George Osborne is stupid or naive or a liar. Or all of the above.

[DashingRedhead]

Apparently he's shocked at the tiny amount of tax paid by the richest in the country.

But I'm not. And he's Chancellor of the Exchequer. And I'm not.

Um, why?!

margoandjerry - You are missing nothing. There's a genuine risk the country will throw the baby out with the bath water if people persist.

AnxiousP - It's just that Apple are among the biggest tax avoiders in the world, and in the UK. They bay a UK tax rate of 0.2% of their UK turnover. This is because they shelter in Ireland, benefitting from its business-friendly 12.5% corporation tax.

At least the Tories recognise that we consume in a global market and it's better to get a small tranche of a huge amount of money (via competitive low taxes) than almost nothing at all.

When Ed Miliband did his talking to everybody tour we were invited to it. So went and made this very point to him. If you work, or make a profit in this country, you should pay proper taxes in this country. And I'm hardly an economist!

Ah I wondered if it was that.
Show me a big company that doesn't avoid tax, though, in quite a major way? They're all at it, and it's facilitated by the government, who are advised/led/directed/coerced(?) by the Square Mile. NO government is going to fix things, that is my point, it's not a partisan issue. No government has the power to challenge and effectively change tax laws to stop tax evasion etc. We may as well forget about the subject.

OK then I genuinely don't think it's a problem. Amazon paying no corp tax in this country is a problem but this isn't.

I have many objections to the tax avoidance schemes available to the wealthy (the fact that private equity managers can pay tax at 18% for example and the stamp duty loophole) but not this.

Anxious - Don't you think it would be better to have a competitive low corporation tax rate of say, 12.5%, so that foreign businesses could sevice the UK out of the UK, instead of sheltering in Ireland or Switzerland or wherever? Isn't it better (and fairer) to have a smaller tranche of everything that happens in the UK, rather than a larger tranche from smaller businesses who aren't big enough to divert their operations to a more tax-friendly spot?

I think it should just be illegal to claim that you run your massive distribution business from what is effectively a PO Box in Luxembourg.

We have a relatively low corp tax rate but we are not a tax haven which is what Lux effectively is because it cannot sustain any other form of business. It would be relatively easy to do something about this because Lux and Ireland are both in the EU. there are minimum rates of VAT in the EU to prevent exactly this sort of arbitrage and there should be a minimum rate of corp tax too.

Or, a regulation to ensure that tax is paid where income is earned, not where the companies claim they are running their businesses from. That Boots claims to be a Swiss-run company is a bloody disgrace.

NO government is going to fix things, that is my point, it's not a partisan issue. No government has the power to challenge and effectively change tax laws to stop tax evasion etc. We may as well forget about the subject

I agree, why are people making tax avoidance a partisan issue. Pointing fingers at the opposition. Why is it so utterly inconceivable to people that the three major parties have their hands tied, they are not fundamentally different and they lack the will and the back bone to deal with this.

Maybe if we all realised that voting for one of the 3 isn't democracy at all we might actually have to question other issues like globalisation and the effect of these rich people and corporations, not just in lost tax but in terms of creating hunger in the third world.

I'm happy to pay tax but then I don't give to charity, they don't pay all their taxes but they give to charity. Horah! NO, they give to charity because it minimises tax and because by doing so they shape the underlying core values of those charities. We also have Dave setting up this new fund for investors to make money through social enterprise, so now we allow them to give, invest, avoid tax and make money out of social causes. my bet is that they will lobby for a tax efficient way of collecting those profits too.

We have a huge debt caused by the banks-we borrow from the IMF who issue phoney bonds which we use to bail out the banks-who owns the shares in the IMF......rich bankers. Who imposes austerity on the UK and makes ordinary people carry the financial debt? whilst they and their creed avoid paying tax but are happy to pay into charities, charities whose core business is to mop up the mess caused by the IMF! who imposes crippling debt on the third world? Anyone else notice a theme here? because I do and I don't believe the Torries or the left have the ability to take this on.

