Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Cameron avoided no tax, Carr did.
But you are right, Carr didn't do anything illegal either.

if Dc deliberately sold just before hit cgt then he avoided tax... point is, DC was very vocal against Carr and Carr is a comedian not PM...see the difference? Caesars wife should be above suspicion

What are you on? How can you possibly avoid tax on money that you haven't even earned? If you don't earn it, you can't and don't pay tax on it do you.If I went out to work and refused to do any overtime that would take me into the 40% tax bracket would I be avoiding tax. Of course not!
Your idea is barmy even by the loony left standards. Now you want to tax money people haven't earned. By your twisted logic I claim that you didn't pay tax on the million pounds you didn't earn last year so you avoided 400K tax
You are barking and have lost the plot.

mamba80

Thats class Bally... lunch time drinking?

seriously, if DC sold his stock knowing that if he waited and the stock rose again, and would attract CGT, thats avoiding the CGT - by being sensible, so for me, i chose a company car that is cheaper, low emission, that does the job, means i can still do OT but limits the amount of my earnings that go into 40% .... as Steve0 said i m a tax avoider and should be burnt, Shall i publish my TR ? oh no i cant! i ve lost it !

no where did i say he should have waited and paid tax or that he should have paid tax on what he did earn.... your just being reactionary and after a few, struggle to read :oops:

also re IHT, why should nt it be taxed and how is it double tax? in the case of a house bought say in the 70's that has increased many times in value, through no input by the owner, just circumstance, nothing earnt and nothing has been taxed - if estate is sold and little David gets a nice fat cheque, why shouldnt it be taxed?
and if it isnt who will the pay extra tax to make up the shortfall? those who ve not had the good fortune to have house owning parents perhaps....
You can argue over the tax rate, personally i d see it set at the recipients marginal rate, same for savings above TH.

the real scandal is of course elderly nursing care, the state gets to keep all the property and the savings, little David gets nothing at all oh yes the Tories have delayed doing anything about that.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Thats class Bally... lunch time drinking?

seriously, if DC sold his stock knowing that if he waited and the stock rose again, and would attract CGT, thats avoiding the CGT - by being sensible, so for me, i chose a company car that is cheaper, low emission, that does the job, means i can still do OT but limits the amount of my earnings that go into 40% .... as Steve0 said i m a tax avoider and should be burnt, Shall i publish my TR ? oh no i cant! i ve lost it !

no where did i say he should have waited and paid tax or that he should have paid tax on what he did earn.... your just being reactionary and after a few, struggle to read :oops:

also re IHT, why should nt it be taxed and how is it double tax? in the case of a house bought say in the 70's that has increased many times in value, through no input by the owner, just circumstance, nothing earnt and nothing has been taxed - if estate is sold and little David gets a nice fat cheque, why shouldnt it be taxed?
and if it isnt who will the pay extra tax to make up the shortfall? those who ve not had the good fortune to have house owning parents perhaps....
You can argue over the tax rate, personally i d see it set at the recipients marginal rate, same for savings above TH.

the real scandal is of course elderly nursing care, the state gets to keep all the property and the savings, little David gets nothing at all oh yes the Tories have delayed doing anything about that.

Oh the irony of accusing me of lunch time drinking and then producing a post that looks like a cat has danced across the keyboard.

How has he avoided tax? Avoided earnings, yes.

As regards the IHT and your inability to see double tax at work:

I go to work, pay my tax through PAYE or any other means, I save up and when I die, the government comes along and takes 40%, thereby taxing my income twice.
Or perhaps I buy a house with my savings, the tax isn't levied on the increase in value of the property but the entire estate.
If you feel that it is morally justified to levy tax on an estate including such as property that increased in value, through no input of the owner, would you argue that people should get a rebate if their estate decreased in value?

ballysmate

Mamba, if you are still of a mind that he avoided tax, you must have some figure in mind. How much tax did he avoid?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Cameron avoided no tax, Carr did.
But you are right, Carr didn't do anything illegal either.

if Dc deliberately sold just before hit cgt then he avoided tax... point is, DC was very vocal against Carr and Carr is a comedian not PM...see the difference? Caesars wife should be above suspicion

What are you on? How can you possibly avoid tax on money that you haven't even earned? If you don't earn it, you can't and don't pay tax on it do you.If I went out to work and refused to do any overtime that would take me into the 40% tax bracket would I be avoiding tax. Of course not!
Your idea is barmy even by the loony left standards. Now you want to tax money people haven't earned. By your twisted logic I claim that you didn't pay tax on the million pounds you didn't earn last year so you avoided 400K tax
You are barking and have lost the plot.

