Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong

MacMickster

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

You have no idea what satire is!!

Nor irony it seems!

pqrdef

angrypirate wrote: »

I think Labour also did the same with PFIs?

And so did the Tories, who got there first.

I hear the head of the National Audit Office has a very generous expense account.

grizzly1911

angrypirate wrote: »

The deficit has nothing to do with banks or the financial cost to the public purse of bank bailouts. The bailouts are all accounted for separatly and are not included in the deficit.

.

A defecit possibly, but you don't say which one in particular.

The Global Financial Crisis was all Clowns fault - I think not. Had the other bunch been in I doubt the position would have been much different. The country is on the slide, has been for decades.

chewmylegoff

pqrdef wrote: »

Gotta love public accounting :rotfl: :rotfl:

a deficit is a shortfall of income against spending.

the bailouts are theoretically an asset (the shares) versus a liability (the debt you have raised).

normal accounting principles would demand that the difference between the asset (i.e. the current market value of the shares) and the liability (the original cost of the bailout) should be taken to the deficit every year, so the deficit should include a charge called "loss on investment in awful banks", but it doesn't cos it suits the govt not to. (it should also include a interest charge on the liability - and it does).

what wouldn't be required is for the govt to instantly write off all of the bailout as an expense.

mind you, if the govt were sitting on a profit that wouldn't be taken to the "UK P&L account" unless they had actually sold the shares....probably.

FTBFun

The_J wrote: »

Well it is legal at the moment. How !!!!ing hard is that to understand?

As others have said, in the opinion of the scheme operators. Having a disclosure registered with HMRC doesn't give details of the scheme in place, but rather that it just exists.

This is a joke right? You understand what contracting is? That would be the nature of the relationship.

No it wouldn't - in that case there would be a commercial relationship between a Jersey company and a UK based company, the latter would still be subject to UK corporation tax on its profits even if this was from a "foreign" entity.

It's similar in that regard only. It is against the law for it to be a contractual payment. Being self employed means you can pay yourself whenever you want and whatever figure you want, no contract, no problem.

Well, no, being self employed you have to total up your income and allowable expenses to get a taxable profit figure. You don't just pay yourself what you want. Methinks you are confusing this with working through a personal service company which is entirely different, however the company still has to pay UK corporation tax on its profits.

bankhater_1965

purch wrote: »

But he is not doing this himself.

P.S. Purley is a town in South London near Croydon

hey spelling was my worst subject !!! still is ,

bankhater_1965

angrypirate wrote: »

Quite frankly, you need you some education.

If everyone was high earners we wouldnt be in this mess. The mess has been created by Labour. In their last year of power, the public sector was 53% of this country's GDP. How can ANYONE expect not to have a massive deficit when 53% of the GDP is from the public sector. Tax returns in the country are higher than they've ever been. The problem is the amount of public spending.

If you also understood what banks do, you probably wouldnt be a bankhater. The deficit has nothing to do with banks or the financial cost to the public purse of bank bailouts. The bailouts are all accounted for separatly and are not included in the deficit.

Gordon Brown WANTED to encourage risk taking. He is on the record for saying this. The banks were deregulated and they simply went away and did what anyone would do - tried to make as much money as possible. The banks have been made the scapegoat to cover up the mess that labour created.

Anyway, im not going to continue. You know the saying - never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

this thread is way over your head angry pirate , retreat your hand as your comment is completley utter garbage and i suggest you delete it before you become a laffing stock

lvader

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

this thread is way over your head angry pirate , retreat your hand as your comment is completley utter garbage and you need to delete it before you become a laffing stock

Everything he said is true, Labour created growth through encouraging private borrowing and extreme increases in government spending. Gordon Brown said he put the end to boom and bust and infact created on the of biggest ever.

tomterm8

LydiaJ wrote: »

David Cameron has said that while tax management
...

Danny Alexander says tax avoidance is morally equivalent to benefit fraud. But where's the line there? Making sure you work exactly 16 hours/week to maximise the tax credits?

Danny Alexander is being a moron. Benefit fraud is where you break the law in order to obtain an advantage. Tax evasion is where you break the law in order to obtain an advantage. Both of these things are morally equivalent.

British Citizens in law and long practice are not obliged legally to arrange their affairs in the way that makes them pay most tax. Neither is obeying the law and paying the minimum amount of tax you are legally required to pay immoral. It is just good business sense.

People can and should carry out tax avoidance. There is nothing dishonest or illegal about acting to minimise your tax.

pqrdef

Apparently No 10 is now trying to backtrack, again. Cameron is a loose cannon without a script. You'd think a PR man would think about who he might be alienating before shooting his mouth off. There can't be many large donors to the Tory party who don't employ tax accountants.