| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:10 - Sep 9 with 955 views | soupytwist |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 18:12 - Sep 8 by Churchman |
The trouble is do you draw the line in defining a tax dodger as ‘scum’?
We have plenty of people working in the huge black economy here not paying any tax. People who are self employed - do they pay what they should? My dad certainly didn’t. His little side line work showed a loss every year, yet it brought him in £6k a year to top up his pension and other work. I used to mock him for it, but understood why he did it.
PAYE mugs like me have to pay their dues. Everyone else? You tell me. My understanding is that the rich (whatever you define them as) with a good accountant pay significantly under what they should. This article is a year old, but interesting. The dedicated team it mentions that went after the super rich was abandoned in 2017. Austerity cuts to staff and it was thought pressure from politicians and their benefactors was alleged to be the reason. The truth? Who knows.
https://www.theguardian.com/bu
If this individual paid £330,000,000 tax last year, that equated to 44,000 people on incomes of £50,000 paying at a rate of 20%.
The tax gap in 24/25 is thought to be £59.2bn. Eye watering numbers. |
According to Dan Neidle, who is quoted in the BBC piece linked to in the original post in this thread, the biggest element of the tax gap is tax that goes uncollected from small businesses
- https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/
Would be quite an easy win for the govt and HMRC to bring back the dedicated super rich investigation team. It could quieten down the calls for a wealth tax by saying that they're actually going to try to collect what's currently due first. |  | |  |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:12 - Sep 9 with 951 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 08:42 - Sep 9 by Axeldalai_lama |
How much tax does he pay as a proportion of what he has earned, what his businesses have earned, you must know seeing as it is an 'insane' amount?
You earn more, you pay more, but your still left with massively massively more than the vast vast majority of the country.
Who should pay to support an aging population? Who should be taxed to help those who need support and care?
Presumably a billionaire can have a good year, pay one chunk of tax and then be absolved of paying any more under your thoughts? Even if it's proportionally less than someone working in a supermarket. They've done their 'bit' and are free to never pay tax again.
Doesn't seem like a very good system to me. |
The flip side of that is, who are you to decide where he or anybody else should live?
He took massive risks, paid a huge amount of tax, employed hundreds of people who also paid huge amounts of tax.
If he decides he'd like to live somewhere else seems a bit outrageous that you think you still have a claim on his money or indeed can tell him where to live. |  | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:13 - Sep 9 with 945 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:06 - Sep 9 by nrb1985 |
Clapham is incorrect also.
You'd only pay an equalisation payment if you spend 183+ days of the year in the Falklands. If you're a Falklands citizen you don't pay Falklands tax if you live elsewhere like the U.S.
The U.S. is almost alone on taxing it's citizens globally and, as you say, can only do that because of the allure of being a US citizen. Would be highly unlikely to work anywhere else IMO.
If you're moving to Switzerland let me know, I live in Zurich and have lived in Geneva. Happy to try and give you some pointers! [Post edited 9 Sep 9:07]
|
Thanks - just an opportunity I’m exploring…but might be one for further done the line, and it’s a long way from PR 😀 | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:16 - Sep 9 with 928 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:13 - Sep 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Thanks - just an opportunity I’m exploring…but might be one for further done the line, and it’s a long way from PR 😀 |
Ha - indeed but the Elizabeth line from LHR to Liverpool St helps.
I can land at LHR at 8am ish and be at the Greyhound by 1230 now! [Post edited 9 Sep 9:20]
| | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:57 - Sep 9 with 870 views | TownieRob |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 08:42 - Sep 9 by Axeldalai_lama |
How much tax does he pay as a proportion of what he has earned, what his businesses have earned, you must know seeing as it is an 'insane' amount?
You earn more, you pay more, but your still left with massively massively more than the vast vast majority of the country.
Who should pay to support an aging population? Who should be taxed to help those who need support and care?
Presumably a billionaire can have a good year, pay one chunk of tax and then be absolved of paying any more under your thoughts? Even if it's proportionally less than someone working in a supermarket. They've done their 'bit' and are free to never pay tax again.
Doesn't seem like a very good system to me. |
I'll go through your points.
On the proportion of what he has earned. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what the number is, he could be paying 55% and it wouldn't change the argument. The point was never that he's undertaxed, it's that everyone has a ceiling, even someone earning what he does, eventually the maths stops being worth it to them and you can debate where that ceiling should be but pretending it doesn't exist for anyone isn't really a serious argument.
