Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Arctic Monkeys, tax dodgers

Recommended Posts

Surely everyone does, nobody pays extra to the exchequer, people use ISAs and Pensions to avoid paying tax. They join voucher schemes though work, and buy bikes through work, etc... all of which are salary sacrifice and so avoid tax.

 

There is a world of difference between putting your money into an ISA and putting your money into an aggressive tax avoidance scheme. Morally, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to put you right on one or two things. (I hate uninformed bile)

 

"The Crown has a legal tax-exempt status because certain acts of parliament do not apply to it. Crown bodies such as The Duchy of Lancaster are not subject to legislation concerning income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. Furthermore, the Sovereign has no legal liability to pay such taxes. The Duchy of Cornwall has a Crown exemption and the Prince of Wales is not legally liable to pay income tax on Duchy revenues.

 

A Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation was published on 5 February 1993 and amended in 1996, 2009 and 2013. The arrangements in the memorandum are considered to be permanent and it is intended that they will be followed by the next monarch. The memorandum describes the arrangements by which The Queen and The Prince of Wales make voluntary payments to the HM Revenue and Customs in lieu of tax to compensate for their tax exemption. The details of the payments are private. The Queen voluntarily pays a sum equivalent to income tax on her private income and income from the Privy Purse (which includes the Duchy of Lancaster) that is not used for official purposes. The Sovereign Grant is exempted. A sum equivalent to capital gains tax is voluntarily paid on any gains from the disposal of private assets made after 5 April 1993. Many of the Sovereign's assets were acquired earlier than this date but payment is only made on the gains made afterwards. Arrangements also exist for a sum in lieu of inheritance tax to be voluntarily paid on some of the Queen's private assets. Property passing from monarch to monarch is exempted, as is property passing from the consort of a former monarch to the current monarch.[21]

 

The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays a sum equivalent to income tax on that part of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall that is in excess of what is needed to meet official expenditure.[20] From 1969 he made voluntary tax payments of 50% of the profits, but this reduced to 25% in 1981 when he married Lady Diana Spencer.[22] These arrangements were replaced by the memorandum in 1993. The income of the Prince of Wales from sources other than the Duchy of Cornwall is subject to tax in the normal way".

 

Couple of points ( I hate uninformed subservience ).

 

How do you suppose the Monarchy come by their wealth in the first instance?

 

Secondly, are you aware that at one time the Queen was judged to be the wealthiest woman in the world with a fortune in excess of £5 billion but when it was decided that she should pay tax like the rest of us an 'adjustment' was made.

 

It was decided that she didn't in fact actually own all of the assets previously attributed to her, she was in fact merely a custodian of them and acting on our behalf.

 

Yes, they belong to us! Obviously should we actually try to gain access to any of 'our' properties it might turn nasty. :)

 

So her wealth is now estimated at a mere £349,000,000. and in addition she receives a personal income of £12.5 million a year from the Duchy of Lancaster.

 

No doubt you have no problem with this, and to be honest neither do I, as far as I'm concerned they can keep the properties that are now adjudged to be theirs, and they can also keep the £349 million 'personal' fortune.

 

However, when the Queen dies - and I wish her no ill will - I would like to see an end to this anachronistic Ruritanian nonsense, which perpetuates the myth that some people are entitled to deference through no actions, abilities or character traits belonging to them, but purely because they were born into a particular family.

 

A family incidentally descended from some of the dregs of the earth, murderers, thieves, con men and serial killers are all in their bloodline.

 

Time to grow up, and get up off your subjugated knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to put you right on one or two things. (I hate uninformed bile)

 

"The Crown has a legal tax-exempt status because certain acts of parliament do not apply to it. Crown bodies such as The Duchy of Lancaster are not subject to legislation concerning income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. Furthermore, the Sovereign has no legal liability to pay such taxes. The Duchy of Cornwall has a Crown exemption and the Prince of Wales is not legally liable to pay income tax on Duchy revenues.

 

A Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation was published on 5 February 1993 and amended in 1996, 2009 and 2013. The arrangements in the memorandum are considered to be permanent and it is intended that they will be followed by the next monarch. The memorandum describes the arrangements by which The Queen and The Prince of Wales make voluntary payments to the HM Revenue and Customs in lieu of tax to compensate for their tax exemption. The details of the payments are private. The Queen voluntarily pays a sum equivalent to income tax on her private income and income from the Privy Purse (which includes the Duchy of Lancaster) that is not used for official purposes. The Sovereign Grant is exempted. A sum equivalent to capital gains tax is voluntarily paid on any gains from the disposal of private assets made after 5 April 1993. Many of the Sovereign's assets were acquired earlier than this date but payment is only made on the gains made afterwards. Arrangements also exist for a sum in lieu of inheritance tax to be voluntarily paid on some of the Queen's private assets. Property passing from monarch to monarch is exempted, as is property passing from the consort of a former monarch to the current monarch.[21]

 

The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays a sum equivalent to income tax on that part of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall that is in excess of what is needed to meet official expenditure.[20] From 1969 he made voluntary tax payments of 50% of the profits, but this reduced to 25% in 1981 when he married Lady Diana Spencer.[22] These arrangements were replaced by the memorandum in 1993. The income of the Prince of Wales from sources other than the Duchy of Cornwall is subject to tax in the normal way".

 

I am not an expert on Royalty as it seems you are but when I see the recent media reports that inform us of the Millions just spent on Kensington Palace so as it will be up to the standard req for the latest new born member of this family of benefit claimants [is it 12 extra bedrooms or new servants quarters?] then I instantly think of the bedroom tax that has meant millions of poor people loosing their life long family council home because it has one to many bedrooms etc.

 

There are many other Royal relations that live in similar palaces or grace and favour houses, houses that have so many rooms that the occupants probably never even enter them in fact they probably have no idea how many they actually have.

By the way we have also been informed in the media that all the millions spent on little Judds new Palace will be a waste of money as the pampered couple have decided that they do not want to live in it any way.

Or perhaps I have been reading uninformed bile;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People not paying tax that they have no legal obligation to pay is a complete non story as far as I can see.

 

Only question to be asked is, is it legal?

 

If it is then it's no ones business except those involved.

 

If it isn't let the law take care of it.

 

All this government and media pressure to get someone to pay more when they've abided by the rules as they currently stand is pathetic.

 

What they are saying in essence is 'we have a very complicated tax system and you have employed someone who understands it better than us, give us some more money.'

 

How about simplifying the system?

 

Simplifying the system is the right way to go but the entire concept had baffled governments for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simplifying the system is the right way to go but the entire concept had baffled governments for years.

 

Has it baffled them, or is there no wish to simplify the system because - like the law -being complicated allows certain people to make huge amounts of money at the expense of the general public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPs and ex-MPs make full use of the same complexity. They have no wish to simplify it as they would suffer personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a world of difference between putting your money into an ISA and putting your money into an aggressive tax avoidance scheme. Morally, at least.

 

These people are advised by accountants to use XYZ scheme. They are presumably told that it is legal to do so. Morally the advisor might be crossing a line, but I don't see how the client is doing so.

 

---------- Post added 14-07-2014 at 07:46 ----------

 

What are you saying? As a self employed java programer you do the same? :confused:

 

It's quite clear what I was saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a mate of mine once said in his book grafters.....to pay is to fail.....everyone is after milking the system....if they can....that's life....

who once said no income tax no vat.....and everyone loved del boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, even the Arctic Monkeys' friends at the Guardian have turned on them.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jul/11/arctic-monkeys-tax-avoidance-liberty

 

As the article so eloquently puts it, " Singer Alex Turner may have ascended to the elite, dating models and living the high life, but taxation paid for the hospital where he was born, the school where he was educated and the schools which paid his (teacher) parents' wages, the street lamps that lit his way home from rehearsals, and the benefits that sustained his bandmates when they were out of work."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear, even the Arctic Monkeys' friends at the Guardian have turned on them.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jul/11/arctic-monkeys-tax-avoidance-liberty

 

As the article so eloquently puts it, " Singer Alex Turner may have ascended to the elite, dating models and living the high life, but taxation paid for the hospital where he was born, the school where he was educated and the schools which paid his (teacher) parents' wages, the street lamps that lit his way home from rehearsals, and the benefits that sustained his bandmates when they were out of work."

 

That isn't "turning on them". It is simple, factual information.

 

That is what taxation pays for mostly. Something that all of the right whinger, pro-tax dodger brigade that infest this place, should consider most carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear, even the Arctic Monkeys' friends at the Guardian have turned on them.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jul/11/arctic-monkeys-tax-avoidance-liberty

 

As the article so eloquently puts it, " Singer Alex Turner may have ascended to the elite, dating models and living the high life, but taxation paid for the hospital where he was born, the school where he was educated and the schools which paid his (teacher) parents' wages, the street lamps that lit his way home from rehearsals, and the benefits that sustained his bandmates when they were out of work."

 

None of that in any way proves that AM are socialists, your original claim that you still haven't tried to prove.

 

Alex Turner comes from a very middle-class background. Both his parents were teachers and the household income would have been well above the Sheffield average. The only slumming he ever seems to have done is write songs about social classes below himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of that in any way proves that AM are socialists, your original claim that you still haven't tried to prove.

 

Alex Turner comes from a very middle-class background. Both his parents were teachers and the household income would have been well above the Sheffield average. The only slumming he ever seems to have done is write songs about social classes below himself.

 

Alex Turner and the Guardian are very good "friends", something else ricky needs to clear up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.