Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Osborne Advised Using Financial Loopholes To Avoid Tax And Care Costs


Recommended Posts

But the point at stake is what the f*ck is wrong with organising your affairs within the law to minimise your tax bill?

Its when you're the one making the rules so they suit your situation too perfection that its an issue.

And this winker is no.1 rule maker for finance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tax avoidance is the sensible thing to do. After all, nobody wants to pay more for anything than they have to pay.

Evading tax you should pay is unreasonable, if you subscribe to taxation.

I can't see the problem.

The UK has the most complex tax system ever in the history of planet earth, its totally rigged by cnts like Gidiot, so cnts like Gidiot avoid paying tax and win every time.

Thats the problem.

Edited by Samboy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax avoidance is the sensible thing to do. After all, nobody wants to pay more for anything than they have to pay.

Evading tax you should pay is unreasonable, if you subscribe to taxation.

I can't see the problem.

The only problem is the hypocrisy. Career politicians are full of it because their only objective is to win votes so they say what they think is popular at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not avoid tax? What are you supposed to do, go looking to pay as much as you can?

Someone in one of the weekend papers made a very good suggestion. Miliband should ask all his MPs to give details of exactly how they have planned their finances in order to pay as much tax as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone in one of the weekend papers made a very good suggestion. Miliband should ask all his MPs to give details of exactly how they have planned their finances in order to pay as much tax as possible.

Or Cameron. They're all singing from the same hymn sheet on tax avoidance these days, but it was not always thus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many times I've read about Cunning Plans to avoid paying for care. What they never mention is that it's often a bloody nightmare being dependent on social services, who will typically do as little as they can possibly get away with until there is a real crisis of some sort, by which time relatives are often on their knees with stress and exhaustion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not avoid tax? What are you supposed to do, go looking to pay as much as you can?

It's hard to disagree with that- I would look to pay a little as possible myself.

I guess the counter argument goes; If you do manage to avoid paying tax is it still ok to use services paid for by taxation?

There was a guy on radio 4 a few days ago who had set up this really complex tax avoidance regime that meant he paid no tax in the UK at all, despite the fact that he lived here for some of the time.

So if this guy gets hit by a bus in regents street and requires thousands of pounds of NHS treatment is that ok?

It's a tragedy of the commons thing- if we all managed to avoid paying any tax we would be living in Greece without the sunshine. So it's in all our collective interests that tax be paid- but in our personal interest that it not be us doing the paying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That "Deed of Variation" Strategy used by Milliband is completely vanilla tax planning

vanilla tax planning, is that what socialists call tax avoidance when they do it?

Maybe old Ralph Miliband wanted to pay his fair share to the state when he shuffled off to the next life, after all he'd done pretty well out of the country that gave him refuge from Hitler but no, Ed and Dave wanted to save themselves a few tens of thousands of quid.

It's like when Red Ken was throwing around the tax avoidance shit during the London mayor's elections and it turned out it was old Ken himself who was unwilling to account for his earnings - which were going into a PSC where he paid a peppercorn salary to himself and his missus (who didn't do any work) and drew the rest as dividends and loans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" sanctimonious, hypocritical, career politicians." Sorry Bruce mate, I love your posts, but I'm afraid even you realise that includes ALL of them. Including UKIP. Yes, every single one of them. And I vote Monster Raving Loony so what would I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" sanctimonious, hypocritical, career politicians." Sorry Bruce mate, I love your posts, but I'm afraid even you realise that includes ALL of them. Including UKIP. Yes, every single one of them. And I vote Monster Raving Loony so what would I know.

Actually, they're not all career politicians.

Farage has had a job outside of politics, so has Grant Shapps (AKA Michael Green), who today criticised Miliband for not ever having had a job outside of politics, quietly forgetting that neither has Shapps' boss Cameron.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vanilla tax planning, is that what socialists call tax avoidance when they do it?

Maybe old Ralph Miliband wanted to pay his fair share to the state when he shuffled off to the next life, after all he'd done pretty well out of the country that gave him refuge from Hitler but no, Ed and Dave wanted to save themselves a few tens of thousands of quid.

It's like when Red Ken was throwing around the tax avoidance shit during the London mayor's elections and it turned out it was old Ken himself who was unwilling to account for his earnings - which were going into a PSC where he paid a peppercorn salary to himself and his missus (who didn't do any work) and drew the rest as dividends and loans.

My point was that the DOV was used in exactly the way it was envisaged, to protect Ralph Milibands tax IHT nil rate band rate on his death.

Compare this to the "film schemes" which a number of celebs have been involved in. the purpose of these was to encourage the UK film business, but in reality they've become tax avoidance schemes and the only creativity they've created is in the accountancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to disagree with that- I would look to pay a little as possible myself.

I guess the counter argument goes; If you do manage to avoid paying tax is it still ok to use services paid for by taxation?

There was a guy on radio 4 a few days ago who had set up this really complex tax avoidance regime that meant he paid no tax in the UK at all, despite the fact that he lived here for some of the time.

So if this guy gets hit by a bus in regents street and requires thousands of pounds of NHS treatment is that ok?

It's a tragedy of the commons thing- if we all managed to avoid paying any tax we would be living in Greece without the sunshine. So it's in all our collective interests that tax be paid- but in our personal interest that it not be us doing the paying.

Not really, tax avoidance is a consequence of them using the tax system for social engineering. If there was a simple flat rate, no allowances for pension provision, no convoluted rules, nobody would be able to avoid it.

The other side of the equation - the using of the services - brings us to the problem of disagreement with application. Wars? Misdirected welfare? Hopelessly wasteful projects? I do t want to pay for any of them, I certainly don't enjoy the result or feel any benefit. We're back to our old friend the inevitable misdirection of capital by the State.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have got nothing wrong with our good politicians giving good advice and actively telling the public the best ways to avoid paying inheritance tax, or any tax for that matter openly and freely and fairly......what is wrong is when you have those with the most paying the least and those with the least paying the most......the wealthy have access to money and knowledge, know how and people, the best information and education thus plan ahead to avoid paying what they needn't.

If they put as much effort into publicising on how to save tax as they did on telling people about PPI...far more ordinary people and their families would be a lot better off financially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more, but that's not what Dave and George have been saying recently.

I am afraid the revised Health and Social Care Act comming in later this year will deminish George's recomendation

Has anyone ever studied it? I have only been told parts with all it's complexity and it don't feel many on here will be very happy.

Not clever enough, unfortunately, to expain here, best look it up yourselves. One thing though. Social Services will have much more power to get in your wallets

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, tax avoidance is a consequence of them using the tax system for social engineering. If there was a simple flat rate, no allowances for pension provision, no convoluted rules, nobody would be able to avoid it.

The other side of the equation - the using of the services - brings us to the problem of disagreement with application. Wars? Misdirected welfare? Hopelessly wasteful projects? I do t want to pay for any of them, I certainly don't enjoy the result or feel any benefit. We're back to our old friend the inevitable misdirection of capital by the State.

Yes, I have suggested that many times on this forum. Flat rate tax on all earnings over a personal allowance that is the same regardless of income. Fair, simple, difficult to avoid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have suggested that many times on this forum. Flat rate tax on all earnings over a personal allowance that is the same regardless of income. Fair, simple, difficult to avoid.

Good Idea Bruce. Reminds me of what Peter Hain used to say on Question time when he was a Liberal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more, but that's not what Dave and George have been saying recently.

I am afraid the revised Health and Social Care Act comming in later this year will deminish George's recomendation

Has anyone ever studied it? I have only been told parts with all it's complexity and it don't feel many on here will be very happy.

Not clever enough, unfortunately, to expain here, best look it up yourselves. One thing though. Social Services will have much more power to get in your wallets

So, who should pay?
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great! Put it on my tab along with everything else.

By you I mean all of us. But my wife is in the line of work that deals with this very thing and unlike me she has been trained and updated on what is to come. The issue is not only costs and who pays, but what is value for money. The cheapest elderly care al private is about £800 per week in my area and suport at home will be down to about five minutes a day, One has to beware of simplstic solutions offered by political spin masters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 415 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.