I wonder if MG has a drawer full of medals from risking his life serving the UK right through WW2...or any other war conflict..
Old doddery bumping his stupid gums again , why not regale us on hopw you were a miner and had your finger on the nuclear button when you commanded your submarine and assorted other dribble that you post ad nauseum. You get more dittery by the day doddery, unfortunately just as odious and nasty as ever. "Richard" by nature as well as name.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Prince Philip had many qualities as a naval officer, but serving his country before 1921 wasn't one of his achievements.
Interesting and you really think this is a non story?
It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.
Panama may not have a choice.
Its still pushing water up hill.
(*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
Naturally, no true Scotsman would have any money tied up in Panama. They learnt their lesson after the Darien Scheme.
Sturgeon's £10bn deal with firm owned by "grossly corrupt" Chinese construction giant
I'm still scratching my head as to what these deals are.
Is it a kind of Scottisg PFI arrangement ?: And why does the hoots haggis party not want to use its local suppliers ?
Alan, simple , it is a bit like George's deals with the Chinese , it is borrowing money , except ours will not be used for nuclear power stations and excessive electricity prices. Kind of beats the paltry sum Westminster allows them to borrow by a country mile.
Right, but who is lender of last resort ? It can be the UK govt or you would have had Osborne grinning all over the place. So if it's the people of Scotland it looks like you've all agreed to send £2000 each to the Chinese. Why ?
We are loaded Alan, oil on way back up , soon we will be lighting our fags with twenties.
Good news. Now the rest of the UK can stop subsidizing you.
The squirrels are coming from the right, including from Guido. The question is why. What else is there to emerge, that CCHQ wants buried? Cameron's dad is not that interesting and the Tory donors were already known (even to the point of bringing their affairs back onshore) so what else are they afraid of?
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no responsibility for the actions of his father)
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Then it is up to the government to tighten up the law and close the loopholes. Part of the reason our tax code is so exploitable is because it's 17,000 pages long according to the ICAEW. We should bin it and start again from zero.
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no esponsibility for the actions of his father)
While it is annoying that wealthy people avoid tax, it is much more annoying that we have a 1,000 page tax code that is so opaque avoiding tax becomes easy. The German tax code is less than 300 pages. Guess which country it's easier to avoid tax in.
That is why, to coin a phrase, I agree with Nick that clamping down on it, by tax reform for preference, would be popular and a good move. The problem is that the only people advocating it at the moment are written out of politics by the public for other reasons.
As it happens I believe the German 'tax book' is among the most complicated and full in the world. I know this from having worked with two well known ones who unfortunately for them never got to the end.
MG..I was a miner and did some time on a Nuclear Submarine..never got near the red button tho..have you ever done anything exciting or adventurous..be lovely to know ..
Interesting and you really think this is a non story?
It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.
Panama may not have a choice.
Its still pushing water up hill.
(*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
Naturally, no true Scotsman would have any money tied up in Panama. They learnt their lesson after the Darien Scheme.
Sturgeon's £10bn deal with firm owned by "grossly corrupt" Chinese construction giant
I'm still scratching my head as to what these deals are.
Is it a kind of Scottisg PFI arrangement ?: And why does the hoots haggis party not want to use its local suppliers ?
Alan, simple , it is a bit like George's deals with the Chinese , it is borrowing money , except ours will not be used for nuclear power stations and excessive electricity prices. Kind of beats the paltry sum Westminster allows them to borrow by a country mile.
Right, but who is lender of last resort ? It can be the UK govt or you would have had Osborne grinning all over the place. So if it's the people of Scotland it looks like you've all agreed to send £2000 each to the Chinese. Why ?
We are loaded Alan, oil on way back up , soon we will be lighting our fags with twenties.
It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?
Stones, glass houses and -- what is the collective noun for Look, Squirrels?
LOL Ahh.. Tax avoidance by right bad ... Tax avoidance by left " look squirrel" . What's actually the difference between the Guardian and Cameron's Pops? The Guardian refuse to answer the same questions they demand others themselves answer openly .
The sooner it's banned & its readers exterminated the sooner Britain will be Great again. Or am I missing something?
Hooray, quote working again.
The irony of the Grauniad, of course, is that without its - ahem - efficient tax arrangements it would have gone out of business years ago because almost nobody reads it. It looks though as if its final demise is approaching rapidly, tax arrangements or no. Personally I shall be rather sorry when that happens, as it is always useful to know what its 124 readers are thinking. All you have to do then is think the opposite and you'll usually be right.
Loads of people read the Guardian. That's not their problem. They are one of the world's biggest websites.
Their problem is that no one pays for it.
Who would have thought that after years of deriding people who paid for news and websites who charged for it they would build up a user base which was comfortable getting it all for free and blocking their adverts at the same time. The sanctimonious gits deserve it and all of those who predicted that it would be The Times that was looking at winding up after they introduced the pay wall should refrain from making further predictions about this.
Adblock is a great invention, I only turn it off for this website and a few other "chosen ones"
Yes, same here, I use uBlock Origin, it's really good.
Uniting behind Ted Cruz to stop Donald Trump is akin to uniting behind Jeremy Corbyn to stop George Galloway. So it's entirely understandable as to why the GOP leadership is reluctant to do so.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Lots of officers got mentions based on the bravery of their men, some deserved some maybe not so.
Both Brown and Osborne have shown some signs of concern about this, and as a result of their efforts with some support from the US, places like the Channel Islands are at least a bit more transparent.
Both Channel Islands are more transparent than either Britain or the US......
Ha Ha Ha
Oh dear, who to believe?
The Turnip Tourette from Ayrshire, or The Economist and the Financial Action Task Force......
Struggling Tory Lord Haw Haw resorts to type, insult people and quote from Tory lickspittle supporters. Mirror mirror on the wall who is the biggest liar of all.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Lots of officers got mentions based on the bravery of their men, some deserved some maybe not so.
Interesting and you really think this is a non story?
It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.
Panama may not have a choice.
Its still pushing water up hill.
(*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
Naturally, no true Scotsman would have any money tied up in Panama. They learnt their lesson after the Darien Scheme.
Sturgeon's £10bn deal with firm owned by "grossly corrupt" Chinese construction giant
I'm still scratching my head as to what these deals are.
Is it a kind of Scottisg PFI arrangement ?: And why does the hoots haggis party not want to use its local suppliers ?
Alan, simple , it is a bit like George's deals with the Chinese , it is borrowing money , except ours will not be used for nuclear power stations and excessive electricity prices. Kind of beats the paltry sum Westminster allows them to borrow by a country mile.
Right, but who is lender of last resort ? It can be the UK govt or you would have had Osborne grinning all over the place. So if it's the people of Scotland it looks like you've all agreed to send £2000 each to the Chinese. Why ?
We are loaded Alan, oil on way back up , soon we will be lighting our fags with twenties.
If you're lighting them sat beside an oil terminal that might not be a good idea.
Lighting them off the gas flare Alan, saves on matches.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Oops Getting the battles mixed up. Battle of Matapan. WW2
Sorry I was just reading a book recently about naval battles in WW1
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no responsibility for the actions of his father)
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Then it is up to the government to tighten up the law and close the loopholes. Part of the reason our tax code is so exploitable is because it's 17,000 pages long according to the ICAEW. We should bin it and start again from zero.
Like the NHS, the tax book is something you can probably only tinker with rather than start afresh. Doing so would cause vested interests on all sides to scream so much that progress would be impossible. If you did progress, you might end up with something bigger than we have now. Look at the madness over the spare room subsidy (which was not even a tax) for a start.
The public (including myself) don't understand tax, and especially the detail. All people know is that they should be paying less, whilst unnamed others (usually 'the rich') should be paying more. Oddly, the line where people class others as 'rich' is usually above their own income.
Both Brown and Osborne have shown some signs of concern about this, and as a result of their efforts with some support from the US, places like the Channel Islands are at least a bit more transparent.
Both Channel Islands are more transparent than either Britain or the US......
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Got a bagful at Trafalgar as well no doubt. These Royals get them easy.
Both Brown and Osborne have shown some signs of concern about this, and as a result of their efforts with some support from the US, places like the Channel Islands are at least a bit more transparent.
Both Channel Islands are more transparent than either Britain or the US......
Ha Ha Ha
Oh dear, who to believe?
The Turnip Tourette from Ayrshire, or The Economist and the Financial Action Task Force......
Struggling Tory Lord Haw Haw resorts to type, insult people and quote from Tory lickspittle supporters. Mirror mirror on the wall who is the biggest liar of all.
While it is annoying that wealthy people avoid tax, it is much more annoying that we have a 1,000 page tax code that is so opaque avoiding tax becomes easy. The German tax code is less than 300 pages. Guess which country it's easier to avoid tax in.
Germany, certainly.
I don't know where people get the idea that the UK is a soft touch for tax evasion and avoidance. It's not.
I have to say the Panama leaks don't seem to show what people think they show. What is particularly noticeable is that most of the dodgy stuff is old, and there are very clear signs that the international tightening up is working. For example, the BVI now seems to be getting near 100% compliance on identifying beneficial owners.
Interesting and you really think this is a non story?
It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.
Panama may not have a choice.
Its still pushing water up hill.
(*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
Naturally, no true Scotsman would have any money tied up in Panama. They learnt their lesson after the Darien Scheme.
Sturgeon's £10bn deal with firm owned by "grossly corrupt" Chinese construction giant
I'm still scratching my head as to what these deals are.
Is it a kind of Scottisg PFI arrangement ?: And why does the hoots haggis party not want to use its local suppliers ?
Alan, simple , it is a bit like George's deals with the Chinese , it is borrowing money , except ours will not be used for nuclear power stations and excessive electricity prices. Kind of beats the paltry sum Westminster allows them to borrow by a country mile.
Right, but who is lender of last resort ? It can be the UK govt or you would have had Osborne grinning all over the place. So if it's the people of Scotland it looks like you've all agreed to send £2000 each to the Chinese. Why ?
We are loaded Alan, oil on way back up , soon we will be lighting our fags with twenties.
Good news. Now the rest of the UK can stop subsidizing you.
Normal service resumed, we will be once again , as per last 40 years , be paying for London and the spivs.
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no responsibility for the actions of his father)
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Then it is up to the government to tighten up the law and close the loopholes. Part of the reason our tax code is so exploitable is because it's 17,000 pages long according to the ICAEW. We should bin it and start again from zero.
Like the NHS, the tax book is something you can probably only tinker with rather than start afresh. Doing so would cause vested interests on all sides to scream so much that progress would be impossible. If you did progress, you might end up with something bigger than we have now. Look at the madness over the spare room subsidy (which was not even a tax) for a start.
The public (including myself) don't understand tax, and especially the detail. All people know is that they should be paying less, whilst unnamed others (usually 'the rich') should be paying more. Oddly, the line where people class others as 'rich' is usually above their own income.
No. What most people know is PAYE. Tax automatically disappears from your payslip. The idea that tax is optional is foreign to most people.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Oops Getting the battles mixed up. Battle of Matapan. WW2
Sorry I was just reading a book recently about naval battles in WW1
While it is annoying that wealthy people avoid tax, it is much more annoying that we have a 1,000 page tax code that is so opaque avoiding tax becomes easy. The German tax code is less than 300 pages. Guess which country it's easier to avoid tax in.
Germany, certainly.
I don't know where people get the idea that the UK is a soft touch for tax evasion and avoidance. It's not.
I have to say the Panama leaks don't seem to show what people think they show. What is particularly noticeable is that most of the dodgy stuff is old, and there are very clear signs that the international tightening up is working. For example, the BVI now seems to be getting near 100% compliance on identifying beneficial owners.
It is interesting that apparently they show that the legal firm were being to instructed to close twice as many of companies down as opening new ones in recent years.
Interesting and you really think this is a non story?
It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.
Panama may not have a choice.
Its still pushing water up hill.
(*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
Naturally, no true Scotsman would have any money tied up in Panama. They learnt their lesson after the Darien Scheme.
Sturgeon's £10bn deal with firm owned by "grossly corrupt" Chinese construction giant
I'm still scratching my head as to what these deals are.
Is it a kind of Scottisg PFI arrangement ?: And why does the hoots haggis party not want to use its local suppliers ?
Alan, simple , it is a bit like George's deals with the Chinese , it is borrowing money , except ours will not be used for nuclear power stations and excessive electricity prices. Kind of beats the paltry sum Westminster allows them to borrow by a country mile.
Right, but who is lender of last resort ? It can be the UK govt or you would have had Osborne grinning all over the place. So if it's the people of Scotland it looks like you've all agreed to send £2000 each to the Chinese. Why ?
We are loaded Alan, oil on way back up , soon we will be lighting our fags with twenties.
Good news. Now the rest of the UK can stop subsidizing you.
Normal service resumed, we will be once again , as per last 40 years , be paying for London and the spivs.
Those nasty spivs at RBS and BoS, it was a rotten business.
It's good that these Panama Papers have exposed this tax evasion or is it avoidance? Interesting that the Guardian should be jumping up and down in indignation though?
Stones, glass houses and -- what is the collective noun for Look, Squirrels?
LOL Ahh.. Tax avoidance by right bad ... Tax avoidance by left " look squirrel" . What's actually the difference between the Guardian and Cameron's Pops? The Guardian refuse to answer the same questions they demand others themselves answer openly .
The sooner it's banned & its readers exterminated the sooner Britain will be Great again. Or am I missing something?
Hooray, quote working again.
The irony of the Grauniad, of course, is that without its - ahem - efficient tax arrangements it would have gone out of business years ago because almost nobody reads it. It looks though as if its final demise is approaching rapidly, tax arrangements or no. Personally I shall be rather sorry when that happens, as it is always useful to know what its 124 readers are thinking. All you have to do then is think the opposite and you'll usually be right.
Loads of people read the Guardian. That's not their problem. They are one of the world's biggest websites.
Their problem is that no one pays for it.
Who would have thought that after years of deriding people who paid for news and websites who charged for it they would build up a user base which was comfortable getting it all for free and blocking their adverts at the same time. The sanctimonious gits deserve it and all of those who predicted that it would be The Times that was looking at winding up after they introduced the pay wall should refrain from making further predictions about this.
Adblock is a great invention, I only turn it off for this website and a few other "chosen ones"
Yes, same here, I use uBlock Origin, it's really good.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Oops Getting the battles mixed up. Battle of Matapan. WW2
Sorry I was just reading a book recently about naval battles in WW1
Perhaps since they've run out of contemporaneous medals for Phil they'll start awarding retrospective ones.
The Order of King Alfred for gallantry against the beastly Norsemen.
There is a story here but it is perhaps not the one everyone is hyper-ventilating about.
First, Geoffrey Robertson QC is not a specialist in financial affairs. His speciality is human rights.
Second, that statement is borderline defamatory. Little wonder the BBC edited it. It is possible to defame people in a class. No barrister should say such a thing. He - of all people - should know that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Third, the comparison with Isle of Man and Jersey is disingenuous. Until relatively recently, it was perfectly possible to put money in those countries& not declare it to the taxman, though if you were a UK taxpayer, that would have been illegal. That changed when those countries implemented information sharing/tax deduction at source as a result of an EU Directive. So you can still keep you money in those offshore havens (expats without a UK mainland address often do this because of the difficulties of opening a bank account in the UK) but have tax deducted & information about your account is shared with the UK tax authorities. Plus you now have to tell the UK taxman about accounts held abroad. Panama is not subject to the same requirements & it is not in the gift of the UK government to force them to do so. The US are best placed to apply pressure if they want to.
The real story here is the failure of banks & others to comply with the sanctions & KYC regimes. HSBC has had particular problems in this regard, hence the supervision it is currently facing from the US authorities. The use of these untransparent countries where it is hard (not impossible but very hard/time-consuming) to get the underlying information is a gift to those in unpleasant regimes & those close to them&d those involved in terrorist or other illegal activities, who want to be able to hide money they have stolen or acquired in a variety of dubious ways and/or finance some very nasty behaviour indeed. Much of the terrorist financing is facilitated through such regimes/scams/offshore entities. It is one reason why a number of accounts for "charities" & other dubious organisations & individuals have been closed by banks in this country & is also one reason why the relevant criminal/regulatory authorities are so interested in insider dealing/money laundering: not just for its own sake but because of what it may be enabling.
While some people are fretting about whether a man who has been dead six years used a legal scheme in the decades before his death, you risk ignoring the real risks to the financial system & to our security which non-FATF complying countries pose.
Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with what Casino Royale says below about the burden placed on the rest of us by those wealthy people who do not comply with the law.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Got a bagful at Trafalgar as well no doubt. These Royals get them easy.
Indeed...Yes. See previous correction.
I think he also led the final charge at Waterloo alongside Sharpe of the SE Essex which was probably one of his greatest achievements
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Oops Getting the battles mixed up. Battle of Matapan. WW2
Sorry I was just reading a book recently about naval battles in WW1
Perhaps since they've run out of contemporaneous medals for Phil they'll start awarding retrospective ones.
The Order of King Alfred for gallantry against the beastly Norsemen.
Oops, forgot Phil is actually a beastly Norseman..
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Lots of officers got mentions based on the bravery of their men, some deserved some maybe not so.
malc
did you escape the great cull ?
Yes I am classed as client facing/not disposable, today is the last day for victims to be told they are walking the plank. I expect there to be more this year for sure , it is a real cull for sure this year.
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no responsibility for the actions of his father)
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Then it is up to the government to tighten up the law and close the loopholes. Part of the reason our tax code is so exploitable is because it's 17,000 pages long according to the ICAEW. We should bin it and start again from zero.
Like the NHS, the tax book is something you can probably only tinker with rather than start afresh. Doing so would cause vested interests on all sides to scream so much that progress would be impossible. If you did progress, you might end up with something bigger than we have now. Look at the madness over the spare room subsidy (which was not even a tax) for a start.
The public (including myself) don't understand tax, and especially the detail. All people know is that they should be paying less, whilst unnamed others (usually 'the rich') should be paying more. Oddly, the line where people class others as 'rich' is usually above their own income.
'Doing so would cause vested interests on all sides to scream so much that progress would be impossible'
Well there's a counsel of despair if ever I heard one. If vested interests start screaming that's a pretty good sign you are doing the right thing.
Of course you can do more than tinker. But it does require you to grow a spine.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Oops Getting the battles mixed up. Battle of Matapan. WW2
Sorry I was just reading a book recently about naval battles in WW1
Perhaps since they've run out of contemporaneous medals for Phil they'll start awarding retrospective ones.
The Order of King Alfred for gallantry against the beastly Norsemen.
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no esponsibility for the actions of his father)
While it is annoying that wealthy people avoid tax, it is much more annoying that we have a 1,000 page tax code that is so opaque avoiding tax becomes easy. The German tax code is less than 300 pages. Guess which country it's easier to avoid tax in.
That is why, to coin a phrase, I agree with Nick that clamping down on it, by tax reform for preference, would be popular and a good move. The problem is that the only people advocating it at the moment are written out of politics by the public for other reasons.
As it happens I believe the German 'tax book' is among the most complicated and full in the world. I know this from having worked with two well known ones who unfortunately for them never got to the end.
Indeed? I was told otherwise. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. That will teach me the valuable lesson never to trust an international financier sound he ever so plausible. The fact remains that ours is too big and unwieldy, and accepting the earlier point that laws are easier to add than remove, a wholesale rewrite would be better than what's happening now.
Two well known tax books who never got to the end of themselves or is there a word missing?
If I had spent a year looking through 11 million documents and Panorama being the best scandals they could find, I would think I had wasted a year of my life. Putin we already knew about, Panorama did a special not that long ago with far more interesting stuff. Cameron's father we had been here loads of times. The house bought with Brinks Mat money, which the police already knew about, some bloke and the sale of one house, another and his £85k, it really was all fart and no follow through.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Given that Prince Philip actually fought in WW2, that was a bit crass. Didn't Brazil declare war on Germany 2 days before WW2 ended or something?
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
Not to the extent of deserving more medals than Wavell or Charles Upham.
Philip is technically still a serving officer of the RN so picks up all the Jubilee medals, the same as anyone else (quite remarkably, he has both the George VI Coronation medal and the Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee medal). Inevitably, that adds up to quite a lot, on top of, for example the Atlantic Star, Burma Star, Africa Star, Italy Star, 1939-45 Star and so on.
So the general was right- he did get quite a lot for marrying his wife! (He wouldn't still be a serving officer if he hadn't married her, and for 70-odd years his duties have been purely ceremonial anyway.)
Nobody disputes he had a distinguished war record. But the point was, he was mocking somebody for having medals some of which he presumably hadn't earned, when he also has medals he hasn't earned in any meaningful sense.
In one sense, yes; in another sense, no.
Philip was tipped to go right to the top had he not married Elizabeth (as his uncle and grandfather did). Philip graduated as top cadet on his course and became the one of the youngest lieutenants in the fleet in 1942, having previously finished top in four of his five exam classes. There has to be a good chance that he would have ended up an admiral on merit and that far from enhancing his career, his marriage cut it short.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Got a bagful at Trafalgar as well no doubt. These Royals get them easy.
Indeed...Yes. See previous correction.
I think he also led the final charge at Waterloo alongside Sharpe of the SE Essex which was probably one of his greatest achievements
The Prince of Wales' own being led by the Duke of Edinburgh? Say it didn't happen that way!
Of course George IV really did claim he had been at Waterloo, and forced Wellington to discuss in public the brilliance of the Royal leadership in the final cavalry charge. Wellington was far too sensible to point out that the Regent was talking rubbish. Must have irked him though.
MG..I was a miner and did some time on a Nuclear Submarine..never got near the red button tho..have you ever done anything exciting or adventurous..be lovely to know ..
Feigning interest does not help your case, go sneer somewhere else.
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no responsibility for the actions of his father)
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Yes, things can be legal but immoral. Cheating on your partner, for example.
I don't think legal tax avoidance falls into that category primarily because the obligation to pay tax in the first place is legal, not moral. That's to say, if there were no taxes at all (say, if the state financed its activities by selling carpets) there would be no moral obligation to donate money to the state. I think it's also interesting that people do not instinctively feel that small scale legal tax avoidance is immoral. If you told me you had an ISA I wouldn't look askance at you.
I would also say that paying tax is part of the individual's relationship with the state and that we should regulate that relationship by law, not by appeals to personal morality or name-and-shame.
None of this implies that we shouldn't raise taxes or close loopholes that allow legal avoidance.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Prince Philip had many qualities as a naval officer, but serving his country before 1921 wasn't one of his achievements.
No, while the Queen's husband didn't fight at Jutland, her father did.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Given that Prince Philip actually fought in WW2, that was a bit crass. Didn't Brazil declare war on Germany 2 days before WW2 ended or something?
Interesting and you really think this is a non story?
It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.
Panama may not have a choice.
Its still pushing water up hill.
(*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
Naturally, no true Scotsman would have any money tied up in Panama. They learnt their lesson after the Darien Scheme.
Sturgeon's £10bn deal with firm owned by "grossly corrupt" Chinese construction giant
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no esponsibility for the actions of his father)
While it is annoying that wealthy people avoid tax, it is much more annoying that we have a 1,000 page tax code that is so opaque avoiding tax becomes easy. The German tax code is less than 300 pages. Guess which country it's easier to avoid tax in.
That is why, to coin a phrase, I agree with Nick that clamping down on it, by tax reform for preference, would be popular and a good move. The problem is that the only people advocating it at the moment are written out of politics by the public for other reasons.
As it happens I believe the German 'tax book' is among the most complicated and full in the world. I know this from having worked with two well known ones who unfortunately for them never got to the end.
Indeed? I was told otherwise. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. That will teach me the valuable lesson never to trust an international financier sound he ever so plausible. The fact remains that ours is too big and unwieldy, and accepting the earlier point that laws are easier to add than remove, a wholesale rewrite would be better than what's happening now.
Two well known tax books who never got to the end of themselves or is there a word missing?
Sorry should have read 'i worked with two well known Germans who were not as well versed in their own tax book as they should have been'. As the cases are well known it's not a secret but it still feels a bit like gossip and I like them both. I was trying to make it sound less obvious
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Given that Prince Philip actually fought in WW2, that was a bit crass. Didn't Brazil declare war on Germany 2 days before WW2 ended or something?
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no esponsibility for the actions of his father)
While it is annoying that wealthy people avoid tax, it is much more annoying that we have a 1,000 page tax code that is so opaque avoiding tax becomes easy. The German tax code is less than 300 pages. Guess which country it's easier to avoid tax in.
That is why, to coin a phrase, I agree with Nick that clamping down on it, by tax reform for preference, would be popular and a good move. The problem is that the only people advocating it at the moment are written out of politics by the public for other reasons.
One of Nick Palmer's suggestions is illegal under EU law. A point that Labour - when they are in their moralistic but uninformed tax-rant mode - tends to forget.
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no esponsibility for the actions of his father)
While it is annoying that wealthy people avoid tax, it is much more annoying that we have a 1,000 page tax code that is so opaque avoiding tax becomes easy. The German tax code is less than 300 pages. Guess which country it's easier to avoid tax in.
That is why, to coin a phrase, I agree with Nick that clamping down on it, by tax reform for preference, would be popular and a good move. The problem is that the only people advocating it at the moment are written out of politics by the public for other reasons.
As it happens I believe the German 'tax book' is among the most complicated and full in the world. I know this from having worked with two well known ones who unfortunately for them never got to the end.
Indeed? I was told otherwise. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. That will teach me the valuable lesson never to trust an international financier sound he ever so plausible. The fact remains that ours is too big and unwieldy, and accepting the earlier point that laws are easier to add than remove, a wholesale rewrite would be better than what's happening now.
Two well known tax books who never got to the end of themselves or is there a word missing?
Sorry should have read 'i worked with two well known Germans who were not as well versed in their own tax book as they should have been'. As the cases are well known it's not a secret but it still feels a bit like gossip and I like them both.
No worries Roger, I won't press you. I will confess tax law bores me rigid anyway, so I'm not surprised anyone finds the book hard going regardless of how long it is!
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no responsibility for the actions of his father)
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Yes, things can be legal but immoral. Cheating on your partner, for example.
I don't think legal tax avoidance falls into that category primarily because the obligation to pay tax in the first place is legal, not moral. That's to say, if there were no taxes at all (say, if the state financed its activities by selling carpets) there would be no moral obligation to donate money to the state. I think it's also interesting that people do not instinctively feel that small scale legal tax avoidance is immoral. If you told me you had an ISA I wouldn't look askance at you.
I would also say that paying tax is part of the individual's relationship with the state and that we should regulate that relationship by law, not by appeals to personal morality or name-and-shame.
None of this implies that we shouldn't raise taxes or close loopholes that allow legal avoidance.
Because an ISA isn't tax avoidance!
Tax avoidance is adding economically unnecessary steps to financial transactions for the sole purpose of generating a tax relief.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Eh?!
Got a bagful at Trafalgar as well no doubt. These Royals get them easy.
Indeed...Yes. See previous correction.
I think he also led the final charge at Waterloo alongside Sharpe of the SE Essex which was probably one of his greatest achievements
The Prince of Wales' own being led by the Duke of Edinburgh? Say it didn't happen that way!
Of course George IV really did claim he had been at Waterloo, and forced Wellington to discuss in public the brilliance of the Royal leadership in the final cavalry charge. Wellington was far too sensible to point out that the Regent was talking rubbish. Must have irked him though.
Interesting and you really think this is a non story?
It is a huge story. It increases the likelihood of concerted international action to prevent this kind of avoidance in such opaque jurisdictions. The choice of Panama by avoiders, as opposed to other offshore locations, is one of the fascinating aspects of this.
Panama may not have a choice.
Its still pushing water up hill.
(*) Naturally not including Cameron's dad ...
Naturally , we don't want any of the nasty Tory money tied up do we
Naturally, no true Scotsman would have any money tied up in Panama. They learnt their lesson after the Darien Scheme.
Sturgeon's £10bn deal with firm owned by "grossly corrupt" Chinese construction giant
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no responsibility for the actions of his father)
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Yes, things can be legal but immoral. Cheating on your partner, for example.
I don't think legal tax avoidance falls into that category primarily because the obligation to pay tax in the first place is legal, not moral. That's to say, if there were no taxes at all (say, if the state financed its activities by selling carpets) there would be no moral obligation to donate money to the state. I think it's also interesting that people do not instinctively feel that small scale legal tax avoidance is immoral. If you told me you had an ISA I wouldn't look askance at you.
I would also say that paying tax is part of the individual's relationship with the state and that we should regulate that relationship by law, not by appeals to personal morality or name-and-shame.
None of this implies that we shouldn't raise taxes or close loopholes that allow legal avoidance.
Because an ISA isn't tax avoidance!
Tax avoidance is adding economically unnecessary steps to financial transactions for the sole purpose of generating a tax relief.
No, it is tax avoidance. It is a legal way of arranging your affairs to minimise the tax you pay. That meets the definition.
You are talking about aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Legally, if not morally, there is no difference between the two.
Which is why a simpler law, making these schemes much harder, would be A Good Thing and Memorable.
Interesting to note that yesterday the first deportations from Greece to Turkey consisted (according to the news last night) of 50 Bangladeshis..... Bangladesh? perhaps I misheard??
I'm still scratching my head as to what these deals are.
Is it a kind of Scottisg PFI arrangement ?: And why does the hoots haggis party not want to use its local suppliers ?
?
We are loaded Alan, oil on way back up , soon we will be lighting our fags with twenties.
Good news. Now the rest of the UK can stop subsidizing you.
Normal service resumed, we will be once again , as per last 40 years , be paying for London and the spivs.
Those nasty spivs at RBS and BoS, it was a rotten business.
Confused Monica , surely you meant Lloyd's and Nat West
Salmond's " Celtic Lion " speech. " With RBS and HBoS .......Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for long-term."
Another loser on here obsessed with Salmond, can you turkeys not get a life rather than fixating on a man that lives in another country and has no connection with you or your paranoia.
British workers are the least adventurous of all those in Europe when it comes to seeking a job abroad, while citizens of other EU countries are very keen to come to the UK, according to a study of tens of millions of online job searches by website Indeed.
The data show 98.5pc of Britons want to stay in the UK for their next job – firmly the highest number in the 15 countries studied.
...Of the tiny proportion of Britons who want to move abroad, just 15.3pc want to go to another EU country – the lowest proportion among the 15 countries studied.
For those who do want to stay working in the EU, the most popular destinations are Ireland and France.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Lots of officers got mentions based on the bravery of their men, some deserved some maybe not so.
malc
did you escape the great cull ?
Yes I am classed as client facing/not disposable, today is the last day for victims to be told they are walking the plank. I expect there to be more this year for sure , it is a real cull for sure this year.
"Yes, that's the point. I also don't blame Cameron for his father, and I'm not sure I even blame his father. The issue is that governments generally and the British Governments (of all parties) in particular tolerate a system in which people with good advice and certain types of income can entirely avoid tax, which means that everyone else has to pay MUCH more."
How can you not blame a very wealthy person for trying to avoid tax? Do you really need the government to teach you morality? Shouldn't you take some responsibility for your own behaviour?
(Of course Junior has no responsibility for the actions of his father)
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Yes, things can be legal but immoral. Cheating on your partner, for example.
I don't think legal tax avoidance falls into that category primarily because the obligation to pay tax in the first place is legal, not moral. That's to say, if there were no taxes at all (say, if the state financed its activities by selling carpets) there would be no moral obligation to donate money to the state. I think it's also interesting that people do not instinctively feel that small scale legal tax avoidance is immoral. If you told me you had an ISA I wouldn't look askance at you.
I would also say that paying tax is part of the individual's relationship with the state and that we should regulate that relationship by law, not by appeals to personal morality or name-and-shame.
None of this implies that we shouldn't raise taxes or close loopholes that allow legal avoidance.
Because an ISA isn't tax avoidance!
Tax avoidance is adding economically unnecessary steps to financial transactions for the sole purpose of generating a tax relief.
No, it is tax avoidance. It is a legal way of arranging your affairs to minimise the tax you pay. That meets the definition.
You are talking about aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Legally, if not morally, there is no difference between the two.
Which is why a simpler law, making these schemes much harder, would be A Good Thing and Memorable.
We will never see it, too many vested interests in Westminster, they look after their own so no chance of it ever happening.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
For the record and balance he was also mentioned in dispatches for his conduct and bravery at the Battle of Jutland.
Lots of officers got mentions based on the bravery of their men, some deserved some maybe not so.
malc
did you escape the great cull ?
Yes I am classed as client facing/not disposable, today is the last day for victims to be told they are walking the plank. I expect there to be more this year for sure , it is a real cull for sure this year.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
Not to the extent of deserving more medals than Wavell or Charles Upham.
Philip is technically still a serving officer of the RN so picks up all the Jubilee medals, the same as anyone else (quite remarkably, he has both the George VI Coronation medal and the Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee medal). Inevitably, that adds up to quite a lot, on top of, for example the Atlantic Star, Burma Star, Africa Star, Italy Star, 1939-45 Star and so on.
So the general was right- he did get quite a lot for marrying his wife! (He wouldn't still be a serving officer if he hadn't married her, and for 70-odd years his duties have been purely ceremonial anyway.)
Nobody disputes he had a distinguished war record. But the point was, he was mocking somebody for having medals some of which he presumably hadn't earned, when he also has medals he hasn't earned in any meaningful sense.
In one sense, yes; in another sense, no.
Philip was tipped to go right to the top had he not married Elizabeth (as his uncle and grandfather did). Philip graduated as top cadet on his course and became the one of the youngest lieutenants in the fleet in 1942, having previously finished top in four of his five exam classes. There has to be a good chance that he would have ended up an admiral on merit and that far from enhancing his career, his marriage cut it short.
I didn't realise that Philip's uncle and grandfather also married Elizabeth. What a strange world we live in!
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
Not to the extent of deserving more medals than Wavell or Charles Upham.
Philip is technically still a serving officer of the RN so picks up all the Jubilee medals, the same as anyone else (quite remarkably, he has both the George VI Coronation medal and the Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee medal). Inevitably, that adds up to quite a lot, on top of, for example the Atlantic Star, Burma Star, Africa Star, Italy Star, 1939-45 Star and so on.
So the general was right- he did get quite a lot for marrying his wife! (He wouldn't still be a serving officer if he hadn't married her, and for 70-odd years his duties have been purely ceremonial anyway.)
Nobody disputes he had a distinguished war record. But the point was, he was mocking somebody for having medals some of which he presumably hadn't earned, when he also has medals he hasn't earned in any meaningful sense.
In one sense, yes; in another sense, no.
Philip was tipped to go right to the top had he not married Elizabeth (as his uncle and grandfather did). Philip graduated as top cadet on his course and became the one of the youngest lieutenants in the fleet in 1942, having previously finished top in four of his five exam classes. There has to be a good chance that he would have ended up an admiral on merit and that far from enhancing his career, his marriage cut it short.
Selling coffees in Italy probably doesn't appeal all that much to our youngsters.
On a serious note, this again shows how out of touch with reality our top politicians are. They generalise to the whole country from their own incredibly narrow, upper middle-class existences.
What the left thinks about offshore havens is irrelevant.
Its what the aspirational middle classes think that counts. I reckon many are utterly sick of being tax soaked by the wealthy elite to pay for their consciences.
Number Cruncher Rallings and Thrasher local election forecast:
CON +50 LAB -150 LIB +40 UKIP +40
Is there a NEV for that lot ?
Con 31 / Lab 30 / LD 16 / UKIP 12.
LD 16 looks high to me. It might be what by-elections suggest but fighting a full set of elections is a different deal. That said, *targetting* gains may not be that different from by-elections, if starting at a low base.
Labour have 4 years to improve the situation, but if that is the result, we're starting at a 13% lead for the Tories at the next election.
And surely a new Labour leader is inevitable on those numbers, coupled to a loss of control in Wales, possibly third in Scotland. An awful lot must be riding on London. If that is lost on top of all these it would be surprising were Corbyn not to face an immediate putsch.
I can't help feeling that the election of Sadiq Khan, combined with further decline elsewhere will go even further in fixing Labour's image as a combination of the Greens and Respect.
Interesting to note that yesterday the first deportations from Greece to Turkey consisted (according to the news last night) of 50 Bangladeshis..... Bangladesh? perhaps I misheard??
Indeed. Accompanied by a section of migrants selling anyone listening that they would kill themselves and their children if forced to go back to Turkey. This has media circus and PR disaster written all over it.
Selling coffees in Italy probably doesn't appeal all that much to our youngsters.
On a serious note, this again shows how out of touch with reality our top politicians are. They generalise to the whole country from their own incredibly narrow, upper middle-class existences.
That survey seems to conveniently ignore double digit unemployment rates despite extraordinary levels of stimulatory monetary policy.
What the left thinks about offshore havens is irrelevant.
Its what the aspirational middle classes think that counts. I reckon many are utterly sick of being tax soaked by the wealthy elite to pay for their consciences.
However since it's the wealthy elite, and the aspiring wealth elite that call the shots, I wouldn't be banking on rapid progress being made in this area. There are no poor ex-presidents and ex-prime ministers, so current ones are going to have an eye on their affairs after leaving office.
What the left thinks about offshore havens is irrelevant.
Its what the aspirational middle classes think that counts. I reckon many are utterly sick of being tax soaked by the wealthy elite to pay for their consciences.
Quite.
" David Cameron yesterday named the massive increase in Britain’s foreign aid budget as his ‘proudest achievement’ in Government."
Because paying tax is not a question of private morality, it's simply a matter of obeying the law. If the law allows people to pay less tax then it's not immoral for them to take advantage.
If we think this kind of activity is objectionable it is our governments we to need look to.
Isn't it quite possible to obey the letter of the law while also being immoral? I'm sure most massive tax avoiders will consider being called 'immoral' by the powerless as a price well worth paying.
Yes, things can be legal but immoral. Cheating on your partner, for example.
I don't think legal tax avoidance falls into that category primarily because the obligation to pay tax in the first place is legal, not moral. That's to say, if there were no taxes at all (say, if the state financed its activities by selling carpets) there would be no moral obligation to donate money to the state. I think it's also interesting that people do not instinctively feel that small scale legal tax avoidance is immoral. If you told me you had an ISA I wouldn't look askance at you.
I would also say that paying tax is part of the individual's relationship with the state and that we should regulate that relationship by law, not by appeals to personal morality or name-and-shame.
None of this implies that we shouldn't raise taxes or close loopholes that allow legal avoidance.
Because an ISA isn't tax avoidance!
Tax avoidance is adding economically unnecessary steps to financial transactions for the sole purpose of generating a tax relief.
No, it is tax avoidance. It is a legal way of arranging your affairs to minimise the tax you pay. That meets the definition.
You are talking about aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Legally, if not morally, there is no difference between the two.
Which is why a simpler law, making these schemes much harder, would be A Good Thing and Memorable.
I think it is difficult to draw an ethical distinction between more or less aggressive forms of tax avoidance that doesn't amount to special pleading. I would be interested to hear an argument to the contrary - ie, an argument that explained why the additional steps in a more aggressive but still legal mechanism made it immoral whereas a simpler one wasn't.
What the left thinks about offshore havens is irrelevant.
Its what the aspirational middle classes think that counts. I reckon many are utterly sick of being tax soaked by the wealthy elite to pay for their consciences.
Quite.
" David Cameron yesterday named the massive increase in Britain’s foreign aid budget as his ‘proudest achievement’ in Government."
Interesting to note that yesterday the first deportations from Greece to Turkey consisted (according to the news last night) of 50 Bangladeshis..... Bangladesh? perhaps I misheard??
Included, rather than consisted, I believe. Bangladeshis were the largest group, but there were also Afghanis, both Africans and IIRC two Syrians.
What the left thinks about offshore havens is irrelevant.
Its what the aspirational middle classes think that counts. I reckon many are utterly sick of being tax soaked by the wealthy elite to pay for their consciences.
These stories are the staple diet of certain media organisations. They have been feeding them to the public for years now.
That bar of medals on Prince Philip's jacket is so long it looks like something out of a comedy sketch show.
He once teased a Brazilian general for the number of medals he wore, suggesting Brazil hadn't done much fighting, only to get the retort, 'at least I didn't get them for marrying my wife.'
Isn't that slightly unfair on him? He served with fair distinction in WWII, as I recall.
Not to the extent of deserving more medals than Wavell or Charles Upham.
Philip is technically still a serving officer of the RN so picks up all the Jubilee medals, the same as anyone else (quite remarkably, he has both the George VI Coronation medal and the Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee medal). Inevitably, that adds up to quite a lot, on top of, for example the Atlantic Star, Burma Star, Africa Star, Italy Star, 1939-45 Star and so on.
So the general was right- he did get quite a lot for marrying his wife! (He wouldn't still be a serving officer if he hadn't married her, and for 70-odd years his duties have been purely ceremonial anyway.)
Nobody disputes he had a distinguished war record. But the point was, he was mocking somebody for having medals some of which he presumably hadn't earned, when he also has medals he hasn't earned in any meaningful sense.
In one sense, yes; in another sense, no.
Philip was tipped to go right to the top had he not married Elizabeth (as his uncle and grandfather did). Philip graduated as top cadet on his course and became the one of the youngest lieutenants in the fleet in 1942, having previously finished top in four of his five exam classes. There has to be a good chance that he would have ended up an admiral on merit and that far from enhancing his career, his marriage cut it short.
I didn't realise that Philip's uncle and grandfather also married Elizabeth. What a strange world we live in!
What the left thinks about offshore havens is irrelevant.
Its what the aspirational middle classes think that counts. I reckon many are utterly sick of being tax soaked by the wealthy elite to pay for their consciences.
Quite.
" David Cameron yesterday named the massive increase in Britain’s foreign aid budget as his ‘proudest achievement’ in Government."
Sickening.
As I have said before the Liberal Democrats won the war. Cameron isn't the heir to Blair, he is the heir to Clegg.
Selling coffees in Italy probably doesn't appeal all that much to our youngsters.
On a serious note, this again shows how out of touch with reality our top politicians are. They generalise to the whole country from their own incredibly narrow, upper middle-class existences.
Oh yah, you know Tarquin just went on his Gap Yah and worked in this little bistro on the Amalfi coast where he learned to make real Italian food like you get in Notting Hill.
What the left thinks about offshore havens is irrelevant.
Its what the aspirational middle classes think that counts. I reckon many are utterly sick of being tax soaked by the wealthy elite to pay for their consciences.
These stories are the staple diet of certain media organisations. They have been feeding them to the public for years now.
Comments
to stop George Galloway. So it's entirely understandable as to why the GOP leadership is reluctant to do so.
did you escape the great cull ?
Sorry I was just reading a book recently about naval battles in WW1
Indeed, it's a terrible choice.
The public (including myself) don't understand tax, and especially the detail. All people know is that they should be paying less, whilst unnamed others (usually 'the rich') should be paying more. Oddly, the line where people class others as 'rich' is usually above their own income.
http://www.fatf-gafi.org/home/
I don't know where people get the idea that the UK is a soft touch for tax evasion and avoidance. It's not.
I have to say the Panama leaks don't seem to show what people think they show. What is particularly noticeable is that most of the dodgy stuff is old, and there are very clear signs that the international tightening up is working. For example, the BVI now seems to be getting near 100% compliance on identifying beneficial owners.
The Order of King Alfred for gallantry against the beastly Norsemen.
First, Geoffrey Robertson QC is not a specialist in financial affairs. His speciality is human rights.
Second, that statement is borderline defamatory. Little wonder the BBC edited it. It is possible to defame people in a class. No barrister should say such a thing. He - of all people - should know that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Third, the comparison with Isle of Man and Jersey is disingenuous. Until relatively recently, it was perfectly possible to put money in those countries& not declare it to the taxman, though if you were a UK taxpayer, that would have been illegal. That changed when those countries implemented information sharing/tax deduction at source as a result of an EU Directive. So you can still keep you money in those offshore havens (expats without a UK mainland address often do this because of the difficulties of opening a bank account in the UK) but have tax deducted & information about your account is shared with the UK tax authorities. Plus you now have to tell the UK taxman about accounts held abroad. Panama is not subject to the same requirements & it is not in the gift of the UK government to force them to do so. The US are best placed to apply pressure if they want to.
The real story here is the failure of banks & others to comply with the sanctions & KYC regimes. HSBC has had particular problems in this regard, hence the supervision it is currently facing from the US authorities. The use of these untransparent countries where it is hard (not impossible but very hard/time-consuming) to get the underlying information is a gift to those in unpleasant regimes & those close to them&d those involved in terrorist or other illegal activities, who want to be able to hide money they have stolen or acquired in a variety of dubious ways and/or finance some very nasty behaviour indeed. Much of the terrorist financing is facilitated through such regimes/scams/offshore entities. It is one reason why a number of accounts for "charities" & other dubious organisations & individuals have been closed by banks in this country & is also one reason why the relevant criminal/regulatory authorities are so interested in insider dealing/money laundering: not just for its own sake but because of what it may be enabling.
While some people are fretting about whether a man who has been dead six years used a legal scheme in the decades before his death, you risk ignoring the real risks to the financial system & to our security which non-FATF complying countries pose.
Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with what Casino Royale says below about the burden placed on the rest of us by those wealthy people who do not comply with the law.
I think he also led the final charge at Waterloo alongside Sharpe of the SE Essex which was probably one of his greatest achievements
I expect there to be more this year for sure , it is a real cull for sure this year.
Well there's a counsel of despair if ever I heard one. If vested interests start screaming that's a pretty good sign you are doing the right thing.
Of course you can do more than tinker. But it does require you to grow a spine.
Two well known tax books who never got to the end of themselves or is there a word missing?
They have to have more, surely, surely?
Philip was tipped to go right to the top had he not married Elizabeth (as his uncle and grandfather did). Philip graduated as top cadet on his course and became the one of the youngest lieutenants in the fleet in 1942, having previously finished top in four of his five exam classes. There has to be a good chance that he would have ended up an admiral on merit and that far from enhancing his career, his marriage cut it short.
Of course George IV really did claim he had been at Waterloo, and forced Wellington to discuss in public the brilliance of the Royal leadership in the final cavalry charge. Wellington was far too sensible to point out that the Regent was talking rubbish. Must have irked him though.
I don't think legal tax avoidance falls into that category primarily because the obligation to pay tax in the first place is legal, not moral. That's to say, if there were no taxes at all (say, if the state financed its activities by selling carpets) there would be no moral obligation to donate money to the state. I think it's also interesting that people do not instinctively feel that small scale legal tax avoidance is immoral. If you told me you had an ISA I wouldn't look askance at you.
I would also say that paying tax is part of the individual's relationship with the state and that we should regulate that relationship by law, not by appeals to personal morality or name-and-shame.
None of this implies that we shouldn't raise taxes or close loopholes that allow legal avoidance.
Two Afghanistan migrant men force 14-year-old boy to perform sex acts on them at a swimming pool in Germany
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3524048/Two-Afghanistan-migrant-men-force-14-year-old-boy-perform-sex-acts-swimming-pool-Germany.html
Tax avoidance is adding economically unnecessary steps to financial transactions for the sole purpose of generating a tax relief.
Labour leader @jeremycorbyn says direct rule cd be imposed "within days" on British overseas territories over tax avoidance
Erm isn't that colonialism? What a nitwit.
You are talking about aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Legally, if not morally, there is no difference between the two.
Which is why a simpler law, making these schemes much harder, would be A Good Thing and Memorable.
I like to imagine our direct rule there being preceded by "now where did we leave the Governor's villa again?"
No wonder the business is going down.
On a serious note, this again shows how out of touch with reality our top politicians are. They generalise to the whole country from their own incredibly narrow, upper middle-class existences.
Its what the aspirational middle classes think that counts. I reckon many are utterly sick of being tax soaked by the wealthy elite to pay for their consciences.
" David Cameron yesterday named the massive increase in Britain’s foreign aid budget as his ‘proudest achievement’ in Government."
Sickening.
Excellent. Most interesting. A small thing but I'm not sure the barrister was Geoffrey Robertson.
I have an interesting legal tale about the BVI but I've just checked and the person involved is still alive so I'm going to tailor it.
Dave Prentis
People say that Trade Unions are stuck in the past. I’m trying to disprove that by joining Twitter only 10 years after it started
Corbyn uses a lot of different terms in this sentence but none of them are right. https://t.co/9afXifiaMq
Jeremy Corbyn: "They’re British Crown dependent territories therefore surely there has to be an observance of UK tax law."
British Crown dependencies are the Bailiwicks of Jersey &Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. British Overseas Territories are the Caribbean ones.
How much impact have they really had?
I can't foresee this time being any different.
I would add to this the choice of words used from number 10. "has no shares in" is not the same as stating that he is not a beneficiary in a trust.