"It's a compliment to be a tax haven", says Francis Maude
Francis Maude has boasted about trying to turn Britain into a tax haven.

I don't believe that George has any real intention of cleaning up the tax system, if he did why do the rest of the cabinet not agree or at least know about it. It's just hot air until something else distracts us.

Osborne is Chancellor of the Exchequer - salary c.£134k

He is also the heir to the fortune of the Osborne and Little company - admittly not making much money at present but have built up a fortune in the past.

Osborne says he does not have an 'income' above £150k so did not benefit from the 50% to 45% tax cut as his 'salary' was below the threshold but did admit he had some other property income from letting a London house - he benefits from both No 11 Downing Street and a Grace and Favour country pile but neither are classed as taxable benefits as they would be for any other employee but does allow him to let out his original London home - rent must be at least £1000/week

So, either he really is not benefitting from his family fortune - probably because it has been paid into a trust fund - a popular tax avoidance scheme for the wealthy

and/or he is offsetting his property income against expenses - a popular form of tax allowance with landlords

and/or he does not understand the difference between salary alone and gross taxable income and he really is above the threshold but does not understand that - in which case - why is he Chancellor?

On the basis of the available evidence - I would suggest all three are possibilities - individually or in combination.

I think that tax haven comment will come back to haunt him. The tide of public opinion is really turning against this sort of thing. It's like Margaret Thatcher's "there's no such thing as society.." - when your commitment to an ideology takes you to a very, very foolish place.

Alice, I agree. I don't see how he can possibly earn less than £150k. His house in Notting Hill is apparently worth £2m (so I learn from the Evening Standard ) so I think £1000 pw is on the low side. I imagine he's put that income into his spouse's name or something. AKA legal tax avoidance.

Off to google what Mrs Osbourne does...

Novelist...almost certainly on a much lower marginal tax rate. Bet that's what they've done.

aliceL - I'm totally with you on the rental income (and wasn't sharp practice on rental properties one of the things he has just found out about?). But the "family fortune" appears to be entirely in UK listed shares. Unless he sells them (or dies) they aren't taxable, and the company hasn't paid a dividend recently. So I don't think there's any current liability to minimise on that one.

I think there are two mortgages secured against the Notting Hill property, so you would offset the mortgage interest costs and maintenance of the property/or a sum for wear and tear against tax. Perhaps he now owns none of that house. It's perfectly legal to pass assets free of tax, between spouses. There is nothing wrong with that, it's one of the few benefits of being married.

arf at NicolasTeakozy

two mortgages against that property makes me . I don't think it is right to pass the home that you actually live in, normally, into the name of your spouse. This is a tax trick that's not available to me (not married) and it makes me a bit

Osborne has expressed an interest in the ideas of "tax simplification" including the idea of flat tax, sounds a bit Friedman to me. He set up a "Tax Reform Commission" in October 2005 to investigate ideas for how to create a "flatter, simpler" tax system.

Each year between 2006 and 2009, Osborne attended the annual Bilderberg Conference, a meeting of influential people in business, finance and politics.

The Bilderberg conference, well worth some research for those that don't know what it is. The last meeting was held at Rothchilds mansion. Why, because these are the people that control the central banks. The same people who impose austerity and harangue governments to both privatise and collect greater taxes........not from rich tax dodgers but from you and me. Pasty tax????????

I think this is where they should have looked at the minimum tax take proposed by the libdems. It wouldn't get at the tinkering around the edges by the Osbournes but it would get at the more serious cases. I don't think the libdems extracted much for their own agenda from that last budget.

margoandjerry Are you not unmarried by choice?

ummm, no not really!

Danny Alexander flipped his houses, nominating one then another as his Principal Private Residence, in order to limit capital gains tax on the second property. Having two houses to flip, isn't open to most people.

His wife is an author and George stated in an interview that his wife "sorted out the mortgage" perhaps he doesn't even have a share in it.