Tax avoidance after the state funeral

BobQ

We as a nation are funding a State Funeral in all but name for Thatcher. Yet it appears that she has avoided paying taxes in the country she is allegedly so revered in.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-tax-snatcher-mystery-1828441

Nothing at all illegal I am sure, but this sort of tax avoidance is really taking the p*** out of ordinary working people.

michael1983l

Its not a state funeral at all. I wish people would stop spouting BS about Thatcher all of the time. A state funeral means that she would lie in state for days whilst people had the chance to visit her coffin. This is not happening.

P.s. if I could legally avoid paying tax I would as would nearly every other person in this country. It is not the people that avoid paying taxes that are in the wrong it is the system in place to collect them.

BobQ

michael1983l wrote: »

Its not a state funeral at all. I wish people would stop spouting BS about Thatcher all of the time. A state funeral means that she would lie in state for days whilst people had the chance to visit her coffin. This is not happening.

P.s. if I could legally avoid paying tax I would as would nearly every other person in this country. It is not the people that avoid paying taxes that are in the wrong it is the system in place to collect them.

If you bothered to read what I wrote, I said a "state funeral in all but name". As the Telegraph observed the difference in practice is quite minor. Its a funeral of the same kind that the Queen Mother received. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9984619/Margaret-Thatcher-This-is-a-state-funeral-and-thats-a-mistake.html

Either way, its a very expensive event. But accepting its what the public want, how fair is it on the ordinary taxpayer that such tax avoidance is tolerated. You are right that she is not unique in doing it, but she is relatively unusual in that she discussed with the Government having this expensive funeral while at the same time scheming to avoid the taxes most ordinary people have little choice but to pay.

michael1983l

BobQ wrote: »

If you bothered to read what I wrote, I said a "state funeral in all but name". As the Telegraph observed the difference in practice is quite minor. Its a funeral of the same kind that the Queen Mother received. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9984619/Margaret-Thatcher-This-is-a-state-funeral-and-thats-a-mistake.html

Either way, its a very expensive event. But accepting its what the public want, how fair is it on the ordinary taxpayer that such tax avoidance is tolerated. You are right that she is not unique in doing it, but she is relatively unusual in that she discussed with the Government having this expensive funeral while at the same time scheming to avoid the taxes most ordinary people have little choice but to pay.

Most ordinary people? They are just as bad. I have lots of friends that work in a cash in hand enviroment and others that are self employed and all of them avoid tax, some of them legally and some of them illigally. Are they not ordinary people?

I cannot avoid tax because of PAYE but I would if I could.

So we are agreed it is not a state funeral? Instead of calling it a State funeral in all but name - of which it is not. Why do you not call it a ceremonial funeral - of which it is? There is a HUGE difference in cost.

BobQ

michael1983l wrote: »

Most ordinary people? They are just as bad. I have lots of friends that work in a cash in hand enviroment and others that are self employed and all of them avoid tax, some of them legally and some of them illigally. Are they not ordinary people?

I cannot avoid tax because of PAYE but I would if I could.

You make my point very well. People on PAYE have no choice, neither do those who are retired.

The fact that you approve of your friends abusing the tax system and choose not to report those doing what you say are illegal things says a lot about yourself. Its quite typical of the immoral behaviour that Thatcher encouraged in her policies.

So we are agreed it is not a state funeral? Instead of calling it a State funeral in all but name - of which it is not. Why do you not call it a ceremonial funeral - of which it is? There is a HUGE difference in cost.

I am comfortable with what the Telegraph said, its a State funeral in all but name. The difference in cost is about £1m. Split hairs as to what it is called if you must.

michael1983l

BobQ wrote: »

You make my point very well. People on PAYE have no choice, neither do those who are retired.

The fact that you approve of your friends abusing the tax system and choose not to report those doing what you say are illegal things says a lot about yourself. Its quite typical of the immoral behaviour that Thatcher encouraged in her policies.



I am comfortable with what the Telegraph said, its a State funeral in all but name. The difference in cost is about £1m. Split hairs as to what it is called if you must.

12% difference in cost is hardly splitting hairs now is it?

I could report them, but I am quite attached to my ability to walk thank you very much.

That doesn't make me immoral at all, I totally disagree with it being done illigally as I regard it as theft of my tax money.

However doing it legally is nothing more than the fault of the current and every past government to tie up the loop holes.

headcone

It is somehow sweetly ironic that in one fell swoop she becomes the biggest benefits scrounger ever.

Getting millions of pounds of tax payers money when she can well afford the costs out of her own estate.

staffie1

Margaret Thatcher saved this country billions. The least we can do is give her a proper send-off.

BobQ

staffie1 wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher saved this country billions. The least we can do is give her a proper send-off.

I would be interested to know how these billions were saved?

I am not really complaining about funeral as such, except in the context of her tax avoidance.

staffie1

BobQ wrote: »

I would be interested to know how these billions were saved?

If you're too young to remember when she was Prime Minister, then there is plenty of information about her achievements in the public domain.

BobQ

staffie1 wrote: »

If you're too young to remember when she was Prime Minister, then there is plenty of information about her achievements in the public domain.

Oh I lived through those egregious times. So please do explain your assertion of billions saved (I can see that you would rather discuss that than defend the morality of her tax avoidance..!)

But as a start......we did not make modest investments to protect a small island and spent a fortune and many lives recovering the situation. I remember the 3.5m unemployed which must have cost a fortune, Then there was the bureaucratic poll tax that cost a fortune to administer and collect, Also he undervalued state assets sold off to fund current expenditure (ie tax cuts), and her final decision to join the ERM which led 2 years later to her successor presiding over us spending £6bn in one day defending the pound.

The only savings I can think of were the cutbacks in education and health.

Its amazing that she also presided over an increase in government spending of 12% in real terms.