More tax avoiders...

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

More tax avoiders...

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Nov 12 11.14pm
Quote Baldfella at 06 Nov 2012 5.30pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2012 5.14pm Quote dynamicdick at 06 Nov 2012 5.05pm Companies employ accountants to save them money i.e. TAX there is nothing wrong whatsoever with firms like Apple paying very little tax, don't shoot the messenger change the Law!! Well, there is, in an ethical sense, when you consider that as a consequence of them not paying tax, everyone else has to pay a greater share in order to sustain public and national services. So if Apple don't pay, say 16m in tax, thats 16m that everyone ends up paying. Its a bit like shoplifters. Its seems victimless, until you realise that the aggrevied party simply adjust prices of goods to compensate for the stolen goods. Ethics my arse is there anyone in the world that would phone HMRC and say "I didn't pay enough tax last month I'll pay a bit more next month !" Is there ? Ok maybe SW2 but apart from that ? Why pay for a shirt, when you can steal it. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 06 Nov 12 11.14pm

Quote Baldfella at 06 Nov 2012 5.30pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2012 5.14pm

Quote dynamicdick at 06 Nov 2012 5.05pm

Companies employ accountants to save them money i.e. TAX there is nothing wrong whatsoever with firms like Apple paying very little tax, don't shoot the messenger change the Law!!

Well, there is, in an ethical sense, when you consider that as a consequence of them not paying tax, everyone else has to pay a greater share in order to sustain public and national services.

So if Apple don't pay, say 16m in tax, thats 16m that everyone ends up paying.

Its a bit like shoplifters. Its seems victimless, until you realise that the aggrevied party simply adjust prices of goods to compensate for the stolen goods.

Ethics my arse is there anyone in the world that would phone HMRC and say "I didn't pay enough tax last month I'll pay a bit more next month !" Is there ?

Ok maybe SW2 but apart from that ?

Why pay for a shirt, when you can steal it.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

robdave2k 08 Nov 12 4.58pm
Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states "taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum" Eg tax avoidance. On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up. I'd have no shame in highlighting a tax avoidance scheme to a client (not as far pushed as Jimmy Carr etc though). At the end of the day why should you work all your life, take the risks that come with being self employed and then see up to 57% in the £ handed over to the tax man. Most of my clients earn less than £250k per annum, so are hardly millionaires and don't have the security of work placed pensions. With the bigger corporations - yes they should pay more in tax. Before everyone dives into the "clever accountants" etc, it's actually crap legislation. On 5th December the pre budget report will outline the GAAR approach - which will detail how they intend to reduce tax avoidance. HMRC will get it wrong and everything will continue. As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc. As with anything you will get people who take it to the extreme. For every person engaging in tax avoidance to save thousands, there will be someone milking the benefits system claiming out thousands. Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm)

robdave2k

08 Nov 12 4.58pm

Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states

"taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum"

Eg tax avoidance.

On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up.

I'd have no shame in highlighting a tax avoidance scheme to a client (not as far pushed as Jimmy Carr etc though). At the end of the day why should you work all your life, take the risks that come with being self employed and then see up to 57% in the £ handed over to the tax man. Most of my clients earn less than £250k per annum, so are hardly millionaires and don't have the security of work placed pensions. With the bigger corporations - yes they should pay more in tax.

Before everyone dives into the "clever accountants" etc, it's actually crap legislation. On 5th December the pre budget report will outline the GAAR approach - which will detail how they intend to reduce tax avoidance. HMRC will get it wrong and everything will continue.

As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc.

As with anything you will get people who take it to the extreme. For every person engaging in tax avoidance to save thousands, there will be someone milking the benefits system claiming out thousands.

Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm)

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 08 Nov 12 5.06pm
Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 4.58pm Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states "taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum" Eg tax avoidance. On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up. I'd have no shame in highlighting a tax avoidance scheme to a client (not as far pushed as Jimmy Carr etc though). At the end of the day why should you work all your life, take the risks that come with being self employed and then see up to 57% in the £ handed over to the tax man. Most of my clients earn less than £250k per annum, so are hardly millionaires and don't have the security of work placed pensions. With the bigger corporations - yes they should pay more in tax. Before everyone dives into the "clever accountants" etc, it's actually crap legislation. On 5th December the pre budget report will outline the GAAR approach - which will detail how they intend to reduce tax avoidance. HMRC will get it wrong and everything will continue. As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc. As with anything you will get people who take it to the extreme. For every person engaging in tax avoidance to save thousands, there will be someone milking the benefits system claiming out thousands. Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm) Umbrella companies are most certainly not illegal. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 08 Nov 12 5.06pm

Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 4.58pm

Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states

"taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum"

Eg tax avoidance.

On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up.

As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc.

Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm)

Umbrella companies are most certainly not illegal.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

robdave2k 08 Nov 12 5.12pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 08 Nov 2012 5.06pm Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 4.58pm Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states "taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum" Eg tax avoidance. On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up. I'd have no shame in highlighting a tax avoidance scheme to a client (not as far pushed as Jimmy Carr etc though). At the end of the day why should you work all your life, take the risks that come with being self employed and then see up to 57% in the £ handed over to the tax man. Most of my clients earn less than £250k per annum, so are hardly millionaires and don't have the security of work placed pensions. With the bigger corporations - yes they should pay more in tax. Before everyone dives into the "clever accountants" etc, it's actually crap legislation. On 5th December the pre budget report will outline the GAAR approach - which will detail how they intend to reduce tax avoidance. HMRC will get it wrong and everything will continue. As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc. As with anything you will get people who take it to the extreme. For every person engaging in tax avoidance to save thousands, there will be someone milking the benefits system claiming out thousands. Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm) Umbrella companies are most certainly not illegal. Sorry to be clearer - certain Umbrella Companies, typically Managed Service Companies and offshore ones. Also there is a greater emphasis on the PAYE split now.

robdave2k

08 Nov 12 5.12pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 08 Nov 2012 5.06pm

Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 4.58pm

Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states

"taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum"

Eg tax avoidance.

On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up.

As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc.

Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm)

Umbrella companies are most certainly not illegal.

Sorry to be clearer - certain Umbrella Companies, typically Managed Service Companies and offshore ones. Also there is a greater emphasis on the PAYE split now.

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 08 Nov 12 5.20pm
Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 5.12pm Quote Cucking Funt at 08 Nov 2012 5.06pm Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 4.58pm Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states "taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum" Eg tax avoidance. On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up. I'd have no shame in highlighting a tax avoidance scheme to a client (not as far pushed as Jimmy Carr etc though). At the end of the day why should you work all your life, take the risks that come with being self employed and then see up to 57% in the £ handed over to the tax man. Most of my clients earn less than £250k per annum, so are hardly millionaires and don't have the security of work placed pensions. With the bigger corporations - yes they should pay more in tax. Before everyone dives into the "clever accountants" etc, it's actually crap legislation. On 5th December the pre budget report will outline the GAAR approach - which will detail how they intend to reduce tax avoidance. HMRC will get it wrong and everything will continue. As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc. As with anything you will get people who take it to the extreme. For every person engaging in tax avoidance to save thousands, there will be someone milking the benefits system claiming out thousands. Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm) Umbrella companies are most certainly not illegal. Sorry to be clearer - certain Umbrella Companies, typically Managed Service Companies and offshore ones. Also there is a greater emphasis on the PAYE split now. Schemes come, schemes go, as governments legislate to close perceived loopholes. Any accountant worth his salt should be alert to the most tax efficient vehicles for his client. Anyway, it all leaves me wondering which is more immoral: legally minimising your tax liability or the criminal way government continuously spunks vast amounts of money on sht. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham*

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 08 Nov 12 5.20pm

Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 5.12pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 08 Nov 2012 5.06pm

Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 4.58pm

Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states

"taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum"

Eg tax avoidance.

On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up.

As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc.

Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm)

Umbrella companies are most certainly not illegal.

Sorry to be clearer - certain Umbrella Companies, typically Managed Service Companies and offshore ones. Also there is a greater emphasis on the PAYE split now.

Schemes come, schemes go, as governments legislate to close perceived loopholes. Any accountant worth his salt should be alert to the most tax efficient vehicles for his client.

Anyway, it all leaves me wondering which is more immoral: legally minimising your tax liability or the criminal way government continuously spunks vast amounts of money on sh*t.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

robdave2k 08 Nov 12 5.24pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 08 Nov 2012 5.20pm Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 5.12pm Quote Cucking Funt at 08 Nov 2012 5.06pm Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 4.58pm Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states "taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum" Eg tax avoidance. On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up. I'd have no shame in highlighting a tax avoidance scheme to a client (not as far pushed as Jimmy Carr etc though). At the end of the day why should you work all your life, take the risks that come with being self employed and then see up to 57% in the £ handed over to the tax man. Most of my clients earn less than £250k per annum, so are hardly millionaires and don't have the security of work placed pensions. With the bigger corporations - yes they should pay more in tax. Before everyone dives into the "clever accountants" etc, it's actually crap legislation. On 5th December the pre budget report will outline the GAAR approach - which will detail how they intend to reduce tax avoidance. HMRC will get it wrong and everything will continue. As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc. As with anything you will get people who take it to the extreme. For every person engaging in tax avoidance to save thousands, there will be someone milking the benefits system claiming out thousands. Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm) Umbrella companies are most certainly not illegal. Sorry to be clearer - certain Umbrella Companies, typically Managed Service Companies and offshore ones. Also there is a greater emphasis on the PAYE split now. Schemes come, schemes go, as governments legislate to close perceived loopholes. Any accountant worth his salt should be alert to the most tax efficient vehicles for his client. Anyway, it all leaves me wondering which is more immoral: legally minimising your tax liability or the criminal way government continuously spunks vast amounts of money on sh*t. Well it's more legal than accounting with avoidance schemes - as it's legislation interpretation. As to the second paragraph - it's the latter. And moreso what that clown Brown did.

robdave2k

08 Nov 12 5.24pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 08 Nov 2012 5.20pm

Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 5.12pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 08 Nov 2012 5.06pm

Quote robdave2k at 08 Nov 2012 4.58pm

Page 1 of the HMRC Taxpayer's charter states

"taxpayers have the right to setup their affairs in a way with legally reduces their tax to a minimum"

Eg tax avoidance.

On the subject of Umbrella Companies - these are frowned on and no longer legal. The risk also sits with the contractor, not with the Umbrella Company if it all goes tits up.

As with everything, there are different levels of avoidance. They should also look at protecting the term accountant - as at the moment it doesn't share protection with "Solicitor" or "Doctor" etc.

Edited by robdave2k (08 Nov 2012 5.00pm)

Umbrella companies are most certainly not illegal.

Sorry to be clearer - certain Umbrella Companies, typically Managed Service Companies and offshore ones. Also there is a greater emphasis on the PAYE split now.

Schemes come, schemes go, as governments legislate to close perceived loopholes. Any accountant worth his salt should be alert to the most tax efficient vehicles for his client.

Anyway, it all leaves me wondering which is more immoral: legally minimising your tax liability or the criminal way government continuously spunks vast amounts of money on sh*t.

Well it's more legal than accounting with avoidance schemes - as it's legislation interpretation.

As to the second paragraph - it's the latter. And moreso what that clown Brown did.

johnfirewall 08 Nov 12 8.26pm
I'm earning less now than I was a few years ago under an umbrella company but now I get Bupa. How fcuking ironic. In an ideal world the conscientious lefties would pay more tax, going towards the NHS, looking after the bone idle and anyone else who fancied a handout. The rest can pay less and make their own provisions for heathcare and contributing to deserving causes, but then no one would voluntarily subscribe to the former arrangement. We're all capitalists except in hindsight.

johnfirewall

08 Nov 12 8.26pm

I'm earning less now than I was a few years ago under an umbrella company but now I get Bupa. How fcuking ironic.

