Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 8:14:45 GMT
Apparently, HMTQ via her investment advisers, is doing something perfectly legal and something most of us would do if we could afford it namely tax avoidance. Margaret Hodge is apparently shocked "As we all are" apparently. No interest in the views of a self obsessed fool but when they decide to suggest everyone else share her small minded view I wonder about the depth of stupidity. Why be shocked at someone paying as little as they can via legitimate means? Sorry, early on a monday I know. The non event is all the poorer due to the fact HMTQ does not need to pay tax at all apparently. Bah, humbug, everton mints even.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 6, 2017 8:40:47 GMT
Basically a small percentage of Her Maj's diversified investment portfolio is in one of these schemes. Big whoop.
|
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Nov 6, 2017 9:26:28 GMT
A non story to me. I also note that Margaret Hodge is too much of a wimp to call out the queen and blames her advisers. If it was anyone else the media would be in fits of rage on that individual, Ashcroft and Carr being examples.
To be honest I could do with investigating these schemes myself. It does seem that less folk are targeted with putting more into the system for the government to piss large portions of it away. Not that I blame the government in full. Any attempts at tightening the purse strings is met with outrage from the media.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Nov 6, 2017 10:05:26 GMT
I am afraid that the army of those who are anti tax avoidance don't really understand the concept. There are legal reliefs and rules available to all which offer opportunities to reduce tax liabilities.
Things such as saving in an ISA, paying into a pension, receiving child care vouchers and for those who are wealthy and have spare funds, the ability to allow the funds to grow in a low tax environment are all legal and to some degree could be termed tax avoidance.
Parliament is supposed to determine what is acceptable and what is not and design policies and laws which allow them to get the result they want: always a balancing act between keeping people motivated to earn, motivated to spend and motivated (or at least not dissuaded) to live and pay tax in the UK. That is part of the job of Government and if it isn't working the way they want it then it's their fault which they need to sort. I consider sorting the economy and dealing with Brexit to be considerably more important to the country than the current side show of who put who's hand on who's leg (although there are obviously some deeper issues here)
Unfortunately in the UK, tax policy is never well thought out and the sledge hammer is normally used to crack the relatively small nut. So for those shouting to stop the "avoidance" or the use of perfectly legal methods, how will they feel if all the reliefs they receive are suddenly pulled. Just because those who have more money are able to utilise some different tax minimising methods doesn't make them wrong and it shows that the politics of envy are well and truly alive and being exploited in a way which is economical with the truth.
For the avoidance of doubt I am neither wealthy enough nor knowledgeable enough to be involved in any of these avoidance methods other than having an ISA and a pension fund. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 10:24:11 GMT
I am not sure how far the revenue went along the lines of mandating prior approval to the more oddball/dubious (delete as applicable) tax avoidance vehicles, but this is where a lot of conflict seems to emerge - that and investing via overseas channels, as opposed to just holding money nominally overseas. Pre-approval is a good idea. Pension schemes have to be registered, and I see no reason why things intended to exploit the rules shouldn't be vetted in advance rather than further down the line when all they do is sully what might otherwise be good names and reduce confidence in the financial, taxation and regulatory systems.
For even further avoidance of doubt (!), I only use pension and ISA myself, and can't recall the last time I arranged an offshore investment for a client - must be 10-15 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2017 12:12:35 GMT
It's nothing more than muck-raking based on information obtained by criminal means. Pure and simple.
By all means tighten the rules. But don't try to paint perfectly legal activity as morally reprehensible behaviour just because you happen to disagree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Nov 6, 2017 12:26:44 GMT
I think there are two whole sides to the offshore industry.
The legal side -
If you are UK resident for tax, then any income from overseas investments, bank accounts, property, whatever (be they in a tax haven or not) have to be declared and tax paid at UK rates. Where there are double tax treaties, you may get relief for any overseas tax already paid. In theory overseas investment companies in tax havens might give higher returns as they pay no tax locally, so leaving more to distribute. And if they only roll up profits and pay no income out to holders, then the tax is rolled forward until you decide to repatriate the money and pay Capital Gains Tax. So you could say it is avoiding paying UK tax in that you defer it till later years. So you could argue it is pretty much like a pension fund - rolling up untaxed.
With offshore investments you also get secrecy (well until they get hacked....) and maybe a different / better legal systems to your home country or protection from the whims of your home legal or political system (if you're Russian for example).
A lot of US wealthy people use offshore investments or holding companies as they can avoid the high rates of US tax on company profits.
As John says, if governments don't like it is up to them to make laws. Not moan. Many people clearly do it as they feel that the rate of tax they are being asked to pay is too high or worth avoiding in some way. If tax rates are low, people don't need to bother.
The dodgy side -
Now, if you don't declare the income, that's evasion and you deserve all you get.
Or more likely you want to hide money you got by ill gotten methods or some wheeze - I think that was what a lot of the Panam stuff was about when it came out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 13:01:22 GMT
There is, what seems to me, to be a lot of postulating by some so called 'public figures', rather similar to the exaggerated grimaces of the gladiators in the arena. What is really going on to my mind is a bunch of self important muppets trying to come across as being on the side of the common person against the moneyed and privileged elite. Sad whatever it is supposed to achieve and only swallowed by muppets, or news folk, ok muppets then.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2017 13:09:29 GMT
There is, what seems to me, to be a lot of postulating by some so called 'public figures', rather similar to the exaggerated grimaces of the gladiators in the arena. What is really going on to my mind is a bunch of self important muppets trying to come across as being on the side of the common person against the moneyed and privileged elite. Sad whatever it is supposed to achieve and only swallowed by muppets, or news folk, ok muppets then. Amen to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 6, 2017 13:26:56 GMT
There is, what seems to me, to be a lot of postulating by some so called 'public figures', rather similar to the exaggerated grimaces of the gladiators in the arena. What is really going on to my mind is a bunch of self important muppets trying to come across as being on the side of the common person against the moneyed and privileged elite. Sad whatever it is supposed to achieve and only swallowed by muppets, or news folk, ok muppets then. Amen to that. +1
Although Ashcroft in particular comes across as being something of a turd.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Nov 6, 2017 13:34:33 GMT
In theory overseas investment companies in tax havens might give higher returns as they pay no tax locally, so leaving more to distribute. And if they only roll up profits and pay no income out to holders, then the tax is rolled forward until you decide to repatriate the money and pay Capital Gains Tax. So you could say it is avoiding paying UK tax in that you defer it till later years. So you could argue it is pretty much like a pension fund - rolling up untaxed. I have a few clients who utilise these kinds of benefit. If they are currently paying tax at 45%, they would rather roll up the value in their investment and then realise it and pay tax on it at a time of their choosing. This type of behaviour arises because people deem tax rates to be too high.
This reminded me.......In Scotland, the Scottish Government want to introduce up to 6 rates of tax or 6 tax bands and they are currently looking at the best way to collect more tax. As a direct consequence I will be losing a client in the New Year - a very nice Yorkshireman and his wife who have been settled up here for 30 years and had been happy until all the Independence stuff started. He just feels that it is a matter of time before the SNP push for independence again and he also believes that they will push taxes up significantly for the better off. He has a business which can be operated from anywhere and his wife is a highly regarded specialist in her field and in high demand. The Scottish economy will now lose their not insignificant spending power and all their taxes and many people in great need will no longer benefit from her expertise - tax policy does change behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Nov 6, 2017 13:43:17 GMT
There is, what seems to me, to be a lot of postulating by some so called 'public figures', rather similar to the exaggerated grimaces of the gladiators in the arena. What is really going on to my mind is a bunch of self important muppets trying to come across as being on the side of the common person against the moneyed and privileged elite. Sad whatever it is supposed to achieve and only swallowed by muppets, or news folk, ok muppets then. Indeed +1 And I am pretty sure that one Ms Hodge has a family business that was noted for its very low corporation tax rate. |
|
