It is not just William Wright who thinks the BBC employees lean tothe political left in their voting preference

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
It all goes back to the image of the "evil" tax collectors
of the crown or empire extorting money from the peasants.

In percentage terms a mediaeval surf paid less tax than a modern surf
(ie me and thee).

Not disputing that. Would you like a list of the services now provided by
the state via taxation that didn't exist then?

--
*No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Robin
wrote:
IIRC we'd need first to the repudiate the ECHR (and hence exit the
EU). Mmmmmm....if only.

Afraid it isn't clear to my why that would be needed.

OT warning: this is more about the boring tax stuff.

Let's suppose someone comes up with a scheme for aerial riggers to avoid
tax. (Some should of course be exempt from tax altogether for services
to Usenet but that's a separate issue.)

The scheme starts with the rigger selling his vans, ladders, meters and
other plant and machinery to a bank and leasing them back. (Any
similarity to schemes actually used in the past is purely coincidental.)

You seem to think legislation could stop the rigger doing so until HMRC
has passed the scheme. But Article 1 of the ECHR gives the rigger the
right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (which includes
selling them).

No. He'd be free to sell things. Just not to expect this to have any affect
on his tax unless said scheme was accepted in advance by HMRC for that
purpose. 'Leasing' the equivalent of what he 'sold' could be a scam.

Of course if the 'leasing' was costing him far more than simply buying,
then his income would fall and we'd have to get the tax from the company
'leasing' him the equipment as we taxed their UK revenue from this. If the
rigger wants to reduce his income to pay less tax accordingly and have
someone else make the profit, I guess that is his choice. Seems a weird
sign of being almost paranoid about not paying tax, though. Cutting his own
throat. But it is his throat, I suppose... :-)

While the Article does allow states to control the use of property to
secure the payment of taxes, IIRC that is thought not to permit a
blanket ban on genuine sales unless and until "passed" by the state.

Ah "genuine", eh? Wonder how he'd establish that in advance with HMRC in
such a case...

Many things can be said by lawyers to be "thought". That doesn't make them
all 'true' though. Lawyers are like dice, are they not?[1]... You pay
them, and they give you the "thought" that suits you... :-)


Let's suppose the scheme to reduce the tax burden on aerial riggers is
dreamt up by a Hong Kong bank. They advertise it on their website -
hosted on Hong Kong servers. I cannot see how UK legislation can stop
them doing that. Nor can we stop a UK aerial rigger seeing it. And we
can't prosecute a HK bank for selling intellectual property to the UK -
eg sending an email to the rigger.

But the idea is that UK rigger can't "buy" the scheme and **use** it for
tax purposes withough HMRC having accepted in advance that the scheme is
acceptable to HMRC as a legitimate one in tax terms. Nothing stops him from
paying ther Hong Kong bank, and them taking his money, though. Just that he
would not be allowed to benefit from it in tax terms *unless and until*
HMRC had accepted such a scheme was OK.

So we have to make it illegal (a criminal offence?) for the aerial
rigger to buy advice on how to manage his business tax-efficiently
unless HMRC has sanctioned that advice in advance?

Nope. People can buy whatever "advice" they wish. Their problem is when the
advice is a crock, the sellers won't indemnify them against that, and hide
the fact that the scheme won't work. The government doesn't have to prevent
the greedy and stupid from "always" wasting their money. :-)


Quite apart from the ECHR, fundamental freedoms etc , HMRC would
collapse under the weight of all those pre-transaction clearances.

ahem Maybe the fact that those who wanted to get such schemes approved
would have to *pay HMRC* for the approval process might help with the fear
of a log-jam here. :-) They pay up-front, and lose the payment if the
scheme is eventually refused. Their choice. They payments would create
employment as HMRC took on people to assess all the submitted schemes -
paid for by those submitting them. The rest of us could even make a profit
in terms of lower tax due to the income from such payments. What a terrible
outcome. :-)

But if you think your scheme might run there is a new review of a GAAR
which I expect will be open for suggestions in the new year
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget-updates/gaar.htm

I doubt I'm the first person to suggest such ideas. I also doubt the
goverment would do it. But I think the reason they won't is that the rich
and powerful would make it hard for them to do so. There is a curious
overlap between "off shore tax dodging", "owning newspapers that tell
people who to vote for", and "bankrolling politicians". IIRC there was a
recent Tory Party treasurer who also became a Lord... Did he ever pay UK
tax as his mates said he would?... Or did they just obfuscate and play
word-games about it for a decade or so?... Funny old world, eh? :-)

Slainte,

Jim

[1] I assume you have read "The Devil's Dictionary". :-)

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Do you think it's OK for someone to exploit a "loophole" that enables them
to buy something, without breaking any laws, at a low price, when the same
thing is available at higher prices elsewhere?

Rod.

This actually happens, see :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-A...hannel_Islands

The upshot is that many mainland UK based music & video shops have been
put out of business by the likes of play.com expoiting this loophole.

CDs & videos imported in bulk to the UK, are shipped to the Channel
Islands so that they can be re-shipped back to the UK.

Incidentally, if anyone knows an easy way to close the "loopholes" without
buggering the economy then HM Treasury and HMRC would be happy to engage them
- and most if not all fiscs from OECD member states will be in the queue.

Prior to her death the Queen Mother argued with Treasury officials that
her estate ( estimated @ £250-300 million ) should not have inheritance
tax imposed on it. She said that it was for the benefit of her
grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Surely HM Treasury could just have said "F**k off!" It would'nt have
needed any legislation to be passed.

No prizes for guessing what actually happened. One law for the rich
etc.

In article ,
alanp wrote:
Incidentally, if anyone knows an easy way to close the "loopholes"
without buggering the economy then HM Treasury and HMRC would be happy
to engage them - and most if not all fiscs from OECD member states
will be in the queue.

Prior to her death the Queen Mother argued with Treasury officials that
her estate ( estimated @ £250-300 million ) should not have inheritance
tax imposed on it. She said that it was for the benefit of her
grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Surely HM Treasury could just have said "F**k off!" It would'nt have
needed any legislation to be passed.

No prizes for guessing what actually happened. One law for the rich
etc.

and where is the reference for this story?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:43:39 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Furthermore, I do not 'whinge'. I complain.

That's another of those irregular verbs minister. I complain, you whinge...
Yes, thankyou Bernard.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:13:12 +0000, Mark wrote:
Taxation should not be avoided
Everybody, no matter what level of income, always tends to avoid
paying more tax that is required by law.

We have a moral duty so to do, because the state wastes money, thus the
more tax that's paid the poorer the nation becomes.

How fortunate we all are that the Banks, and big companies like those who
run the railways, etc, never ever waste any money. :-)

They do, of course, inevitably. But I find private industry far more
canny with their money than any state-backed outfit. And I think I'm in
a fairly good position to generalise.

Bill

On Saturday, December 18th, 2010 at 10:35:54h +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

When I now tell you I don't have a car you'll know how weird I am. 8-]

You drive a pick-up truck instead?

Probably with bull bars and a gun rack in the back.

Nothing weird about that, especially for the wild boonies of Scotland.

On Saturday, December 18th, 2010 at 10:31:22h +0000, Richard Tobin wrote:

I don't want the state to waste money, but when they do it doesn't
generally make "the nation" poorer, it just redistributes it in ways
that we may not agree with.

This is just so true.

Consider the case of welfare families being paid to live in very
expensive houses.

Probably these very expensive houses would be much less likely to be occupied
and so less likely to generate revenue for the wealthy people who own them.

Therefore the councils are doing these wealthy people a financial favor by
paying money to them in the form of rent.

Now after the Great Oktober Socialist Revolution, the wealthy aristocracy
had to share their mansions with the ordinary needy people.

You never see Buckingham Palace with all of its empty rooms being opened up
to the desperate homeless in the freezing cold in the middle of winter, do you?

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:00:30 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

But I find private industry far more canny with their money than any
state-backed outfit.

As the great personal wealth generated by Jack Abramoff and
Bernie Madoff demonstrates.