|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 18:14 - 28 Apr 2014 Post subject: UK Tax Avoider Supremo On TV Tonight |
 |
|
8:30 BBC1 Tonight
If that scuzzy poisoned dwarf Bernie Ecclestone, on his own, has managed to avoid an estimated £1 Billion in tax, is it any wonder our wonderful NHS is about to be carved up by US companies, (helped along by new trade agreements put together by our lovely government), just so the rich can have cosmetic surgery as pensioners wait for years for their hip operations?....and in the meantime we can sit back and watch in the media the wonderful lifestyle his daughters enjoy?
Iplayer link....won't start broadcasting until about 9 ish tonight:-
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b042rbmg/Panorama_Bernie_Ecclestone_Lies_Bribes_and_Formula_One/
Hang 'Em High! ____________________ Space Is Deep |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| smegballs |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 smegballs World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Wafer_Thin_Ham |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Wafer_Thin_Ham Super Spammer

Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Polarbear |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Polarbear Super Spammer

Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Rogerborg nimbA

Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 19:26 - 28 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
 |
|
I read a corporate strategy document once that said "Tax is an expense no different from any other, and we will avoid paying that expense to the uttermost extent allowed by law."
from me, and to another hit piece made by a bunch of sponging parasitical pinkos who pay their mortgages with money wrenched from my pocket and yours. ____________________ Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| smegballs |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 smegballs World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 09:03 - 29 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
 |
|
Right or wrong, it's going to drag this country back to the middle ages.
IMO, it's not unreasonable to expect someone who fleeces the populus to put something back. What all these greedy fuckers forget, is that when less and less people have any money left over after paying their food and energy bills, they're not spending..... which means more business' failing and less employment +lower wages. What the country loses from the super rich not paying their taxes is then made up by cuts on the poor. It's unsustainable as far as I can see. there's only so much money someone needs sitting in their bank and only so many multi million £ houses their feckless daughters can use.
It'd be nice to see some of these bread-heads follow some of our Victorian Captains of Industry who would build schools, hospitals, parks etc to put something back. I doubt most of them even spend any of their billions in the UK.....on top of paying zero tax. They're "enemies of the nation" IMO. as for the Govt doing something about it, "they're all in it together" from where I'm sitting  ____________________ Space Is Deep |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Rogerborg nimbA

Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| smegballs |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 smegballs World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Karma :  
|
 Posted: 11:11 - 29 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
 |
|
Of course the real problem with the govt isn't income, it is spending. I 'm confident that it would be fair to say: no matter how much money the govt has, they will always manage to spend more*.
It's the way things are set up: "shit its almost the end of the year and we still have 10k left in our budget! Best spend it or something, anything, as they will give us less next year if there is some remaining."
That is how everything works, rather than look for efficiency, people look to justify their existence, budgets and maybe get some more next year. This compounds year on year on year, and the spending keeps going up and up.
*While there has been a handful of years in recent times we have run a surplus, it is most definitely the exception and not the norm. The surpluses themselves have been pissing in the wind compare to the deficits.
https://i.imgur.com/MWOXiUI.png |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| dydey90 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 dydey90 World Chat Champion

Joined: 01 Oct 2013 Karma :   
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| slowlydoesit |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 slowlydoesit Could Be A Chat Bot
Joined: 14 Oct 2012 Karma :   
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ste Not Work Safe

Joined: 01 Sep 2002 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| slowlydoesit |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 slowlydoesit Could Be A Chat Bot
Joined: 14 Oct 2012 Karma :   
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Rogerborg nimbA

Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 14:35 - 29 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
 |
|
Maybe what the Inland revenue should be looking at, is reducing the tax bill for the super wealthy on condition it actually gets paid. However, allowing somebody off £2 billion on the condition they pay £10 million, as in the case of Wanklestone doesn't quite seem right to me.
www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/apr/28/bernie-ecclestone-tax-bill-panorama-bbc
It's blatantly obvious that Wanklefart has set up these trusts to avoid paying any tax. They shouldn't need to collect tons of written evidence, and fight his teams of legal eagles....it should be down to a judge to decide....and then take very penny of him and throw away the key. Er...IMO that is. ____________________ Space Is Deep
Last edited by Vincent on 14:53 - 29 Apr 2014; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 14:56 - 29 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
 |
|
Er sorry, I forgot......it's lazy teenagers and immigrants that are responsible for the state of the nation. Silly me  ____________________ Space Is Deep |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| krarkol |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 krarkol World Chat Champion

Joined: 17 Oct 2012 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Rogerborg nimbA

Joined: 26 Oct 2010 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| slowlydoesit |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 slowlydoesit Could Be A Chat Bot
Joined: 14 Oct 2012 Karma :   
|
 Posted: 18:31 - 29 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Vincent wrote: | Maybe what the Inland revenue should be looking at, is reducing the tax bill for the super wealthy on condition it actually gets paid. However, allowing somebody off £2 billion on the condition they pay £10 million, as in the case of Wanklestone doesn't quite seem right to me. |
Initially I thought you were cynical in the usual uninformed way that people are, but having read that post I think you're touchingly naive. If HMRC could have extracted £2bn out of Ecclestone, they would have done so. That's what they exist to do. That's how their masters judge their success. That's how their bonuses are calculated, which in turn determines whether they can afford that deposit on the 4-bed semi in Petworth they want so badly.
I suggest that this is the more likely scenario: HMRC took a good hard look at his affairs and concluded that he was operating within the bounds of the law. Presumably they decided that taking him to court would be unlikely to result in a win - that is, the court find him not guilty.
So instead they offered him a deal. As far as I can see based on the very limited information available, it was essentially a shakedown. "Pay us off, even though we don't have any evidence that what you're breaking any laws, and we'll leave you alone". That's far more disturbing to me than Ecclestone not paying £2bn in taxes he-would-definitely-owe-if-the-law-were-different-but-it-isn't-dammit.
It's not hard to work out why is this happening; just apply "cui bono". Who benefits? I suspect that big tax cases are getting so political that HMRC are unwilling to prosecute unless they are very sure they will win. So instead they're cutting shady deals. HMRC benefits because it can avoid the risk of a highly publicised court case that they will likely lose, while at the same time still squeezing out some revenue. Hurray, the dream of the Petworth semi-detached is nigh! The other party - in this case Ecclestone - may not appear to benefit but probably views the situation as preferable to a court case that they might well win, but that would sap resources over a period of years.
To reiterate what has already been said in this thread or another similar one, the problem is the law, not people using the law to their advantage. Everybody does it. Ecclestone does it. Your local builder does it. The chip shop owner does it. Farmers do it. Only the scale is different.
If it's a genuine problem, by all means change the law. If many people really believe this to be a problem why are they not voting to stamp this out? Because the current arrangements actually suit the majority of small businessmen and professionals and they have no interest in tighter tax schemes. (Ironically those professionals probably include the media clique who made the Panorama program. You can bet that those of them in the higher income brackets aren't voting for stricter tax regimes.)
So what's it gonna be kid Vincent? You gotta coupla options.
You can show some intellectual consistency and integrity and heap vitriol on the heads of the little businessmen of this country for wanting to keep as much as possible from the tax man - don't they understand that the government knows how to spend our hard-earned pennies wisely? - and as much as possible in their own pockets.
Or you can chicken out, prove that class jealousy is your main motivator, and go back to ranting about Ecclestone. Because this dwarf with bad hair has somehow got more money and beautiful women than you can dream of and it's just not fair and he must be punished.
Whatever. I'll be down the White Hart if you need me. ____________________ Kawasaki KMX200 with broken fixed powervalves and a stutter |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| smegballs |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 smegballs World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Karma :  
|
 Posted: 19:01 - 29 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
 |
|
| slowlydoesit wrote: | | Vincent wrote: | Maybe what the Inland revenue should be looking at, is reducing the tax bill for the super wealthy on condition it actually gets paid. However, allowing somebody off £2 billion on the condition they pay £10 million, as in the case of Wanklestone doesn't quite seem right to me. |
Initially I thought you were cynical in the usual uninformed way that people are, but having read that post I think you're touchingly naive. If HMRC could have extracted £2bn out of Ecclestone, they would have done so. That's what they exist to do. That's how their masters judge their success. That's how their bonuses are calculated, which in turn determines whether they can afford that deposit on the 4-bed semi in Petworth they want so badly.
I suggest that this is the more likely scenario: HMRC took a good hard look at his affairs and concluded that he was operating within the bounds of the law. Presumably they decided that taking him to court would be unlikely to result in a win - that is, the court find him not guilty.
So instead they offered him a deal. As far as I can see based on the very limited information available, it was essentially a shakedown. "Pay us off, even though we don't have any evidence that what you're breaking any laws, and we'll leave you alone". That's far more disturbing to me than Ecclestone not paying £2bn in taxes he-would-definitely-owe-if-the-law-were-different-but-it-isn't-dammit.
It's not hard to work out why is this happening; just apply "cui bono". Who benefits? I suspect that big tax cases are getting so political that HMRC are unwilling to prosecute unless they are very sure they will win. So instead they're cutting shady deals. HMRC benefits because it can avoid the risk of a highly publicised court case that they will likely lose, while at the same time still squeezing out some revenue. Hurray, the dream of the Petworth semi-detached is nigh! The other party - in this case Ecclestone - may not appear to benefit but probably views the situation as preferable to a court case that they might well win, but that would sap resources over a period of years.
To reiterate what has already been said in this thread or another similar one, the problem is the law, not people using the law to their advantage. Everybody does it. Ecclestone does it. Your local builder does it. The chip shop owner does it. Farmers do it. Only the scale is different.
If it's a genuine problem, by all means change the law. If many people really believe this to be a problem why are they not voting to stamp this out? Because the current arrangements actually suit the majority of small businessmen and professionals and they have no interest in tighter tax schemes. (Ironically those professionals probably include the media clique who made the Panorama program. You can bet that those of them in the higher income brackets aren't voting for stricter tax regimes.)
So what's it gonna be kid Vincent? You gotta coupla options.
You can show some intellectual consistency and integrity and heap vitriol on the heads of the little businessmen of this country for wanting to keep as much as possible from the tax man - don't they understand that the government knows how to spend our hard-earned pennies wisely? - and as much as possible in their own pockets.
Or you can chicken out, prove that class jealousy is your main motivator, and go back to ranting about Ecclestone. Because this dwarf with bad hair has somehow got more money and beautiful women than you can dream of and it's just not fair and he must be punished.
Whatever. I'll be down the White Hart if you need me. |
my response |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 20:10 - 29 Apr 2014 Post subject: |
 |
|
| slowlydoesit wrote: | | Vincent wrote: | Maybe what the Inland revenue should be looking at, is reducing the tax bill for the super wealthy on condition it actually gets paid. However, allowing somebody off £2 billion on the condition they pay £10 million, as in the case of Wanklestone doesn't quite seem right to me. |
Initially I thought you were cynical in the usual uninformed way that people are, but having read that post I think you're touchingly naive. If HMRC could have extracted £2bn out of Ecclestone, they would have done so. That's what they exist to do. That's how their masters judge their success. That's how their bonuses are calculated, which in turn determines whether they can afford that deposit on the 4-bed semi in Petworth they want so badly.
I suggest that this is the more likely scenario: HMRC took a good hard look at his affairs and concluded that he was operating within the bounds of the law. Presumably they decided that taking him to court would be unlikely to result in a win - that is, the court find him not guilty.
So instead they offered him a deal. As far as I can see based on the very limited information available, it was essentially a shakedown. "Pay us off, even though we don't have any evidence that what you're breaking any laws, and we'll leave you alone". That's far more disturbing to me than Ecclestone not paying £2bn in taxes he-would-definitely-owe-if-the-law-were-different-but-it-isn't-dammit.
It's not hard to work out why is this happening; just apply "cui bono". Who benefits? I suspect that big tax cases are getting so political that HMRC are unwilling to prosecute unless they are very sure they will win. So instead they're cutting shady deals. HMRC benefits because it can avoid the risk of a highly publicised court case that they will likely lose, while at the same time still squeezing out some revenue. Hurray, the dream of the Petworth semi-detached is nigh! The other party - in this case Ecclestone - may not appear to benefit but probably views the situation as preferable to a court case that they might well win, but that would sap resources over a period of years.
To reiterate what has already been said in this thread or another similar one, the problem is the law, not people using the law to their advantage. Everybody does it. Ecclestone does it. Your local builder does it. The chip shop owner does it. Farmers do it. Only the scale is different.
If it's a genuine problem, by all means change the law. If many people really believe this to be a problem why are they not voting to stamp this out? Because the current arrangements actually suit the majority of small businessmen and professionals and they have no interest in tighter tax schemes. (Ironically those professionals probably include the media clique who made the Panorama program. You can bet that those of them in the higher income brackets aren't voting for stricter tax regimes.)
So what's it gonna be kid Vincent? You gotta coupla options.
You can show some intellectual consistency and integrity and heap vitriol on the heads of the little businessmen of this country for wanting to keep as much as possible from the tax man - don't they understand that the government knows how to spend our hard-earned pennies wisely? - and as much as possible in their own pockets.
Or you can chicken out, prove that class jealousy is your main motivator, and go back to ranting about Ecclestone. Because this dwarf with bad hair has somehow got more money and beautiful women than you can dream of and it's just not fair and he must be punished.
Whatever. I'll be down the White Hart if you need me. |
You sir.......talk like a shiny arsed lawyer. Try to keep it brief if possible....ja? ____________________ Space Is Deep |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Vincent |
This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
 Vincent Banned

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 11 years, 312 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|