Tax avoidance after the state funeral

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

I have often wondered why he did that.

Blair was looking to the future.

Knowing his time would be limited in the UK political scene, he wanted to confirm his European credentials hoping for a major European job (President?)

In the same way, Clegg know he has no future in the UK politics so falls over back wards to support any pro - European policy whatever the adverse effects on the UK.

StevieJ

BobQ wrote: »

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.

Maybe that is why she didn't want a state funeral, perhaps she had some scruples and was embarrassed about the prospect?

gropinginthedark

BobQ wrote: »

We as a nation are funding a State Funeral in all but name for Thatcher.

A substantial part of the costs to the state of the funeral will be for the policing occasioned by the sick morons and loony left (excuse the tautology) who have indicated an intent to demonstrate at a funeral.

The solution is in their own hands - no demo, no major police cost!

And if we take the highest cost estimates and (wrongly) assume the state pays the entire cost, it might cost us as much as 20 pence each, a burden which will be borne mostly by the 14% of the population who pay 60% of the tax revenue. That % doesn't include me but as you are so concerned I guess it must include you.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

What's wrong with tax avoidance? It just means following the rules.

If you're so strongly against this, presumably you have no pension or ISA.

I know these are often quoted but I don't think they are comparable, i.e. the govt state created pension schemes and ISAs, so they are encouraged by the state, they didn't create tax havens.

StevieJ

michael1983l wrote: »

Its not a state funeral at all.

Good, so the family are paying for it?

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

I know these are often quoted but I don't think they are comparable, i.e. the govt state created pension schemes and ISAs, so they are encouraged by the state, they didn't create tax havens.

There are laws around tax havens. If you are tax resident in the UK and put your money in a savings account in a country which doesn't tax interest on savings then you still have to declare the interest as a part of your income in the UK.

Mozette

There is tax avoidance, and then there is twisting the rules and laws to a point where they were never intended to go, and using schemes in ways they were never intended.
HMRC does try to close the loopholes but then HMRC has to work to the rules far more than grubby shysters do.
To compare ISAs and the like to some of the shennanigans that occurs is not like for like. The process to take a scheme to Court to try and have it declared illegal is, with most legal processes extremely long drawn out.

Generali

Mozette wrote: »

There is tax avoidance, and then there is twisting the rules and laws to a point where they were never intended to go, and using schemes in ways they were never intended.
HMRC does try to close the loopholes but then HMRC has to work to the rules far more than grubby shysters do.
To compare ISAs and the like to some of the shennanigans that occurs is not like for like. The process to take a scheme to Court to try and have it declared illegal is, with most legal processes extremely long drawn out.

I don't understand why it's not reasonable to pay taxes according to the law. How can I know what is in the mind of someone when they introduce a set of laws? Most tax law is never even mentioned in the budget speech, let alone debated.

grizzly1911

Mozette wrote: »

There is tax avoidance, and then there is twisting the rules and laws to a point where they were never intended to go, and using schemes in ways they were never intended.
HMRC does try to close the loopholes but then HMRC has to work to the rules far more than grubby shysters do.
To compare ISAs and the like to some of the shennanigans that occurs is not like for like. The process to take a scheme to Court to try and have it declared illegal is, with most legal processes extremely long drawn out.

Taking advantage of legitimate schemes is fine.

Most people don't actually have any real savings or surplus of income of note to even consider sheltering.

According to the Aviva Family Finances Report, the average family has £9,314 of unsecured debt, 36% of the average annual income of £25,800, or £2,150 per month.
The figure is far higher than it was in May 2011, when average household debt stood at £5,878, but it has fallen back from January this year when it hit £10.418.
The report said this shows ‘families are focusing on paying down debts after the festive season’, but there has also been a more general trend for economising.
The average monthly family expenditure has stayed steady over the past 12 months and is currently £1,680, a £1 drop from May last year.


The average amount held in savings and investments, excluding pensions and property, is £1,228, a 6% increase from £1,163 last year.

http://citywire.co.uk/money/family-finances-are-you-beating-the-uk-average/a592227

MS1950

headcone wrote: »

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.

“Bodies of dead left in mortuaries for months because families can't afford to bury them

• Relatives on benefits leaving loved ones in hospital mortuary refrigerators
• Average funeral costs £2,000, but social welfare cash cap is just £700”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217219/Funeral-costs-Bodies-dead-left-mortuary-months-families-afford-bury-them.html