One rule for the rich...

[NormanH]

Well now we see how 'we are all in it together' [:D]

I should have thought of this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10422189/Stephen-Hammond-Conservative-ministers-offshore-deal-cuts-tax-bill.html

[nomoss]

It's all perfectly legal, and I'm sure his Delaware company pays tax in Portugal and the USA on "as much as £2,425 a week"  rent in the summer [;-)]

I wonder what happens to the money from the rent which accumulates in the company?

I guess he has a legal way of moving that around too.

 

 

[AnOther]

When I see these sort of stories I simply want to throw it back to the indignant poster(s) and ask if they really think that they would do any different if in the same position - and I wouldn't believe them if they said no !

[NormanH]

We obviously move in different circles [:D]

[Alan Zoff]

It's the hypocrisy and double standard - as Norman quotes the "We're all in it together" line - that really annoys.

I get similarly agitated when I see a BBC Breakfast presenter badgering an interviewee who wants a pay rise to perhaps £25-£30K pa for a dirty job, and asking how the country can afford it, when the presenter has turned herself into an offshore company to avoid the brunt of UK tax on her million-plus "earnings" for sitting on a warm sofa.

[AnOther]

Blame the rules not those who take advantage and/or benefit from them.

Ditto my earlier comment though, if you were her do you honestly think you would not be doing the same.

In a similar vein this was posted in another forum recently and I gave much the same reply.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483995/NHS-gives-1m-payoff-couple-rehires-them.html[/url]

[Alan Zoff]

If people simply accept the situation, the "rules" are unlikely to be changed.

We hear now that 340 MPs have their energy bills paid for them while their constituents can't afford to heat their homes.

[Rabbie]

It's the politicians who make the rules so If they are seen to be exploiting loopholes then they should be exposed.

[NickP]

[quote user="Rabbie"]It's the politicians who make the rules so If they are seen to be exploiting loopholes then they should be exposed.[/quote]

Would these be the same politicians who want to gag the press? Funny that there's a lot of comment on forums about the "scum press", but when it comes to exposing politicians the papers are expected to do everybody else's dirty work.

[woolybanana]

Norman, I am afraid that your spleen gets the better of you. The issue is not a stupid one of class or wealth which is what you imply, but more complex.

Firstly, should he have acted as he did to secure the property? Well, it is legal, therefore he has that right. Perhaps the rules need changing.

Secondly, should he as an MP be doing this? Well, it is not illegal either, but if his party had made an issue of banning this kind of dealing, then perhaps not?

As a minister in a party which wants to ban this kind of dealing, then he should have divested himself of the place as fast as possible. Maybe he has tried to do so.

He has shown good, legal initiative, so why be jealous why spit your bile at him? Wouls you be happier is he had decided to have 15 kids and sponged off the taxpayer, saying it is the duty of the government to pay for his brats?

[Quillan]

[quote user="AnOther"]Blame the rules not those who take advantage and/or benefit from them.

Ditto my earlier comment though, if you were her do you honestly think you would not be doing the same.

In a similar vein this was posted in another forum recently and I gave much the same reply.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483995/NHS-gives-1m-payoff-couple-rehires-them.html[/url]
[/quote]

My friend’s sister has held several middle to upper middle management positions in NHS trusts and has been made redundant about three times since I have known her. Each time she gets a payout, not as much as these guys by far but in the high 5 figures. What they don't mention in the article is the pension in to which they get added more 'shares' as part of their redundancy. Each time she is made redundant she is normally out of work for about six weeks then goes back to work in a different health authority either under the same conditions or with a higher salary. Most will even pay for her resettlement in her new area, moving costs etc. To my mind it puts a whole new look on 'jobs for the boys' (or in this case girl). Seems once your in the NHS at this level your in for life and it is 'happy days'.

[woolybanana]

Isnt the government going to stop this little racket?

[Tancrède]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Well, it is legal, therefore he has that right. Perhaps the rules need changing. [/quote]

Exactly.

It is axiomatic for any libertarian society that laws should be certain, and that if one obeys those laws, then they cannot come after you for it.

In 1929 Lord Clyde, Lord President of the Court of Session, made a memorable and defining statement of the freedoms that we enjoy in this respect.

No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue.

On the other side of the Atlantic Judge Learned Hand echoed this opinion in 1934.

Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

[quote user="woolybanana"]The issue is not a stupid one of class or wealth…[/quote]

Quite. 

It is an issue of our freedom under the law, to make such choices as the law permits, without fear of arbitrary confiscation or malicious revenge on the part of the authorities. 

For an egregious example of such malicious revenge, we might cast our minds back to the events of 1975 when a large number of subscribers to the television service (not, I think, an outstandingly wealthy or dizzyingly aristocratic constituency), acted with perfect legality to obtain their television licences earlier than necessary in order to avoid a massive increase in the fee proposed by Roy Jenkins, and due to be implemented on the 1st April that year. 

(I suppose, in the self-righteous terminology currently fashionable, such action would be called 'aggressive evasion'.)

Some of us will perhaps remember Woy's unpleasant and degrading spittle-flecked 'nutty' at being outflanked, and his determination to punish those who had taken prudent and perfectly legal steps to side-step this imposition.

Even more memorable was the splendid and damning judgment given against him by that great defender of our freedoms Lord Denning, in which it was found, correctly, that the Home Office had acted abusively and arbitrarily in attempting to recover further monies from those who had legitimately taken advantage of the more advantageous rate.

 

[nomoss]

[quote user="Quillan"]

[quote user="AnOther"]Blame the rules not those who take advantage and/or benefit from them.

Ditto my earlier comment though, if you were her do you honestly think you would not be doing the same.

In a similar vein this was posted in another forum recently and I gave much the same reply.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483995/NHS-gives-1m-payoff-couple-rehires-them.html[/url]
[/quote]

My friend’s sister has held several middle to upper middle management positions in NHS trusts and has been made redundant about three times since I have known her. Each time she gets a payout, not as much as these guys by far but in the high 5 figures. What they don't mention in the article is the pension in to which they get added more 'shares' as part of their redundancy. Each time she is made redundant she is normally out of work for about six weeks then goes back to work in a different health authority either under the same conditions or with a higher salary. Most will even pay for her resettlement in her new area, moving costs etc. To my mind it puts a whole new look on 'jobs for the boys' (or in this case girl). Seems once your in the NHS at this level your in for life and it is 'happy days'.

[/quote]

 

What a wizz idea it was to split the NHS into trusts [I]

That way, instead of transferring people within the service, they can be fired from one trust, compensated, and rehired by another trust at a better salary ad infinitum [;-)]

A good way of keeping people close and loyal.

I'm not sure that "trust" is an appropriate word for these setups.

 

 

[Hoddy]

There are some really basic unfairnesses that I think could be corrected easily.

For example, our MPs are able to claim for a ‘second home’ in London. There are lots of people in the UK who work away from home and who, as contractors, have to meet their own expenses. I simply don’t understand why MPs should be a special case but equally I don’t see them changing the rules soon.

Hoddy

[NickP]

[quote user="Hoddy"]There are some really basic unfairnesses that I think could be corrected easily. For example, our MPs are able to claim for a ‘second home’ in London. There are lots of people in the UK who work away from home and who, as contractors, have to meet their own expenses. I simply don’t understand why MPs should be a special case but equally I don’t see them changing the rules soon. Hoddy[/quote]

Not really correct, because if your a self employed contractor you claim living and lodging allowance on your tax return, if your employed then the employer foots the bill, unless of course you choose work away from home and pay your own digs.

[NormanH]

Wouls you be happier is he had decided to have 15 kids and sponged off

the taxpayer, saying it is the duty of the government to pay for his

brats?

You language 'sponged off' suggests that you consider that claiming benefits to which one is entitled is worse than legally avoiding paying taxes which would go to support those less well off.

I disagree, believing that someone with enough money to be able to buy a £500,000 second home has more room to manoeuvre financially than someone struggling on the breadline.

No-one has argued that what was done was illegal, just that it is contemptible. I do not see the relevance of   legal judgments to that argument.

[woolybanana]

Perhaps he borrowed most of the money to pay for the second home, Norman.

And, yes, I do regard having huge numbers of kids and claiming allowances for them as being immoral and reprehensible. Three maximum on the State and you pay for the rest, maybe by working.

This does not mean that others' acts are not of doubtful morality by the way.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="NickP"]

[quote user="Hoddy"]There are some really basic unfairnesses that I think could be corrected easily. For example, our MPs are able to claim for a ‘second home’ in London. There are lots of people in the UK who work away from home and who, as contractors, have to meet their own expenses. I simply don’t understand why MPs should be a special case but equally I don’t see them changing the rules soon. Hoddy[/quote]

Not really correct, because if your a self employed contractor you claim living and lodging allowance on your tax return, if your employed then the employer foots the bill, unless of course you choose work away from home and pay your own digs.

[/quote]When I was working as a contractor in the computer industry and was working away from home for some time I was not allowed to claim for travel and accommodation against income tax.  As I was VAT registered I could reclaim the VAT on fuel. That was some time ago so perhaps the rules are now not so strict

[NickP]

Well you must have upset somebody Rabbie. Lodging and living allowance have always been a legitimate claim; as long as you paid it yourself, showed the bills and didn't get reimbursed by the company who contracted you. Maybe I shafted the tax man for 40 years, but I doubt if  I was that clever![:D]

[Rabbie]

[quote user="NickP"]Well you must have upset somebody Rabbie. Lodging and living allowance have always been a legitimate claim; as long as you paid it yourself, showed the bills and didn't get reimbursed by the company who contracted you. Maybe I shafted the tax man for 40 years, but I doubt if  I was that clever![:D][/quote]Don't be so modest[:)].  Because I was working on long-term contracts for a single employer HMRC were taking the view that it wasn't really self-employment. IIRC you could claim for the first month at a location but in a 24 month contract that was just a spit in the ocean

[Russethouse]

We used to have to be careful of those rules about being contracted to one person too, and a few years ago HMRC were particularly hot on it.

What I think is unfair about the MPs situation is they can get an allowance from the taxpayer to subsidise the expense of a second home, but should they make a profit on the buying and selling, they pocket it...surely the profit should be pro rata with HMRC?

Norman, the person in question obviously decided to pay for financial advice, that's something many people could do if they so choose.....I doubt he actually thought it all up himself....

[Alan Zoff]

I thought the point about the thread was not the legality of such measures but the claim made by David Cameron and his party that " we are all in it together". As even the Tory press has reported, the facts suggest otherwise: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/10095574/Super-rich-get-richer-while-everyone-else-gets-poorer.html

[NickP]

You know what "thought" thought don't you Alan. Unfortunately "thought" doesn't allow for thread drift; and without it this and lots of other Anglo/French forums would die.[:D]