Q. Do you know that theatre is the art of illusion?
A. If you say so, Lord Hutchinson.
Q. And as part of that illusion, actors use physical gestures to convey impressions to the audience?
A. Yes, I would accept that.
Q. And from the back row, 90 yards from the stage, can you be certain that what you saw was the tip of the actor’s penis?
A. Well, if you put it that way, I can’t be absolutely certain. But what else could it have been?
There is a wise adage for a witness – never ask counsel a question. Jeremy stood to his full height, 6ft 3in in his wig, and held out his clenched fist. “What you saw, I suggest, was the tip of the actor’s thumb ... (he slowly raised his right thumb, until it stood erect, protruding an inch from his fist) as he held his fist over his groin – like this.”
Jeremy flung open his gown with his left hand, while placing his right fist, thumb erect, over his own groin. The jury stared transfixedly at Jeremy’s simulated erection, the judge was struck dumb in horror, and the crestfallen witness opened and closed his mouth a few times before admitting that yes, he had a reasonable doubt about whether he had descried a penis or the tip of a thumb. That was the end of the private prosecution, and heavy costs were awarded against Whitehouse, who left court muttering that “God will have to provide”. It marked the end of her courtroom crusade against the permissive society.
@DavidL or @david_herdson can you confirm whether over the very long-term it is nominal or real growth that matters regarding a deficit to keep debt-to-gdp stable?
@DavidL or @david_herdson can you confirm whether over the very long-term it is nominal or real growth that matters regarding a deficit to keep debt-to-gdp stable?
Nominal, obviously.
That's what I thought but the two David's seem to disagree.
The HOC and HOL are heavily remain and they are trying to derail Brexit by saying they respect the vote but ...................
If they had any sense and were mature they would unite behind the Government to get the best deal from Europe and then, if as so many think, we end up in an economic armageddon, there will be an overwhelming demand to rejoin.
That process would go some way to heal the divisions but when have politicians ever acted in a mature manner
Surely it's in the opposition parties' interest to wreck any EU deal, bring about the hardest of Brexit and then watch the Tories take a battering as the economy tanks. What could the Tories do? Trying to blame the other parties for the disaster would just sound childish and would be neutralized anyway when the likes of Rees-Mogg have been advocating that very outcome. A real horror show is in the offing.
It seems to me not such a matter of "wrecking" Brexit, though that may well be the intention of some, as simple disagreement as to what Brexit should look like. Theresa has her vision, as does JRM as does Corbyn as does Hannan. There is no consensus on this, not even within the cabinet.
The starting point of negotiations is generally knowing what you want, and that seems to be where our team has gone wrong.
Bottom line. Leavers need Brexit to be a success. Blaming the EU and those sceptical about the project for not doing what you want doesn't count as success. A worsening economic situation isn't success. Some of this is outside their control but it doesn't change the point. They sold the project on an outcome. They have to deliver it. They could start by not making things worse than they need to be.
All very good points. But one thing the leavers didn't sell their project on was speed of completion. There is absolutely no reason it has to be done so quickly.
I think resign has implications of having done something wrong or doing so on a matter of principle. I don't believe retire has these connotations at all. Retire as a synonym for resign does not sound right to me.
I also agree bet definitions are so important and I think it surprisingly that rules are so short and frequently sloppy.
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal.
Of course it has, when it abolished exchange controls - which was one of those measures which were quite controversial at the time but are now almost universally regarded as highly successful (apart from by John McDonnell, of course).
Of course, as any fule 'no, UK residents still have to pay UK tax on any off-shore income.
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Well, calm down, and consider whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal (or a grey area). In these parts there is what is loosely called the presumption of innocence which says that to convict someone of something you have to show that he did it, and that it was illegal under some (expressly identified) statute or rule of common law. If you don't like it Pyongyang is thataway>>>.
@DavidL or @david_herdson can you confirm whether over the very long-term it is nominal or real growth that matters regarding a deficit to keep debt-to-gdp stable?
Real. In the long term, the interest rate the markets demand will adjust to account for inflation / exchange rate depreciation.
But over the long term doesn't interest already get taken into account within the deficit? It was my understanding that interest is a very significant chunk of our deficit already.
It does but if inflation rises then the interest rate will tend to rise roughly in line as well. That will tend to grow the debt (all else being equal, which of course it won't be), at the same rate. In reality, high inflation - of itself - will probably erode debt-to-gdp in the short term due to lagging factors.
Interest is a large portion of the deficit but that's because (1) the deficit is relatively small compared with what it was, and (2) the debt is relatively large.
@DavidL or @david_herdson can you confirm whether over the very long-term it is nominal or real growth that matters regarding a deficit to keep debt-to-gdp stable?
Nominal, obviously.
Yes, I agree. We don't default in this country (or at least we don't until we do the full Venezuela under Corbyn) but we do gently and quietly inflate ourselves out of debt. The price of doing so should be in the interest rate we have to pay on that debt although it has been largely missing over the last decade where "real" interest rates have been negative.
But I still think that an economy growing at 2% should aim to keep the deficit to 2% so we can "bank" the inflation decrease in debt reducing the debt/GDP ratio, especially when it is as high as it is right now. When we get in back to 40% or so we could be a bit more relaxed about it but that is a couple of decades off. Right now what Boles is suggesting is irresponsible and Tories will never be able to outbid Labour in irresponsibility (even if they did no one would believe them).
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Aren't we moving towards planning, avoidance and evasion in ascending order of criminality?
A prominent Labour politician and a fierce critic of tax avoidance has been accused of hypocrisy after receiving shares in a family company from a foundation based in a tax haven.
Margaret Hodge, former head of Britain’s parliamentary public accounts committee, was among the beneficiaries in 2011 of the winding-up of a Liechtenstein foundation that held shares in Stemcor, the private steel-trading business set up by Hans Oppenheimer, her father.
The shares were brought onshore using a scheme, known as the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, that offered reduced penalties and no risk of prosecution for Britons moving undeclared assets back to the UK.
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
A prominent Labour politician and a fierce critic of tax avoidance has been accused of hypocrisy after receiving shares in a family company from a foundation based in a tax haven.
Margaret Hodge, former head of Britain’s parliamentary public accounts committee, was among the beneficiaries in 2011 of the winding-up of a Liechtenstein foundation that held shares in Stemcor, the private steel-trading business set up by Hans Oppenheimer, her father.
The shares were brought onshore using a scheme, known as the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, that offered reduced penalties and no risk of prosecution for Britons moving undeclared assets back to the UK.
The lengths the Guardian and their very good friends will go to to try and prove that they didn't really waste a whole heap of money on the Paradise papers are truly remarkable.
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Its not like parliament hasn't been around for a while, if it wanted to make it unlawful I am sure it would have done so by now.
(Note: Many years ago Chief Counsel of IBM UK was said to have commented on someones report that the author may have meant UNLAWFUL because as far as he was concerned ILLEGAL was a sick bird)
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Well, calm down, and consider whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal (or a grey area). In these parts there is what is loosely called the presumption of innocence which says that to convict someone of something you have to show that he did it, and that it was illegal under some (expressly identified) statute or rule of common law. If you don't like it Pyongyang is thataway>>>.
Yet that's precisely what TMay did with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, whereby "anything that stimulates or depresses a person's central nervous system... mental functioning or emotional state" is banned, unless specifically exempted by law (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, caffeine).
A truly terribly ill thought out piece of legislation - I remember one example given was that growing roses or lighting incense could technically fall under the ban, because the scent they give off changes one's "emotional state".
More important was the precedent - throwing away centuries of legal tradition that everything is legal unless specifically prohibited.
Imagine if a similar law was enacted banning all financial products unless specifically exempted...
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Well, calm down, and consider whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal (or a grey area). In these parts there is what is loosely called the presumption of innocence which says that to convict someone of something you have to show that he did it, and that it was illegal under some (expressly identified) statute or rule of common law. If you don't like it Pyongyang is thataway>>>.
Why TF do you not read something carefully and instead launch a broadside ?
"whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal "
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
"Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended."
When people use ISAs as an example to defend tax avoidance, it means they don't know what they're talking about.
Quite so. And when they claim that completely artificial losses created to allow setoff of taxable income are "within the rules" they are demonstrating that they do not understand the rules since at least the introduction of the GAAR under that well known friend of the rich, Mr Osborne.
The lengths the Guardian and their very good friends will go to to try and prove that they didn't really waste a whole heap of money on the Paradise papers are truly remarkable.
