Jump to content

On the fiddle.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Ontarian1981 said:

 Songs have a 50-year copyright from the moment they are proved to have been written, Why do you think that TV  ads are using lots of 60's hits nowadays ,

2

All countries within the European Union are signatory states of the Berne Convention. Additionally, Copyright in the European Union is regulated through European Directives. The member states of the European Union have, following a directive, increased the term to life of the author and 70 years after their death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/03/2019 at 13:12, Cyclone said:

Living somewhere doesn't mean you can't leave...  You seem to be a bit confused.

not sure what you are saying, living outside a jurisdiction, is just that, not popping  in and out at will!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phil752 said:

not sure what you are saying, living outside a jurisdiction, is just that, not popping  in and out at will!!

 You can pop in and out of another country as much as you like. The point is where you spend the most of your time and where your base is, that is what determines who you pay taxes to. Example, I can pop over into the US  as often as I like and can stay there, if I like, for a few months( under 6 in a calendar year) and have property there. However, although I  have to pay their property and sales taxes, when I stay there, I do not pay income tax, that is paid in Canada where my permanent residence is. I'm not rich by any means, but if all this can be done by me, why should it not apply to rich people too..

Edited by Ontarian1981

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, phil752 said:

not sure what you are saying, living outside a jurisdiction, is just that, not popping  in and out at will!!

And how is this different for billionaires?  To not be resident in the UK they have to spend a limited amount of time here.  I'm sure that Monaco has some laws about a minimum they have to spend there to be resident.

It's not something you can just declare to be, you have to actually do it.

 

Arthur seemed to be upset that someone could live in Monaco and still fly over to the UK, what he said makes little sense though and he refuses to explain.

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

And how is this different for billionaires?  To not be resident in the UK they have to spend a limited amount of time here.  I'm sure that Monaco has some laws about a minimum they have to spend there to be resident.

It's not something you can just declare to be, you have to actually do it.

 

Arthur seemed to be upset that someone could live in Monaco and still fly over to the UK, what he said makes little sense though and he refuses to explain.

Trying to explain any thing to you in plain English is like trying to tell remainers that they lost the vote.

The billionaires can fly in and out of the Country in their Lear in the time it takes some people to travel to work on the tube or 95 bus ,especially those that live in the Channel Isles or I.O.M.  who do you think monitors them , not their mates in high places that is for sure ,these people are leaches on our society worse than any lad or lass that sits on West Street begging for the odd tanner or two . Is  that plain enough I have tried my best no fancy Dan stats or befuddling statistics just  plain bloody English.

 

Edited by Albert smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I genuinely have no idea what point Albert is trying to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bendix said:

I genuinely have no idea what point Albert is trying to make. 

People with loadsa money use tax avoidance schemes and it's not fair. In a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, L00b said:

People with loadsa money use tax avoidance schemes and it's not fair. In a nutshell.

99% of people understood. Some people don't want to, because of who said it.

If you make the same post in 6 months the same posters will post but supporting your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's also  claiming that by using private aircraft they're not subject to the usual entry /exit checks, thereby circumventing residency rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, woodview said:

99% of people understood. Some people don't want to, because of who said it.

If you make the same post in 6 months the same posters will post but supporting your point.

I don't have a (further) point to make, l'm just answering bendix ;)

 

Doesn't matter who started the thread and posted the OP: tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal, aggressive tax avoidance lies between both (until the government or a Court decides one way or the other) and is morally dubious.

 

After that, private jets, headline-grabbing personalities, residence in tax-efficient jurisdictions etc. is just noise. Or envy, or ignorance, doesn't matter which. 

 

I'm posting in this thread and so reminded of something topical which happened to my wife relatively recently. As we moved to Luxembourg, she's dependent on me and my tax contributions for national healthcare cover ('co-assurance' as they call it), but to get that sorted, we needed HMRC to complete and send some form or other to the Luxembourgish social security office. After a few months' wait and still no form, my wife called HMRC to try and progress the thing. From which conversation it turned out that, on paper at least, we were still allegedly 'claiming child benefit' (when I'd stopped it when the threshold went to £50k earnings per annum, 2012 or something like that: nobody told us we needed to 'stop the claim' as well as not take the money!), whence the HMRC person then proceeded to accuse my wife of moving to Luxembourg for evading tax (I kid you not!)

 

When even some of the tax office people are so ignorant and biased, what chance the ordinary man on the street?

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, L00b said:

I don't have a (further) point to make, l'm just answering bendix ;)

 

Doesn't matter who started the thread and posted the OP: tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal, aggressive tax avoidance lies between both (until the government or a Court decides one way or the other) and is morally dubious.

 

After that, private jets, headline-grabbing personalities, residence in tax-efficient jurisdictions etc. is just noise. Or envy, but doesn't matter which. Neither tothose concerned, nor to us lowly plebes.

I don't think he was claiming it was illegal, he feels it is unjust.

That's what people talk about, and the reason laws change and evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, woodview said:

I don't think he was claiming it was illegal, he feels it is unjust.

That's what people talk about, and the reason laws change and evolve.

Objectively, it's no more unjust, than any other context in which more means buys you a bigger leg up (and/or: a bigger house, a better car, a private jet, a more lavish lifestyle, etc, etc.): it's been the way of the world since the year dot.

 

A saving grace is that, in this day and age, atleast around our neck of the global woods, people aren't born into lifetime servitude anymore.

Edited by L00b

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.