HM The Queen in tax scandal!

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

So, Her Maj partakes of schemes designed to minimise payments to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs?

She needs to give herself a good talking to.

Maybe strip herself of some of her honours, maybe?

Ahem! Post #3.

 

[Still]

The most creative lil' fish are also the best at hiding their sources.

(I stole that from A. Einstein)

Yeah, I watched HIGNFY last night, too.

I didn't! Admittedly only because I forgot to set the hdvr. Continuation 'fessing up: there was a similar joke on yesterday's R4 news show.
We knew the cutbacks we're bad, but are they sharing the same writers?

It's amusing that the Royal Family, whom merlin wants to take over from the present government, is itself implicated in tax avoidance. I expect most of the aristocracy are as well.

I mainly find it ironic. But T' Gruan conducts overseas tax manoeuvres and engages unpaid interns' too.
Apropos of nothing in particular the new ignore function is much more comprehensive/effective.

 

[jtrade]

Is this really all the coverage the Paradise Papers are getting here?

FFS this really should be cause for revolution and the bringing down of the current corrupt system portrayed as democracy.

It's fairly simple. The current lot regardless of Party aren't going to do anything about it because the very people who fund them are those that are implicated in the leaks.
.

.. and it was ever so.

This one needs people to take their opportunity, that is provided through social media in the digital age, to bring down the current corrupt system and introduce a new code. It can even be done world wide with enormous charges levied on overseas money transfers and proper scrutiny of overseas investments.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen because those providing such platforms become billionaires and join "The Dark Side". From "Don't be evil" to the reverse, sort of thing.

The reasons that your parents are dying prematurely, that cancer sufferers are in pain and now terminal, that your children in classes of fifty and your streets are unsafe to walk at might has f all to do with the EU or immigrants. It's this lot of crooks thieving from the very communities they profit from with zero regard for the welfare of others.

Not remotely as simple as that imho.

So stop whining and get off your arse and do something. I'm, currently looking for an on line pressure group that looks to tackle the issue. If anyone knows one let me know. If there isn't one, I feel strongly enough about this to start one. It's our children and our children's children. We owe it to them

Bravo !

 

[julifriend]

Puzzles me why anyone feels the need to complain about the Queen having funds invested in a country where she’s head of state.

 

[merlin]

Yeah, I watched HIGNFY last night, too.

It's amusing that the Royal Family, whom merlin wants to take over from the present government, is itself implicated in tax avoidance. I expect most of the aristocracy are as well.

Joe. from what I understand over here, the amount Her Majesty has invested overseas is a tiny percentage of her net wealth and in addition of course, she almost certainly outsources the management of her financial affairs. I can't imagine her and Phil sat by the telly armed with a copy of the FT and a laptop, working out where best to invest their money for maximal return.

 

[merlin]

Not remotely as simple as that imho.

Nor was the £350 Million.

it hints at the core of the problem however - the underfunding of public services. it's also simple enough for many of the thickos who voted for Brexit to understand.

 

[jtrade]

Nor was the £350 Million.

it hints at the core of the problem however - the underfunding of public services. it's also simple enough for many of the thickos who voted for Brexit to understand.

Sorry to go further OT, but...

I agree that the core of the problem is said underfunding. However, the underfunding is a chronic, i.e. ongoing, condition regardless of government, because Britain is now one of the least productive major industrial nations, 15% or so lower than the G7 average (27% behind the Germans, 22% behind the US & France...& 10% behind those lazy Italians). 2015/6 figures.

Neither the Tory bastards, nor the Labourite scum have been sufficiently competent to manage & organise the culture of entitlement that now exists in the UK. I feel a point has been reached where unless we stop pointing fingers at "the government", whatever it might be, rather than ourselves, the UK will continue its steady descent, sped up by the Brexit debacle (which for some reason I still don't think is going to happen - the sheer idiocy around it on both sides of the Channel suggests the entire negotiation may crumble into a pile of incompetence...).

... & btw, if I were still allowed to vote in the UK, I'd have been one of the thickos you mention (Economic Union yes, Political Union no), & whatever happens short term, I think the long term effect of the vote will be very positive for all concerned.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Joe. from what I understand over here, the amount Her Majesty has invested overseas is a tiny percentage of her net wealth and in addition of course, she almost certainly outsources the management of her financial affairs. I can't imagine her and Phil sat by the telly armed with a copy of the FT and a laptop, working out where best to invest their money for maximal return.

That was also Bono's defence; it was all his accountants' doings; he knew nothing about it. I guess Lewis Hamilton will say that same regarding the arrangement re his private jet.

 

[PsB]

Sorry to go further OT, but...

I agree that the core of the problem is said underfunding. However, the underfunding is a chronic, i.e. ongoing, condition regardless of government, because Britain is now one of the least productive major industrial nations, 15% or so lower than the G7 average (27% behind the Germans, 22% behind the US & France...& 10% behind those lazy Italians). 2015/6 figures.

Neither the Tory bastards, nor the Labourite scum have been sufficiently competent to manage & organise the culture of entitlement that now exists in the UK. I feel a point has been reached where unless we stop pointing fingers at "the government", whatever it might be, rather than ourselves, the UK will continue its steady descent, sped up by the Brexit debacle (which for some reason I still don't think is going to happen - the sheer idiocy around it on both sides of the Channel suggests the entire negotiation may crumble into a pile of incompetence...).

... & btw, if I were still allowed to vote in the UK, I'd have been one of the thickos you mention (Economic Union yes, Political Union no), & whatever happens short term, I think the long term effect of the vote will be very positive for all concerned.

I agree it's mostly a problem of funding. The UK simply spends a smaller portion of GDP on health than most of the other European nations it usually compares itself with. But funding for the NHS did increase significantly during the Blair/Brown years. OK, they made some stupid moves, too, like PPI (still costing the NHS a fortune despite a benign low-interest rate environment), but at least they were trying to get more money into a system which is creaking under the strains of demographics and scientific progress.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

FWIW I think it possible that with Corbyn as leader there is a chance that a Labour win in the next election might actually lead to some useful changes in the situation. His history is of *not* falling for the guff that the 'free advisors' the large companies, etc, generously give to MPs tend to spout.

For me the basic key here is as illustrated by all the 'whatever papers' which get released. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Thus the basic rule should be that all company/etc ownership chains have to be made public before someone can own something or use it for business in the UK. i.e. a company has to provide the relevant info before it is allowed to operate here. If some don't, others will and could take up the slack.

Similarly all the 'advice' given by lawyers, accountants, etc, to companies/etc should be disclosed to HMRC at the time it is given to the client and nothing that affects the tax take should be allowed without this. If it costs the HMRC to assess this, then the lawyers or accountants have to pay for the assessment, not the rest of us.

This approach may seem radical now, but 50 years in the future I suspect people will be baffled by why he hadn't already done it by now.

 

[Still]

Puzzles me why anyone feels the need to complain about the Queen having funds invested in a country where she’s head of state.

The off-shoring of her money means less/no tax is paid, and the tax payable in the home jurisdiction is avoided.
But investing in weaselly companies such as Brighthouse should be at least as shameful for Brenda.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The off-shoring of her money means less/no tax is paid, and the tax payable in the home jurisdiction is avoided.
But investing in weaselly companies such as Brighthouse should be at least as shameful for Brenda.

In principle there is no problem in some level of investing in companies outside the UK. Indeed, it can bring money into the UK, including tax paid here.

So the devil is in the details of what kind of investment, how arranged, etc.

The way to tell is to do away with the secrecy. You can't really form an appropriate tax policy unless you know what is going on.

The Uk government keep trotting out 'tax gap' figures trying to claim that only a small amount of tax dodging is happening. But they do this by not including many activities which remaing 'hidden' whilst pretending we can see them.

 

[PsB]

The off-shoring of her money means less/no tax is paid, and the tax payable in the home jurisdiction is avoided.
But investing in weaselly companies such as Brighthouse should be at least as shameful for Brenda.

I seem to remember the Queen doesn't have to pay tax. She started doing so "voluntarily" some years ago, but technically doesn't have to.
I agree with you that her financial advisers should ensure she doesn't end up owning chunks of places like Brighthouse.

 

[Still]

Didn't the Queen volunteer after the government of the day announced the introduction of legislation making it mandatory?

In principle there is no problem in some level of investing in companies outside the UK. Indeed, it can bring money into the UK, including tax paid here.

So the devil is in the details of what kind of investment, how arranged, etc.

The way to tell is to do away with the secrecy. You can't really form an appropriate tax policy unless you know what is going on.

The Uk government keep trotting out 'tax gap' figures trying to claim that only a small amount of tax dodging is happening. But they do this by not including many activities which remaing 'hidden' whilst pretending we can see them.

I agree, but aren't HM's investments as revealed in the paradise papers of the secret and dubious synthetic type?

 

[TheDecameron]

Still, I'm admiring your tax expertise. I recently got an IFA ahead of retiring and I'm not sure how much of the "I" there is in his title- particularly given that I've handed him a fat fee already. Do you do homers?
PS I don't have a pot like Brenda's.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I agree, but aren't HM's investments as revealed in the paradise papers of the secret and dubious synthetic type?

I can't comment on that for certain as I've not read the details, but I suspect so. As above, being able to lift the secrecy would not only help us - and HMRC - to know, but also mean that anyone fancying to try a dodge would know in advance that the details would become public.

I've seen elsewhere the argument that "we all dodge indirectly" because we have things like insurance policies, pensions, etc, which are run by investing in firms, etc, that themselves usually play such games in secret. However, again, given the secrecy it seems a poor argument.

If "they all do it" but we still may need pensions, to use a bank, etc, then - given that secrecy - we have no way to prefer companies that *don't* engage in the dodges. By giving us the facts, we could choose, and then share the responsibility (and any liability) or not as we decide as individuals. At present its all under a blanket we aren't able individually to remove.

 

[Still]

Still, I'm admiring your tax expertise. I recently got an IFA ahead of retiring and I'm not sure how much of the "I" there is in his title- particularly given that I've handed him a fat fee already. Do you do homers?
PS I don't have a pot like Brenda's.

Yes! Best rate for full laundering is 76p to £1. Other currencies negotiable.
Other markets currently available: gold, bitcoins and Frank Bough memorabilia.

That was also Bono's defence; it was all his accountants' doings; he knew nothing about it.

That was also Bono's explanation for U2's last album.

 

[jtrade]

The UK simply spends a smaller portion of GDP on health than most of the other European nations it usually compares itself with.

I thought the whole problem was that the UK spends much, much more, because we have the NHS ? Here in NL, everyone has to have private medical insurance to ensure that they can pay for treatment. Those receiving income support etc additionally receive part or all of their insurance premiums.

 

[oldie]

I recently got an IFA ahead of retiring and I'm not sure how much of the "I" there is in his title- particularly given that I've handed him a fat fee already. Do you do homers?
PS I don't have a pot like Brenda's.

Dec
When my better half retired from what was then,the Inland Revenue she engaged the company a large national company that gave some "Free" IFA advice to all of the Staff that at the time were due to retire. They took quite a large fee at the start and continued to take their fee even though the advised investments initially lost us quite a sum of money, it is now just starting to pick up again Just remember they don't always get it right, but will still continue to extract their fees it's a win win situation for them .
oldie

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I thought the whole problem was that the UK spends much, much more, because we have the NHS ?

All the general international comparisions I've seen for developed countries showed that in terms of service/cost the NHS does well. The difficulty is to compare like with like. Here we (nominally) all get the same access regardless of any history of payment or ability to pay. Unlike places like the USA or countries that run a 'mixed' system.

The snag, of course, is that the Tories have over the years gradually led us towards a 'mixed' system and saddled the NHS with 'outsourcing' costs, PFIs, etc, that bleed the NHS of money into private pockets.

So not a simply issue to judge, but easy for politicians to play 'find the lady' with.