Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[Rusty Nails]

What you're doing is commendable. I still don't think it validates criticism of Tice by people who are using his tax affairs to attack him because they think his politics makes him a cúnt.

Come off it, why do you think those on the right attack Rayner and Starmer over tax declarations and gifts.

Sometimes the kneejerk cries of hypocrisy are hypocrisy.

 

[Shortfall]

Come off it, why do you think those on the right attack Rayner and Starmer over tax declarations and gifts.

Sometimes the kneejerk cries of hypocrisy are hypocrisy.

I don't remember Tice arguing in favour of people paying the maximum amount of tax whereas I do remember Ange arguing that people shouldn't avoid paying tax. Very vocally at that. "Toreh scum" etc.

 

[icowden]

What you're doing is commendable. I still don't think it validates criticism of Tice by people who are using his tax affairs to attack him because they think his politics makes him a cúnt.

No, we think his tax affairs and his politics make him a cúnt.

I don't need to pay more tax. I have paid more in terms of tax percentage of turnover for both my personal income and company taxes than Tice has. If you are wealthy enough to exploit loopholes that's what happens regardless of what Stevo thinks.

The mechanisms that Tice used are legal but were not designed to be used in the way that they have been used. The Government, as far as we know, didn't set out to ensure that they didn't collect tax that was due. That would be moronic - although given the last few governments that would have set it up and benefitted from it, we can't rule it out entirely...

 

[icowden]

You call it gaming loopholes: others call it applying the law sensibly so as not pay more than is necessary. See also my post above about the case law point - i.e. that there is no legal or moral obligation for a taxpayer to pay more than is required by law.

As Neidle said

Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said that although Tice’s “highly aggressive tax planning” was not improper, anti-abuse rules were designed to stop “precisely this kind of exploitation of loopholes”.

It wasn't illegal. It was immoral, and abuse of the system.

That said, I can see that we aren't about to change your mind. Carry on with your worship of a man who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire and consider what his influence is doing to the country. It's only about Tice with Tice. Sound familiar?

 

[First Aspect]

No one willing pays more tax than they owe. The only reason why legally minimizing tax (and I don't think here we are even talking about personal tax are we?) is at issue is because he's a politician. Same with lots of other before him.

Fwiw if this is tax paid by a company, it might actually be the corporate responsibility of the person administering it to reduce the tax.

I have a client with a group HQ in Norway and a holding company for some assets, including intellectual property, in the Cayman Islands. Wonder why that is?

 

[Rusty Nails]

I don't remember Tice arguing in favour of people paying the maximum amount of tax whereas I do remember Ange arguing that people shouldn't avoid paying tax. Very vocally at that. "Toreh scum" etc.

Of course Tice hasn't, he deliberately exploited a legal loophole.

Rayner's tax avoidance was an admitted mistake based on a misunderstanding of a trust arrangement for her son. Like Tice she acted on advice...but hers probably wasn't as expensive as his.

 

[Shortfall]

No, we think his tax affairs and his politics make him a cúnt.

I don't need to pay more tax. I have paid more in terms of tax percentage of turnover for both my personal income and company taxes than Tice has. If you are wealthy enough to exploit loopholes that's what happens regardless of what Stevo thinks.

The mechanisms that Tice used are legal but were not designed to be used in the way that they have been used. The Government, as far as we know, didn't set out to ensure that they didn't collect tax that was due. That would be moronic - although given the last few governments that would have set it up and benefitted from it, we can't rule it out entirely...

It doesn't really answer my points but I get it, you want other people to pay more tax than you because reasons

 

[icowden]

It doesn't really answer my points but I get it, you want other people to pay more tax than you because reasons

No. I want people who should be paying tax to pay the amount of tax that they should be paying. So 45% of everything over £125k. End of.
I don't think people like Tice and Sunak should be paying 23% just because they have more money.

 

[Shortfall]

No. I want people who should be paying tax to pay the amount of tax that they should be paying. So 45% of everything over £125k. End of.
I don't think people like Tice and Sunak should be paying 23% just because they have more money.

He is paying the amount of tax he should be paying, he's following the rules so far as we're aware. I think you mean he isn't paying the amount of tax YOU think he should be paying.

 

[briantrumpet]

I have a client with a group HQ in Norway and a holding company for some assets, including intellectual property, in the Cayman Islands. Wonder why that is?

Because tax laws are a complex mess with zillions of unintended loopholes that big corporations and the ultra wealthy have learnt to exploit to the max?

 

[First Aspect]

Because tax laws are a complex mess with zillions of unintended loopholes that big corporations and the ultra wealthy have learnt to exploit to the max?

Its not a big company, but yes basically. Whoever made the decision to set it up that way is not an evil tax dodger though, they are just doing what they are supposed to do.

Setting all the moral outrage at the evil Reform personage, when you boil it down, you get to the parable of the scorpion and the frog.

What I'm saying is we should reserve our outrage for things that are actually wrong, other than what most of us would do in the same position. There is plenty of low hanging fruit on the trees in the Reform orchard other than this.

Call me a realistic leftie if you like.

 

[briantrumpet]

Its not a big company, but yes basically. Whoever made the decision to set it up that way is not an evil tax dodger though, they are just doing what they are supposed to do.

Setting all the moral outrage at the evil Reform personage, when you boil it down, you get to the parable of the scorpion and the frog.

What I'm saying is we should reserve our outrage for things that are actually wrong, other than what most of us would do in the same position. There is plenty of low hanging fruit on the trees in the Reform orchard other than this.

Call me a realistic leftie if you like.

I think it's fair to call out the aggressive tax avoidance actions of a 'patriotic' politician supposedly fighting for the left-behind who criticised Rayner in no uncertain terms and bayed for her resignation.

 

[First Aspect]

I think it's fair to call out the aggressive tax avoidance actions of a 'patriotic' politician supposedly fighting for the left-behind who criticised Rayner in no uncertain terms and bayed for her resignation.

Well, hypocrisy in politics is certainly a thing.

 

[icowden]

He is paying the amount of tax he should be paying, he's following the rules so far as we're aware.

No he isn't. He is deliberately minimising the amount of tax he should be paying by using legal loopholes and offshore companies based in tax havens. He is not doing any thing illegal but he is categorically not paying the amount of tax that he should be paying.

I think you mean he isn't paying the amount of tax YOU think he should be paying.

No. See above. Read and absorb.

 

[Shortfall]

No he isn't. He is deliberately minimising the amount of tax he should be paying by using legal loopholes and offshore companies based in tax havens. He is not doing any thing illegal but he is categorically not paying the amount of tax that he should be paying.


No. See above. Read and absorb.

He's paying the amount of tax he should be doing according to the law. I mean if you don't like that it's fine but he's not obliged morally or legally to do anything else just because random leftie on niche forum doesn't like it.
HTH.