Tory Peer Bamford under HMRC investigation for £500m

Tory Peer Bamford under HMRC investigation for £500m

Author
Discussion

chrispmartha

15,499 posts

129 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
Sway said:
Killboy said:
Love it. Rayner is all froth at £1500, and Bamford has all the rich person excuses made for him.

Yeah, I know who I'd like them to spend loads of time chasing wink
Nope. No one here has said if he is shown to owe it, he shouldn't pay.

Big difference here is he's had the decency to step down from the Lords whilst being investigated...
Well no, isn't the big difference that he he is actually being investigated by HMRC

Sway

26,279 posts

194 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
Killboy said:
Love it. Rayner is all froth at £1500, and Bamford has all the rich person excuses made for him.

Yeah, I know who I'd like them to spend loads of time chasing wink
Nope. No one here has said if he is shown to owe it, he shouldn't pay.

Big difference here is he's had the decency to step down from the Lords whilst being investigated...
Well no, isn't the big difference that he he is actually being investigated by HMRC
So was Rayner.

J4CKO

41,585 posts

200 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
Sway said:
J4CKO said:
Good on them, they built a company and made money, all power to them.

What I dont get with the very rich, not specifically these guys as I dont know much about the specifics.



They make money, but to make more they move all production abroad, abandoning their own country, like Dyson.

They have tons of money yet use tax havens and whatever else they can dream up to avoid paying tax, to the country that they have grown and thrived in .
They become tax exiles despite being massively wealthy already, I would have expected that if I have multi millions that would give me flexibility and choices to live where I want and do what I want, when I want. Where a lot seem to end up in Monaco, Dubai or whatever which are fine to visit but not sure I would want that enforced and the UK is no longer my home and I can only visit 183 days a year, suppose thats probably enough for most.

I guess its easy to criticise and being in that position would perhaps enlighten me to the realities of it but does seem strange.

Does it get past amassing wealth, is it no longer about buying stuff, more about winning, having more than Larry or Warren ?

I dont get the impression this is as cynical as it may seem to keep the 500 million, but if you are worth several billion anyway what difference does it make, why not just pay it and avoid the stress ? Knocking 80, I suspect you arent going to short of cash in the next few years, or is it the principle ?
Half of JCB's factories are in the UK (11/22), with 75% of their output being exported (great for UK plc).

He'll be paying a vast amount of tax already - and lives in the UK, as is his family.

This claim from HMRC would appear to be about 7% of his total wealth - would you be happy to 'just pay it' if HMRC came knocking for the same for you, just to avoid stress?
Yep, I had to pay £5645.20 the other day, from six years ago when I didnt get taxed on redundancy but should have been, was one day over the date for the PILON rules changing, because my employed decided they wanted me for an extra month ! Didnt get much choice, guessing that made more difference to me than 500 million would to him !

I wasnt really just talking about him anyway, was more general but 7% isnt really going to make much difference at 78, wouldnt anyway if you are worth that much that 500 million represents only 7 percent, was more about that billionaire mentality and what drives them, my position is probably why I am not one.

chrispmartha

15,499 posts

129 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
Sway said:
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
Killboy said:
Love it. Rayner is all froth at £1500, and Bamford has all the rich person excuses made for him.

Yeah, I know who I'd like them to spend loads of time chasing wink
Nope. No one here has said if he is shown to owe it, he shouldn't pay.

Big difference here is he's had the decency to step down from the Lords whilst being investigated...
Well no, isn't the big difference that he he is actually being investigated by HMRC
So was Rayner.
Was she?, when?

119

6,312 posts

36 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
Killboy said:
Love it. Rayner is all froth at £1500, and Bamford has all the rich person excuses made for him.

Yeah, I know who I'd like them to spend loads of time chasing wink
Nope. No one here has said if he is shown to owe it, he shouldn't pay.

Big difference here is he's had the decency to step down from the Lords whilst being investigated...
Well no, isn't the big difference that he he is actually being investigated by HMRC
As opposed to someone allegedly lying?


That’s ok then.


chrispmartha

15,499 posts

129 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
119 said:
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
Killboy said:
Love it. Rayner is all froth at £1500, and Bamford has all the rich person excuses made for him.

Yeah, I know who I'd like them to spend loads of time chasing wink
Nope. No one here has said if he is shown to owe it, he shouldn't pay.

Big difference here is he's had the decency to step down from the Lords whilst being investigated...
Well no, isn't the big difference that he he is actually being investigated by HMRC
As opposed to someone allegedly lying?


That’s ok then.
So there's no difference from actually being investigated than not.

Ok then.

Sway

26,279 posts

194 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
Killboy said:
Love it. Rayner is all froth at £1500, and Bamford has all the rich person excuses made for him.

Yeah, I know who I'd like them to spend loads of time chasing wink
Nope. No one here has said if he is shown to owe it, he shouldn't pay.

Big difference here is he's had the decency to step down from the Lords whilst being investigated...
Well no, isn't the big difference that he he is actually being investigated by HMRC
So was Rayner.
Was she?, when?
There is as much evidence of a tax investigation for Rayner as there is Bamford.

chrispmartha

15,499 posts

129 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
Sway said:
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
Killboy said:
Love it. Rayner is all froth at £1500, and Bamford has all the rich person excuses made for him.

Yeah, I know who I'd like them to spend loads of time chasing wink
Nope. No one here has said if he is shown to owe it, he shouldn't pay.

Big difference here is he's had the decency to step down from the Lords whilst being investigated...
Well no, isn't the big difference that he he is actually being investigated by HMRC
So was Rayner.
Was she?, when?
There is as much evidence of a tax investigation for Rayner as there is Bamford.
Well, apart from all the articles reporting an investigation into Bamford and none reporting the same about Rayner.

Sway

26,279 posts

194 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
chrispmartha said:
Sway said:
Killboy said:
Love it. Rayner is all froth at £1500, and Bamford has all the rich person excuses made for him.

Yeah, I know who I'd like them to spend loads of time chasing wink
Nope. No one here has said if he is shown to owe it, he shouldn't pay.

Big difference here is he's had the decency to step down from the Lords whilst being investigated...
Well no, isn't the big difference that he he is actually being investigated by HMRC
So was Rayner.
Was she?, when?
There is as much evidence of a tax investigation for Rayner as there is Bamford.
Well, apart from all the articles reporting an investigation into Bamford and none reporting the same about Rayner.
None of those articles have any sources nor evidence...

No one actually knows, except HMRC, Bamford and his accountants.

President Merkin

2,993 posts

19 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
Sway said:
None of those articles have any sources nor evidence...

No one actually knows, except HMRC, Bamford and his accountants.
It's very sweet that you believe journalists should list their sources.. It's even sweeter you think a man richer than Croesus wouldn't sue the life out of the same journalists were they printing malicious stories. I expect Bmford, if he ever became aware of your existence, would be very grateful for the support.

Sway

26,279 posts

194 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
President Merkin said:
Sway said:
None of those articles have any sources nor evidence...

No one actually knows, except HMRC, Bamford and his accountants.
It's very sweet that you believe journalists should list their sources.. It's even sweeter you think a man richer than Croesus wouldn't sue the life out of the same journalists were they printing malicious stories. I expect Bmford, if he ever became aware of your existence, would be very grateful for the support.
There's nothing malicious about reporting 'lead to believe he's under investigation' - unlike here, the courts really do believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' and so there'd be no grounds to claim material damages due to reporting the potential existence of an investigation.

But, when HMRC and the Bamfords have stayed quiet, there simply isn't anything other than hearsay that there's even an investigation at all.

Look, he probably is being investigated, and it's likely that Rayner was as well with NFA - but we simply do not have any actual facts in either case.

119

6,312 posts

36 months

Thursday 11th April
quotequote all
Sway said:
President Merkin said:
Sway said:
None of those articles have any sources nor evidence...

No one actually knows, except HMRC, Bamford and his accountants.
It's very sweet that you believe journalists should list their sources.. It's even sweeter you think a man richer than Croesus wouldn't sue the life out of the same journalists were they printing malicious stories. I expect Bmford, if he ever became aware of your existence, would be very grateful for the support.
There's nothing malicious about reporting 'lead to believe he's under investigation' - unlike here, the courts really do believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' and so there'd be no grounds to claim material damages due to reporting the potential existence of an investigation.

But, when HMRC and the Bamfords have stayed quiet, there simply isn't anything other than hearsay that there's even an investigation at all.

Look, he probably is being investigated, and it's likely that Rayner was as well with NFA - but we simply do not have any actual facts in either case.
Agreed.

Newc

1,866 posts

182 months

Tuesday 16th April
quotequote all
Not Bamford or Rayner, but to cement the point made by many people earlier that just because HMRC disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that they are correct.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-lost-ch...

iphonedyou

9,253 posts

157 months

Tuesday 16th April
quotequote all
sugerbear said:
Lord Bamford and his father are only rich because of the poeple they employ, so they should quite rightly be very thankful there is a workforce that is prepared to work for them.

Without those people Lord Bamford would be Mr Bamford and Mr Bamford making excavators in their shed (very slowly). They should be eternally gratful to the hard work and dedication of their employees for making them as rich as they are.
Well, quite.

They'll be so grateful that they'll actually remunerate those people for working for the company.