Gipsy family made £2m and dodged £500,000 tax
Discussion
martin84 said:
I dont go out of my way to avoid tax. My main problem with the system is the big boys can get away with murder by having a cosey chat with the HMRC chief and paying for tea with CMD, but the self employed gardener who does the Government out of £50 due to a spot of 'over estimating purchasing' soon gets the full wrath of the powers that be. HMRC are afraid of big business, so they pick on the smaller kid in the playground. 'Oh no they might leave the UK if we make them actually pay some tax' 
Ain't that the truth. I believe the banking maxim goes "you owe them ten grand, you're f***ed. You owe them a billion, they're f***ed"It's called Vodafone having them over a barrel and giving it to them hard...
Greg_D said:
martin84 said:
I dont go out of my way to avoid tax. My main problem with the system is the big boys can get away with murder by having a cosey chat with the HMRC chief and paying for tea with CMD, but the self employed gardener who does the Government out of £50 due to a spot of 'over estimating purchasing' soon gets the full wrath of the powers that be. HMRC are afraid of big business, so they pick on the smaller kid in the playground. 'Oh no they might leave the UK if we make them actually pay some tax'
Ain't that the truth. I believe the banking maxim goes "you owe them ten grand, you're f***ed. You owe them a billion, they're f***ed"It's called Vodafone having them over a barrel and giving it to them hard...
The language doesn't fit, it's pure hyperbole. Remaining within the law on taxation is what's expected, if individuals or corporations don't do that then fire away - until then dream on.
turbobloke said:
So on that basis 31 million UK taxpayers have HMRC over a barrel to the tune of £50bn? And that's just for the lowest tax allowance.
The language doesn't fit, it's pure hyperbole. Remaining within the law on taxation is what's expected, if individuals or corporations don't do that then fire away - until then dream on.
The language doesn't fit, it's pure hyperbole. Remaining within the law on taxation is what's expected, if individuals or corporations don't do that then fire away - until then dream on.
Levity - look it up
fluffnik said:
Interestingly enough the only correlation between heavy cellphone use and brain cancer that I'm aware of occurred in rural Scandinavia where the lack of signal strength requires the handsets to transmit on high power... 
Take this example:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22350528
This is a review of the literature on the effects of mobile phone use on reproductive potential.
review said:
PURPOSE:
The radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) produced by cell phones can enhance the excitability of the brain and has recently been classified as carcinogenic. The suggested use of hands-free kits lowers the exposure to the brain, but it might theoretically increase exposure to the reproductive organs. This report summarizes the potential effects of RF-EMR on reproductive potentials in both males and females.
METHODS:
A critical review of the literature pertaining to the impact of cell phone RF-EMR on reproduction in male and female animals and humans was performed, with a focus on gonad metabolism, apoptosis of reproductive cells, fertility status, and serum reproductive hormones.
RESULTS:
While some animal and human studies revealed alterations in reproductive physiology in both males and females, others did not report any association. The in vitro and in vivo studies to date are highly diverse, very inconsistent in conduct and, in many cases, report different primary outcomes.
CONCLUSION:
The increasing use of cell phone warrants well-designed studies to ascertain the effect of their RF-EMR on reproduction.
The bold doesn't really support the idea that there are thousands of well constructed studies on this does it?The radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) produced by cell phones can enhance the excitability of the brain and has recently been classified as carcinogenic. The suggested use of hands-free kits lowers the exposure to the brain, but it might theoretically increase exposure to the reproductive organs. This report summarizes the potential effects of RF-EMR on reproductive potentials in both males and females.
METHODS:
A critical review of the literature pertaining to the impact of cell phone RF-EMR on reproduction in male and female animals and humans was performed, with a focus on gonad metabolism, apoptosis of reproductive cells, fertility status, and serum reproductive hormones.
RESULTS:
While some animal and human studies revealed alterations in reproductive physiology in both males and females, others did not report any association. The in vitro and in vivo studies to date are highly diverse, very inconsistent in conduct and, in many cases, report different primary outcomes.
CONCLUSION:
The increasing use of cell phone warrants well-designed studies to ascertain the effect of their RF-EMR on reproduction.
Also this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20589524
appears to contradict your statement that the only correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer was found in Sweden.
abstract said:
Some concern has arisen about adverse health effects of cell phones, especially the possibility that the low power microwave-frequency signal transmitted by the antennas on handsets might cause brain tumors or accelerate the growth of subclinical tumors. We analyzed data from the Statistical Report: Primary Brain Tumors in the United States, 2000-2004 and 2007 cell phone subscription data from the Governing State and Local Sourcebook. There was a significant correlation between number of cell phone subscriptions and brain tumors in nineteen US states (r = 0.950, P < 0.001). Because increased numbers of both cell phone subscriptions and brain tumors could be due solely to the fact that some states, such as New York, have much larger populations than other states, such as North Dakota, multiple linear regression was performed with number of brain tumors as the dependent variable, cell phone subscriptions, population, mean family income and mean age as independent variables. The effect of cell phone subscriptions was significant (P = 0.017), and independent of the effect of mean family income (P = 0.894), population (P = 0.003) and age (0.499). The very linear relationship between cell phone usage and brain tumor incidence is disturbing and certainly needs further epidemiological evaluation. In the meantime, it would be prudent to limit exposure to all sources of electro-magnetic radiation.
Edited by Driller on Thursday 7th June 12:13
Driller said:
Also this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20589524
appears to contradict your statement that the only correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer was found in Sweden.
That study's nonsense. Despite the guff in the abstract all they've done is shown that a statistic related to population size (phone contracts) correlates with number of brain tumours. Well no shttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20589524
appears to contradict your statement that the only correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer was found in Sweden.
t. [quote=abstact]Because increased numbers of both cell phone subscriptions and brain tumors could be due solely to the fact that some states, such as New York, have much larger populations than other states, such as North Dakota, multiple linear regression was performed with number of brain tumors as the dependent variable, cell phone subscriptions, population, mean family income and mean age as independent variables.[\quote]
I thought that too but doesn't this explain that away?
Anyway, there are still not enough studies on all of this which was what the point was.
Oh yeah, and it's "peer reviewed nonesense btw"
eta bks ipad formatting
I thought that too but doesn't this explain that away?
Anyway, there are still not enough studies on all of this which was what the point was.
Oh yeah, and it's "peer reviewed nonesense btw"
eta b
ks ipad formattingEdited by Driller on Thursday 7th June 13:07
Driller said:
Because increased numbers of both cell phone subscriptions and brain tumors could be due solely to the fact that some states, such as New York, have much larger populations than other states, such as North Dakota, multiple linear regression was performed with number of brain tumors as the dependent variable, cell phone subscriptions, population, mean family income and mean age as independent variables.
I thought that too but doesn't this explain that away?
Anyway, there are still not enough studies on all of this which was what the point was.
Oh yeah, and it's "peer reviewed nonesense btw"
eta bks ipad formatting
Sadly peer review doesn't always rule out stuff being bI thought that too but doesn't this explain that away?
Anyway, there are still not enough studies on all of this which was what the point was.
Oh yeah, and it's "peer reviewed nonesense btw"
eta b
ks ipad formattingks. Here's a published response to that paper; http://www.springerlink.com/content/d45u35527028g1...I think there are plenty of studies to be honest. There's no plausible mechanism, little to no evidence of an effect. You have to give up looking at some point! Anyway all off topic...
BJG1 said:
It's not as clear-cut as legal tax avoidance with Vodaphone at all though is it? Ask the Indian Government what they think of their complex tax strategies.
Why not?Something is either legal or it isn't.
If the UK's tax laws are so complicated that HMRC can't work out the tax due properly and have to enter into a deal, that is hardly Vodafone's issue.
On the India thing, isn't that Vodafone fighting retrospective tax laws? I don't know the full ins and outs, but if it is I would have thought they are to be applauded. Govts should not be allowed to tax retrospectively - imagine you get paid your salary. Then 6yrs later the tax man knocks at your door and asks for another 10% on those earnings....
hairykrishna said:
Driller said:
Because increased numbers of both cell phone subscriptions and brain tumors could be due solely to the fact that some states, such as New York, have much larger populations than other states, such as North Dakota, multiple linear regression was performed with number of brain tumors as the dependent variable, cell phone subscriptions, population, mean family income and mean age as independent variables.
I thought that too but doesn't this explain that away?
Anyway, there are still not enough studies on all of this which was what the point was.
Oh yeah, and it's "peer reviewed nonesense btw"
eta bks ipad formatting
Sadly peer review doesn't always rule out stuff being bI thought that too but doesn't this explain that away?
Anyway, there are still not enough studies on all of this which was what the point was.
Oh yeah, and it's "peer reviewed nonesense btw"
eta b
ks ipad formattingks. Here's a published response to that paper; http://www.springerlink.com/content/d45u35527028g1...I think there are plenty of studies to be honest. There's no plausible mechanism, little to no evidence of an effect. You have to give up looking at some point! Anyway all off topic...
As far as "no plausible mechanism goes" hats off to you, I know you're someone in the know but any electronic device that gives me a headache is proof enough for me that there is one.
Driller said:
Fair enough for that study and for me it's further proof that more proper studies need to be done. I've have trawled Pubmed and I jut can't find all these studies.
There are loads. The HPA report on RF radiation risks references many of them, probably a good starting spot; http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/131...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff