Conclusion - you would be happy to pay no tax at all if your financial adviser could arrange this for you.
Of course I would, and why not, I would be very happy, so as long as it was legal, would you not do so too? At least I have paid my way and unlike many I have paid tax all my working life until I retired, why the hell should I have to pay again on the money I have invested, it has already been taxed once.
There are many paying no tax, never have paid tax and are will happily carry on like that, just claiming benefits.
Glad to see that some are already turning it into a party political matter.
All parties have their share of "tax dodgers" and "tax dodging" sugar daddies - including several non-dom donors on Labour's side...
Absolutely and all (every party) have no moral right to preach on any legal matter as long as they are avoiding tax by legal or illegal means as members of the body that governs those self same tax loopholes.
Of course everyone with a political affiliation will come on and say 'oh but our lot are doing this cos the other lot are in the wrong....blah blah blah'
“I’m going to be requiring by November that all the banks sign up to the thing that the last government said they were going to be signed up to,”
Osborne today on the voluntary (sic) code of conduct the banks were asked to sign by Labour to ensure that they “comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the law” and to provide early information to Revenue and Customs about new schemes which could potentially cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds
Osborne today on the voluntary (sic) code of conduct the banks were asked to sign by Labour to ensure that they “comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the law” and to provide early information to Revenue and Customs about new schemes which could potentially cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds
He has applied with the 'spirit of the law' it's perfectly and totally legal.
Sheesh the amount of ignorance, and basically pure lack of knowledge on this thread is amazing.
I'm an accountant. I do these things day in, day out, and there is nothing wrong with any aspect of these things. It's simple straightforward tax planning which anyone with brains would do.
He has applied with the 'spirit of the law' it's perfectly and totally legal.
Sheesh the amount of ignorance, and basically pure lack of knowledge on this thread is amazing.
I'm an accountant. I do these things day in, day out, and there is nothing wrong with any aspect of these things. It's simple straightforward tax planning which anyone with brains would do.
It isn't ignorance and lack of knowledge - it's inverted snobbery and jealousy
Osborne is rich - people need to get over it and run their own lives. If he's done something illegal then prosecute him. If he's used loopholes - close them but don't berate him for using them.
And now I'm angry 'cause people have made me defend Osborne! :eek:
He changed it recently for political puposes on the dvice of DC.
If he changed it then how can it still be his name?
Osborne changed it when he was a teenager. Hardly "recently". Lots of people don't like the name given to them by their parents. Just ask the previous PM who was born as James Brown. You can imagine why h changed that.
If he changed it then how can it still be his name?
Osborne changed it when he was a teenager. Hardly "recently". Lots of people don't like the name given to them by their parents. Just ask the previous PM who was born as James Brown. You can imagine why h changed that.
If he changed it then how can it still be his name?
Osborne changed it when he was a teenager. Hardly "recently". Lots of people don't like the name given to them by their parents. Just ask the previous PM who was born as James Brown. You can imagine why h changed that.
James wouldn't be insulting him, unlike Broon and MaCavity.
He changed it recently for political puposes on the dvice of DC.
DC also asked Anunziata Rees Mogg to change her name when she ran for office. But she didn't . And she wasn't elected.
Lest face they are not run of the mill 'middle class' names are they. Shows them up for the artistocratic knobs that they are.
What utter rubbish is this statement? George Osborne changed his name when he was13, he was born in 1971 so he must have changed it around 1984 because he disliked the name Gideon. Obviously David Cameron would have little to do with that decision would he?
If you have a good accountant you can set up your affairs to minimise your tax. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal - look at the Milliband family and their property portfolio,
As Leona Helmsley (the New York billionaire socialite once said): 'Taxes, We don't pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes'.:D
But then they don't go around quoting bad Disney teen movies, do they?
So "we're all in this together", except Gideon and his cronies. The poor are being forced even deeper into poverty while the cynical sneering Tory Chancellor continues to cheat the tax man.
Typical Tories!
Can you point to one thing which is illegal. Yet again (and this seems common from certain people) you are confusing tax avoidance and tax evasion. The former is perfectly legal; if the tax authorities don't like it then tough - they should get the minister to propose a change in the law. Only evasion is illegal and that is a matter for the courts (cetrtainly not the Daily Mail) - even then the courts may rule that it is a perfectly legal form of tax planning and therefore avoidance and not evasion
The Tories having a pop at the banks for tax avoidance?
I have no idea what is in the code but avoding tax is legal and there is not very much the government can do about that other than change the law or as this appears to do get them to volunteer not to use certain tax avoidance measures.
I have no idea what is in the code but avoding tax is legal and there is not very much the government can do about that other than change the law or as this appears to do get them to volunteer not to use certain tax avoidance measures.
Maybe that's what C4 are hoping for, that they arouse the social conscience of the Tories, that they will volunteer not to use certain tax avoidance measures because it doesn't bode well with the electorate (many of whom don't have the 'luxury' of avoiding or evading tax).
Maybe that's what C4 are hoping for, that they arouse the social conscience of the Tories, that they will volunteer not to use certain tax avoidance measures because it doesn't bode well with the electorate (many of whom don't have the 'luxury' of avoiding or evading tax).
So they are uninterested in the conscience of non-Tories who use tax avoidance measures. They are looking to specifically embarass the Tories with an underlying implication they are the only ones who do.
If you wish to avoid certain types of tax avoidance the only sure way to do that is change the tax law and stop with all this moral and conscience twaddle.
So they are uninterested in the conscience of non-Tories who use tax avoidance measures. They are looking to specifically embarass the Tories with an underlying implication they are the only ones who do.
They are the ones in Government, the ones who are making the rules so to speak, so yes is the short answer to your first sentence.
There's no underlying implication other than they are the ones in power at the moment, just like Labour had to carry the can for the MP's expenses scandal even though Tory MP's were found guilty of the same thing.
If you wish to avoid certain types of tax avoidance the only sure way to do that is change the tax law and stop with all this moral and conscience twaddle.
They are the ones in Government, the ones who are making the rules so to speak, so yes is the short answer to your first sentence.
There's no underlying implication other than they are the ones in power at the moment, just like Labour had to carry the can for the MP's expenses scandal even though Tory MP's were found guilty of the same thing.
So you also think it is ok to ignore those who avoid tax if they aren't a Tory, why am I not surprised.
The fallout over expenses hit all parties, if Labour had had to carry the can they would have been totally slaughtered at the GE.
Comments
Of course I would, and why not, I would be very happy, so as long as it was legal, would you not do so too? At least I have paid my way and unlike many I have paid tax all my working life until I retired, why the hell should I have to pay again on the money I have invested, it has already been taxed once.
There are many paying no tax, never have paid tax and are will happily carry on like that, just claiming benefits.
Nonsense, the previous government stopped him having the body armour by refusing to buy it.
Glad to see that some are already turning it into a party political matter.
All parties have their share of "tax dodgers" and "tax dodging" sugar daddies - including several non-dom donors on Labour's side...
Absolutely and all (every party) have no moral right to preach on any legal matter as long as they are avoiding tax by legal or illegal means as members of the body that governs those self same tax loopholes.
Of course everyone with a political affiliation will come on and say 'oh but our lot are doing this cos the other lot are in the wrong....blah blah blah'
Osborne today on the voluntary (sic) code of conduct the banks were asked to sign by Labour to ensure that they “comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the law” and to provide early information to Revenue and Customs about new schemes which could potentially cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9c00cd4-da11-11df-bdd7-00144feabdc0.html
Wonder if Osborne should sign the code?
He has applied with the 'spirit of the law' it's perfectly and totally legal.
Sheesh the amount of ignorance, and basically pure lack of knowledge on this thread is amazing.
I'm an accountant. I do these things day in, day out, and there is nothing wrong with any aspect of these things. It's simple straightforward tax planning which anyone with brains would do.
It isn't ignorance and lack of knowledge - it's inverted snobbery and jealousy
Osborne is rich - people need to get over it and run their own lives. If he's done something illegal then prosecute him. If he's used loopholes - close them but don't berate him for using them.
And now I'm angry 'cause people have made me defend Osborne!
Smacks of double standards - or is this to apply only to mistakes in the laws he makes?
Its his name.
He changed it recently for political puposes on the dvice of DC.
DC also asked Anunziata Rees Mogg to change her name when she ran for office. But she didn't . And she wasn't elected.
Lest face they are not run of the mill 'middle class' names are they. Shows them up for the artistocratic knobs that they are.
If he changed it then how can it still be his name?
Osborne changed it when he was a teenager. Hardly "recently". Lots of people don't like the name given to them by their parents. Just ask the previous PM who was born as James Brown. You can imagine why h changed that.
He didnt feel good? about it.
:cool:
James wouldn't be insulting him, unlike Broon and MaCavity.
What utter rubbish is this statement? George Osborne changed his name when he was13, he was born in 1971 so he must have changed it around 1984 because he disliked the name Gideon. Obviously David Cameron would have little to do with that decision would he?
Was he ever actually known as James Brown?
Anyway, it's not as if there's been a shortage of other famous James Browns.
But then they don't go around quoting bad Disney teen movies, do they?
This is on public record as being told by her former housekeeper in testimony during Ms Helmsley's tax evasion trial in 1989.
The Tories having a pop at the banks for tax avoidance?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/18/banks-two-weeks-tax-avoidance-code
Can you point to one thing which is illegal. Yet again (and this seems common from certain people) you are confusing tax avoidance and tax evasion. The former is perfectly legal; if the tax authorities don't like it then tough - they should get the minister to propose a change in the law. Only evasion is illegal and that is a matter for the courts (cetrtainly not the Daily Mail) - even then the courts may rule that it is a perfectly legal form of tax planning and therefore avoidance and not evasion
I have no idea what is in the code but avoding tax is legal and there is not very much the government can do about that other than change the law or as this appears to do get them to volunteer not to use certain tax avoidance measures.
Maybe that's what C4 are hoping for, that they arouse the social conscience of the Tories, that they will volunteer not to use certain tax avoidance measures because it doesn't bode well with the electorate (many of whom don't have the 'luxury' of avoiding or evading tax).
So they are uninterested in the conscience of non-Tories who use tax avoidance measures. They are looking to specifically embarass the Tories with an underlying implication they are the only ones who do.
If you wish to avoid certain types of tax avoidance the only sure way to do that is change the tax law and stop with all this moral and conscience twaddle.
They are the ones in Government, the ones who are making the rules so to speak, so yes is the short answer to your first sentence.
There's no underlying implication other than they are the ones in power at the moment, just like Labour had to carry the can for the MP's expenses scandal even though Tory MP's were found guilty of the same thing.
Totally agree, hopefully they'll consider it.
So you also think it is ok to ignore those who avoid tax if they aren't a Tory, why am I not surprised.
The fallout over expenses hit all parties, if Labour had had to carry the can they would have been totally slaughtered at the GE.