WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

[Beaaware]

This is what we are told, tough times for all, but according to Dispatches tonight some of our very wealthy government ministers & advisors manage to (legally) avoid paying tax through offshore companies in places such as The Cayman Islands & Jersey. Named on the programme were Andrew Mitchell, Sir Phillip Green, Phillip Hammond & George Osborne. The programme highlighted how many very wealthy individuals are able to avoid paying millions of pounds in tax. I take my hat of to Sir Phillip Green though his wife received the largest corporate dividend payment ever £1.2 billion and she lives in a tax free haven, Monaco, well done, a saving of £285 million pounds to the UK taxpayer.

But the good news is that the Coalition are to crackdown on offshore tax avoidance, yeah right.

And not even their cronies, themselves.

"So we should only ever allow someone to run for office if they've lived rough or on benefits?'

No, but if they honestly think "We are all in this together" when it comes to cuts to public services and can't see the difference between themselves and somebody who hasn't had their advantages, they really are far too stupid to be in office.

'All in this together' is something of a hackneyed phrase. But it is going to be true that - even though the net effect will vary from person to person - there will be very few that emerge totally unscathed. Trying to spread the pain around when you've got the blunt instruments of 'tax rises' on the one hand and 'spending cuts' on the other is an inaccurate science, at best. And for all his 'advantages' I don't envy Osborne's job one iota.

How exactly will any of the members of the Coalition Cabinet be scathed?

I don't envy Osborne's job either, but I really wish somebody who gave the impression of having a clue was doing it.

The Coalition cabinet, like a lot of other people in the public sector, may not be in their current job after the next election.

good point, well made.

On the other hand, I don't think this will put many of them in financial peril.

Everyone in the country will be scathed in one form or the other but some will come out of the public spending reductions in worse shape than others. The poorest will probably be the most affected but I don't see how you can make public spending cuts and not hurt the poorest the most as they are most dependent on the state and public services.

I've said it before... but if we don't all fundamentally understand that wealth provides cushioning and security against the slings and arrows of economic cycles... then no-one would play the lottery. We can't guarantee that crap never happens to us but we know that if we have a few bob around, it'll hurt a lot, lot less.

So giving the poor a good kicking will teach them an excellent moral lesson?

Pallette is right it is nigh on impossible to cut public spending and not hurt the poorest the most as they are far more reliant on the state than those on higher incomes as they don't need/want or aren't entitled to certain Government provisions.

Welfare payments are a very small part of the UKs expenditure. A very very small part. Deliberately targeting the very poorest in society is standard tory policy, ideological.

It's not a question of 'a good kicking' but everyone knows that if you're poor you are vulnerable. Bread goes up 10p a loaf and the poor are going to suffer proportionally more than the rich, even if their income from benefits or top-ups stays exactly the same.

The welfare budget (excluding the state pension) is £87 billion a year so its not a small part of expenditure.

@ISNT... Back in 2008/9 the welfare bill cost £150.1bn. The revenue that year from income tax was £152.5bn. The following year 2009/10 the treasury got £140.5bn from income tax and spent £164.7bn on welfare payments. It's not a 'small part of the UKs expenditure'

Chil1234 I actually agree with you on something. I think it is right that successful and rich people should advise the government (as well). I would prefer though self-made hard-working billionaires as opposed to someone inheriting a large offshore trust fund and never having a proper job in their life.

ISA's and tax 'avoidance' were being compared. Evasion is the criminal refusal to pay taxes due. Avoidance is organising finances legally so that as little tax as possible is paid. Bank accounts that deduct tax at source yes, are taxing savings on which tax has already been paid. Now if we're getting into immorality....