| Home | Log In | Register | Our Services | My Account | Contact | Help |
You are NOT currently logged in
Register now or login to post to this thread.
THE TALK TO YOURSELF THREAD. (NOWT)
goldfinger
- 09 Jun 2005 12:25
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.
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.
Chris Carson
- 14 Feb 2015 18:35
- 56593 of 81564
The Labour party is weighed down with hypocrisy. It's a case of do what I say not what I do with them.
ReplyNew
0
2Click to rate
.
UK Rising, Definitely Here, about 6 hours ago
Red Ed realises it may have not been so clever to become a leader of a political party, after all . .
ReplyNew
5
13Click to rate
.
Catrin, Cardiff, United Kingdom, about 7 hours ago
We have a saying in Welsh which, roughly translated, says "You need a clean beak to sing clearly!" Little Mili is learning the hard way! Who's the "dodgy one" now then!
ReplyNew
5
17Click to rate
.
Nick, London, about 8 hours ago
Milliband is stating that as he paid CGT when he sold his share then he has paid all the tax that was due. This is a fact but it is only a fact due to the family avoiding the inheritance tax that would have been due if they had not used a deed of variation. This was not a passive act, they would have taken advice and engaged a lawyer to facilitate this. Tony Benn did a similar thing, it is blatant tax avoidance.
ReplyNew
6
25Click to rate
.
commonsense or what, salzburg, Austria, about 9 hours ago
I think you will find that the suggestion that the rich hide their money is what angers the general public!! The fact is that avoiding inheritance tax on monies that have already had their taxes paid on, aren't really an issue with most people........if you are hiding money from the taxman that UK taxes should be paid on as earnings, that's what the issue is!!!
ReplyNew
5
13Click to rate
.
Heatherbelle, Epsom, about 9 hours ago
Ralph M had a lot of money and property for a Marxist - I thought they did not believe in owning anything. Clearly one rule for me and another for the rest of you!
ReplyNew
4
25Click to rate
.
intj, lol, United Kingdom, about 16 hours ago
Clearly everyone is politics does this, so what the big deal??
ReplyNew
16
4Click to rate
.
Chris Jones, Cardiff, about 17 hours ago
I'm no Millibland supporter but this is a bit of a non story
ReplyNew
25
11Click to rate
.
Alvelon, Melbourne Australia, Australia, about 17 hours ago
??? ONE LAW FOR THEM ANOTHER FOR EVERY ONE ELSE..DO WHAT WE SAY """ NOT """ WHAT WE DO???...
ReplyNew
7
23Click to rate
.
Joanne.1, Clydebank, United Kingdom, about 18 hours ago
OMG there all at it!! What chance have we got! NONE!!!!
ReplyNew
6
22Click to rate
.
Steve, Watford, about 18 hours ago
People in glass houses should not throw stones!
ReplyNew
6
.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2951553/Red-Ed-tax-avoider-Property-merry-rounds-Milibands-changed-cutting-inheritance-tax-liability.html#ixzz3RkJQUi4n
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
cynic
- 14 Feb 2015 18:39
- 56594 of 81564
They used a controversial tax loophole called a 'deed of variation'
sorry, but this isn't remotely controversial, any more than is setting up a trust fund to lessen the impact of IHT (lord fink)
sorry, but this isn't remotely controversial, any more than is setting up a trust fund to lessen the impact of IHT (lord fink)
Chris Carson
- 14 Feb 2015 18:47
- 56595 of 81564
Show us the proof you haven't tried to avoid tax for years, MPs tell Ed Miliband
MPs want Ed Miliband to explain his family's complicated property history
Mr Miliband and his now wife both sold their separate flats in 2008/9
Mr Miliband and Justine did not pay any capital gains tax on either deal
He sold his flat five months after they bought their £1.6m family home
By Paul Bentley and Jason Groves for the Daily Mail
Published: 00:56, 14 February 2015 | Updated: 00:56, 14 February 2015
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953132/Show-proof-haven-t-tried-avoid-tax-years-MPs-tell-Ed-Miliband.html#ixzz3RkKfnmkA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Ed Miliband faced calls last night to publish full details of his tax affairs.
