45p Tax on high earners

[entwisi]

Originally Posted by garinda

You're quite right, there are many legal ways of avoiding the taxes that most other people have to pay, who don't have the resources to find those loopholes.

New whistleblower claims over £1bn Barclays tax deals | Business | guardian.co.uk

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said of the ruling: "This is a sad day for democracy. British taxpayers are being asked to underwrite Barclays' loans. I believe full disclosure of these documents, showing how Barclays use tax havens for tax avoidance, would be in the public interest. Banks use the finest legal brains money can buy to avoid tax, but HM Revenue & Customs is underpaid and overstretched, so it is far from a level playing field."

err, Barclays hasn't yet asked for any money. It explored the deal so it could see if it was in shareholders best interest.

So Barclays employs better financial wizz's than the treasury. that sounds like good business sense to me(and not unheard of based on the fact that treasury wages are unlikely to be close to whats available in teh private sector in this sort of field).

So what you upset about. The fact that someone used the rules to their advantage? or was it simply a dig at Barclays for being successful again?

What is it about slagging off success? I've said it before, do you want to live in a country full of Losers? Would it make you feel better if all banks were financially ruined?

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

You're quite right, there are many legal ways of avoiding the taxes that most other people have to pay, who don't have the resources to find those loopholes.

New whistleblower claims over £1bn Barclays tax deals | Business | guardian.co.uk

At the risk of going slightly off topic, that source of moral fibre, the Guardian, with their crusade on tax avoidance, do you know how much they pay themselves?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by entwisi

err, Barclays hasn't yet asked for any money. It explored the deal so it could see if it was in shareholders best interest.

So Barclays employs better financial wizz's than the treasury. that sounds like good business sense to me(and not unheard of based on the fact that treasury wages are unlikely to be close to whats available in teh private sector in this sort of field).

So what you upset about. The fact that someone used the rules to their advantage? or was it simply a dig at Barclays for being successful again?

What is it about slagging off success? I've said it before, do you want to live in a country full of Losers? Would it make you feel better if all banks were financially ruined?

Er...I made no comment on the story, other than it is all perfectly legal. I'm certainly not 'up set', just providing an example of how creative accountancy can result in paying less tax.

I don't know if you read many newspapers, but the story has been in all of them recently, including the Times, and that great, factually accurate publication the Daily Telegraph.

The banker, his socialite wife and the billion pound tax question - Times Online

Can Barclays avoid being nationalised? - Telegraph

Perhaps you should read a more varied selection of available media, thus ensuring a more accurate picture, so you don't jump to the wrong conclusions.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

At the risk of going slightly off topic, that source of moral fibre, the Guardian, with their crusade on tax avoidance, do you know how much they pay themselves?

See post 33 for my answer to this.

[jaysay]

Wish I was paying the highest rate of tax, I'd be a very happy bunny

[Boeing Guy]

Bearing in mind that Richard 'Bloody' Branson employs lots of people in this country, Virgin Atlantic, Trains, Megastores, Holidays, Credit card, Bank. Maybe it would be rather silly to let him ****** off somewhere else, as he would take his companies with him, and of course make thousands of people unemployed.