Hazel Grove Forum

A Suburb in Stockport

10 10 / 10 from 9 Reviews

Post Reply

You are posting as a Guest

You are not logged into an account. There are many benefits to registering an account with us, such as the ability to edit your posts.

Register Login.

Items marked with an astrix (*) must be filled in



 


 

Format Codes Disabled | Smileys Disabled

 

 

Code Image - Please contact webmaster if you have problems seeing this image code  Refresh Refresh Image
Powered by Web Wiz CAPTCHA version 4.03
Copyright ©2005-2013 Web Wiz
 

By clicking submit you agree this complies with our Standards.



OliverJohnstone posted..

Mozza I am giving you solid financial arguments as to why the PM didn't do anything wrong - it is a bit weak to come back with "I realise you have to toe the party line."

What the PM did in relation to Blairmore and his inheritance tax gifts was 100% moral and justified. Inheritance tax is a horrendous method of taxation in my eyes and the gifting principle helps liquid assets to be passed on to the family in a regulated manner.

As much as you may want to make this out as something dark and sinister, your point simply doesn't work.

Now onto Google and Jimmy Carr - Google, Starbucks, Amazon and the like are companies which do a lot of business in countries like the UK but register themselves to be domiciled for tax purposes in countries like Luxembourg and Liechtenstein. The problem with this is that whilst they have fixed assets and operations in the UK and other large European states, they pay exceptionally low rates of tax on their operations by domiciling in tax havens, where their actual business is comparatively tiny or non existent.

Jimmy Carr on the other hand (in a similar vein to Ken Livingston) was funnelling his earnings into a holding company registered to Guernsey (an off shore tax haven). The holding company then issued loans to Jimmy Carr which were in effective his salary - meaning he avoiding paying income tax in the UK, despite the fact that he conducted his business here.

The above two examples are cases of aggressive, active tax avoidance where there is a clear line between what UK tax law actively permits and what are grey areas and loop holes.