Paradise Papers

chucknorris

Nick_C wrote: »

I don't see any evidence of spite or hatred in the post you refer to.

I must admit that I am also a bit surprised at the support (thanks) for that post, I don't visit this website everyday, so it is possible that I have missed some key posts, but I have to judge posters on what I have seen myself, and I agree with you, it seems harsh.

Thrugelmir

chucknorris wrote: »

I've always found the inland revenue to be magnificently understanding and bend over backwards to help, when you need it. Although it can be difficult to speak to the relevant person at times, but overall my experience with them is totally satisfactory.

There's a real world outside of leafy Dorking.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's a real world outside of leafy Dorking.

I know I'm from Newcastle. But I find life far easier amongst you Southern softies.

Thrugelmir

chucknorris wrote: »

I know I'm from Newcastle. But I find life far easier amongst you Southern softies.

London Docklands (Limehouse) is my heritage......

economic

chucknorris wrote: »

I must admit that I am also a bit surprised at the support (thanks) for that post, I don't visit this website everyday, so it is possible that I have missed some key posts, but I have to judge posters on what I have seen myself, and I agree with you, it seems harsh.

yes on second thoughts i would also agree on this (i have therefore removed my thanks, it was a poor judgement on my part).

I do think however westernpromise comes across as quite arrogant and looking down on certain groups of people (which i dont have any particular issue with but it may explain some of the responses to his posts).

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

Speaking as a member of the accounting profession I would disagree.

There is a type of tax avoidance of which governments approve of because they can control it.

There is a type of tax avoidance of which governments don't approve of because they can't control it.

ISAs and pensions are an example of the former, Setting up subsidiaries on sundry sun-drenched islands with low tax rates is an example of the latter.

Is not a matter of controlling it. It's positively encouraged. It is specifically written into the tax code. ISAs didn't happen by accident. In fact, there'd be almost no tax minimization opportunities for the lower-middle classes without ISAs and pensions.

The big four has taxation departments that are separate from accountancy. These are divided into compliance and advisory. You don't get to work in advisory by advocating use of ISAs. You have to cook up, or understand how to apply something much more elaborate.

kinger101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

One of my late Uncle's never paid a penny in tax or national insurance. He was extremely gifted with his hands. Mastered many trades. Worked for cash only or bartered for goods such as pigs and sheep etc. When someone is off the radar very difficult to pin anything on them.

Likewise remember many years ago when a gypsy came into to see my then boss where I was working. As a traveller did the normal tarmacing of drives etc for a living. After many years he decided that he wanted to go straight. My boss arranged for them both to go and meet an Inspector of Taxes at what was the then the Inland Revenue. At the meeting after around 40 minutes of discussion. The Inspector asked how he intended to remedy the past. As obviously without any records assessing the liabilities due was problematic to him. The gypsy picked up a suitcase that he brought with him. Put it on the table. Opening it. Then said "There's a £125k in here. Will this do". A deal was struck and the gypsy thereafter paid his dues. Funny old world we live in at times.

Wasn't it vodaphone that did something similar.

kinger101

chucknorris wrote: »

I know I'm from Newcastle. But I find life far easier amongst you Southern softies.

Christ, you'll be drinking lager tops next.

kinger101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

On the counter side I've witnessed a fair few people who've been on the receiving end of an investigation. Thought that they were cleverer than the tax authorities. As with anything in life. Up to ones self to assess the risk and decide whether to
take a chance.

This is a very good point. Even if whatever scheme applied is legal, the increased chance of having an enquiry into a tax return has to be factored in.

System

westernpromise wrote: »

In fact people who pay no income tax should be disenfranchised. It is utterly immoral that someone who contributes none of their income to public spending should have the vote, because they will simply vote for more and more stuff for themselves - to which they have not the slightest intention of ever contributing a penny.

Genuine question, if I agree with this does it make me right or left?