# Paradise Papers.



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

No words.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

To be fair how many of these people actually have any knowledge of exactly how their tax is "sorted"? That's what tax advisors are for.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> No words.


Totally agree. Even by Guardian standards, this is gutter trash journalism of the worst kind.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I'm more p^^sed off with what this government is doing to the poor. *


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I started watching it last night, but got bored. Doesn’t everyone already know about off shore and tax havens and all that sort of thing? Are people supposed to be bothered? Who cares that much what the Royal’s investors do with their money? Bright house and Threshers? Anyone would think they supplied guns to Isis, or money laundered for the mafia.

Yeah a lot of wealthy people want to pay as little tax as possible and employ people in the know to sort it for them. I’m horrified, how could they ‘legally protect their wealth’. The Queen’s estate say they received no tax advantages from investing abroad. So the story about the Royals is even more boring. They have 3k invested in bright house they said on tv last night. :Yawn


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bit of a non story really


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> So the story about the Royals is even more boring.


Ah but it's great for the media to put a target on someone for people to moan about.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

There’s nothing wrong with tax avoidance, I’d wager the majority of members on a pet forum participate in such schemes. It’s just the very wealthy have more options open to them.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Dr Pepper said:


> There's nothing wrong with tax avoidance, I'd wager the majority of members on a pet forum participate in such schemes. It's just the very wealthy have more options open to them.


But The Guardian hates anyone with money...


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> There's nothing wrong with tax avoidance, I'd wager the majority of members on a pet forum participate in such schemes. It's just the very wealthy have more options open to them.


You mean the tax that pays for things like the NHS and roads and schools? Nice of you to let us know you're ripping us off and not paying your fair share.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I was annoyed worth the BBC last night . The 10 pm news led with this story yet the breaking news was the dreadful shooting at the church with many left dead 

I guess the fact its a BBC Panorama story had something to do with it .

The Royals story is a storm in a tea cup .


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

I don't know. How much more is there to say about yet another shooting in America? A change to the gun laws, now that would be news!


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> You mean the tax that pays for things like the NHS and roads and schools? Nice of you to let us know you're ripping us off and not paying your fair share.


You don't understand what tax avoidance is do you? So find out before you accuse people of "ripping us off". And look closer to home as I can pretty much guarantee that either you or a close relative participate in a tax avoidance scheme.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Dr Pepper said:


> There's nothing wrong with tax avoidance, I'd wager the majority of members on a pet forum participate in such schemes. It's just the very wealthy have more options open to them.


Found the following interesting about the topic. Depends on your definition of tax avoidance at a guess. My definition includes things like ISA's but apparantly that's not classified as such. Definition is dependent upon if "Parliament never intended". Thinks like ISA's or "gifts" are designed to be used to reduce tax burdens by parliament. Things like offshore accounts are not. Might be legal.. moral is another story like a lot of things.

https://www.ftadviser.com/2016/04/1...avoidance-dQme7W3IvdEOh1rkQs6eNI/article.html


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> You mean the tax that pays for things like the NHS and roads and schools? Nice of you to let us know you're ripping us off and not paying your fair share.


Do you have an ISA?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

There doesn't seem to be any mention of Guardian Media Group's use of a tax-exempt shell company, or their investments in offshore hedge funds in that little collage


----------



## stockwellcat. (Jun 5, 2015)

Well from what I heard about this on the news this morning it is the Royal Duchy estate that has off shore investment. Apparently they have been paying voluntary tax in the UK on these off shore holdings. So bit of a none story.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> There doesn't seem to be any mention of Guardian Media Group's use of a tax-exempt shell company, or their investments in offshore hedge funds in that little collage


Have a good look at the Scott Trust board members


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

https://theguardian.org/faq/

The Guardian will be able to apply for grants from theguardian.org for editorial projects that correspond with the priorities set out by the board of directors, and that are aligned with its *charitable* mission.

In order to support their shared mission of educating, advancing, and informing public discourse and citizen participation through the advancement of independent journalism, Guardian News & Media has entered into a resource sharing agreement with theguardian.org. Under this agreement, GNM may donate personnel services, office space, equipment, and other similar resources to theguardian.org, which are recorded as in-kind contributions.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

MiffyMoo said:


> Do you have an ISA?


Nope.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> Nope.


Is that because you don't agree with them? The only reason I don't have one is because I'm super poor


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> You don't understand what tax avoidance is do you? So find out before you accuse people of "ripping us off". And look closer to home as I can pretty much guarantee that either you or a close relative participate in a tax avoidance scheme.


No we don't. You are the one who thinks it's a good thing not to pay your fair share. And as Goblin said, an ISA isn't really the same thing as an off-shore account in the Cayman Islands.

And I don't agree with avoiding tax in any way. So yeah, I stand by my opinion that you are ripping us off. And advising other people to do it.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

MiffyMoo said:


> Is that because you don't agree with them? The only reason I don't have one is because I'm super poor


I don't agree with them. If everyone paid the tax they are meant to pay then the NHS wouldn't be in the state it's in.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Mirandashell said:


> I don't agree with them. If everyone paid the tax they are meant to pay then the NHS wouldn't be in the state it's in.


But us poor people wouldn't be paying tax on our savings anyway, as the first £1000 of interest is now tax free.

How much would you need to get £1000 interest?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Mirandashell said:


> And I don't agree with avoiding tax in any way.


You can easily reduce your tax burden within accepted "guidelines". You are supposed to to do so. ISA's are a good example of this.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Yeah and..... I'm not talking about any savings that poor people can scrape together. I'm talking about the people who go in for tax avoidance even though they can well afford to pay tax. That's done out of greed.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

rona said:


> But us poor people wouldn't be paying tax on our savings anyway, as the first £1000 of interest is now tax free.
> 
> How much would you need to get £1000 interest?


It's only £100k at 1%


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> Nope.


It's not just ISA's there's also premium bonds, gifting money/assets to your kids to avoid inheritance tax (which is fair play because that tax is nothing short of robbery). The only difference is when it comes to the wealthy they have and need more options. As long as it's all legal where's the problem?

I'm talking about individuals here not businesses.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MilleD said:


> It's only £100k at 1%


I believe it's about 80-85% that have less than £1000 put away


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

It's a moral issue, not a legal one. The next time you hear of someone struggling because the NHS can't afford something, remember this conversation.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> I believe it's about 80-85% that have less than £1000 put away


My savings account has £2.38. The only reason it's still in there is because it's so long since I used the account that HSBC have blocked it, and I can't be bothered to do the paperwork to retrieve it


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> No we don't. You are the one who thinks it's a good thing not to pay your fair share. And as Goblin said, an ISA isn't really the same thing as an off-shore account in the Cayman Islands.
> 
> And I don't agree with avoiding tax in any way. So yeah, I stand by my opinion that you are ripping us off. And advising other people to do it.


Well you are wrong.



Mirandashell said:


> It's a moral issue, not a legal one. The next time you hear of someone struggling because the NHS can't afford something, remember this conversation.


Everything can not always come back to the NHS.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

I've got my own tax avoidance scam going. The government has increased the personal tax allowance from £6000 up to £12,500 since 2010 so I try to earn as little above that as possible. I'm very clever, but very poor.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> It's a moral issue, not a legal one. The next time you hear of someone struggling because the NHS can't afford something, remember this conversation.


Then morally, everyone should be going out and getting better jobs so they can pay more into the system. I'm sure people are robbing it blind by being paid the minimum wage or avoiding tax by being below the threshold the scoundrels.

That's just another rule.

