O/T Who's been taken for pillocks

[KerrAvon]

Reading between the lines. The duchy was set up to help out fledgling businesses and the less fortunate. It's invested off shore and somewhat lost sight of what it was meant to do in the first place. The royal family leave all this stuff to financial advisors and weren't party to any possible wrong doing

There are plenty of funds about in which to invest in fledgling businesses. They are, for obvious reasons, high risk, but that goes hand in hand with potential high returns. I would doubt if the Duchy of Lancaster would be looking for such a risk profile.

What possible wrong doing do you have in mind? Exile pulled up when he was asked to jump that particular fence. I don’t think even The Guardian is suggesting wrongdoing over these investments. That’s the sad but funny part of what is going on today; some of the real stories are being overlooked because of the non-story highlighted in this thread.

[KerrAvon]

The papers showed how some of the world’s wealthiest individuals and businesses had been able to shelter their money in companies that did not bear their name, buy luxury goods and homes at cheaper prices, or invest in “vehicles” that kept the tax they paid to a minimum. Most of this was entirely lawful, but that was not the point. A fundamental ethical question: is this fair?
More than 300 economists, including the Nobel prize winner Sir Angus Deaton, signed a letter to world leaders that argued: “The existence of tax havens does not add to overall global wealth or wellbeing; they serve no useful economic purpose.”
Thanks to the Paradise Papers leak, the world will get a chance to scrutinise and pass judgment on the tapestry of schemes and networks politicians say they find so unpalatable – and many ordinary people find offensive and unfair.

But what do you think can be done about it? Are we going to restore colonial rule over Bermuda, BVI and the Turks and Caicos to make them tow the line? And what about other possible offshore jurisdictions such as Andorra, Liechtenstein and the Dutch Antilles? Are we going to invade them to make them conform to UK tax and transparency rules? I think Trump and the American armed forces might be upset if we invaded Delaware.

That there is and easy solution to tax evasion is one of the myths spread by politicians and, in particular, those from the left. As long as there is a multitude of jurisdictions there will be a multitude of tax and regulatory regimes and some of them will be favoured by those who want to minimise their tax liabilities or avoid scrutiny of their affairs.

The existence of tax havens does a great deal for the countries that host them. Have you ever been to Bermuda or the BVI? The wealth on display is incredible (although not equally distributed).

The notion that a clamp down on avoidance and evasion would dramatically increase tax revenues is another fallacy. There is a constant arms race between those who design tax rules and those who seek to find ways to exploit them on behalf of their clients. And if it costs £1.01 to collect an additional £1.00 of tax there is, of course, a net cost to the taxpayer.

[KerrAvon]

I agree entirely Nozzer but do you know what will happen .........feck all
When a pension scheme is used by way of comparison to the Queen & who amongst us has looked at our fund providers
& thus the Queen is not culpable
There are one or two differences here though
1 The Queen employs these people who do the grunt work I dont employ my fund managers
2The Queen has control over them I have little or no control over my fund managers save from raising questions at their next AGM

The question remains Why are these "tax havens" even in existence if not for nefarious practices designed to avoid paying taxes into the exchequer of the country in which the wealth originated
Spin can be put on why but in the end it is entirely wrong but not illegal we will be constantly told

Who do you think pays your fund managers? Do you think they are doing the job for free? Most will be doing an average job and charging you a lot for the privilege. That you don't ask questions and choose to look where your money is invested is your choice, not theirs.

The tax havens exist because the countries that host them do very well out of it and because there will always be a market for their services (by and large, people don't like paying tax, whether you or like it or not).

[KerrAvon]

Aye Steve set up in 1399 apparently so there's some indication of how long we've been shafted
Anybody that has walked past a Brighthouse store & not noticed the obscene interest rates on the most basic of products is either blind or lying & I know which one I believe

So are you saying that you have walked past a Brighthouse store and noticed the obscene interest rates? What remarkable visual acuity you must have; one of the criticisms of Brighthouse is that they hid their interest rates in small print beneath large headline weekly payment figures:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...es-rent-to-own

When you open the link, perhaps you will tell me from the store picture what obscene rates they are charging.

In this article you’ll see another store front and a comment from customer Sasha Rhodes, who didn’t seem to know what interest she would be paying despite it being apparently obvious to anyone walking past a store:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41732865

And to revert to the original thrust of your thread, what are you saying? Do you think the Queen walks past Brighthouse Stores on a regular basis and checks out the interest rates?

Exile, I couldn’t stop you making a prat of yourself even if I wanted to, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I take no pleasure from it. Learn to stop digging when you can’t see the top of the hole

[KerrAvon]

Three things here .

Firstly people do not join up to tax avoidance schemes when starting a pension , that's a deliberate misinterpretation to suit your agenda , the brochure or advise by the provider simply says Pension Fund , not Tax Avoidance plan .

Secondly the vast majority of people do not know where their funds are invested , they simply pay a set amount each month and hope it's enough to get them by in later life .


Thirdly when the pension fund reaches maturity and the person draws money out of the fund each week / month it is then subject to taxation .

As Mr Corbyn pointed out today , when we see such tax avoidance going on it then leaves the rest of us to fund thee country's commitment's to the NHS , Schools , etc etc , funded by and large the people who are not best placed to do the respective funding .


How much tax do you avoid paying kerr ?

1. Well spotted, animal. Pension funds are not generally marketed as tax avoidance schemes even though there is, of course, an element of legal tax avoidance associated with them (or at least there was when I filled in may last tax return and claimed tax relief on my contributions). If you want to pay more tax on your pension savings just stick them in Building Society and let the tax man take his portion.

But what is your point? Who has suggested that pension schemes are marketed in such a way? My point is that customers pay their pension companies to manage their pension and generally take no interest in where their funds have been placed (which information is generally readily available). And yet we are to believe that the Duchy of Lancaster has analysed the funds in which they invest to the nth degree and have, in respect of the tiny portion of the overall amount in Brighthouse. then investigated that company’s business practices. That’s both unrealistic and unfair and, as mentioned above, merely distracts attention from some of the real stories.

2. Well spotted again. The vast amount of people don’t know where there funds are invested. That’s exactly my point. I self-invest my pension because I don’t need to pay an intermediary to do it. Where I have invested in shareholdings I have, for obvious reasons, researched the companies concerned and have, I feel, a good working knowledge of them. It would be unrealistic to expect me to know every detail of their business practices, however. I also invest in some specialist funds, where I have an idea of where the bulk of money goes (because I check out the largest of the investments held by them), but it is entirely possible that there will be offshore elements or investments in companies that I wouldn’t approve of somewhere within the full range of their holdings.

3. Three out of three. When a pension pays out, the income is subject to tax. What’s your point?

The wealthy pay the bulk of tax in his country, so I’m giving The Great Leader nought out of one for his intervention.

[KerrAvon]

Change is a coming , Labour are going to get you , the party is almost over .

Corbyn4PM


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-papers-labour

Maybe in 2022, but who knows? The Great Leader will be getting on a bit by then and the question of the succession will inevitably feature in the election. Not many people will fancy the thought of Chairperson Abbott taking over. That's the problem with personality cults. Ask post Farage UKIP if you don't want to believe me.

But what will Labour do? At the minute they are just like the Tories in mouthing platitudes about this issue, but haven’t explained what they think they could or will do about it. In what way are they going to 'get you'? Please expand upon your analysis.

[KerrAvon]

If I remember Animal I think his plumber doesn't charge him VAT as it's cash in hand

A central heating engineer certainly offered me a 'cash price'. For professional reasons, it would have been unwise for me to accept.

This neatly demonstrates the point about how difficult it is to stop tax evasion. Vast amounts are lost through the operation of this 'black economy' but short of making all heating engineers wear body worn video cameras or GPS trackers, it is virtually undetectable.

[Nozzer1953]

Well perhaps we could try by
Increasing the resources available to HMRC to enforce UK tax legislation
■ Stopping the practice of granting amnesties to those who hide their money tax offshore
■ Abolishing ‘non-dom’ status
■ Tightening the regulation of accountants, lawyers and bankers
■ Introducing public registers of beneficial ownership for trusts as well as companies, and compelling the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories to do the same
■ Mandating public country-by-country reporting for all publicly quoted companies
■ Publicly reviewing tax breaks for corporates and wealthy individuals

[Exiletyke]

The very least the Queen should is to allow Brighthouse to use "by appointment"

[lk311]

Makes me chuckle how people seem to think the Queen has a clue what goes on.
Do you really think she even sits down and reviews her earnings, expenditure etc, let alone where it performs.