Money laundering and tax evasion.

thats an awesome album/video.

::WARNING::-----The following link has fcuk all to do with money laundering or tax evasion

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anyway Cameron has said he will take full blame "for the way he has handled this f up." You've got to laugh. My guess is that the Tories want to boot him out after Brexit happens so they'll stick by him for now. Also I bet there are loads of Tories with skeletons in this closet.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Anyway Cameron has said he will take full blame "for the way he has handled this f up." You've got to laugh. My guess is that the Tories want to boot him out after Brexit happens so they'll stick by him for now. Also I bet there are loads of Tories with skeletons in this closet.

Not just tories. They may wear different colour rosettes but they're all the same.

Lord Melbury wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Anyway Cameron has said he will take full blame "for the way he has handled this f up." You've got to laugh. My guess is that the Tories want to boot him out after Brexit happens so they'll stick by him for now. Also I bet there are loads of Tories with skeletons in this closet.

Not just tories. They may wear different colour rosettes but they're all the same.

True, apart from Jezza you just know he hasn't fiddled fook all.

I'm sure many of all hues at the palace of westminster are at it, along with much of upper middle england. But the point is Labour/Green/SNP are far more likely to take a proper swipe at the systemic avoidance corruption. Cameron and the smirking Osborne, and even more so Boris, Farage et al, wouldn't dream of upsetting the nanny state that has provided for their sort over so many centuries.
Public opinion is changing back a little at last, after 20 years of let them do what they like. Things are hotting up, and about time too. The street is where it's at, or will be, if these goons just carry on squeezing the poorest.

alannotivvy wrote:

thats an awesome album/video.  

It was an awesome set of shows. I was there!

Tax evasion is awful we all say. Just wondering how many of our political posters on here have ever approached a tradesman with ''Is cash better?'' The usual agenda that may knock down the price you pay so that the tradesman can avoid VAT. Just a thought.

I would argue that there is a difference between the "ordinary man" ,who has already been taxed his income, trying to find a cheaper way to make ends meet and setting up a company via Panama to hide your assets.

A cheat is a cheat however you put it.

To play devils advocate, the onus is still wholely on the person doing the work to document all monies paid for work that is done, regardless of whether the customer pays by cheque or cash.

That said, 99.9% of self employed tradesman will evade tax by doing cash jobs with no receipt paper trail - to some degree. There will be exceptions of course, but the majority of people having the work done will be happy to have the work done that way if it means saving 20%.

That's just what happens in the real world. if you totted up this collective tax evasion, it would dwarf the Panama figure.

pepsipete wrote:

A cheat is a cheat however you put it.

Yep. Today its revealed DC was given £300K from late fathers will which was (quote) ''just under the IHT threshold'' So what! I'm selling a house in Plymouth and when chatting to the agent at the property I had the figure £325K total lodged in my brain cell so I added cash assets to his valuation and then said ''drop it £10K'' We all do it.

Czarcasm wrote:

To play devils advocate, the onus is still wholely on the person doing the work to document all monies paid for work that is done, regardless of whether the customer pays by cheque or cash.

That said, 99.9% of self employed tradesman will evade tax by doing cash jobs with no receipt paper trail - to some degree. There will be exceptions of course, but the majority of people having the work done will be happy to have the work done that way if it means saving 20%.

That's just what happens in the real world. if you totted up this collective tax evasion, it would dwarf the Panama figure.

No it wouldn't. I don't think so anyway. Would you care to source that in some way or is it just a guess plucked out of thin air?

Besides "Panama" as we understand it isn't Panama at all. Blairmore is one company amongst many using one accountancy business; that accountancy business is one among many "tax speciaists" in Panama; Panama is one off-shore tax haven amongst many sctattered across the globe.

I'd put my £1 on the table and suggest that the total sum scammed dwarfs anything involved in paying cash to self-employed traders - how many of them would it take to make one Blairmore? In fact I'd put another £1 down to back my guess (because that is what it is) that the total sum involved dwarfs our entire economy.

I've been self employed all my life on the whole nearly all my turnover went through the books like 99.9% of tradesmen I have done the odd bit of cash but on the whole I think we all should pay tax, we all need to pay tax. When I've been doing well I've happily bunged it all through the books when Ive been living hand to mouth (and I have had some very dark days when I had a young family) it came down to survival and the odd fiddle when the need arose. One thing to bear in mind is that whenever someone does a bit of cash work they pay 80% fuel duty going to work, they pay stupid amounts of car tax going to work, they pay VAT on all the materials, which can't be claimed back unless it goes through the books, then they spend the money and pay VAT again so it's actually impossible to dodge all your tax liability anyway. To suggest that the odd builder fiddle is akin to the fiddles perpetrated by the illionaires here and abroad is moronic in the extreme, there is no comparison, no tax is paid at all, no VAT, no Income tax, no fuel duty, no car tax, zilch and certainly no trickle down effect unless you sell Ferrais, super yachts or Cessna aircraft.
Cameron must love you Tone.

You're getting desperate Frank. I've listened to 3 'tax experts' being interviewed on the beeb and sky yesterday and today and they've all said pretty much the same thing....."Cameron hasn't done anything wrong", in law anyway. Anybody would think you had an agenda

Les Miserable wrote:

You're getting desperate Frank. I've listened to 3 'tax experts' being interviewed on the beeb and sky yesterday and today and they've all said pretty much the same thing....."Cameron hasn't done anything wrong", in law anyway. Anybody would think you had an agenda

What Cameron has done wrong is tried to make out he hasn't benefited from any funds of his fathers that have come from tax dodging accounts. He has, he lied for that he should go. The only reason he hasn't is that everybody is so disillusioned with British politics they believe it's so corrupt that anybody who replaced him would be as corrupt so why bother?

Les Miserable wrote:

You're getting desperate Frank. I've listened to 3 'tax experts' being interviewed on the beeb and sky yesterday and today and they've all said pretty much the same thing....."Cameron hasn't done anything wrong", in law anyway. Anybody would think you had an agenda

This sort of attitude is what has ruined this country since the 1970s. Working class people saying they would do the same thing given half the chance. Well, if it's good for tax avoidance, then it's good for "scrounging". Those poor and unskilled people who are unemployed or disabled are constantly told they're fleecing the country by the very same people who applaud tax avoidance and evasion.
You can't have it both ways. If Cameron has done nothing wrong, then benefits street has done nothing wrong either. They are following the letter of the law as well. The hypocrisy of aspiring working class Britain is something to behold. As one of my cats says.... me, me, me. I think somehow Les, you might just have an agenda too

Politically Brent has done something terribly wrong. While he and his family have had a lifetime of legal tax avoidance, he has been going around telling the world e all need to stop the legal avoidance. Only last week he was having a pop at Google for doing something just as legal. The guy is a hypocrite.

Foreshore, roast beef might reply in more detail later.

He hasn't done anything wrong.

That is exactly what is wrong.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

To play devils advocate, the onus is still wholely on the person doing the work to document all monies paid for work that is done, regardless of whether the customer pays by cheque or cash.

That said, 99.9% of self employed tradesman will evade tax by doing cash jobs with no receipt paper trail - to some degree. There will be exceptions of course, but the majority of people having the work done will be happy to have the work done that way if it means saving 20%.

That's just what happens in the real world. if you totted up this collective tax evasion, it would dwarf the Panama figure.

No it wouldn't. I don't think so anyway. Would you care to source that in some way or is it just a guess plucked out of thin air?

Besides "Panama" as we understand it isn't Panama at all. Blairmore is one company amongst many using one accountancy business; that accountancy business is one among many "tax speciaists" in Panama; Panama is one off-shore tax haven amongst many sctattered across the globe.

