Hsbc

[superblue24]

'Sigh' - don't be downhearted. Is tax avoidance something that you think members of the government should be indulging in? That's pretty low expectations if so.
Fink doesn't seem so fussed about the potential libel now - maybe he has checked his dealings overnight and decided he should keep a low profile....

The list also includes Labour donors with Swiss bank accounts too....

 

[Cricko]

The list also includes Labour donors with Swiss bank accounts too....

None of which have in the current regime....although the Tories just bat on regardless.

 

[South Bank Hank]

'Sigh' - don't be downhearted. Is tax avoidance something that you think members of the government should be indulging in? That's pretty low expectations if so!

No. It. Isn't. Tax avoidance should be the expected choice of every citizen in this country.

Why should ANYONE pay tax they are not supposed to be paying?

As Yorkie points out, evasion is the issue here.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No. It. Isn't. Tax avoidance should be the expected choice of every citizen in this country.

Why should ANYONE pay tax they are not supposed to be paying?

As Yorkie points out, evasion is the issue here.

That just comes down to a difference of opinion - I am not happy to have members of the government that try to avoid paying taxes that feed into the budgets that they spend. To me that is a basic requirement but we all have different expectations. You could write a long list of activities that are legal but that would lead to an MP being hounded out of Parliament and for me tax avoidance is one of them. Cameron is welcome to just state that tax avoidance is legal but I can't see it being a vote winner. At this point in time that is the crucial eliment.

 

[Benfleet A1]

That just comes down to a difference of opinion - I am not happy to have members of the government that try to avoid paying taxes that feed into the budgets that they spend. To me that is a basic requirement but we all have different expectations. You could write a long list of activities that are legal but that would lead to an MP being hounded out of Parliament and for me tax avoidance is one of them. Cameron is welcome to just state that tax avoidance is legal but I can't see it being a vote winner. At this point in time that is the crucial eliment.

Something I disagree with, stupid. :winking:

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

That just comes down to a difference of opinion - I am not happy to have members of the government that try to avoid paying taxes that feed into the budgets that they spend. To me that is a basic requirement but we all have different expectations. You could write a long list of activities that are legal but that would lead to an MP being hounded out of Parliament and for me tax avoidance is one of them. Cameron is welcome to just state that tax avoidance is legal but I can't see it being a vote winner. At this point in time that is the crucial eliment.

I'm avoiding tax at the moment. Does not make me a crook. Makes me feel pretty damn good. The difference is I can spend my money on what I want not what some politician wants me to. It all goes in to the system one way or another. And by the way all my avoidance is endorsed and encoraged by government (of all parties).

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'm not frustrated by terminology. I'm frustrated by outrage in advance of consideration of the facts.



On what basis is that true? There are some large multi-nationals engaged in tax avoidance strategies. These largely work because international tax law, and the Double Tax Treaty network in particular, is insufficient to deal with virtual, global commerce in the 21st century.

Some of those multi-national companies that have been accused of tax avoidance probably wouldn't actually have a liability to pay at all (Amazon for example made a loss globally in 2013). There are laws that favour high net worth individuals - the remittance basis for example - which are designed to encourage such people to live in the UK. I disagree with the basis of the law (incentivising people to keep money out of the UK) but there we are. There are also some high net worth individuals who use more aggressive tax avoidance strategies (offshore trusts loaning money to themselves) that are typically used by those with income other than earnings (footballer image rights, entertainer appearance fees, athlete prize money, self employed capital gains etc). The scale of this is difficult to determine, but exclude this and you'll find that the highest earners suffer the highest effective rates of tax and contribute by far the most tax revenue.



I don't care in what light the government is painted. I don't get outraged by something just because it happened on "someone's watch". I'm only interested in the facts.



Really? Name me something that was resolved by "outrage"



I read the other day Starbucks paid tax in their last filed corporation tax return. As above, the Starbucks transfer pricing scenario was permissible under inadequate international tax law. HMRC signed off on Starbucks not for lack of resources or conspiracy but because there position is in accordance with international law. I think that law should be changed and work is being undertaken at OECD level to do so. It is not a quick process though.




Actually, the government is borrowing less and less to fund annual spending. There is substantial economic evidence showing that increasing tax take has a bigger negative impact on growth than reducing government spending. I'm not saying the government shouldn't collect liabilities, they should for moral hazard and justice reasons if nothing else, but it is not an economic free hit.



Hodge is grandstanding and herself uses trusts for the purpose of tax planning. Nothing wrong with that, it is entirely legal, just as the tax arrangements of Starbucks, Amazon and thousands of non-domiciled and non-resident individuals who have Swiss bank accounts are.

In summary, if you are angry about tax avoidance then campaign for a change in the law and its enforcement. What we have now is point scoring and no action.

No disrespect intended but I will not have the time for such a lengthy reply but don't want to insult you with no reply.

Yes I agree that high earners pay a higher % of tax than those on PAYE when they pay tax without the adjustments that many are seeking out - but it is this headline rate that many are seeking to avoid - you can only claim to be taxed at a higher rate if you actually pay tax at that rate - doesn't count if you have avoided it. A simple case of avoidance is Starbucks in UK paying Starbucks in the US (or some tiny island somewhere) for coming up with the idea of selling coffe. One mans avoidance is another mans taking the ****.

i do care about the shade of light the government are painted in - we very close to an election and a light should be shone on their achievements and downfalls.

Outrage in this sense is the opposite of letting people walk all over you so there is an infinite amount of examples. Let's go with World War Two.

Starbucks - paid what they decided to pay - is that how it should work - are you for real?

The government is borrowing more not less - you often point out the difference between the deficit and borrowing - is 'the government are borrowing less' a typo?

I am with everything I have written here campaigning for changes in tax laws by encouraging people to vote against a party that has done little or nothing to close tax avoidance loopholes and expressing the belief that MPs that practice tax avoidance are not worthy of your vote. (Obviously this is not the full extent of my political activities but an additional opportunity).

For me the act of voting is the most effective action for anyone not pleased with what they have read over the last few days and I think a lot if people will be influenced by this latest episode. That is why I don't want to get bogged down with technicalities. There is nothing technical about putting your X in the box you feel more comfortable with.

apologies for typos - no time to read that back

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Something I disagree with, stupid. :winking:

Manners cost nothing x

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Something I disagree with, stupid. :winking:

That makes more sense now that I have read your PM but won't make sense to anyone else. Can't reply to the PM till I've deleted some messages. My advice was to try getting into Breaking Bad. Fills most people's spare time....

 

[Benfleet A1]

Manners cost nothing x

Of course, how rude of me. Please, stupid. :smile:

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

That makes more sense now that I have read your PM but won't make sense to anyone else. Can't reply to the PM till I've deleted some messages. My advice was to try getting into Breaking Bad. Fills most people's spare time....

*** carrying the red flag single handed,tax avoidance is the line of work our daughter is in the little minx.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

*** carrying the red flag single handed,tax avoidance is the line of work our daughter is in the little minx.

I am happy for cracking down on tax avoidance to be seen as a policy exclusive to the Labour Party. As long as they get in, if not I'd like the Tories to start doing something about it.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I am happy for cracking down on tax avoidance to be seen as a policy exclusive to the Labour Party. As long as they get in, if not I'd like the Tories to start doing something about it.

Ok, I'll stop mucking about. Although labour are saying it will be policy, can they really bring it in? Genuine question.

 

[maninasuitcase]

I think part of the problem for individual tax 'avoiders' is the disparity in the way people are paid. For those of us that are on PAYE, we have our tax and national insurance deducted at source. We can avoid a small amount of tax by having an ISA account or by paying into a company pension scheme, and indeed the government encourages us to take up these options.

Then you have people, like say a PL footballer or a comedian, who has set up a company that receives his money, pays a wage, but the tax liabilities are a lot lower, just 20% I understand.

All perfectly legal, but fair? I'll let you decide.

I know it might be simplistic, but I wonder why people are allowed to be paid like this. Could not all remuneration payments have tax and national insurance deducted a source in a similar way in which VAT is collected on transactions, with the onus on the individual to claim back overpayments rather than the other way round.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Just found this little snippet. Honestly, I stumbled across this on my Twitter feed.

http://order-order.com/2015/02/12/flashback-when-the-milibands-avoided-tax/

Do as I say not do as I do?

 

[South Bank Hank]

No. It. Isn't. Tax avoidance should be the expected choice of every citizen in this country.

Why should ANYONE pay tax they are not supposed to be paying?

As Yorkie points out, evasion is the issue here.

That just comes down to a difference of opinion - I am not happy to have members of the government that try to avoid paying taxes that feed into the budgets that they spend. To me that is a basic requirement but we all have different expectations. You could write a long list of activities that are legal but that would lead to an MP being hounded out of Parliament and for me tax avoidance is one of them. Cameron is welcome to just state that tax avoidance is legal but I can't see it being a vote winner. At this point in time that is the crucial eliment.

