Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

this is clearly the very silly season as this discussion went round and round and round a couple of months back ......

legal tax avoidance
HMRC is not remotely interested in morals or morality

if legal tax avoidance is legal, then it is a personal choice as to whether or not you pour your money down the gov't's throat, or avail yourself of those permissions and give it to your children, battersea dog's home or whatever

if you don't like the legal tax avoidance currently in place then become an activist and vote to change it

Tax avoidance is sensible and not immoral. Income tax was introduced as a temporary measure to fund a war. There are plenty of people who do not agree with income tax at all. If you cen get away with paying less or no income tax then you should. The fuss about tax is big at present because we have been in a recession and people are earning less in real terms. It is the politics of envy again. If we were in a boom, tax would not be a story that anyone would be interested in.

Amazon, Starbucks, Google and other companies are just doing what all multinational companies have done for at least 100 years.

What intrigues me is many of the those little englanders who wish to be liberated from the EU, wish to Scotland to stay in the Union, because of the "strength" due to the union.

-------------------------------------

That is what it is about; "If you cen get away with paying less or no income tax then you should."

(I see a belief system is fixed in place, "Darwinian". But. perhaps, it would be wise to reread the theory.)
)

-------------

Is Cameron trying to play the Maggie Thatcher Falkland card.

Have a feeling it won't work this time and will increase the likelihood of his demise.

Manuel,

It is obvious you variation of morality is well established!

I think GF realises what he owes to society for his "position" now and is grateful, while there are others who think only of what society owes them and are fearful of what "they" may lose if a more egalitarian society evolves.

In general, I prefer GF's positioning, although the path he proposes would be different to mine.

GF on his own admission has avoided huge swathes of IHT, and why should he not indeed

he also sees nothing wrong at all with companies "immorally" but legally avoiding corporation tax

by the way, i am amazed you make the schoolboy howler ...... you cannot be different to but only only different from

Haystack,

Agreed.

I do thing GF is quite confused about this. I also question his approach to his 'loved ones' after his death.

IMHO, to disinherit loved ones, even in part, illustrates a certain, well, "je ne sais quoi?'. Each to their own, I suppose.

To reduce IHT (the goverment's tax take after death) using 'charitable giving' is most definitely tax mitigation and the mechanism of mitigation is by the use of charitable giving.

It most certainly means the rest of us have to pay more tax to the government. The instructions in the Will of the deceased, concerning the gift (in GF's case) of the majority of his estate to charity, quite definitely avoid the estate having to make payment of a large amount IHT to the government.

We therefore have to pay more. Using Goldfinger's Rule's, this is not fair on the rest of us!

Using the more 'normally considered to be OK approach to tax mitigation/avoidance' then it is OK.

Most of us are 'normal'. GF is not. :-)

there is of course also the valid argument, "i paid tax when i was alive so why should i have to pay it again when i'm dead?"

The argument that HMRC uses regarding death taxes is the dead person does not pay. The people receiving the money pays as it is revenue, income or a capital gain for them and therefore taxable.

We must never forget, that the government is the government.

They make the rules.
They have the power to make the rules.
They can make the rules apply retrospectively.
They can forcibly take everyone's pension pot for whatever reason.
They can forcibly take everyone's cash in whatever form and for whatever reason.

Our views on what the government does with its (our?) money often make us feel that they don't: spend it in the best way; spend it thriftily- getting best value; not waste it, etc, etc.

Need I go on?

Anyhow, we feel we can spend it more wisely and do better things with it than they can.

Perhaps GF should remember the government don't use their money in the same kinds of ways he uses his. Mostly, we all feel they piss lots of it up the wall.

Barclays to introduce finger scans instead of PINs

Customers will use a portable device that reads and verifies their vein patterns to access online banking and authorise payments



By Nicole Blackmore

6:02AM BST 05 Sep 2014



Barclays is introducing new finger scanning technology that will allow customers to access their online bank accounts and authorise payments without the need for PINs or passwords.


Customers will be given a portable device that can read and verify the unique vein patterns in their finger in an attempt to combat identity fraud.


The Barclays Biometric Reader will initially be available to Barclays Corporate Banking clients from 2015.


Barclays said the technology is recognised as one of the most secure biometrics in the market. Unlike fingerprints, vein patterns are extremely difficult to replicate. It said the scanned finger "must be attached to a live human body in order for the veins in the finger to be authenticated".


Barclays will not hold a copy of the user’s vein pattern and there will be no public record of it.



More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/11076131/Barclays-to-introduce-finger-scans-instead-of-PINs.html

I bet it costs an arm and a leg .

No only a finger

I hope people only use their finger.

Cynic try try and try again I HAVE NOT AVOIDED knowingly paying any tax.

Stop being a silly little Runt.

When you have these silly little brain storms I often wonder if it is stress getting too you.

For instance where have you got this from......

cynic - 05 Sep 2014 12:49 - 45519 of 45528

GF on his own admission has avoided huge swathes of IHT...............ends

Its news to me. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cynic, please explain how you have come up with that trash?????

Or are you just hell bent on an argument as per usual.

Manuel.

Why should you pay tax when you are dead?

Because you won't count any longer and perhaps, to repay society for tolerating you when you were alive.

LOL Fred. Tolerance yes. In fact thats an idea to put forward to Racheal R when I see her tomorrow. A Tolerance Tax.

On other issues,

Fred where does he get his thinking from?????

It maybe that Golf Club of his selling legal highs.

Poor schooling, upbringing and lack of, or too narrow an education and being led astray Hays.

Mind I suppose with the material provided I suppose his school did the best they could!

8-)

Great news for the parents of Ashya:

Finally, family of little Ashya win the fight to fly him to Prague for proton beam therapy which could save his life

Brett and Naghmeh King were granted their wish by a High Court judge
Ashya will fly by private jet to specialist hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
He is expected to receive chemotherapy before proton beam therapy
His parents believe it will give him the best chance of survival
Mr Justice Baker made decision after receiving treatment plan from Kings
It outlined the treatment and evidence that the boys' parents can pay for it
He will cease to be a ward of the court when he reaches the Prague hospital

And what a great kick up the arse for the Southampton Hospital:

Now University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust has said it would have supported the transfer of Ashya’s care to the Proton Therapy Centre in Prague, although medics did not recommend it.

Hmmm?

A spokesperson for the trust said: ‘While Ashya was under our care, we discussed the option of treatment in this centre with the family and made contact with them at that point.

‘We were willing to support the family’s transfer to Prague for proton beam radiotherapy, although we did not recommend it.

Hmmm again?

But after their advice was thwarted they did report the matter to the police and recommend to the police that the Kings were being negligent in their care to the child. This got the parents arrested and slapped in jail.

Q. One has to ask what both the the police and the CPS were told by the Southampton Hospital senior staff?
A. An exaggerated cock and bull story, apprently almost verging on malicious persecution, about the Kings being criminally negligent parents.

It took 200,000 people with a petition, actions and words from the senior members of the government and the power of a very able and sensible judge so as to make good sound decisions and bring matters back into perspective and control.

Fingers crossed, that the proton beam therapy works and saves the little chap's life.