Osborne has a good idea...at last...
- 11 April 2012 19:00164874Tax avoidance accounts for £ 7 Billion ....loss to the nation ( Treasury ) coffers........................
Osborne intends to stop up the loop holes that the rich and their `perpertrators` ( tax avoidance merchants ) receive
by the year 2014/15...............
Many think he will not succeed as the `purveyors of snake oil`will find other ways to allow the elite greedy pigs to pay
less tax than their secretaries and cleaners.
Osborne states the tax avoidance rich and their advisors are ``totally morally repugnant`....Olly your not on your own
on this one but millions still believe we are not all in this together..............
We need a simple tax system....proposed by Ross several times...... - 11 April 2012 19:37164887Reg:
Why..........do..........you..........always..........put..........loads..........of..........full..........stops..........in..........your..........posts..........?
- Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
11 April 2012 19:45164893its a sutter,c..a..r..o..l...e.
- 11 April 2012 19:52164896We all wonder...
OK Reg - look behind your usual tirade.
The Treasury identified three main ways that the wealthy reduce taxes.
1/ Charitable donations
2/ Offsetting interest on buy to let mortgages against tax Iand other commercial mortgages)
3/ Offsetting losses in companies against each other
Now think for a moment - many of the people reading this will be doing one, two or even all three of these things. Are they your 'elite greedy pigs'? Very ordinary people do all this and its has all been quite legitimate.
So, what is he doing about it?
He is limiting the relief to £50,000 per annum for each of these and bringing the use of such reliefs into line with the maximum level for pension contributions. There is, for these but not for pensions, also a 25% of salary limit being imposed as well.
And the result - an uproar from charities who say that they will be seriously hit by the limits.
Well, well - your 'elite, greedy pigs, give huge sums to charity then.
Good for them.
I should also correct your usual lack of accuracy in your rather sad posts. Osborne has called 'morally repugnant' only the 'aggressive' tax avoidance measures of a few who abuse the system. There is an old saying for when dealing with the revenue, it is very technical, it is 'don't take the p*##'
I am very proud of every penny of tax that I have helped my clients save over the last 22 years and I will carry on ensuring that I look after their interests and that they do not pay more than they legally have to. That is a very moral and correct thing to do and should I not do that I could justifiable be censured by the FSA. - 11 April 2012 20:03164901Has Osborne read the writing on the wall?
"Osborne states the tax avoidance rich and their advisors are `totally morally repugnant'"
They've rubbed our nose in it. There are tax avoiding rich who even get EU subsidies to boot, including the "head of heads", but hey, all this has already been beaten to death on the Forum.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 11 April 2012 20:11164902I have corrected that statement Alexander.
- 11 April 2012 21:17164916I would ask, Why 2014/15?
I sadly conclude that all of this will still be in the pipeline by the time of the next election.
Piglet after piglet is being lined-up to be popped into their individual blue pokes come 2014/15.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
11 April 2012 22:56164924why does everyone doubt mr osbournes word?ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 11 April 2012 23:30164932Because it's just a laughable joke. Keith,Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 12 April 2012 12:18165006This is self-explanatory...
"As a veteran tax planner and business expansion adviser, I wholly agree with Polly Toynbee's call for the publication of tax returns (Let every citizen's finances be open to public scrutiny, 10 April). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development calculates there is $18 trillion in tax havens - enough to pay the fiscal deficits of Greece, the EU, the US, the UK and of all the countries in the world. Publication is a first step to identifying the siphons to tax havens and reversing the flow.
But please get the definitions correct. Ken Livingstone has a limited liability company to limit his liabilities, as most professionals would advise regardless of taxes. Isas and pension premiums etc are not tax-avoidance devices - they are paying £1 to save 40p as directed by the government.
Avoidance is fiddling the books in a quasi-legal way, to not pay taxes. Most of the "avoidance" that journalists fawningly qualify as "... but of course in a legal way" is not legal - as in UK law transactions have to be real, commercial and arm's-length. Putting a brass plate on a wall in Vaud, Switzerland and routing money via it is illegal - whether it is Google, high-street stores, Harley St Dental Inc or Fred the plumber - unless the trade in Vaud is real, with real people and on commercial terms. Most such transactions since 1980 have been illegal in this country and could and should be reversed. Tax evasion usually requires the owner to hide and lie. It is time to get HMRC enforcing the law.
Noel Hodson
Oxford"
As there are 'links' embedded within the above text some may prefer to read it as it was published today...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/11/tax-returns-transparencyIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 12 April 2012 12:50165010Very interesting.... No-one defends doing something illegal in this and this term 'quasi-legal' is somewhat dubious as something is legal or not.
I agree Livingstone did not do anything illegal or wrong, he was just being a hypocrite. I find Hodson's comments over limiting liabilities wrong - that can be a reason but if you have liabilities to hide from, then you would have to sign over security which would eliminate any advantage gained from a limited company. I do not believe that the activities of Ken Livingstone would require taking on significant liabilities anyway - no, his driver was clearly tax.
I totally disagree with him (and that nutty woman Toynbee) over making our tax returns public. Mind you, if they were I could obtain all of your tax information and decide if I should target you to become my clients.... I am sure you would all like that and the many hundreds of others who will be chasing you down trying to sell you goods and services. It would be a wonderful source of information for all sorts of marketing. But, no - I prefer my privacy.
A very interesting article though. Never heard of this bloke and don't know if he is real. Rather half-baked I have to say. - 12 April 2012 14:16165024I have posted this on the Greedy Pigs thread but more appropiate on here I think.
Kevin Peachey(Personal finance reporter, BBC News)
Year after year, some wealthy individuals have used legitimate reliefs to pay little or no tax, according to the Treasury.
Chancellor George Osborne has claimed that he was "shocked" by the extent to which these high-income individuals have used the system.
Ronnie Ludwig of Saffery Champness Accountants and John Whiting of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, who also advises the government on tax simplification, explain Tax Avoidance.
Tax Reliefs.
Wealthy individuals have a lot of disposable income - money that is not needed to heat the house, feed the children, or pay the council tax bill.
This income can be invested in things that lead to a reduction in the amount of tax they have to pay. For example, this income can by pumped into an individual's pension scheme, up to a certain limit, or into schemes that are aimed at allowing businesses to thrive. Also known as Enterprise Investment Schemes, these are designed to encourage wealthy people to invest in new businesses that appear to have good ideas, but could be risky investments.
Employing a husband or wife.
Many small businesses might survive only because the owner's husband or wife is prepared to do a lot of work behind the scenes for relatively little pay. However, some businessmen and women have employed their husbands or wives, who paid little or no tax previously. They might do very little work, but are still paid a salary. This means that the couple divides its income tax bill, rather than one of them - who might be the boss of the company - receiving all of the income and so paying a larger amount in tax. The benefit from this arrangement arises because most people get a tax-free allowance to set against the first chunk of their income.
Artificial losses.
This is something that governments have taken steps to try to stop.
Effectively, a business is creative with the books and makes unnecessary transactions to contrive artificial losses. These appear to be losses on paper, which can then be offset against income for tax purposes. Actually they do not result in a loss in cash terms, but do allow the business and its owner to benefit from a lower tax bill than would otherwise be the case.
The chancellor wants to strengthen existing rules against this and similar schemes by introducing a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR).
This would act as blanket legislation to allow the taxman to differentiate between what counts as responsible tax planning and what is abusive tax avoidance.
Tax Relief.
Used correctly and not abused, I can see how this could benefit everyone. Being successful is vital for this country and success should be rewarded. However the problem today is that only the rich are being rewarded, even for failing, as well as succeeding and this is leading to an unbalanced country.
Creating more wealth sounds like a good idea and could work but not with today's trend of "I'm all right Jack" greed and selfishness.
Employing a husband or wife.
Again, this is sensible if used correctly but this one is probably the most abused of all. Not just by the rich bosses and MP's but by many of the self-employed as well. Hard to police but if lies are told then then this legal loophole becomes illegal.
When abused in this way, I see no difference whit benefit cheats. Both should be stamped out.
Artificial losses.
Well, all I need to say on this one is that even this Government wants to stop it. Or I should say they are making noise's to stop it, surely they could stop it if they wanted to?
Full report at: - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17665780"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum" - 12 April 2012 14:55165030The only one of those I do not advise my clients on are 'Artificial Losses', clearly an abuse and Osborne is right.
Employment of spouse is quite normal, a non-working spouse can and often does play an important part in running a husband's business. I highlight to people that it is important for the spouse to actually do some work even if it is answering the phone or a spot of record keeping. They should also have a pension from the business to be as tax-efficient as possible right into retirement.
I find far too many couples where the male has a reasonable retirement income, perhaps suffering the penal 30p tax rate that applies over £25,400 while the wife has no taxable income at all or very little with all her income tax allowances unused. A little bit of sensible financial planning in the years before retirement can balance the income so both allowances get used. Sometimes we can actually do something after people have retired depending on how savings and investments are held.
EIS and VCT schemes are excellent tax saving opportunities for those who are willing to take extra risk with their money and have money that can be lost.
There are all sorts of other things people can do as well. Making sure savings are tucked away in ISA wrappers or accounts are in the name of a non-earning spouse.
Its all good stuff.
Then we get to Inheritance Tax mitigation as well. Use of allowances and trusts is normal.
Tax planning is all about making full use of all the reliefs and legitimate schemes that are available. There are things that everyone who has employed or self-employed income can and should be doing. Sadly a lot of people do not do so because it is complex and they fail to understand what opportunities they have. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
12 April 2012 17:16165058keep it up garyc
some fine postings,,,,,ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS