Jump to content

Why Is That?!!


Tony Le Mesmer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said:

They may have had access when Ford owned Jaguar Land Rover, but not any more.

Oops didn't see this. I'm guessing that part of Intellectual Property was agreed to be handed over during the sale. Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/01/2017 at 10:25, Paul71 said:

I am sure that happens too yes. Unfortunately most of the time either/or is sensationalised in the media with little factual information to back either up.

The problem appears to be that a loop hole can exist so these businesses are actually not doing anything illegal, i suppose however when you close one loop hole they find another. Tax avoidance doesnt just go on at corporate level it goes on across the spectrum, from people doing cash in hand, or putting 'x' receipt down as a cost against their tax returns.

I dare bet we all know someone who has a 'trick' up their sleeve to avoid tax.

I think the issue is that the type of tricks that regular people can employ to avoid a bit of tax is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of tax avoidance that goes on at corporate level.

This report today makes that clear

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38764923

Quote

Since HMRC set up a specialist unit dealing with so-called high net worth individuals in 2009, the amount of income tax they paid had fallen by £1bn, the report said. This was despite income tax receipts from the public as a whole rising by £23bn over the same period.

It was unable to explain why the income tax they paid fell by 20% - from £4.5bn in 2009-10 to £3.5bn in 2014-15 - when the overall income tax take rose by 9% £23bn.

So go figure - for the rest of us income tax take went up 9% but the super-rich managed to find an extra billion quid to avoid tax on between them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

So go figure - for the rest of us income tax take went up 9% but the super-rich managed to find an extra billion quid to avoid tax on between them..

You may be right but the article was talking about high-wealth individuals. Income is taxed, not wealth and it's misleading to assume that a wealthy person will always have a high (and increasing) income.

However unlikely you feel it might be, it's entirely possible that the high wealth individuals' income fell during that period and so their tax due would have fallen too. Not a very good article really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

You may be right but the article was talking about high-wealth individuals. Income is taxed, not wealth and it's misleading to assume that a wealthy person will always have a high (and increasing) income.

However unlikely you feel it might be, it's entirely possible that the high wealth individuals' income fell during that period and so their tax due would have fallen too. Not a very good article really.

But if total wealth is increasing, income must be increasing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

But if total wealth is increasing, income must be increasing?

But it doesn't say that their total wealth is increasing. Even if it was, their income could still be falling.

I'm not saying it's the truth, or even that likely, just that it's a rubbish article for confusing wealth with income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

You may be right but the article was talking about high-wealth individuals. Income is taxed, not wealth and it's misleading to assume that a wealthy person will always have a high (and increasing) income.

However unlikely you feel it might be, it's entirely possible that the high wealth individuals' income fell during that period and so their tax due would have fallen too. Not a very good article really.

Yes I see your point. I was really just posting it as an example of how high earners and large corporations seem to be able to afford to pay expensive accountants and tax advisers to maximise their income and minimise their tax burden.

I think we all know that the problem is with the system and if what they are doing is legal then we'd all do the same if we had the money. The fact that the HMRC have so much resource assigned to investigate the tax affairs of the wealthy, yet it doesn't appear to be making much difference is a worry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...