| Paradise Papers on 21:28 - Nov 5 with 5499 views | karl |
Huge own goal by the head of state to stash cash off shore, beggars belief really. It really does show that chasing people who are misclaiming benefits (hate those people that do and they absolutely should be prosecuted) must return far less than a concerted campaign against these huge figures quoted. Ultimately it would result in a fairer level of tax for everyone if they could control this evasion/avoidance |  | |  |
| Paradise Papers on 21:50 - Nov 5 with 5459 views | ozranger |
Panorama on BBC1 had a 30min bit on it tonight including the possible clash of interest in the ownership of Everton and Arsenal. It's already on iView if you want to watch it. The EPL bit is at the end (just after 21mins in). Part 2 is tomorrow night. |  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 21:53 - Nov 5 with 5456 views | distortR |
| Paradise Papers on 21:28 - Nov 5 by karl |
Huge own goal by the head of state to stash cash off shore, beggars belief really. It really does show that chasing people who are misclaiming benefits (hate those people that do and they absolutely should be prosecuted) must return far less than a concerted campaign against these huge figures quoted. Ultimately it would result in a fairer level of tax for everyone if they could control this evasion/avoidance |
They are just minimising their tax payments as we all would etc etc, which is legal.
As would be benefit swindles if those on benefits wrote the rules. |  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 22:01 - Nov 5 with 5435 views | Boston |
| Paradise Papers on 21:53 - Nov 5 by distortR |
They are just minimising their tax payments as we all would etc etc, which is legal.
As would be benefit swindles if those on benefits wrote the rules. |
Exactly. But, I'm more than amused at the sanctimonious among us included on this list. | |
| |
| Paradise Papers on 22:06 - Nov 5 with 5420 views | karl |
| Paradise Papers on 22:01 - Nov 5 by Boston |
Exactly. But, I'm more than amused at the sanctimonious among us included on this list. |
I might have a look and see if i'm on the list, my money must be somewhere cos i haven't got it for sure! | | | |
| Paradise Papers on 22:14 - Nov 5 with 5397 views | Boston |
| Paradise Papers on 22:06 - Nov 5 by karl |
I might have a look and see if i'm on the list, my money must be somewhere cos i haven't got it for sure! |
Found it.....
https://www.gov.uk/contact-hmrc [Post edited 5 Nov 2017 22:15]
| |
| |
| Paradise Papers on 22:35 - Nov 5 with 5346 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Paradise Papers on 22:06 - Nov 5 by karl |
I might have a look and see if i'm on the list, my money must be somewhere cos i haven't got it for sure! |
Never trust a skinny cook or a skint pleading Scotsman. |  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 23:00 - Nov 5 with 5291 views | karl |
| Paradise Papers on 22:35 - Nov 5 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Never trust a skinny cook or a skint pleading Scotsman. |
Yes I just need to realise some assets, unfortunately I should have realised I've got none | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Paradise Papers on 03:23 - Nov 6 with 5184 views | isawqpratwcity |
Headlines: rich and powerful exposed in tax avoidance and a mass shooting in America.
Same old, same old. |  |
| |
| Paradise Papers on 06:26 - Nov 6 with 5139 views | PlanetHonneywood |
As with the Panama Papers, nothing will happen, no change will come about and the matter will be forgotten about.
For those of you/us without any assets, you might want to buy some in Haliburton, Monsanto, Lockhead Martin, BAE (not our somewhat indifferent left back) etc. for what is going on in the world, the powers that be will need a good old fashioned war to take our collective eye off the ball, while filling their pockets into the bargain. North Korea it is then.
It never fails and we never learn..... |  |
| |
| Paradise Papers on 07:23 - Nov 6 with 5109 views | Roller |
I thought that the Queen was not subject to tax, but chooses to pay. So what exactly is she avoiding? |  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 07:27 - Nov 6 with 5107 views | distortR |
The present bunch in charge of the Isle of Man are bloody awful, you may see their chief on panorama tonight.
