Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
you agree with reg peter??
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
3421, Well, yes and no. The quoted eurobond exemption is necessary to enable large companies' debt to be freely traded in the market. What we need to stop is the abuse of the exemption by companies who issue listed bonds to their parent companies purely to take advantage of the exemption. By international agreement, interest on quoted eurobonds is taxed in the country of the holder, and withholding taxes are not applied. If we did away with the exemption unilaterally, British eurobonds would become illiquid, making borrowing more expensive for our large companies, and investors with a tax rate below that of our withholding tax rate would cease to buy them. We would also be in violation of dozens of bilateral tax treaties.
I have often suggested that cross-border payments to connected parties which are not genuine arms-length transactions should be taxed. But it's a problem of enforcement. I'm sure Charlie, with his tax knowledge, could put his thinking cap on and come up with a suitable clause for the next Finance Bill. Alternatively HMRC could get off their fat arses and deem such arrangements artificial. They've done it to the small man where self-employment is concerned, but they seem to be nervous about tackling the big fish. And that's under governments of both colours.
The trouble is that chancellors, and the civil servants who advise them, have been too dim to foresee how people can abuse tax concessions which are usually granted for the right reasons.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Peter
i share your view on the HM c of e
which is probably where the thread comes from
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
JP Morgan agrees to $5.1bn fine with mortgage regulator
Deal settles lawsuit brought by Federal Housing Finance Agency - but has still to agree on bond sales fine
The JP Morgan headquarters in New York. Photograph: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters
JP Morgan reached a $5.1bn (£3.2bn) settlement with the US mortgage company regulator on Friday as the bank continues to negotiate with the justice department over what is expected to be an even larger fine related to bond sales.
The deal settles a lawsuit brought by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates government-backed loan firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The FHFA alleged JP Morgan misled Fannie and Freddie about the quality of mortgages it sold to them during the housing boom. The settlement included $4bn to end a lawsuit over securities disclosures and $1.1bn covering mortgage repurchases.
Full story Guardian.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
another lot
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Bankers and Finance Johnnies damage our economic health.....
PPI claims push Lloyds back into red
Group records pre-tax losses of £440m in the third quarter of the year, compared with a £151m loss in the same period last year
State-backed Lloyds Banking Group fell back into the red as provision for the payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling scandal soared to more than £8 billion.
The group, which is 33 per cent owned by the taxpayer, recorded statutory pre-tax losses of £440 million in the third quarter of the year, compared with a £151 million loss in the same period last year.
Full story Independent.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
we pay
for there poor management
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
They are a cartel ..............
Big Six energy producers under fire over excessive profits ahead of grilling by MPs
Report accuses firms of artificially inflating prices through lack of competition.
Energy bills are being artificially inflated by a lack of competition in the supply market, according to a damning new report, which argues increased competition could cut £70 off the average annual dual-fuel bill by 2020.
On the day MPs are due to grill representatives of the Big Six energy providers, IPPR, the think-tank behind the report, is calling for "greater fairness in terms of costs charged to energy consumers".
It also finds that the gap between the most and least efficient energy supplier has widened since 2007.
Will Straw, an associate director of IPPR, said: "The key question for the Big Six is why profits of 5 to 6 per cent are acceptable in a competitive market. In 1998, as the market was liberalised, the regulator believed 1.5 per cent was an adequate margin for energy suppliers. Profits in other sectors like supermarkets are as low as 2 per cent."
Full story Independent.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
its called greed reg
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
The labour party could have prevented the rip of privatisation But chose to do nothing.
And they encouraged privatisation of royal male
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
The damage caused is never ending...
Eurobond tax scandal: Tax avoidance figure is just 'the tip of the iceberg', Margaret Hodge tells HMRC
Public accounts committee grills tax officials over botched figures
Senior tax officials were criticised by MPs yesterday because their estimate of £35bn lost every year in unpaid tax is just "the tip of the iceberg", as it does not include the use of legal avoidance schemes such as the one most recently reported in The Independent.
Officials from HM Revenue and Customs were interrogated by The Committee of Public Accounts at a hearing in Westminster over its failure to claw back tax from big businesses. Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the committee, listed all the legal tax avoidance schemes used by household names that would not be included in HMRC's calculation of the tax gap and said, "at the moment, therefore, your tax gap is clearly the tip of the iceberg".
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Why didn't the labour party stop this when in government ??
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
So many scandals
and we often end up paying
why??
Keithb
The old labour party is as guilty thats correct
but the present cobbled together lot have had opportunity to do something about it
instead they get involved infighting
of course we can then see from the county elections
the protest party just looked after themselves and allowances once in office
so there all the same
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
So who will you be voting for then ?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
answered that
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
parachute girl kiethb.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Vote Clair get Albania
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
and Russia as well kieth.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
i wont be voting labour
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Energy firms 'overcharge by £3.7bn a year'
MPs told that some suppliers cannot justify increases in household bill
Some of Britain's biggest energy companies have been accused of raising households bills for no reason and systematically overcharging customers by £3.7bn a year as they were grilled by MPs over their soaring prices and profits.
They were taken to task by Stephen Fitzpatrick, the chief executive of small supplier Ovo Energy, who launched a stinging attack on his larger rivals for being "the best filibusters in the business" when it comes to revealing how they make their money.
After British Gas, npower, SSE and Scottish Power announced inflation-busting increases in household bills, Fitzpatrick said he "cannot explain any of these price rises" as his company is buying gas for 7% less than it was two years ago.
The four companies that have raised bills in recent weeks are under increasing pressure to justify their higher prices after figures from the regulator Ofgem showed that network costs have risen by just £15 since last year, wholesale costs by £10 and green costs by £10.
During the hearing MPs criticised the companies' executives for accepting large bonuses while putting up prices year after year and failing in their duties to protect poor households who have to choose between heating and eating.
Full story Guardian.