Sauce for the Google goose

[SpikeMac]

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

 

Ed's mum is pretty sprightly for a dead woman, don't you think?

 

You did say "avoided" didn't you.

 

Having a living mother is a pretty legal, and highly moral, way of avoiding inheritance tax.

[Obelix]

Ed's mum is pretty sprightly for a dead woman, don't you think?

 

You did say "avoided" didn't you.

 

Having a living mother is a pretty legal, and highly moral, way of avoiding inheritance tax.

 

Not at the time she wasn't...

 

"He and his brother, David, signed a “deed of variation” along with their mother, Marion, following the death of their father Ralph, an influential Marxist academic, in 1994.

 

This gave them each a 20 per cent stake in the four-storey house in Edis Street, reducing the inheritance tax eventually payable on the estate. "

 

I notice that you consider that avoiding tax is perfectly acceptable. Unless you can show that places like Google Boots, Starbucks etc are evading tax, it'll therefore be obvious that you are perfectly fine with it I'm sure...

 

The reason for posting this was not to show that avoiding tax in this fashion was acceptble - merely to show that *everybody* does it. He who is without sin etc may cast the first stone.

[SpikeMac]

Not at the time she wasn't...

 

"He and his brother, David, signed a “deed of variation” along with their mother, Marion, following the death of their father Ralph, an influential Marxist academic, in 1994.

 

This gave them each a 20 per cent stake in the four-storey house in Edis Street, reducing the inheritance tax eventually payable on the estate. "

 

I notice that you consider that avoiding tax is perfectly acceptable. Unless you can show that places like Google Boots, Starbucks etc are evading tax, it'll therefore be obvious that you are perfectly fine with it I'm sure...

 

The reason for posting this was not to show that avoiding tax in this fashion was acceptble - merely to show that *everybody* does it. He who is without sin etc may cast the first stone.

 

I'm pretty sure that Marion was alive in 1994. I'll google it later.

 

For me, the issue isn't the old avoidance/evasion debate. There are plenty of good reasons for the rules that allow tax avoidance. I've used a similar mechanism to the Millibands to ensure that my kids don't get a huge tax bill, so I'm not really claiming any moral high ground either.

 

The real issue is that we have huge corporations acting in a immoral way, even if they do act within the law. For Amazon (to take an easy example) to claim that they make virtually no UK profit is wrong. Eventually, it will be damagingly wrong if we don't have enough tax revenue to fund vital services. That needs stopping. It would be good to hear ideas about how we do that, rather than banging on about trivial issues to score party political points.

[alchresearch]

Here's another one to be going on with:

 

Ed Miliband has said a donation to Labour in shares was designed to provide a "steady income" for his party, not to avoid tax.

 

Millionaire businessman John Mills said the idea of giving shares rather than cash came after discussions with the party and avoided a big tax payment.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22793181

[truman]

Here's another one to be going on with:

 

Ed Miliband has said a donation to Labour in shares was designed to provide a "steady income" for his party, not to avoid tax.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22793181

 

I wonder if Ed knows of any other shares which will never go down in value or have dividends cut..

[Eater Sundae]

I don’t get too upset about someone managing their tax arrangements to minimise what they pay, provided it is legal. In fact, don’t companies have a duty to their shareholders to do exactly that. Also, as some have stated above, individuals do it perfectly legally.

 

If the government do not like it, they should change the tax system to remove the loopholes. The tax system is much too complicated. That is the fault of successive governments. The taxpayers are just workintg within the system they have been given.

 

In this story, I think the bigger issue is that a political party actually owns shares in a company. I’d not thought about this before, but now I have, I think it is wrong. If/when Labour return to power, there will be a conflict of interest in that they will be passing legislation which could directly affect the value of their own shareholding.

[truman]

I don’t get too upset about someone managing their tax arrangements to minimise what they pay, provided it is legal. In fact, don’t companies have a duty to their shareholders to do exactly that. Also, as some have stated above, individuals do it perfectly legally.

 

If the government do not like it, they should change the tax system to remove the loopholes. The tax system is much too complicated. That is the fault of successive governments. The taxpayers are just workintg within the system they have been given.

 

In this story, I think the bigger issue is that a political party actually owns shares in a company. I’d not thought about this before, but now I have, I think it is wrong. If/when Labour return to power, there will be a conflict of interest in that they will be passing legislation which could directly affect the value of their own shareholding.

 

That's a point I'd not thought about...that fact that it's the Labour party holding the shares seems different to it being an individual MP holding shares in a company.. a single MP has little say in legislation whereas a whole party would have quite a bit..

[L00b]

I’d not thought about this before, but now I have, I think it is wrong. If/when Labour return to power, there will be a conflict of interest in that they will be passing legislation which could directly affect the value of their own shareholding.

I did last night, and came to the exact same conclusion as you...which then made me wonder (putting aside the tax avoidance angle for a second) [tinfoil hat on] whether Mills was actually a benefactor to the Labour party at all in this story, or whether he did this as a double-agent of sorts, with a time-delayed undermining tactic [/tinfoil hat off ]

 

It does amount to a clear conflict of interests now (since Labour forms the lion's share of the opposition in Parliament and is at the helm of many councils and such other geo-political subdivisions, in which that company may have interests), never mind after a successful election.

[alchresearch]

If the government do not like it, they should change the tax system to remove the loopholes. The tax system is much too complicated. That is the fault of successive governments. The taxpayers are just workintg within the system they have been given.

 

I get the impression that its very much a Yes Minister scenario, and the civil servants don't want change.

[L00b]

If the government do not like it, they should change the tax system to remove the loopholes. The tax system is much too complicated. That is the fault of successive governments. The taxpayers are just working within the system they have been given.

I get the impression that its very much a Yes Minister scenario, and the civil servants don't want change.

Erm...

 

Cynical, moi?