Barclays shares tomorrow?

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

If Gen says I'm not thick I'm happy Its like Claudia Schiffer saying I'm not ugly

But I might be about to spoil this!

A question about taxation: I've never really understood why it has to be so complicated. Rather than penanlise evasion and make it cryptic I don't understand why it isn't more of encouraging payment with carrots. e.g. : a subission in recognision of this boards roots: one could say only full rate paying British resisdents were granted right to buy property? (this is not a serious subission but an example of what I mean)

There's lots of reasons why tax ends up complex and the biggest one, IMO, is because Governments use tax to try to modify the behaviour of people and companies.

For example, a flat rate of tax on purchases of 17.5% would work. Instead, the Government puts extra taxes onto some items they would like people to consume less of (eg fags, booze, petrol) and less onto others they presumably would like people to consume more of (eg gas, insurance, food and books).

Take that and then add to it the rules about the good and bad sorts of investment and whether a jaffa cake is a biscuit or a cake (seriously - that went to court) and you end up with a 4,000(?) page tax rule book which doubled in size during Mr Brown's time as Chancellor.

Guy_Montag

Generali wrote: »

It's ok lostinrates, you're not being thick.

Barclays is using tax laws to its advantage. They are free to do it - after all tax laws are just a set of rules to follow. If Barclays has followed them then where's the problem?

Of course there is an argument that UK tax law is so complex that it encourages this sort of thing. Perhaps the way forward is to simplify tax laws so there aren't hundreds of clauses and sub clauses to hide behind.

I think the question is: Have Barclays obeyed the tax rules? If they have, there's no problem, but if they haven't then stick 'em like a pig. It seems to me that they have created such a smokescreen you cannot tell whether they have obeyed the rules.

You are, of course, right, we need to simplify the tax code so that this is not possible, or at least it is more obvious whether they are avoiding or evading tax.


An alternative method would be to set up wiki-tax. Where when a company is doing something suspicious HMRC publish all their documents & offer 1% of recouped tax to any individual or group that can prove the company have evaded tax, rather than avoided it.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

There's lots of reasons why tax ends up complex and the biggest one, IMO, is because Governments use tax to try to modify the behaviour of people and companies.

For example, a flat rate of tax on purchases of 17.5% would work. Instead, the Government puts extra taxes onto some items they would like people to consume less of (eg fags, booze, petrol) and less onto others they presumably would like people to consume more of (eg gas, insurance, food and books).

Take that and then add to it the rules about the good and bad sorts of investment and whether a jaffa cake is a biscuit or a cake (seriously - that went to court) and you end up with a 4,000(?) page tax rule book which doubled in size during Mr Brown's time as Chancellor.

Again, so far I underdtand, and somewhat agree with this...it seems essental if we are going to provide a NHS. one good however add to it taxing mountineering in winter to pay for rescue teams, and my own sport of equestrianism etc etc etc. but that doesn't quite get to what I'm trying to express. I'll think about how to ask in a better way in the future...:)

Generali

Guy_Montag wrote: »

I think the question is: Have Barclays obeyed the tax rules? If they have, there's no problem, but if they haven't then stick 'em like a pig. It seems to me that they have created such a smokescreen you cannot tell whether they have obeyed the rules.

You are, of course, right, we need to simplify the tax code so that this is not possible, or at least it is more obvious whether they are avoiding or evading tax.


An alternative method would be to set up wiki-tax. Where when a company is doing something suspicious HMRC publish all their documents & offer 1% of recouped tax to any individual or group that can prove the company have evaded tax, rather than avoided it.

Shouldn't tax be private? I wouldn't want my tax return plastered all over the internet.

It's a good idea in theory though.

lostinrates wrote: »

Again, so far I underdtand, and somewhat agree with this...it seems essental if we are going to provide a NHS. one good however add to it taxing mountineering in winter to pay for rescue teams, and my own sport of equestrianism etc etc etc. but that doesn't quite get to what I'm trying to express. I'll think about how to ask in a better way in the future...:)

It strikes me that there are 2 different things. How much tax to raise and how to raise it.

I think as little tax as is necessary should be raised and it should be done in as straightforward a way as possible.

Guy_Montag

Generali wrote: »

Shouldn't tax be private? I wouldn't want my tax return plastered all over the internet.
.

I think it was Finland that published all their tax receipts - anyone know how it worked out?

bdl1brick

chopperharris wrote: »

Just read about the barclays tax avoidance and subsequent attempted gag order on the gaurdian.I wonder how the shares will take it tomorrow.

shares went up 5% today so must be doing something right! lol

:j

RetroBob

Tax avoidance FTW!

ahai1

Today is a sad day for British justice as the Guardian lost it's case against Barclays Bank http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/19/barclays-tax-guardian-injunction thankfully it is all on wikileaks where people can go and read the dirty secrets of the bankers.

I personally hope that Vince Cable kicks up a fuss and as for Hollander and Freshfields let us hope that they are a victim of the credit crunch and have to pay new recruits £10,000 a year for doing nothing.

People wonder why people hate lawyers and bankers. Even the judge admitted there was no point as it is all over the net now. The Guardian should be publish and be damned.