Gideons trust fund

[newwave]

How many find it nauseating and hypocritical that Gideon "we are all in it together" Osborne has his 4 million pound trust fund placed offshore to avoid paying 1.5 million in tax.

I would question his morals and those who think it's ok to do this. Bad enough if Green and his wife avoid tax but what example is or Chancellor giving

Wedgwood-BENN. Not Been.

But by the same logic that choosing 'George' over 'Gideon' makes a man somehow dishonest we must surely mistrust the political motives of a man that foregoes membership of his exclusive club - the House of Lords, dumps a title as well as a barrel from his name & says 'call me Tony'?

If we think Benn could do all that and still retain some political integrity, what's sauce for the goose etc. Or is this just another 'we don't like anyone tory' exercise...?

Benn dropped the trappings of the aristocracy because of his principals, Gideon changed his name because with his sneering, smug bastard persona Gideon made him look even worse.

"do the people that would gladly pay more tax than necessary (and think that millionaires should do the same) see the payment of tax as a privilege? An honour? To me it's just a bill."

It is a privilege to be super rich, yes. It is also not about paying more tax than necessary, it is about paying the tax that the exchequer meant you to pay. The law might not be totally watertight, but they meant you to pay it - the intention of the tax laws in this case are that tax is paid, not that everyone offshores their money and avoids the tax. It's part of being a citizen to abide by the rules.

Most laws are not watertight either and rely on the conscience of the human being involved.

If Anthony Wedgewood Benn had kept his name it would not make me think any less of him.

Gideon should not have changed his name.

The only person I agree with changing their name was Adolph Miliband changing it to 'Ralph' particularly as he was Jewish.

It's the same as dumbing down your accent, which is what Samantha Cameron has done.

Tony is short for Anthony though isn't it?

LadyBB

It is a privilege to be super rich, yes. It is also not about paying more tax than necessary, it is about paying the tax that the exchequer meant you to pay. The law might not be totally watertight, but they meant you to pay it - the intention of the tax laws in this case are that tax is paid, not that everyone offshores their money and avoids the tax. It's part of being a citizen to abide by the rules.

Very well put.

To me it's like knowing there are no plod or cameras and doing 150 mph on a motorway.

The rich know what the "spirit of the rules" wants you to pay but they look for one loop hole and when that is closed they find another. In the meantime those on PAYE have no choice but to do the right thing.

Does anyone think Gideon Gekko is leading by example ?.

Provided that he is acting within the law I don't see what he is doing that is wrong. Minimising your tax bill is the sensible thing to do as it maximises your income. For example it wouldn't be a good decision to use a standard savings account over an ISA and what Osborne is doing is no different.

It's about who makes the law as well though isn't it - because if the law is made by the rich (of any political party) then it's a bit suspicious when there turn out to be lots of loopholes for - oooh lets guess - the rich

"paying the tax that the exchequer meant you to pay".... ROFL!!! Funniest thing I've heard in ages. "Don't pay what we ask you for, pay what we meant to ask you for?" What are we supposed to use to determine that one? A psychic?

Where there's a tax, there's a loophole and trying to close every single loophole risks ending up with rulebook the size of the Beijing telephone directory and a lot of very rich accountants. Look at all the people right now trying to wangle their income to stay out of the higher-rate tax band so that they can retain child benefit; all the self-employed people carefully sifting through every receipt with their accountant to make sure they're claiming every allowable expense; people passing assets to spouses so that they can use up their CGT allowance. That's life... tax exists to be minimised.

This is the difference between Tories and most others, Tories only seem to see things in the terms of money and fail to see the bigger picture of whats morally right.

I would like to see peoples take on this hypothesis.

A business is located in the UK, it makes widgets. The business has been established since 1910 and has always turned a very reasonable profit and the shareholders have done OK as far as dividends go. The business employs 350 people and another 250 indirectly from suppliers.

The business was floated in 1988.

WIGCOM a multinational conglomerate wants WidgetUK and is offering a very good price (30% above share value)

You find out that if WIGCOM gets the business it intends to move the business to Malaysia and just keep 50 people in a UK distribution centre and making the rest redundant (they tried to keep their plans quiet).

If you owned some shares would you sell to WIDGCOM or would you have a conscience.

The area has 12% unemployment already

That's easy. If the board are doing a good job, the company has a solid future and you're getting good dividends you'd listen to the recommendation of the board. If they don't think it's a good deal for the company, you don't vote for the takeover. If the company was going down the swannee on the other hand, agreeing to the takeover might be the only way you get your money back as a shareholder.

Chil - the only distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance is the analysis of the tax that has not been paid against the intention of Parliament in the specific tax law.

In any successful tax avoidance scheme a Court must have concluded that the intention of Parliament was not to impose a tax charge in the circumstances which the tax avoiders had placed themselves.

Judges can often go either way and it is more subjective than you might imagine - it is based on the judgment as to whether the tax was not paid against or with the intention of parliament.

it's all me, me, me, isn't it, for Tory shareholders.

Like Tory buyers of council houses, & Tories who cashed in on privatisation shares.

A plague on all your houses.

In reality the greater chunks of shares in companies are usually held by other companies e.g. insurance companies investing pension contributions or brokers in charge of unit trusts. Not politically motivated particularly. ROI rules.

@LadyBlahBlah I understand what you're saying about intention. However, it rather proves my point. If the scheme is well-established as legal - and the 'intention' to charge tax has been proved to not exist - then there's even less reason to accuse him of 'not paying what he was meant to pay'

Newwave you say it is a priviledge to be super rich. But don't you have to work for money? Why is it a priviledge? I've got a few bob now, but I have worked for it! Is that a priviledge?

If you have worked for your money it's not a priviledge but a right, a right you have earned!

MyCounty.

How do you feel about inherited wealth?.

How do you feel about those who use every tax dodge in the book to avoid paying their fair share whilst those on PAYE cannot. It was shown in one example (on Panorama I think) that the CEO of a major company was paying less tax as a percentage of his earnings than the receptionist was, it this ok with you.

How do you feel about being able to get into the top professions because of the "old school tie".

How do you feel about those trapped on the minimum wage with very few life chances.

Newwave. Ah yes, inherited wealth! Are you talking about the Milibands' inherited wealth, and how they dodged the inheritance tax?

My inherited wealth, will stay with me, I do not intend to give one penny to the tax man if I can help it. All my wealth inherited or not shall go to my children.

I only wish I had inherited some wealth from my parents!
On the whole you don't get into the professions because of the 'old school tie'. Normally they are better educated/articulate, they have a superior education as I have said before. I'm not trying to score points here, but quite frankly it's boring saying that you can't get on if you're poor, (and patronising) I was poor, VERY, VERY,
poor, was brought up in a single parent household (when mother died, I was aged 10). All four of us struggled. It did not stop us from getting on. People should stop moaning and see how they can improve their lives instead of blaming outside forces.

Newwave. If you are trapped on the minimum wage, (as I was) get out, try to better yourself!

P.S. The post is not addressed to me! but I have to address it as it's getting on my nerves!

Why do you think I would approve of the Millibands tax avoidence ?

As an honest person (which I am) :o I will admit I inherited a very large sum from my paternal Grandparents which allowed me to pay off the remainder of £80K of our mortgage and move to a far better property in the home counties without another mortgage.

My Children will inherit both our home and my Mothers home as she has no other Grandchildren.

No I am not on the minimum wage.

That said I think those who can best bear the burden of the Tory cuts should not be using every possible loophole to avoid paying their share.

comp, I know this is obvious but if it "gets on your nerves" why read it

Newwave. I have to respond, it's like a drug
being on MN! I feel if some of us were banned, we would find it 'strangely liberating!'

I was talking about the minimum wage generically as I know you are on 80k! not as much as me, but there you go!
Goodnight!

being on MN! I feel if some of us were banned, we would find it 'strangely liberating!

How very very true :o