Jetpilot Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 So with the news of offshore accounts (hardly new news) and tax avoidance i thought i would ask, whats peoples views? Personally, if companies are trading from the UK they should pay the correct tax, but i have zero problems with personal offshore accounts, imho, if your taxed on your earnings that should be it, no capital gains tax etc especially at the rate its at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richf Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 If its illegal then they shouldnt do it , if its immoral then the law should be changed to make it illegal imo 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted April 8, 2016 Author Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) The problem is which is clearly apparent, there are so many ways around the law, i cant see it ever being a closed book, if there are loopholes, people will find and exploit them. Edited April 8, 2016 by Jetpilot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS8055 Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Working in Luxembourg myself, where I am sure you are aware that companies are benefiting from our tax benefits, I'd like to say I have no comment on the matter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted April 8, 2016 Author Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) ^^^ Good answer I watched that programme a while back about how to circumnavigate the system, one office block had something like 40k companies registered there!!!! Imho its no different to F1 drivers "living" in Monaco to avoid tax. Edited April 8, 2016 by Jetpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS8055 Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Yeah, assuming you know of the pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline? They employ over 16,000 people across the UK... their London office alone must have over 1,000 employees... in Luxembourg? I had no idea that their office was less than 500 metres away from my house! It's a small house and they have approximately 4-5 employees! Hilarious. And yet they save 10's of millions of £ on tax breaks every year due to Luxembourg offering them a deal of a fraction of a percent tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Yeah, assuming you know of the pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline? They employ over 16,000 people across the UK... their London office alone must have over 1,000 employees... in Luxembourg? I had no idea that their office was less than 500 metres away from my house! It's a small house and they have approximately 4-5 employees! Hilarious. And yet they save 10's of millions of £ on tax breaks every year due to Luxembourg offering them a deal of a fraction of a percent tax. GSK has a HUGE office in Brentford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 I just love all the talk about "fair" taxes, then we find out that Cameron and Osbourne (via their immediate family) have both gained from these sorts of offshore schemes. I also really like Camerons response to a question "its a private matter" cant be believe how "double sided" the laws are! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Tbh it's just all bollox isnt it, the poor slobs (us) just get shafted every which way possible. You can't trust any of them. I wonder if VAT will ever come back to 17.5%? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Apparently the fund Cameron was involved with was not tax beneficial but what a plonker for the way he's handled the whole sorry episode Sent from my Zed using Nangkang tyres front, RE040's rear 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 No issues with it at all. The rules are the rules, and if we change them to start making people pay more tax they'll just take their money elsewhere altogether. If I could be bothered to set something up myself, I'd do it too. So would most people, apart from the very staunch comrades. Cameron has done nothing wrong that I can see. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted April 8, 2016 Author Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) What about companies, do you think thats a different kettle of fish or same rules apply, if they can they will and its moral? Edited April 8, 2016 by Jetpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayvn Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Had this debate with the family in laws, and theyre all accountants, they see nothing wrong with what they did, and funnily enough, the UK and USA are the top 2 tax havens compared to the rest of the world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) No issues with it at all. The rules are the rules, and if we change them to start making people pay more tax they'll just take their money elsewhere altogether. If I could be bothered to set something up myself, I'd do it too. So would most people, apart from the very staunch comrades. Cameron has done nothing wrong that I can see. See, thats where you are wrong..... the rules are not simple, they are grey and open to interpretation. Also not all rules apply to MPs. Take for example the new rules on APNs and offshore taxation of contractors (have friends that are struggling with this now). All legal and signed off by the HMRC at the time, now they are applying retrospective taxation to them and issuing APNs to collect the money without completing the legislative side of things at tax tribunal. However, MPs who are known to have participated in the same schemes cannot have APNs issued against them. I only have an issue with it all because of the double sided rules. If they didnt have a problem with offshore taxation of contractors I wouldnt have a problem with this and would probably be trying to sign up (if I could afford it). Its the 2 faced nature of it all..... Cameron and Osbourne preaching about "FAIR" taxation and then this is what their families are doing, and both individuals gained from these arrangements. Edited April 8, 2016 by grahamc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 What about companies, do you think thats a different kettle of fish or same rules apply, if they can they will and its moral? Yup, absolutely the same. The rules are the rules, if you don't like them then change them, but then don't be surprised when companies take their business elsewhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted April 8, 2016 Author Share Posted April 8, 2016 What about companies, do you think thats a different kettle of fish or same rules apply, if they can they will and its moral? Yup, absolutely the same. The rules are the rules, if you don't like them then change them, but then don't be surprised when companies take their business elsewhere. Like Starbucks, Amazon, google and all the others would suddenly stop employing people in the UK and having bases of operation here, sorry dont believe that for one minute, the problem is they are just too big to challenge, scare tactics and nothing more. Good topic of conversation though, are tax evasion and avoidance one and the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 They're still here because it's cheaper than going elsewhere If that changed then yes, they'd have to either leave or increase prices. Starbucks, for example. If they need to find another £500M, there'll just increase the price of their skinny latte by a pound, which means that actually the public are worse off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 They're still here because it's cheaper than going elsewhere If that changed then yes, they'd have to either leave or increase prices. Starbucks, for example. If they need to find another £500M, there'll just increase the price of their skinny latte by a pound, which means that actually the public are worse off. But you have a choice as to whether you buy a latte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Indeed, and if you're fine with the tax they pay then you end up getting stung regardless, just because you like skinny lattes. Or maybe Starbucks would reduce the stores they have, so jobs would be lost and PAYE tax income goes down. Or they source more things from outside the UK to save a few more quid, thus having more money leave the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) Why would you reduce stores & therefore income? If a business makes a profit after tax in a country then they would lose that profit. N'est-ce pas? Edited April 8, 2016 by Flex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 I just love all the talk about "fair" taxes, then we find out that Cameron and Osbourne (via their immediate family) have both gained from these sorts of offshore schemes. I also really like Camerons response to a question "its a private matter" cant be believe how "double sided" the laws are! I find it increasingly hard to tell the difference between "a private matter" and "a conflict of interest" these days 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Why would you reduce stores & therefore income? If a business makes a profit after tax in a country then they would lose that profit. N'est-ce pas? Because you also reduce tax, and if you have a couple of stores that aren't making headline profits then you might as well bin them off, save the hassle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Why would you reduce stores & therefore income? If a business makes a profit after tax in a country then they would lose that profit. N'est-ce pas? Because you also reduce tax, and if you have a couple of stores that aren't making headline profits then you might as well bin them off, save the hassle. Option 1) keep shops open, make 1 million profit after tax Option 2) close stores and make 500k profit after tax. In option 1 you're still cash positive by 500k after tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 No, think of it in percentage terms. If you have three shops in one town, and two are making 95% of the profit and one is just ticking over with 5% and the only reason it was there was to try and wipe Generic Coffee Inc out of town, you might as well just close it. If the extra effort going in isn't worth the payoff, you wouldn't bother, especially if you're hitting another level in tax. I agree Starbucks won't disappear. What they'll do is either scale back investment or alter their arrangements so they play the rules and pay even less tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Yeah if the return was that low then maybe but not if it was a lot bigger, it just wouldn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.