The Labour leader’s family affairs have come under the spotlight after he spent much of last week condemning ‘tax dodgers’.
The Daily Mail told yesterday how he and his family used a ‘deed of variation’ to divide ownership of their family home – which experts say is used almost exclusively to reduce death duty bills.
It has now emerged that Mr Miliband and his partner Justine Thornton – his wife since 2011 – both sold separate flats they owned in upmarket North London in 2008 and 2009 without paying capital gains tax.
Mr Miliband sold his £740,000 apartment five months after the purchase of their family home for £1.6million and six months after the couple had their first son. But he claimed that the flat was his ‘primary residence’. Saying the flats were their primary homes enabled them both to save tens of thousands of pounds in capital gains tax.
Labour yesterday insisted any suggestion of tax avoidance is a ‘straightforward lie’. And today Mr Miliband is expected to say he is ‘not backing down’ in his campaign against tax avoidance, despite the controversy about his own affairs. In a speech to the Welsh Labour conference he will accuse ministers of ‘turning a blind eye’ to tax avoidance.
But the Conservatives last night stepped up pressure on him to publish the details of his tax affairs. Mr Miliband managed to avoid paying capital gains tax on the sale of the flat he owned before moving into the townhouse where his family now live.
Mr Miliband met Miss Thornton in 2002. In the following years, they owned separate flats. He originally had an apartment on Chalcot Square but sold this for £342,000 in 2005, before buying a flat on nearby Chalcot Road about a year later for £648,500.
It is not known where Mr Miliband, then 36, lived in the intervening months.
But Miss Thornton owned a flat in Maida Vale. This was sold for £680,000 in March 2008, with Miss Thornton paying no capital gains tax. A Labour spokesman has said this is because it was her primary residence.
Yet when Mr Miliband sold his flat on Chalcot Road for £740,000 in December 2009, he did not pay capital gains tax either, as he claimed this was his primary residence. This is despite the fact that five months earlier Miss Thornton – an environmental law expert on around £200,000 a year – had bought for £1.6 million the family home near Hampstead Heath where they now live. She had also given birth to their first son Daniel earlier that year, in June 2009.
They were able to avoid the tax in part because they were unmarried. Mr Miliband and Miss Thornton became engaged in 2010 and married a year later.
Miss Thornton, however, is still registered as the sole owner of their four-bedroom Victorian property for reasons that are unclear.
Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said Mr Miliband’s family’s deed of variation was clearly designed to cut inheritance tax and condemned the Labour leader’s denial of this. He added: ‘Ed Miliband should now publish this deed of variation that he is currently hiding away and be as open about his own tax affairs as he demands others to be. The public can then judge for themselves.’
The former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer, now a Labour parliamentary candidate, added: ‘People will take different views on deeds of variation and all forms of tax relief is, in one sense, intended to reduce tax. People have a strong feeling that sophisticated tax avoidance is morally wrong.’
Mr Miliband has spent the week lambasting tax dodgers in the wake of allegations that HSBC’s Swiss private bank helped clients evade tax. He had gone on the attack over allegations of tax avoidance activities linked to some wealthy supporters of the Conservative Party, telling the House of Commons that David Cameron was ‘a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors’.
Mr Miliband was subsequently forced to defend his own tax affairs. Asked by BBC political editor Nick Robinson if he thought it was ‘dodgy’ to use a deed of variation and leave your house to your children to avoid tax, the Labour leader said: ‘The deed of variation... is something my mother did 20 years ago. I paid tax as a result of that transaction, I’ve avoided no tax in that.’
Mr Miliband’s father’s will was changed by deed of variation after his death in 1994 so Ed, David and their mother Marion all became part-owners of their £2.4million family home.
This meant that if she then died, the sons would already own part of the property so inheritance tax would be applicable to less of the home than were she to have owned it outright.
Mr Miliband has, however, since sold his share to his brother, who bought the remainder from his mother, who is still alive.
He also claims to have paid capital gains tax at 40 per cent on the sale and denied he used the arrangement to avoid tax. A spokesman said: ‘It can’t be tax avoidance if no tax was avoided.’
Last night a spokesman for Mr Miliband insisted the couple only moved in together in 2008 – six years into their relationship and when Mr Miliband was 38 and Miss Thornton 37. ‘As HMRC guidance makes clear, primary residence relief continues for three years after you leave your home. The final 36 months of ownership always qualify for relief as long as the dwelling house has been your only or main residence at some point.’
MPs want Ed Miliband to explain his family's complicated property history
Mr Miliband and his now wife both sold their separate flats in 2008/9
Mr Miliband and Justine did not pay any capital gains tax on either deal
He sold his flat five months after they bought their £1.6m family home
By Paul Bentley and Jason Groves for the Daily Mail
Published: 00:56, 14 February 2015 | Updated: 00:56, 14 February 2015
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953132/Show-proof-haven-t-tried-avoid-tax-years-MPs-tell-Ed-Miliband.html#ixzz3RkKfnmkA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Ed Miliband faced calls last night to publish full details of his tax affairs.
The Labour leader’s family affairs have come under the spotlight after he spent much of last week condemning ‘tax dodgers’.
The Daily Mail told yesterday how he and his family used a ‘deed of variation’ to divide ownership of their family home – which experts say is used almost exclusively to reduce death duty bills.
It has now emerged that Mr Miliband and his partner Justine Thornton – his wife since 2011 – both sold separate flats they owned in upmarket North London in 2008 and 2009 without paying capital gains tax.
Mr Miliband sold his £740,000 apartment five months after the purchase of their family home for £1.6million and six months after the couple had their first son. But he claimed that the flat was his ‘primary residence’. Saying the flats were their primary homes enabled them both to save tens of thousands of pounds in capital gains tax.
Labour yesterday insisted any suggestion of tax avoidance is a ‘straightforward lie’. And today Mr Miliband is expected to say he is ‘not backing down’ in his campaign against tax avoidance, despite the controversy about his own affairs. In a speech to the Welsh Labour conference he will accuse ministers of ‘turning a blind eye’ to tax avoidance.
But the Conservatives last night stepped up pressure on him to publish the details of his tax affairs. Mr Miliband managed to avoid paying capital gains tax on the sale of the flat he owned before moving into the townhouse where his family now live.
Mr Miliband met Miss Thornton in 2002. In the following years, they owned separate flats. He originally had an apartment on Chalcot Square but sold this for £342,000 in 2005, before buying a flat on nearby Chalcot Road about a year later for £648,500.
It is not known where Mr Miliband, then 36, lived in the intervening months.
But Miss Thornton owned a flat in Maida Vale. This was sold for £680,000 in March 2008, with Miss Thornton paying no capital gains tax. A Labour spokesman has said this is because it was her primary residence.
Yet when Mr Miliband sold his flat on Chalcot Road for £740,000 in December 2009, he did not pay capital gains tax either, as he claimed this was his primary residence. This is despite the fact that five months earlier Miss Thornton – an environmental law expert on around £200,000 a year – had bought for £1.6 million the family home near Hampstead Heath where they now live. She had also given birth to their first son Daniel earlier that year, in June 2009.
They were able to avoid the tax in part because they were unmarried. Mr Miliband and Miss Thornton became engaged in 2010 and married a year later.
Miss Thornton, however, is still registered as the sole owner of their four-bedroom Victorian property for reasons that are unclear.
Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said Mr Miliband’s family’s deed of variation was clearly designed to cut inheritance tax and condemned the Labour leader’s denial of this. He added: ‘Ed Miliband should now publish this deed of variation that he is currently hiding away and be as open about his own tax affairs as he demands others to be. The public can then judge for themselves.’
The former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer, now a Labour parliamentary candidate, added: ‘People will take different views on deeds of variation and all forms of tax relief is, in one sense, intended to reduce tax. People have a strong feeling that sophisticated tax avoidance is morally wrong.’
Mr Miliband has spent the week lambasting tax dodgers in the wake of allegations that HSBC’s Swiss private bank helped clients evade tax. He had gone on the attack over allegations of tax avoidance activities linked to some wealthy supporters of the Conservative Party, telling the House of Commons that David Cameron was ‘a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors’.
Mr Miliband was subsequently forced to defend his own tax affairs. Asked by BBC political editor Nick Robinson if he thought it was ‘dodgy’ to use a deed of variation and leave your house to your children to avoid tax, the Labour leader said: ‘The deed of variation... is something my mother did 20 years ago. I paid tax as a result of that transaction, I’ve avoided no tax in that.’
Mr Miliband’s father’s will was changed by deed of variation after his death in 1994 so Ed, David and their mother Marion all became part-owners of their £2.4million family home.
This meant that if she then died, the sons would already own part of the property so inheritance tax would be applicable to less of the home than were she to have owned it outright.
Mr Miliband has, however, since sold his share to his brother, who bought the remainder from his mother, who is still alive.
He also claims to have paid capital gains tax at 40 per cent on the sale and denied he used the arrangement to avoid tax. A spokesman said: ‘It can’t be tax avoidance if no tax was avoided.’
Last night a spokesman for Mr Miliband insisted the couple only moved in together in 2008 – six years into their relationship and when Mr Miliband was 38 and Miss Thornton 37. ‘As HMRC guidance makes clear, primary residence relief continues for three years after you leave your home. The final 36 months of ownership always qualify for relief as long as the dwelling house has been your only or main residence at some point.’
Chris Carson
- 14 Feb 2015 18:48
- 56596 of 81564
THE FOUR KEY QUESTIONS ED MILIBAND MUST ANSWER
BY JAMES CONEY, MONEY MAIL EDITOR
Why did the family change Ralph Miliband’s will?
Changing someone’s will using a deed of variation is a relatively rare event and requires the agreement of all the beneficiaries – so why did the Miliband family do it? Was it because their father had forgotten something, or was it simply for tax planning reasons?
If Mrs Miliband wanted to give some of the house to her sons she could have done that without changing her husband’s will – but this would have given her a tax liability when she continued living in the property.
By altering the will and essentially making Ralph Miliband give a share of the house to his sons as a gift, Mrs Miliband was allowed to remain living there tax free.
It also meant that when Ed and David came to inherit the house their tax liabilities would have been reduced.
Figures produced for the Mail suggest this could have saved them £160,000 if they had inherited in 2004.
George Bull, senior tax partner at accountancy firm Baker Tilly said: ‘A deed of variation is an established part of tax planning but it is not that common. Generally in the event of someone’s death the beneficiaries of the estate usually accept what is written in the will and shrug their shoulders and say that is that.’
What did Ed Miliband class as his main home from 1995 until 2004?
In 1995 Ed Miliband owned 20 per cent of the family home in Edis Street, but also bought a second-floor flat in nearby Chalcot Square for around £100,000.
Then in 2004 David bought the Edis Street property outright from Ed and their mother.
You do not pay capital gains tax when you sell your main home, but you do have to pay tax on any gains you make above a certain level on a second home. In 2004, this was charged at a person’s highest income tax rate on gains of more than £8,200.
Ed says he paid tax of 40 per cent on the sale of his stake of Edis Street to David. But exactly how much was the bill?
Second-home owners have to notify HM Revenue & Customs which property is their main home. But they can switch this at any time. Every time they do this, the previous three years of house price gains are discounted (as the rules stand today, it is only 18 months). This allows second-home owners to reduce their tax liability when prices are rising fast.
If Edis Street was not classed as his main home, it is estimated Ed’s captial gains tax bill could have been up to £56,000, depending on other gains he cashed in at that time.
So which property was Ed living in from 1995, and which did he tell HMRC was his main home? Was it ever switched?
Where did Ed and Justine live ?
Ed Miliband first met Justine Thornton in 2002 and they married in 2011. For most of this time up until 2009 they each owned their own property.
Last night a Labour Party spokesman insisted that they only moved in together in 2008.
However, there are questions about where Ed lived between selling his home in 2005 and buying in Chalcot Road the following year.
Up until 2008 Justine owned her own apartment in nearby Maida Vale.
Had the couple been married and living together only one property would have been able to be classed as a primary residence – the other would have been a second home and as such any gains made on it would have incurred capital gains tax after a period.
But because they were not married and apparently not living together there would have been no tax to pay.
The Maida Vale home was sold in March 2008. It was only at this point that the couple apparently moved in together, into Mr Miliband’s Chalcot Road home.
They eventually moved into a home bought by Justine in July 2009.
Ed sold his Chalcot Road flat in 2009, five months after Justine bought their current home. He would have had 18 months to do this before capital gains tax applies.
.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953132/Show-proof-haven-t-tried-avoid-tax-years-MPs-tell-Ed-Miliband.html#ixzz3RkMfD1bx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
BY JAMES CONEY, MONEY MAIL EDITOR
Why did the family change Ralph Miliband’s will?
Changing someone’s will using a deed of variation is a relatively rare event and requires the agreement of all the beneficiaries – so why did the Miliband family do it? Was it because their father had forgotten something, or was it simply for tax planning reasons?
If Mrs Miliband wanted to give some of the house to her sons she could have done that without changing her husband’s will – but this would have given her a tax liability when she continued living in the property.
By altering the will and essentially making Ralph Miliband give a share of the house to his sons as a gift, Mrs Miliband was allowed to remain living there tax free.
It also meant that when Ed and David came to inherit the house their tax liabilities would have been reduced.
Figures produced for the Mail suggest this could have saved them £160,000 if they had inherited in 2004.
George Bull, senior tax partner at accountancy firm Baker Tilly said: ‘A deed of variation is an established part of tax planning but it is not that common. Generally in the event of someone’s death the beneficiaries of the estate usually accept what is written in the will and shrug their shoulders and say that is that.’
What did Ed Miliband class as his main home from 1995 until 2004?
In 1995 Ed Miliband owned 20 per cent of the family home in Edis Street, but also bought a second-floor flat in nearby Chalcot Square for around £100,000.
Then in 2004 David bought the Edis Street property outright from Ed and their mother.
You do not pay capital gains tax when you sell your main home, but you do have to pay tax on any gains you make above a certain level on a second home. In 2004, this was charged at a person’s highest income tax rate on gains of more than £8,200.
Ed says he paid tax of 40 per cent on the sale of his stake of Edis Street to David. But exactly how much was the bill?
Second-home owners have to notify HM Revenue & Customs which property is their main home. But they can switch this at any time. Every time they do this, the previous three years of house price gains are discounted (as the rules stand today, it is only 18 months). This allows second-home owners to reduce their tax liability when prices are rising fast.
If Edis Street was not classed as his main home, it is estimated Ed’s captial gains tax bill could have been up to £56,000, depending on other gains he cashed in at that time.
So which property was Ed living in from 1995, and which did he tell HMRC was his main home? Was it ever switched?
Where did Ed and Justine live ?
Ed Miliband first met Justine Thornton in 2002 and they married in 2011. For most of this time up until 2009 they each owned their own property.
Last night a Labour Party spokesman insisted that they only moved in together in 2008.
However, there are questions about where Ed lived between selling his home in 2005 and buying in Chalcot Road the following year.
Up until 2008 Justine owned her own apartment in nearby Maida Vale.
Had the couple been married and living together only one property would have been able to be classed as a primary residence – the other would have been a second home and as such any gains made on it would have incurred capital gains tax after a period.
But because they were not married and apparently not living together there would have been no tax to pay.
The Maida Vale home was sold in March 2008. It was only at this point that the couple apparently moved in together, into Mr Miliband’s Chalcot Road home.
They eventually moved into a home bought by Justine in July 2009.
Ed sold his Chalcot Road flat in 2009, five months after Justine bought their current home. He would have had 18 months to do this before capital gains tax applies.
.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953132/Show-proof-haven-t-tried-avoid-tax-years-MPs-tell-Ed-Miliband.html#ixzz3RkMfD1bx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
cynic
- 14 Feb 2015 18:50
- 56597 of 81564
chris - please can you tidy up 56596 as it's incomprehensible in its present form
Chris Carson
- 14 Feb 2015 18:53
- 56598 of 81564
Manoftheredvan, Socialist republic of sefton, United Kingdom, about 10 hours ago
He also claims to have paid capital gains tax at 40 per cent on the sale and denied he used the arrangement to avoid tax. A spokesman said: ¿It can¿t be tax avoidance if no tax was avoided.¿.................. Well Er that's right, but if steps were taken prior to the sale to ensure that no tax was payable when the property was sold then isn't that tax avoidance? George Orwell double speak? I've got no problem with people paying as little tax as they legally can, but I do have a problem with hypocritical people, not just politicians, who say other people should be taxed more or these "loopholes" should be closed but who go on to exploit the same or other loopholes so they can keep more.
ReplyNew
10
338Click to rate
.
mahal, Hassocks, United Kingdom, about 10 hours ago
They are all dodgy, no matter what side they are on.
ReplyNew
14
264Click to rate
.
ukippers, portchester, United Kingdom, about 10 hours ago
you are your fathers son as he hated Britain as well ????? roll on may ?????
ReplyNew
28
406Click to rate
.
Mr jolly, Chorley UK, about 10 hours ago
He can't!
ReplyNew
6
108Click to rate
.
livnletliv, manchester, United Kingdom, about 11 hours ago
Liblabcons, all in it together, but the plebs keep voting for more.
ReplyNew
23
171Click to rate
.
null, about 11 hours ago
They're all in the trough oink oink!
ReplyNew
14
192Click to rate
.
Mike, Uk, United Kingdom, about 11 hours ago
The odd thing is that Miliband and Labour are claiming the actions are allowable under the rules. For example primary residence rules. Fine! not a problem with that but aren't the people he is pointing the finger act also claiming the same thing and like it not they also are correct. With Labour, its always the total utter hypocriscy that makes me angry .
ReplyNew
10
411Click to rate
.
johninkermen, Lincoln, United Kingdom, about 11 hours ago
I never have been, nor never will be a supporter of labour BUT this is a bit too much! It sounds like the old witches ducking stool. If they survive, they are guilty if they drown, innocent! PROVE to me, it should not be to difficult a job, that Miliband dodged tax's
ReplyNew
88
99Click to rate
.
john, worcester, about 11 hours ago
Champagne Socialist do as I say not as I do !!!
ReplyNew
15
370Click to rate
.
JustAnotherPasserby, London, about 11 hours ago
Labour passed complex tax laws which allowed tax avoidance.
ReplyNew
11
318Click to rate
.
Mark, Durham UK, about 11 hours ago
Ed - hoist by his own petard yet again. The thought of him as PM is frightening.
ReplyNew
20
.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953132/Show-proof-haven-t-tried-avoid-tax-years-MPs-tell-Ed-Miliband.html#ixzz3RkNoiJsI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Chris Carson
- 14 Feb 2015 18:54
- 56599 of 81564
cynic- Good! So is having to read left wing shite every day. Pay back time :0)
Fred1new
- 14 Feb 2015 20:26
- 56600 of 81564
I don't know why Green stepped down.
With support from Dodgy Dave supporting him he is on to a winner like Coulson.
What a party.
All in in for one our dear leader!
The Euro-phobes must be shaking with fury about tightening bank and tax rules in Europe and bring The Swiss and Austria and the City to heel.
With support from Dodgy Dave supporting him he is on to a winner like Coulson.
What a party.
All in in for one our dear leader!
The Euro-phobes must be shaking with fury about tightening bank and tax rules in Europe and bring The Swiss and Austria and the City to heel.
Chris Carson
- 15 Feb 2015 08:58
- 56601 of 81564
Major Egg On The Faces Of The Labour Party Today As Two Major Labour Donors Exposed, Accused Of Avoiding TAX!! One in the Sunday Times and One in the Telegraph.
Red Fred, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!
Red Fred, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!
Fred1new
- 15 Feb 2015 09:39
- 56602 of 81564
Fred1new
- 15 Feb 2015 09:41
- 56603 of 81564
Fred1new
- 15 Feb 2015 09:48
- 56604 of 81564
Remember this.
A nasty little man suitable for the Nasty party who care for themselves in front of all.
The problem they have is "themselves" are shrinking and "all" are growing!
A nasty little man suitable for the Nasty party who care for themselves in front of all.
The problem they have is "themselves" are shrinking and "all" are growing!
cynic
- 15 Feb 2015 10:07
- 56605 of 81564
i confess i find this rumpus about X,Y,Z,A,B and C of assorted hues having taken sensible tax avoidance measures, very entertaining indeed
if it's legal and "non aggressive" then it's common sense as any financial adviser will tell you
if your personal "moral stance" dictates otherwise and you'ld rather pour your money into the gov't coffers (for them to mis-use), then that is your call
if it's legal and "non aggressive" then it's common sense as any financial adviser will tell you
if your personal "moral stance" dictates otherwise and you'ld rather pour your money into the gov't coffers (for them to mis-use), then that is your call
cynic
- 15 Feb 2015 10:08
- 56606 of 81564
meanwhile, in the world of mammon, AFR and Serco get the full treatment in ST
cynic
- 15 Feb 2015 10:16
- 56607 of 81564
and an interesting snippet from yesterday's telegraph #2 ......
in essence .....
top 300,000 taxpayers will pay approx £150,000 each (income tax + other i'm sure) into the coffers this year = 27.3% of the nation's tax revenue against 25% when labour came to power in 1997
in essence .....
top 300,000 taxpayers will pay approx £150,000 each (income tax + other i'm sure) into the coffers this year = 27.3% of the nation's tax revenue against 25% when labour came to power in 1997
Fred1new
- 15 Feb 2015 11:12
- 56608 of 81564
Manuel.
Post 56610.
Why not?
Could they have earned sufficient to pay that tax on without the rest of the population?
Do they "need" that "excess" of income more than somebody on a smaller income who is paying a smaller % or amount of tax?
Remember we are all in it together, but some can't swim in the deep end.
Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 13th February - Con 32%, Lab 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%; APP -21
Post 56610.
Why not?
Could they have earned sufficient to pay that tax on without the rest of the population?
Do they "need" that "excess" of income more than somebody on a smaller income who is paying a smaller % or amount of tax?
Remember we are all in it together, but some can't swim in the deep end.
Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 13th February - Con 32%, Lab 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%; APP -21
cynic
- 15 Feb 2015 12:04
- 56609 of 81564
i just thought it an interesting observation about the % of tax paid into the gov't coffers by the well-off
i was not remotely suggesting it was too much or anything else ...... you forget that i have always been a great promoter of profit-sharing with our employees, though it's a shame they don't share the pain when times are hard
i was not remotely suggesting it was too much or anything else ...... you forget that i have always been a great promoter of profit-sharing with our employees, though it's a shame they don't share the pain when times are hard
2517GEORGE
- 15 Feb 2015 12:15
- 56610 of 81564
What it does show is that the % tax take from the rich is greater under the Tories than it is under Labour, which makes a mockery of Labour claims that the Tories look after their rich friends.
2517
2517
cynic
- 15 Feb 2015 12:21
- 56611 of 81564
yes and no .... it could also demonstrate that there is a greater % of lower paid in the workforce
lies, damned lies etc :-)
lies, damned lies etc :-)
Fred1new
- 15 Feb 2015 14:17
- 56612 of 81564
Manuel.
I think profit sharing is sensible but sometimes difficult to practice.
The company my father was involved with did similar for a short while, in the 40s albeit when they went into profit.
As said difficult in "hard times", but what was interesting in the recent "recession" the number of firms with "union or workforce" agreement were prepared to accept standstill and some cases a cut in "wages" in order to stay in work and "save" the companies
Was sensible and suggests good working relationships.
=======
As far as Tax returns are concerned it depends on what "should" be the total "return".
The problem with the figures be thrown about is the fine print and background to them being produced.
I think profit sharing is sensible but sometimes difficult to practice.
The company my father was involved with did similar for a short while, in the 40s albeit when they went into profit.
As said difficult in "hard times", but what was interesting in the recent "recession" the number of firms with "union or workforce" agreement were prepared to accept standstill and some cases a cut in "wages" in order to stay in work and "save" the companies
Was sensible and suggests good working relationships.
=======
As far as Tax returns are concerned it depends on what "should" be the total "return".
The problem with the figures be thrown about is the fine print and background to them being produced.
| About MoneyAM | Ts and Cs | Privacy Policy | Investment Warning | Content Standards | Corporate Solutions | Advertise With Us | Site Map | © 2026 MoneyAM |
Register now for FREE
Share Prices,
Stock Quotes,
Charts, Bulletin Boards, Indices, Watchlists, Portfolio, Market News, Research
or see our Premium Services including Level 2, Terminal and much more.
Follow us on Twitter