Sauce for the Google goose

[SpikeMac]

What is.. the news about the share donation in the opening post? You did read that didn't you?

 

I read lots of things. I spot errors fairly well too, wouldn't you say.

 

The OP isn't anything exciting. I have shares and derive an income from them. Some were given to me. It doesn't make me a Tory, or a tax dodger.

 

The whole thread is pretty dull and factually inaccurate in places. The factual inaccuracy was introduced by you, now you are trying to shift the ground to attack people who have haven't even posted on the thread. That's strange behaviour, in my opinion.

[truman]

I read lots of things. I spot errors fairly well too, wouldn't you say.

 

The OP isn't anything exciting. I have shares and derive an income from them. Some were given to me. It doesn't make me a Tory, or a tax dodger.

 

The whole thread is pretty dull and factually inaccurate in places. The factual inaccuracy was introduced by you, now you are trying to shift the ground to attack people who have haven't even posted on the thread. That's strange behaviour, in my opinion.

 

Who have I attacked?

[Vague_Boy]

Looks like it's not just Google that practices perfectly legal tax avoidance....

 

I have a confession to make. So do I.

 

My accountant suggested that I become a Limited Company in 2005 to reduce my tax bill. Oddly enough, I accepted this advice.

 

(Gordon Brown was chancellor at the time and there was no way I was giving that idiot any more money to waste.)

 

Politicians of all parties sit and wring their hands about all this corporate tax avoidance, yet who (supposedly) drafts tax legislation?

[Obelix]

I read lots of things. I spot errors fairly well too, wouldn't you say.

 

The OP isn't anything exciting. I have shares and derive an income from them. Some were given to me. It doesn't make me a Tory, or a tax dodger.

 

The whole thread is pretty dull and factually inaccurate in places. The factual inaccuracy was introduced by you, now you are trying to shift the ground to attack people who have haven't even posted on the thread. That's strange behaviour, in my opinion.

 

The point is that Labour castigate people using perfectly legal, if perhaps less than desirable means to avoid tax.

 

However it seems taht they are not above doing the same themselves. If you are going to point fingers and shout it's a good idea to put your own backyard in order first...

[WeX]

I have a confession to make. So do I.

 

My accountant suggested that I become a Limited Company in 2005 to reduce my tax bill. Oddly enough, I accepted this advice.

 

(Gordon Brown was chancellor at the time and there was no way I was giving that idiot any more money to waste.)

 

Politicians of all parties sit and wring their hands about all this corporate tax avoidance, yet who (supposedly) drafts tax legislation?

 

This is why I don't understand these people complain about corporate tax avoidance. These companies are operating within the law, in the same way people who pay PAYE do. You don't pay more than you are required and neither do these companies.

[SpikeMac]

The point is that Labour castigate people using perfectly legal, if perhaps less than desirable means to avoid tax.

 

However it seems taht they are not above doing the same themselves. If you are going to point fingers and shout it's a good idea to put your own backyard in order first...

 

Cameron and Osbourne have been doing the same thing recently. It goes without saying that something has to be done to tax huge corporations properly. That is the responsibility of Government.

 

In the case that you linked to, no cash was gifted. It is legal to gift shares. The shares will generate income. The income will be taxed. I can't see a problem really.

 

I can see a problem with the activity of Starbucks, Boots and Amazon. I'd like my representatives to try to solve that problem, rather than throwing stones at each other.

[Obelix]

Cameron and Osbourne have been doing the same thing recently. It goes without saying that something has to be done to tax huge corporations properly. That is the responsibility of Government.

 

In the case that you linked to, no cash was gifted. It is legal to gift shares. The shares will generate income. The income will be taxed. I can't see a problem really.

 

I can see a problem with the activity of Starbucks, Boots and Amazon. I'd like my representatives to try to solve that problem, rather than throwing stones at each other.

 

But both actions above are legal. It's a bit rich for Labour to try and score points off the behaviour of a 3rd party, when they are engaged in the same sort fo activity themselves...

[alchresearch]

Anyone remember this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/8039829/Red-Ed-Miliband-lives-in-1.6m-house-after-shrewd-property-moves.html

[SpikeMac]

Anyone remember this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/8039829/Red-Ed-Miliband-lives-in-1.6m-house-after-shrewd-property-moves.html

 

What are we remembering?

 

"Succesful person has an expensive house?"

 

Or

 

"MP claims very little in expenses."

 

Either way round, may I congratulate you on your hard hitting contribution to the thread.

[alchresearch]

The point you missed was that he avoided inheritance tax, and fits nicely into what Obelix posted:

 

The point is that Labour castigate people using perfectly legal, if perhaps less than desirable means to avoid tax.

 

However it seems taht they are not above doing the same themselves. If you are going to point fingers and shout it's a good idea to put your own backyard in order first...