George Osborne talks about inheritance tax.
With a cheeky glint in his eye. He's been very quiet recently.
(, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 10:41, Reply)
What he is talking about is known as
a deed of variation. It's what the Milliband brothers have used to avoid paying inheritance tax on their parents property. Capital gains tax would still apply, but it's an effective and legal means of cutting a future tax bill. Or in other words it's tax avoidance.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 11:17,
Reply)
Do you think it's enough to call Ed a hippocrate?
(
A Rory Borealis here under duress, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 11:20,
Reply)
Actually no. It's worse than that.
What I resent about it is he is being very disingenuous and dishonest about it. He says that he paid tax on what he inherited and that's that. But the fact remains he went out of his way to make an arrangement that significantly reduced the amount of tax he was liable for. The guardian even found an accountant from KPMG or PWC or one of the big five to write an article to say that probably didn't save any money. All bollocks. Why pay an accountant and a lawyer to make the arrangement then? What's the point of that? Why not just let probate take its course? Boris Johnson made public his tax returns when Ken Livingstone suggested he was a tax dodger, Ed Milliband should publish his.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 11:34,
Reply)
But all of it was legal?
Who on earth wants to pay as much tax as possible? This is why I frown at people who get all flustered with corporations and people who use tax loop holes, they are just being careful with their finances.
I should probably watch the link at this stage
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:00,
Reply)
Yes, all legal.
I agree with you up to a point. I think what Starbucks did, and what eBay, Amazon, Google, Apple and many others do is pretty disgusting and although technically legal, transparently dishonest.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:06,
Reply)
"Who on earth wants to pay as much tax as possible?"
Probably not the right time to mention that I personally make what would be on a global scale considered to be a lot of money. I went to a tax planning seminar once (it was at a business meeting I was attending anyway) and this chap was going through all the mechanisms available to save paying tax. I pointed out that I felt that paying my dues to society was what a true citizen should do; I thought I was going to be lynched as a pinko troublemaker!
A harsher analysis by some like minded colleagues determined that up to 50% most of us would be happy to pay up, but once more than half of what you work for goes to the state, most high earners begin to feel resentful.
The interesting thing is that at either end of the earnings spectrum the same argument ensues, which revolves around 'to each according to his need, from each according to his ability'. Many look at avoiders and evaders at the top and think they are sponging off society, many also look at 'benefit scroungers' and think the same thing.
There may therefore be people across the whole spectrum who take offence at people who have a sense of entitlement from society, without a sense of responsibility to look after it.
(
da5id <YOUR SIG HERE>, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:12,
Reply)
"..without a sense of responsibility to look after it."
Is the gray area. I'm not particularly fond of the super rich moaning about their wealth because ultimately I find it pretty distasteful some people get distracted in their lives of luxory when so many humans around them find the entire experience a very hard slog.
It would be much easier if everything was laid open without holes for people to hide their trinkets and gold coins in, so we could either agree with it or disagree with our contributions for the welfare of the whole herd.
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:20,
Reply)
A sense of entitlement does seem pretty universal.
People don't get paid according to how useful their work is to society, and it's certainly not a meritocracy. However, few people would admit that they don't deserve all their stuff or that their work is ultimately selfish.
Presumably that mentality goes all the way to the top.
At least there can be some logic to taxation. There seems to be very little to wages.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:55,
Reply)
On the contrary, there is a very simple logic to wages: charge what people will pay.
Unfortunately this only counts if someone else is paying you. If you are deciding for yourself what you should be paid, the sky is indeed no longer the limit.
Chief execs get together and form pay committees to decide what they are worth, then as another round of senior exec pay excess occurs, the rot spreads to the state sector where execs start talking about 'comparable salaries' and we end up with town council leaders, NHS managers, civil servants being paid the same as private sector chiefs.
The ultimate though are the people who literally print money. The banking sector no longer lends out what it has, it lends out for interest about 10 times or more than what it has - they are literally making money and paying each other ridiculous bonuses to lend the money out, then charging fees for arranging of lending out money they don't have in the first place, topped off by a bonus for thinking it all up.
I like to think I've worked hard for most of my life; 16 years of training, 120 hour regular working weeks with studying for exams on top, and now being paid pretty well. I still earn a fraction of what those cunts do though!
(
da5id <YOUR SIG HERE>, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 13:19,
Reply)
Many of the folks who figure that "lending" stuff out are not bankers. They are mathmaticians, software engineers etc.
Where I work we have problems recruiting people because the banks offer to pay them a fortune. We simply can't compete.
(
JamTallons, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 13:46,
Reply)
You think you've worked hard
My dad was down pit for 22 hours a day
(
$$ ✅, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 14:26,
Reply)
Ah yes. And you lived in a shoebox in the middle of the motorway I presume?
I said that I worked hard, not my dad. My father was an engineer who worked on the shop floor at Leyland Truck and Bus, his father was a garage mechanic. On my mum's side mainly low rank soldiers and indeed a grandfather who spent many years down the pits in Nottighamshire!
(
da5id <YOUR SIG HERE>, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 14:46,
Reply)
Yes legal,
but not a good position from which to climb on to your high horse.
(
A Rory Borealis here under duress, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:23,
Reply)
The point is not so much legality as morality
A 'loop hole' tax avoidance scheme means that a person or business has dodged paying tax that the government intended that they should pay, by using a tax rule for a purpose that it was not intended. Quite legal it is true, but still cheating. Legal cheating but cheating nonetheless.
(
notoolsovernight you're all luvvly an' 'orrible, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:54,
Reply)
Oh for God's sake
Is it in the rules? Yes. Therefore it isn't cheating.
If the rules are wrong then maybe that's where the focus should be, but I don't see why anyone should have a moral obligation to pay more tax than what is due - be they in a position of public office or not.
Holy shit, I just defended Ed Milliband. I think I need a stiff drink.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 14:28,
Reply)
(
Dawn Of The Bread $$$$ E-THUG 4 LIFE - THAT'S HOW I SCROLL $$$$, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 14:32,
Reply)
There's rules and there's flaws in a system.
Some of the dodges remind me a bit of hacking. Any system with that much beurocracy is going to have a lot of unintended exploits.
People are employed to find loopholes in a system, and then time and money have to be spent fixing those loopholes.
The tax system is like shit code.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 15:05,
Reply)
I frown at people who think that corporations cant act ethically
My wife's extended family owns a large business. They are extremely careful about not avoiding taxes because
a) most of them think they should pay a fair share and
b) should they be found out the bad publicity would do them a lot of harm
(, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:56, Reply)
The point is tax loopholes are only open to the super rich
If you've ever been self employed you'll know, you can't avoid tax.
(
Rebel biscuit stercore sumus et nos esse novimus, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 13:02,
Reply)
Tax loopholes are open to everyone who pays tax
Put your savings into tax-avoiding ISA's
Put as much of your income into a pension scheme as you can.....but make sure it is one that returns all your fund to your beneficiaries (inheritance tax exempt ) if you die before retiring (company pension schemes often dont ).
Buy the most expensive house you can afford ( CGT exempt when you sell it )
(
CanonCaliber A big bore, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 13:53,
Reply)
You've missed the point
Putting money into an ISA or pension scheme is the INTENDED function of those tax breaks, they are not 'loopholes'.
A tax avoidance scheme uses *unintentional* loopholes in tax law, and hence they are in effect cheating the system because the government did not intend that they be excused tax.
(
notoolsovernight you're all luvvly an' 'orrible, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 14:59,
Reply)
There's no such thing as "unintended"
All the loopholes were put in the tax laws deliberately by the polititions etc to benefit their pals.....not supposed to be used by the others.
It's like all the software flaws are put there deliberately to allow govt intrusions .....not meant to be used by hackers.
"Security updates " do 2 jobs, 1) plug the flaw being used by hackers and 2) open up a brand new flaw for govt intrusions
(
CanonCaliber A big bore, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 17:38,
Reply)
Yes and no. This is a tinfoil territory.
(
omnitruncatedkraken from Empire Algol, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 19:25,
Reply)
Seriously?
Tax law is ferociously complicated and corporate tax law is complexity squared. Add to that the fact that the resources of tax dodgers are far in excess of what is available to the legislators, it comes as no surprise that loopholes can always be found. Were the loopholes put there intentionally? It is a bit like Bertrand Russell's teapot, there is no way of disproving it, however it is somewhat unlikely. Government departments are disorganised and dysfunctional and at best they struggle to perform the tasks they are allocated, adding some tinfoil hat hidden agenda conspiracy would be utterly impractical.
(
notoolsovernight you're all luvvly an' 'orrible, Sun 22 Feb 2015, 15:57,
Reply)
You sound like Milliband's spokesperson.
That's another one of the lies spouted around this subject. A deed of variation is the perfect example of what utter bullshit that is. All you need is to own a property and write a will and you can have the beneficiaries of your will dodge tax too.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 13:54,
Reply)
"all you need is to own a propety"
lol
(
Rebel biscuit stercore sumus et nos esse novimus, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 15:54,
Reply)
Ok, point taken
but property ownership doesn't make someone super rich. I own a flat in London and I don't really have a pot to piss in. If I'd stuck to renting I'd have a better car, nicer clothes and just more clothes, and I'd be much better travelled, but it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 16:10,
Reply)
do you get to pay 0% tax like google, starbucks, amazon etc?
(
Rebel biscuit stercore sumus et nos esse novimus, Sat 21 Feb 2015, 20:29,
Reply)
no but you'd get some old bitch come to inspect the property every 3 months
and moan at you for committing the heinous crime of putting up a poster using Blu Tac!
My mortgage repayments are cheaper than if I rented a property of a similar size. In fact I'd be lucky to afford flat in one of the more "entertaining" areas of my town
(
h3donist tryin' to play me out as if my name is Sega.., Sat 21 Feb 2015, 20:32,
Reply)