Political slaughter

[Syd]

francisgraham - 2012-05-06 6:48 PM

 

Once again you make sweeping and totally uninformed generalisations. Please provide evidence that tax avoidance by bankers exceeds the amount of income generated by the City of London. I won't hold my breath! Tax avoidance schemes for the average investment bankers are a myth. There is no way that anyone who is employed, and they are all just employees, can ultimately avoid paying tax. I have already pointed out that just one per cent of the population pays almost thirty percent of all income tax (Inland Revenue figures) so without these high earners people such as you would have to pay a lot more! Just 10% of tax payers actually pay half of all income tax.

 

"Quoted from an organisation that cannot get the majority of tax codes right for the general public but can quickly reach cosy secret deals with big business, and of course they are going to give us the figures for the monies that they are unable to get their hands on just to demonstrate that their figures are fair and unballanced, statistics statistics statistics "

 

 

It would appear then, that if wealthy people are avoiding tax by clever schemes, they're not very good at it The tax avoidance schemes that you've read about in your tabloid but clearly not really understood, are used by multi-national companies, foreign businessmen domiciled in the U.K. and mainly people with control over how they are paid, which doesn't usually includebankers

 

"I assume this is again based on Inland revenue data, again how would they know these figures and exactly how Successful or otherwise these avoidance plans are when they get even the most simple things wrong"

 

 

.Even schemes where people set up companies to avoid income tax and only pay the much lower rate of corporation tax, such as the one set up by Ken Livingstone, only really work if you don't draw the income! If you leave it in the company you pay corporation tax, but the minute that you draw it as salary or dividends you are subject to whatever income applies. Livingstone's only advantage was that he could pay his wife a salary from his company and, as she wasn't a higher-rate taxpayer, she'd pay less income tax than he would. But this of course applies to relatively derisory amounts of money. The minute he pays her any decent-sized sum she's on the same high tax as anyone else.

 

"You must believe that Livinstone is an idiot along with all of those senior civil servants and MPs etc I expect your hatred for the tabloids stems from their nasty habit of exposing these ripoffs being carried out by your privilidged society friends"

 

You strike me as the kind of person who would be happy to see the introduction of incredibly high tax rates as we have had under Socialist governments in the past. It doesn't matter that they stifle enterprise and drive wealth creators abroad. It doesn't matter that ordinary people actually end up worse off because the economy ultimately suffers. What really matters is that you can have the satisfaction of seeing these awful rich people suffer!Noses, faces and cutting off comes to mind!

 

"You have weighed me up totally incorrectly and there lies one of your weaknesses, in your arrogance you underestimate too many people, if someone does not agree with your opinion then you assume them to be idiots. certainly noses and face does not apply in this case

 

Edited to say: Is there anyone more hypocritical than the average motorhomer? One thing I've learned is that saving money, not spending money, and generally inventing wheezes to saw the last ha'penny in half seems endemic amongst members of this forum.

 

"That statement could so easilly apply to the vast majority of our members of parliament who are forever screwing the country for even the slightest menial expenditure in their unsatiable greed and absolute lack of decency and morals, in industry they would be before the old beak for their blatantly corrupt actions"

 

 

Needless to say of course, if they inherited a barrow load of money and a clever accountant or lawyer suggested a perfectly legal scheme where they could minimise their tax deductions they would naturally say: "Good God old boy, can't possibly do that, must think of the good of the country." Yes, of course they would! Now, there's nothing wrong with saving money or not spending it, just as there is nothing wrong with legal tax avoidance. If the government doesn't like a particular loophole that may be exploited, they should close it. What is wrong is the hypocrisy of those members who constantly deride others but would behave no differently themselves in they were in the same situation!

 

Quiet bluntly I believe that for the most part you quote from a greatly ridiculed and inept organisations propaganda, sorry I meant to say, set of figures.

[francisgraham]

Syd - 2012-05-06 11:58 PM   Quiet bluntly I believe that for the most part you quote from a greatly ridiculed and inept organisations propaganda, sorry I meant to say, set of figures.

 

Quite bluntly, you're another one who comes out with comments that have no substance and then, when asked to back them up, are unable to do so and resort to insults such as this!

Do you deny that the top 1% of tax-payers pay almost thirty percent of all income tax? If my figures come from disreputable and inept organisations, then let's have yours from reputable organisations. My figures come from the Inland Revenue, not exactly an organisation known for being staffed by rabid-right-wingers!

This is typical of your logic and your accuracy, when speaking of investment bankers you said:

"................ how do they find the time to work so hard on their tax avoidance schemes that rob the country out of as many billions as they earn us."

So what reputable source did you get this information from? Because it's the biggest load of unintelligent, uninformed, red-neck, lynch-mob-mentality nonsense that anyone has uttered in this entire thread.

As I said earlier, if rich people are all using complex tax-avoidance schemes, they don't appear to be very good at it!

So please, instead of just spouting hate-filled rubbish based on nothing more than your envy of anyone who's successful, try doing five minutes research on the web and then come back and apologise or, prove me wrong.

Ps Which inept and disreputable organisations have you in mind for my source of 'propaganda? I first found them on the BBC and then confirmed them with reports from HMRC.

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-05-07 9:05 AM

Quite bluntly,I'm another one who comes out with comments that have no substance

 

As I said earlier, if rich people are all using complex tax-avoidance schemes, they don't appear to be very good at it!

 

Not very good at it?..........Wasn't old Ozzy Osborne on the news a few weeks back saying how shocked he was at how little tax the rich were paying............Mindyou he is only the Chancellor so what would he know about it ;-)

[CliveH]

There is a system whereby Life Offices bail each other out in times of crisis. We have just seen exactly that with Friends Provident, Winterthur and AXA, - They now call themselves Friends Life.

 

Aviva was born of the failing companies Commercial Union and General Accident being taken over by NU.

(we all thought the resulting mess should have been called "Commercial Accident" but the name Aviva won the day)

 

When Equitable Life failed and could not support its Annuity Book, Prudential took over the Managed and invested\annuities and Canada Life the Gilt based annuities.

 

More recently when the Iclandic banks failed, Prudential did a marvelous job at stepping in to support the policyholders and overseeing the compensation.

 

As for the reletive merits of fund managers. If you do not want to pay for their "expertise" then choose a Tracker fund. But do be aware that past performance of both clearly indicates that a good Fund Manager does add value - not so much when growth is on the up - a monkey with a pin can do well at stock selection in boom years - the skill best demonstrated is in a downturn.

 

Tracker funds track down just as well as the track up.

 

Richard Branson found that out to his cost when he lost a well publicised bet where he bet that his tracker fund would do as well as a managed fund.

 

It didn't.