'Still left with massively more than everyone else' - that is of course true, but that's not really saying anything other than rich people have more money than other people. It doesn't tell you whether the amount he's being asked to pay is reasonable or not.
The aging population point is fair, someone does need to fund that, however squeezing the same small pool of high earners harder isn't a strategy, it's just delaying the point where they leave, and once they've left you don't get slightly less tax from them, you get none. That's worse for the aging population argument, not better. If the real issue is funding, maybe the answer isn't just take more off the people already paying the most, it's look at how much goes out the other end. A welfare system of our size, handing out to people who don't actually need or deserve the help, isn't sustainable no matter how much tax you pull in at the top
Not sure where you got the 'pays once and is absolved forever' line, you've invented that position to argue against. I'm not claiming he shouldn't keep paying tax, the actual point is he's decided the current terms aren't worth staying for, and that's a reflection on the terms, not on him for walking away from them.
I am by no means claiming the system's perfect, I just dont thinkit's fair to act shocked or claim outrage when someone paying that much finally decides enough's enough. I have even seen people on here calling him 'scum' for it. Crazy. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:20 - Sep 9 with 847 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:57 - Sep 9 by TownieRob |
I'll go through your points.
On the proportion of what he has earned. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what the number is, he could be paying 55% and it wouldn't change the argument. The point was never that he's undertaxed, it's that everyone has a ceiling, even someone earning what he does, eventually the maths stops being worth it to them and you can debate where that ceiling should be but pretending it doesn't exist for anyone isn't really a serious argument.
'Still left with massively more than everyone else' - that is of course true, but that's not really saying anything other than rich people have more money than other people. It doesn't tell you whether the amount he's being asked to pay is reasonable or not.
The aging population point is fair, someone does need to fund that, however squeezing the same small pool of high earners harder isn't a strategy, it's just delaying the point where they leave, and once they've left you don't get slightly less tax from them, you get none. That's worse for the aging population argument, not better. If the real issue is funding, maybe the answer isn't just take more off the people already paying the most, it's look at how much goes out the other end. A welfare system of our size, handing out to people who don't actually need or deserve the help, isn't sustainable no matter how much tax you pull in at the top
Not sure where you got the 'pays once and is absolved forever' line, you've invented that position to argue against. I'm not claiming he shouldn't keep paying tax, the actual point is he's decided the current terms aren't worth staying for, and that's a reflection on the terms, not on him for walking away from them.
I am by no means claiming the system's perfect, I just dont thinkit's fair to act shocked or claim outrage when someone paying that much finally decides enough's enough. I have even seen people on here calling him 'scum' for it. Crazy. |
I just find it bewildering that you have a self made man, from modest beginings, who has created jobs, donated to charity etc and has now, unfortunately, decided to leave, but people still think they have a claim on his money.
If it was the duke of westminster or similar then fair enough but this isn't that.
As for the ageing population point - why do we think so many countries with similar demographics to our own are trying so hard to attract these people... | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:49 - Sep 9 with 802 views | TownieRob |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:20 - Sep 9 by nrb1985 |
I just find it bewildering that you have a self made man, from modest beginings, who has created jobs, donated to charity etc and has now, unfortunately, decided to leave, but people still think they have a claim on his money.
If it was the duke of westminster or similar then fair enough but this isn't that.
As for the ageing population point - why do we think so many countries with similar demographics to our own are trying so hard to attract these people... |
Absolutely in alignment.
It boils me up when I hear people saying about the self made, he has enough money or why does he need all that?
It seems that the days of work hard to give yourself the best chance of being successful are gone. It is almost frowned upon to be successful now.
Strange world we live in. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:59 - Sep 9 with 781 views | m14_blue |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 08:42 - Sep 9 by Axeldalai_lama |
How much tax does he pay as a proportion of what he has earned, what his businesses have earned, you must know seeing as it is an 'insane' amount?
You earn more, you pay more, but your still left with massively massively more than the vast vast majority of the country.
Who should pay to support an aging population? Who should be taxed to help those who need support and care?
Presumably a billionaire can have a good year, pay one chunk of tax and then be absolved of paying any more under your thoughts? Even if it's proportionally less than someone working in a supermarket. They've done their 'bit' and are free to never pay tax again.
Doesn't seem like a very good system to me. |
I can only think that people (understandably) have no real concept of what a billionaire actually is. We think of millionaires and billionaires as being a homogenous group of 'rich people' but they're not in the same stratosphere. The best explanation of the difference is that if a pound was worth a second then 1 million seconds equals about 11 days, while 1 billion seconds equals over 31 years.
The only 'insane' thing is that anyone could possibly have that much money and still arrange their entire life around trying to get a little bit more, at the expense of the society they've been living in.
It's pathetic.
And then someone with a miniscule percentage of their wealth defends them because they've reached 'breaking point'. Rupert Murdoch really has won.
(no real idea about this particular individual's circumstances but the principle stands). | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:06 - Sep 9 with 772 views | J2BLUE |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:49 - Sep 9 by TownieRob |
Absolutely in alignment.
It boils me up when I hear people saying about the self made, he has enough money or why does he need all that?
It seems that the days of work hard to give yourself the best chance of being successful are gone. It is almost frowned upon to be successful now.
Strange world we live in. |
Go on then, why does he need billions?
People seem to be replying as if we're having a go at people who have worked hard and are worth a few million.
Is is worth over £2.5bn. Why doesn't it boil you up to see one person with that much wealth when kids are starving in Africa and going without basic medical care? Why doesn't it boil you up to see libraries close, kids 40 to a class, playgrounds sold off and people dying because they are waiting so long for an NHS appointment?
I am not suggesting we do but we could confiscate 90% of his wealth and he would still be obscenely rich. You go on defending him though. |  | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:07 - Sep 9 with 764 views | J2BLUE |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:59 - Sep 9 by m14_blue |
I can only think that people (understandably) have no real concept of what a billionaire actually is. We think of millionaires and billionaires as being a homogenous group of 'rich people' but they're not in the same stratosphere. The best explanation of the difference is that if a pound was worth a second then 1 million seconds equals about 11 days, while 1 billion seconds equals over 31 years.
The only 'insane' thing is that anyone could possibly have that much money and still arrange their entire life around trying to get a little bit more, at the expense of the society they've been living in.
It's pathetic.
And then someone with a miniscule percentage of their wealth defends them because they've reached 'breaking point'. Rupert Murdoch really has won.
(no real idea about this particular individual's circumstances but the principle stands). |
This. 100% this. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:14 - Sep 9 with 736 views | TownieRob |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:06 - Sep 9 by J2BLUE |
Go on then, why does he need billions?
People seem to be replying as if we're having a go at people who have worked hard and are worth a few million.
Is is worth over £2.5bn. Why doesn't it boil you up to see one person with that much wealth when kids are starving in Africa and going without basic medical care? Why doesn't it boil you up to see libraries close, kids 40 to a class, playgrounds sold off and people dying because they are waiting so long for an NHS appointment?
I am not suggesting we do but we could confiscate 90% of his wealth and he would still be obscenely rich. You go on defending him though. |
Alot of people mix up wealth with cash in a bank account. £2.5bn 'net worth' isn't money sat waiting to be spent, it's the paper value of businesses he owns. he can't just pull that out to fund libraries or the NHS, or kids in Africa..
Let's not forget his wealth comes from building something that actually works and employs people, and generates the tax everyone's currently moaning he doesn't pay enough of. Maybe he's just had enough of watching it get wasted.
I'm not sticking up for him personally, I'm sticking up for the idea that building something successful shouldn't make you a target. Today it's him, tomorrow it's whoever's next on the list. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:30 - Sep 9 with 696 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:06 - Sep 9 by J2BLUE |
Go on then, why does he need billions?
People seem to be replying as if we're having a go at people who have worked hard and are worth a few million.
Is is worth over £2.5bn. Why doesn't it boil you up to see one person with that much wealth when kids are starving in Africa and going without basic medical care? Why doesn't it boil you up to see libraries close, kids 40 to a class, playgrounds sold off and people dying because they are waiting so long for an NHS appointment?
I am not suggesting we do but we could confiscate 90% of his wealth and he would still be obscenely rich. You go on defending him though. |
"Why doesn't it boil you up to see libraries close, kids 40 to a class, playgrounds sold off and people dying because they are waiting so long for an NHS appointment?"
Think you might want to have a look at Tory austerity for that not a bloke that's been paying £330m of tax a year... [Post edited 9 Sep 11:42]
| | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:31 - Sep 9 with 689 views | TownieRob |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:59 - Sep 9 by m14_blue |
I can only think that people (understandably) have no real concept of what a billionaire actually is. We think of millionaires and billionaires as being a homogenous group of 'rich people' but they're not in the same stratosphere. The best explanation of the difference is that if a pound was worth a second then 1 million seconds equals about 11 days, while 1 billion seconds equals over 31 years.
The only 'insane' thing is that anyone could possibly have that much money and still arrange their entire life around trying to get a little bit more, at the expense of the society they've been living in.
It's pathetic.
And then someone with a miniscule percentage of their wealth defends them because they've reached 'breaking point'. Rupert Murdoch really has won.
(no real idea about this particular individual's circumstances but the principle stands). |
The seconds thing is a nice fact, doesn't actually argue anything though, no-one is disputing a billion is a big number, question was always whether the tax is fair, not whether it sounds scarier written out in seconds.
'Arranging their life around getting a bit more at society's expense', this really isn't what running a business is, that's just your framing of it for this argument. The same business is the thing paying wages, generating tax and creating jobs.
Really unsure of your Murdoch reference, I don't need murdoch to know any human's got a breaking point, whatever the trigger is, be it incompetence, tone of voice, aggression, government, even the weather. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:32 - Sep 9 with 689 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:59 - Sep 9 by m14_blue |
I can only think that people (understandably) have no real concept of what a billionaire actually is. We think of millionaires and billionaires as being a homogenous group of 'rich people' but they're not in the same stratosphere. The best explanation of the difference is that if a pound was worth a second then 1 million seconds equals about 11 days, while 1 billion seconds equals over 31 years.
The only 'insane' thing is that anyone could possibly have that much money and still arrange their entire life around trying to get a little bit more, at the expense of the society they've been living in.
It's pathetic.
And then someone with a miniscule percentage of their wealth defends them because they've reached 'breaking point'. Rupert Murdoch really has won.
(no real idea about this particular individual's circumstances but the principle stands). |
I don't think he's arranging his life for tax, sounds like it's also a lifestyle decision given his greek heritage.
I agree, optimising your life for tax is stupid though but doesn't look like that's the case here.
And also, Athens is an absolutely amazing city - he's not moving to the channel islands or the desert. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:36 - Sep 9 with 679 views | J2BLUE |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:14 - Sep 9 by TownieRob |
Alot of people mix up wealth with cash in a bank account. £2.5bn 'net worth' isn't money sat waiting to be spent, it's the paper value of businesses he owns. he can't just pull that out to fund libraries or the NHS, or kids in Africa..
Let's not forget his wealth comes from building something that actually works and employs people, and generates the tax everyone's currently moaning he doesn't pay enough of. Maybe he's just had enough of watching it get wasted.
I'm not sticking up for him personally, I'm sticking up for the idea that building something successful shouldn't make you a target. Today it's him, tomorrow it's whoever's next on the list. |
You're making all the usual arguments.
Oh it's not liquid? It's a paper value? That's great, so is my flat. I will stop paying council tax.
I will claim I don't have the money to pay since the value of my equity is not liquid. I'm sure you would be similarly sympathetic.
Today it's him, tomorrow it will be another billionaire, not Dave and Sheila who had careers as doctors and have a nice paid off house, holiday home in France and £5m cash in the bank.
As someone said above, it's the lumping in together of millionaires and billionaires which is creating an issue. No one is coming for people with single digit millions. Even the proposed wealth tax is on assets above £10m and we all know that would be watered down significantly. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:41 - Sep 9 with 666 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:36 - Sep 9 by J2BLUE |
You're making all the usual arguments.
Oh it's not liquid? It's a paper value? That's great, so is my flat. I will stop paying council tax.
I will claim I don't have the money to pay since the value of my equity is not liquid. I'm sure you would be similarly sympathetic.
Today it's him, tomorrow it will be another billionaire, not Dave and Sheila who had careers as doctors and have a nice paid off house, holiday home in France and £5m cash in the bank.
As someone said above, it's the lumping in together of millionaires and billionaires which is creating an issue. No one is coming for people with single digit millions. Even the proposed wealth tax is on assets above £10m and we all know that would be watered down significantly. |
So just to be clear - your view is, if somebody is "rich" they can never leave the country in which they reside in as that's unethical?
He's of greek heritage, maybe he thinks it's unethical that for so many years £330m pa goes to only to HMRC given the problems over the last decade and a bit in Greece. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:48 - Sep 9 with 650 views | TownieRob |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:36 - Sep 9 by J2BLUE |
You're making all the usual arguments.
Oh it's not liquid? It's a paper value? That's great, so is my flat. I will stop paying council tax.
I will claim I don't have the money to pay since the value of my equity is not liquid. I'm sure you would be similarly sympathetic.
Today it's him, tomorrow it will be another billionaire, not Dave and Sheila who had careers as doctors and have a nice paid off house, holiday home in France and £5m cash in the bank.
As someone said above, it's the lumping in together of millionaires and billionaires which is creating an issue. No one is coming for people with single digit millions. Even the proposed wealth tax is on assets above £10m and we all know that would be watered down significantly. |
Your flat isn't the same as business equity. I assume it's not funding jobs or generating revenue either, it's just where you live. Is taxing unrealised business value really what you want, forcing people to sell chunks of their own company just to pay the bill?
Where does that leave us then? People either stop growing to dodge the threshold, or they cut jobs to pay it. Neither helps anyone. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 12:11 - Sep 9 with 621 views | management |
List of people who have left the Uk recently, include Christian Angermayer (Net Worth £960M), John Fredriksen (£16BN), Lady Ballyedmond (£898M), Malcolm Healey (£900M), Lakshmi Mittal (£22BN), Herman Narula (£780M) along with Chris Rokos(£3BN).
The top 11, 000 tax contributors equates to 10, 000, 000 of the lowest contributors thus losing these persons makes a hugely significant tranche of the tax revenue raised.
Rokos, contribution last tax year equated to 3, 000, 000 of the bottom end tax contributors.
A Tax Specialist, David Lesperance who dealt with UK based individuals each worth more than £370 Million had a portfolio of twenty clients just two years previous, all have now relocated.
The question is how to make up the shortfall, the burden falling increasingly on the middle & working class is unreasonable, Windfall Taxes may be a stop gap solution but this will encourage multinationals to relocate as per the list above.
Over to you Mr. Healey and good luck. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 14:04 - Sep 9 with 540 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 06:39 - Sep 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Yes but you are paying taxes in two jurisdictions- if that country you are domiciled has more expensive living costs (as is the case ins Switzerland), then it makes life much more difficult. I don’t understand why the same people who were anti-Brexit would want to further reduce mobility.
I have been a net tax payer to the UK, so if I were to move abroad I don’t see why I should continue paying to a country where I’m not resident. It’s an incredibly regressive idea in my opinion. Fortunately nobody is likely to agree such a treaty with the UK as it doesn’t have the clout of the US. I’d just look at an exit tax for the HNW which would be a lot easier to enforce. |
You still have access to UK services both while you are abroad and when you return, just like all the Brits in the Middle East who needed assistance to be repatriated when the Iran War kicked off.
If you don't want to continue funding these services, that's fine, but you should lose the benefit of being a UK citizen IMO. |  | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 14:39 - Sep 9 with 507 views | J2BLUE |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:41 - Sep 9 by nrb1985 |
So just to be clear - your view is, if somebody is "rich" they can never leave the country in which they reside in as that's unethical?
He's of greek heritage, maybe he thinks it's unethical that for so many years £330m pa goes to only to HMRC given the problems over the last decade and a bit in Greece. |
My main view is that if you are moving purely to avoid taxes when you are a billionaire you are scum. As far as I know there is no definitive confirmation this is the case for him yet but it seems to be.
My other view is that a British passport should require a contribution. We don't know his living arrangements yet but it seems quite likely he will spend plenty of time back in the UK. It just sickens me that mega rich people are moving to avoid taxes when they already have more money than they will ever need.
We clearly are not going to agree so I will leave it there. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 15:03 - Sep 9 with 486 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 14:04 - Sep 9 by Clapham_Junction |
You still have access to UK services both while you are abroad and when you return, just like all the Brits in the Middle East who needed assistance to be repatriated when the Iran War kicked off.
If you don't want to continue funding these services, that's fine, but you should lose the benefit of being a UK citizen IMO. |
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, but I’ve paid far more into this country than I’ve taken out. If I came to the live in the UK from elsewhere I could use most services from day one having never contributed anything. Far more likely you’d use the health services of your resident country, ours sadly are behind most of Western Europe now. As others have said, it’s never going to happen anyway fortunately - not everyone is that miserly! [Post edited 9 Sep 15:06]
| | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 15:16 - Sep 9 with 467 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 14:39 - Sep 9 by J2BLUE |
My main view is that if you are moving purely to avoid taxes when you are a billionaire you are scum. As far as I know there is no definitive confirmation this is the case for him yet but it seems to be.
My other view is that a British passport should require a contribution. We don't know his living arrangements yet but it seems quite likely he will spend plenty of time back in the UK. It just sickens me that mega rich people are moving to avoid taxes when they already have more money than they will ever need.
We clearly are not going to agree so I will leave it there. |
We're not going to agree because your post is full of ranty conjecture.
How do you know he's spending a lot of his time here? He can probably only spend 45-90 days here max. He will need to be in Greece at least 183 + days.
You call him scum but without him the country would likely be billions of pounds worse off over the last decade.
And you even admit there's no definitive indication of what motivated his move. A person who gives away a £200m donation doesn't sound to me like he's solely money or tax motivated.
Not sure you've critically thought through much of what you've said in this thread. [Post edited 9 Sep 15:30]
| | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 15:33 - Sep 9 with 443 views | Billywitch |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:49 - Sep 9 by TownieRob |
Absolutely in alignment.
It boils me up when I hear people saying about the self made, he has enough money or why does he need all that?
It seems that the days of work hard to give yourself the best chance of being successful are gone. It is almost frowned upon to be successful now.
Strange world we live in. |
Jealousy
People hate to see others have done well for themselves. They opt to use words like greed. Because I'm sure everyone on here in his position would sit in the UK being fleeced for more and more tax, when he could move to warmer climates, surrounded by better people, and enjoy his later years of life. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 15:44 - Sep 9 with 421 views | Churchman |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 14:39 - Sep 9 by J2BLUE |
My main view is that if you are moving purely to avoid taxes when you are a billionaire you are scum. As far as I know there is no definitive confirmation this is the case for him yet but it seems to be.
My other view is that a British passport should require a contribution. We don't know his living arrangements yet but it seems quite likely he will spend plenty of time back in the UK. It just sickens me that mega rich people are moving to avoid taxes when they already have more money than they will ever need.
We clearly are not going to agree so I will leave it there. |
The man has paid more tax in a year than quite possibly the whole of this board in their lifetimes. Yet you say a British passport should require a contribution. Well, in practice he’s already made one.
The numbers are mind blowing, obviously, but I think one needs to be careful delving into right and wrong. Who decides when somebody has enough £ and what is that limit?
Is it right that some of my relations are on the third generation of living on benefits never having paid a penny into the system? Same for 1000s every year arriving in this country?
Is it right that those in the black economy and many self employed avoid paying tax to a greater or lesser extent yet I have to pay full wack? Should their access to services not be given a haircut, thus saving the hardworking taxpayer?
When all is said and done, just like the 70s under Wilson/Healey, enact a squeeze the rich till the pips squeak policy (Denis H) and your tax take will go down. Maybe the idealistic will say who cares.
However, the downside with that is literally less money for services - unless they print it or this whole ‘short of money’ line is a lie - which I think it possibly is. Not that we will ever know, given the Chancellor cannot be trusted on a word he says after the nifty stunt he pulled to distance himself from Sir Kier.
Back to the point, I think there is a conflict between morality and practical reality here. |  | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 16:34 - Sep 9 with 386 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 15:44 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
The man has paid more tax in a year than quite possibly the whole of this board in their lifetimes. Yet you say a British passport should require a contribution. Well, in practice he’s already made one.
The numbers are mind blowing, obviously, but I think one needs to be careful delving into right and wrong. Who decides when somebody has enough £ and what is that limit?
Is it right that some of my relations are on the third generation of living on benefits never having paid a penny into the system? Same for 1000s every year arriving in this country?
Is it right that those in the black economy and many self employed avoid paying tax to a greater or lesser extent yet I have to pay full wack? Should their access to services not be given a haircut, thus saving the hardworking taxpayer?
When all is said and done, just like the 70s under Wilson/Healey, enact a squeeze the rich till the pips squeak policy (Denis H) and your tax take will go down. Maybe the idealistic will say who cares.
However, the downside with that is literally less money for services - unless they print it or this whole ‘short of money’ line is a lie - which I think it possibly is. Not that we will ever know, given the Chancellor cannot be trusted on a word he says after the nifty stunt he pulled to distance himself from Sir Kier.
Back to the point, I think there is a conflict between morality and practical reality here. |
Your last sentence is spot on.
The moral crusaders on here want a fairer society, which I'm sure in an ideal world is what we all want.
But a country where the uber wealthy pay the same tax rate as everyone else is probably also a poorer country.
In Switzerland where I live, hedge funds are negotiating their own tax rates with cantons currently and this has been the case for years - a recent story here:
https://www.hedgeweek.com/mill
Is that fair they pay a lower rate? No, obviously not. Will it bring more money in to pay for public services? Yes.
People need to live in the real world and leave the sixth form politics at the door. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