It is patently obvious that you only pay tax on what is due - which is by reference to the profits that you make. If you sell something and don't make a profit you don't owe any tax. That is not and has never been tax avoidance - if I put mamba's logic to any tax professional they would fall over laughing.

In any event, if he had been over the tax free threshold for CGT, there is nothing to suggest that he would done anything except paid the tax due - like he did with any other tax he owed.

Seriously mamba....you are clutching at straws big time or deluded.

ballysmate

Perhaps mamba could turn his guns on the people that avoid buying a TV licence by not buying a TV.
Or those people that avoid paying Vehicle Excise Duty by refusing to buy a car.
Bastards!!!

Stevo_666

I'm feeling guilty now for buying a cold sausage roll from the shop instead of a hot one, thereby avoiding VAT.

And the less said about my career break a few years ago the better.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm feeling guilty now for buying a cold sausage roll from the shop instead of a hot one, thereby avoiding VAT.

And the less said about my career break a few years ago the better.

I would expect someone as tax savvy as you to have Jaffa Cakes with your beverage of choice.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Thats class Bally... lunch time drinking?

seriously, if DC sold his stock knowing that if he waited and the stock rose again, and would attract CGT, thats avoiding the CGT - by being sensible, so for me, i chose a company car that is cheaper, low emission, that does the job, means i can still do OT but limits the amount of my earnings that go into 40% .... as Steve0 said i m a tax avoider and should be burnt, Shall i publish my TR ? oh no i cant! i ve lost it !

no where did i say he should have waited and paid tax or that he should have paid tax on what he did earn.... your just being reactionary and after a few, struggle to read :oops:

also re IHT, why should nt it be taxed and how is it double tax? in the case of a house bought say in the 70's that has increased many times in value, through no input by the owner, just circumstance, nothing earnt and nothing has been taxed - if estate is sold and little David gets a nice fat cheque, why shouldnt it be taxed?
and if it isnt who will the pay extra tax to make up the shortfall? those who ve not had the good fortune to have house owning parents perhaps....
You can argue over the tax rate, personally i d see it set at the recipients marginal rate, same for savings above TH.

the real scandal is of course elderly nursing care, the state gets to keep all the property and the savings, little David gets nothing at all oh yes the Tories have delayed doing anything about that.

Oh the irony of accusing me of lunch time drinking and then producing a post that looks like a cat has danced across the keyboard.

How has he avoided tax? Avoided earnings, yes.

As regards the IHT and your inability to see double tax at work:

I go to work, pay my tax through PAYE or any other means, I save up and when I die, the government comes along and takes 40%, thereby taxing my income twice.
Or perhaps I buy a house with my savings, the tax isn't levied on the increase in value of the property but the entire estate.
If you feel that it is morally justified to levy tax on an estate including such as property that increased in value, through no input of the owner, would you argue that people should get a rebate if their estate decreased in value?

Ah I see you're getting to grips with the incentives we discussed.

Well done.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

I go to work, pay my tax through PAYE or any other means, I save up and when I die, the government comes along and takes 40%, thereby taxing my income twice.
Or perhaps I buy a house with my savings, the tax isn't levied on the increase in value of the property but the entire estate.
If you feel that it is morally justified to levy tax on an estate including such as property that increased in value, through no input of the owner, would you argue that people should get a rebate if their estate decreased in value?

Been drinking again?

ALL elected Govs have decided to keep IHT, not me, i tried to met you 1/2 way with suggesting that the tax rate should nt be 40% but at the recipients marginal rate but you seem unable to grasp that.

Death duties are not paid by the estate owner, they are dead and past carring, they are paid by the recipient who has a nice windfall, why should that be totally tax free... my bonus at work isnt.

i also asked you who would make up the revenue short fall.... you could nt do that either, after all you are the one that doesnt want IHT, so tell all, who you expect to pay for this?

i ve some land, i intend to build a house on it, (this is actually true) using money i ve paid tax on, i sell and have to pay CGT... double tax? so lets get rid too.
VAT, i buy goods with money i ve been taxed on, have to pay an extra 20% double tax again, so get rid.

like Frank i dislike the Tories with a vengeance, their cuts cost the life of someone close to me and though it was indirect, they did it and like this lot, dont give a 4x for the consequences, so spare me your childish piss take because the pr of you are thick morons

Stevo_666

Sorry, would have chipped in sooner but I was finishing my evil sausage roll based VAT avoidance scheme.

Seems like I need you explain some more basic tax principles to you. For most people the main value in their estate is in their house. As you say it may have increased in value over time. However when you sell the house that you live in that is tax free - called the principal private residence exemption. If you are live that is. If you are unlucky enough to die then it becomes taxable. Get it?

That said it is a very easily avoidable tax unless you are unlucky enough to die unexpectedly. All you need to do is make lifetime gifts of your assets to your kids or whoever, survive 7 years after than and hey presto, no IHT. For those who are unlucky enough to have a relative die on them unexpectedly, how lovely of the state to whack them with a tax bill.

Anyone who want to know more about how to avoid IHT drop me a PM.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I go to work, pay my tax through PAYE or any other means, I save up and when I die, the government comes along and takes 40%, thereby taxing my income twice.
Or perhaps I buy a house with my savings, the tax isn't levied on the increase in value of the property but the entire estate.
If you feel that it is morally justified to levy tax on an estate including such as property that increased in value, through no input of the owner, would you argue that people should get a rebate if their estate decreased in value?

Been drinking again?

I see the cat has been at play again.

ALL elected Govs have decided to keep IHT, not me, i tried to met you 1/2 way with suggesting that the tax rate should nt be 40% but at the recipients marginal rate but you seem unable to grasp that.

I posted in reply to your obvious failure to understand how the same money can be taxed twice. After all, you posted
also re IHT, why should nt it be taxed and how is it double tax
.


Thereby showing your complete ignorance on the issue


Death duties are not paid by the estate owner, they are dead and past carring, they are paid by the recipient who has a nice windfall, why should that be totally tax free... my bonus at work isnt.

Any duties are paid by the executor of any will, before beneficiaries get a penny.
Come to think of it, why do you expect a bonus just for doing your job properly?

i also asked you who would make up the revenue short fall.... you could nt do that either, after all you are the one that doesnt want IHT, so tell all, who you expect to pay for this?

i ve some land, i intend to build a house on it, (this is actually true) using money i ve paid tax on, i sell and have to pay CGT... double tax? so lets get rid too.

You pay CGT on the profit of any sale, so it has not been previously taxed has it?

VAT, i buy goods with money i ve been taxed on, have to pay an extra 20% double tax again, so get rid.

You are paying tax on the purchased goods and yes in some cases with money that has already been taxed. That is true. But in many case you have a choice as to whether to purchase and therefore pay tax.

like Frank i dislike the Tories with a vengeance, their cuts cost the life of someone close to me and though it was indirect, they did it and like this lot, dont give a 4x for the consequences, so spare me your childish wee-wee take because the pr of you are thick morons

I get that you dislike the Tories and this is evident in the way you continually play the man not the ball. You have continued to post things that have been shown to be incorrect. I may well be a thick moron but seem to have a greater understanding of tax issues than you.

BTW I suggest that if you do build a house, you get some proper tax advice, as if you intend living in it you will probably won't have to pay CGT. Speak to an expert as you don't seem to have a clue.

Perhaps Stevo could help.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

BTW I suggest that if you do build a house, you get some proper tax advice, as if you intend living in it you will probably won't have to pay CGT. Speak to an expert as you don't seem to have a clue.

Perhaps Stevo could help.

Bally, I've already educated mamba in what should be self evident to anyone who has ever sold a house that they live in. But just think of all the tax they could collect if they made private house sales subject to capital gains tax! Except for the small point that the housing market would sieze up.

And how Rick thinks that IHT provides any sort of incentive to anyone to create wealth is - how can I put it - novel All it incentivised me and my parents to do was to change their will and give me some cash (also quite useful for mitigating care home fees in case anyone is interested).

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

so spare me your childish wee-wee take because the pr of you are thick morons

Given how crap your spelling is, you either have something in common with us thick morons or else maybe you do have a point about state education. That said, I was state educated and look where it got me

Stevo_666

Good article here about the tax row and some of the leftie hypocrisy that surrounds it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/we-wont-build-many-hospitals-and-schools-on-jeremy-corbyns-incom/

Interestingly now that Comrade Corbyn has published his tax return info, it appears he is a net recipient from the state rather than a net contributor. Bloody sponger!

Stevo_666

...and a tax dodger
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3535462/Jeremy-Corbyn-facing-questions-failed-declare-thousands-pounds-pension-income-tax-return.html

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

And how Rick thinks that IHT provides any sort of incentive to anyone to create wealth is - how can I put it - novel All it incentivised me and my parents to do was to change their will and give me some cash (also quite useful for mitigating care home fees in case anyone is interested).

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... ce-tax-cut

The existing inheritance tax system has its flaws. A better system would progressively tax recipients (rather than donors) of inheritance and would offer fewer loopholes for the wealthy. Ideally it would cover inheritances received over their whole lifetime.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2007/10/list ... x-is-good/

America’s Syracuse University find (with appropriate caveats), ‘An inheritance received by a family reduces the probability that both spouses will continue to work, and increases the probability that both will retire.’

We know, too, that inheritance taxes encourage parents to spend money enhancing their children’s educational and social skills. Unable to leave a tax-free financial package, parents are more likely to pour some of their wealth into what University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan calls ‘educational and health expenditures, financial gifts, or time spent teaching or nurturing them [their children]’.

ballysmate

On about hypocrisy, the Guardian takes some beating, seeing the bilge they have printed recently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klash.html

ballysmate

At about 11.30 yesterday on the Ken Bruce show, Jeremy Vine plugged his upcoming show on at 12. He said something about the Sunday Time that broke this story of Cameron and Panama actually advised its readers to adopt such a scheme some 6 months ago.
Sorry can't find a link for the Times recommendation but Vine's piece is at about the 2 hour point in this clip.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0764jcp

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

On about hypocrisy, the Guardian takes some beating, seeing the bilge they have printed recently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klash.html

Most interesting Bally.

So, the sandal wearers holier than thou bible turns out out to be a hypocritical bunch of tax avoiders All totally legal of course, but that doesn't matter to the baying packs of lefties calling for Cameron's head.

Quoted from the link:
The newspaper at the centre of the Panama Papers expose in Britain has itself been accused of legal tax avoidance.
Guardian Media Group (GMG), the publisher of the Guardian, used an offshore company in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands when it bought a magazine and events group with a private equity firm, Apax.
The newspaper has campaigned against tax avoidance but GMG paid no stamp duty on the acquisition because of the complex arrangement, which it said was accepted by HM Revenue and Customs.
GMG said the offshore company was created at Apax’s request, and insisted the UK Exchequer had not lost out. It also used an HMRC exemption to avoid corporation tax on the £302million profits of a sale of part of its stake in the publisher of AutoTrader in 2008. GMG said it paid full corporation tax on any taxable profits.
The firm also has a fund portfolio which invests in offshore hedge funds, but is subject to UK tax on all income and realised gains. The blogger Guido Fawkes has repeatedly accused the company of hypocrisy. In 2012, when the newspaper ran an expose of tax avoiders using offshore firms to buy British property, the blogger revealed its London offices were owned by a tax exempt offshore trust managed from Germany.

Your thoughts on this please Rick and other Guardian readers.

rick_chasey

Yeah shows how endemic it is doesn't it?

I regularly work for firms HQ'd in Bermuda, complete with ridiculous office attire.

surrey_commuter

This is how the sanctimonious ex-twat in chief described the founding of the Scott Trust (owners of The Guardian)

"surely one of the most selfless pieces of tax avoidance in media history"

translated as the Scott family gave away their assets to avoid IHT... it seems that so long as lefties approve of your motives then tax avoidance is actively encouraged.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah shows how endemic it is doesn't it?

I regularly work for firms HQ'd in Bermuda, complete with ridiculous office attire.

It shows that the newspaper who is publishing a lot about Cameron's alleged tax avoidance is being hypocritical.

Worse that that, while neither the Guardian nor DC have broken any law, DC has not reduced his tax bill in any way. Whereas GMG have reduced their tax bill - in the case of the autotrader sale, if UK tax had been due on a £302m disposal at 30% this would have been up £90m in tax depending on what the original purchase price was.

Given the above, the Guardian can only really be described a bunch of stinking hypocrites. And any claim they may have to the moral high ground on tax avoidance is simply laughable.

rick_chasey

Sure.

Shouldn't detract from the broader issue of tax havens. There is an issue there and it needs to be solved.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure.

Shouldn't detract from the broader issue of tax havens. There is an issue there and it needs to be solved.

Are we playing the ball, or the men?
Rick seems to be playing the ball........

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure.

Shouldn't detract from the broader issue of tax havens. There is an issue there and it needs to be solved.

Away you go then...start with quantifying what you think it costs and tell us whay you think the answer is.

rick_chasey

You don't think it's a problem that needs to be solved? Why not?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

You don't think it's a problem that needs to be solved? Why not?

You said there was a problem to be solved, so make your case and I'll be happy to listen/comment. Seems to me that hard facts are difficult to come by here and I'm busy mitigating tax in totally legitimate, non-offshore ways

rick_chasey

Ok so you don't think it's a problem.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok so you don't think it's a problem.

I didnt say say either way and don't have enough decent info to assess it. But I'm not doing the research for you. You say there is a problem but seem to be unable to quantify or articulate it. If you want to back up your assertion, your call. Otherwise there appears to be no case to answer...