In an ideal world the conscientious lefties would pay more tax, going towards the NHS, looking after the bone idle and anyone else who fancied a handout. The rest can pay less and make their own provisions for heathcare and contributing to deserving causes, but then no one would voluntarily subscribe to the former arrangement. We're all capitalists except in hindsight.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 06 Feb 15 10.34pm
cunds Attachment: 10958098_922371911136056_4236394372267793513_n.jpg (32.13Kb)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 06 Feb 15 10.34pm

cunds

Attachment: 10958098_922371911136056_4236394372267793513_n.jpg (32.13Kb)

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 06 Feb 15 10.44pm
[Link] Both gamekeeper and poacher... Price Waterhouse Cooper, who advise the government on numerous issues relating to tax, have provided senior officials to various departments and have been gifted major government contracts. Isn't this is a clear conflict of interest given PWC pursuit of tax avoidance schemes for its clients on an industrial scale? On radio 5 a spokesperson said PWC had a duty to the shareholders of the companies it represents. No duty to the tax payer, the country or decency then? These parasites are happy to protect their own money while supporting cuts in public spending. Cunds Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 06 Feb 15 10.44pm

[Link]

Both gamekeeper and poacher...

Price Waterhouse Cooper, who advise the government on numerous issues relating to tax, have provided senior officials to various departments and have been gifted major government contracts. Isn't this is a clear conflict of interest given PWC pursuit of tax avoidance schemes for its clients on an industrial scale?
On radio 5 a spokesperson said PWC had a duty to the shareholders of the companies it represents. No duty to the tax payer, the country or decency then? These parasites are happy to protect their own money while supporting cuts in public spending.

Cunds

Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm)

Midlands Eagle 07 Feb 15 8.48am
Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.34pm cunds I don't normally respond to your ridiculous posturing but perhaps you might like to read this article [Link]

Midlands Eagle

07 Feb 15 8.48am

Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.34pm

cunds

I don't normally respond to your ridiculous posturing but perhaps you might like to read this article [Link]

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Feb 15 9.07am
Quote Ian J at 07 Feb 2015 8.48am Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.34pm cunds I don't normally respond to your ridiculous posturing but perhaps you might like to read this article [Link] The pic I posted was from Private Eye! [Link] Boots have avoided paying about £1.21 billion in tax since 2007 according to this article ... Edited by nickgusset (07 Feb 2015 9.32am)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 07 Feb 15 9.07am

Quote Ian J at 07 Feb 2015 8.48am

Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.34pm

cunds

I don't normally respond to your ridiculous posturing but perhaps you might like to read this article [Link]

The pic I posted was from Private Eye!

[Link]
Boots have avoided paying about £1.21 billion in tax since 2007 according to this article ...

Edited by nickgusset (07 Feb 2015 9.32am)

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 07 Feb 15 11.10am
Good read: [Link] Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 07 Feb 15 11.10am

Good read: [Link]

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Stirlingsays 07 Feb 15 11.25am
Quote nickgusset at 04 Nov 2012 10.10pm Quote Jimenez at 04 Nov 2012 9.54pm ^^^^^^ Sorry Link not working f*ing I-Phone.... Oh the irony. Tax avoiders and s*e products. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

07 Feb 15 11.25am

Quote nickgusset at 04 Nov 2012 10.10pm

Quote Jimenez at 04 Nov 2012 9.54pm

^^^^^^ Sorry Link not working f***ing I-Phone....

Oh the irony. Tax avoiders and s***e products.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Midlands Eagle 08 Feb 15 9.15am
Quote nickgusset at 07 Feb 2015 9.07am [Link] Boots have avoided paying about £1.21 billion in tax since 2007 according to this article ... The article might carry a bit more weight if it wasn't written in such a hysterical manner using words like illegitimate and dishonest when the tax schemes that they operate are perfectly legal.

Midlands Eagle

08 Feb 15 9.15am

Quote nickgusset at 07 Feb 2015 9.07am

[Link]
Boots have avoided paying about £1.21 billion in tax since 2007 according to this article ...

The article might carry a bit more weight if it wasn't written in such a hysterical manner using words like illegitimate and dishonest when the tax schemes that they operate are perfectly legal.

jpegnall Surrey 09 Feb 15 10.04am
Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.44pm [Link] Both gamekeeper and poacher... Price Waterhouse Cooper, who advise the government on numerous issues relating to tax, have provided senior officials to various departments and have been gifted major government contracts. Isn't this is a clear conflict of interest given PWC pursuit of tax avoidance schemes for its clients on an industrial scale? On radio 5 a spokesperson said PWC had a duty to the shareholders of the companies it represents. No duty to the tax payer, the country or decency then? These parasites are happy to protect their own money while supporting cuts in public spending. Cunds Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm) Not being funny but major companies go to the big 4 to try to arrange their affairs to minimize tax. You don't go to an accountant and say "please give me a bespoke way in which to pay more tax" or even "my fair share of tax". If countries (like Luxembourg) market themselves as efficient jurisdictions to structure organisations for tax purposes and big multinationals make use of those structures within the legal framework, I find it odd that those big multinationals (and their advisors) can be so harshly criticised. The UK is no better, I advise on deals which are structured so people can get ER relief (and now ESS too) - they make millions on exit and pay far less (in terms of rate) tax than me. Would I be upset if the Government withdrew ESS and ER relief and had these guys paying income tax on these gains instead - no I wouldn't - but the point is the Government put these things in place to make the UK attractive. Income tax is the UKs biggest source of revenue (corporation tax is tiny in comparison), yet in London the people earning the most will be paying very little income tax and will mainly be paying CGT - no surprise the rich are getting richer. To me targeting that group of individuals/investors would be significantly fairer than jumping up and down about corporation tax (most of which is avoided through fairly uncontrived structures which the GAAR wouldn't catch). If you are working or middle class you generally have no choice but to pay a fair rate of tax (PAYE targets most and even the consultancy route doesn't save a lot). Hedge Fund managers and partners in the funds, Private Equity deal guys and a vast number of investors in the city making millions a year - they often pay just 10% (subject to a lifetime cap of £10,000,000 - I mean after you've paid 10% on 10m it is fair you start paying more... right compared to someone earning just 30k and paying a higher rate?). To me that is unfair and I don't believe trickle-down (where we attract rich people, give them tax breaks on the basis they pay a lot (not in rate but in amount) and having rich people helps everyone else). Edited by jpegnall (09 Feb 2015 10.07am)

jpegnall

Surrey 09 Feb 15 10.04am

Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.44pm

[Link]

Both gamekeeper and poacher...

Price Waterhouse Cooper, who advise the government on numerous issues relating to tax, have provided senior officials to various departments and have been gifted major government contracts. Isn't this is a clear conflict of interest given PWC pursuit of tax avoidance schemes for its clients on an industrial scale?
On radio 5 a spokesperson said PWC had a duty to the shareholders of the companies it represents. No duty to the tax payer, the country or decency then? These parasites are happy to protect their own money while supporting cuts in public spending.

Cunds

Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm)

Not being funny but major companies go to the big 4 to try to arrange their affairs to minimize tax. You don't go to an accountant and say "please give me a bespoke way in which to pay more tax" or even "my fair share of tax".

If countries (like Luxembourg) market themselves as efficient jurisdictions to structure organisations for tax purposes and big multinationals make use of those structures within the legal framework, I find it odd that those big multinationals (and their advisors) can be so harshly criticised.

The UK is no better, I advise on deals which are structured so people can get ER relief (and now ESS too) - they make millions on exit and pay far less (in terms of rate) tax than me. Would I be upset if the Government withdrew ESS and ER relief and had these guys paying income tax on these gains instead - no I wouldn't - but the point is the Government put these things in place to make the UK attractive. Income tax is the UKs biggest source of revenue (corporation tax is tiny in comparison), yet in London the people earning the most will be paying very little income tax and will mainly be paying CGT - no surprise the rich are getting richer.

To me targeting that group of individuals/investors would be significantly fairer than jumping up and down about corporation tax (most of which is avoided through fairly uncontrived structures which the GAAR wouldn't catch).

If you are working or middle class you generally have no choice but to pay a fair rate of tax (PAYE targets most and even the consultancy route doesn't save a lot). Hedge Fund managers and partners in the funds, Private Equity deal guys and a vast number of investors in the city making millions a year - they often pay just 10% (subject to a lifetime cap of £10,000,000 - I mean after you've paid 10% on 10m it is fair you start paying more... right compared to someone earning just 30k and paying a higher rate?). To me that is unfair and I don't believe trickle-down (where we attract rich people, give them tax breaks on the basis they pay a lot (not in rate but in amount) and having rich people helps everyone else).

Edited by jpegnall (09 Feb 2015 10.07am)

npn Crowborough 09 Feb 15 10.19am
Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.44pm [Link] Both gamekeeper and poacher... Price Waterhouse Cooper, who advise the government on numerous issues relating to tax, have provided senior officials to various departments and have been gifted major government contracts. Isn't this is a clear conflict of interest given PWC pursuit of tax avoidance schemes for its clients on an industrial scale? On radio 5 a spokesperson said PWC had a duty to the shareholders of the companies it represents. No duty to the tax payer, the country or decency then? These parasites are happy to protect their own money while supporting cuts in public spending. Cunds Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm) [Link]

npn

Crowborough 09 Feb 15 10.19am

Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.44pm

[Link]

Both gamekeeper and poacher...

Cunds

Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm)

[Link]

legaleagle 09 Feb 15 11.08am
Quote npn at 09 Feb 2015 10.19am Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.44pm [Link] Both gamekeeper and poacher... Price Waterhouse Cooper, who advise the government on numerous issues relating to tax, have provided senior officials to various departments and have been gifted major government contracts. Isn't this is a clear conflict of interest given PWC pursuit of tax avoidance schemes for its clients on an industrial scale? On radio 5 a spokesperson said PWC had a duty to the shareholders of the companies it represents. No duty to the tax payer, the country or decency then? These parasites are happy to protect their own money while supporting cuts in public spending. Cunds Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm) [Link] Fair enough link (and funny) but its not as if firms like PWC are not also very involved in influencing political parties' policies on tax and "loop holes". [Link] Edited by legaleagle (09 Feb 2015 11.09am)

legaleagle

09 Feb 15 11.08am

Quote npn at 09 Feb 2015 10.19am

Quote nickgusset at 06 Feb 2015 10.44pm

[Link]

Both gamekeeper and poacher...

Cunds

Edited by nickgusset (06 Feb 2015 10.46pm)

[Link]

Fair enough link (and funny) but its not as if firms like PWC are not also very involved in influencing political parties' policies on tax and "loop holes".

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (09 Feb 2015 11.09am)

imbored UK 09 Feb 15 4.52pm
Big corporations have the ear of politicians and so laws get crafted to fit their needs or at very least they very often get 'left alone'. It's poor and middle class people that get f***ed over by the tax man.

imbored

UK 09 Feb 15 4.52pm

Big corporations have the ear of politicians and so laws get crafted to fit their needs or at very least they very often get 'left alone'. It's poor and middle class people that get f***ed over by the tax man.

Pussay Patrol 16 Feb 15 12.13pm
Well, well, well. Look at who the next name to be tarred with the tax avoider brush is ! [Link] None other than Mr Red Ed 'I hate big corporations and rich tax avioders' Millband Surely they should be called the Hypocrisy Party? Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Pussay Patrol

16 Feb 15 12.13pm

Well, well, well. Look at who the next name to be tarred with the tax avoider brush is !

[Link]

None other than Mr Red Ed 'I hate big corporations and rich tax avioders' Millband

Surely they should be called the Hypocrisy Party?

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 16 Feb 15 3.29pm
Speaks volumes... Attachment: FB_IMG_1424100419590.jpg (72.60Kb)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 16 Feb 15 3.29pm

Speaks volumes...

Attachment: FB_IMG_1424100419590.jpg (72.60Kb)

Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

More tax avoiders...

Site Map