea that the amount you spend is a measure of quality, rather than how or what you spend it on. I have zero confidence in their ability to spend wisely and sensibly, while always remembering that it is our money they are spending.
I don't have much more faith in other parties' ability to spend wisely either.
Comments
He's comparing 50 Shades of Grey with Adrian Lyne's 'Nine and a half Weeks' and Just Jaeckin's "The Story of O". Preposterous!
I dislike this general acceptance of tax evasion. I have very rarely paid cash in hand to a tradesman, mostly paying with a cheque, and on the occasions when I have paid in cash I was not at all expecting the tradesman to avoid paying VAT due as a result. Instead I was reassured to be given a written receipt with a VAT number.
Society as a whole cannot function if most people do not voluntarily follow the rules. Sometimes you have to choose to do what is right, rather than what you can get away with. I do not tolerate a nudge and a wink that we are "all at it" in terms of tax evasion.
I could let Dave give me moral guidance I suppose?
"The Prime Minister has been a harsh critic of companies that avoid paying their 'fair share' of tax and recently announced plans to introduce laws to clamp down on the practice."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133064/David-Camerons-family-fortune-tax-dodging-offshore-investment-funds.html#ixzz3Rdid7TCm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Interesting Times report on Treasury Select Committee today - admission that uncontrolled migration lowers working class wages. Fancy that!
The rest can carry on as normal.
Je suis Charles de Gaulle.
Smear away, in the style of tim. It's like he never left....
I'd be a bit miffed with that if I was Dave !
If the father sends his son to a private school, you'll shit all over the son for a decision he didn't take.
Maybe you should check your moral compass.
Legal, and moral are not the same thing to Dave and Ozzie according to the article?
Dave surely must have a very good idea of what his fathers business entailed?
* When this all started I said that the Operation Motorman report from the ICO suggested that the NotW was only the tip of the iceberg, and far worse behaviour would emerge.
They all say it and of course we all want an efficient tax system but it does not alter the fact that the bulk of tax revenues come from middle England and the additional tax to be gained from soaking private companies based abroad is very limited unless internationally controlled. no amount of bluster from Cam/Clegg?Miliband will alter it. And if overdone and companies go bust as a result you have lost jobs, less tax revenue and .. wait we're in France!
Seriously - forget moral guidance leave that to the 'impoverished' Church of England, etc.
My point is let them pay whichever way they like. Any "bonus" has to be taxed at 50% [ on the employer ] regardless whether the employee pays or not.
Any "bonus" thus not taxed should not be allowed as a tax deductable expense for the employer.
London - New York in business class (only when someone else is paying): £5,000 return
Paris - New York via London (return): £2,000 in business class
He had £1m just from flogging a couple of Greuzes in 2006 ish, frinstance. Bet that wasn't part of the estate when he died.
Probably not as hard as I am laughing about some on here wanting to open up an investigation into Ed's inheritance and possible tax avoidance.
An investigation would of course be entirely appropriate for all the leaders of our country in that case?
Not a tax avoider, but a tax understander...
Always amuses me when the Daily Mail rakes up an individuals tax affairs, in view of it's proprietor's interesting non-dom status.
However this does tend to leave the PAYErs feeling a bit screwed.
If you don't like all of that, give it up!
Or have rich enough parents that it never crosses your mind in the first place?
Mind you, what with the deafening silence that has greeted Trinity Mirror's (very belated) admittance of hacking, I'm not surprised that some on the left are inured to the stench of hypocrisy and are happily oblivious to Ed's......
Or Dave's?
Thanks for the fun all, but duty calls.
I couldn't care less if Tony Student and Petra Florist have a shag, but if the Father Patrick is sharing his bed with Dan Builder then his flagrant hypocrisy would make it an issue.
I retired at 35.
But most of the costs you refer to fall on my employer, not the state. Labour tax is high because it can be, not because it needs to be to cover the state's costs with respect to employment.
High labour taxes ultimately discourage work (in the UK) at the margins - mostly via early retirement, sometimes via physical relocation.
This seems an undesirable outcome but obviously the system is (sort of) in a political and financial equilibrium.
I don't know anyone who doesn't try and get the best deal for themselves, be it tax or paying cash in hand etc... why wouldn't you?
* Except my Dad, who ended up as the #3 performer in the UK stockmarket from 1970-1999 when he stepped down from managing the firm's pension fund
The only one of the 310 new N Korean slogans that I agree with.
"Thoroughly get rid of abuse of authority and bureaucratism!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-31446387
1) Greed
2) The feeling that they contribute disproportionately
3) The feeling that government priorities are wrong
Government efforts to reduce tax avoidance are almost exclusively geared towards the first of these. Perhaps governments should consider addressing the second and third of these, either by explaining their approach or by reconsidering it. It's not just the poor who can be socially excluded.
One difference here -- and perhaps why tax avoidance is so politically toxic -- is that most voters are on PAYE so any avoidance looks like a fiddle only open to "toffs and bosses".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31456657
It's used in a few Chinese classics which typically have lots of dodgy (ahem) local leaders (albeit with a benevolent, perhaps clueless, emperor).
