Retrospective taxation campaign
Discussion
hmm havent read the whole thread so appologies if this has been mentioned, but this reminds me very much of the old IR35 thing HMRC pulled under Dawn Primarolo in order to attempt to get rid of small IT contractors who were "intruding" on the profits of the IT BodyShops (of which I beleive Ms Primarolo and her husband were directors of one). Not that politicians would use the HMRC as a weapon to further their own ends, oh no not at all.
GV, I am not interested in elected office either, but I am quite interested in education and social mobility. Not all of the gloom and doom stories about State schools are true.
Coincidentally, I had to spend a few hours this morning at the Royal Free A and E department in North London, as my daughter had cut her knee and needed some stitches. Those who slag the NHS are often those who have not recently used its services. It does, of course, get a lot wrong, and is not always well or wisely funded or managed. Today, however, as on other occasions when my daughter has needed urgent help, I found the the hospital to be clean and well run, the staff friendly and efficient, and the whole process indicative of some taxes, at least, well spent.
Coincidentally, I had to spend a few hours this morning at the Royal Free A and E department in North London, as my daughter had cut her knee and needed some stitches. Those who slag the NHS are often those who have not recently used its services. It does, of course, get a lot wrong, and is not always well or wisely funded or managed. Today, however, as on other occasions when my daughter has needed urgent help, I found the the hospital to be clean and well run, the staff friendly and efficient, and the whole process indicative of some taxes, at least, well spent.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th April 19:52
It goes bad if it is not watched and challenged. Part of my job involves watching and challenging the State. I am as opposed as anyone to excesses of State power, but I don't just moan about them on the internet (although I do that as well).
A car can kill you, or it can take you on holiday. The State, like any machine, needs careful minding.
A car can kill you, or it can take you on holiday. The State, like any machine, needs careful minding.
Rovinghawk said:
Breadvan72 said:
the State is a device through which we obtain and maintain freedom.
Is that the same state that's currently trying to pass a law whereby they can monitor my emails, web usage & phone calls for no reason whatsoever?RH
If the State was truly some evil monster it would not need to "try". It simply "would". However there are checks and balances which are there to keep it under control.
Gene Vincent said:
I believe that 95% of the population were happy with the Third Reich at one point too.
The vast majority of any population don't give a damn about very much at all, that is why Gov'ts find it so easy to simply ferret about in our pockets for more of our hard earned.
It is up to those with enough brains to not be quite so "who gives a f
k, fk'em" to call a spade a spade and raise a voice against matters that can later dog us all.
You have the brains, you can at the very least string a few words together, yet you prefer to sink into the mire with the imbecile on the excuse that "These aren't the 'cute seal pups being clubbed to death' in the on-going war against taxation" brigade... your choice.
To be honest Gene, by making comparisons between HMRC in this case and the HMRC you simply make yourself look like an imbecile.The vast majority of any population don't give a damn about very much at all, that is why Gov'ts find it so easy to simply ferret about in our pockets for more of our hard earned.
It is up to those with enough brains to not be quite so "who gives a f
k, fk'em" to call a spade a spade and raise a voice against matters that can later dog us all.You have the brains, you can at the very least string a few words together, yet you prefer to sink into the mire with the imbecile on the excuse that "These aren't the 'cute seal pups being clubbed to death' in the on-going war against taxation" brigade... your choice.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Wednesday 25th April 16:58
You and the rest of the "I don't think I should have to contribute to the services I use" brigade can chunter, grumble and make all the silly accusations you like but it won't change the fact that most people simply don't agree. This isn't because of complacency or simply that it doesn't affect them either, this is because these people have been paying feck all towards the running of the country while living here.
In other words they are spongers. No better than benefit cheats.
Gene Vincent said:
Retrospective taxation is a vile precedence and one we should ALL be against.
It is, and we are. This, however, is not an example of retrospective taxation. Anyone suggesting it is is trying to convince themselves that black is white (perhaps in this instance 'shades of grey' would be more appropriate...)
Gene Vincent said:
Comprehensile Schools are shocking places!
Full of monkeys.
You're the one with all the mental reasoning of a chimpanzee...Full of monkeys.
I can't decide whether your an idiot or a liar.
I'm comming to the conclusion that it's the former. Maybe you've just listened to your own drivel for so long that you actually believe it now?
jazzyjeff said:
Gene Vincent said:
Retrospective taxation is a vile precedence and one we should ALL be against.
It is, and we are. This, however, is not an example of retrospective taxation. Anyone suggesting it is is trying to convince themselves that black is white (perhaps in this instance 'shades of grey' would be more appropriate...)
With regard to the above, even HMRC think it is, this was addressed many pages ago.
The matter of overall taxation was also dealt with a while ago, you look at tax in the income side only I address the over all tax take, it was explained, you didn't follow... slow mind, Gene f
king bored now!Gene Vincent said:
I have never and will never run for public office so don't feel the need to do a 'Cameron' or 'Osborne' to show my ability to 'get down' with the masses. It's demeaning and ridiculous.
So, like many, you're spouting rubbish about things you know feck all about.I really do wish you would shut the feck up, in the nuicest possible way of course.
Devil2575 said:
Gene Vincent said:
If you actually believe that tax will ever go down
I do. If the tories manage to get into power when we are not in a financial hole I expect taxes to go down.
Or are you just referring to higher-rate tax payers? If so, I agree, marginal taxation may well go down for that group of tax payers although I believe that will be so regardless of how much tax is being avoided.
jazzyjeff said:
Gene Vincent said:
jazzyjeff said:
Gene Vincent said:
Retrospective taxation is a vile precedence and one we should ALL be against.
It is, and we are. This, however, is not an example of retrospective taxation. Anyone suggesting it is is trying to convince themselves that black is white (perhaps in this instance 'shades of grey' would be more appropriate...)
Of course many people will not see that as being a particularly bad thing as, hey, we're all greedy scum who don't pay our way and deserve everything we get (and in particular I must thank the chap whose name escapes me, who apparently wants my wife to leave me and for me to become bankrupt; remind me to take him off the Christmas card list which I can no longer afford), and who am I to think otherwise.
deckster said:
jazzyjeff said:
Gene Vincent said:
jazzyjeff said:
Gene Vincent said:
Retrospective taxation is a vile precedence and one we should ALL be against.
It is, and we are. This, however, is not an example of retrospective taxation. Anyone suggesting it is is trying to convince themselves that black is white (perhaps in this instance 'shades of grey' would be more appropriate...)
Of course many people will not see that as being a particularly bad thing as, hey, we're all greedy scum who don't pay our way and deserve everything we get (and in particular I must thank the chap whose name escapes me, who apparently wants my wife to leave me and for me to become bankrupt; remind me to take him off the Christmas card list which I can no longer afford), and who am I to think otherwise.
All the users of these schemes in question were repeatedly warned by the IR that this could be challenged. From the inception of the schemes. Which it was in due course. And, when it was, the scheme were found to be wholly unlawful.
You may feel hard done by but you have lost nothing. You were relying upon an artificial scheme to avoid tax. Not a good idea. You were warned repeatedly. The scheme failed in its objective. You now have the same tax status qas was originally available to you, in the UK and you are resident and domiciled in the UK.
Therefore you pay UK tax. How do you see this as unfair?
I hold no criticism of your conduct you are free to explore any legal avenue in UK business. In this case it was a blind alley.
Why I wonder, do you feel cheated?
Possibly because he was not given the opportunity to have the legislation interpreted by a court rather than additional legislation that 'clarified' the law and effectively applied this clarification retrospectively.
Hansard
20 May 2009 : Column 1400W
Mr. Timms: Section 62 Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 retrospectively restored the principle that double taxation treaties do not affect a UK resident’s liability to UK tax on their income or gains. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not believe that any tax avoidance schemes were permitted under that legislation—although the tax avoidance schemes in question here purported to circumvent it.
Evidence emerged that a large number of people were using the scheme and in light of a number of factors (including the widespread use, aggressive nature and artificiality of the scheme, the deliberate attempt to flout the clear intention of Parliament in 1987 and the need to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers), the Government introduced legislation at section 58 Finance Act 2008 to put beyond doubt that none of the schemes worked—and never had done.
Although, like the 1987 legislation, it is indefinitely retrospective, HMRC is not aware of any relevant schemes prior to 2001. Any tax paid late will be subject to interest in accordance with the relevant legislation on late payments.
Hansard
20 May 2009 : Column 1400W
Mr. Timms: Section 62 Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 retrospectively restored the principle that double taxation treaties do not affect a UK resident’s liability to UK tax on their income or gains. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not believe that any tax avoidance schemes were permitted under that legislation—although the tax avoidance schemes in question here purported to circumvent it.
Evidence emerged that a large number of people were using the scheme and in light of a number of factors (including the widespread use, aggressive nature and artificiality of the scheme, the deliberate attempt to flout the clear intention of Parliament in 1987 and the need to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers), the Government introduced legislation at section 58 Finance Act 2008 to put beyond doubt that none of the schemes worked—and never had done.
Although, like the 1987 legislation, it is indefinitely retrospective, HMRC is not aware of any relevant schemes prior to 2001. Any tax paid late will be subject to interest in accordance with the relevant legislation on late payments.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff