banjodeano 31 #145 Posted March 15, 2016 Those 9 million low earners could work a bit harder and pay more tax instead of leaving it to the top earners. your logic dismays me at times Eric............... ---------- Post added 15-03-2016 at 09:02 ---------- Tax isn't meant to be fair, you only pay what's due, not what you think should be due. That even applies to politicians. ---------- Post added 14-03-2016 at 14:12 ---------- That is exactly what banjodeano is doing. Poor poor answer Eric, but we didnt expect anything else from a serf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hesther 10 #146 Posted March 15, 2016 That is exactly what banjodeano is doing. I'm sorry because I don't like doing this, but Eric, that is an outright lie. Banjodeano has put the link which proves his point.... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-receives-dividend-payment-from-family-business-that-pays-no-corporation-tax-a6873151.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
foxy lady 10 #147 Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) I'm sorry because I don't like doing this, but Eric, that is an outright lie. Banjodeano has put the link which proves his point.... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-receives-dividend-payment-from-family-business-that-pays-no-corporation-tax-a6873151.html I'm afraid it is absolute nonsense. There is a tax system in force and companies pay the amount they are required to pay based on the profit they make. They are not required to pay tax on newspaper stories. However if you feel really strongly about this you can go and report it to the tax man. Indeed you can obtain a copy of the aucited accounts and look for any discrepency that might exist. But as the accounts will have been fully audited by a firm of chartered accountants who have a reputation to uphold the accounts will be spot on to the penny, and the amount of tax that should be paid will have been paid. Not a penny less, and the bit that gets up your nose, not a penny more. You probably missed this bit in your haste to point the finger.. The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments. ---------- Post added 15-03-2016 at 10:30 ---------- I'm afraid it is absolute nonsense. There is a tax system in force and companies pay the amount they are required to pay based on the profit they make. They are not required to pay tax on newspaper stories. However if you feel really strongly about this you can go and report it to the tax man. Indeed you can obtain a copy of the aucited accounts and look for any discrepency that might exist. But as the accounts will have been fully audited by a firm of chartered accountants who have a reputation to uphold the accounts will be spot on to the penny, and the amount of tax that should be paid will have been paid. Not a penny less, and the bit that gets up your nose, not a penny more. You probably missed this bit in your haste to point the finger.. The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments. Actually having taken a quick look at the accounts myself the strory you link to is total tosh. After declaring overall losses for most of the last 6 or 7 years the company actually made a profit last year. They declared a profit of £722,000, paid £179,000 tax. A post tax profit of £543,000 from which they paid £335,000 in dividends and retained £208,000. It seems the bogus strory is very likely built up out of dividends paid in a different (financial) year from the ones they quoted for the tax losses. Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!! Edited March 15, 2016 by foxy lady Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hesther 10 #148 Posted March 15, 2016 I'm afraid it is absolute nonsense. There is a tax system in force and companies pay the amount they are required to pay based on the profit they make. They are not required to pay tax on newspaper stories. However if you feel really strongly about this you can go and report it to the tax man. Indeed you can obtain a copy of the aucited accounts and look for any discrepency that might exist. But as the accounts will have been fully audited by a firm of chartered accountants who have a reputation to uphold the accounts will be spot on to the penny, and the amount of tax that should be paid will have been paid. Not a penny less, and the bit that gets up your nose, not a penny more. You probably missed this bit in your haste to point the finger.. The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments. ---------- Post added 15-03-2016 at 10:30 ---------- Actually having taken a quick look at the accounts myself the strory you link to is total tosh. After declaring overall losses for most of the last 6 or 7 years the company actually made a profit last year. They declared a profit of £722,000, paid £179,000 tax. A post tax profit of £543,000 from which they paid £335,000 in dividends and retained £208,000. It seems the bogus strory is very likely built up out of dividends paid in a different (financial) year from the ones they quoted for the tax losses. Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!! Bogus story. :hihi: You must try harder. Oh, I know, it's all 'within the law', just like IDS's £50 breakfast taxpayers pay for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hesther 10 #149 Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) It really is a total non story. The company employs 195, has a £30 million turnover, pays millions in VAT and turned in annual profits until Brown's government crashed the economy and folk stopped buying high end wallpaper. They made a loss of 7.5 million in 2009 followed by small losses in subsequent years. The top man cut his salary by over £100,000. The losses were offset against profits until last year when they one again declared taxable profits, paid £179,000 tax and paid dividents to shareholders. Jesus H Christ, what does a company have to do togeta bit of respect? There's no need for blasphemy. Respect? Are you for real? By the way, you forgot to mention the Osbornes' use of tax havens. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152536/Chancellor-George-Osborne-s-family-firm-6million-property-deal-developer-based-tax-haven.html Edited March 15, 2016 by Hesther Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
the fonz 10 #150 Posted March 15, 2016 There's no moral requirements in tax. An awful lot of people seem to disagree with you (and not just on sf). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eric Arthur 10 #151 Posted March 15, 2016 An awful lot of people seem to disagree with you (and not just on sf). They are wrong though Fonzy. If there is something that needs changing because society deems it, the change needs to be codified into the tax legislation, not pressure from newspaper headlines and advertising clickbait for people who don't understand what they are reading. Then it will be law and is still won't be a moral issue. Get it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
L00b 441 #152 Posted March 15, 2016 Jesus H Christ, what does a company have to do to get a bit of respect?Move out, methinks Then continue paying tax wherever it lands and fund the government and benefits there instead. With a side order of giving the rods to the ex-country and ex-employees. By and large that's what most Belgian, French, Spanish <etc.> business types who relocated here in recent years have been doing. No reason to suspect they'd show any more loyalty to the UK, if it eventually turned on them like their own governments did before. It's a global economy with ever fewer tangible assets: wealth creators can move their profit centres wherever, whenever, at the drop of a hat. Try and stop them, see how far you go Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
the fonz 10 #153 Posted March 15, 2016 They are wrong though Fonzy. Everyone else is wrong but you? There is an argument to say that tax a kind of moral mechanism to tackle injustice and inequality on our society isn't there? a way to rebalance the economy? You are right in that the tax laws need changing but isn't that exactly what the treasury are looking at doing? Until then its a moral issue, get it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
the fonz 10 #154 Posted March 15, 2016 That's not a moral tax argument. What is it then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eric Arthur 10 #155 Posted March 15, 2016 What is it then? Tackling injustice and inequality on our society has nothing to do with tax. I'm beginning to think that conflation should be taxed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
foxy lady 10 #156 Posted March 15, 2016 There's no need for blasphemy. Respect? Are you for real? By the way, you forgot to mention the Osbornes' use of tax havens. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152536/Chancellor-George-Osborne-s-family-firm-6million-property-deal-developer-based-tax-haven.html You guys are desperate aren't you. QUOTE. There is no suggestion Mr Osborne or his family business avoided tax :hihi::hihi: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...