Guy giving Bob Diamond a hard time on SKY now

[ZondaMark]

cardigankid said:

They don't add value, they rarely create wealth other than for themselves.

If there's profit, there's value added. They create wealth for themselves by facilitating the wealth creation of others, and anyway, since when did anyone not create wealth primarily for themselves (or at the very least, so as they choose)? Wealth is only created by servicing the desires of others, for a start, but bankers bank to make money just like manufacturers manufacture to make money and retailers retail to make money. Wealth held within the financial system then facilitates further wealth creation.

cardigankid said:

'British manufacturing - reports of its death are greatly exaggerated'. Can you imagine how pleased they were with themselves when they thought up that slogan?

Probably fairly easy to come up with, given that it's completely true and dispells the fallacy touted by so many that 'we don't make anything anymore' (again, it wasn't directed at you). Yes, manufacturing has experienced a relative decline, but only because other things have grown faster, and is something we can still very much celebrate.

[chancha]

Soovy said:

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

You're an uninformed fool, who illustrates that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:54

Hey Soovy, so that's Green and Diamond you've given the proverbial thumbs up to on this thread. Having said you've met Diamond and alluded to having met Green then it seems reasonable to assume that you've been caught in the headlights of capitalism at its worst. Just because you say they are fine doesn't necessarily make them paragons of virtue. Afterall didnt Chamberlain think Hitler a thoroughly decent chap prior to 1939 as he waved his white paper?..... bawbag

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:00

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:04

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:18

[fido]

^ We didn't say he was a nice bloke, we said he was good at doing his job. They aren't the same thing. Examples: Michael Schumacher - great F1 driver, not known for being nice (on the track anyway), Gordon Brown - might be a nice bloke, but some say he f8cked up, and the list goes on ...

[Oakey]

Wurls said:

chancha said:

Soovy said:

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

You're an uninformed fool, who illustrates that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:54

Hey Soovy, so that's Green and Diamond you've given the proverbial thumbs up to on this thread. Having said you've met Diamond and alluded to having met Green then it seems reasonable to assume that you've been caught in the headlights of capitalism at its worst. Just because you say they are fine doesn't necessarily make them paragons of virtue. Afterall didnt Chamberlain think Hitler a thoroughly decent chap prior to 1939 as he waved his white paper?..... bawbag

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:00

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:04

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:18

What's the problem with Green? You are confusing his personal interests (non of our business) with his business interests, I suspect. He employs 45,000 (most in the UK) all of whom pay tax. His UK registered Investment vehicle paid corporation tax of £71mm for 09/10 which he could easily have avoided. His companies have very active charitable links in the UK. You need to dig deeper.

Don't be dense, Green is wealthy, therefore he's evil, obviously. Didn't you know, the more money you have, the more evi you are. I believe Bill Gates is the devil incarnate, and Warren buffet is Beelzebub. I'm not entirely sure but Mark Zuckerberg is possibly the anti-christ. I think that's how it stands anyway.

[Soovy]

Oakey said:

Wurls said:

chancha said:

Soovy said:

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

You're an uninformed fool, who illustrates that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:54

Hey Soovy, so that's Green and Diamond you've given the proverbial thumbs up to on this thread. Having said you've met Diamond and alluded to having met Green then it seems reasonable to assume that you've been caught in the headlights of capitalism at its worst. Just because you say they are fine doesn't necessarily make them paragons of virtue. Afterall didnt Chamberlain think Hitler a thoroughly decent chap prior to 1939 as he waved his white paper?..... bawbag

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:00

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:04

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:18

What's the problem with Green? You are confusing his personal interests (non of our business) with his business interests, I suspect. He employs 45,000 (most in the UK) all of whom pay tax. His UK registered Investment vehicle paid corporation tax of £71mm for 09/10 which he could easily have avoided. His companies have very active charitable links in the UK. You need to dig deeper.

Don't be dense, Green is wealthy, therefore he's evil, obviously. Didn't you know, the more money you have, the more evi you are. I believe Bill Gates is the devil incarnate, and Warren buffet is Beelzebub. I'm not entirely sure but Mark Zuckerberg is possibly the anti-christ. I think that's how it stands anyway.

Elegantly put.

[Oakey]

Soovy said:

Oakey said:

Wurls said:

chancha said:

Soovy said:

cardigankid said:

Soovy said:

So, 16,000 non doms have gone this year, due to the £30k levy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...


So, let's say that each of them was paying £100k a year tax (a very conservative estimate). That's £ 1,600,000,000 of lost tax revenue.

Good work Gordon, you prick.

Hammer the successful for reasons of envy, and they will up sticks and leave.

Those you describe as 'the successful' only stay here as long as they are making money out of it, and their prime interest is how much they can take out of the UK without paying tax on it. Like that fat revolting animal Philip Green. Good riddance.

Green is a throughly decent bloke, who gives many many millions to good causes every year.

You're an uninformed fool, who illustrates that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Edited by Soovy on Thursday 13th January 13:54

Hey Soovy, so that's Green and Diamond you've given the proverbial thumbs up to on this thread. Having said you've met Diamond and alluded to having met Green then it seems reasonable to assume that you've been caught in the headlights of capitalism at its worst. Just because you say they are fine doesn't necessarily make them paragons of virtue. Afterall didnt Chamberlain think Hitler a thoroughly decent chap prior to 1939 as he waved his white paper?..... bawbag

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:00

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:04

Edited by chancha on Thursday 13th January 20:18

What's the problem with Green? You are confusing his personal interests (non of our business) with his business interests, I suspect. He employs 45,000 (most in the UK) all of whom pay tax. His UK registered Investment vehicle paid corporation tax of £71mm for 09/10 which he could easily have avoided. His companies have very active charitable links in the UK. You need to dig deeper.

Don't be dense, Green is wealthy, therefore he's evil, obviously. Didn't you know, the more money you have, the more evi you are. I believe Bill Gates is the devil incarnate, and Warren buffet is Beelzebub. I'm not entirely sure but Mark Zuckerberg is possibly the anti-christ. I think that's how it stands anyway.

Elegantly put.

Well, speaking from experience, when I had more money I was most definitely more evil. These days I'm piss poor so obviouisly the sun shines right out my fking arse.

[Sticks.]

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

[Du1point8]

Sticks. said:

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

Expenses for Labour MPs.

[Sticks.]

Du1point8 said:

Sticks. said:

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

Expenses for Labour MPs.

Possbily, but roads, schools?

[Soovy]

Sticks. said:

Du1point8 said:

Sticks. said:

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

Expenses for Labour MPs.

Possbily, but roads, schools?

Benefits for illegals, free laptops for junkies?

[Sticks.]

Soovy said:

Sticks. said:

Du1point8 said:

Sticks. said:

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

Expenses for Labour MPs.

Possbily, but roads, schools?

Benefits for illegals, free laptops for junkies?

You said, earlier.......

[Sticks.]

Wurls said:

Sticks. said:

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

Do you mean the one off dividend that was paid out of accumulated retained earnings that he had already paid corporation tax on?

Are you saying it's media hype and he didn't actually avoid paying tax on £1.2bn by moving it offshore? Interested if it's a media manufactured story. Thanks.

[bobbylondonuk]

Wurls said:

Sticks. said:

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

Do you mean the one off dividend that was paid out of accumulated retained earnings that he had already paid corporation tax on?

Ahhh...the fact that the public have no clue of tax rules and corporate accounting!!!

1.2b was dividends after corporation tax. The shareholders if based abroad pay taxes on this dividend in their country of domicile. If they resided in UK, then they pay UK dividend tax..22% on higher rate if I am not wrong. Same goes for any foreign investment in UK. Corp tax on profits...then dividend tax wherever they are based. Why the hate?

