Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
This says it all
#21
That all sounds scary and stalkerish Derek
Reply
#22
(11-08-2017, 10:30 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(11-08-2017, 08:51 PM)Donegal Wrote:
(11-08-2017, 05:38 PM)Pontificator Wrote:
(11-08-2017, 09:52 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(11-07-2017, 10:32 PM)Donegal Wrote: Since the days of BLessed Margaret

I have very little time for this eejit but he has written an article I agree with. I think it is about you

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...SApp_Other

He's writing for a rag that is itself a study in tax avoidance.

The problem with this whole can of worms is that once you open it you find that *everyone* is at it to one extent or another.

Today we learn that Labour local authorities are borrowing your money to buy commercial property through offshore vehicles to avoid SDLT.


Its amusing to find myself defending the baby faced twat, but on the whole I agree with what he has written. Everyone's not at it, that is a ludicrous statement. The Guardian is not a rag (I pay to read the Times BTW)  Labour councils and SDLT..... it just illustrates how difficult they are finding things. What a crap and unworthy post Proth

I hope Proths current crap form is temporary
He has a good record of posting at least coherent arguments
Currently he is turning into mandown Pilt and we all know what happened to him
Come on Proth.....More telegraph and times, less daily mail and express please

Careful if you mention MDP he has an informant on here who lets him know. Then he posts to tell you that he knows, then deletes his post.

Is he like the Candyman? I ain't going to say his name just in case.
Reply
#23
(11-08-2017, 05:38 PM)Pontificator Wrote: Labour councils and SDLT..... it just illustrates how difficult they are finding things. What a crap and unworthy post Proth

No, it doesn't illustrate that at all Ponty. It illustrates that there is no moral high ground in this argument, which is why it's chronically stupid to bring it up over and over again.

Warrington Council amongst others is acting entirely rationally. I worked on refinanancing an IoM domiciled property fund because the owners took the view that the aggravation of flying to IoM once a fortnight was worth it. John McDonnells pension is in Guernsey because it's entirely rational to domicile it there.

Want to make it rational to onshore these things? Reduce tax.

Want to waste your breath permanently on the the unfairness of it all? Be my guest. But everyone is acting rationally. I applaud that, and practice the same approach myself.
Reply
#24
(11-08-2017, 10:47 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(11-08-2017, 05:38 PM)Pontificator Wrote: Labour councils and SDLT..... it just illustrates how difficult they are finding things. What a crap and unworthy post Proth

No, it doesn't illustrate that at all Ponty. It illustrates that there is no moral high ground in this argument, which is why it's chronically stupid to bring it up over and over again.

Warrington Council amongst others is acting entirely rationally. I worked on refinanancing an IoM domiciled property fund because the owners took the view that the aggravation of flying to IoM once a fortnight was worth it. John McDonnells pension is in Guernsey because it's entirely rational to domicile it there.

Want to make it rational to onshore these things? Reduce tax.

Want to waste your breath permanently on the the unfairness of it all? Be my guest. But everyone is acting rationally. I applaud that, and practice the same approach myself.

Interesting....... if you are saying that not to do what they are doing would be remiss. Its also logical to assume that if they were being funded properly they wouldn't have to bother and government would get funding back via SDLT anyway. Thus saving a considerable amount of time, energy and money spent on tax accountants.
Reply
#25
(11-10-2017, 08:31 AM)Pontificator Wrote: Interesting....... if you are saying that not to do what they are doing would be remiss. Its also logical to assume that if they were being funded properly they wouldn't have to bother and government would get funding back via SDLT anyway. Thus saving a considerable amount of time, energy and money spent on tax accountants.

They are funded properly. Many large local authorities are simply dysfunctional. Birmingham City Council's problems, for instance, are entirely of its own making - particularly in respect of Single Status and £billion hole that created for Brummies.
Reply
#26
Taxation is the necessity to have your pocket picked by the state. I subscribe to fair taxation and pay what I legally owe and am grateful for being born into a welfare state in the fifties. However...

Tax avoidance is legal - that is the fundamental situation. It is practised by nearly everyone in one form or other. Want to avoid paying higher tax on your beer? Drink lower strength beer. Or don't drink for a bit. YOU have avoided tax (anything wrong with that?) and someone else will be paying their taxes on it. Plus, it's not fair on drinkers and smokers that abstainers are subsidised by those that aren't. (The tax isn't hypothecated so the drain on the NHS doesn't wash and smokers cost less than they pay in in duty and VAT).

There is a deliberate or unconscious juxtapostion/conflation of unlawful evasion and lawful avoidance, mainly by HMRC/HMT (which is hliarious when you consider their track record on honesty and integrity) but picked on by ignorant polticians and agenda-driven media. Besides, there really is waste and inefficiency of our money in the public sector (where i, too, have worked in at relatively high level) that militates against any sane person simply leaving their pockets open to be picked.

What is required is a simplified tax code and transparency. Easier said than done in a global economy.
Reply
#27
(11-10-2017, 01:23 PM)Grrrr Wrote: Taxation is the necessity to have your pocket picked by the state.  I subscribe to fair taxation and pay what I legally owe and am grateful for being born into a welfare state in the fifties.  However...

Tax avoidance is legal - that is the fundamental situation. It is practised by nearly everyone in one form or other.  Want to avoid paying higher tax on your beer? Drink lower strength beer.  Or don't drink for a bit. YOU have avoided tax (anything wrong with that?) and someone else will be paying their taxes on it.  Plus, it's not fair on drinkers and smokers that abstainers are subsidised by those that aren't.  (The tax isn't hypothecated so the drain on the NHS doesn't wash and smokers cost less than they pay in in duty and VAT).  

There is a deliberate or unconscious juxtapostion/conflation of unlawful evasion and lawful avoidance, mainly by HMRC/HMT (which is hliarious when you consider their track record on honesty and integrity) but picked on by ignorant polticians and agenda-driven media.  Besides, there really is waste and inefficiency of our money in the public sector (where i, too, have worked in at relatively high level) that militates against any sane person simply leaving their pockets open to be picked.

What is required is a simplified tax code and transparency.  Easier said than done in a global economy.

+1

Apart from the last statement. Flat tax, no allowances. Job done.
Reply
#28
(11-10-2017, 03:25 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(11-10-2017, 01:23 PM)Grrrr Wrote: Taxation is the necessity to have your pocket picked by the state.  I subscribe to fair taxation and pay what I legally owe and am grateful for being born into a welfare state in the fifties.  However...

Tax avoidance is legal - that is the fundamental situation. It is practised by nearly everyone in one form or other.  Want to avoid paying higher tax on your beer? Drink lower strength beer.  Or don't drink for a bit. YOU have avoided tax (anything wrong with that?) and someone else will be paying their taxes on it.  Plus, it's not fair on drinkers and smokers that abstainers are subsidised by those that aren't.  (The tax isn't hypothecated so the drain on the NHS doesn't wash and smokers cost less than they pay in in duty and VAT).  

There is a deliberate or unconscious juxtapostion/conflation of unlawful evasion and lawful avoidance, mainly by HMRC/HMT (which is hliarious when you consider their track record on honesty and integrity) but picked on by ignorant polticians and agenda-driven media.  Besides, there really is waste and inefficiency of our money in the public sector (where i, too, have worked in at relatively high level) that militates against any sane person simply leaving their pockets open to be picked.

What is required is a simplified tax code and transparency.  Easier said than done in a global economy.

+1

Apart from the last statement. Flat tax, no allowances. Job done.

Friedmanomics fantasy as bad as McDonnell’s Marxism. it’s just plain daft that you still can’t do the politics
Reply
#29
Speaking to Fabians in Westminster, Gordon Brown says the neoliberal economic consensus “has collapsed and has no intellectual credibility”

And

"Since we left power, over £100 billion has been paid in bonuses by banks. There’s no doubt in my mind that money is there for the good of public services"
Reply
#30
(11-10-2017, 07:07 PM)Donegal Wrote: Speaking to Fabians in Westminster, Gordon Brown says the neoliberal economic consensus “has collapsed and has no intellectual credibility”

And

"Since we left power, over £100 billion has been paid in bonuses by banks. There’s no doubt in my mind that money is there for the good of public services"

Even I regard that as simplistic rhetoric, pure electioneering, we really do deserve better from him.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)