politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour insider, Henry G Manson, on the changed mood within
Comments
-
I don't.Luckyguy1983 said:FPT:
@Cyclefree re: legal tax avoidance
You correctly point out that this tax avoidance is legal and therefore legitimate, but is it not equally legitimate for the consumer to be aware that legal or not, this activity operates against their economic interests, and therefore to change their buying activities accordingly?
I choose to buy most of my online junk from Tesco Direct these days in preference to Amazon. They at least have their tax base in the UK. Likewise if one wants an overpriced Latte and all other things are equal, why not choose Costa (UK) over Starbucks?
Why should you expect consumers to operate against their own economic interests when you don't expect the same of companies?
What I dislike is juvenile moralising on the basis of a wilful misunderstanding of the facts.0 -
Bit harsh to call Ed a non entitysurbiton said:
Why should a future Prime Minister give time to a non entity ?blackburn63 said:I wonder if Ed will accept Farage's challenge in his open letter
0 -
Electoral bias may yet slay the electorate...
cue a land of terrible conflict, bitterness and discord. That's what Ed Miliband will bring.0 -
Good for Henry to stick up for Ed and just maybe all the flak recently plus luscious Lucy will produce a sharper act for the public to appreciate. The trouble is my 24 year old son rolls around laughing every time he appears on the screen and there lies the rub.0
-
Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754Cyclefree said:
HMRC does not make the law. Parliament does and the Supreme Court ultimately determines the correct interpretation, if the law is unclear. There is a very well-known case on the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion.....and there are currently a number of cases which are going through the courts in relation to tax planning schemes..Alistair said:
You should tell the HMRC that as that's exactly how they define it:Cyclefree said:
Go back to your law books. That is not the definition of tax avoidance.Alistair said:Tax Planning - Making use of a tax relief for it's intended purpose (i.e. using an ISA to Save, Making use of a Capital allowance to claim a tax deduction for purchasing a hydraulic press for your manufacturing business)
Tax Evasion - Either hiding economic activity (i.e. working cash in hand) to avoid having to declare income for taxation purposes or failing to pay tax that is due (by, errr, not paying)
Tax Avoidance - Adding unnecessary steps to an economic transaction, often through intermediary entities to exploit legislation to gain a tax advantage that was never intended by that legislation.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/overview.htm0 -
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue" Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie v. IRCAlistair said:
The "most egregious case" General Anti-Abuse Rule that Osbourne introduced was a good start but I've come to the view that the whole tax system must operrate under a General Anti-Avoidance Rule rather than the letter-of-the-law based rule-system we have now.DavidL said:
It's an irregular verb isn't it?Alistair said:Tax Planning - Making use of a tax relief for it's intended purpose (i.e. using an ISA to Save, Making use of a Capital allowance to claim a tax deduction for purchasing a hydraulic press for your manufacturing business)
Tax Evasion - Either hiding economic activity (i.e. working cash in hand) to avoid having to declare income for taxation purposes or failing to pay tax that is due (by, errr, not paying)
Tax Avoidance - Adding unnecessary steps to an economic transaction, often through intermediary entities to exploit legislation to gain a tax advantage that was never intended by that legislation.
But Osborne has done more about this than any Chancellor since Lawson. And he needs to do a lot more. Bluntly, we need the money. And if that means another 50p on my cappuccino or £1 on the book I buy online or another £5 a month on my phone contract so be it. The playing field will then be level with domestic businesses, coffee shops, bookshops and, well I can't think of any honest phone companies but you get the idea.
I was against the idea for a long time as it seemed a one way street to tax stich ups over 1984 Bordeaux's but the fact of the matter is that tax sweetheart deals happen right now under the letter-of-the-law system and a GAAR system would help make things clearer.
"Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax." - Baron Tomin, in the House of Lords Judgement of IRC v. Duke of Westminster0 -
Yay if Ed ruled the world.....Danny565 said:
Global crackdown on tax avoidance, with trading sanctions forced on any countries that don't willingly comply, so as to take off the table the option of the global super-rich holding us all to ransom by threatening to "move overseas".Patrick said:
What policies should he enact in your wisdom? Please, I really mean it, suggest say 2 concrete policies to actually deliver this sentiment into reality.Danny565 said:
He can and should pick a fight with the big business tycoons the next time they start throwing their toys out of the pram and whining about how Labour are "anti-business".OblitusSumMe said:Ed was the underdog when he triumphed over his brother in the leadership election. Supposing he becomes Prime Minister - how does he keep the underdog spirit intact?
The only way I can think of would be to pick a fight with someone - Juncker, Merkel, Putin Xi? Some might say that was reckless (with a lower case R) rather than plucky...
In the meantime, a public record of everyone's tax affairs so the rich who feel they don't have to contribute are named and shamed, people can choose not to go to businesses who don't pay taxes, etc.
Are you really dense or what?0 -
So the law is changed and the Corporations lawyers find yet another way to end run round the law. So the law is altered again, only to be end run round again, a never ending game of cat and mouse. And then people complain that tax law is too complicated!Patrick said:
Insane. You can only prosecute someone for breaking a law. You can't proscute someone for breaking a moral obligation decided by someone else they may not agree with. What planet are you on? Tax evaders should be prosecuted. Tax avoiders left alone. If society or a government doesn't want people or companies to adjust their affairs legally to minimise their taxes then change the effing law! (or put pressure on your 'friendly partners in the EU' to not offer 1% tax rates to whoever wants one). (or impose taxes on other parts of the value chain - sales tax for coffee anyone?).Alistair said:
... I've come to the view that the whole tax system must operrate under a General Anti-Avoidance Rule rather than the letter-of-the-law based rule-system we have now.DavidL said:
It's an irregular verb isn't it?Alistair said:Tax Planning - Making use of a tax relief for it's intended purpose (i.e. using an ISA to Save, Making use of a Capital allowance to claim a tax deduction for purchasing a hydraulic press for your manufacturing business)
Tax Evasion - Either hiding economic activity (i.e. working cash in hand) to avoid having to declare income for taxation purposes or failing to pay tax that is due (by, errr, not paying)
Tax Avoidance - Adding unnecessary steps to an economic transaction, often through intermediary entities to exploit legislation to gain a tax advantage that was never intended by that legislation.
But Osborne has done more about this than any Chancellor since Lawson. And he needs to do a lot more. Bluntly, we need the money. And if that means another 50p on my cappuccino or £1 on the book I buy online or another £5 a month on my phone contract so be it. The playing field will then be level with domestic businesses, coffee shops, bookshops and, well I can't think of any honest phone companies but you get the idea.
What you really need here is a government / chancellor who can actually manage shit and understand how the world works. I have about 1,000,000% more faith in Ozzy succeeding in squeezing some tax out of Google / Starbucks/etc than Ed useless gimp effing Miliband.
A GAAR is really simple to formulate and is basically an extension of what Osbourne has already introduced for "the most egregious schemes":
"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored"
Boom done. It allows the billions of words of tax law to be radically simplified.0 -
Ed Miliband looks less like Seabiscuit and more like the superannuated family pet that no one has the heart to put down. He may well make Number 10, but if he does so, it will be on the back of the Labour party, not his own merits.0
-
Telegenic.Norm said:Good for Henry to stick up for Ed and just maybe all the flak recently plus luscious Lucy will produce a sharper act for the public to appreciate. The trouble is my 24 year old son rolls around laughing every time he appears on the screen and there lies the rub.
That's Eds problem, he just isn't. Normally they would put such people on the radio instead but he's nor radiogenic either. It matters not what Lucy will try and achieve if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks .......its probably a duck.
He's doomed whatever is now done.
#saveEdQuack0 -
"The Conservatives received more than twice as much in donations as Labour between July and September 2014, according to the Electoral Commission.
New figures published on Thursday show the Conservative Party received £6.76m while Labour received £3.19m.
The Lib Dems reported donations of £2.75m, the SNP £1.57m and UKIP received just over £98,000."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-300348870 -
It will be on the back of the Tories' favourite electoral system...antifrank said:Ed Miliband looks less like Seabiscuit and more like the superannuated family pet that no one has the heart to put down. He may well make Number 10, but if he does so, it will be on the back of the Labour party, not his own merits.
0 -
Farage already has Cameron running scared. Will he have shown Miliband to be frit too?
Strong leaders of the top two parties would happily debate and defeat the leader of the third, to show their strength. Especially if the media's claims that UKIP's arguments don't hold up to fire are true.
The fact they're hiding from the challenge shows three things:
(1) They're weak
(2) They know UKIP's arguments are stronger than commonly pretended
(3) Farage's authority is increasing0 -
FPT Cyclefree ... ''Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.''
A deliberate incentive to save granted by the government is not 'tax avoidance'. Nor is it agressive tax avoidance. That sort of argument shows you have no sort of argument at all.
When a smug lefty comedian can use loopholes to avoid paying any tax on £15million a year via a totally bogus overseas scheme than that is avoidance done agressivly on a massive scale. Its also of course hypocrisy. Companies behaving in a totally false way to channel supplies and funds via overseas front outlets are no different that Al Capone. And the countries that encourage it should not have their ex PM running the EU either.0 -
Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.0 -
@LuckyGuy1983
"Legal" and "legitimate" are not the same things. It's legal for a man to cheat on his wife. It's still downright immoral.0 -
Alistair said:
So the law is changed and the Corporations lawyers find yet another way to end run round the law. So the law is altered again, only to be end run round again, a never ending game of cat and mouse. And then people complain that tax law is too complicated!
A GAAR is really simple to formulate and is basically an extension of what Osbourne has already introduced for "the most egregious schemes":
"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored"
Boom done. It allows the billions of words of tax law to be radically simplified.
Then the arguments and law switch to what is "superfluous" and how to prove that.
People can get very inventive you know.
0 -
How could you put this down? Just look at his sad eyes...http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardhjames/can-i-come-in-now?bftw=ukantifrank said:Ed Miliband looks less like Seabiscuit and more like the superannuated family pet that no one has the heart to put down. He may well make Number 10, but if he does so, it will be on the back of the Labour party, not his own merits.
Every now and again Henry takes the opportunity of a leader thread to essentially make a PPB. Can't say I blame him, but I'm going to discount it accordingly...0 -
The LD figure is eye-opening, even once you subtract the £950k bequest.isam said:"The Conservatives received more than twice as much in donations as Labour between July and September 2014, according to the Electoral Commission.
New figures published on Thursday show the Conservative Party received £6.76m while Labour received £3.19m.
The Lib Dems reported donations of £2.75m, the SNP £1.57m and UKIP received just over £98,000."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-300348870 -
The LibDems got nearly £1 in a legacy but who on earth gave the other £1.75m?isam said:"The Conservatives received more than twice as much in donations as Labour between July and September 2014, according to the Electoral Commission.
New figures published on Thursday show the Conservative Party received £6.76m while Labour received £3.19m.
The Lib Dems reported donations of £2.75m, the SNP £1.57m and UKIP received just over £98,000."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-300348870 -
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-11/13/10/enhanced/webdr10/enhanced-8254-1415891784-8.pngTissue_Price said:
How could you put this down? Just look at his sad eyes...http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardhjames/can-i-come-in-now?bftw=ukantifrank said:Ed Miliband looks less like Seabiscuit and more like the superannuated family pet that no one has the heart to put down. He may well make Number 10, but if he does so, it will be on the back of the Labour party, not his own merits.
Every now and again Henry takes the opportunity of a leader thread to essentially make a PPB. Can't say I blame him, but I'm going to discount it accordingly...0 -
There are times when a little distance gives you a better perspective. Henry's final paragraph is a case in point. He needs some.
0 -
In response to Alistair who said:-
"So the law is changed and the Corporations lawyers find yet another way to end run round the law. So the law is altered again, only to be end run round again, a never ending game of cat and mouse. And then people complain that tax law is too complicated!
A GAAR is really simple to formulate and is basically an extension of what Osbourne has already introduced for "the most egregious schemes":
"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored"
Boom done. It allows the billions of words of tax law to be radically simplified."
I'm all in favour of simplification. Get rid of all reliefs, allowances and exemptions.
Oh, wait, when Osborne tried to get rid of the charity relief, he got shouted at by a lot of rich people and the Labour Party. The very same Labour Party which introduced some of the exemption which are now being challeged in the courts.
BTW on your definition of a GAAR: what happens when the purpose of the transaction is partly to engender a tax advantage?
0 -
-
Keep in mind that the petrol used now was purchased a while ago at the higher rates before refining. They should come down but its not normally overnight. The trick that's played is when the cheaper fuel finally comes through the refineries most people have forgotten the price had fallen in the first place.AndyJS said:
Let's see whether petrol prices drop to the same extent.taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.
0 -
What did Nigel's letter to Ed say?
''Dear Ed, I'm a tiny pygmy stood in a hole. Please put me on a pedestal and give me a megaphone..?0 -
Just how low do the Saudi's want it to go?taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.
0 -
A 2 clause attempt at writing a GAAR as law which was tabled back in 2009 wasMarkHopkins said:Alistair said:So the law is changed and the Corporations lawyers find yet another way to end run round the law. So the law is altered again, only to be end run round again, a never ending game of cat and mouse. And then people complain that tax law is too complicated!
A GAAR is really simple to formulate and is basically an extension of what Osbourne has already introduced for "the most egregious schemes":
"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored"
Boom done. It allows the billions of words of tax law to be radically simplified.
Then the arguments and law switch to what is "superfluous" and how to prove that.
People can get very inventive you know.
"1 If when determining the liability of a person to taxation, duty or similar charge due under statute in the UK it shall be established that a step or steps have been included in a transaction giving rise to that liability or to any claim for an allowance, deduction or relief, with such steps having been included for the sole or one of the main purposes of securing a reduction in that liability to taxation, duty or similar charge with no other material economic purpose for the inclusion of such a step being capable of demonstration by the taxpayer, then subject to the sole exception that the step or steps in question are specifically permitted under the term of any legislation promoted for the specific purpose of permitting such use, such step or steps shall be ignored when calculating the resulting liability to taxation, duty or similar charge.
2 In the interpretation of this provision a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the provision shall preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object
"
The idea is that any tax relief have a listed purpose, if the 'superfluous' step does not achieve that purpose then it can be discarded.0 -
"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored".
Sounds like Christmas for lawyers. When you buy a Starbucks do you do so because you like and trust the Starbucks brand? Is the brand superfluous to the transaction? Any halfway competent lawyer could argue it's not. So a brand usage fee charged from an Irish corporate to the UK sub is acceptable. How much though? 10p a cup. A quid? Starbucks UK buys ground and quality controlled beans from its Irish supplier. The grinding and QC activities are exceptionally important to the Starbucks reputation. So the Irish bean supplier charges premium rates to the franchisees - they're getting the best coffee money can buy. The UK business needs to be financed. It receives intra-group loans to finance investment and working capital from Starbucks Finance Luxemourg S.A. at the entirely reasonbale rate of 6%. Blah blah blah ad nauseam.0 -
The SNP only spent £2.1m in 2010. They must be on track for a big push in the 2015 election.isam said:"The Conservatives received more than twice as much in donations as Labour between July and September 2014, according to the Electoral Commission.
New figures published on Thursday show the Conservative Party received £6.76m while Labour received £3.19m.
The Lib Dems reported donations of £2.75m, the SNP £1.57m and UKIP received just over £98,000."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30034887
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-parties-annual-accounts/details-of-accounts0 -
The day we start putting people in jail for what is "immoral" rather than what is unlawful is the day anyone with any sense gets on an airplane and emigrates anywhere that will have them.Socrates said:@LuckyGuy1983
"Legal" and "legitimate" are not the same things. It's legal for a man to cheat on his wife. It's still downright immoral.
"I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk0 -
Mister Ed;
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNVtxIxtP80 -
£50.09/barrel for Brent now ! TIPPING POINT approaches.Eastwinger said:
Just how low do the Saudi's want it to go?taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.0 -
Global crackdown on tax avoidance, with trading sanctions forced on any countries that don't willingly comply, so as to take off the table the option of the global super-rich holding us all to ransom by threatening to "move overseas".
The first is the sort of airy-fairy undeliverable Gordon used to promise.
In the meantime, a public record of everyone's tax affairs so the rich who feel they don't have to contribute are named and shamed, people can choose not to go to businesses who don't pay taxes, etc.
The second is an open invite to burglars, fraudsters, scammers, blackmailers and kidnappers if applied to individual citizens.
0 -
You can save without using an ISA. The only reason for saving via an ISA is that you don't pay tax on the income you earn from your savings. You are explicitly avoiding tax. There is no other reason for doing so.Flightpath said:FPT Cyclefree ... ''Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.''
A deliberate incentive to save granted by the government is not 'tax avoidance'. Nor is it agressive tax avoidance. That sort of argument shows you have no sort of argument at all.
When a smug lefty comedian can use loopholes to avoid paying any tax on £15million a year via a totally bogus overseas scheme than that is avoidance done agressivly on a massive scale. Its also of course hypocrisy. Companies behaving in a totally false way to channel supplies and funds via overseas front outlets are no different that Al Capone. And the countries that encourage it should not have their ex PM running the EU either.
By doing so - to use Lefty arguments - you are depriving the state of money that it needs to spend on worthwhile things. It may be legal but it is not moral to do so. And it is hypocritical for anyone who believes in higher state spending to save via an ISA.
See how these arguments go.
It's nonsense, of course.
0 -
Good points so the best solution is to have a simple sales tax which is harder to fiddlePatrick said:"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored".
Sounds like Christmas for lawyers. When you buy a Starbucks do you do so because you like and trust the Starbucks brand? Is the brand superfluous to the transaction? Any halfway competent lawyer could argue it's not. So a brand usage fee charged from an Irish corporate to the UK sub is acceptable. How much though? 10p a cup. A quid? Starbucks UK buys ground and quality controlled beans from its Irish supplier. The grinding and QC activities are exceptionally important to the Starbucks reputation. So the Irish bean supplier charges premium rates to the franchisees - they're getting the best coffee money can buy. The UK business needs to be financed. It receives intra-group loans to finance investment and working capital from Starbucks Finance Luxemourg S.A. at the entirely reasonbale rate of 6%. Blah blah blah ad nauseam.0 -
They can't because oil is priced in dollars and the £ has dropped considerably over the past few days. also you forget that most of the pump price is actually tax anyway.AndyJS said:
Let's see whether petrol prices drop to the same extent.taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.0 -
Then there's the Ramsay Principle ~(1982) which is far more recent than either of those two rulings which goes "Pay up clever dick"Indigo said:
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue" Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie v. IRC
"Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax." - Baron Tomin, in the House of Lords Judgement of IRC v. Duke of Westminster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsay_principle0 -
No, oil is dropping relative to the pound too, it is just over £50 now - was £52 or so last week.felix said:
They can't because oil is priced in dollars and the £ has dropped considerably over the past few days. also you forget that most of the pump price is actually tax anyway.AndyJS said:
Let's see whether petrol prices drop to the same extent.taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.0 -
"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-camerons-hopes-of-feelgood-election-boost-are-dashed-as-80-per-cent-say-recovery-is-not-helping-9858273.html0 -
I would imagine that under a GAAR we wouldn't consider any of these corporate entities as separate business and they would be taxed as a whole ignoring the intra-group movement of money.Patrick said:"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored".
Sounds like Christmas for lawyers. When you buy a Starbucks do you do so because you like and trust the Starbucks brand? Is the brand superfluous to the transaction? Any halfway competent lawyer could argue it's not. So a brand usage fee charged from an Irish corporate to the UK sub is acceptable. How much though? 10p a cup. A quid? Starbucks UK buys ground and quality controlled beans from its Irish supplier. The grinding and QC activities are exceptionally important to the Starbucks reputation. So the Irish bean supplier charges premium rates to the franchisees - they're getting the best coffee money can buy. The UK business needs to be financed. It receives intra-group loans to finance investment and working capital from Starbucks Finance Luxemourg S.A. at the entirely reasonbale rate of 6%. Blah blah blah ad nauseam.0 -
To be honest the legalities are mind-numbingly dull for the ordinary person. However, everything has a price and if all these companies paid full tax as if they were say domiciled in the UK - it would clearly benefit the treasury and almost certainly hurt customers in increased prices and employees in fewer jobs. I'm not defending their practices but paying full tax is not pain free for any of us.Patrick said:"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored".
Sounds like Christmas for lawyers. When you buy a Starbucks do you do so because you like and trust the Starbucks brand? Is the brand superfluous to the transaction? Any halfway competent lawyer could argue it's not. So a brand usage fee charged from an Irish corporate to the UK sub is acceptable. How much though? 10p a cup. A quid? Starbucks UK buys ground and quality controlled beans from its Irish supplier. The grinding and QC activities are exceptionally important to the Starbucks reputation. So the Irish bean supplier charges premium rates to the franchisees - they're getting the best coffee money can buy. The UK business needs to be financed. It receives intra-group loans to finance investment and working capital from Starbucks Finance Luxemourg S.A. at the entirely reasonbale rate of 6%. Blah blah blah ad nauseam.0 -
Like VAT?state_go_away said:
Good points so the best solution is to have a simple sales tax which is harder to fiddlePatrick said:"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored".
Sounds like Christmas for lawyers. When you buy a Starbucks do you do so because you like and trust the Starbucks brand? Is the brand superfluous to the transaction? Any halfway competent lawyer could argue it's not. So a brand usage fee charged from an Irish corporate to the UK sub is acceptable. How much though? 10p a cup. A quid? Starbucks UK buys ground and quality controlled beans from its Irish supplier. The grinding and QC activities are exceptionally important to the Starbucks reputation. So the Irish bean supplier charges premium rates to the franchisees - they're getting the best coffee money can buy. The UK business needs to be financed. It receives intra-group loans to finance investment and working capital from Starbucks Finance Luxemourg S.A. at the entirely reasonbale rate of 6%. Blah blah blah ad nauseam.0 -
OGH has referred to pump prices and Tory poll popularity before. Maybe the 3% lead in Mori partly reflects that0
-
I was unaware of that quote, but of course not unaware that Tesco did it too. However, until shown otherwise I will persist in my belief that they pay more tax in the UK than Amazon do out of the equivalent sale, and therefore I believe my money is better spent there.madasafish said:Luckyguy1983 said:FPT:
@Cyclefree re: legal tax avoidance
You correctly point out that this tax avoidance is legal and therefore legitimate, but is it not equally legitimate for the consumer to be aware that legal or not, this activity operates against their economic interests, and therefore to change their buying activities accordingly?
I choose to buy most of my online junk from Tesco Direct these days in preference to Amazon. They at least have their tax base in the UK. Likewise if one wants an overpriced Latte and all other things are equal, why not choose Costa (UK) over Starbucks?
Why should you expect consumers to operate against their own economic interests when you don't expect the same of companies?
You appear to be unaware that Tesco is one of the largest users of tax avoidance..
"The UK's 100 biggest public companies are running more than 8,000 subsidiaries or joint ventures in onshore and offshore tax havens, according to research published on Monday, raising fresh concerns about the full extent of corporate tax avoidance.
The figures, published by the charity ActionAid, show that only two of the companies listed on the UK's FTSE 100 have no subsidiaries in tax havens – while companies such as Barclays and Tesco own hundreds"0 -
'Labour are united'
Except when they're all over the media quietly slating their leader for being useless. See most of the press over the last week for further details.0 -
And the tax element - factor it all in and you get very modest price cuts if any.Pulpstar said:
No, oil is dropping relative to the pound too, it is just over £50 now - was £52 or so last week.felix said:
They can't because oil is priced in dollars and the £ has dropped considerably over the past few days. also you forget that most of the pump price is actually tax anyway.AndyJS said:
Let's see whether petrol prices drop to the same extent.taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.0 -
The Ramsay principle is consistent with the first two. It says, in essence, that the schemes in question were not successful in ordering the taxpayer's affairs so as to reduce the amount of tax payable. A taxpayer is still entitled to do whatever he/she lawfully can to reduce the amount of tax payable e.g. as the Milliband brothers did in relation to their father's estate.Alistair said:
Then there's the Ramsay Principle ~(1982) which is far more recent than either of those two rulings which goes "Pay up clever dick"Indigo said:
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue" Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie v. IRC
"Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax." - Baron Tomin, in the House of Lords Judgement of IRC v. Duke of Westminster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsay_principle
0 -
The Left will of course argue that it's only immoral when Rich people (excluding millionaire IHT avoiding Labour party leaders) and Faceless Corporations do it.Cyclefree said:
You can save without using an ISA. The only reason for saving via an ISA is that you don't pay tax on the income you earn from your savings. You are explicitly avoiding tax. There is no other reason for doing so.Flightpath said:FPT Cyclefree ... ''Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.''
A deliberate incentive to save granted by the government is not 'tax avoidance'. Nor is it agressive tax avoidance. That sort of argument shows you have no sort of argument at all.
When a smug lefty comedian can use loopholes to avoid paying any tax on £15million a year via a totally bogus overseas scheme than that is avoidance done agressivly on a massive scale. Its also of course hypocrisy. Companies behaving in a totally false way to channel supplies and funds via overseas front outlets are no different that Al Capone. And the countries that encourage it should not have their ex PM running the EU either.
By doing so - to use Lefty arguments - you are depriving the state of money that it needs to spend on worthwhile things. It may be legal but it is not moral to do so. And it is hypocritical for anyone who believes in higher state spending to save via an ISA.
See how these arguments go.
It's nonsense, of course.0 -
The first is the sort of airy-fairy undeliverable Gordon used to promise.chestnut said:Global crackdown on tax avoidance, with trading sanctions forced on any countries that don't willingly comply, so as to take off the table the option of the global super-rich holding us all to ransom by threatening to "move overseas".
GB couldn't even do it in the UK. I was working in the mobile phone industry at the time of the "mixer taxes" fuss. Remember how GB suddenly lost enthusiasm when Chris Gent told him he would take Vodafone offshore if he continued with that policy, rumor had it GB received a similar message from HP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4454870/Brown-changes-message-on-mixers.html
0 -
As others were saying this is a pretty meaningless comment given it was all manufactured and given the location of most Labour members.taffys said:"While certain MPs were wobbling, the party’s foot soldiers and supporters were bashing out 60,000 tweets of support."
One is reminded of the mass applause at certain events in North Korea....
I was quite pleased to read Mr Manson's article because he probably believes it and its so divorced from reality.0 -
And the tax element - factor it all in and you get very modest price cuts if any.
Unless George's parting shot is to shave some tax off. playing our part in giving cheaper petrol to the motorist...0 -
God you're thick. 'They would be taxed as a whole' - by whom? UK? Luxembourg? Ireland? How would you divide taxable liabilities between the involved tax regimes? Answer = according to national laws. Only. Which is precisely the situation today.Alistair said:
I would imagine that under a GAAR we wouldn't consider any of these corporate entities as separate business and they would be taxed as a whole ignoring the intra-group movement of money.Patrick said:"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored".
Sounds like Christmas for lawyers. When you buy a Starbucks do you do so because you like and trust the Starbucks brand? Is the brand superfluous to the transaction? Any halfway competent lawyer could argue it's not. So a brand usage fee charged from an Irish corporate to the UK sub is acceptable. How much though? 10p a cup. A quid? Starbucks UK buys ground and quality controlled beans from its Irish supplier. The grinding and QC activities are exceptionally important to the Starbucks reputation. So the Irish bean supplier charges premium rates to the franchisees - they're getting the best coffee money can buy. The UK business needs to be financed. It receives intra-group loans to finance investment and working capital from Starbucks Finance Luxemourg S.A. at the entirely reasonbale rate of 6%. Blah blah blah ad nauseam.
You completely miss the point about this being the express intent of the EU single market. If Ireland and Luxembourg out-compete the UK on tax rates within the same EU legal framework (the single market) and double taxation treaties we can swivel. Or leave the EU. Or change our own tax law.0 -
IPSOS Mori tables etc..isam said:"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-camerons-hopes-of-feelgood-election-boost-are-dashed-as-80-per-cent-say-recovery-is-not-helping-9858273.html
I am not convinced this is bad news for Cameron is it? The Standard make it sound bad, but it seems to me people think things are getting better
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3476/Eight-in-ten-Britons-have-felt-little-or-no-impact-of-economic-growth.aspx0 -
It's harder to write a headline to a story that says "people think that life is fairly shit right now but on balance hope that it might get a bit better next year".isam said:
IPSOS Mori tables etc..isam said:"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-camerons-hopes-of-feelgood-election-boost-are-dashed-as-80-per-cent-say-recovery-is-not-helping-9858273.html
I am not convinced this is bad news for Cameron is it? The Standard make it sound bad, but it seems to me people think things are getting better
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3476/Eight-in-ten-Britons-have-felt-little-or-no-impact-of-economic-growth.aspx0 -
I would go with that. Its a litmus test, a sign post to inflation and economic health. I'm not claiming its rational. But petrol is expensive and its a stress purchase - we like and are committed to our cars, we live our lives around them and resent fuelling them.Norm said:OGH has referred to pump prices and Tory poll popularity before. Maybe the 3% lead in Mori partly reflects that
0 -
-
OK, not sure I can explain those but in table 3 we haveisam said:
Really?! How so?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Using the ICM spiral of silence, I actually managed to match his latest final figures with his tables - for the first time I thinkisam said:
It is rare enough to say "bravo"!Anorak said:
Fair enough! Can't argue with the facts.anotherDave said:
What backsliding? Pollsters currently say UKIP's support is higher than it's ever been.Anorak said:
They've been extraordinarily successfull over the last 3-4 years. I don't deny it. I do think their recent back-sliding in the polls is a sign that they're close to maximising their vote share. I also think that much of their support comes from a NOTA vote, rather than voting positively for the full UKIP policy platform. I could, of course, be wrong...isam said:
You seem to be saying that UKIP only appeal to UKIP votersAnorak said:Winning over the grassroots, dyed-in-the-wool supporters is a great start for a Labour leader. Trouble is, he need to convince a much bigger slice of the population than that.
After all, kippers idolise their Dear Leader, but unless UKIP can convince much, much more of the electorate to vote for them, they're not getting anywhere near being in power.
And: first!
What was the Kipper score in 2010 and what are they polling now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
[Is this a PB first?]
In that spirit of humility I will admit I cant understand the Ashcroft poll tables
Table 3 has 571 respondents.. Overall there were 1002... 318 were DNV/DK or Refused, that leaves over 100 that I cant find... where are they?!
weighted base: 503
Lab 143
Con 149
UKIP 84
LD 48
adding 50% of DK/refused to their 2010 party
Lab DK 14: 50% = 7
Lab refused 3: 50% = 2 (rounded)
Con DK 19: 50% = 10 (rounded)
Con refused 2: 50% = 1
LD DK 8: 50% = 4
LD refused 3: 50% = 2 (rounded)
new base = 503 + 9 + 11 + 6 = 529
new Lab = 143 + 7 + 2 = 152
new Con = 149 + 10 + 1 = 160
new LD = 48 +4 + 2 = 54
Con = 160/529 = 30.2%
Lab = 152/529 = 28.7%
UKIP = 84/529 = 15.9%
LD = 54/529 = 10.2%
compared with Lord Ashcroft's Table 4 quoted numbers:
Con 30
Lab 29
UKIP 16
LD 10
They actually match!!0 -
The best way to get these corporations to pay reasonable tax due is by direct action. In this age of social media it is not beyond the imagination to draw up a schedule of the worst offenders and encourage mass rejection of the services they provide. For example:Luckyguy1983 said:
I was unaware of that quote, but of course not unaware that Tesco did it too. However, until shown otherwise I will persist in my belief that they pay more tax in the UK than Amazon do out of the equivalent sale, and therefore I believe my money is better spent there.madasafish said:Luckyguy1983 said:FPT:
@Cyclefree re: legal tax avoidance
You appear to be unaware that Tesco is one of the largest users of tax avoidance..
"The UK's 100 biggest public companies are running more than 8,000 subsidiaries or joint ventures in onshore and offshore tax havens, according to research published on Monday, raising fresh concerns about the full extent of corporate tax avoidance.
The figures, published by the charity ActionAid, show that only two of the companies listed on the UK's FTSE 100 have no subsidiaries in tax havens – while companies such as Barclays and Tesco own hundreds"
Vodaphone 1st January 2015 All customers due for a renewal of a contract in 2015 email to request a pak code and that they will move providers until.......
Guardian 1st February 2015 Refuse to buy the paper or purchase any item from advertisers of the Guardian until.........
Amazon 1st March Let them have several million emails saying: from March 1st we will boycott your service until......
Ebay 1st April, as that is only fair is you do Amazon until......
until...... the corporation accepts and meets the liability to pay taxes due without avoidance schemes.
On the other side of the coin, I am sure there are plenty of corporations based in UK that trade in other countries without making realistic contributions to the tax take in those countries. We would win some and lose some.
If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.0 -
I'm bored of tax avoidance now.
Perhaps the parting comment is merely to observe it's unsolvably complex to do anything significant about Avoidance. We should simply change the law and turn some Avoidance into Evasion. HMRC can and does impute profits where transfer pricing structures fall outside prescribed norms.
We live in a globalised world where it's ever easier to move bits of a value chain to wherever is economically optimal. The righty economies will adapt and thrive. The lefty dinosaurs will go extinct.0 -
On personal tax avoidance, most F1 drivers live in Monaco or Switzerland, as do tennis stars or even footballers. All these are £1m+ earners.
Also well known tax avoiders include Film and TV people, athletes, Pop stars, etc. Have not named them to prevent OGH getting letters, but this info is available on line.
In USA if you have a USA passport, then the Fed taxes you wherever you live. Could adopt the same here and see how many UK passports are ditched.
But PBers, if you earned over £1m pa, how many would seek to minimise your tax exposure?0 -
Danny565 said:
Global crackdown on tax avoidance, with trading sanctions forced on any countries that don't willingly comply, so as to take off the table the option of the global super-rich holding us all to ransom by threatening to "move overseas".Patrick said:
What policies should he enact in your wisdom? Please, I really mean it, suggest say 2 concrete policies to actually deliver this sentiment into reality.Danny565 said:
He can and should pick a fight with the big business tycoons the next time they start throwing their toys out of the pram and whining about how Labour are "anti-business".OblitusSumMe said:Ed was the underdog when he triumphed over his brother in the leadership election. Supposing he becomes Prime Minister - how does he keep the underdog spirit intact?
The only way I can think of would be to pick a fight with someone - Juncker, Merkel, Putin Xi? Some might say that was reckless (with a lower case R) rather than plucky...
In the meantime, a public record of everyone's tax affairs so the rich who feel they don't have to contribute are named and shamed, people can choose not to go to businesses who don't pay taxes, etc.
Wonder how the Millipede brothers would feel about that?
Value of house inherited, £2m (or was it £5m?). IHT paid. Zero.
Knowing their ilk, they'd exempt themselves from full disclosure.0 -
well Vat involves claiming for expenses as well which is where the problem lies (manufactured expenditure to offset income) so better a pure sales tax which is paid on each sale at a constant ratephiliph said:
Like VAT?state_go_away said:
Good points so the best solution is to have a simple sales tax which is harder to fiddlePatrick said:"When assessing the tax liability for an economic transaction any steps taken which are superfluous to the transaction whose purpose is solely to engender a tax advantage shall be ignored".
Sounds like Christmas for lawyers. When you buy a Starbucks do you do so because you like and trust the Starbucks brand? Is the brand superfluous to the transaction? Any halfway competent lawyer could argue it's not. So a brand usage fee charged from an Irish corporate to the UK sub is acceptable. How much though? 10p a cup. A quid? Starbucks UK buys ground and quality controlled beans from its Irish supplier. The grinding and QC activities are exceptionally important to the Starbucks reputation. So the Irish bean supplier charges premium rates to the franchisees - they're getting the best coffee money can buy. The UK business needs to be financed. It receives intra-group loans to finance investment and working capital from Starbucks Finance Luxemourg S.A. at the entirely reasonbale rate of 6%. Blah blah blah ad nauseam.0 -
Most people can't be bothered to vote, there is no chance of them taking direct action, at least not beyond the sort of fatuous #FreeOurGirls nonsense that seems to be de rigeur at the moment.philiph said:
If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.
99% of people will briefly consider an alternative company on the grounds you suggest, then notice that the original company is slightly cheaper (or whatever, possibly because it is paying less tax) and that will be the end of it. Its a very rare voter that doesnt vote primarily with their wallets, why expect them to behave any different when they buy goods and services.
0 -
Prior to the mid term elections last week, the US enjoyed 55 consecutive months of jobs growth.isam said:
IPSOS Mori tables etc..isam said:"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-camerons-hopes-of-feelgood-election-boost-are-dashed-as-80-per-cent-say-recovery-is-not-helping-9858273.html
I am not convinced this is bad news for Cameron is it? The Standard make it sound bad, but it seems to me people think things are getting better
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3476/Eight-in-ten-Britons-have-felt-little-or-no-impact-of-economic-growth.aspx
How did the governing party do at the elections ?0 -
Tissue_Price said:
How could you put this down? Just look at his sad eyes...http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardhjames/can-i-come-in-now?bftw=ukantifrank said:Ed Miliband looks less like Seabiscuit and more like the superannuated family pet that no one has the heart to put down. He may well make Number 10, but if he does so, it will be on the back of the Labour party, not his own merits.
Every now and again Henry takes the opportunity of a leader thread to essentially make a PPB. Can't say I blame him, but I'm going to discount it accordingly...
Haha.
Was he weally weally weally sad?0 -
I do buy books from physical bookstores even though I know I could get them cheaper on Amazon . I have a rule that I only buy on Amazon books that I know I could not easily get in a shop.Indigo said:
Most people can't be bothered to vote, there is no chance of them taking direct action, at least not beyond the sort of fatuous #FreeOurGirls nonsense that seems to be de rigeur at the moment.philiph said:
If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.
99% of people will briefly consider an alternative company on the grounds you suggest, then notice that the original company is slightly cheaper (or whatever, possibly because it is paying less tax) and that will be the end of it. Its a very rare voter that doesnt vote primarily with their wallets, why expect them to behave any different when they buy goods and services.
I know in effect the difference in price is a donation to keep physical bookshops around but its a small price to pay imo
I really get an urge to lamp somebody who is recording the details of a book in a shop solely to buy it online later. I personally think bookshops should charge an entry of say £5 and reimburse it as a credit on the purchase of books at the counter0 -
They want to smash the Fracking rigs. Time for Uncle Sam , the Protector, to have a quite word with the Saudi Royal family.Eastwinger said:
Just how low do the Saudi's want it to go?taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.0 -
Wonder how the Millipede brothers would feel about that?
Or the Benns?0 -
Ok, for a minute I thought I had gone completely mental there.. but we are talking about different Lord Ashcroft Polls!!Sunil_Prasannan said:
OK, not sure I can explain those but in table 3 we haveisam said:
Really?! How so?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Using the ICM spiral of silence, I actually managed to match his latest final figures with his tables - for the first time I thinkisam said:
It is rare enough to say "bravo"!Anorak said:
Fair enough! Can't argue with the facts.anotherDave said:
What backsliding? Pollsters currently say UKIP's support is higher than it's ever been.Anorak said:
They've been extraordinarily successfull over the last 3-4 years. I don't deny it. I do think their recent back-sliding in the polls is a sign that they're close to maximising their vote share. I also think that much of their support comes from a NOTA vote, rather than voting positively for the full UKIP policy platform. I could, of course, be wrong...isam said:
You seem to be saying that UKIP only appeal to UKIP votersAnorak said:Winning over the grassroots, dyed-in-the-wool supporters is a great start for a Labour leader. Trouble is, he need to convince a much bigger slice of the population than that.
After all, kippers idolise their Dear Leader, but unless UKIP can convince much, much more of the electorate to vote for them, they're not getting anywhere near being in power.
And: first!
What was the Kipper score in 2010 and what are they polling now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
[Is this a PB first?]
In that spirit of humility I will admit I cant understand the Ashcroft poll tables
Table 3 has 571 respondents.. Overall there were 1002... 318 were DNV/DK or Refused, that leaves over 100 that I cant find... where are they?!
weighted base: 503
Lab 143
Con 149
UKIP 84
LD 48
adding 50% of DK/refused to their 2010 party
Lab DK 14: 50% = 7
Lab refused 3: 50% = 2 (rounded)
Con DK 19: 50% = 10 (rounded)
Con refused 2: 50% = 1
LD DK 8: 50% = 4
LD refused 3: 50% = 2 (rounded)
new base = 503 + 9 + 11 + 6 = 529
new Lab = 143 + 7 + 2 = 152
new Con = 149 + 10 + 1 = 160
new LD = 48 +4 + 2 = 54
Con = 160/529 = 30.2%
Lab = 152/529 = 28.7%
UKIP = 84/529 = 15.9%
LD = 54/529 = 10.2%
compared with Lord Ashcroft's Table 4 quoted numbers:
Con 30
Lab 29
UKIP 16
LD 10
They actually match!!
I was on about the Rochester ands Strood one
Sorry you went to all that trouble, but at least you got the numbers to match!
0 -
Do we know why Sterling is tanking?Bond_James_Bond said:
Any views on if this will continue, stabilise, vs Dollar or Euro?0 -
It seems increasingly meaningless as a question to me.isam said:"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-camerons-hopes-of-feelgood-election-boost-are-dashed-as-80-per-cent-say-recovery-is-not-helping-9858273.html
"Who do you think you'd be better (or worse) off with?" seems more pertinent.
I don't "feel" better off than in 2010, but logically, I know I am. How can anyone who was paying 6% mortgage rates not be better off paying 3%?0 -
Robin Brant @robindbrant 3m3 minutes ago
miliband supporter goes for the press after the speech. see more on BBC news later @PickardJE http://youtu.be/0SGCZNmJY9k?list=UUu7b6aV9TqIarqGR5dsjcrw … via @YouTube
0 -
That is simply not how mainstream analysis interprets the Ramsay principle. The whole point of the Ramsay principle was that each and every step was legal by the letter of the law but a holistic view meant the result was "Pay up clever dick"Cyclefree said:
The Ramsay principle is consistent with the first two. It says, in essence, that the schemes in question were not successful in ordering the taxpayer's affairs so as to reduce the amount of tax payable. A taxpayer is still entitled to do whatever he/she lawfully can to reduce the amount of tax payable e.g. as the Milliband brothers did in relation to their father's estate.Alistair said:
Then there's the Ramsay Principle ~(1982) which is far more recent than either of those two rulings which goes "Pay up clever dick"Indigo said:
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue" Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie v. IRC
"Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax." - Baron Tomin, in the House of Lords Judgement of IRC v. Duke of Westminster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsay_principle
The Ramsay Principle is the acme of a General Anti Avoidance Rule - the steps to apply the Ramsay Principle are:
1) a series of transactions; which are
2) pre-ordained; and
3) into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from tax avoidance.
This is 100% against the concept that a man can order his affairs however he likes as long as it is legal. Every step in the case was legal by the letter of the law.0 -
No wonder the SNP are called the Tartan Tories. How can such a small nation pull in half the donations of a nationwide government forming party like Labour ?isam said:"The Conservatives received more than twice as much in donations as Labour between July and September 2014, according to the Electoral Commission.
New figures published on Thursday show the Conservative Party received £6.76m while Labour received £3.19m.
The Lib Dems reported donations of £2.75m, the SNP £1.57m and UKIP received just over £98,000."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-300348870 -
Your argument is totally bogus.Cyclefree said:
You can save without using an ISA. The only reason for saving via an ISA is that you don't pay tax on the income you earn from your savings. You are explicitly avoiding tax. There is no other reason for doing so.Flightpath said:FPT Cyclefree ... ''Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.''
A deliberate incentive to save granted by the government is not 'tax avoidance'. Nor is it agressive tax avoidance. That sort of argument shows you have no sort of argument at all.
When a smug lefty comedian can use loopholes to avoid paying any tax on £15million a year via a totally bogus overseas scheme than that is avoidance done agressivly on a massive scale. Its also of course hypocrisy. Companies behaving in a totally false way to channel supplies and funds via overseas front outlets are no different that Al Capone. And the countries that encourage it should not have their ex PM running the EU either.
By doing so - to use Lefty arguments - you are depriving the state of money that it needs to spend on worthwhile things. It may be legal but it is not moral to do so. And it is hypocritical for anyone who believes in higher state spending to save via an ISA.
See how these arguments go.
It's nonsense, of course.
The govt created a policy that encourages us to save. It produces a scheme whereby anyone with money to save can put a relatively small amount each year into a plan which avoids tax provided you obey the rules. The state is encouraging saving because it thinks on balance that is a good thing rather than have us spend.
In terms of companies the govt provide a whole range of tax allowances which are really in the same vein to cover investment in capital and such like and again it on balance thinks that's a good thing. Furthermore this govt has actually lowered its corporation tax rate and the NI rate on employing staff.
Govt set tax rates allowances for individuals and companies. Bogus 'brass plate' schemes are exploiting loopholes which the revenue chase and close as they find them. Its cheating its chicanery its lying its taking the pi$$ its robbery. The fact that you defend it is shameful.
0 -
Oh dear another Ed cockup.
Milliband heads for the exit.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/coffee-shots-miliband-heads-for-the-exit/
0 -
I am sure many here do similar, (I actually dont get any choice because Amazon isn't available where I am) but the general population, who dont think that deeply about this sort of issue on the whole, wont, and a couple of hundred wonks isn't going to make a multinational change their policy;-)state_go_away said:
I do buy books from physical bookstores even though I know I could get them cheaper on Amazon . I have a rule that I only buy on Amazon books that I know I could not easily get in a shop.Indigo said:
Most people can't be bothered to vote, there is no chance of them taking direct action, at least not beyond the sort of fatuous #FreeOurGirls nonsense that seems to be de rigeur at the moment.philiph said:
If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.
99% of people will briefly consider an alternative company on the grounds you suggest, then notice that the original company is slightly cheaper (or whatever, possibly because it is paying less tax) and that will be the end of it. Its a very rare voter that doesnt vote primarily with their wallets, why expect them to behave any different when they buy goods and services.
I know in effect the difference in price is a donation to keep physical bookshops around but its a small price to pay imo0 -
According to the official statistics road fuel prices are now 5p a litre lower than they were at the end of September.AndyJS said:
Let's see whether petrol prices drop to the same extent.taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.
I can't be arsed to back out the VAT and fuel duty, and then find a sensible estimate for the cost of refining, etc, in order to work out whether all of the decline in the oil price has been passed on, but insofar as the past is a guide for the future then it looks as though a decline in the Sterling price of oil will be matched with a decline in the pump price of fuel - assuming the once much talked about fuel price stabiliser doesn't suddenly arise from the grave to increase fuel duty...0 -
That Miliband Aparatchik diatribe video to the press is all over the place....
0 -
True, but because of an idiot ramming Herself's car I have been without one for some six weeks (she appropriated mine). I have found that even in an area where public transport is one bus an hour life is perfectly reasonable. OK I don't work any more so I don't have some of the time pressures I used to but after a short period of adjustment I have found that I don't miss having a car. Furthermore, even with a taxi fare now and again the savings are noticeable. I wouldn't have gone carless by choice but now it has come upon me I don't think I shall buy another.Flightpath said:
I would go with that. Its a litmus test, a sign post to inflation and economic health. I'm not claiming its rational. But petrol is expensive and its a stress purchase - we like and are committed to our cars, we live our lives around them and resent fuelling them.Norm said:OGH has referred to pump prices and Tory poll popularity before. Maybe the 3% lead in Mori partly reflects that
0 -
We can be quite sure that all MPs including Ed who live in houses worth more than Ed's mansion tax would claim that they live in the house because they're MPs and therefore entitled to claim the mansion tax back on expenses.Itajai said:Danny565 said:
Global crackdown on tax avoidance, with trading sanctions forced on any countries that don't willingly comply, so as to take off the table the option of the global super-rich holding us all to ransom by threatening to "move overseas".Patrick said:
What policies should he enact in your wisdom? Please, I really mean it, suggest say 2 concrete policies to actually deliver this sentiment into reality.Danny565 said:
He can and should pick a fight with the big business tycoons the next time they start throwing their toys out of the pram and whining about how Labour are "anti-business".OblitusSumMe said:Ed was the underdog when he triumphed over his brother in the leadership election. Supposing he becomes Prime Minister - how does he keep the underdog spirit intact?
The only way I can think of would be to pick a fight with someone - Juncker, Merkel, Putin Xi? Some might say that was reckless (with a lower case R) rather than plucky...
In the meantime, a public record of everyone's tax affairs so the rich who feel they don't have to contribute are named and shamed, people can choose not to go to businesses who don't pay taxes, etc.
Wonder how the Millipede brothers would feel about that?
Value of house inherited, £2m (or was it £5m?). IHT paid. Zero.
Knowing their ilk, they'd exempt themselves from full disclosure.
Not one Labour millionaire will pay it out of his own pocket.
0 -
It's OK, I already did the calculation earlier in the week to plug the data into this week's up and coming ELBOWisam said:
Ok, for a minute I thought I had gone completely mental there.. but we are talking about different Lord Ashcroft Polls!!Sunil_Prasannan said:
OK, not sure I can explain those but in table 3 we haveisam said:
Really?! How so?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Using the ICM spiral of silence, I actually managed to match his latest final figures with his tables - for the first time I thinkisam said:
It is rare enough to say "bravo"!Anorak said:
Fair enough! Can't argue with the facts.anotherDave said:
What backsliding? Pollsters currently say UKIP's support is higher than it's ever been.Anorak said:
than voting positively for the full UKIP policy platform. I could, of course, be wrong...isam said:
You seem to be saying that UKIP only appeal to UKIP votersAnorak said:Winning over the grassroots, dyed-in-the-wool supporters is a great start for a Labour leader. Trouble is, he need to convince a much bigger slice of the population than that.
After all, kippers idolise their Dear Leader, but unless UKIP can convince much, much more of the electorate to vote for them, they're not getting anywhere near being in power.
And: first!
What was the Kipper score in 2010 and what are they polling now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
[Is this a PB first?]
In that spirit of humility I will admit I cant understand the Ashcroft poll tables
Table 3 has 571 respondents.. Overall there were 1002... 318 were DNV/DK or Refused, that leaves over 100 that I cant find... where are they?!
weighted base: 503
Lab 143
Con 149
UKIP 84
LD 48
adding 50% of DK/refused to their 2010 party
Lab DK 14: 50% = 7
Lab refused 3: 50% = 2 (rounded)
Con DK 19: 50% = 10 (rounded)
Con refused 2: 50% = 1
LD DK 8: 50% = 4
LD refused 3: 50% = 2 (rounded)
new base = 503 + 9 + 11 + 6 = 529
new Lab = 143 + 7 + 2 = 152
new Con = 149 + 10 + 1 = 160
new LD = 48 +4 + 2 = 54
Con = 160/529 = 30.2%
Lab = 152/529 = 28.7%
UKIP = 84/529 = 15.9%
LD = 54/529 = 10.2%
compared with Lord Ashcroft's Table 4 quoted numbers:
Con 30
Lab 29
UKIP 16
LD 10
They actually match!!
I was on about the Rochester ands Strood one
Sorry you went to all that trouble, but at least you got the numbers to match!
Didn't realise you were thinking of the Rochester Poll!0 -
@LadPolitics: Tory odds improve in Rochester; Labour on the slide. http://t.co/zGUruAsfaq http://t.co/jcEHBzGiLp0
-
The tax not paid by individuals is the politics of envy, its a rounding error. it would almost certainly cost more to enforce than it would bring in, especially since the targets can afford the best lawyers and accountants money can buy. In addition if it came to the crunch the vast majority of them would throw their UK passport in the bin and go and live in a EU tax haven, and make use of the free movement of EU citizens to come here and conduct their trade as and when they felt like it.Flightpath said:Govt set tax rates allowances for individuals and companies. Bogus 'brass plate' schemes are exploiting loopholes which the revenue chase and close as they find them. Its cheating its chicanery its lying its taking the pi$$ its robbery. The fact that you defend it is shameful.
Corporations are a different kettle of fish, but then you are talking as Patrick has said many times about the express intent of the EU common market in goods and services. Personally I think we are BOO, but given that we are in, and that is both the intent and the rules of the club, we can't exactly complain about it.
0 -
In London, owning a car does not make sense. Even the occasional min cab ride pays for itself.HurstLlama said:
True, but because of an idiot ramming Herself's car I have been without one for some six weeks (she appropriated mine). I have found that even in an area where public transport is one bus an hour life is perfectly reasonable. OK I don't work any more so I don't have some of the time pressures I used to but after a short period of adjustment I have found that I don't miss having a car. Furthermore, even with a taxi fare now and again the savings are noticeable. I wouldn't have gone carless by choice but now it has come upon me I don't think I shall buy another.Flightpath said:
I would go with that. Its a litmus test, a sign post to inflation and economic health. I'm not claiming its rational. But petrol is expensive and its a stress purchase - we like and are committed to our cars, we live our lives around them and resent fuelling them.Norm said:OGH has referred to pump prices and Tory poll popularity before. Maybe the 3% lead in Mori partly reflects that
0 -
Incidentally, and just for fun, when Osborne became Chancellor on 12th May 2010 the petrol price was £1.2131 and the diesel price was £1.2282. The latest figures, with percentage change in brackets, are:
Petrol = £1.2294 (+1.3%)
Diesel = £1.2759 (+3.9%)
Back in the day, when the fuel prices were surging upwards, the local bus company had a number of fuel price related increases in their fares (which is understandable, since fuel will be one of their biggest costs). They're the sort of people who will now be raking it in with a decrease in the fuel price not reflected in a decrease in fares.0 -
Well fuel duty is £0.58 and VAT is 20% so a litre of diesel at £1.25 is costing you £0.46 for the actual diesel.OblitusSumMe said:
According to the official statistics road fuel prices are now 5p a litre lower than they were at the end of September.AndyJS said:
Let's see whether petrol prices drop to the same extent.taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.
I can't be arsed to back out the VAT and fuel duty, and then find a sensible estimate for the cost of refining, etc, in order to work out whether all of the decline in the oil price has been passed on, but insofar as the past is a guide for the future then it looks as though a decline in the Sterling price of oil will be matched with a decline in the pump price of fuel - assuming the once much talked about fuel price stabiliser doesn't suddenly arise from the grave to increase fuel duty...
A tonne of diesel is $718 at the moment. A tonne of diesel at ref density of 0.845 contains 1,183 litres, so a litre costs $0.61 wholesale which is £0.39 a litre.
So the company's gross margin is £0.07, which has to fund distribution and the capital and expense costs of operating petrol stations.0 -
I get 42p, not 46p. What have I done wrong? [Something very silly - ignore me]Bond_James_Bond said:
Well fuel duty is £0.58 and VAT is 20% so a litre of diesel at £1.25 is costing you £0.46 for the actual diesel.OblitusSumMe said:
According to the official statistics road fuel prices are now 5p a litre lower than they were at the end of September.AndyJS said:
Let's see whether petrol prices drop to the same extent.taffys said:Oil price collapse continues.
Brent at below 79.
I can't be arsed to back out the VAT and fuel duty, and then find a sensible estimate for the cost of refining, etc, in order to work out whether all of the decline in the oil price has been passed on, but insofar as the past is a guide for the future then it looks as though a decline in the Sterling price of oil will be matched with a decline in the pump price of fuel - assuming the once much talked about fuel price stabiliser doesn't suddenly arise from the grave to increase fuel duty...
A tonne of diesel is $718 at the moment. A tonne of diesel at ref density of 0.845 contains 1,183 litres, so a litre costs $0.61 wholesale which is £0.39 a litre.
So the company's gross margin is £0.07, which has to fund distribution and the capital and expense costs of operating petrol stations.
0 -
Presumably your wife still feels the need for a car (to do family chores?) - It is a good argument for reducing cars from 2 per household to one but outside London (and some other cities) cars are pretty much essential to have for at least one per householdHurstLlama said:
True, but because of an idiot ramming Herself's car I have been without one for some six weeks (she appropriated mine). I have found that even in an area where public transport is one bus an hour life is perfectly reasonable. OK I don't work any more so I don't have some of the time pressures I used to but after a short period of adjustment I have found that I don't miss having a car. Furthermore, even with a taxi fare now and again the savings are noticeable. I wouldn't have gone carless by choice but now it has come upon me I don't think I shall buy another.Flightpath said:
I would go with that. Its a litmus test, a sign post to inflation and economic health. I'm not claiming its rational. But petrol is expensive and its a stress purchase - we like and are committed to our cars, we live our lives around them and resent fuelling them.Norm said:OGH has referred to pump prices and Tory poll popularity before. Maybe the 3% lead in Mori partly reflects that
0 -
Fair enough but the Ramsay Principle has been with us for more than 30 years. It doesn't seemed to have stopped companies and individuals playing the system or ordering their affairs to remain compliant with the law, depending on your point of view. If the Ramsay principle was as strong as you seem to claim then surely we would not be having this discussion.Alistair said:
That is simply not how mainstream analysis interprets the Ramsay principle. The whole point of the Ramsay principle was that each and every step was legal by the letter of the law but a holistic view meant the result was "Pay up clever dick"
The Ramsay Principle is the acme of a General Anti Avoidance Rule - the steps to apply the Ramsay Principle are:
1) a series of transactions; which are
2) pre-ordained; and
3) into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from tax avoidance.
This is 100% against the concept that a man can order his affairs however he likes as long as it is legal. Every step in the case was legal by the letter of the law.
I would suggest that the way to stop any sort of tax argument is to make the tax laws as simple as possible. Abolishing corporation tax and replacing it with a simple flat-rate sales tax would stop all shenanigans involving multi-nationals. There would be downsides too but such is life.0 -
Afternoon all and I usually enjoy Henry's articles but surely the one above is a spoof!
Ed Bland will never be anything other than bland and unelectable.0 -
Except that it's really a donation to landlords who are charging excessive rent because property prices in our rainy haven are grossly (and it would appear artificially) inflated. Enormous overheads are why high street shops can't compete with their warehouse based rivals. I don't have a solution by the way, other than gradually to try and let out air of the property market without causing an overnight collapse.state_go_away said:
I do buy books from physical bookstores even though I know I could get them cheaper on Amazon . I have a rule that I only buy on Amazon books that I know I could not easily get in a shop.Indigo said:
Most people can't be bothered to vote, there is no chance of them taking direct action, at least not beyond the sort of fatuous #FreeOurGirls nonsense that seems to be de rigeur at the moment.philiph said:
If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.
99% of people will briefly consider an alternative company on the grounds you suggest, then notice that the original company is slightly cheaper (or whatever, possibly because it is paying less tax) and that will be the end of it. Its a very rare voter that doesnt vote primarily with their wallets, why expect them to behave any different when they buy goods and services.
I know in effect the difference in price is a donation to keep physical bookshops around but its a small price to pay imo
I really get an urge to lamp somebody who is recording the details of a book in a shop solely to buy it online later. I personally think bookshops should charge an entry of say £5 and reimburse it as a credit on the purchase of books at the counter
0 -
It is funny but also desperate journalism and its the easiest thing in the world to put a bit of bogus juxtaposition into a photo.Moses_ said:Oh dear another Ed cockup.
Milliband heads for the exit.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/coffee-shots-miliband-heads-for-the-exit/0 -
I have a lot of respect for Henry but have to agree in this instance it does appear to be a puff pieceTCPoliticalBetting said:This is frankly a puff piece of spin from Henry and it is very welcome for the SaveEdCampaign.
0 -
I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.Flightpath said:
Your argument is totally bogus.Cyclefree said:
You can save without using an ISA. The only reason for saving via an ISA is that you don't pay tax on the income you earn from your savings. You are explicitly avoiding tax. There is no other reason for doing so.Flightpath said:FPT Cyclefree ... ''Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.''
A deliberate incentive to save granted by the government is not 'tax avoidance'. Nor is it agressive tax avoidance. That sort of argument shows you have no sort of argument at all.
When a smug lefty comedian can use loopholes to avoid paying any tax on £15million a year via a totally bogus overseas scheme than that is avoidance done agressivly on a massive scale. Its also of course hypocrisy. Companies behaving in a totally false way to channel supplies and funds via overseas front outlets are no different that Al Capone. And the countries that encourage it should not have their ex PM running the EU either.
By doing so - to use Lefty arguments - you are depriving the state of money that it needs to spend on worthwhile things. It may be legal but it is not moral to do so. And it is hypocritical for anyone who believes in higher state spending to save via an ISA.
See how these arguments go.
It's nonsense, of course.
The govt created a policy that encourages us to save. It produces a scheme whereby anyone with money to save can put a relatively small amount each year into a plan which avoids tax provided you obey the rules. The state is encouraging saving because it thinks on balance that is a good thing rather than have us spend.
In terms of companies the govt provide a whole range of tax allowances which are really in the same vein to cover investment in capital and such like and again it on balance thinks that's a good thing. Furthermore this govt has actually lowered its corporation tax rate and the NI rate on employing staff.
Govt set tax rates allowances for individuals and companies. Bogus 'brass plate' schemes are exploiting loopholes which the revenue chase and close as they find them. Its cheating its chicanery its lying its taking the pi$$ its robbery. The fact that you defend it is shameful.
0 -
On Betfair the Conservatives are 15.5-19, and the biggest price matched so far is a fiver at 20Scott_P said:@LadPolitics: Tory odds improve in Rochester; Labour on the slide. http://t.co/zGUruAsfaq http://t.co/jcEHBzGiLp
UKIP 1.06-1.07, the shortest they have been is 1.05
Coral have already paid out on UKIP... has that ever happened before on a political market? Surprising there wasn't a thread about it0 -
Apparently Len has given Jim Murphy the black spot.
Terrible news for Labour in Scotland (and therefore Ed) but good news for Findlay punters0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