That makes no rational sense unless you're advocating that the MPs work for free - that's an entirely different debate. If they don't work for free, then they'll pay tax in accordance with law and avoid overpaying in the same way those entitled to claim working tax credit or child tax credit will also avoid overpaying. In what way is an MP paying the CORRECT amount of tax an affront? Double standards if you're not equally committed to condemning those claiming the credits I mentioned.

I am happy for cracking down on tax avoidance to be seen as a policy exclusive to the Labour Party. As long as they get in, if not I'd like the Tories to start doing something about it.

Aaaagh. You want to crack down on people ensuring they pay the RIGHT amount of tax? Why don't we just arrest people going through amber traffic lights while we're at it - the cheeky *******s!?

 

[superblue24]

From the Sunday Times, 19 September 2004:

“DAVID MILIBAND, the schools minister, and his brother Ed, the chancellor’s economic adviser, are set to avoid paying thousands of pounds in tax through an Inland Revenue loophole which the Labour party pledged to close. The brothers, Labour’s rising stars, are poised to benefit after their family set up a scheme to share ownership of the family’s Pounds 1.3m townhouse in north London which was sold recently.Accountants and the Inland Revenue say the scheme established by the Milibands is used to reduce inheritance tax.The move is particularly controversial for Ed Miliband who is chairman of the council of economic advisers responsible for co-ordinating the Treasury’s long-term policy on behalf of Gordon Brown, the chancellor.”…The Sunday Times has learnt that after Ralph Miliband, the socialist father of David and Ed, died in 1994, he transferred almost all his assets, including homes in London and Oxfordshire, to his wife.However, after taking professional advice, the family is understood to have posthumously rewritten his will to give 20% of the London home to both David and Ed.David has declared a “20% share of family home in London” on the MPs’ register of interests since 2002.This scheme is called a “deed of variation” and was highlighted by the chancellor in opposition as an unacceptable way in which the wealthy avoid paying death duties.It allows people to inherit assets tax-free even if this goes against the wishes of the deceased. Had Ralph Miliband’s will not been altered, David and Ed would have inherited the house (or the money raised from its sale) when their mother Marion died and would have faced a tax bill equivalent to 40% of its value.Instead they were able to cash in on their stakes when the family’s four bedroom townhouse in Primrose Hill, north London, was sold earlier in the summer.

 

[superblue24]

That makes no rational sense unless you're advocating that the MPs work for free - that's an entirely different debate. If they don't work for free, then they'll pay tax in accordance with law and avoid overpaying in the same way those entitled to claim working tax credit or child tax credit will also avoid overpaying. In what way is an MP paying the CORRECT amount of tax an affront? Double standards if you're not equally committed to condemning those claiming the credits I mentioned.

I also assume that these saints from the Labour party have never opened an ISA either.....As that would obviously be tax avoidance.....

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

'Sigh' - don't be downhearted. Is tax avoidance something that you think members of the government should be indulging in? That's pretty low expectations if so.
Fink doesn't seem so fussed about the potential libel now - maybe he has checked his dealings overnight and decided he should keep a low profile....

I expect members of the government to pay the tax they are legally required to.

That just comes down to a difference of opinion - I am not happy to have members of the government that try to avoid paying taxes that feed into the budgets that they spend. To me that is a basic requirement but we all have different expectations. You could write a long list of activities that are legal but that would lead to an MP being hounded out of Parliament and for me tax avoidance is one of them. Cameron is welcome to just state that tax avoidance is legal but I can't see it being a vote winner. At this point in time that is the crucial eliment.

The law is crystal clear on this. Lord Tomlin (no relation to Gavin as far as I'm aware): "every man is entitled to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate acts is less than it otherwise would be".

I would wager that they invariably pay way more tax than you. I suspect they also work harder, so if anyone is shirking their responsibility to society it would be you....

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

That makes no rational sense unless you're advocating that the MPs work for free - that's an entirely different debate. If they don't work for free, then they'll pay tax in accordance with law and avoid overpaying in the same way those entitled to claim working tax credit or child tax credit will also avoid overpaying. In what way is an MP paying the CORRECT amount of tax an affront? Double standards if you're not equally committed to condemning those claiming the credits I mentioned.

At no point did I suggest MPs work for free - I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion.

Moving money into bank accounts in foreign countries and claiming tax credits are in no way comparable. Parents are encouraged to claim tax credits to assist them with childcare costs. These tax credits are means tested. There is no encouragement to move money into lower tax territories to reduce your tax burden. In a way that practice is also means tested too as you would have to be on possession of a very large wealth before you started to consider moving money into other countries to avoid tax.

I'm pretty amazed that a case is being made that some rich people swerving as much responsibility as they can towards the NHS, schools, national security, having roads to drive down etc etc as a good thing.