Edit to add - case in point right there @samuelsmiles


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> My savings account has £2.38. The only reason it's still in there is because it's so long since I used the account that HSBC have blocked it, and I can't be bothered to do the paperwork to retrieve it


OH has an account like that. I think it has £1.77 in 

Mine looks a lot healthier than it has for years but that's because I'm not forking out £200-£300 a month on the dog any more and I've had a couple of pension payments


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

@MilleD Hmm.... not sure why you are concentrating on poor people when it's mostly rich people who avoid paying tax.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

samuelsmiles said:


> I've got my own tax avoidance scam going. The government has increased the personal tax allowance from £6000 up to £12,500 since 2010 so I try to earn as little above that as possible. I'm very clever, but very poor.


I stay below it


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Mirandashell said:


> @MilleD Hmm.... not sure why you are concentrating on poor people when it's mostly rich people who avoid paying tax.


Because you think ISAs are tax avoidance and they are mainly held by the poorer in society


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that MillieD needed you to answer for her.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> @MilleD Hmm.... not sure why you are concentrating on poor people when it's mostly rich people who avoid paying tax.


I was pointing out that the rules are the rules whether you are poor or rich. How you choose to use them is up to you.

But as an accountant, I think it's bonkers that anyone wouldn't choose to make their money work as hard as it can within the rules.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> @MilleD Hmm.... not sure why you are concentrating on poor people when it's mostly rich people who avoid paying tax.


Nobody is condoning not paying tax, but this about legally reducing your tax liability. And if you are earning ten million a year your £20k isa allowance is pretty meaningless and you'd pay tax on th majority of your savings. However for most mere mortals the £20k allowance means we have all our savings tax free. You can see why the wealthy invest elsewhere.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

I know rules are rules. But I get riled when people who can afford to pay tax choose to avoid it. And then pat themselves on the back for it. Especially when they have more money than they will ever be able to spend. For me, it's a moral issue. I get that no-one agrees with me on this thread and that's fine. We all have our own codes.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> I know rules are rules. But I get riled when people who can afford to pay tax choose to avoid it.


Then you need to channel your annoyance at those setting the rules, not the people choosing to follow them.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

My annoyance on this thread was originally at the one who recommended tax avoidance as a good thing. And then said everyone does it. 

But yes, I do usually aim my annoyance at those like Gary Barlow and Jimmy Carr and companies like Amazon.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> My annoyance on this thread was originally at the one who recommended tax avoidance as a good thing. And then said everyone does it.
> 
> But yes, I do usually aim my annoyance at those like Gary Barlow and Jimmy Carr and companies like Amazon.


I meant the government, but I totally agree, Jimmy Carr IS intensely irritating


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Oh right! Well yeah, obviously the Government! That goes without saying.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> Oh right! Well yeah, obviously the Government! That goes without saying.


Obviously!


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> I don't know. How much more is there to say about yet another shooting in America? A change to the gun laws, now that would be news!


You could say the same for tax avoidence. Same old , same old .


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> It's a moral issue, not a legal one. The next time you hear of someone struggling because the NHS can't afford something, remember this conversation.


At the moment I don't pay any tax (too little income) and husband under 40% bracket, so not many ways to avoid tax on the little we have. But if /when we have more coming in in the future, which we are hoping something will come to fruition to allow this, we would absolutely get advice on how we could legally hand over less of our money to the Govt to spend on wars, badger culls, "expenses" etc. The money which wasn't wasted would be put to good use, starting with a massive donation to the paediatric intensive cate ward which saved our daughter's life. The NHS would still get our money, but directly to point of need instead of through the many channels which would all take their cut.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

@kimthecat Well yeah.... I suppose you could.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Catharinem said:


> At the moment I don't pay any tax (too little income) and husband under 40% bracket, so not many ways to avoid tax on the little we have. But if /when we have more coming in in the future, which we are hoping something will come to fruition to allow this, we would absolutely get advice on how we could legally hand over less of our money to the Govt to spend on wars, badger culls, "expenses" etc. The money which wasn't wasted would be put to good use, starting with a massive donation to the paediatric intensive cate ward which saved our daughter's life. The NHS would still get our money, but directly to point of need instead of through the many channels which would all take their cut.


Good. But most people don't do that.

I seem to have touched a nerve with a lot of people. Fair enough. I don't mind how you contribute and how you pay your fair share, just as long as you do.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't realise that MillieD needed you to answer for her.


 Can you put who you are replying to when you post , please. It makes the thread easier to follow .


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

That was to Rona whose post was above mine. And TBH, does the post not make it pretty obvious who I was replying to? 

Sorry but on a fast moving thread these things can happen.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> Good. But most people don't do that.
> 
> I seem to have touched a nerve with a lot of people. Fair enough. I don't mind how you contribute and how you pay your fair share, just as long as you do.


I agree. Those that have money should use it wisely. That means paying back society for the debt we owe - in my case, for my daughter's life - giving money to help another baby, or buying a super duper car really isn't a contest.

Tax avoidance gives the opportunity to spend our money where we feel it would do the most good, and a charitable gift tastes sweeter than handing over money blindly and entrusting the Govt to be both wise and compassionate.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Yeah..... but there's also good things that the Gov pays for, like roads and schools and community stuff. Paying tax has its up and its downsides but overall it's better, I think. 

It is a shame that we can't just pay for the good bits. As everyone has different ideas on what the good bits are, it would cover most stuff. As an example, you don't agree with badger-culling. A lot of farmers do. So they could pay for that and you wouldn't have to. Of course, that will never happen as the admin costs would be too big and it would restrict the Government far more than they would allow.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Mirandashell said:


> That was to Rona whose post was above mine. And TBH, does the post not make it pretty obvious who I was replying to?
> 
> Sorry but on a fast moving thread these things can happen.


Well , its not just this thread , you tend to do it a lot . 
Its when its fast moving , it cause difficulties because posts in between appear and you have to scroll up and down .

Ok then , never mind .


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> Well , its not just this thread , you tend to do it a lot .
> Its when its fast moving , it cause difficulties because posts in between appear and you have to scroll up and down .
> 
> Ok then , never mind .


The quoting facility is definitely the best way I think. Even if you tag someone, it's not quite obvious sometimes which post is being responded to


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

They're after Mrs browns boys now . 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...s-used-web-of-offshore-companies-to-avoid-tax
Actors from the BBC sitcom Mrs Brown's Boys used a complicated web of offshore companies and trusts to avoid paying tax on their earnings, documents from the Paradise Papers reveal.

The scheme is similar to the kind that was used by the comedian Jimmy Carr - and it appears to have allowed them to save thousands of pounds in income tax.

One of the stars of the show said they had joined the scheme on advice and did not really understand it. "You never knew what the **** was going on," said Paddy Houlihan, who plays Dermot.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

David Schneider on top form as per

*Downing St, July 2016
May: *"When it comes to taxes, we'll prioritise not the wealthy, but you,
the just about managing"*

November 2017
*









_So, Lord Ashcroft and other super-rich_
_Brexiters, what first attracted you to leaving _
_an EU that's determined to clamp down on_
_tax havens?_


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MilleD said:


> I was pointing out that the rules are the rules whether you are poor or rich. How you choose to use them is up to you.
> 
> But as an accountant, I think it's bonkers that anyone wouldn't choose to make their money work as hard as it can within the rules.


My eldest is an accountant he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> My eldest is an accountant he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong.


Of course he does. He's related to you.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MilleD said:


> Of course he does. He's related to you.


I guess I can take some credit for him having a social conscience I'm incredibly proud of him & his Brother for the fine young men they've grown up to be.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> I guess I can take some credit for him having a social conscience I'm incredibly proud of him & his Brother for the fine young men they've grown up to be.


Or he daren't tell you what he does at work in case you get mad about his moral compass? 

That's a joke by the way, I'm sure they are lovely.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Caroline's response to Toby Young. Well said!
_
*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas* 7h7 hours ago

Every year the political establishment try to play down tax avoidance and every year our public services suffer more cuts. #*ParadisePapers*

*Toby Young*‏Verified [email protected]*toadmeister*
Every year the left-wing media gets up on its high horse about tax avoidance. 
It's like an annual festival of hypocrisy._


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> My eldest is an accountant he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong.


But does it anyway........

If he's advising businesses then he has to advise them in tax avoidance as the directors of the company have a legal responsibility to maximise profits for their shareholders.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MilleD said:


> Or he daren't tell you what he does at work in case you get mad about his moral compass?
> 
> That's a joke by the way, I'm sure they are lovely.


LOL He does audit accounting

They are lovely. Huge animal lovers too:Cat


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> But does it anyway........
> 
> If he's advising businesses then he has to advise them in tax avoidance as the directions of the company have a legal responsibility to maximise profits for their shareholders.


Please don't presume to know anything about my Son.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> LOL He does audit accounting


Ah, the accountants that other accountants hide from


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MilleD said:


> Ah, the accountants that other accountants hide from


Oh I don't know what you're getting at by that Thankfully he didn't inherit my genes when it came to intelligence lol


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Mirandashell said:


> You mean the tax that pays for things like the NHS and roads and schools? Nice of you to let us know you're ripping us off and not paying your fair share.


Do you pay tax?


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> Please don't presume to know anything about my Son.


I was presuming nothing. Which is why the "if" was there.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> I was presuming nothing. Which is why the "if" was there.


You also said 'but he does it anyway'. He wasn't brought up to be greedy & selfish.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> You also said 'but he does it anyway'. He wasn't brought up to be greedy & selfish.


Grief, that was followed by "......" and "if". Take offence if you like but non was intended.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> You also said 'but he does it anyway'. He wasn't brought up to be greedy & selfish.


I think DP was assuming he is a company accountant in which case he would. As he isn't, then it wouldn't be an issue for him.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> Grief, that was followed by "......" and "if". Take offence if you like but non was intended.


OK, I'm not offended then


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> OK, I'm not offended then


Thank you I'll try harder next time


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Have to say - I thought this was more interesting that rich people hanging on their riches:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/wilbur-ross-russia.html

" After becoming (US) commerce secretary, Wilbur L. Ross Jr. retained investments in a shipping firm he once controlled that has significant business ties to a Russian oligarch subject to American sanctions and President Vladimir V. Putin's son-in-law"


----------



## Eleora (Sep 25, 2017)




----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Tax compliance is paying the tax owed. Tax evasion is not paying the tax owed and is an offence but it's a huge problem everywhere and the Guardian article really on builds on the Panama papers. Thing is, it was estimated in 2012 that developing countries lost US$991.2 billion by avoiding tax compliance (source Global Finance Integrity). That's a vast amount more than most aid budgets.

But I think the language around this issue - indeed in this thread - makes it even more confused. Tax avoidance is also known as tax mitigation, planning or efficiency and it's so grey and morally questionable. That bit between compliance and evasion. Those querying @Mirandashell are write to say that we can all reorganises our activities and reduce the amount of tax owed or prevents that amount being increased. Avoiders work either solely within the confines of English law (domestic tax avoidance), or if we're talking bigger money then by using the economics of tax competition between different countries (aka international tax avoidance). That is all legal.

But do you understand tax codes? Tax works by taking your activity or business and says you pay ££. The Government set the law that takes a higher overview to tax income, capital, dividends, debt/equity. Since 1970s when the Government removed capital controls, they don't have any intention of being global with tax so yes this is a Government issue (not necessarily party political as it's been going on for a long time!)

Morally it is unfair that the likes of Apple, Bono and Facebook et al avoid it when we have nation of shopkeepers struggling. Being fair means that we have an obligation to pay tax but also now have a constitution that means offshore, we don't. Our beliefs - well maybe just mine, @noushka05 and @Mirandashell's  - is that those who can pay more, should.

Tax avoidance requires wealth to employ those to avoid it. Money to invest in the first place and to pay those advisors, placing those people in a different society. Even if we'd like to do this ourselves or wish we could, it's unfair that people can when they bleat on about morals elsewhere and claim to do works for 'charidee'. The wealthy who pay less ultimately shift the burden to the poor who can't avoid it. Take an ISA. As a tax avoidance it immediately divides society - those who can afford the investment. Those who cannot and denies the poor a defined voice.

So yes, if one was rich it's legal to do it, but it should be illegal on the basis of it's unfair but our Government policy allows so it's only immoral (depending on your point of view).


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Well said Molly.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I suppose I just don’t get why anyone is shocked or surprised. I thought everyone knew about it.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

I certainly wasn't. More angry and disgusted. As I am whenever anyone mentions tax avoidance.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> So yes, if one was rich it's legal to do it, but it should be illegal on the basis of it's unfair but our Government policy allows so it's only immoral (depending on your point of view).


If I earn more than you I could say legitimately say you pay X tax.. I pay 300% of that. That is unfair. Just because I would earn more does not make it fair for you/the government to simply take it. That's called theft in other circles...


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Goblin said:


> If I earn more than you I could say legitimately say you pay X tax.. I pay 300% of that. That is unfair. Just because I would earn more does not make it fair for you/the government to simply take it. That's called theft in other circles...


Yes indeed, but those are the rules (as I understand it) and yes it's theft.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

But if you earn 300% more than I do why shouldn't you pay 300% more tax?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Mirandashell said:


> But if you earn 300% more than I do why shouldn't you pay 300% more tax?


Because there could be a number of reasons why A earns 300% more than B.

B may only work 25 hours a week, whilst A might work long hours and weekends.

Why should those who work harder be penalised?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Because there could be a number of reasons why A earns 300% more than B.
> 
> B may only work 25 hours a week, whilst A might work long hours and weekends.
> 
> Why should those who work harder be penalised?


It's also completely ignoring the Laffer Curve


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

But why are you regarding paying tax as a penalty? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a fair tax system. But earning more than you can ever spend and then not paying any tax is not it, is it? Like Molly said, when people who can afford it refuse to pay the burden falls on the people who can't afford it. That's definitely not fair.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Everyone who earns money should pay tax, but the percentage of tax paid in relation to earnings should be across the board.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> But why are you regarding paying tax as a penalty? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a fair tax system. But earning more than you can ever spend and then not paying any tax is not it, is it? Like Molly said, when people who can afford it refuse to pay the burden falls on the people who can't afford it. That's definitely not fair.


Sorry to say, life is not fair and humans are intrinsically selfish


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

And I never said it shouldn't. All I've said is that everyone should pay their share, whatever amount that is. It was Goblin that started talking about percentages.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

MiffyMoo said:


> Sorry to say, life is not fair and humans are intrinsically selfish


That doesn't make it right. There's plenty of evidence on this thread of the selfishness of humans. Doesn't make it fair. And doesn't change me in my belief that those who can pay tax should pay their share.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> That doesn't make it right. There's plenty of evidence on this thread of the selfishness of humans. Doesn't make it fair. And doesn't change me in my belief that those who can pay tax should pay their share.


They're still paying tax. They just make full use of legal loopholes, which anyone in their right mind would do.

Do you pay more tax than you're required to?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Mirandashell said:


> That doesn't make it right. There's plenty of evidence on this thread of the selfishness of humans. Doesn't make it fair. And doesn't change me in my belief that those who can pay tax should pay their share.


Exactly. Their share.

Do you pay more than your share?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Mirandashell said:


> And I never said it shouldn't. All I've said is that everyone should pay their share, whatever amount that is. It was Goblin that started talking about percentages.


Doesn't need to be percentages. The idea of more money = more tax.

It's all arbitary anyway, numbers made up from the government. Why not 25% of all money above a subsidence level for example instead of after a threshold it goes to 40%? Rich would still pay more as 25% of 50K is more than 25% of 10K.

Still only 2 things guaranteed in life.. death and paying taxes (VAT being a form of tax imo).


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Eleora said:


>


Speak for yourself.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

My real gripe isn't tax itself, it's things like inheritance tax. You save throughout life to pass things on to your children and what you leave is potentially taxed again. Makes you wonder why you should bother saving and be responsible. Yes you can of course "gift" things providing you don't die for I think 7 years (tax avoidence). I've been taxed on it already so see nothing wrong with avoiding it.

The idea of talking about too much money to spend is also not the majority of tax payers, even rich ones.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> But why are you regarding paying tax as a penalty? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a fair tax system. But earning more than you can ever spend and then not paying any tax is not it, is it? Like Molly said, when people who can afford it refuse to pay the burden falls on the people who can't afford it. That's definitely not fair.


The burden never falls on those that can't afford it because of the tax bands and then added benefits to those on low wages. ALL the tax disadvantages come to those earning the most, which is why their money doesn't remain in the uk. If it was a truly fair system then the wealthy would be happy to leave their money in the uk.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

MiffyMoo said:


> They're still paying tax. They just make full use of legal loopholes, which anyone in their right mind would do.
> 
> Do you pay more tax than you're required to?


I don't understand the question. We have spent pages talking about people who pay a lot less than they should. No-one has said anything about anyone paying more than they should. It's really simple and I'm not sure why anyone is struggling with the idea - pay your fair share. It's a moral duty whether or not it's a legal one.

This is now going around in circles.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Goblin said:


> My real gripe isn't tax itself, it's things like inheritance tax. You save throughout life to pass things on to your children and what you leave is potentially taxed again. Makes you wonder why you should bother saving and be responsible. Yes you can of course "gift" things providing you don't die for I think 7 years (tax avoidence). I've been taxed on it already so see nothing wrong with avoiding it.
> 
> The idea of talking about too much money to spend is also not the majority of tax payers, even rich ones.


I'm not sure why inheritance tax is still legal. There is no reasonable argument for it. It's just taxing money twice.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> The burden never falls on those that can't afford it because of the tax bands and then added benefits to those on low wages. ALL the tax disadvantages come to those earning the most, which is why their money doesn't remain in the uk. If it was a truly fair system then the wealthy would be happy to leave their money in the uk.


No it doesn't. It falls on those in the middle who don't get benefits, are in the lower tax bands and can't afford an accountant to stop them paying tax. The richest don't pay any tax.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Mirandashell said:


> It's really simple and I'm not sure why anyone is struggling with the idea - pay your fair share.


It's the definition of fair share which is one of the problems. A fair share would be everyone paying the same amount.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> No it doesn't. It falls on those in the middle who don't get benefits, are in the lower tax bands and can't afford an accountant to stop them paying tax. The richest don't pay any tax.


Yes they do. I think I saw something along the lines of the top 1% pay 36% of all tax.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Have you a link to that report?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Apparently The coalition government changed the rules to make it easier for corporates to avoid tax and the Eu are investigating which is probably why the recent controversy.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Goblin said:


> It's the definition of fair share which is one of the problems. A fair share would be everyone paying the same amount.


Mother of god...... I give up. That's just too silly to even reply to. Like I said this is going around in circles and I've had enough.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Mirandashell said:


> No it doesn't. It falls on those in the middle who don't get benefits, are in the lower tax bands and can't afford an accountant to stop them paying tax. The richest don't pay any tax.


So all who are wealthy don't pay any tax at all?

Rubbish.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> No it doesn't. It falls on those in the middle who don't get benefits, are in the lower tax bands and can't afford an accountant to stop them paying tax. The richest don't pay any tax.


I agree, those in the middle are the one's paying their fair share. Those on benefits don't pay their fair share, and those higher earners pay more than their fair share and get screwed over when it comes to savings and investments (which is why they go off shore). It's actually a very unfair system penalising the successful and rewarding the "can't be bothered". And I say that as someone very definitely in the middle and as such being screwed over by the government each and every way.

Again I'm talking about legal activities not tax evasion.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Not all of them. If they watch the programme, the ones who are paying tax will probably asking their advisors why they’re paying tax when companies like Apple aren’t. Could be a few more millionaires paying less tax next week.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Mirandashell said:


> Have you a link to that report?


Is that me you're replying to? I can't remever where I saw it, but I found this

https://www.ft.com/content/afd88af6-3645-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Mirandashell said:


> Mother of god...... I give up. That's just too silly to even reply to. Like I said this is going around in circles and I've had enough.


Why is it silly to ask you what a fair share is and give one definition. Are you only defining fair share out of jealousy that "they have more"? I'm not being nasty when I say that, simply too often it's they have more.. not fair.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> My eldest is an accountant he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong.


You mustn't blame yourself. Kids have the strangest notions.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Mirandashell said:


> The richest don't pay any tax.


Anything to back that up?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> Is that me you're replying to? I can't remever where I saw it, but I found this


When Brown actually created a "50p tax rate" many millionaires dissapeared. Result.. less tax by over 6 billion. When it was reduced to 45p number of millionaires in the UK grew again. Says a lot about how the rich view taxes.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

So... just watched part 2 and, once again: no news, no hard data, no hard facts, no evidence of any wrong-doing.... With one exception.....

The only demonstrable immoral act in all of this is the wilful theft and sharing of confidential corporate data; the only proven criminals the scumbags who stole the data. Why isn't the real story about how this vile invasion of personal privacy happened and what are the authorities doing to see the perpetrators behind bars? Where is the uproar we saw with the recent similar crimes on equifax, nhs etc.. Are the people who had their personal data stolen and their privacy invaded considered fair game because they are successful?

Poor state of affairs.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Can you keep the personal comments out of this debate please.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Goblin said:


> When Brown actually created a "50p tax rate" many millionaires dissapeared. Result.. less tax by over 6 billion. When it was reduced to 45p number of millionaires in the UK grew again. Says a lot about how the rich view taxes.


We don't have wealth tax in the UK so being a millionaire or otherwise has no bearing on one's marginal rate of tax. The 50p tax rate was on income, not wealth.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Satori said:


> We don't have wealth tax in the UK so being a millionaire or otherwise has no bearing on one's marginal rate of tax. The 50p tax rate was on income, not wealth.


Yes but it was the millionaires who disappeared meaning less tax gathered.



Satori said:


> Are the people who had their personal data stolen and their privacy invaded considered fair game because they are successful?


Was in Germany with the secret swiss accounts provided to the German Tax office. From the government's side.. you don't mess with the tax office and what they think they are entitled to. Getting money owed back from them however...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I'm starting to think a lot actually agree with

*David Schneider*‏Verified [email protected]*davidschneider* No
"Pay no attention to the Queen & the super-rich using off-shore tax havens! Lets clamp down on the poor & disabled instead, the scroungers!"


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> The burden never falls on those that can't afford it because of the tax bands and then added benefits to those on low wages. ALL the tax disadvantages come to those earning the most, which is why their money doesn't remain in the uk. If it was a truly fair system then the wealthy would be happy to leave their money in the uk.


1000 individuals own considerably more wealth than the 40% poorest households. The wealth of these 1,000 people increased by £82.5 billion last year, the equivalent of £226 million a day, or £2,615 a second. Whilst ordinary people have seen the biggest fall in living standards for generations. Yet you think the system isn't fair to the wealthy lol

Tax avoidance is theft. As this apologist for tax avoiders slipped out and admitted when asked why people use offshore havens: "Why do bank robbers rob banks"


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

No wonder a lot of tax dodgers are desperate for us to leave.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> I started watching it last night, but got bored. Doesn't everyone already know about off shore and tax havens and all that sort of thing? Are people supposed to be bothered? Who cares that much what the Royal's investors do with their money? Bright house and Threshers? Anyone would think they supplied guns to Isis, or money laundered for the mafia.
> 
> Yeah a lot of wealthy people want to pay as little tax as possible and employ people in the know to sort it for them. I'm horrified, how could they 'legally protect their wealth'. The Queen's estate say they received no tax advantages from investing abroad. So the story about the Royals is even more boring. They have 3k invested in bright house they said on tv last night. :Yawn


So you don't care that the Queen is investing in a company that exploits the poorest of her subjects?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I honestly don't know how anyone could seek to defend this.

Britain is the hub of the tax avoidance empire. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09fgcvh/panorama-britains-offshore-secrets-exposed


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Yep.

_Expect A LOT of "benefit scrounger" type stories in the print media over the coming days to distract you from #*ParadisePapers* #*Panorama*_


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> 1000 individuals own considerably more wealth than the 40% poorest households. The wealth of these 1,000 people increased by £82.5 billion last year, the equivalent of £226 million a day, or £2,615 a second. Whilst ordinary people have seen the biggest fall in living standards for generations. Yet you think the system isn't fair to the wealthy lol
> 
> Tax avoidance is theft. As this apologist for tax avoiders slipped out and admitted when asked why people use offshore havens: "Why do bank robbers rob banks"I


If it was theft it would be illegal.

Do you actually know the difference between unlawful and illegal? Well let me inlighten you, one is doing something that's against the law the and other is a sick bird.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> If it was theft it would be illegal.
> 
> Do you actually know the difference between unlawful and illegal? Well let me inlighten you, one is doing something that's against the law the and other is a sick bird.


The rich & powerful change the laws to make it legal.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> No it doesn't. It falls on those in the middle who don't get benefits, are in the lower tax bands and can't afford an accountant to stop them paying tax. The richest don't pay any tax.


They do, they pay loads of it.

What you also fail to consider is that the rich probably aren't even getting the benefit of those taxes.

It's likely that they send their kids to private schools and that they pay for private healthcare. Things that they have already paid into the system for.

Perhaps they should get a refund?


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> So you don't care that the Queen is investing in a company that exploits the poorest of her subjects?


Are you talking about Brighthouse?

In days gone by, people saved up for things, my family included. If we couldn't afford it, we didn't have it. I went to school in shoes from charity shops.

Nowadays, people just assume they are entitled to the same as everyone else, whether or not they can afford it. Yes this is what Brighthouse 'expoits'.

But they aren't forcing anyone to buy from them.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> The rich & powerful change the laws to make it legal.


What like Lewis Hamilton's company buying a aeroplane and thus not paying vat? How do we change that law so it doesn't affect the startup business or one man band window cleaner? Or do you really want one law for them and another for us?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MilleD said:


> Are you talking about Brighthouse?
> 
> In days gone by, people saved up for things, my family included. If we couldn't afford it, we didn't have it. I went to school in shoes from charity shops.
> 
> ...


I am.
The poorest families don't have any disposable income to save. As Frank Field rightly points out in the Times Brighthouse is a honey trap for the poor. No different from loan sharks who profiteer from the poor imo. The Queen should be ashamed of herself.

Mr Field added: "Brighthouse is the worst honeytrap for poor people who are desperate for a washing machine or a seat to sit on."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...n?shareToken=8c3d32655cf4ecc67c5794a7287fd3ce


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> What like Lewis Hamilton's company buying a aeroplane and thus not paying vat? How do we change that law so it doesn't affect the startup business or one man band window cleaner? Or do you really want one law for them and another for us?


No like people with the power to exploit loopholes in the law & who have the power to change laws.

There is one law for them & another for us - that's what this thread is about.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> I am.
> The poorest families don't have any disposable income to save. As Frank Field rightly points out in the Times Brighthouse is a honey trap for the poor. No different from loan sharks who profiteer from the poor imo. The Queen should be ashamed of herself.
> 
> Mr Field added: "Brighthouse is the worst honeytrap for poor people who are desperate for a washing machine or a seat to sit on."
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...n?shareToken=8c3d32655cf4ecc67c5794a7287fd3ce


You contradict yourself there. Brighthouse was fined for excessive interest rates not repossessions, court action or pressure selling.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dr Pepper said:


> You contradict yourself there. Brighthouse was fined for excessive interest rates not repossessions, court action or pressure selling.


How am I contradicting myself? Brighthouse exploits the poor. Fact. The Queen has investments in it. Fact.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Tax avoidance and tax evasion are not the same. One is legal.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> How am I contradicting myself? Brighthouse exploits the poor. Fact. The Queen has investments in it. Fact.


If people are buying with monthly payments attracting 69% apr they can afford to save beforehand. So there is disposable income.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> I am.
> The poorest families don't have any disposable income to save. As Frank Field rightly points out in the Times Brighthouse is a honey trap for the poor. No different from loan sharks who profiteer from the poor imo. The Queen should be ashamed of herself.
> 
> Mr Field added: "Brighthouse is the worst honeytrap for poor people who are desperate for a washing machine or a seat to sit on."
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...n?shareToken=8c3d32655cf4ecc67c5794a7287fd3ce


And like I said in my earlier reply. If you can't afford, you can't have. The same way millions of families live.

No-one is forcing them to use them.

If they don't have the disposable income, how do they pay the extortionate rates? Surely far better to put that money aside and then buy at a decent rate at a later date.

And don't tell me that people only buy essentials from there because that isn't the case.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> I'm starting to think a lot actually agree with
> 
> *David Schneider*‏Verified [email protected]*davidschneider* No
> "Pay no attention to the Queen & the super-rich using off-shore tax havens! Lets clamp down on the poor & disabled instead, the scroungers!"


Pay no attention to the Labour Party either


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Dr Pepper said:


> If it was theft it would be illegal.
> 
> Do you actually know the difference between unlawful and illegal? Well let me inlighten you, one is doing something that's against the law the and other is a sick bird.


That's funny ! I love a good pun.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

If we were in the same place with that much money and had the chance I'm sure we'd do the same thing. It's easy to say "Oh No I wouldn't" but with the right people behind you, you would.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> If we were in the same place with that much money and had the chance I'm sure we'd do the same thing. It's easy to say "Oh No I wouldn't" but with the right people behind you, you would.


Of course . . . anyone would. I know several people who pay an IFA for financial advice; they have far less money than the Queen but it makes sense to safeguard what you have.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MilleD said:


> And like I said in my earlier reply. If you can't afford, you can't have. The same way millions of families live.
> 
> No-one is forcing them to use them.
> 
> ...


We have a charity shop here that sells tvs for a fiver or three piece suits for a tenner or a little more for really good ones, they also give free to those in need and deliver free to them too. I sometimes go in there for bits and bobs. Of course they rarely have huge widescreens or the like, so anyone who wants those has to go elsewhere


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> 1000 individuals own considerably more wealth than the 40% poorest households. The wealth of these 1,000 people increased by £82.5 billion last year, the equivalent of £226 million a day, or £2,615 a second. Whilst ordinary people have seen the biggest fall in living standards for generations. Yet you think the system isn't fair to the wealthy lol
> 
> Tax avoidance is theft. As this apologist for tax avoiders slipped out and admitted when asked why people use offshore havens: "Why do bank robbers rob banks"


I'm not hugely convinced Anthony Travers did say that. I see you got that from the one person on Twitter who posted it. One would think that a few more people may have picked up on it if it was the truth


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Happy Paws said:


> If we were in the same place with that much money and had the chance I'm sure we'd do the same thing. It's easy to say "Oh No I wouldn't" but with the right people behind you, you would.


Just wondering, any of the self-employed here ever paid their tax return and thought "oh go on then HMRC here's a extra £1,000 becuase I can afford it"? I'm going to guess the figure will be somewhere betweeen 0% and nil.

At the same time anyone thought "I won't bother to claim tax relief on "xyz" because it doesn't seem fair on those that don't"?

Any employee here earning more than the average wage ever sent a cheque to HMRC because "it's only fair"?

Or is there a certain amount of hypocracy? And you can't say "no but I give to charity", that's not the same at all.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> My eldest is an accountant he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong.


Does he tell his clients this? Presumably most of them are paying him to reduce their tax liability, so it would be morally wrong to take their money withput doing the job they are paying him to do?

Edited: I replied before seeing your other posts, on a long thread like this it's easier to reply rather than read the lot and then find the post again. Auditing other accountants to make sure working only within the law is morally ok, so sorry for any offence.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> So you don't care that the Queen is investing in a company that exploits the poorest of her subjects?


Let's put it in perspective shall we. First off the Queen probably has nothing to do with this personally relying on consultants. The Queen is also exempt from having to pay tax. However she voluntarily pays it. You can then look at the amount invested in the company you are so concerned about. About 4K. Definately something she would have intimate knowledge on and pay attention to don't you think.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Some of what they showed is actually being dishonest, if it’s true. Getting your wages paid into a fake company abroad and taking the money as loans so you don’t pay tax, is lying, probably fraud and if it’s legal it shouldn’t be. 

Some just seemed biased, petty, headline seeking, like attacking the Queen, when she pays taxes she doesn’t need to.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> It is a shame that we can't just pay for the good bits. As everyone has different ideas on what the good bits are, it would cover most stuff. As an example, you don't agree with badger-culling. A lot of farmers do. So they could pay for that and you wouldn't have to. Of course, that will never happen as the admin costs would be too big and it would restrict the Government far more than they would allow.


That's a very good example. If the basics like roads, schools and healthcare were paid for as priorities, and the Govt didn't have leftover money to squander on badger culls, then perhaps cows would be allowed to be vaccinated against the disease? Govt policy is to not allow vaccination, insist on regular testing ( every year in our area) entailing 2 vet visits 3 days apart, and slaughtering any "reactors". Ok, the Govt pays the vet, but we are expected to have the cows restrained whilst they are clipped, skin thickness measured with calipers, and injected twice, then 3 days later size of any lumps measured with calipers again. At £1000 or so for a cattle crush, which we only need once a year, it's no wonder smallholders and farmers with low stock levels can be forced to leave, so the industry favours large farms with the risk of lower welfare due to not knowing animals on individual basis. 
Meanwhile, any cow which reacts positively is slaughtered - for human consumption after infected areas cut out of carcass.

Meanwhile, a badger set on the edge of a ditch, filling the ditch with excavated soil and flooding surrounding fields cannot be disturbed whilst in use as they are a protected species!

I really beleive it would help if ministers came from the industry sectors they represent, so minister for health would have medical background, minister for education would have taught in schools, minister for environment had experience of farming or ecology. As an example, Michael Gove:
2010-2014 Secretary of State for Education
2014-2015 Parliamentary Secretary to Treasury
2015-2016 Lord Chancellor
2015-2016 Secretary of State for Justice
Currently Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

How can anybody expect people at the top to have the foggiest idea what is going on, when just when they start to understand the job they are moved in a different direction and have to start over?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> How can anybody expect people at the top to have the foggiest idea what is going on, when just when they start to understand the job they are moved in a different direction and have to start over?


Because it's no longer about ability to do the relevant job, it's about how well they can spin the party line.

Interesting to with the Canadian government. Agriculture minister for example used to be a dairy and potato farmer.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Dr Pepper said:


> Just wondering, any of the self-employed here ever paid their tax return and thought "oh go on then HMRC here's a extra £1,000 becuase I can afford it"? I'm going to guess the figure will be somewhere betweeen 0% and nil.
> 
> At the same time anyone thought "I won't bother to claim tax relief on "xyz" because it doesn't seem fair on those that don't"?
> 
> ...


Its very easy to say you'd pay more if you don't have the money.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> But if you earn 300% more than I do why shouldn't you pay 300% more tax?


You see, that would be fair. But the fact is, you pay a bigger percentage of your earnings the bigger your headline salary.

So, someone earns £20,000 per year. Their personal allowance, which they pay no tax is £11,500. They then pay 20% of the remaining £8,500, giving them a tax bill of £1,700.

A person earning 300x more would earn £6,000,000.

Their personal allowance starts off at £11,500, but goes down by £1 for every £2 they earn over £100,000, and can go down to zero. So, their tax allowance decrease would be £5, 900, 000 ÷2, or £2,950,000, meaning it goes down to zero, and they pay basic tax of 20% on everything up to £33,500, or £6,700 tax. 
They then pay 40% tax between £33,501 and £150,000, meaning 40% tax on £116,500, or £46,600 tax. 
They then pay 45% tax on anything over £150,000, so 45% on £5,850,000, or £2,632,500.

Add up the tax from different bands: £6,700 + £46,600 + £2,632,500 = £2,685,800.

£2,685,800 ÷ £1,700 = 1580. So, someone earns 300% more and pays 1580% more tax! 

Or, to put it another way, the lower earner is taxed 1700 ÷ 20,000, or 8.5 % of their total income.
The higher earner is taxed 2,685,800 ÷ 6,000,000, or 44.8% of their total income.

_That's _what's not fair, and _that's _why good, decent people, follow the law's own guidelines to reduce their tax bill.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Simple answer to that. Close all the loopholes and drop the top rate of tax. Sorted.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Interesting to with the Canadian government. Agriculture minister for example used to be a dairy and potato farmer.


That's what we need to do. People making the rules should have an idea of how they would work on the ground, or underground, or in water table etc.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Mirandashell said:


> Simple answer to that. Close all the loopholes and drop the top rate of tax. Sorted.


Lovely theory and I mean that. The idea of closing tax loopholes is one which should be pushed. Needs international cooperation however (https://www.theguardian.com/busines...rs-and-accountants-in-tax-avoidance-clampdown). Looking at it from the other side though... if you have the same tax raised as people are paying the same but now simply no longer using loopholes why does it matter? What is gained? The only reasoning is "but I can't use those loopholes".

If you end up with the "rich" paying more tax without loopholes they'll simply move money away, effectively reducing the amount of money gained by tax.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> Simple answer to that. Close all the loopholes and drop the top rate of tax. Sorted.


Drop as in "lower", which would still be unfair, or drop as in "get rid of" which means everyone would pay the same percentage: someone earning 300% more would pay 300% more tax to use your own example?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Elles said:


> Some of what they showed is actually being dishonest, if it's true. Getting your wages paid into a fake company abroad and taking the money as loans so you don't pay tax, is lying, probably fraud and if it's legal it shouldn't be.


It is not legal. These people are breaking the law. If nothing else, they are guilty of wilfully making false declarations on their tax returns which is an offence. However, it is easier for HMRC to declare the schemes ineffective and recover the money than to prosecute to the full extent of the law. That's what will happen to these people and they will pay penalties and interest on top too. What will not happen is that they spend some time in prison which, imo, is what _*should*_ happen so that there is a proper disincentive for this type of activity.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> If we were in the same place with that much money and had the chance I'm sure we'd do the same thing. It's easy to say "Oh No I wouldn't" but with the right people behind you, you would.


Oh no I wouldn't. Those people aren't the right people, they are the wrong people. I wouldn't want to spend my life waiting for a knock in the door. Not worth the hassle.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Catharinem said:


> Drop as in "lower", which would still be unfair, or drop as in "get rid of" which means everyone would pay the same percentage: someone earning 300% more would pay 300% more tax to use your own example?


The latter.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> The latter.


Sounds alright to me.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Thank you for taking me seriously enough to ask. It's appreciated. And no, I'm not being sarky.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> The latter.


I imagine if everyone paid the basic rate of tax (and don't get me wrong that would suit me), the rate would have to increase as not enough would be pulled into the treasury. I bet more tax is gained overall with the higher tax rates than is avoided.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

I doubt that, myself. But I can't give you figures on it. Seeing as only the top 1% are getting any richer whilst everyone else gets poorer, I very much doubt it.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> I doubt that, myself. But I can't give you figures on it. Seeing as only the top 1% are getting any richer whilst everyone else gets poorer, I very much doubt it.


I believe the figure is roughly the top 1% pay 25% of the total income tax received by HMRC. Ergo the richer they become the more money the government receives.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

So who is paying the other 75%? You keep throwing that statistic like it means anything. 

I'm not going to get into this with you as we will never agree on it and you are never prepared to admit that you might actually be wrong about anything ever. So it's pretty much pointless. I'll wait until Catherine and MilleD come back cos at least they talk sense.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> So who is paying the other 75%? You keep throwing that statistic like it means anything.
> 
> I'm not going to get into this with you as we will never agree on it and you are never prepared to admit that you might actually be wrong about anything ever. So it's pretty much pointless. I'll wait until Catherine and MilleD come back cos at least they talk sense.


I could be wrong but I think another figure is the top 50% pay 90%. Who pays the rest, obviously everyone else. What does it mean? It means the wealthiest people, as a group, pay the vast amount of tax. So decreasing the amount of tax they pay would have a huge effect on the amount the remaining 50% would have to pay. Saying the poor are being unfairly taxed is a nonsense.

Just because you don't like/understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> So who is paying the other 75%? You keep throwing that statistic like it means anything.
> 
> I'm not going to get into this with you as we will never agree on it and you are never prepared to admit that you might actually be wrong about anything ever. So it's pretty much pointless. I'll wait until Catherine and MilleD come back cos at least they talk sense.


Ha ha, first time anyone has said that about me!


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

MilleD said:


> Ha ha, first time anyone has said that about me!




I like dicussing things with you. Even when we don't agree, you are civil and prepared to think about what I've said. I appreciate that. Same with Catherine.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

So the German newspaper that 'found' this information, Süddeutsche Zeitung, "has not, and will not, discuss issues around sourcing" (of the stolen information.) Why not. What have _they_ got to hide?

Add to this the Guardian's tax evasion when selling a £619m part of its company some years back, you have hypocracy of staggering proportions.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> I like dicussing things with you. Even when we don't agree, you are civil and prepared to think about what I've said. I appreciate that. Same with Catherine.


Thank you!  
I believe you can argue a point without disliking someone ( well, unless they beat their dogs or something), though often when debate is held calmly the two sides often have similar views when you strip away the finer details.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

True. But not always. IME, things get heated when one or more of the parties just refuses to engage with what the others have said and will just keep 'moving the goalposts'. That's when the debate stops being a debate and becomes a competition. I get quickly fed up with that and tend to wait until someone says something sensible. Or something so outrageous I can't help myself!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Satori said:


> What will not happen is that they spend some time in prison which, imo, is what _*should*_ happen so that there is a proper disincentive for this type of activity.


Would in Germany. Bayern Munich president (football) Uli Hoeness spent time in jail as one example although he only served half his 3.5 years sentance. This being only one obvious example. My understanding is when the tax office came into a list of "tax dodgers" using swiss accounts they were given a choice.. Amnesty if you now declare it and pay tax or be prosecuted when we get to you. Of course people didn't know if they were on the "list" or not.



Mirandashell said:


> I doubt that, myself. But I can't give you figures on it. Seeing as only the top 1% are getting any richer whilst everyone else gets poorer, I very much doubt it.


Tax is not the solution to this problem. Far better would be thing like enhancing the protection of people being forced by circumstance to rent, something the government is resisting. Don't penalise the rich for being rich, find ways to lift the people below and ensure their quality of life. This doesn't simply mean money, we are too materialistic already.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Goblin said:


> Would in Germany. Bayern Munich president (football) Uli Hoeness spent time in jail as one example although he only served half his 3.5 years sentance. This being only one obvious example. My understanding is when the tax office came into a list of "tax dodgers" using swiss accounts they were given a choice.. Amnesty if you now declare it and pay tax or be prosecuted when we get to you. Of course people didn't know if they were on the "list" or not.
> 
> Tax is not the solution to this problem. Far better would be thing like enhancing the protection of people being forced by circumstance to rent, something the government is resisting. Don't penalise the rich for being rich, find ways to lift the people below and ensure their quality of life. This doesn't simply mean money, we are too materialistic already.


Do you remember how they caught Boris Becker? Tracked down a super fan and went through all her scrapbooks. Through them they managed to put together a timeline of when he was in the country, as he had said that he hadn't been there enough to pay tax.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Tax is not the solution to this problem. Far better would be thing like enhancing the protection of people being forced by circumstance to rent, something the government is resisting..


The government has had a few attacks on the buy to let market. And the Deposit Protection Scheme also helps.

What made the rental sector loads worse was paying housing benefit directly to tenants instead of landlords. Loads of people have been evicted because of lack of payments because of that.

And not all landlords are bad, but the ones they need to crack down on (multiple tenants in small abodes, renting sheds etc) are difficult to find as often the tenants don't want to be found as they shouldn't be here. It's very difficult to legislate against that.

What sorts of protections do you think would help?


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

MilleD said:


> What made the rental sector loads worse was paying housing benefit directly to tenants instead of landlords. Loads of people have been evicted because of lack of payments because of that.


That was one of the stupidest ideas a government ever came up with. Made life tougher for tenants and landlords.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Mirandashell said:


> That was one of the stupidest ideas a government ever came up with. Made life tougher for tenants and landlords.


Yep, made a lot of landlords simply unwilling to let to housing benefit tenants. A most stupid idea.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

MilleD said:


> The government has had a few attacks on the buy to let market. And the Deposit Protection Scheme also helps.
> 
> What made the rental sector loads worse was paying housing benefit directly to tenants instead of landlords. Loads of people have been evicted because of lack of payments because of that.
> 
> ...


@Goblin Did you have any suggestions?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MilleD said:


> Yep, made a lot of landlords simply unwilling to let to housing benefit tenants. A most stupid idea.


I read some years ago that Tower Hamlets was owed something like £10 million by council tenants whose housing benefit went to the tenant rather than the (TH) council. You'd have thought that after a certain level of arrears the council (Tower Hamlets) could insist that the housing benefit for Tower Hamlets properties was paid straight from their Finance Dept to the Housing Department, but apparently this contravened the tenants' human rights. So the bill just kept on getting bigger! Maybe they have got themselves organised by now?
If I lived in a council property and was £x,000 in arrears, I would not expect the council to keep sending me the housing benefit; I'd expect them to keep it to clear my debt.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MilleD said:


> @Goblin Did you have any suggestions?


Balance in Germany is towards tenant rights whereas in the UK my understanding it's the other way. In Germany for example rent increases are capped. Not sure how many things should/could be adapted to UK market but why not look at what would work from other sources and countries and provide security to those renting?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Calvine said:


> I read some years ago that Tower Hamlets was owed something like £10 million by council tenants whose housing benefit went to the tenant rather than the (TH) council. You'd have thought that after a certain level of arrears the council (Tower Hamlets) could insist that the housing benefit for Tower Hamlets properties was paid straight from their Finance Dept to the Housing Department, but apparently this contravened the tenants' human rights. So the bill just kept on getting bigger! Maybe they have got themselves organised by now?
> If I lived in a council property and was £x,000 in arrears, I would not expect the council to keep sending me the housing benefit; I'd expect them to keep it to clear my debt.


I suspect that's against their human rights as well. And if all else fails, go to the paper to whinge about how the government has stopped your housing benefit


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> I suspect that's against their human rights as well. And if all else fails, go to the paper to whinge about how the government has stopped your housing benefit


With an exceptionally ''sad face'' if you are lucky enough to get your story in DM. Their photographers specialise in outraged and sad faces.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Councils don't pay HB, the Gov used to pay it to Councils. Now they don't. So the Councils are not getting HB from a lot of tenants.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit

*How you're paid*
Housing Benefit is paid by your council as follows:


council tenants - into your rent account (you won't receive the money)
private tenants - into your bank or building society account (rarely by cheque)

https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgn...benefits/housing_benefit/housing_benefit.aspx
"The Government has also decided to cut funding for the schemes by 10% and as each Local Authority must design its own replacement scheme, these schemes will differ from Council to Council and Local Authorities will have to decide whether to pass on the 10% cut to benefit recipients by cutting their entitlement or make up the shortfall from other local funds."

However, everything is about to change once again through Universal Credit


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Balance in Germany is towards tenant rights whereas in the UK my understanding it's the other way. In Germany for example rent increases are capped. Not sure how many things should/could be adapted to UK market but why not look at what would work from other sources and countries and provide security to those renting?


I have to respectfully disagree. The balance is definitely in the tenants favour if anything untoward happens IMO.

As for rent increases, I can only speak for myself, but in 13 years of renting out property I've never once increased the rent for a sitting tenant. And that includes tenants who have been in one of my properties for 6 years.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MilleD said:


> I have to respectfully disagree. The balance is definitely in the tenants favour if anything untoward happens IMO.
> 
> As for rent increases, I can only speak for myself, but in 13 years of renting out property I've never once increased the rent for a sitting tenant. And that includes tenants who have been in one of my properties for 6 years.


Well MilleD, hardly an unbiased opinion  Notice you also state untowards.. how about normally?


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Well MilleD, hardly an unbiased opinion  Notice you also state untowards.. how about normally?


And hardly a secret, I've mentioned in other threads that I rent out some properties. Course you don't venture out of the political threads much so you may not have seen that 

What do you mean by normally? When the tenant is paying the rent and not trashing the place and I'm maintaining the property correctly and ensuring relevant safety checks and insurances are in place and up to date? Not to mention the free month I gave to one of my tenants recently as he was having a bit of a hard time financially and I wanted to help him back on his feet.

At what point in that case do either of us need protecting? Have you ever dealt with the Deposit Protection Scheme? They are ONLY on the tenants side.

We have hoops we need to jump to if we ever want to get a tenant out, even if they have breached their contract.

Exactly where are the tenants not protected in those cases?


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Well MilleD, hardly an unbiased opinion  Notice you also state untowards.. how about normally?


Oh, and I lived in Germany for 2 years, they didn't seem to view house ownership as we do in the UK so I would think the rental market there is a very different beast to here.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

rona said:


> https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit
> 
> *How you're paid*
> Housing Benefit is paid by your council as follows:
> ...


It's about time they updated that website. When people were on JSA, it went to the rent account. Now everyone is being moved onto Universal Credit, all benefit payments come in a lump sum. Apart from Council Tax Benefit which does go to the Council.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MilleD said:


> And hardly a secret, I've mentioned in other threads that I rent out some properties. Course you don't venture out of the political threads much so you may not have seen that


Of course assumptions.. You are not the only one who rents out on this forum. Common now to have additional homes rented out for those who can afford it. Before you get on a high horse.. we do.



> What do you mean by normally? When the tenant is paying the rent and not trashing the place and I'm maintaining the property correctly and ensuring relevant safety checks and insurances are in place and up to date? Not to mention the free month I gave to one of my tenants recently as he was having a bit of a hard time financially and I wanted to help him back on his feet.


You wouldn't have a problem with more protection to prevent abuse then would you.



MilleD said:


> Oh, and I lived in Germany for 2 years, they didn't seem to view house ownership as we do in the UK so I would think the rental market there is a very different beast to here.


Yes it is. Part of that is the protection provided to tenants. Part of that is simply attitude and expectations. Not uncommon for people to rent for life.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Of course assumptions.. You are not the only one who rents out on this forum. Common now to have additional homes rented out for those who can afford it. Before you get on a high horse.. we do.
> 
> You wouldn't have a problem with more protection to prevent abuse then would you.
> 
> Yes it is. Part of that is the protection provided to tenants. Part of that is simply attitude and expectations. Not uncommon for people to rent for life.


I don't quite get your attitude on that first bit. I didn't say I was the only one renting out. Feel free carrying on being nasty if it makes you feel better.

You still didn't offer any suggestions on those protection you so urgently think the system needs.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

MilleD said:


> Feel free carrying on being nasty if it makes you feel better.


Dear dear.. can't make a comment highlighting something without people deliberately taking offence. Never mind.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Ooh... patronising as well. Are you going for the full set?


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

To get back to the OP, here's a link to a petition started by Gordon Brown about changes to the laws on tax havens:

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/paradise_papers_62/?cPOHamb


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Thank you @Mirandashell . Signed & shared. I've been meaning to get back to this thread but got carried away on other threads.

Here is the SNP statement on the story.

SNP: _the #*ParadisePapers* "reveal the rotten core of our society, where the richest and most powerful are able to secrete their wealth abroad in order to avoid paying their fair share."
_
*Theresa May, do your job and tackle tax avoidance or give Scotland the powers to do it for you
*
https://www.snp.org/theresa_may_do_..._or_give_scotland_the_powers_to_do_it_for_you


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

_Multi-millionaire Brexiters. Remind me once again: what first attracted you to 
leaving an EU that's clamping down on tax havens?_


















(via David Schneider)


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

noushka05 said:


> _Multi-millionaire Brexiters. Remind me once again: what first attracted you to
> leaving an EU that's clamping down on tax havens?_
> 
> 
> ...


On notice of what? What does the EU have to do with these countries? I suppose they could withdraw the Channel Islands freedom of goods movement within the EU but that's it and I doubt that would trouble them to much.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

EU thinking it has the right to reward or punish countries. A very good reason to get out.

Also, I thought it was the poor and ignorant that voted OUT


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> Also, I thought it was the poor and ignorant that voted OUT


Ditto. The announcement that it was rich tax dodgers who dragged us out of the EU in order to selfishly feather their own nests came as rather a surprise to me, after repeatedly being told that I was obviously an ill educated, working class thicko


----------