My Dad was only ever paid a modest salary for his work
"* Except my Dad, who ended up as the #3 performer in the UK stockmarket from 1970-1999 when he stepped down from managing the firm's pension fund ""
My Mother was pretty good. She'd notice that Next had smartened up so bought 'Next'. She'd go to a dinner and notice everyone was smoking so she bought 'BAT' Then there was the coffee bar explosion so she bought 'Whitbread'....just a pity I wasn't a chip off the old block
But I can categorically say that in my experience the worst professional tipper of is WH Ireland. Fortunately forearmed is forewarned.....
*Hunstman is indeed a poster on here. That you haven't met him shows he at least has some shame.
It is trite law that the intention of Parliament is to be determined objectively. The intention of Parliament is not the subjective intention of the government or of a majority of MPs. It is determined by construing the meaning of words used by Parliament in a statute. The presumption in this country, rightly, is that no activity or property is taxed. It is for Parliament to say what is charged to tax. It is therefore immensely rare, if not impossible for tax to be avoided by taking advantage of a relief that was not intended by Parliament, since if Parliament had intended something to be taxed, it would have said so. The fallacy with the suggested definition is that it conflates forms of tax avoidance which the Revenue approve of and those which they do not with the intention of Parliament, which is quite separate.
The definition of tax arrangements in the Finance Act 2013, s. 207(1) is, by contrast, a coherent definition of tax avoidance: is it "reasonable to conclude that the obtaining of a tax advantage was the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the arrangements"?
I'd suggest editing your post, CV.
They got over that number in 4 of the recent 6 matches against SL, and had already got 5 in the 7th game that was abandoned after 28 overs, so safe to say they would have ended up with a 5/7 record.
In Castle Point, you can back UKIP at 11/8 with Betfair and the Conservatives at evens with Ladbrokes for a pretty well guaranteed return in three months of nearly 9%.
;-)
I'd agree with those who suggest it should be axed forthwith, just to be safe.
Since Ladbrokes have just moved their price [to evens], I'd suggest the 11/8 UKIP is the pick here if you only want to back one side.
Labour have a 9% lead in "the marginals" - defined as "the 40 closest Labour/Conservative swing seats across England and Wales"
Not yet clear whether that's Labour targets only or a mixture centred on 0.
"avoid" implies some conscious decision or plan to keep away from or to circumvent.
Merely accepting the tax reliefs created by Parliament is not therefore avoidance.
Analysis of that poll here: http://may2015.com/featured/comres-suggest-labours-summer-leads-in-the-key-marginals-are-intact/
I was expecting those figures to be a little lower tbh.
It's all to play for.
'Toby Jones complimented him on a 'more nuanced approach than Ed' - then proceeded to raise the tax affairs of the Guardian, Ed Miliband, John Reid, Lord Mandelson, Unite.....wondering whether Owen had criticised them too...... "
I'm afraid these people are soon not going to have to worry about the nuances of an Owen Jones interview on The Daily Politics they're going to have to justify themselves to some very angry people with pitchforks...The Tories are reaping what they've sown. We've never "All Been in this Together"
"Those were the days eh Rod, when you could REALLY shift some copies of The Big Issue..."
LOL!!
The changes are broadly in line with what we have been seeing in national polls so did not greatly add to our understanding.
What the pollster could have done to make this a lot more valuable was to have used the two-stage voting intention question that was first deployed in Politicshome polling ahead of GE10. After the standard party choice question you ask those sampled to think specifically of their own constituency.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/11/27/the-comres-marginals-poll-would-be-a-lot-more-valuable-if-there-was-a-2-stage-voting-question/
'Rich is someone with more money than me'.
Secondly, tax may be avoided either (a) because something may not charged to tax at all or (b) because there may be a statutory relief from a tax liability. In the first case, Parliament has chosen not to impose a tax. In the second, it has chosen to relieve what would otherwise be a liability to tax. Tax avoidance can only occur in cases (a) and (b). If your argument were really true, there would be no such thing as tax avoidance since it is all authorised by Parliament.
The key is surely in looking at the GE 2010 vote splits
Con has split C 63 L 5 LD 0 UKIP 20 GRN 1 DK/WS 11
Lab has split C 3 L 76 LD 2 UKIP 8 GRN 1 DK/WS 10
LD (a much smaller block) has split C 6 L 26 LD 26 UKIP 14 GRN 9 DK 20
Edit: Not quite as bad for the Tories after turnout weighting (see table 6)
How long before the smears start?
If you retired so early and had the world to choose from why do you still live in that shit heap called Liverpool.
Buti I would suggest a 4th reason: The feeling that the government does not spend wisely what it collects. This particularly irks me. For instance, think of the amounts wasted over the years on daft IT projects - billions and billions which could either have been put to better use or not taken from taxpayers in the first place.
Governments need to address this. Labour, in particular, are wedded to the idea that the amount you spend is a measure of quality, rather than how or what you spend it on. I have zero confidence in their ability to spend wisely and sensibly, while always remembering that it is our money they are spending.
I don't have much more faith in other parties' ability to spend wisely either.