On the fiddle.

[WiseOwl182 10]

3 hours ago, Hotmale 1954 said:

Very wrong about the chip, and extremely wrong about my 'obsession'.

If you think Britain is well run, then you must be very easily pleased.

It's a dump, geared up to please the upper classes, the super rich and the London area.

Anyone, and anywhere else, can go to Hell.

I see May and her cronies have found some money to bribe the Northern area with.

The amount she's bribing all of the North with, is less than the cuts administered to Rotherham since 2010.

Some idiots will rub their hands together (same as they did with the £900m bribe to elect a local Mayor for our area)

Any move that takes us nearer to the American way of life HAS to be wrong.

You don't have to be Poirot to work it out. Just look across the Atlantic and see what a fine, upstanding nation they are.

Sheep, led by a complete and utter buffoon.

I like this country thanks. I also don't consider where I live to be a dump. In fact, it's much preferable to living in London. If you don't like your lot, take some responsibility and change it for yourself, rather than blaming the government for everything or expecting hand outs from tax payers. "Simples"!

[ez8004 10]

What level of tax avoidance would you consider to be ok?

 

I gave my wife my properties so she can have the rental income go against her income tax allowance so zero tax is paid on the income instead of 40% if I still owned the properties.  This is completely legal.  So is this ok?

 

Also, I use my gross salary to buy shares in the company I work in.  Only a relatively small percentage of my pay.  All I have to do is keep them for 5 years and then sell them.  I therefore dodge the 40% income tax.  Is this ok, again this is completely legal.

 

Personally, I pay in my opinion more than my fair share in tax.  My tax free allowance is a complete joke.  These little mechanisms allow me to claim a bit back, even with this I don't think it is really fair for me.

[Ontarian1981 10]

6 hours ago, ez8004 said:

What level of tax avoidance would you consider to be ok?

 

I gave my wife my properties so she can have the rental income go against her income tax allowance so zero tax is paid on the income instead of 40% if I still owned the properties.  This is completely legal.  So is this ok?

 

Also, I use my gross salary to buy shares in the company I work in.  Only a relatively small percentage of my pay.  All I have to do is keep them for 5 years and then sell them.  I therefore dodge the 40% income tax.  Is this ok, again this is completely legal.

 

Personally, I pay in my opinion more than my fair share in tax.  My tax free allowance is a complete joke.  These little mechanisms allow me to claim a bit back, even with this I don't think it is really fair for me.

 There is nothing wrong with tax avoidance, it is even encouraged by most western governments. They want you to make the most of the tax breaks they offer, as this is good for the overall economy i.e your disposable income is more likely to be pumped back into it. However, tax evasion is not the same as it robs a Nation's economy as opposed to supporting it.  This is just greed pure and simple, because only the super-rich has the investment funds to make a foreign financial institution interested in their funds. Try opening an offshore, high interest, private account, for example , with a hundred quid and see how many return calls you get.

[Cyclone 10]

19 hours ago, Albert smith said:

I dairn't answer thi ,  Mi answers vanish for some reason  .so I will leave you to it.

You can't answer such a simple question without breaking the forum rules?

4 hours ago, Ontarian1981 said:

 There is nothing wrong with tax avoidance, it is even encouraged by most western governments. They want you to make the most of the tax breaks they offer, as this is good for the overall economy i.e your disposable income is more likely to be pumped back into it. However, tax evasion is not the same as it robs a Nation's economy as opposed to supporting it.  This is just greed pure and simple, because only the super-rich has the investment funds to make a foreign financial institution interested in their funds. Try opening an offshore, high interest, private account, for example , with a hundred quid and see how many return calls you get.

Albert isn't talking about tax evasion by the super rich though, he's specifically singled out them moving to Monaco.  As if they shouldn't be allowed to leave the country and live somewhere else, a freedom which he himself has (and for another fortnight we all had multiple countries we could move to and live in with a very minimum of fuss).

[Hotmale 1954 201]

19 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I like this country thanks. I also don't consider where I live to be a dump. In fact, it's much preferable to living in London. If you don't like your lot, take some responsibility and change it for yourself, rather than blaming the government for everything or expecting hand outs from tax payers. "Simples"!

Typical Tory response again.

Improving 'my lot' just improves me, it doesn't improve the country.

That's what Thatcher encouraged .... 'improving my lot'.

She and I both know that not everyone can improve their lot. If we did, and we all got a bit closer to the rich, very rich and super rich, the said rich 'uns would just work to brush me aside so that they kept the upper hand.

Society has to somehow stop the rich from becoming filthy rich.

Being filthy rich is ok for the selfish and the greedy, but I wouldn't want to associate myself with such people. A lot of money I don't mind so much, but when you start talking £20m, £50m or more, then that is obscene. You can work out what I think of Billionaires and Multi Billionaires. I don't admire them, I just know they've trod on many toes, ripped off many people, overcharged many people, underpaid many people and avoided giving the British people anything back to say 'thanks'.

In fact, they're so grateful, they sack the British workers and move their businesses to far flung places, where they can pay workers less, and make themselves another un- needed Billion. Fine. upstanding people they are.

Sadly, some put these people on a pedestal, suck up to 'em in the hope of creaming a bit away from them, give them Knighthoods, give them other Titles and ignore almost any skullduggery they want to get up to.

I dislike them with a passion. 'Man of the people',  'Sir', 'Baron'  'Lord'  or whatever.

Ultimately, they're all parasites.

Some in this country are fairly well off, some are comfortable, some are ok, some are struggling, and some are homeless and helpless.

Most are 'managing'. Everyone should be more than just managing.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Hotmale 1954

[Albert smith 11]

31 minutes ago, Hotmale 1954 said:

Typical Tory response again.

Improving 'my lot' just improves me, it doesn't improve the country.

That's what Thatcher encouraged .... 'improving my lot'.

She and I both know that not everyone can improve their lot. If we did, and we all got a bit closer to the rich, very rich and super rich, the said rich 'uns would just work to brush me aside so that they kept the upper hand.

Society has to somehow stop the rich from becoming filthy rich.

Being filthy rich is ok for the selfish and the greedy, but I wouldn't want to associate myself with such people. A lot of money I don't mind so much, but when you start talking £20m, £50m or more, then that is obscene. You can work out what I think of Billionaires and Multi Billionaires. I don't admire them, I just know they've trod on many toes, ripped off many people, overcharged many people, underpaid many people and avoided giving the British people anything back to say 'thanks'.

In fact, they're so grateful, they sack the British workers and move their businesses to far flung places, where they can pay workers less, and make themselves another un- needed Billion. Fine. upstanding people they are.

Sadly, some put these people on a pedestal, suck up to 'em in the hope of creaming a bit away from them, give them Knighthoods, give them other Titles and ignore almost any skullduggery they want to get up to.

I dislike them with a passion. 'Man of the people',  'Sir', 'Baron'  'Lord'  or whatever.

Ultimately, they're all parasites.

Some in this country are fairly well off, some are comfortable, some are ok, some are struggling, and some are homeless and helpless.

Most are 'managing'. Everyone should be more than just managing.

Bang on kid. That man that makes carpet sweepers has buggered off  to make his sweepers abroad ,while spouting how patriotic he is , probably keeps his billions in the Cayman Isles, or Monaco or even our supposed British Channel Isles and the I.O.M.

Thousands of upstanding citizens like him .all with friends in high places making it easy to pretend they live abroad.

[El Cid 212]

31 minutes ago, Hotmale 1954 said:

Typical Tory response again.  Society has to somehow stop the rich from becoming filthy rich.

 

 

Then we should elect Jeremy Corbyn, at least that will make you happy. We should attempt to spread the wealth around, not stop people from becoming filthy rich.

Is J K Rowling rich because of Harry Potter, the period of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years; why so long? If we made copyright a maximum of 50 years or less, would this be fair and help diminish authors superrich status?

[Ontarian1981 10]

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

Then we should elect Jeremy Corbyn, at least that will make you happy. We should attempt to spread the wealth around, not stop people from becoming filthy rich.

Is J K Rowling rich because of Harry Potter, the period of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years; why so long? If we made copyright a maximum of 50 years or less, would this be fair and help diminish authors superrich status?

 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 , it's because they are now in the public domain and can be used without costing a penny in royalties or performing rights. I have over 30 songs in the library of congress which will be unprotected in about 15 years. Not that anyone would use them anyway.   LOL I must confess I did not know novels could hold their copyrights for so long.

[Cyclone 10]

3 hours ago, Albert smith said:

Bang on kid. That man that makes carpet sweepers has buggered off  to make his sweepers abroad ,while spouting how patriotic he is , probably keeps his billions in the Cayman Isles, or Monaco or even our supposed British Channel Isles and the I.O.M.

Thousands of upstanding citizens like him .all with friends in high places making it easy to pretend they live abroad.

The second time you claimed that they "pretend" they live abroad.  I'm guessing that this is meaningless rhetoric and you have no evidence at all to suggest that they don't actually live abroad.

3 hours ago, El Cid said:

Then we should elect Jeremy Corbyn, at least that will make you happy. We should attempt to spread the wealth around, not stop people from becoming filthy rich.

Is J K Rowling rich because of Harry Potter, the period of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years; why so long? If we made copyright a maximum of 50 years or less, would this be fair and help diminish authors superrich status?

How would it?

She's halfway to $ billionaire in 20 years.  In another 30 do you think that the first volume of Harry Potter will actually be selling many copies?

[euclid 10]

4 hours ago, Albert smith said:

Bang on kid. That man that makes carpet sweepers has buggered off  to make his sweepers abroad ,while spouting how patriotic he is ,

I hear what you're saying Albert and agree with most of what you say...would never buy one of these sweepers..too expensive.....but my opinion of him changed somewhat when i learned he had donated...of his own money.......£275.000 to the Antartic expedition  but stipulated the charity they work with was "Breakthrough" which funds research into finding a cure for breast cancer and needed £3 million to start a clinic,when the fund raised £1.7 million he gave £700,000 0f his own money and also donated £10 from every sale of a new "Dyson" model to the fund..suppose someone will say its just a tax break,but its a lot more than any overpaid footballer has ever done??????

[Albert smith 11]

1 hour ago, euclid said:

I hear what you're saying Albert and agree with most of what you say...would never buy one of these sweepers..too expensive.....but my opinion of him changed somewhat when i learned he had donated...of his own money.......£275.000 to the Antartic expedition  but stipulated the charity they work with was "Breakthrough" which funds research into finding a cure for breast cancer and needed £3 million to start a clinic,when the fund raised £1.7 million he gave £700,000 0f his own money and also donated £10 from every sale of a new "Dyson" model to the fund..suppose someone will say its just a tax break,but its a lot more than any overpaid footballer has ever done??????

Well that puts another slant on things ,good on him.

[WiseOwl182 10]

8 hours ago, Hotmale 1954 said:

Typical Tory response again.

Improving 'my lot' just improves me, it doesn't improve the country.

That's what Thatcher encouraged .... 'improving my lot'.

She and I both know that not everyone can improve their lot. If we did, and we all got a bit closer to the rich, very rich and super rich, the said rich 'uns would just work to brush me aside so that they kept the upper hand.

Society has to somehow stop the rich from becoming filthy rich.

Being filthy rich is ok for the selfish and the greedy, but I wouldn't want to associate myself with such people. A lot of money I don't mind so much, but when you start talking £20m, £50m or more, then that is obscene. You can work out what I think of Billionaires and Multi Billionaires. I don't admire them, I just know they've trod on many toes, ripped off many people, overcharged many people, underpaid many people and avoided giving the British people anything back to say 'thanks'.

In fact, they're so grateful, they sack the British workers and move their businesses to far flung places, where they can pay workers less, and make themselves another un- needed Billion. Fine. upstanding people they are.

Sadly, some put these people on a pedestal, suck up to 'em in the hope of creaming a bit away from them, give them Knighthoods, give them other Titles and ignore almost any skullduggery they want to get up to.

I dislike them with a passion. 'Man of the people',  'Sir', 'Baron'  'Lord'  or whatever.

Ultimately, they're all parasites.

Some in this country are fairly well off, some are comfortable, some are ok, some are struggling, and some are homeless and helpless.

Most are 'managing'. Everyone should be more than just managing.

Typical rant from you. None of which actually addresses what I said. If everyone works to improve their lot then the country as a whole improves too. Forget billionaires and millionaires, just focus on doing the best you can for yourself. Work hard, live comfortably and pay your taxes to help those GENUINELY in need.