The finances over here are crashing through a void, the big factor being an obese civil service that has over-paid itself and granted itself pretty much non-contributory final pension salaries in the past,
The taxes someone likes me pays are pretty much akin to what you'll pay in the uk, aligned to a high cost of living. Of course, the super-rich and e-gaming companies pay a pittance relative to their incomes, our lily-livered politicos are terrified of upsetting them, so they hit the working poor and elderly harder - just as we are about to hear about a scam on the island involving luxury jets and yachts, the scum announce that they are stopping the financing of meals on wheels.
spits. | | | |
| Paradise Papers on 08:35 - Nov 6 with 5025 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Paradise Papers on 21:28 - Nov 5 by karl |
Huge own goal by the head of state to stash cash off shore, beggars belief really. It really does show that chasing people who are misclaiming benefits (hate those people that do and they absolutely should be prosecuted) must return far less than a concerted campaign against these huge figures quoted. Ultimately it would result in a fairer level of tax for everyone if they could control this evasion/avoidance |
They should resource catching both and the savings would be even bigger. |  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 09:01 - Nov 6 with 4987 views | karl |
| Paradise Papers on 08:35 - Nov 6 by CroydonCaptJack |
They should resource catching both and the savings would be even bigger. |
Yes it shouldn't be one or the other | | | |
| Paradise Papers on 09:30 - Nov 6 with 4944 views | CiderwithRsie |
I don't get the "it's not illegal so that's OK argument" about these tax stories. The tabloids are forever calling for "tough new laws" on anything they don't like, why the hell is taking a massive advantage of the fact that Britain is by international standards a pretty well-run place, but refusing to chip in to keeping it that way, always an exception? First question has to be "should it be illegal?"
Anyway, there are, for example, all sorts of ways that you can drive like a c*nt that aren't illegal, it doesn't make it OK to do that all the time.
A standard dodge has been to run a business in the UK making shedloads out of British consumers (and therefore relying on the British economy and infrastructure) and then pay a humungous licence fee (in return for absolutely b*gger all) to another company which you also happen to own, in some place where there is virtually no corporation tax. That may be legal but it is still a liberty because you are operating in the UK without paying for it, and that means I have to pay more income tax. It also means anyone else in the same business either has to do the same or has to be less profitable, have less money to invest in the business, etc and so on. Yet someone will always say "that's OK, it's not illegal, and anyway the government will just waste it." And when someone finds they now can't get an operation on the NHS the first guy will say "typical state inefficiency, we'd better privatise it."
On the subject of Her Maj, I can't get all that fussed, the money is just going round in circles in her case. As I understand it, it's not her personal spending cash, it is the investments of the Crown Estate we're talking about - whether they make a bigger tax-free profit to go in to the government pot or whether the government taxes money out of the pot and puts it into the Inland Revenue pot seems a minor issue. But it isn't great PR for all that so you'd have to wonder who thought this was a bright idea
But the big issue really is that we don't know for sure if people aren't doing anything illegal because half the point of this is to make sure no-one knows what is going on. | | | |
| Paradise Papers on 09:40 - Nov 6 with 4928 views | BostonR |
Why pay a civil list to the Royal family when they are dripping in money? I despise their positions when all around the "man in the street" is struggling.
This is real fodder for Corbyn and the labour party as a general election is imminent and the Tories are all but shot. The "we are all in it together" mantra should be shown for what it is - utter nonsence! Our younger generation will love this and I sense a change is coming in 2018. |  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 09:50 - Nov 6 with 4907 views | Toast_R |
Corbyn to be PM in 18 months? Just wow!
They said it was impossible and that he should resign his Labour Leadership immediately to avoid the collapse of the party no less then 12 months ago, he looked a dead man walking.
Thing is, he hasn't really needed to do much, just refuse to resign and watch the Tory party hang themselves by their own rope. |  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 10:00 - Nov 6 with 4892 views | BostonR |
| Paradise Papers on 09:50 - Nov 6 by Toast_R |
Corbyn to be PM in 18 months? Just wow!
They said it was impossible and that he should resign his Labour Leadership immediately to avoid the collapse of the party no less then 12 months ago, he looked a dead man walking.
Thing is, he hasn't really needed to do much, just refuse to resign and watch the Tory party hang themselves by their own rope. |
I will be honest in that I am a high-earner and pay my dues and happy to pay more if I have to.
Having said that I have two boy's in their 20's who are bright, but are already saddled with debt due to university fees. The bank of Mum and Dad has to intervene to help them as they just cannot get to where they want to (at the moment) as the system is so stacked against them.
They, along with their friends are frustrated and see the older generation and the establishment stacking the cards against them, be it Brexit or stuff like tax avoidance. They are a seriously switched on bunch (the 18-24 yr olds) and the magic of social media, which Corbyn has used to fantastic effect will put the Tories to sword - it's inevitable. | | | |
| Paradise Papers on 10:07 - Nov 6 with 4881 views | stevec |
I hear that kunt Bono has been at it again |  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 10:10 - Nov 6 with 4879 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Paradise Papers on 09:30 - Nov 6 by CiderwithRsie |
I don't get the "it's not illegal so that's OK argument" about these tax stories. The tabloids are forever calling for "tough new laws" on anything they don't like, why the hell is taking a massive advantage of the fact that Britain is by international standards a pretty well-run place, but refusing to chip in to keeping it that way, always an exception? First question has to be "should it be illegal?"
Anyway, there are, for example, all sorts of ways that you can drive like a c*nt that aren't illegal, it doesn't make it OK to do that all the time.
A standard dodge has been to run a business in the UK making shedloads out of British consumers (and therefore relying on the British economy and infrastructure) and then pay a humungous licence fee (in return for absolutely b*gger all) to another company which you also happen to own, in some place where there is virtually no corporation tax. That may be legal but it is still a liberty because you are operating in the UK without paying for it, and that means I have to pay more income tax. It also means anyone else in the same business either has to do the same or has to be less profitable, have less money to invest in the business, etc and so on. Yet someone will always say "that's OK, it's not illegal, and anyway the government will just waste it." And when someone finds they now can't get an operation on the NHS the first guy will say "typical state inefficiency, we'd better privatise it."
On the subject of Her Maj, I can't get all that fussed, the money is just going round in circles in her case. As I understand it, it's not her personal spending cash, it is the investments of the Crown Estate we're talking about - whether they make a bigger tax-free profit to go in to the government pot or whether the government taxes money out of the pot and puts it into the Inland Revenue pot seems a minor issue. But it isn't great PR for all that so you'd have to wonder who thought this was a bright idea
But the big issue really is that we don't know for sure if people aren't doing anything illegal because half the point of this is to make sure no-one knows what is going on. |
"But the big issue really is that we don't know for sure if people aren't doing anything illegal because half the point of this is to make sure no-one knows what is going on."
Pure conjecture that would be thrown out of court within 15 minutes. If you're not sure, then they're not guilty.
"First question has to be "should it be illegal?"
You could apply this subjective line of thinking either way. Is it fair that you get up every morning, go to work and pay income tax whilst others perfectly capable of working make a conscious decision to live on benefits? Should this be illegal?
Don't get me wrong. There are some multi-nationals that are getting away with paying too little tax in my opinion but minimising your tax liability is above board. The risk with illegalising these practices in the UK is that you drive some businesses away. This not only reduces corporation tax receipts but raises unemployment, reduces income tax and N.I. contributions, and increases the benefits bill. [Post edited 7 Nov 2017 18:51]
|  | | |
| Paradise Papers on 10:14 - Nov 6 with 4873 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Paradise Papers on 09:50 - Nov 6 by Toast_R |
Corbyn to be PM in 18 months? Just wow!
They said it was impossible and that he should resign his Labour Leadership immediately to avoid the collapse of the party no less then 12 months ago, he looked a dead man walking.
Thing is, he hasn't really needed to do much, just refuse to resign and watch the Tory party hang themselves by their own rope. |
I think promising to remove tuition fees and nationalise the NHS amongst other things also played a part! | | | |
| Paradise Papers on 10:18 - Nov 6 with 4868 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Paradise Papers on 10:10 - Nov 6 by Benny_the_Ball |
"But the big issue really is that we don't know for sure if people aren't doing anything illegal because half the point of this is to make sure no-one knows what is going on."
Pure conjecture that would be thrown out of court within 15 minutes. If you're not sure, then they're not guilty.
"First question has to be "should it be illegal?"
You could apply this subjective line of thinking either way. Is it fair that you get up every morning, go to work and pay income tax whilst others perfectly capable of working make a conscious decision to live on benefits? Should this be illegal?
Don't get me wrong. There are some multi-nationals that are getting away with paying too little tax in my opinion but minimising your tax liability is above board. The risk with illegalising these practices in the UK is that you drive some businesses away. This not only reduces corporation tax receipts but raises unemployment, reduces income tax and N.I. contributions, and increases the benefits bill. [Post edited 7 Nov 2017 18:51]
|
It is legal, but people are pissed off because the lawmakers are the biggest beneficiaries of their own laws. Lord Ashcroft is a peer for fvck sake.
Like putting Steven Caulker in charge of deciding rules on last orders. | | | |
| Paradise Papers on 10:20 - Nov 6 with 4862 views | Toast_R |
| Paradise Papers on 10:14 - Nov 6 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I think promising to remove tuition fees and nationalise the NHS amongst other things also played a part! |
Well he's kind of burnt his bridges on the tuition fees thing with the obligatory post election making out he never actually said that he'd do this etc... so I do wonder if that means the youth vote won't be as strong in another election. Factor in the lack of their once reliable Scottish vote too, it's still going to be very difficult for Corbyn to win a majority. | | | |
| Paradise Papers on 10:40 - Nov 6 with 4830 views | hubble |
| Paradise Papers on 06:26 - Nov 6 by PlanetHonneywood |
As with the Panama Papers, nothing will happen, no change will come about and the matter will be forgotten about.
For those of you/us without any assets, you might want to buy some in Haliburton, Monsanto, Lockhead Martin, BAE (not our somewhat indifferent left back) etc. for what is going on in the world, the powers that be will need a good old fashioned war to take our collective eye off the ball, while filling their pockets into the bargain. North Korea it is then.
It never fails and we never learn..... |
Okay Mr H - I'm going to bite on this and add my tuppence worth.
I believe we - or at least a significant and increasing number - *have* learnt, and *are* taking positive action. I know I'm risking the ire of many on here, but here goes: the current system (top-down governance, global elites, banking cabals etc.) is, as far as I can see, teetering on the brink of collapse. Especially the financial system. For most of our recent history, there was no viable alternative for people to get involved with, therefore no viable means for people to effect lasting, meaningful change. I believe the internet and the technology that underpins this has changed the game. In fact it's a game-changer so profound that in future times I think people will look back and talk about the two ages of humankind: BI - Before Internet and AI - After Internet.
One of the biggest factors in the downfall of the old (some might say current) system is the rise of peer-to-peer crypto-currencies. I have been following this closely since the inception of bitcoin (btc) in 2009 and I bought my btc not long after that. Now I accept that there is a lack of sensible information about crypto-currencies in our mainstream media - so I understand that plenty of people still don't really understand it, how it works and what it represents - however, a very significant (and increasing day by day) number do. And what it represents, in a nutshell, is the downfall of the current financial system. I believe this is a very positive thing. Fiat currencies, fractional reserve banking, quantitative easing, inflation, debt slavery, all the dark arts of the private banking cartel that more or less dictate many governments' policies, are not beneficial to the vast majority of people on this planet. I don't think anyone would argue that the loosening of banking regulations that led to things like the 2008 crash have not been exactly helpful in creating a stable and peaceful world.
As far as I'm concerned, the current financial system is criminal. It represents larceny on a grand scale. And the tax-avoidance of the super-rich is but one aspect of this. It is impossible to create any sort of meaningful representative democracy when such a system dominates. But when you say "it never fails and we never learn" I disagree Mr H. I think it is failing and I think we have learnt. And it is the power of the internet that's making all this possible. I genuinely think that within 20 years - maybe less - the current financial system, as it stands - will have been swept away.
Perhaps one of the biggest problems in regard to creating stable, peaceful, representative democracies under the current financial/governmental system is the complete lack of transparency. Banks can create money out of nothing. Tax money is siphoned from the masses to the ruling elite, with little - until now - genuine scrutiny of how it operates. Huge corporations like Goldman Sachs directly interfere in the running of states . Look, for example, at the number of Goldman Sachs alumni embedded within the EU, from the head of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi down. Cast your eye over this list of alumni to see where they're placed right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_employees_of_Goldman_Sachs
What crypto-currencies offer is a much fairer system for trading; transparent, not privately-owned, not counterfeit-able, anti-inflationary, easily distributable. The technology that crypto-currencies run on, like the blockchain, offer far more than just a framework for distribution though. They offer a transparent public ledger that cannot be corrupted. They offer a trading mechanism that is far more secure than our current banking system. And they are becoming increasingly popular in daily use. Bitcoin is now legal tender in Japan. There are bitcoin debit cards and ATMs. This is not going to go away.
If you believe the numerous articles claiming btc is a bubble I'm keen to suggest that it really isn't a bubble, a scam, a ponzi or pyramid scheme, or any of the other charges levelled against it; 8 years is a long time for a bubble to last, for starters. It's also very interesting to note the number of times JP Morgan Chase head Jamie Dimon has called bitcoin a bubble. Not least when you discover that a Swedish company filed a complaint with a Swedish regulator against JPMorgan’s chief executive for calling bitcoin a “fraud” after learning that JPMorgan began buying into a bitcoin tracker fund shortly after Dimon made his comments. And then you discover that In 2013 JP Morgan Chase was denied a patent for a Bitcoin clone over 175 times. And that JP Morgan Chase has been charged with 48 different violations of banking and securities fraud. ($28,675,456,874.00 is the total they’ve paid out just in the past 7 years in slap-on-the-wrist fines by politicians who’s coffers they’ve filled with money.) Yet the mainstream media continues to parrot what this guy says. Think about it.
Anyway, I've probably proselytised enough. My main point is that contrary to what you said Mr H, I believe the times they are a-changing. [Post edited 6 Nov 2017 10:45]
|  |
| |
| Paradise Papers on 10:49 - Nov 6 with 4804 views | Brightonhoop |
| Paradise Papers on 10:10 - Nov 6 by Benny_the_Ball |
"But the big issue really is that we don't know for sure if people aren't doing anything illegal because half the point of this is to make sure no-one knows what is going on."
Pure conjecture that would be thrown out of court within 15 minutes. If you're not sure, then they're not guilty.
"First question has to be "should it be illegal?"
You could apply this subjective line of thinking either way. Is it fair that you get up every morning, go to work and pay income tax whilst others perfectly capable of working make a conscious decision to live on benefits? Should this be illegal?
Don't get me wrong. There are some multi-nationals that are getting away with paying too little tax in my opinion but minimising your tax liability is above board. The risk with illegalising these practices in the UK is that you drive some businesses away. This not only reduces corporation tax receipts but raises unemployment, reduces income tax and N.I. contributions, and increases the benefits bill. [Post edited 7 Nov 2017 18:51]
|
'Don't get me wrong. They're our some multi-nationals that are getting away with paying too little tax in my opinion but minimising your tax liability is above board. The risk with illegalising these practices in the UK is that you drive some businesses away. This not only reduces corporation tax receipts but raises unemployment, reduces income tax and N.I. contributions, and increases the be.nefits bill.'
This is a complete fabrication by the papers for their owners own bnefit to deflect attention from their own legal tax avoidance whilst the UK infrastructure crumbles due to lack of investment. If anyone selling to the UK consumer was taxed at 20% it would generate billions each year fo the Treasury. Take Amazon UK for example, with a profit of £3 Billion. They are not going to walk away from 80% of £3 Billion market because a 20% tax has been applied. It is a complete falsehood pedalled by Murdoch and the Barclay Bros to deflect from their own guilt. Walk away? Be ut off? Jeoordise jobs? It's never going to happen. Tax at the point of sale and do not allow them to squirrel it off to a fake holding Co in Luxembourg and then off shore. It's costing us all way too much. Far far more than benefit fraud. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