The amount of charitable donations by the rich will beat any govt spending via taxes and help more people anyday!

[Sticks.]

bobbylondonuk said:

Wurls said:

Sticks. said:

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

Do you mean the one off dividend that was paid out of accumulated retained earnings that he had already paid corporation tax on?

Ahhh...the fact that the public have no clue of tax rules and corporate accounting!!!

1.2b was dividends after corporation tax. The shareholders if based abroad pay taxes on this dividend in their country of domicile. If they resided in UK, then they pay UK dividend tax..22% on higher rate if I am not wrong. Same goes for any foreign investment in UK. Corp tax on profits...then dividend tax wherever they are based. Why the hate?

The amount of charitable donations by the rich will beat any govt spending via taxes and help more people anyday!

Thanks for the info

Think the charitable donations is as side issue though, as I'm not saying he's evil etc.

[bobbylondonuk]

Wurls said:

bobbylondonuk said:

Wurls said:

Sticks. said:

I'm not saying Green is evil, nor a saint. But can anyone tell me what the tax liability would have been on the £1.2bn? Then we can figure out what the govt could have spent it on. Cheers.

Do you mean the one off dividend that was paid out of accumulated retained earnings that he had already paid corporation tax on?

Ahhh...the fact that the public have no clue of tax rules and corporate accounting!!!

1.2b was dividends after corporation tax. The shareholders if based abroad pay taxes on this dividend in their country of domicile. If they resided in UK, then they pay UK dividend tax..22% on higher rate if I am not wrong. Same goes for any foreign investment in UK. Corp tax on profits...then dividend tax wherever they are based. Why the hate?

The amount of charitable donations by the rich will beat any govt spending via taxes and help more people anyday!

Hence to distribute a dividend of GBP 1.2bn to his Mrs in Monaco from his UK investment vehicle's retained earnings, the Govt took approx £350mm over a few years. Not a bad contribution for a

cardigankid said:

"fat revolting animal"

And the public are angry because they could not get another £264m from Mrs. Green's handbag!!! That is the real issue when it comes to Phillip Green vs the public. Apparently she should not keep her handbag in Monaco...any reason why? Cos she is rich innit! so pay up!

[peterpeter]

turbobloke said:

Bonus Envy

Oh the irony

check out the threads on consultants-

[MH]

turbobloke said:

Bonus Envy

[crankedup]

Back to B.D. not sure that he would have had a restless night following the finger waving from the Select Committee. They are aware that the circus is televised and the Committee need to put on some sort of show for the electorate. There you go, look how tough we are with the bankers!
For those who say nasty things about the bankers and calls to let them go abroad, call their bluff, I would say hang on for another year and see what pans out.
And when the banks do shift abroad for all of us left behind then switch your bank accounts to a home bank. It won't hurt the banks but will make us feel better.
I was surprised at how many off shore Companies Barclays has and is still building. Good tax avoidance.

[munky]

One danger (depending on your viewpoint) is pissing off the hedge funds with higher tax rates. It's a lot easier for them to move elsewhere, indeed some already have, and bonuses (and therefore tax thereon) can dwarf those at banks (depending on size and performance of hedge fund obviously) - £50m a year, sometimes more

[steve singh]

crankedup said:

Back to B.D. not sure that he would have had a restless night following the finger waving from the Select Committee. They are aware that the circus is televised and the Committee need to put on some sort of show for the electorate. There you go, look how tough we are with the bankers!
For those who say nasty things about the bankers and calls to let them go abroad, call their bluff, I would say hang on for another year and see what pans out.
And when the banks do shift abroad for all of us left behind then switch your bank accounts to a home bank. It won't hurt the banks but will make us feel better.
I was surprised at how many off shore Companies Barclays has and is still building. Good tax avoidance.

Board of directors who conduct tax avoidance would be prosecuted - there's a big difference between tax efficiency (which is the duty of a board to it's shareholders) and tax avoidance (wholly illegal).