Guardian continue their Tax Avoidance crusade.

StevieJ

Wookster wrote: »

As usual you're missing the point here. There is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance is working within the tax regime to minimise your tax liability. Tax evasion is breaking the rules.

How is this different to Labour MPs raping the tax payer? Well, companies engaged in tax avoidance work within a set of rules that Parliament & The Treasury (i.e. a third party) set. MPs vote on the regulations relating to their own expenses, those regulations being different (i.e. less cumbersome) to the requirements of individuals and companies (e.g. MPs can claim expenses without receipts, other entities cannot).

Check your facts Rochdale.

Both can be brought into line by rule/law changes if the govt so requires.

lostinrates

icefall wrote: »

Do you have a link for it at all?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1342435&highlight=perception+earnings

I'm pretty sure that should be it It goes off course, of course, but some really interesting different PoV were there IIRC. What it showed very clearly was how diverse the perception of 'high earners' was.

fc123

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6122329.ece

Some companies have got it down to a fine art. Google 'avoids' £100 million tax on 1.25bn T/O.

GOOGLE, the internet giant with the motto “don’t be evil”, avoids paying more than £100m a year in UK tax despite pulling in annual revenues of more than £1.25 billion.
Even though the web search engine operates as Google UK Ltd in London, British firms which advertise with it pay their subscriptions to a subsidiary based in Ireland, where corporation tax is far lower than in the UK.
This structure, condemned this weekend as “unfair” and “unacceptable”, allowed Google legally to avoid paying £110m of UK tax in 2007, according to research by an expert on corporate tax avoidance.

wymondham

fc123 wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6122329.ece

Some companies have got it down to a fine art. Google 'avoids' £100 million tax on 1.25bn T/O.

but I don't see the problem? - they are behaving legally so can't be criticised as they operate within acceptable boundaries and rules laid down by our own Government. It's not their fault these rules are flawed and obviously inadequate. If people see tax avoidance as wrong, then it's not the companies they should be directing their views at....

Generali

I don't see how you can pay tax other than within the rules. If the rules are stupid then change them. If you find that a lot of the tax rules have unintended consequences, sack the incompetant people that are framing them and get new ones.

It's reasonable to castigate people for not paying tax. It's unreasonable to do so to people who pay the tax according to the rules. It's hardly their fault the rules are a crock of poo.

Sir_Humphrey

nickmason wrote: »

Silly boy.

Link removed

He spent a number of years in fund and risk management at Rothschild’s and Citibank.

I would be VERY careful encouraging the tin foil hatters around here Nick.

A Conservative Party Councillor such as yourself is bound to take a Tory position. That is fair enough, but perhaps it would be a good idea to be more transparent about it?

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I would be VERY careful encouraging the tin foil hatters around here Nick.

A Conservative Party Councillor such as yourself is bound to take a Tory position. That is fair enough, but perhaps it would be a good idea to be more transparent about it?

Your suggestion that I am encouraging the tin foil hatters implies that you think I'm playing politics - that I don't agree with the position I have taken. In fact, I have absolutely not done that. I am not always bound to take a Tory position, either. And I have regularly noted my elected and membership allegiance with the Conservative Party.

Sadly it was an error right at the beginning to come on here with my own name. I didn't realise that it was such a mistake; initially I saw it as a some sort of validation and opportunity to be held to account. It is only recently that it has become an issue, as you have smeared me by attempted association with others (your Sheridan Westlake access suggestion), and now posted for all those who didn't know me a link as to how to find me - with a warning to not annoy people on here. You're not stupid. You know what you're doing.

Of course, you've done all this from behind your own veil of anonymity - when I asked you to tell me who you were, you refused. Your prerogative, but I would have thought you would therefore recognise the issues. Or maybe it's because as your "Sir Humphrey" tag betrays, you're a civil servant, and don't want anyone to know of your politicking while being paid out of the public purse. Of course, I can't know.

I'm not going to fight with you, you've made the impossibility of that battle quite clear. But nor I sit back and accept it. I won't be back. (Except maybe to see whether I'm missed.)

To others; Generali, StevieJ, LIR, the clowns, Rochdale, Dithering, !!!!!!/wookster and no doubt names I've forgotten; I've enjoyed this place and the typically decent banter alongside good knowledge and argument. I've certainly learnt a lot. Enjoy, and good luck with all you do.

lostinrates

nickmason wrote: »

To others; Generali, StevieJ, LIR, the clowns, Rochdale, Dithering, !!!!!!/wookster and no doubt names I've forgotten; I've enjoyed this place and the typically decent banter alongside good knowledge and argument. I've certainly learnt a lot. Enjoy, and good luck with all you do.

.

FWIW I think you're right to ''go''. I hope you might come back with another name. If I ever come across you in 'real life' I'll let you know its me

Sir_Humphrey

I've had enough of this too.

I have no torch for New Labour or the Tories, but any argument that does not fit in with a certain agenda around here just leads to abuse. It happens to me, it happens to Rochdale Pioneers.

I do not know how any reference to Sheridan Westlake could possibly be a smear. We both know he is working for the Tories.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I've had enough of this too.

I have no torch for New Labour or the Tories, but any argument that does not fit in with a certain agenda around here just leads to abuse. It happens to me, it happens to Rochdale Pioneers.

I do not know how any reference to Sheridan Westlake could possibly be a smear. We both know he is working for the Tories.

Part of that is just a part of the nature of internet 'debate'. I've certainly had my share of abuse and I don't even support a party as such as my views aren't represented in the political mainstream.

I don't think Labour supporters get any more or less abuse than non-Labour TBH.