In article <j22m19Fieg9U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 16/12/2021 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Not if*you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling
> > up', etc, that Tax is used for.

> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
> tax efficient.

OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume you
can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?

> It's a characteristic of the left to regard personal
> morality as being more important than simple compliance to the tax laws.

Nice use of "compliance" there. :-) cf below...

> If it's wrong what the rich kids do, the law should be changed.

The snag being that the 'law' and its application is largely decided by the
"rich kids" and their chumocracy. Yes, the law *should* be changed. That's
been true for decades. But for some odd reason those who gain power and
weath seem to forget this once they have gained the wealth and power. Odd,
eh?...

But it still seems odd to trumpet someone as a wonderful 'British' exemplar
when they dodge tax on a scale that means either less for our NHS, etc, or
you and me have to pay more because they dodge.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j22uq3Fk098U1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/12/2021 05:33, williamwright wrote:
> >
> > Mind you the Norwegians were always a mardy lot. Didn't they have a
> > moan about Bilsdale at one point?
> >
> >
> Quite possibly, but then so did Yorkshire TV !

But they're Southeners! ... at least so far as JJ, me, and Norway are
concerned. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j22m19Fieg9U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 16/12/2021 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> Not if*you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling
>>> up', etc, that Tax is used for.
>
>> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
>> tax efficient.
>
> OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume you
> can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
>
>
>> It's a characteristic of the left to regard personal
>> morality as being more important than simple compliance to the tax laws.
>
> Nice use of "compliance" there. :-) cf below...
>
>> If it's wrong what the rich kids do, the law should be changed.
>
> The snag being that the 'law' and its application is largely decided by the
> "rich kids" and their chumocracy. Yes, the law *should* be changed. That's
> been true for decades. But for some odd reason those who gain power and
> weath seem to forget this once they have gained the wealth and power. Odd,
> eh?...
>

If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
1980s.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 17/12/2021 18:01, Robin wrote:
> If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
> 1980s.

Labour's Richard Burgon (not the brightest of people) has been
repeatedly claiming he would raise £69 million from a "top 10% wealth
tax" but he has now spent the same £69 million many times!

Also it has been shown in the past that increasing taxes actually bring
in less to the Exchequer.

Richard Burgon’s £69 Billion Answer to Everything
https://order-order.com/page/2/

On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
>> tax efficient.
> OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume you
> can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
>
>
No, re-read what I said.

Bill

In article <f8d02ef6-85b2-c13d-4fec-cd5d7d83e371@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
> 1980s.

Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats because
they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as income or
wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top x%" are just for
those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.

The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the UK'
by means other than a 'salary', etc.

OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport, but
then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay in, say, a
big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they 'visit' the UK. They
have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK company holds the wealth
and gets any income - using tax dodges that make it seem like 'costs' for
any UK arm.

e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners. Big
examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and 'chemists' shop
chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the profits go abroad.
The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and then 'visit' the UK to
use property owned abroad.

UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.

No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j2487iFrnj8U2@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's
> >> being tax efficient.
> > OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume
> > you can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
> >
> >
> No, re-read what I said.

OK< so you're NOT happy about this. So what do you propose we do to change
the situation?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 18/12/2021 10:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
> donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
> the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.

Not exclusive to the UK government, the Scots play the same game on a
smaller scale and of course the Irish gave many companies and wealthy
people low tax rates.

The previous head of the EU (forgotten his name, the one that was
usually drunk), in his previous post as Luxembourg PM gave low tax rates
to many big multinationals like Amazon so they would operate from there
(at least on paper).

In the US, individual states do the same.

On 18/12/2021 10:43 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
>> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
>> 1980s.
>
> Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats because
> they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as income or
> wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top x%" are just for
> those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.
>
> The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the UK'
> by means other than a 'salary', etc.
>
> OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport, but
> then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay in, say, a
> big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they 'visit' the UK. They
> have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK company holds the wealth
> and gets any income - using tax dodges that make it seem like 'costs' for
> any UK arm.
>
> e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
> name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
> treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners. Big
> examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and 'chemists' shop
> chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the profits go abroad.
> The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and then 'visit' the UK to
> use property owned abroad.
>
> UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
> donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
> the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.
>
> No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...
>
> Jim

So many things which be=g other questions, but...

"...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."

How does that work?

On 18/12/2021 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j2487iFrnj8U2@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's
>>>> being tax efficient.
>>> OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume
>>> you can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
>>>
>>>
>> No, re-read what I said.
>
> OK< so you're NOT happy about this. So what do you propose we do to change
> the situation?
>
> Jim
>

I haven't said a word about whether I'm happy about it not. I said that
my happiness or otherwise is immaterial to the rich guy. He's entitled
to pay whatever tax the law demands and not a penny more.

Bill

In article <j26il5FaoikU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 18/12/2021 10:43 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
> >> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since
> >> the 1980s.
> >
> > Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats
> > because they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as
> > income or wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top
> > x%" are just for those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.
> >
> > The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the
> > UK' by means other than a 'salary', etc.
> >
> > OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport,
> > but then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay
> > in, say, a big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they
> > 'visit' the UK. They have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK
> > company holds the wealth and gets any income - using tax dodges that
> > make it seem like 'costs' for any UK arm.
> >
> > e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
> > name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
> > treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners.
> > Big examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and
> > 'chemists' shop chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the
> > profits go abroad. The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and
> > then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad.
> >
> > UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
> > donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And
> > thus the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK
> > tax.
> >
> > No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...
> >
> > Jim

> So many things which be=g other questions, but...

> "...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."

> How does that work?

In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish Investment
Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 18/12/2021 10:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <f8d02ef6-85b2-c13d-4fec-cd5d7d83e371@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
>> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
>> 1980s.
>
> Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats because
> they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as income or
> wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top x%" are just for
> those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.
>
> The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the UK'
> by means other than a 'salary', etc.
>
> OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport, but
> then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay in, say, a
> big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they 'visit' the UK. They
> have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK company holds the wealth
> and gets any income - using tax dodges that make it seem like 'costs' for
> any UK arm.
>
> e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
> name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
> treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners. Big
> examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and 'chemists' shop
> chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the profits go abroad.
> The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and then 'visit' the UK to
> use property owned abroad.
>
> UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
> donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
> the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.
>
> No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...
>

Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully? NB
by "successfully" I mean to get more tax from such people as opposed to
making sure those people don't spend much time/money in the country.
That would serve to eliminate the possibility that it's just plain
fucking difficult to tax the income and gains of the super rich - as
opposed to telling them to fuck off and spend/invest their money elsewhere.

Similarly, as regards the corporations which shift profits, can you name
countries which have tackled them more successfully than the UK? It's
15+ years since I worked with people who grappled day by day with the
issue (in the UK and in the OECD) but the UK was of course constrained
by treaties. (Including the EU: some of us remember M&S v Halsey.) But
I've been encouraged by the progress made recently through the OECD with
the two-pillar plan. If you reckon the UK governments could have dealt
with it unilaterally, how?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 18/12/2021 06:12 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <j26il5FaoikU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2021 10:43 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
>>>> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since
>>>> the 1980s.
>>>
>>> Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats
>>> because they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as
>>> income or wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top
>>> x%" are just for those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.
>>>
>>> The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the
>>> UK' by means other than a 'salary', etc.
>>>
>>> OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport,
>>> but then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay
>>> in, say, a big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they
>>> 'visit' the UK. They have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK
>>> company holds the wealth and gets any income - using tax dodges that
>>> make it seem like 'costs' for any UK arm.
>>>
>>> e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
>>> name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
>>> treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners.
>>> Big examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and
>>> 'chemists' shop chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the
>>> profits go abroad. The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and
>>> then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad.
>>>
>>> UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
>>> donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And
>>> thus the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK
>>> tax.
>>>
>>> No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...
>>>
>>> Jim
>
>> So many things which be=g other questions, but...
>
>> "...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
>
>> How does that work?
>
> In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish Investment
> Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.

Is "this village" in the UK or abroad?

On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 21:07:19 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

>Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
>countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?

One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
any individual can possess. Elsewhere there are power limits,
temperature limits, pressure limits, speed limits and so on, so that
nothing gets out of hand, but not with money. Sadly, the time when it
might have been practical to implement such a thing is probably long
past, as the richest entities on the planet are now more powerful than
any government, and can easily keep the latter under control simply by
offering places for their snouts in the same trough.

Rod.

On 19/12/2021 10:38, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
> every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
> any individual can possess.

Could only work under a totalitarian system.

Can you imagine the reaction of all the football fans when told that all
their best players will be leaving the country?

Similarly all their favourite TV stars and pop singers.

etc etc.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 11:09:24 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 19/12/2021 10:38, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
>> every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
>> any individual can possess.
>
>Could only work under a totalitarian system.
>
>Can you imagine the reaction of all the football fans when told that all
>their best players will be leaving the country?
>
>Similarly all their favourite TV stars and pop singers.
>
>etc etc.

Yes, it would have to apply to the concept of money itself, so that it
applied everywhere. It wouldn't work if different countries had
different rules. We already have some differences in the tax rules
between countries and people exploit those, so presumably they'd
exploit any other differences that they could.

But somehow we've managed to achieve international co-operation
regarding the value of money, which is effectively just tokens that
don't have any real intrinsic value, and people mostly respect that
system without the need for totalitarian government, so in theory it
should be possible to modify it to include limits.

Rod.

In article <j26il5FaoikU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> So many things which be=g other questions, but...

> "...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."

> How does that work?

IIUC the going rate for buying a UK passport is about a million quid. If
you show you've got that kind of wealth, you can get a passport. You can
then fly in and stay here. The live in a property 'owned by a company
outwith the UK'. You ensure that - so far as IRC are concerned, get no pay
from any UK source. But the offshore company allows you to stay there
without charging you rent. (And of course, you own that company.)

Lots of ultra-high-worth (sic) people do this in London. There was a recent
book doumenting it. I did buy a copy. I'll see if I can find it so I can
give the title and author. As books go, it is boring, but the facts it
lists are illuminating.

You can add in all the land - lots of it in Scotland - that is owned by
offshore companies and then used in this way. I think some of them also
have private heliports so the 'visitors' can get to and from the local
airports without having to stoop to travelling along the roads that mere
'locals' use.

Private Eye has also often documented this, and its links with the Tories.
There was an interesting item on Jacob Reely-Smug in the latest issue.
Byzantine financial arrangements. When it comes to tax dodging, Balony
Baffle Brains, eh? Particularly when UK Government has cut back the number
of people at IRC who can investigate. Just add in LLPs, tax havens that
fail to disclose benrficial ownership, etc. Stir to mix up an opaque soup
of tax dodging and wealth-concealment.

The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures.
They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j26m1fFbefnU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

> I haven't said a word about whether I'm happy about it not. I said that
> my happiness or otherwise is immaterial to the rich guy. He's entitled
> to pay whatever tax the law demands and not a penny more.

Even when he pays the politicians to arrange that he can dodge tax, rather
than contribute to when you need the NHS?

You seem remarkably devoid of any concern for the burden their behaviour
dumps on others. Like the 'left behind' who need 'levelling up', not being
dumped.

If so, you may be a part of the problem for those who struggle with
poverty, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j27drcFfpeqU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish
> > Investment Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.

> Is "this village" in the UK or abroad?

As an aside I can say that the Scots Government has legislated for a full
*public* register of all Land Ownership which can then be scrutinised. One
of the main reasons for this is to expose where the problem exists and then
deal with it. It has also passed other related legislation which at present
those 'down south' can currently only dream about.

e.g. to allow groups of tenants to buy their land and cease to be tenants
of a controlling estate who charges them for the priviledge.

e.g.2. The effective abolition of what in England is 'leasehold'.

So changes *are* possible if people decide they've had enough of being
taken for mugs. You can see some examples if you just look across a close
border.

Beware Lawyers and Accountants who will tell you the situation can't be
improved. They may mean *their* situation, not yours! :-) Note also - as
also in the MOD - the tendency for Civil Servants to 'go native'. Also cf
PE ad Naus wrt the "Revolving Door" effect here. "Nothing can be done for
the first time!" can be a mantra that lives on long after "Yes minister".
8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <7fc9d08b-66cf-ba33-ae1c-36f6c055791b@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
> countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?

Nope. Since I live in the UK (pro tem) my concern is for how people here
are being exploited via tax dodging. I'm sure similar games are deployed
elsewhere as well, but that's where it becomes useful to have the various
discoveries like the "Panama Papers", etc. If you look there you can
probably answer your own questions.

Yes, the ultra-wealthy do play countries off against each others. Just as
the bribe... erm support policians who let them do it. cf below...

I can say that allowing dodges like LLPs and the use of tax havens that
fail to disclose beneficial ownership need to be ended so we can get a
clearer view to decide who should actually pay tax in the UK. Similarly,
I'd say that when legal eagles come up with a new 'cunning plan' to dodge
tax it should need to be 'registered' in some way which can be decided
openly by UK Government *before* it can legally be employed.

If other Governments have different ideas, that's for them to decide.

> I've been encouraged by the progress made recently through the OECD with
> the two-pillar plan. If you reckon the UK governments could have dealt
> with it unilaterally, how?

You tell us if you have special knowledge of the area. Clearly the current
system is broken, so should be changed. The corruption it breeds extends to
the top - as some 'Lords' could admit if honest about how they gained
ermine!

My personal view at present is that we need a wealth tax to be applied to
those who fall into the category of non-doms or visitors who 'stay' in big
properties 'owned outwith the UK'. In reality the main result of the
present system is to drive up land and property prices. Which is a big
problem for ordinary citizens.

CF PE Ad Naus. Write to them if it bothers you. :-)

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 19/12/2021 10:35 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j26il5FaoikU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> So many things which be=g other questions, but...
>
>> "...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
>
>> How does that work?
>
> IIUC the going rate for buying a UK passport is about a million quid. If
> you show you've got that kind of wealth, you can get a passport. You can
> then fly in and stay here. The live in a property 'owned by a company
> outwith the UK'. You ensure that - so far as IRC are concerned, get no pay
> from any UK source. But the offshore company allows you to stay there
> without charging you rent. (And of course, you own that company.)
>
> Lots of ultra-high-worth (sic) people do this in London. There was a recent
> book doumenting it. I did buy a copy. I'll see if I can find it so I can
> give the title and author. As books go, it is boring, but the facts it
> lists are illuminating.
>
> You can add in all the land - lots of it in Scotland - that is owned by
> offshore companies and then used in this way. I think some of them also
> have private heliports so the 'visitors' can get to and from the local
> airports without having to stoop to travelling along the roads that mere
> 'locals' use.
>
> Private Eye has also often documented this, and its links with the Tories.
> There was an interesting item on Jacob Reely-Smug in the latest issue.
> Byzantine financial arrangements. When it comes to tax dodging, Balony
> Baffle Brains, eh? Particularly when UK Government has cut back the number
> of people at IRC who can investigate. Just add in LLPs, tax havens that
> fail to disclose benrficial ownership, etc. Stir to mix up an opaque soup
> of tax dodging and wealth-concealment.
>
> The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures.
> They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
>You've missed the point, which wasn't the slightest bit complicated.

You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."

How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?

On 19/12/2021 10:59 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j27drcFfpeqU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>> In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish
>>> Investment Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.
>
>> Is "this village" in the UK or abroad?
>
> As an aside I can say that the Scots Government has legislated for a full
> *public* register of all Land Ownership which can then be scrutinised. One
> of the main reasons for this is to expose where the problem exists and then
> deal with it. It has also passed other related legislation which at present
> those 'down south' can currently only dream about.
>
> e.g. to allow groups of tenants to buy their land and cease to be tenants
> of a controlling estate who charges them for the priviledge.
>
> e.g.2. The effective abolition of what in England is 'leasehold'.
>
> So changes *are* possible if people decide they've had enough of being
> taken for mugs. You can see some examples if you just look across a close
> border.
>
> Beware Lawyers and Accountants who will tell you the situation can't be
> improved. They may mean *their* situation, not yours! :-) Note also - as
> also in the MOD - the tendency for Civil Servants to 'go native'. Also cf
> PE ad Naus wrt the "Revolving Door" effect here. "Nothing can be done for
> the first time!" can be a mantra that lives on long after "Yes minister".
> 8-]

The "aside" has nothing to do with my question and does not answer it.

But you've snipped so much of the context that I can't now be bothered
to restate it.