Very few of the articles they have run relate to tax avoidance at all. The one about Mrs Brown's Boys seemed to be one of few that did look problematic.
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
London is Labour and Labour is London.
And that is why it is detached from reality. There are many millions more outside London who look at it and it's politicians as a Metropolitan elite talking to itself
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Well, calm down, and consider whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal (or a grey area). In these parts there is what is loosely called the presumption of innocence which says that to convict someone of something you have to show that he did it, and that it was illegal under some (expressly identified) statute or rule of common law. If you don't like it Pyongyang is thataway>>>.
Yet that's precisely what TMay did with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, whereby "anything that stimulates or depresses a person's central nervous system... mental functioning or emotional state" is banned, unless specifically exempted by law (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, caffeine).
A truly terribly ill thought out piece of legislation - I remember one example given was that growing roses or lighting incense could technically fall under the ban, because the scent they give off changes one's "emotional state".
More important was the precedent - throwing away centuries of legal tradition that everything is legal unless specifically prohibited.
Imagine if a similar law was enacted banning all financial products unless specifically exempted...
Tax evasion is for the little people. If they're 'investigated' they can be landed with a bill for tax they don't owe. There's no appeal.
Tax avoidance is for the people who run the country and don't want to be classed as criminals for paying a low tax rate. From their viewpoint, it works well.
Don't blame them. Blame those who created laws allowing 100 different tax rates for the same income, depending on how you structure your affairs.
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Well, calm down, and consider whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal (or a grey area). In these parts there is what is loosely called the presumption of innocence which says that to convict someone of something you have to show that he did it, and that it was illegal under some (expressly identified) statute or rule of common law. If you don't like it Pyongyang is thataway>>>.
Yet that's precisely what TMay did with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, whereby "anything that stimulates or depresses a person's central nervous system... mental functioning or emotional state" is banned, unless specifically exempted by law (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, caffeine).
A truly terribly ill thought out piece of legislation - I remember one example given was that growing roses or lighting incense could technically fall under the ban, because the scent they give off changes one's "emotional state".
More important was the precedent - throwing away centuries of legal tradition that everything is legal unless specifically prohibited.
Imagine if a similar law was enacted banning all financial products unless specifically exempted...
Tax evasion is for the little people. If they're 'investigated' they can be landed with a bill for tax they don't owe. There's no appeal.
Tax avoidance is for the people who run the country and don't want to be classed as criminals for paying a low tax rate. From their viewpoint, it works well.
Don't blame them. Blame those who created laws allowing 100 different tax rates for the same income, depending on how you structure your affairs.
Quite. It's one law for the bankers, another law for the rose-sniffers...
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
Also Lambeth has only 4 non-Labour councillors, 3 Tories + 1 Green.
The lengths the Guardian and their very good friends will go to to try and prove that they didn't really waste a whole heap of money on the Paradise papers are truly remarkable.
Very few of the articles they have run relate to tax avoidance at all. The one about Mrs Brown's Boys seemed to be one of few that did look problematic.
Yes, and the fact that it was taxpayers money through the BBC that was being, ahem, processed in that way made it even more so. I am sure the BBC are giving serious thought as to how they allowed themselves to be a part of such a scheme.
This has been raised before during her tenure as Chair of Public Accountability or whatever. She completely thrashed the accusers.
You cannot hold her to account for what the Oppenheimers are upto. She does not control the family firm.
No, she just benefits financially from what they do.
So, using your argument, David Cameron benefitted from his father running Off shore banking schemes, by going to Eton, Oxford (while his father paid his expenses, for the quaint outfits of the Bullingdon Club, for the cost repairs to local Oxford restaurants after being trashed, and incidental expenses of the Piers Gaveston Society which obviously are nothing to sniff at), yet because he was a Tory MP and PM, must not be criticised......
Yet that's precisely what TMay did with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, whereby "anything that stimulates or depresses a person's central nervous system... mental functioning or emotional state" is banned, unless specifically exempted by law (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, caffeine).
The former Home Secretary who I felt was already promoted beyond her level of competence is an authoritarian control freak that seems to attract this sort of idiotic legislation, other notable examples would include the absurd proposals for banning encryption.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Well, calm down, and consider whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal (or a grey area). In these parts there is what is loosely called the presumption of innocence which says that to convict someone of something you have to show that he did it, and that it was illegal under some (expressly identified) statute or rule of common law. If you don't like it Pyongyang is thataway>>>.
Yet that's precisely what TMay did with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, whereby "anything that stimulates or depresses a person's central nervous system... mental functioning or emotional state" is banned, unless specifically exempted by law (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, caffeine).
A truly terribly ill thought out piece of legislation - I remember one example given was that growing roses or lighting incense could technically fall under the ban, because the scent they give off changes one's "emotional state".
More important was the precedent - throwing away centuries of legal tradition that everything is legal unless specifically prohibited.
Imagine if a similar law was enacted banning all financial products unless specifically exempted...
It is indeed an incredibly stupid piece of legislation. Thankfully the principal author no longer holds a position of any influence.
This has been raised before during her tenure as Chair of Public Accountability or whatever. She completely thrashed the accusers.
You cannot hold her to account for what the Oppenheimers are upto. She does not control the family firm.
No, she just benefits financially from what they do.
So, using your argument, David Cameron benefitted from his father running Off shore banking schemes, by going to Eton, Oxford (while his father paid his expenses, for the quaint outfits of the Bullingdon Club, for the cost repairs to local Oxford restaurants after being trashed, and incidental expenses of the Piers Gaveston Society which obviously are nothing to sniff at), yet because he was a Tory MP and PM, must not be criticised......
Not using my argument, using Margaret Hodge's argument.
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
London is Labour and Labour is London.
Both Labour and London are becoming more like the other.
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
Also Lambeth has only 4 non-Labour councillors, 3 Tories + 1 Green.
True although it's perhaps unlikely the Tories will lose all their seats in Clapham Common. In Brent the Tories could lose their seats in Brondesbury Park but should be okay in Kenton.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
The Accounting Industry and rich benefactors have used the term "legal" surreptitiously. When they say and have been saying that tax avoidance is "legal" - what they should have been saying is that tax AVOIDANCE is NOT ILLEGAL.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Well, calm down, and consider whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal (or a grey area). In these parts there is what is loosely called the presumption of innocence which says that to convict someone of something you have to show that he did it, and that it was illegal under some (expressly identified) statute or rule of common law. If you don't like it Pyongyang is thataway>>>.
Yet that's precisely what TMay did with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, whereby "anything that stimulates or depresses a person's central nervous system... mental functioning or emotional state" is banned, unless specifically exempted by law (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, caffeine).
A truly terribly ill thought out piece of legislation - I remember one example given was that growing roses or lighting incense could technically fall under the ban, because the scent they give off changes one's "emotional state".
More important was the precedent - throwing away centuries of legal tradition that everything is legal unless specifically prohibited.
Imagine if a similar law was enacted banning all financial products unless specifically exempted...
It is indeed an incredibly stupid piece of legislation. Thankfully the principal author no longer holds a position of any influence.
As a gardener, I'm waiting for lettuce, onions and parsley to be banned along with a lot of common plants. All contain psychoactive substances:
The lengths the Guardian and their very good friends will go to to try and prove that they didn't really waste a whole heap of money on the Paradise papers are truly remarkable.
Very few of the articles they have run relate to tax avoidance at all. The one about Mrs Brown's Boys seemed to be one of few that did look problematic.
Says you who is paying attention. The mood music is nevertheless that the rich are screwing the poor and the Corbynistas need such constant red meat thrown to them to keep up morale and motivation.
Talking of tax planning, it's that time of year again. On the 22nd November, Phil Hammond presents his budget, and he's going to be under some pressure to find some extra dosh. Chancellors are always tempted to raid pension tax relief, and have done so a lot in recent years. Might he have another go, for example reducing the annual allowance or restricting the amount of tax relief available to higher earners? I think it's probably unlikely, but if you are planning to make a pension contribution soon, there's no downside in making it before the 22nd, just in case.
Tax evasion is for the little people. If they're 'investigated' they can be landed with a bill for tax they don't owe. There's no appeal.
Don't be silly.
The burden of proof is on the 'guilty' to prove innocence. That's what I mean by no appeal once a tax bill is issued.
If you have insurance, you may be able to afford to pay an accountant to prove your case. Otherwise, pay up even if you don't owe it.
