In article <spn3t4$jcs$1@dont-email.me>, 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?

In terms of tax dodging, many probably already have!

> Similarly all their favourite TV stars and pop singers.

As above, I suspect.

However if the *players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational TV
company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now. And who
knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for their favoured
UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to realise that some
current 'stars' cost them more than the high price of game tickets and TV
viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up paying more tax and/or
having a poorer NHS, 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 <ogaurgllt729p2h3db15krmveffac55pfh@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

cf below

> 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.

No doubt. Countries do, indeed, run different tax systems - e.g. Scotland
now differs from England. But those differences also lead to offseting
other changes. e.g. If UHW people can't dodge tax via exploiting
'ownership' the costs of owning a home or factory or office in the UK may
well be reduced. Which could be very helpful.

> 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.

Yes. Indeed, different countries *do* have different tax regimes, etc, etc.

So the idea that we can't possibly change anything would be a myth.

Hence we can decide to make changes that benefit most ordinary honest
people even if it upsets a few high-wealth tax dodgers.

The main problem is that our Goverment and much of the print media is run
by them, for them. Chumocracy International.

The secondary level is all the schemes and devices they use to hide what
goes on, so we can't easily recognise the detail and scope, and deal
with it.

PE ad naus, for example.

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 10:38, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> 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?

So are you saying that the government is complicit in large scale
corruption?

>
> 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.

I haven't seen anything to show that the lawful management of tax
liability of the rich significantly impacts on the poor. You postulate a
'burden' with no evidence of its existence.

>
> If so, you may be a part of the problem for those who struggle with
> poverty, etc.
And if your groundless hypothesis has no basis in fact I'm not part of
the problem. In fact, I could be part of the solution. You never know...

Bill

On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational TV
> company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now. And who
> knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for their favoured
> UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to realise that some
> current 'stars' cost them more than the high price of game tickets and TV
> viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up paying more tax and/or
> having a poorer NHS, etc.

They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.

I suspect most here are "dodging" tax with tax relief on mortgages,
pensions etc.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 19:17:24 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational TV
>> company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now. And who
>> knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for their favoured
>> UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to realise that some
>> current 'stars' cost them more than the high price of game tickets and TV
>> viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up paying more tax and/or
>> having a poorer NHS, etc.
>
>They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
>pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.
>
>I suspect most here are "dodging" tax with tax relief on mortgages,
>pensions etc.
>
>
Most dodging tax on mortgages, tell me more and how.

--
brightside S9, how

In article <spnp1s$glk$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> 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,

Un-snip what prompted the comment to find out.

"Robin" had commented that:

] 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.

I was respnding to that. cf below...

> I doubt any of them are a drain on the NHS.

My response was that this "top 1%" don't include a group of other
ultra-rich people who for tax purposes are 'phantoms' in the UK because
they arrange for their income and wealth to all manifest *outside* the
UK - even when they live here. And they gather money from here and then
shift it abroad.

They *do* dodge the taxes that helps fund the NHS. Again, go back to what
you snipped alleging that the "top x% paid Y% of UK tax". That statement is
false because many of the "top" income and wealth people hide it abroad. So
don't show up on these official figures.

This has been documented multiple times by many investigative journaliists.
cf PE, 'Panama Papers" etc, etc, ad naus over decades now.

The reality, as exposed in a variety of investigations, is that this loss
to us is quite substantial. So consider if they, say, had to pay up. It
might mean a similar sum to the "30%" being *added* to our tax take. That
could make a dramatic impact on funding for the NHS, Social Care, or
even the much-fabled "levelling up" for those in areas of the UK where
decent jobs, housing, transport, etc, are scarce.

> 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.

Wonderful. So how does that compare with the tax they dodge and the effect
they have on lifting land and property prices in general? Maybe hard to
answer given that the real info is hidden from us. The problem is that
the collude with top politicians and own the newspapers, so hide in
plain sight.

Sure, *some* of the ultra-rich like to show how generous and kind they
are. But does that come close to what they'd contribute if they *all*
paid tax, etc, without the dodging? All your comment does is take us
back to the fudal system and relying on the Lord of the Manor being
a 'jolly good chap' when the feel like it.

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 <j2932rFpcnmU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

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

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

Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking about
something I didn't write.

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 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j2932rFpcnmU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
>
>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>
> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking about
> something I didn't write.

Not at all.

How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?

On 19/12/2021 06:07 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <spnp1s$glk$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> 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,
>
> Un-snip what prompted the comment to find out.
>
> "Robin" had commented that:
>
> ] 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.
>
>
> I was respnding to that. cf below...
>
>> I doubt any of them are a drain on the NHS.
>
> My response was that this "top 1%" don't include a group of other
> ultra-rich people who for tax purposes are 'phantoms' in the UK because
> they arrange for their income and wealth to all manifest *outside* the
> UK - even when they live here. And they gather money from here and then
> shift it abroad.
>
> They *do* dodge the taxes that helps fund the NHS. Again, go back to what
> you snipped alleging that the "top x% paid Y% of UK tax". That statement is
> false because many of the "top" income and wealth people hide it abroad. So
> don't show up on these official figures.

That does not militate against what the PP said. He said that 1% of the
UK's population (not people who live elsewhere - sheesh!) pay 30% of the
UK's income tax receipts.

Is that correct or incorrect?

Please note that the fact that some other people pay tax elsewhere is
not relevant to the answer.

> This has been documented multiple times by many investigative journaliists.
> cf PE, 'Panama Papers" etc, etc, ad naus over decades now.

What has?

That some people don't live in the UK and don't pay income tax here?

> The reality, as exposed in a variety of investigations, is that this loss
> to us is quite substantial. So consider if they, say, had to pay up. It
> might mean a similar sum to the "30%" being *added* to our tax take. That
> could make a dramatic impact on funding for the NHS, Social Care, or
> even the much-fabled "levelling up" for those in areas of the UK where
> decent jobs, housing, transport, etc, are scarce.

"could"

Do you know what the term "weasel words" means?

>> 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.
>
> Wonderful. So how does that compare with the tax they dodge and the effect
> they have on lifting land and property prices in general?

Please provide the evidence upon which you rely for asserting that the
people referred to by the PP dodge taxes or "lift land and property
prices in general".

> Maybe hard to
> answer given that the real info is hidden from us.

Lack of information doesn't seem to stop you from reaching - or leaping
to - conclusions, does it?

> The problem is that
> the collude with top politicians and own the newspapers, so hide in
> plain sight.

Evidence, please.

> Sure, *some* of the ultra-rich like to show how generous and kind they
> are. But does that come close to what they'd contribute if they *all*
> paid tax, etc, without the dodging? All your comment does is take us
> back to the fudal system and relying on the Lord of the Manor being
> a 'jolly good chap' when the feel like it.

Evidence that they don't pay tax?

No, I thought not...

In article <j2ba1lF7qmuU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <j2932rFpcnmU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> > <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
> >
> >> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> >
> > Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
> > about something I didn't write.

> Not at all.

> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?

The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
plenty of it.

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

On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>
>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
>>> about something I didn't write.
>
>> Not at all.
>> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
>
> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
> plenty of it.

How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
vice-versa)?

In article <j29beeFr186U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 19/12/2021 10:38, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > 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?

> So are you saying that the government is complicit in large scale
> corruption?

Yes, to a significant extent. cf below.

> >
> > 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.

> I haven't seen anything to show that the lawful management of tax
> liability of the rich significantly impacts on the poor. You postulate a
> 'burden' with no evidence of its existence.

You should get out more. I recommend a regular trip the the Newsagent's
where you can buy Private Eye and find the content of interest. :-) OK, you
may need to issues for some time before the full scope of the problem
becomes clear. And some can at first be baffling because it involves all
the tricks and turns the 'ungodly' (pace Leslie Charteris) employ to hide
their behaviour. But it is worth the effort

> >
> > If so, you may be a part of the problem for those who struggle with
> > poverty, etc.
> And if your groundless hypothesis has no basis in fact I'm not part of
> the problem. In fact, I could be part of the solution. You never know...

You could be if you follow the above advice. As it stands the
ultra-high-wealth chumocracy impact your life just like the do most of the
rest of us. In plain sight they pass unseen.

Just think of one possibility: That the dodging is of a scale that matches,
say, the claim about the "top 1% giving 30% of the tax take". If we
gathered tax properly from the "top 0%" who hide, that could raise the
total tax take by a third. Which would be handy for the NHS and Soclal
Care, etc, or simply allow the tax rates for us lesser folk to be reduced.

Seems worth investigating to me given the possible prize.

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 <0fd5e67a-8d17-16df-c318-8490db61501c@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <j26il5FaoikU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> > <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> 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.
> >

> A few brief points:

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

Yup. Didn't say otherwise. If it helps you in 'party political' terms I'll
include LLPs being a trick that Tony B Liar invented and has been used
enthusiastically by tax dodgers and wealth-concealers ever since,

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

If you trade/manufacture you can also claim back the nominal VAT on what
you have to buy in. This lets you sell things to your UK company from other
companies which you own, abroad. Leads to tricks like the one now popular
for 'chain shops'. They charge for their 'brand name' and basic supplies
coming from a non-UK source, and ensure the UK shops make 'no proifit' and
that they can offset a lot of the taxes in the UK.

If you read PE this has also been repeatedly documented for a number of
well-known 'brand' chain shops.

> 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.

OK, here are you 10 starters:

Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.
Step 2 would be to increase the number of their staff and their levels of
skills in these areas.
Step 3 would be for the IRC, etc, to be proactive in investigating these
areas more aggressively - including when MPs are involved.
Step 4 would be to forbid any of their staff from leaving to take a job on
the 'other side of the fence' for, say, five years after leaving their
Government job.
Step 5 would be to change the law to make many of the current tax dodging
practices illegal.
Step 6 would be to require any new trick that 'saved tax' to have to be
approved by the IRC, etc, *before* it could be used to dodge tax. Ditto for
any undeclared methods found after investigations.
Step 7 might be to stop being so easy on 'companies' that declare late or
inaccurately.
Step 8 might be to make LLPs illegal in their current form.
Step 9 might be to ban any involvement with offshore companies that fail to
openly and accurately declare their beneficial owners so they can be traced
and investigated. No more tax havens that hide who is useing them, etc.
Step 10 might be to be a tad more investigative about the roles played by
banks, the big 'accountancy' firms, etc and the way the tend to promote
tricks, play games, etc, often in the process destroying simple UK
companies. (again PE, Panama Papers, etc, as naus.)

No doubt more would help.

The problem is that at present the entire system is rotten. It has suited
the people at 'the top' - politician, lawyers, etc - for this to be the
case because so many are a part of the chumocracy. The present mob in
government are just one facet. This isn't a party political problem, except
perhaps in the sense that the current bunch are so blatent and arrogant
about it. You want to sit in the House of Lords? No problem, about half a
million quid for the party should do nicely... Sir.

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 <spo0g3$1h3$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational
> > TV company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now.
> > And who knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for
> > their favoured UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to
> > realise that some current 'stars' cost them more than the high price
> > of game tickets and TV viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up
> > paying more tax and/or having a poorer NHS, etc.

> They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
> pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.

They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to play
for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.

IIRC many people on this group got very angry when it was found that some
BBC people used - gasp! - this trick. Yet it seems to be fine for
footballers.

> I suspect most here are "dodging" tax with tax relief on mortgages,
> pensions etc.

If you wish to think so, and you can at least see that and argue it should
be changed. Personally, yes, I've always found that odd given the relative
lack of help for renters. But I guess this is because the British seem
obsessed with owning their home in a way that some other countries are not.

The key difference is that mortgage tax relief is something everyone is
aware of and many can choose to use openly. Whereas the ultra-rich use
dodges that tend to be hidden from view anduse the law in ways many may
feel wasn't justified given that they are ultra-wealthy and would remain
so even if they paid up like most of us. The problem isn't just the tax
lost. It is that wealth goes abroad and we get effects like increased
property and land prices for everyone here - which then gets partly
paid for via that mortgage tax relief. In effect we then pay out tax
money to compensate for property prices driven up by the wealthy!
Again, all hidden just under the surface appearances.

TBH I and my better half saved up money before we bought, so we got a
relatively small mortgage, and haven't moved since. We didn't want to jump
on the 'bandwaggon' some friends urged us to join of repeatedly 'going up
the ladder' with the biggest possible mortgage.

As I'd suspected, that for them ended in tears in a few cases. But we paid
our mortgage off as quickly as we could. Much less than the nominal term.
So probably got less tax relief than was common - before the brown stuff
hit the rotating object!

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

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
>
> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
> >>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> >
> >>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
> >>> about something I didn't write.
> >
> >> Not at all.
> >> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
> >
> > The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
> > plenty of it.
>
> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
> vice-versa)?

I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

The Russkis know how to control things!

https://twitter.com/francska1/status/1472854577657618437

https://twitter.com/i/status/1472854577657618437

On 20/12/2021 10:53 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>>> However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational
>>> TV company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now.
>>> And who knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for
>>> their favoured UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to
>>> realise that some current 'stars' cost them more than the high price
>>> of game tickets and TV viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up
>>> paying more tax and/or having a poorer NHS, etc.
>
>> They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
>> pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.
>
> They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to play
> for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.
> IIRC many people on this group got very angry when it was found that some
> BBC people used - gasp! - this trick. Yet it seems to be fine for
> footballers.
>
>> I suspect most here are "dodging" tax with tax relief on mortgages,
>> pensions etc.
>
> If you wish to think so, and you can at least see that and argue it should
> be changed. Personally, yes, I've always found that odd given the relative
> lack of help for renters. But I guess this is because the British seem
> obsessed with owning their home in a way that some other countries are not.

What do you mean by "lack of help for renters" (I assume you mean tenants)?

Are you unaware that:

(a) tenants can receive Housing Benefit (or Universal / Pension Credit
covering housing costs) right up to 100%, that being the case even if
working full time, while

(b) home-owners with mortgages cannot get help with mortgage interest
(or capital repayment methods) while in work?

Summary: two blokes working side by side in same job role. One is a
tenant. He can get housing benefit.The other has a mortgage; he cannot
get any assistance with it. None whatsoever.

Did you know that?

> The key difference is that mortgage tax relief is something everyone is
> aware of and many can choose to use openly. Whereas the ultra-rich use
> dodges that tend to be hidden from view anduse the law in ways many may
> feel wasn't justified given that they are ultra-wealthy and would remain
> so even if they paid up like most of us. The problem isn't just the tax
> lost. It is that wealth goes abroad and we get effects like increased
> property and land prices for everyone here - which then gets partly
> paid for via that mortgage tax relief. In effect we then pay out tax
> money to compensate for property prices driven up by the wealthy!
> Again, all hidden just under the surface appearances.

Were you unaware that mortgage tax relief was abolished in 1997 by
Gordon Broon immediately on taking office (even though it had not been
mentioned in the Labour Manifesto for the General Election that year)?

> TBH I and my better half saved up money before we bought, so we got a
> relatively small mortgage, and haven't moved since. We didn't want to jump
> on the 'bandwaggon' some friends urged us to join of repeatedly 'going up
> the ladder' with the biggest possible mortgage.
>
> As I'd suspected, that for them ended in tears in a few cases. But we paid
> our mortgage off as quickly as we could. Much less than the nominal term.
> So probably got less tax relief than was common - before the brown stuff
> hit the rotating object!

"Brown stuff" - good phrase.

On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
>>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>>>
>>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
>>>>> about something I didn't write.
>>>
>>>> Not at all.
>>>> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
>>>
>>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
>>> plenty of it.
>>
>> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
>> vice-versa)?
>
> I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.

That's a big assumption.

In article <j2bcnhF8c34U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:

> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
> >>>> abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> >
> >>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
> >>> about something I didn't write.
> >
> >> Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the
> >> UK?
> >
> > The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
> > and plenty of it.

> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
> vice-versa)?

It doesn't and nobody but yourself has memntioned property outside the UK.

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

On 20/12/2021 01:29 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <j2bcnhF8c34U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
>
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
>>>>>> abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>>>
>>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
>>>>> about something I didn't write.
>>>
>>>> Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the
>>>> UK?
>>>
>>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
>>> and plenty of it.
>
>> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
>> vice-versa)?
>
> It doesn't and nobody but yourself has memntioned property outside the UK.

What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?

In article <j2bet8F8q07U2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
> >>
> >>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
> >>>>>> abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> >>>
> >>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
> >>>>> asking about something I didn't write.
> >>>
> >>>> Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in
> >>>> the UK?
> >>>
> >>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
> >>> and plenty of it.
> >>
> >> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK
> >> (or vice-versa)?
> >
> > I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.

> That's a big assumption.

It's what the OP ststad.

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

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
> >>
> >>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
> >>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> >>>
> >>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
> >>>>> about something I didn't write.
> >>>
> >>>> Not at all.
> >>>> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
> >>>
> >>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
> >>> plenty of it.
> >>
> >> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
> >> vice-versa)?
> >
> > I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
>
> That's a big assumption.

To illustrate it, let's put the boot on the other foot. Let's say
that you bought a holiday home in e.g. France. The ownership of
that property resides in the UK. You then go to visit that holiday
home but pay no rent to the property owner (yourself in the UK)
for that privilege, thereby depriving the French authorities of tax
due on that foregone rental payment.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 20/12/2021 01:41 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <j2bet8F8q07U2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
>>>>>>>> abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
>>>>>>> asking about something I didn't write.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in
>>>>>> the UK?
>>>>>
>>>>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
>>>>> and plenty of it.
>>>>
>>>> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK
>>>> (or vice-versa)?
>>>
>>> I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
>
>> That's a big assumption.
>
> It's what the OP ststad.

That's easy for you to say.

On 20/12/2021 01:53 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
>>>>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
>>>>>>> about something I didn't write.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
>>>>>
>>>>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
>>>>> plenty of it.
>>>>
>>>> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
>>>> vice-versa)?
>>>
>>> I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
>>
>> That's a big assumption.
>
> To illustrate it, let's put the boot on the other foot. Let's say
> that you bought a holiday home in e.g. France. The ownership of
> that property resides in the UK. You then go to visit that holiday
> home but pay no rent to the property owner (yourself in the UK)
> for that privilege, thereby depriving the French authorities of tax
> due on that foregone rental payment.

But I would never say that I was visiting the UK in order to visit
property owned abroad.

BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
always be interpreted to mean property in another country.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 20/12/2021 01:53 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> >>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad.."
> >>>>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
> >>>>>>> about something I didn't write.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Not at all.
> >>>>>> How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
> >>>>> plenty of it.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
> >>>> vice-versa)?
> >>>
> >>> I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
> >>
> >> That's a big assumption.
> >
> > To illustrate it, let's put the boot on the other foot. Let's say
> > that you bought a holiday home in e.g. France. The ownership of
> > that property resides in the UK. You then go to visit that holiday
> > home but pay no rent to the property owner (yourself in the UK)
> > for that privilege, thereby depriving the French authorities of tax
> > due on that foregone rental payment.
>
> But I would never say that I was visiting the UK in order to visit
> property owned abroad.
>
> BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
> always be interpreted to mean property in another country.

So all this is just a semantics nit-pick? OK, I'm out.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.