On 19/12/2021 10:50, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <7fc9d08b-66cf-ba33-ae1c-36f6c055791b@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
>> countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?
>
> Nope. Since I live in the UK (pro tem) my concern is for how people here
> are being exploited via tax dodging. I'm sure similar games are deployed
> elsewhere as well, but that's where it becomes useful to have the various
> discoveries like the "Panama Papers", etc. If you look there you can
> probably answer your own questions.
>
> Yes, the ultra-wealthy do play countries off against each others. Just as
> the bribe... erm support policians who let them do it. cf below...
>
> I can say that allowing dodges like LLPs and the use of tax havens that
> fail to disclose beneficial ownership need to be ended so we can get a
> clearer view to decide who should actually pay tax in the UK. Similarly,
> I'd say that when legal eagles come up with a new 'cunning plan' to dodge
> tax it should need to be 'registered' in some way which can be decided
> openly by UK Government *before* it can legally be employed.
>
> If other Governments have different ideas, that's for them to decide.

So we have no evidence that what you want is achievable in a democracy
where government is subject to the rule of law.

>> I've been encouraged by the progress made recently through the OECD with
>> the two-pillar plan. If you reckon the UK governments could have dealt
>> with it unilaterally, how?
>
> You tell us if you have special knowledge of the area. Clearly the current
> system is broken, so should be changed. The corruption it breeds extends to
> the top - as some 'Lords' could admit if honest about how they gained
> ermine!

I make no claims of special knowledge beyond a few bits of work on tax
policy and legislation up to 2005. And that serves mainly to confirms
an observation I'd also make about other areas of public policy: many
people seem convinced they know not just what they /should/ be done but
that it /could/ be done in practice but for useless/venal politicians
and officials. And that includes people who would scorn similar
comments on their own fields of expertise.

> My personal view at present is that we need a wealth tax to be applied to
> those who fall into the category of non-doms or visitors who 'stay' in big
> properties 'owned outwith the UK'. In reality the main result of the
> present system is to drive up land and property prices. Which is a big
> problem for ordinary citizens.
>
> CF PE Ad Naus. Write to them if it bothers you. :-)

IMO Richard Brooks has done some good work as a journalist but tends to
be long on identifying problems and short on solutions. And comes with
an agenda (as he did when he was a tax inspector).

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures.
> They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.

What is wrong with that, I doubt any of them are a drain on the NHS.
They usually provide employment in rural areas, often the main employer.

A few years ago we visited the house owned by one of wealthiest people,
there is small community around the estate with a whole range of
activities, the house is rented out some of the time when they are away,
many local businesses and craftsmen have benefited from work done there.

On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j26il5FaoikU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> So many things which be=g other questions, but...
>
>> "...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
>
>> How does that work?
>
> IIUC the going rate for buying a UK passport is about a million quid. If
> you show you've got that kind of wealth, you can get a passport. You can
> then fly in and stay here. The live in a property 'owned by a company
> outwith the UK'. You ensure that - so far as IRC are concerned, get no pay
> from any UK source. But the offshore company allows you to stay there
> without charging you rent. (And of course, you own that company.)
>
> Lots of ultra-high-worth (sic) people do this in London. There was a recent
> book doumenting it. I did buy a copy. I'll see if I can find it so I can
> give the title and author. As books go, it is boring, but the facts it
> lists are illuminating.
>
> You can add in all the land - lots of it in Scotland - that is owned by
> offshore companies and then used in this way. I think some of them also
> have private heliports so the 'visitors' can get to and from the local
> airports without having to stoop to travelling along the roads that mere
> 'locals' use.
>
> Private Eye has also often documented this, and its links with the Tories.
> There was an interesting item on Jacob Reely-Smug in the latest issue.
> Byzantine financial arrangements. When it comes to tax dodging, Balony
> Baffle Brains, eh? Particularly when UK Government has cut back the number
> of people at IRC who can investigate. Just add in LLPs, tax havens that
> fail to disclose benrficial ownership, etc. Stir to mix up an opaque soup
> of tax dodging and wealth-concealment.
>
> The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures.
> They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
>

A few brief points:

a. nothing new in this: much the same under Labour governments

b. oh, wait, something's changed. The flat owned by a foreign company
will (assuming it's worth >£500,000) be subject to the Annual Tax on
Enveloped Dwellings. That's a tax introduced when the Tories were in
government in 2013

c. the individual will pay taxes such as VAT in the UK and the company
council tax or business rates

d. you omit to say what the solution is - ie what tax the UK should
charge the individual if they have no income or gains or property in the
UK. Be nice to have at least some idea.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid