Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#1
A big debate took place on the politics show on future pensions,
where it was explained private sector pensions will still be able to gain there pensions at 65 yet it is proposed public sector pensions cant get theres till age 68
the trade union leader stated a person called philip green who had ripped the country off by a quarter of million pounds quite legally, yet hes brought back as a govt advisor.
even though the govt says its cracking down on this type of legal abuse
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#2
Ah yes Phiip Green. He is the famed retail magnate, owner of Top Shop, Burtons and I think BHS as I remember.
He did what a number of the millionaire cabinet members have done too Keef in that they hire fancy lawyers and accountants to minimise their tax burdon..ie they pay less than they should to the state. It is legal, but can they sleep nights.
Dispatches did a programme about this very topic recently which made a number of people uncomfortable...particularly on the frontbenches.
The rest of us lowly mortals have to pay all tax due...and cant wangle out of it as any fancy lawyer would cost us more than we earn or could save by legal jiggery pokery.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
It is Labour stalwart Hutton who has published today a review of public sector pensions and has come out with a range of proposals to make them more affordable.
The public sector are lucky, they will still be able to get a guaranteed proportion of their salary with at least some indexation. They will have to pay a bit more for it, work longer and it will be based on lifetime earnings instead of final salary but they remain far better off than the vast majority of people in the private sector.
By the way Keith. You are able to access your personal pensions from age 55 but it is very unlikely that there will be enough for you to be able to retire on it unless you are very well off indeed and have invested a lot of money.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
PaulB - You dont have to employ high paid lawyers and accountants to minimise tax. A lot of people out there are paying more tax than they should because their affairs are not arranged efficiently. Some good advice from ordinary IFAs or accountants can leave them better off.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#5
paulb;
iv just looked him out of interest our mr green,
sounds like a horrid man
tax avoidance
hiding monies
sweatshop conditions for his workers abroad and in the UK
And wait for it(sit down paulb while you read this bit lol)
in anb interview with the guardian he said
that bloke cant speak english, but what can you expect hes flippen irish
i have taken out the swear words
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#6
"Front benches" Such an egalitarian phrase. Far be it for me to stoop low and mention Party-Politics, but...
Whomsoever employs accountants/IFAs usually does so at their own expense. Who was it/is it that claims such an expense from the public purse?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
JHG - You have made an allegation against me and I will be raising this with my solicitor at a meeting I have with him tomorrow.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
#8
No sense of humour Barry after some of the things you have said on here...well!
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#9
i t.hink you will find barry was joking john
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
#10
To think I wished him a happy birthday on face book the other day,wonder if he will do it back tomorrow!
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
I am actually not joking.
I have taken a copy/paste of the page and I do indeed have a meeting with my solicitor tomorrow, though not arranged specifically for this.
A serious allegation has been made here against a finance professional and I need to consult to see if I should take action and if advised to do so I will.
This is no laughing matter.
Ignorance and stupidity are not a defence in this kind of thing. Making allegations that can impact on a professional's reputation is very serious.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#12
Aaah Chaps Chaps...there is no need to fallout or to suggest anything legal.
Remember if anyone is upset with any item always drop me a line. We are always happy to remove any offending piece. Im sure nobody means to suggest anything untoward in any case but sometimes we all go overboard in the heat of the moment. Ah sure we all do it.
But we can always fix these things up between ourselves within the club. We dont want anyone to fallout..we're just a debating club.
BarryW if you want me to take part of no 7 down let me know.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#13
On another thread who was all in favour of some being able to tell jokes about the disabled etc, but seems to dislike the joke when it is against themselves.
I thought you liked free speech Barry. I am sure we ALL knew John was joking, have you now lost your sense of humour.
Your post on the other thread.
"I have said it before but people are far to quick to take offense or to 'manufacture offense', often on behalf of other people. Besides, there is nothing wrong in being offended every now and then, you at least know you are alive!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
i must admit to being mystified here, my definition of "squirrelling away" is saving money and getting the best interest.
i would have thought that barry's duty was to get the best deal for his client using all possible tax avoidance measures.
we live in confusing times, i checked my oxford dictionary and it only refers to the furry cuddly rodent.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#15
This is a matter of professional conduct, Jan - not a joke. JHG implies I and my clients are dishonest in our professional dealings and I cannot ignore that.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#16
I always considered 'squirreling away' with putting nuts and berries to one side for the winter months and or rainy day. Not too sure that's against the law or whether it constitutes a serious allegation.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#17
I have deleted what was formerly post No7. Hopefully now we can all settle back again to relative peace and tranquility. I myself love peace and tranquility when it breaks out!
We have to remember at all times that posts can be seen further afield and thats where the problems arrise. So posters should always try just to be aware of that, then we dont get into any legal situations.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#18
I would suggest 1. John formally withdraws his comment and apologises for any offence caused, accepting that there was no truth in the implications contained in the post and 2. Barry accepts the apology and we carry on as before, only with all sides being a little more circumspect about what we post and also perhaps not being quite so quick to take offence.
I should warn you though that anyone accusing me of watering the beer will find themselves in court.
Barry have you got the number of that Cayman Islands account I asked you to arrange yet?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#19
I Didnt get to read john's comments, so im unable to form a view.
with regard to other posts and john thinking of withdrawing i find this all a little sad.
john is a labour man but far from a lefty, he sits far more to the middle or right.
that said hes a good old boy who does his bit for Dover and does spin some stuff for the labour party from time to time, something i have warned him about before today.
We have to look at this as jan says, it appears all okay for barryw to offend others that at times are unable to defend themselves, but a tongue in cheek comment and off barryw runs to his solicitor.
We should all remember this is just a friendly club made up of lots of differing opinions some vastly different.
but we should not come on this forum threatening or using our proffessions as a way of stopping people posting.
the posting of threats of solicitors will i'm sure put a lot more people off posting which is not what the forum is al about.
I have found barryw postings at times very offensive but iv told him so in reply and it all ended there.
its all to easy to run off to solicitors.
Although im sure john would apologise and move on, i think unless we come on here as equals and not keep running off to solicitors as soon as we dont like a comment this forum will die.
we are not professionals on here, and all have a bit of banter, and i could understand this dispute if it were anyone else, but barryw, blimay geezer come on.
john im behind yer mate
im all for encouraging people to post
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#20
Very sorry Keith, but it won't do. I agree with you.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson