If only Mrs. Phillip Green's wife would pay her taxes in the UK

[EggFriedRice]

I have read about Mrs.Phillip Green's wife who lives in Monaco, she is also the owner of Topshop in the UK and has been paid the biggest ever dividend in UK history, over £1 billion pounds, now what I fail to understand is why does she not live in the UK where her businesse's are located? why does she choose to live as a tax exile? Does this not lead many people to believe that she is deliberately trying to avoid paying UK tax? Yes of course we are not stupid, I have destroyed my Topshop card & will never buy another item from Topshop again, I think that Mr. & Mrs. Green are hypocrites, end of

edam- They aren't pretending that she owns it, she does own it

Err ... no. The reports do actually refer to £1.2 billion pounds . I'm not dim actually even if I come across if I am.

It has nothing to do with not wanting women (or wives) to own things, it has to do with using that as a vehicle for evading tax. I think it's a bit disingenuous to use it as a feminist point.

Yes, kerstina, the co-op also operates a similar business model - I spend most of my cash there or JLP :)

dertitude - if the taxman decided to take too close a look, I think that would be considered tax evasion.

Just to add ref billion: I think that means the generally accepted term ie a thousand million, rather than a million million

So that is 1.4 thousand million pounds . On which he paid £400m

I can't understand why anyone thinks that's ok when we are all paying much higher rates of tax

Oops - 1.2 - sorry.

LB - Yes I think Billion = 1000 million is the standard definition these days.

Poor the milliard.

Yes yes I know they refer to £1.2 billion POUNDS. Again, I am not making a point re the currency

I was simply making the point that I assume they are referring to one thousand million pounds (a US billion) and not one million million pounds (a UK billion) and stating the fact that a US billion is not a great deal more than the salary of someone who has paid £400 million income tax (which would presumably be about £900 million)

I don't think the point re wives owning assets is disingenuous. MN is full of threads about how SAHM should secure their financial future by ensuring sufficient assets are in their name, despite the fact that it is their partner who has physically earned the money.

All the arguments I have heard on this thread are basically an objection to the Greens wealth full stop.

Nancy:- From Wiki

"For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale,[3] while the United States of America used the short scale,[3] so that usage of the two systems was often referred to as British and American respectively. In 1974, the government of the UK switched to the short scale, a change that is reflected in its mass media and official usage.[4][5][6][7] Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK,[8] the phrases British usage and American usage are no longer accurate nor helpful characterisations."

Government statements and press reports in the UK that talk about Billions are referring to 1000 Million.

Someone who paid £400 million in tax on their income would have been paid about £800 million. So he would have paid £600 million on £1.2 billion. Saving £200 million is not a bad days work.

I may have missed the relevant post, in which case my apologies, but surely we can all agree that the reason why the Greens in particular are getting it in the neck at the moment, rather than any other company that is a massive tax avoider, eg Vodafone (see www.ukuncut.org.uk/ ) is because cameron has put Philip Green in charge of telling the rest of us how to make savings.

I don't personally like being told, on my less-than-average salary, how to scrimp and save, and how my country should scrimp and save, and how all our public services should be cut, by someone who could personally avoid the need for a considerable number of those cuts, if he just paid up what he morally if not legally owes?

It's just greedy - even Mark Zuckerberg has just announced he plans to give away half his fortune. I can''t see why anyone should NEED that kind of money. Those who justify holding onto as much cash as you legally can and paying as little tax as possible - why? Once you get to the stage where you have enough to cover every need/desire you could possibly ever have, why would you bother holding on to more, when you knew how much difference it could make to the lives of millions of others?

It seems entirely incomprehensible to me.

But it would be up to him - if he hadn't chosen to tell the rest of us how to live our lives and run our economy.

I think this fact alone makes him fair game.

Coalition that was my point.

I assumed when LB referred to approximately £900 million being a "drop in the ocean" compared to £1.2 billion that she thought that figure referred to 1.2 million million (in which case the figure could have been considered a drop in the ocean) rather than 1.2 thousand million which is in fact not a great deal more than 900 million.

I attempted to clarify this and LB confirmed she meant UK million but I think she was referring to currency rather than quantity.

My point was simply that 900 million is not a drop in the ocean when compared 1.2 thousand million - Anyway it really isn't the most significant or interesting of points and I don't intend to labour it further

Thanks for reminders to spend ethically!

I do buy big ticket items from John Lewis - just did recently actually - due to the price matching and long guarantees. Nice to remember it's more ethical too. Win all round. :)

I think 400m is bugger all compared to 1.2bn just to clarify

And actually the point that granted makes is a good one. Most multi-multi-millionaires have used their wealth to better others' lives. What exactly have the Greens done with their obscene amounts of dosh?

Interesting article here:
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/thomas-sutcliffe/tom-sutcliffe-an-awkward-truth-about-tax-avoiders-2153091.html

Also, many here seem to confuse Green's shops with publicly-owned companies - they're not - no shareholders to placate, or spread the wealth around.

Yes, the employees get salaries (though I doubt high ones), but the real profits have ALL been siphoned away to family accounts in tax havens.

Plus, am I really the only one who feels deeply miserable every time I stand on a British high street these days, and it has the same 20 or so stores, half of which are owned by Arcadia, most of the other half of which I think were owned by Iecelandic companies until they went bust?

I hate the way companies like Arcadia have effectively killed independent retailers on the high street, and turned all our town centres into faceless, identical corporate clones. Compare that to be what it used to be like 20 or 30 years ago, and what it still is like in most other European counties (eg Spain, where my parnts-in-law live - streets full of little, individual, unique owner-run shops - lovely!).

Because of the way rent reviews are managed in this country, acc to a friend who used to work in retail until she got out (due to upwards-only rent reviews that were ridiculous, based on what the big corporates could afford, but drove all independent retailers out of business), I suspect that without Philip Green, all those high street shops wouldn't be empty, they'd just be run by a lot more smaller companies/individual owners - the money would still be made, but (a) it would be spread around a lot more, (b) it wouldn't all be leaking out to Monaco (c) it would be contributing to our taxes and (d) it would be being spent in the UK and therefore circulating, rather than just sitting in some offshore account somewhere.

Allowing billionaires like Philip Green to hoard cash is not best for the UK economy - it may be the best for the Green family, but surely we all know by now that the 'trickle-down' effect doesn't actually work?

Small retailers will also struggle against larger firms as large retailers can take advantage of economies of scale which reduces costs and so they can sell goods for cheaper, putting smaller firms out of business. Can't say I yearn for the return of smaller retailers as they economically inefficient.

I certainly do - do you really like only having the choice of the same few, dull shops on every high street? I hate it.

And small independent shops can offer great bargains, too - and with lower rents those bargains could be even better.

Plus better service, too.

"Most multi-multi-millionaires have used their wealth to better others' lives. What exactly have the Greens done with their obscene amounts of dosh?"

LB (really I am not picking on you honest ) but cou you give some examples of who does what?

I posted earlier about PG's charitable donations are they not comparable to what others do because they are not sufficient or are we so anti Green that he can do not right?

TBH I'm not really sure that I care that much about him or what he does, I am certainly not a particular fan, but I do find the suggestion that different rules should apply to the exceptionally wealthy for no reason other than the fact that they have wealth curious.

granted I agree with much of your post regarding the killing of independent retailers and the ubiquity of the high street. I find it depressing. But honestly I don't think the majority of people agree - they are too beholden to the low prices that companies like Arcadia can provide. And that is a whole different (and depressing thread.

I have deliberately moved to a town which has only two chain stores on the high street and the town is fighting hard against having any more - I love living somewhere where there are no arcadia stores :)

granted - But surely all those things mean that he is EXACTLY the kind of person to give advice on saving money. It's like a poacher turned gamekeeper ;)

As I recall the big ticket items he highlighted were the Governments piss poor procurement particularly due to the lack of collective polices.

With their volume the Government should be paying LESS than pretty much everyone for pretty much everything. Usually they pay more.

Though it doesn't take Philip Green to point this out tbh.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou - he can only be poacher-turned-gamekeeper if he stops shooting game, so to speak - he's still a poacher, so until he reounc :)es this, I don't think he is an apropriate person to give advice on gamekeeping.

If that isn't overdoing the metaphor somewhat.

Excuse random smiley. :)

nancydrew - you're not being serios about the 'low prices' are you? Topshop say, sells dresses for £60 a pop - not esp low in my book.