There's some detail here, sorry I couldn't find the case I was looking for in which a judge held this principle to be true in tax cases, i.e. guilt until proved innocent
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Does that mean that Labour are finally waking up and seeing the folly of their behaviour over the last seven years? Good news if so, but a bit late in the day.
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
Also Lambeth has only 4 non-Labour councillors, 3 Tories + 1 Green.
True although it's perhaps unlikely the Tories will lose all their seats in Clapham Common. In Brent the Tories could lose their seats in Brondesbury Park but should be okay in Kenton.
Generally I would expect the Tories to do badly, partly because of Brexit but also because they have so few troops on the ground in London and the ground war is more important in low-profile local elections.
Says you who is paying attention. The mood music is nevertheless that the rich are screwing the poor and the Corbynistas need such constant red meat thrown to them to keep up morale and motivation.
True. The constant drip-drip of divisive stories, a few of which are even true, takes its toll, and makes a sustained period of really bad government more likely.
Q. Do you know that theatre is the art of illusion?
A. If you say so, Lord Hutchinson.
Q. And as part of that illusion, actors use physical gestures to convey impressions to the audience?
A. Yes, I would accept that.
Q. And from the back row, 90 yards from the stage, can you be certain that what you saw was the tip of the actor’s penis?
A. Well, if you put it that way, I can’t be absolutely certain. But what else could it have been?
There is a wise adage for a witness – never ask counsel a question. Jeremy stood to his full height, 6ft 3in in his wig, and held out his clenched fist. “What you saw, I suggest, was the tip of the actor’s thumb ... (he slowly raised his right thumb, until it stood erect, protruding an inch from his fist) as he held his fist over his groin – like this.”
Jeremy flung open his gown with his left hand, while placing his right fist, thumb erect, over his own groin. The jury stared transfixedly at Jeremy’s simulated erection, the judge was struck dumb in horror, and the crestfallen witness opened and closed his mouth a few times before admitting that yes, he had a reasonable doubt about whether he had descried a penis or the tip of a thumb. That was the end of the private prosecution, and heavy costs were awarded against Whitehouse, who left court muttering that “God will have to provide”. It marked the end of her courtroom crusade against the permissive society.
Lord Hutchinson told Helena Kennedy QC in an interview on BBC Radio 4, at the age of 99, that the most thrilling moment of the trial had been calling for “Mr E M Forster . . . and then through the door came this little man in a dirty mackintosh. And I was able to say after asking him his name and address, ‘I think you have written some novels.’”
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
London is Labour and Labour is London.
Strange to think that back in 1987 a lot of commentators thought London was swinging inexorably towards the Tories as Labour lost seats like Battersea, Walthamstow and Greenwich for the first time.
Yet that's precisely what TMay did with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, whereby "anything that stimulates or depresses a person's central nervous system... mental functioning or emotional state" is banned, unless specifically exempted by law (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, caffeine).
A truly terribly ill thought out piece of legislation - I remember one example given was that growing roses or lighting incense could technically fall under the ban, because the scent they give off changes one's "emotional state".
More important was the precedent - throwing away centuries of legal tradition that everything is legal unless specifically prohibited.
Imagine if a similar law was enacted banning all financial products unless specifically exempted...
It is indeed an incredibly stupid piece of legislation. Thankfully the principal author no longer holds a position of any influence.
As a gardener, I'm waiting for lettuce, onions and parsley to be banned along with a lot of common plants. All contain psychoactive substances:
Tax evasion is for the little people. If they're 'investigated' they can be landed with a bill for tax they don't owe. There's no appeal.
Don't be silly.
The burden of proof is on the 'guilty' to prove innocence. That's what I mean by no appeal once a tax bill is issued.
If you have insurance, you may be able to afford to pay an accountant to prove your case. Otherwise, pay up even if you don't owe it.
There's some detail here, sorry I couldn't find the case I was looking for in which a judge held this principle to be true in tax cases, i.e. guilt until proved innocent
It's nonsense. You can always appeal, and you don't need a tax accountant, especially if you are indeed a 'little guy' whose affairs by definition won't be complicated:
The measure referred to in that rather hysterical article relates to whether taxpayers can delay paying, pending appeal, tax assessed when HMRC close down a tax-avoidance scheme. Hardly 'little guy' stuff, and you can still appeal, and if you win you'll get your money back with interest.
The really silly thing is that it can't both be true that the government is too soft on tax avoidance and too draconian.
@faisalislam: Honda’s Patrick Keating tells @CommonsBeis that they are getting messages that Europe will not allow VCA type approvals post-Brexit/ no deal
@faisalislam: @CommonsBEIS Aston Martin CFO Mark Wilson says that No Deal and so no VCA type approval into EU would result in a “semi-catastrophic” stop in production
@faisalislam: @CommonsBEIS Aston Martin chief financial officer: difficult to understand whether we are getting through or not [to govt on Brexit hit to car industry]
@faisalislam: @CommonsBEIS MP presses SMMT’s Hawes on German car manufacturers thing: “To put it in context - 56% of our exports go to Europe - 7% of theirs come here”
@faisalislam: @CommonsBEIS Rachel Reeves doing some good work on getting them to calculate WTO tariff impact on cars -Hawes says on avg £1500 on sticker price of a car
@faisalislam: So @RachelReevesMP is basically doing a live Brexit/ No Deal impact study on the car industry with five other @CommonsBEIS MPs twitter.com/faisalislam/st…
Next year's local elections: in London, Labour could win every seat in a number of councils. They already have 100% representation in Newham and Barking&Dagenham. In Islington the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 8 votes over Labour. In Lewisham the Greens hold one seat with a majority of 53 votes over Labour.
London is Labour and Labour is London.
Strange to think that back in 1987 a lot of commentators thought London was swinging inexorably towards the Tories as Labour lost seats like Battersea, Walthamstow and Greenwich for the first time.
Back then the Tories were generally the party of the better off and as London became richer they benefited accordingly. Now they are the party of the old and there are fewer old people in London than elsewhere.
Q. Do you know that theatre is the art of illusion?
A. If you say so, Lord Hutchinson.
Q. And as part of that illusion, actors use physical gestures to convey impressions to the audience?
A. Yes, I would accept that.
Q. And from the back row, 90 yards from the stage, can you be certain that what you saw was the tip of the actor’s penis?
A. Well, if you put it that way, I can’t be absolutely certain. But what else could it have been?
There is a wise adage for a witness – never ask counsel a question. Jeremy stood to his full height, 6ft 3in in his wig, and held out his clenched fist. “What you saw, I suggest, was the tip of the actor’s thumb ... (he slowly raised his right thumb, until it stood erect, protruding an inch from his fist) as he held his fist over his groin – like this.”
Jeremy flung open his gown with his left hand, while placing his right fist, thumb erect, over his own groin. The jury stared transfixedly at Jeremy’s simulated erection, the judge was struck dumb in horror, and the crestfallen witness opened and closed his mouth a few times before admitting that yes, he had a reasonable doubt about whether he had descried a penis or the tip of a thumb. That was the end of the private prosecution, and heavy costs were awarded against Whitehouse, who left court muttering that “God will have to provide”. It marked the end of her courtroom crusade against the permissive society.
Aren't we moving towards planning, avoidance and evasion in ascending order of criminality?
Avoidance gets to be betwixt and between.
There is a problem. The fact it is difficult to solve doesn't stop it being a problem. The "old tax avoidance sensible; tax evasion illegal" distinction isn't so clear cut nowadays. There is a whole grey area of cross-licensing and intellectual property ownership between international subsidiaries of the same company or between individuals and a company that effectively makes paying tax optional for those participants. Governments connive in these schemes to beggar their neighbours on their tax take.
None of it is illegal but none of these transactions would happen if subsidiary companies were genuinely pursuing profit, which is the ultimate purpose of most companies.
The Paradise Papers are significant because they put names and numbers to activities that people are aware are happening, and which the participants want to keep hidden. We had to assume Apple found an new way of achieving their very low aggregate tax rate now Ireland has become a little less accommodating. Thanks to the Paradise Papers we now know what the new scheme is, which Apple wanted to keep hidden.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
"Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended."
When people use ISAs as an example to defend tax avoidance, it means they don't know what they're talking about.
So investing money offshore in an investment that doesn't generate taxable income is simply an investment that doesn't bend the rules just accepts the rules as they are so this isn't avoidance either?
(Whereas setting up something like trusts in Mauritius and loaning money to beneficial owner rather than paying income does looks like 'an arrangement' and is at least morally dodgy.)
Tax evasion is for the little people. If they're 'investigated' they can be landed with a bill for tax they don't owe. There's no appeal.
Don't be silly.
The burden of proof is on the 'guilty' to prove innocence. That's what I mean by no appeal once a tax bill is issued.
If you have insurance, you may be able to afford to pay an accountant to prove your case. Otherwise, pay up even if you don't owe it.
There's some detail here, sorry I couldn't find the case I was looking for in which a judge held this principle to be true in tax cases, i.e. guilt until proved innocent
It's nonsense. You can always appeal, and you don't need a tax accountant, especially if you are indeed a 'little guy' whose affairs by definition won't be complicated:
The measure referred to in that rather hysterical article relates to whether taxpayers can delay paying, pending appeal, tax assessed when HMRC close down a tax-avoidance scheme. Hardly 'little guy' stuff, and you can still appeal, and if you win you'll get your money back with interest.
The really silly thing is that it can't both be true that the government is too soft on tax avoidance and too draconian.
The govt, or rather HMRC, is soft on avoidance largely because it's legal. What's legal can't be stopped. It's hard on what it calls evasion - lying about your income or exaggerating your business expenses - because it knows it can be. The little people are less well-defended.
Even if people have tax enquiry insurance, they need to know not to talk to the tax authorities without a professional adviser present. It was different in the 1980s - I knew and trusted the local tax inspector and vice versa - but those people have gone the way of local bank managers.
Comments
Q. Do you know that theatre is the art of illusion?
A. If you say so, Lord Hutchinson.
Q. And as part of that illusion, actors use physical gestures to convey impressions to the audience?
A. Yes, I would accept that.
Q. And from the back row, 90 yards from the stage, can you be certain that what you saw was the tip of the actor’s penis?
A. Well, if you put it that way, I can’t be absolutely certain. But what else could it have been?
There is a wise adage for a witness – never ask counsel a question. Jeremy stood to his full height, 6ft 3in in his wig, and held out his clenched fist. “What you saw, I suggest, was the tip of the actor’s thumb ... (he slowly raised his right thumb, until it stood erect, protruding an inch from his fist) as he held his fist over his groin – like this.”
Jeremy flung open his gown with his left hand, while placing his right fist, thumb erect, over his own groin. The jury stared transfixedly at Jeremy’s simulated erection, the judge was struck dumb in horror, and the crestfallen witness opened and closed his mouth a few times before admitting that yes, he had a reasonable doubt about whether he had descried a penis or the tip of a thumb. That was the end of the private prosecution, and heavy costs were awarded against Whitehouse, who left court muttering that “God will have to provide”. It marked the end of her courtroom crusade against the permissive society.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/nov/13/lord-hutchinson-of-lullington-obituary
That would be a genuinely shocking appointment.
I think resign has implications of having done something wrong or doing so on a matter of principle. I don't believe retire has these connotations at all. Retire as a synonym for resign does not sound right to me.
I also agree bet definitions are so important and I think it surprisingly that rules are so short and frequently sloppy.
To me, taking advantage of tax allowances, employee or personal pension contributions [ upto the limit, of course ] , ISA etc are legal means of avoiding tax because Parliament specifically passed legislation to enable these methods to be used.
Parliament, as far as I know, have not passed an Act which specifically mentions that keeping money off-shore is legal. Of course, because it is silent on the matter, it is assumed that because it is not illegal, therefore it is legal. It suits accountants and those rich bastards who hide money offshore.
AFAIAC, unless Parliament specifically says so either way, any financial instrument is NOT ILLEGAL.
Roy Moore errr...
Of course, as any fule 'no, UK residents still have to pay UK tax on any off-shore income.
Interest is a large portion of the deficit but that's because (1) the deficit is relatively small compared with what it was, and (2) the debt is relatively large.
But I still think that an economy growing at 2% should aim to keep the deficit to 2% so we can "bank" the inflation decrease in debt reducing the debt/GDP ratio, especially when it is as high as it is right now. When we get in back to 40% or so we could be a bit more relaxed about it but that is a couple of decades off. Right now what Boles is suggesting is irresponsible and Tories will never be able to outbid Labour in irresponsibility (even if they did no one would believe them).
Avoidance gets to be betwixt and between.
Margaret Hodge, former head of Britain’s parliamentary public accounts committee, was among the beneficiaries in 2011 of the winding-up of a Liechtenstein foundation that held shares in Stemcor, the private steel-trading business set up by Hans Oppenheimer, her father.
The shares were brought onshore using a scheme, known as the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, that offered reduced penalties and no risk of prosecution for Britons moving undeclared assets back to the UK.
https://www.ft.com/content/4d9e16b4-ee3d-11e4-98f9-00144feab7de
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offshore-disclosure-facilites-liechtenstein/disclosure-facility-investigation-factsheet
"Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended."
When people use ISAs as an example to defend tax avoidance, it means they don't know what they're talking about.
(Note: Many years ago Chief Counsel of IBM UK was said to have commented on someones report that the author may have meant UNLAWFUL because as far as he was concerned ILLEGAL was a sick bird)
A truly terribly ill thought out piece of legislation - I remember one example given was that growing roses or lighting incense could technically fall under the ban, because the scent they give off changes one's "emotional state".
More important was the precedent - throwing away centuries of legal tradition that everything is legal unless specifically prohibited.
Imagine if a similar law was enacted banning all financial products unless specifically exempted...
"whether you really want to live in a country where everything not expressly permitted is illegal "
WTF did I say that ? I said NOT ILLEGAL.
Tax avoidance is for the people who run the country and don't want to be classed as criminals for paying a low tax rate. From their viewpoint, it works well.
Don't blame them. Blame those who created laws allowing 100 different tax rates for the same income, depending on how you structure your affairs.
If they give up that title beforehand, then they might have been said to resign. If not, they have simply not stood again.
You cannot resign from a position you no longer hold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactucarium.
As for opium poppies, shock horror, it's only a matter of time before the herbaceous border is raided.
If you have insurance, you may be able to afford to pay an accountant to prove your case. Otherwise, pay up even if you don't owe it.
There's some detail here, sorry I couldn't find the case I was looking for in which a judge held this principle to be true in tax cases, i.e. guilt until proved innocent
http://thevatlady.co.uk/blog/innocent-proved-guilty-hmrc-abolishes-britains-long-held-principle/
https://www.gov.uk/tax-appeals
The measure referred to in that rather hysterical article relates to whether taxpayers can delay paying, pending appeal, tax assessed when HMRC close down a tax-avoidance scheme. Hardly 'little guy' stuff, and you can still appeal, and if you win you'll get your money back with interest.
The really silly thing is that it can't both be true that the government is too soft on tax avoidance and too draconian.
@faisalislam: @CommonsBEIS Aston Martin CFO Mark Wilson says that No Deal and so no VCA type approval into EU would result in a “semi-catastrophic” stop in production
@faisalislam: @CommonsBEIS Aston Martin chief financial officer: difficult to understand whether we are getting through or not [to govt on Brexit hit to car industry]
@faisalislam: @CommonsBEIS MP presses SMMT’s Hawes on German car manufacturers thing: “To put it in context - 56% of our exports go to Europe - 7% of theirs come here”
@faisalislam: @CommonsBEIS Rachel Reeves doing some good work on getting them to calculate WTO tariff impact on cars -Hawes says on avg £1500 on sticker price of a car
@faisalislam: So @RachelReevesMP is basically doing a live Brexit/ No Deal impact study on the car industry with five other @CommonsBEIS MPs twitter.com/faisalislam/st…
NEW THREAD
None of it is illegal but none of these transactions would happen if subsidiary companies were genuinely pursuing profit, which is the ultimate purpose of most companies.
The Paradise Papers are significant because they put names and numbers to activities that people are aware are happening, and which the participants want to keep hidden. We had to assume Apple found an new way of achieving their very low aggregate tax rate now Ireland has become a little less accommodating. Thanks to the Paradise Papers we now know what the new scheme is, which Apple wanted to keep hidden.
(Whereas setting up something like trusts in Mauritius and loaning money to beneficial owner rather than paying income does looks like 'an arrangement' and is at least morally dodgy.)
Even if people have tax enquiry insurance, they need to know not to talk to the tax authorities without a professional adviser present. It was different in the 1980s - I knew and trusted the local tax inspector and vice versa - but those people have gone the way of local bank managers.
Here's another site http://www.tax-hell.co.uk/features/11-dirty-tricks/