I'd put my £1 on the table and suggest that the total sum scammed dwarfs anything involved in paying cash to self-employed traders - how many of them would it take to make one Blairmore? In fact I'd put another £1 down to back my guess (because that is what it is) that the total sum involved dwarfs our entire economy.

Well that would depend whether you're getting your arse in your hand about obscure International figures using (legal) tax havens, or our Tory leadership and specifically the British upper classes.

I obviously presume your ire was stoked by the latter.

Base that figure against (illegal) certain tax evasion by millions of people in the UK on a day-to-day basis, year on year, every year, and yeah, I'd back my guess rather strongly.

Taxation is a horribly complicated business and the more complicated it is the loop holes there are and the easier it is to avoid paying what should be paid. The whole system needs a huge shake up.

Here's where we could start.

1. Abolish National Insurance.

It isn't what it was meant to be at conception anyway and the direct link between the State Pension and the NHS has been long gone. All it does for lower paid workers is make surethey get a deduction from their scant wage no matter what the tax threshhold does and all it does for employers is create a tax on jobs which discourages investment, training, expansion and long-term success. It's no good for anyone. So scrap it entirely.

2. Levy Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax in exactly the same way at exactly the same rates. There'd be nothing to gain from shifting things from one to another then. This would mean a probable rise in Corporation tax but it is at too low a rate now anyway and employers would be gaining anyway from NI being abolished.

3. HMRC to be resourced according to its requirements to collect what it ought from where it ought. The massive emphasis on the likes of Benefits Street in comparison to the likes of Downing Street makes no sense (see the earlier graphic).

So that's what we as a country should do. "But you can't because that means X will tax at a lower rate and all the businesses will go there." Well... Let them go and wave them a cheery good-bye if they do. If they aren't contributing here there's no point them being here. No great loss. See ya.

And then we should petition that others do the same (or at least similar). We'd need a pan-national agreement for this applicable across borders and we'd need some sort of Treaty or something to make it enforceable. The logical place to start doing this would be in Europe to start with because we trade with them the most. Negotiations would be tricky fore shore and we might need to challenge and adapt as events develop. We could go to various locations to agree them. Maybe Rome, Maastricht and/or Lisbon would be suitable. Once we're in agreement we could give it a snappy name like "European Union" or something.

Les Miserable wrote:

You're getting desperate Frank. I've listened to 3 'tax experts' being interviewed on the beeb and sky yesterday and today and they've all said pretty much the same thing....."Cameron hasn't done anything wrong", in law anyway. Anybody would think you had an agenda

Can you all put yourself in his position when he inherited and then explain what he should have done.

Given every last penny to charity. He didn't earn it, did he?

He's already set up by his privileged education, well-heeled wife and social circle so he should be able to go out there, work hard, pull himself up by his bootstraps and prove he's the best there is. If he does that then financial reward would surely follow.

You don't just hold your hand out and expect it to be filled, do you? Why should anybody defend that? Getting money for doing nothing, and let's face it just being born isn't that much of an achievement, is what scroungers do, isn't it?

I don't know who I'd sooner demonstrate on the streets of London against, the tax dodgers or the people like Les and Tone that think it's justifiable in some way? We will never have a fair society until people demand one.

tigertony wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

You're getting desperate Frank. I've listened to 3 'tax experts' being interviewed on the beeb and sky yesterday and today and they've all said pretty much the same thing....."Cameron hasn't done anything wrong", in law anyway. Anybody would
think you had an agenda

Can you all put yourself in his position when he inherited and then explain what he should have done.

It's simple Tone, he's inherited a wedge, fairy muff lucky bastard but nothing wrong with it as you say. What he should have done when asked about it is answer the question in a straightforward manner. What he did was feck about for a week trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people he was elected to govern. As head of state he should be above reproach. If any of us had tried that approach with the authorities we would have been at the very least fined, he should lose his job.