snowychap Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 But what can you do about it? Which organisations, outside government or well-funded think thanks, can employ people to think long-term? Education? Perhaps we could start with trying to demonstrate the importance of consideration (which requires thinking about more than the immediate, direct consequence(s) of an action)? Do governments employ people to think long term? If they do, they must be doing their damnedest to ignore what they advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 Probably belongs on the budget thread, as it was part of the budget - but seeing as alistair didn't actually announce it and instead hid it in all the supporting documentation, let's just treat it as part of policy: torygraph"] Chip, chip away. Have you been following the Huitson v HMRC case Gringo? Basically, Huitson was using a loophole in the Double Taxation Treaty between the UK and the IOM to pay less tax. HMRC changed the law, but then retrospectively changed the law to try and claw back 8 years worth of tax. Retrospectively applying changes to laws...... I have a couple of mates who were clients of montpelier back in 2006/7 and have altered their payment practices since - and I don't believe have yet been caught in the round up. Will be interesting to see how aggressively HMRC are going to enforce the historical tax grab. I'm surprised montpelier are still business - though the tax section on their website says: Montpelier Tax We are currently updating the loopholes for this area of our website. If you have any enquiries please contact us. Thank you. Weren't they originally based in the north west before jumping ship to IoM? Sounds familiar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I wonder if the Tory party will support the decision by OFCOM to reduce Sky TV costs? - I suppose we will see a silence on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I wonder if the Tory party will support the decision by OFCOM to reduce Sky TV costs? - I suppose we will see a silence on that? I don't think they really need to comment on it tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 No we can't have them upsetting another of their "sponsors" now can we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 No we can't have them upsetting another of their "sponsors" now can we It's not like Sky are going to stage walkouts and critisise the Conservatives lack of support for their situation is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 I wonder if the Tory party will support the decision by OFCOM to reduce Sky TV costs? - I suppose we will see a silence on that? you could argue of course that labours "outrage" comes 13 years to late .. wonder if they recently lost a huge media corporations backing ..nah surely not but I'm sure the timing and the potential to give labour the chance to express outrage has has nothing to do with Colette Bowe being appointed by Mandelson .. she has a good track record at doing labours work for them what with leaking classified documents during the Westland affair ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 I wonder if the Tory party will support the decision by OFCOM to reduce Sky TV costs? - I suppose we will see a silence on that?They don't need to - OFCOM won't exist come June (says dave). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Probably belongs on the budget thread, as it was part of the budget - but seeing as alistair didn't actually announce it and instead hid it in all the supporting documentation, let's just treat it as part of policy: torygraph"] Chip, chip away. Have you been following the Huitson v HMRC case Gringo? Basically, Huitson was using a loophole in the Double Taxation Treaty between the UK and the IOM to pay less tax. HMRC changed the law, but then retrospectively changed the law to try and claw back 8 years worth of tax. Retrospectively applying changes to laws...... I have a couple of mates who were clients of montpelier back in 2006/7 and have altered their payment practices since - and I don't believe have yet been caught in the round up. Will be interesting to see how aggressively HMRC are going to enforce the historical tax grab. I'm surprised montpelier are still business - though the tax section on their website says: Montpelier Tax We are currently updating the loopholes for this area of our website. If you have any enquiries please contact us. Thank you. Weren't they originally based in the north west before jumping ship to IoM? Sounds familiar Montpelier are still in business becuase most of the contractors they looked after swapped onto a different scheme with them, based on loans from EBTs rather than taxation relief for partnerships. 10% fees on 2,000 contractors earning a minimum of £50-£100K a year is mega bucks. The case is on its way to appeal, and will probably end up at the ECHR. I'm keeping a close eye on it, as the firm I work for is involved in a similar scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Retrospectively applying changes to laws...... Whilst I certainly share the sentiment about retrospective law changes, I have no sympathy with those seeking to avoid paying any tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Retrospectively applying changes to laws...... Whilst I certainly share the sentiment about retrospective law changes, I have no sympathy with those seeking to avoid paying any tax. Then it's up to HMRC to get its act in order and improve the quality of the legislation. It's a basic human right to arrange your affairs in such a way to pay as little tax as possible. If HMRC make it easy for people to avoid a big chunk of tax, then that's their look out. What they've done here is to close a massive loop hole, then try and pretend that the loop hole didn't exist in the first place. It's fundamentally unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 It's a basic human right to arrange your affairs in such a way to pay as little tax as possible. Woah there Mart - a basic human right? Surely the basic human right is to pay the right ad fair amount of tax and not avoid it in places like Belize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 Montpelier are still in business becuase most of the contractors they looked after swapped onto a different scheme with them, based on loans from EBTs rather than taxation relief for partnerships. 10% fees on 2,000 contractors earning a minimum of £50-£100K a year is mega bucks. The case is on its way to appeal, and will probably end up at the ECHR. I'm keeping a close eye on it, as the firm I work for is involved in a similar scheme.I thought they were supposed to be closing this down as well since they announced the 50% rate and the footballers started setting up funds in Jersey? How safe are these if retrospective legislation comes and whacks them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 It's a basic human right to arrange your affairs in such a way to pay as little tax as possible. Woah there Mart - a basic human right? Surely the basic human right is to pay the right ad fair amount of tax and not avoid it in places like Belize? How did we get from IoM to Belize? Used to be red now blue"]But those Labour backbenchers screamed out loud and almost wet themselves with excitement when the Chancellor announced a "tax information exchange" agreement with Dominica, Grenada and... yes, you guessed it... Belize. So, a highly predictable attack on Labour's bogeyman, pantomime villain and scourge, Lord Ashcroft. After the Budget, I asked the Treasury pointyheads who always give a thoroughly baffling briefing to economically illiterate political correspondents just how many people would be affected by the Belize crackdown. "Errrr," came the reply. Embarrassed shuffling of feet and staring at their shiny shoes. "How much will this raise for the Treasury?" someone else asked. No answer to that, either. Never mind, a shameless piece of tribal, class war, stuff-the-Tories politics had cheered up Labour MPs as they prepare to go back to their constituencies and defend their seats in the weeks ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Surely the basic human right is to pay the right ad fair amount of tax define fair .. I pay more tax than a lot of people , and less than others I don't begrudge those on benefits being paid from my ( that's a collective my) tax money and i don't begrudge those mega wealthy ones paying accounts to avoid paying it excessively either this current fixation with taxing the rich is just wrong as I've always said .. i don't flip flop on policy like Saint Vince If an individual wants to remortgage his house to start up a business then work bloody longs hours , employ people in the community and then reap the long term rewards then good luck to him / her .. what they shouldn't do is be taxed just to appease the it's not fair brigade I suspect Ashcroft has paid more tax into the UK system than those moaning about him at the end of the day .. it's just the usual hypocrisy from the Working mans chauffeur driven car fiddle our expenses send our kids to private school party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 It's a basic human right to arrange your affairs in such a way to pay as little tax as possible. Woah there Mart - a basic human right? Surely the basic human right is to pay the right ad fair amount of tax and not avoid it in places like Belize? There isn't a "high net worth" individual or company anywhere that doesn't utilise tax planning in some form or other. Even The Grauniad which has led the fight against avoidance schemes is owned by a company using an offshore scheme, the hypocrites. Closer to home, if you take the case of Aston Villa, why do you think we're ultimately owned by a Delaware company with money coming from trusts? I thought they were supposed to be closing this down as well since they announced the 50% rate and the footballers started setting up funds in Jersey? How safe are these if retrospective legislation comes and whacks them as well. They want to, and in the budget just gone they said they are going to stop the use of EBTs. Rather crucially though, they haven't said how, and it will only apply from 2011, if they've managed to sort the legislation out by then. Which has given everybody the green light to pile into EBTs, and clever tax lawyers time to come up with alternative avoidance schemes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 It's a basic human right to arrange your affairs in such a way to pay as little tax as possible. Where did you get that one from? With comments like that I am tempted to trot off and join the indignant anti-'yuman' rights camp. Tempted but I shan't succumb. If HMRC make it easy for people to avoid a big chunk of tax, then that's their look out. What they've done here is to close a massive loop hole, then try and pretend that the loop hole didn't exist in the first place. It's fundamentally unfair. Except they probably haven't 'made it easy'. They haven't made it impossible because legislation cannot be written to take in to account all possible eventualities (unless you want something which is going to be really unfair, like 'this law proposes whatever HMRC says, goes'). Whatever legislation is written or passed, someone, somewhere will find a 'loophole'. What is really, fundamentally unfair is that some people think it is their 'right' not to pay the taxes that other people have to and do pay. I marvel at the idea that the prime examples of 'anti-social' behaviour are, apparently, kids with no respect for authority and pissed up youngsters on a night out rather than the seemingly 'respectable' who feel that avoiding paying tax, just because someone has manufactured them a way of doing so, is okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 It's a basic human right to arrange your affairs in such a way to pay as little tax as possible. Where did you get that one from? With comments like that I am tempted to trot off and join the indignant anti-'yuman' rights camp. Tempted but I shan't succumb. The US Supreme Court for one: "The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 Surely the basic human right is to pay the right ad fair amount of tax define fair .. I pay more tax than a lot of people , and less than others I don't begrudge those on benefits being paid from my ( that's a collective my) tax money and i don't begrudge those mega wealthy ones paying accounts to avoid paying it excessively either this current fixation with taxing the rich is just wrong as I've always said .. i don't flip flop on policy like Saint Vince If an individual wants to remortgage his house to start up a business then work bloody longs hours , employ people in the community and then reap the long term rewards then good luck to him / her .. what they shouldn't do is be taxed just to appease the it's not fair brigade I suspect Ashcroft has paid more tax into the UK system than those moaning about him at the end of the day .. it's just the usual hypocrisy from the Working mans chauffeur driven car fiddle our expenses send our kids to private school party Fair enough - how about a flat tax rate then. Everyone has a tax free allowance of £20k and then pay 50% tax on all earnings above that. Or maybe 60% and abolish VAT (the most wasteful tax ever dreamt up). Seem fair? If not how would you structure such a proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 How about no tax at all, and let the market provide everything! ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts