The Paradise Papers

[Derwent]

1 hour ago, Tongs ya bas said:

It isn't illegal. It's immoral

People who are already wealthy are making themselves even more wealthy by exploiting loopholes in the tax system diverting money needed to maintain the fabric of society into their already swollen fortunes. Hope this helps.

Then rant against the system that allows them to do it, not the people who use the system to their advantage. I agree that these loopholes should be closed, but I’m not going to blame people for using legal methods in this way. As long as they remain legitimate practices then they are perfectly at liberty to use them. 

[Tongs ya bas]

1 minute ago, Derwent said:

Then rant against the system that allows them to do it, not the people who use the system to their advantage. I agree that these loopholes should be closed, but I’m not going to blame people for using legal methods in this way. As long as they remain legitimate practices then they are perfectly at liberty to use them. 

I'll rant about what I like thanks.

I despise both the system and the slime balls who exploit it.

[ckn]

34 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I've just watched the start of the BBC's 6.00pm news programme on BBC1 with a reporter harassing at least one actress from Mrs Brown's Boys.

It's a programme I've never watched. But the idea that we should all be angry about some actors trying to preserve the value of their earnings is quite pathetic in my view, especially when you bear in mind how unreliable an occupation acting is, with short periods of work followed by long periods of inactivity, and annual incomes that vary massively.

I would feel the same way if we discovered any sportsmen also investing in offshore accounts.

To try to use legal means to reduce your tax bill is not illegal and I find it quite nauseating to see the BBC trying to whip up resentment in this way, using loaded language in its news bulletins.

It's only legal because it's not in the interest of the government to fix it beyond bluster.

Take, for example, the Isle of Man.  Just do a search for "isle of man contractor umbrella" and you'll see plenty of companies offering their services to contractors.  Someone working through a UK based "umbrella" company, one that "employs" you while you're a contractor to make things all nice and simple, will get around 60-65% of the money they earn back after all the taxes are taken out, all nice, neat and ethically legitimate.  Someone working through a IoM umbrella will get around 80-90% of their money back, fitting right into one of the artificial loopholes in tax laws put there by both Tory and Labour governments to help the very rich, as long as you can stomach the unethical and frankly outright evasive nature of the schemes.

Now, HMRC occasionally like to take pot-shots at some of these schemes (as they're beyond doubt unethical) and have a decent record of reclassifying them from tax avoidance to tax evasion in the courts, getting some big fines imposed on the contractors.  A typical tax evasion hike from a single contractor tax evader gets around £20-£40,000 in fines issued.  These are exactly the same schemes and systems that are used by the very rich who evade almost literally thousands of times that yet HMRC don't go after these people, regardless of the colour of the rosettes occupying the government's seats in Parliament.  I wonder why.

(p.s. I randomly picked the IoM schemes as the first ones into my head but there are many, many other similar tax "avoidance" schemes out there to help people minimise what they pay to the Exchequer)

[Derwent]

3 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

I'll rant about what I like thanks.

I despise both the system and the slime balls who exploit it.

You must despise a lot of top RL players then. If you think they get paid on PAYE you are sadly mistaken.

[Tongs ya bas]

Just now, Derwent said:

You must despise a lot of top RL players then. If you think they get paid on PAYE you are sadly mistaken.

What has someone's occupation got to do with anything?

[Tongs ya bas]

53 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I've just watched the start of the BBC's 6.00pm news programme on BBC1 with a reporter harassing at least one actress from Mrs Brown's Boys.

It's a programme I've never watched. But the idea that we should all be angry about some actors trying to preserve the value of their earnings is quite pathetic in my view, especially when you bear in mind how unreliable an occupation acting is, with short periods of work followed by long periods of inactivity, and annual incomes that vary massively.

I would feel the same way if we discovered any sportsmen also investing in offshore accounts.

To try to use legal means to reduce your tax bill is not illegal and I find it quite nauseating to see the BBC trying to whip up resentment in this way, using loaded language in its news bulletins.

It isn't illegal it's immoral. It should be illegal do you not think?

Protecting the value of your earnings? What about protecting the fabric of society. 

The BBC don't need to whip up resentment of these people. 

[tim2]

If you live in this country and are fortunate, or hard working enough, to earn or to have a lot of money you are still dependent on the infrastructure of that society. You need the police, the firemen, the social workers, the minimum wage workers including the people who process the sh** from your toilets. Even if you don't use some of these services, those that you do use rely on them, like a pyramid.

I know that a lot of people would avoid tax if they could, but only so many people would be able to do it before the fabric of society would break down. As it is, the ones who do happen to be able to are the richest 1%, or indeed less than that.

[Phil]

Imagine having more money than you or your children could ever spend and still hiding it away whilst many of “your people” go cold and hungry 

[Padge]

1 hour ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

The BBC paid the production company, the production company paid a UK bank account, money transferred to Mauritius... 

The BBC seem pretty in the clear on that one.  The production company denies knowing too.  Though as the production company is Brendan o'carol and he is related to some of the exposed.

Quite, maybe everyone who is employed in any capacity by any public organisation should be immediately on PAYE ( I know hardly practicle ) take the money off them first and then they have to claim tax back.

[Derwent]

43 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

What has someone's occupation got to do with anything?

Nothing, but seeing as we are on a RL forum.....

[Ramite]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

It's not laughable to suggest that the Queen should have an ethical investment policy.

It's not laughable to point out that our taxes pay for the Queen and her family and that by avoiding tax she has meant that we have less money. And yet her income from us does not go down, instead the money for her subjects gets reduced.

So, not laughable at all.

Rather serious in fact.

She has some explaining to do.

Yes it's still laughable at least the point I did make is. She has no explaining to do , possibly the people who run the investment fund may have .

[ckn]

15 minutes ago, Padge said:

Quite, maybe everyone who is employed in any capacity by any public organisation should be immediately on PAYE ( I know hardly practicle ) take the money off them first and then they have to claim tax back.

They've tried to fix this by multiple ways, here's the two main ones from the NHS:

- They first tried to ban anyone earning over a set daily rate without ministerial approval, anyone at the level below had to be approved at at senior NHS England level and anyone over six months had to have a damned good reason.  I know one person operating below director level who was on £1200 per day, WAY above the level, and he's been there since 2015, nod, wink, "here's some £150p/d contractors we've sacked as a sacrifice to keep him" and on it goes.  It's now completely ignored, never mind largely ignored.

- They then tried to force everyone through the IR35 route.  What an idiot, slack-jawed moronic thing to do.  IR35 was originally designed to break the back of unscrupulous employers who forced sub-minimum-wage employees into self-employment so that they didn't have to get paid minimum wage.  Well, that part was ignored almost immediately and it was used as a sledgehammer against higher-paid contractors who didn't fit any of the tests aimed at essentially manual labour tasks.

It didn't work, neither did all the other idiot things they've tried based on finance folk trying to be too clever in a subject they don't understand.

My view is that it should be treated based on the role rather than the person.  If you're there to do a job that permanently exists, even if you're there as a temp, then you're an employee on PAYE unless you get a specific HMRC exemption.  If you're there to do bit-part work, such as an actor, then once you're into your second year as a regular then you're an employee unless you get a specific HMRC exemption. If you're there to do a one-off bit of work for under a year and once it's done the company genuinely has no use for you then you can get contract rates, if you slip into the second year then you're backdated to day one as an employee.

Make it simple, if it has to go beyond one paragraph or into "clauses" then it's too complex.  Also, make any "exemptions" hard to get based on pre-published criteria where HMRC have to publish any exceptions they make to those criteria.

[ckn]

1 minute ago, Ramite said:

Yes it's still laughable at least the point I did make is. She has no explaining to do , possibly the people who run the investment fund may have .

If you submit a tax return then you're legally responsible for its contents whether you paid the biggest accountancy firm in the world to do it or a friend on mate's rates.  There is no exception to this, if they get it wrong then you're wrong and have submitted an inaccurate return.

[Ramite]

That is so but I'm not sure if the Queen does a tax return or if she would be exempt for any errors.

[gingerjon]

56 minutes ago, Ramite said:

Yes it's still laughable at least the point I did make is. She has no explaining to do , possibly the people who run the investment fund may have .

So point one stands. At the very least the royal household should have an ethical investment policy. It's the very least I expect of my taxes.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

It's only legal because it's not in the interest of the government to fix it beyond bluster.

Shouldn't even need saying.

[gingerjon]

Not a surprise to see this go off on a tangent about what is illegal and what is simply disgusting, low-life human behaviour carried out by absolute #### (I'm paraphrasing).

Far more interesting is all the further connections it reveals between some deeply unpleasant people who have denied those connections.

And also it proves Lord Ashcroft is a bent liar, so there's that.

[Padge]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Not a surprise to see this go off on a tangent about what is illegal and what is simply disgusting, low-life human behaviour carried out by absolute #### (I'm paraphrasing).

Far more interesting is all the further connections it reveals between some deeply unpleasant people who have denied those connections.

And also it proves Lord Ashcroft is a bent liar, so there's that.

There is also the who owns what angle, people fronting for other people as "pretend" owners, investors.

 

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Padge said:

There is also the who owns what angle, people fronting for other people as "pretend" owners, investors.

 

Yes, lots and lots more to it beyond the whining “but it’s legal” brigade.

[Ullman]

29 minutes ago, Padge said:

There is also the who owns what angle, people fronting for other people as "pretend" owners, investors.

 

 

18 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes, lots and lots more to it beyond the whining “but it’s legal” brigade.

The levels of deceit involved said it all for me.

[Ramite]

On BBC 1 now 

[Phil]

this tells you all you need to know about the power brokers in this land.  the mainstream media have completly ignored the main protagonists an have offered up a couple of 5th rate actors and pilloried them in my opinion to deflect attention away from the real offenders.

[shaun mc]

It will all be over in a couple of weeks and the nett result that absolutely nothing will change. Zero.

Will the tax status of UK dependencies that offer the base for tax avoidance such as the IOM change? Absolutely not

Those that are rich enough and the worlds biggest companies employ the best accountants, lawyers & PR companies to constantly keep ahead of any government, european or even OECD legislation

[Tongs ya bas]

51 minutes ago, shaun mc said:

It will all be over in a couple of weeks and the nett result that absolutely nothing will change. Zero.

Will the tax status of UK dependencies that offer the base for tax avoidance such as the IOM change? Absolutely not

Those that are rich enough and the worlds biggest companies employ the best accountants, lawyers & PR companies to constantly keep ahead of any government, european or even OECD legislation

Correct.

What the paradise papers have done has lifted the stone and given us a glimpse of what is writhing around underneath it. The stone will drop down and the disadvantaged, needy and vulnerable in our society will continued to be robbed by these creatures.

[Tongs ya bas]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

this tells you all you need to know about the power brokers in this land.  the mainstream media have completly ignored the main protagonists an have offered up a couple of 5th rate actors and pilloried them in my opinion to deflect attention away from the real offenders.

They are all the real offenders