In article <80ed3cc8-c29d-644c-5c43-3cbbf15fc1b5@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > 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:
> >

> >
> > Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.

> Do you mean HMRC?

I'm meaning Inland Revenue and Customs. i.e. broad cover of the way UK
Government takes in payments as taxes, etc.

> > 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.

> That can be put more simply as "you can't do anything that reduces your
> tax bill unless [HMRC] have given their prior approval". ECHR/HRA is an
> inconvenient truth again.

Are these 'laws' written By God and cannot be changed by mere mortals?

That said, what is or is not 'legal' in ECHR terms would depend on an
actual ruling on the specific case. Not a magic wand generalisation.
You may have noticed that Judges don't always do what politicians think
they will. :-)

Or do you mean that no-one is legally required to disclose what they are
doing when it is for the purpose of dodging tax? And no-one is ever
allowed to investigate when this might be the case?
If so, it seems clear who has decided the 'laws' here and that it needs
some scrutiny. The point is that they will know they do it to dodge tax.
Aiding that may also be regarded as criminal.

> > 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.
> >

> None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income,
> capital gains or property in the UK.

You tax the money being 'exported' to the non-UK entity. And require them
to checkably identifiable their beneficial owners. If that isn't done
then the transfer without tax paid is treated as illegal - i.e. the
nominal payer have no legal obligation to pay it, and doing so may be an
illegal act by the payer. Thus merits investigation.

I doubt it is beyond the wit of expensive lawyers to devise a suitable
method to deal with this that they'd say was 'legal' - if paid enough to
do so. :-)

"Nothing can be done" strikes me as a poor way to excuse a lack of any
actions to tackle the problem. I agree it is often deployed as a
convenient cover blanket, though.

Also, consider the meaning of "Human Rights" when entities aren't
actually 'human'. Nor is 'Justice' a synonym for 'Law'. The
underlaying problem here is the way people have been lead into
presumptions based on treating non-human 'entities' as if
'incorporated' into *being* a 'person'. Even when we are given no
clue as to what genuine human(s) may own or control them.

But I'd agree that England has some of the best Laws and Lawyers
that money can buy. :-) That's why so many of the ultra-rich
go there to fight their legal battles. Again, cf PE ad naus.

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 <j2cq7cFgrigU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 09:52 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> > On 20/12/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
> >>
> >> BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
> >> always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
> >
> > Only by you.
> >
> > (As you have ignored every body else's attempts to educate you, feel
> > free to ignore mine too. It is your loss, not mine)
> >
> > Jim

> Thank you, but I don't feel I need lessons in basic English from your
> good self.

You may think so, but I couldn't possibly comment. :-)

> "Property owned abroad" would always be taken in everyday English to
> mean property in another country owned by someone who lives here ("here"
> meaning in the country of the person speaking or writing).

You perhaps are unfamilar with the way reading tends to be interpreted in
its context.

Curious, then, that I'm not the only person who has tried to point out your
mistake. The curio is why you then ignored my clarifications.

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 21/12/2021 10:27 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> So you are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
>> formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
>> UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
>> abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
>
> Given that neither of us seem to know the actual definition used for the
> claim, it is impossible to say. All I can say is that you keep hanging on
> tight to the wrong end of the stick. :-)

We both know what the definition is: it's the result of process of
simply arithmetic involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and
(long) division.

If you dispute that PP's statement (which is a common-enough statement
on current affairs) and disagree that 1% of the UK's population pays 30%
of the UK's Income Tax receipts, perhaps you could say *why* you dispute it.

Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
optics" (as the kids have it these days).

On 21/12/2021 10:27 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j2buc8FbmkoU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> I simply wish to know how anyone may visit the UK in order to enjoy
>> property which isn't here.
>
> I simply want to point out that not's what I was saying. :-)

That's debatable.

On 21/12/2021 10:52 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j2cq7cFgrigU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 09:52 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>>> On 20/12/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
>>>> always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
>>>
>>> Only by you.
>>>
>>> (As you have ignored every body else's attempts to educate you, feel
>>> free to ignore mine too. It is your loss, not mine)
>>>
>>> Jim
>
>> Thank you, but I don't feel I need lessons in basic English from your
>> good self.
>
> You may think so, but I couldn't possibly comment. :-)
>
>> "Property owned abroad" would always be taken in everyday English to
>> mean property in another country owned by someone who lives here ("here"
>> meaning in the country of the person speaking or writing).
>
> You perhaps are unfamilar with the way reading tends to be interpreted in
> its context.
>
> Curious, then, that I'm not the only person who has tried to point out your
> mistake. The curio is why you then ignored my clarifications.

I have not ignored your attempt at clarification. I acknowledged one of
them (if there was more than one).

On 21/12/2021 10:32, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <f6f0a624-7f11-d011-df01-3a4bd5e0da89@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 10:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <spo0g3$1h3$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to
>>> play for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.
>
>> Those arrangements are for payments for image rights, not for playing.
>> Only some - by no means all - involve overseas companies.
>
> So only "some" use in a way that dodges UK tax.
>
>> Similar arrangements for payments under their contracts to play for the
>> club wd be ineffective. They are contracts of employment.
>
>> Clubs may try to dress up contractual payments as payments for image
>> rights but HMRC can and do challenge the split. Just as they do for
>> others - eg UK engineers and scientists working for multinational
>> companies - who return most of their income as for work done outside the
>> UK under dual contracts.
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>
>> Different issue. The BBC cases turned on whether or not the person was
>> was an employee. Nothing to do with image rights. And in the cases
>> I've seen reported, no overseas companies.
>
> Yet one of the reported objections was it enabling tax dodging. The
> portions of the media that hate the BBC seemed pretty sure of that IIRC.

> That said, for the BBC-fearing media to hit the BBC with a fantasy stick
> wouldn't be unique. Nor would the hypocracy given they way some press
> owners dodge UK tax via being 'offshore'.
>

No fantasy. It is "dodging tax" to pay as if you were self-employed
when you were an employee. That was the issue with some of the BBC
staff using service companies. I'm surprised PE don't cover. To their
credit, the BBC do. Eg the case of Christa Ackroyd:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50211704

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

On 22/12/2021 17:51, Robin wrote:
> No fantasy. It is "dodging tax" to pay as if you were self-employed
> when you were an employee. That was the issue with some of the BBC
> staff using service companies. I'm surprised PE don't cover. To their
> credit, the BBC do. Eg the case of Christa Ackroyd:

I don't think it was unique to the BBC just some of the tabloids love to
put "BBC" in a headline. I find it hard to believe the same was not
happening elsewhere.

On 21/12/2021 10:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <80ed3cc8-c29d-644c-5c43-3cbbf15fc1b5@outlook.com>, Robin
> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.
>
>> Do you mean HMRC?
>
> I'm meaning Inland Revenue and Customs. i.e. broad cover of the way UK
> Government takes in payments as taxes, etc.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
>
>> That can be put more simply as "you can't do anything that reduces your
>> tax bill unless [HMRC] have given their prior approval". ECHR/HRA is an
>> inconvenient truth again.
>
> Are these 'laws' written By God and cannot be changed by mere mortals?
>
> That said, what is or is not 'legal' in ECHR terms would depend on an
> actual ruling on the specific case. Not a magic wand generalisation.
> You may have noticed that Judges don't always do what politicians think
> they will. :-)
>
> Or do you mean that no-one is legally required to disclose what they are
> doing when it is for the purpose of dodging tax? And no-one is ever
> allowed to investigate when this might be the case?
> If so, it seems clear who has decided the 'laws' here and that it needs
> some scrutiny. The point is that they will know they do it to dodge tax.
> Aiding that may also be regarded as criminal.
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>
>> None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income,
>> capital gains or property in the UK.
>
> You tax the money being 'exported' to the non-UK entity. And require them
> to checkably identifiable their beneficial owners. If that isn't done
> then the transfer without tax paid is treated as illegal - i.e. the
> nominal payer have no legal obligation to pay it, and doing so may be an
> illegal act by the payer. Thus merits investigation.

> I doubt it is beyond the wit of expensive lawyers to devise a suitable
> method to deal with this that they'd say was 'legal' - if paid enough to
> do so. :-)
>
> "Nothing can be done" strikes me as a poor way to excuse a lack of any
> actions to tackle the problem. I agree it is often deployed as a
> convenient cover blanket, though.
>

I don't recall saying "nothing can be done". Just that IMO you
underestimate by several orders of magnitude what's involved in
practicable action.

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

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 22:56:55 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 21/12/2021 10:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <80ed3cc8-c29d-644c-5c43-3cbbf15fc1b5@outlook.com>, Robin
>> <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/12/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.
>>
>>> Do you mean HMRC?
>>
>> I'm meaning Inland Revenue and Customs. i.e. broad cover of the way UK
>> Government takes in payments as taxes, etc.
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> That can be put more simply as "you can't do anything that reduces your
>>> tax bill unless [HMRC] have given their prior approval". ECHR/HRA is an
>>> inconvenient truth again.
>>
>> Are these 'laws' written By God and cannot be changed by mere mortals?
>>
>> That said, what is or is not 'legal' in ECHR terms would depend on an
>> actual ruling on the specific case. Not a magic wand generalisation.
>> You may have noticed that Judges don't always do what politicians think
>> they will. :-)
>>
>> Or do you mean that no-one is legally required to disclose what they are
>> doing when it is for the purpose of dodging tax? And no-one is ever
>> allowed to investigate when this might be the case?
>> If so, it seems clear who has decided the 'laws' here and that it needs
>> some scrutiny. The point is that they will know they do it to dodge tax.
>> Aiding that may also be regarded as criminal.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>
>>> None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income,
>>> capital gains or property in the UK.
>>
>> You tax the money being 'exported' to the non-UK entity. And require them
>> to checkably identifiable their beneficial owners. If that isn't done
>> then the transfer without tax paid is treated as illegal - i.e. the
>> nominal payer have no legal obligation to pay it, and doing so may be an
>> illegal act by the payer. Thus merits investigation.
>
>> I doubt it is beyond the wit of expensive lawyers to devise a suitable
>> method to deal with this that they'd say was 'legal' - if paid enough to
>> do so. :-)
>>
>> "Nothing can be done" strikes me as a poor way to excuse a lack of any
>> actions to tackle the problem. I agree it is often deployed as a
>> convenient cover blanket, though.
>>
>
>I don't recall saying "nothing can be done". Just that IMO you
>underestimate by several orders of magnitude what's involved in
>practicable action.

+1

--
brightside S9

In article <j2e40oFoh4pU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> No confusion. Someone using that phrase in the UK would be assumed - in
> context - to be talking about property outside the UK. That's the way
> that the language works.

Odd, then, that others understood what was meant. And it has been
repeatedly clarified since for those who got muddled.

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 <j2ggkkF7uokU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 10:27 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> So you are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
> >> formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
> >> UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
> >> abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
> >
> > Given that neither of us seem to know the actual definition used for
> > the claim, it is impossible to say. All I can say is that you keep
> > hanging on tight to the wrong end of the stick. :-)

> We both know what the definition is: it's the result of process of
> simply arithmetic involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and
> (long) division.

That defines "population"?

> Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
> optics" (as the kids have it these days).

Probably true for those who can't understand my actual point. cf above.

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 <j2gglcF7uokU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 10:27 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <j2buc8FbmkoU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> > <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> I simply wish to know how anyone may visit the UK in order to enjoy
> >> property which isn't here.
> >
> > I simply want to point out that not's what I was saying. :-)

> That's debatable.

....by someone who doesn't understand what I meant and refuses to then grasp
more than one clarification from more than one person.

Your 'debate' stems from your not understanding - even when I and and at
least one other person have tried to point out that you misunderstood and
clarify the meaning.

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 <e80eccc5-17dc-c25c-cac1-ddcb113040e8@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> I don't recall saying "nothing can be done". Just that IMO you
> underestimate by several orders of magnitude what's involved in
> practicable action.

Happy to agree that it needs serious effort. The real challenge, though, is
to get politicians, etc, to actually take ON that challenge and ensure that
the effort IS applied to get the results we need.

As things are, many of them conspire with the tax dodging - and/or engage
in the dodging - in exchange for support and their own wealth.

That's the biggest problem that requires 'effort'.

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 23/12/2021 10:09 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j2ggkkF7uokU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 21/12/2021 10:27 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
>>>> formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
>>>> UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
>>>> abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
>>>
>>> Given that neither of us seem to know the actual definition used for
>>> the claim, it is impossible to say. All I can say is that you keep
>>> hanging on tight to the wrong end of the stick. :-)
>
>> We both know what the definition is: it's the result of process of
>> simply arithmetic involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and
>> (long) division.
>
> That defines "population"?

It defines the 1% and the 30%. It's just arithmetic.

>> Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
>> optics" (as the kids have it these days).

> Probably true for those who can't understand my actual point. cf above.

You are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.

Perhaps at some time in the future you will say *why* you dispute it.

In article <j2lv1eF990mU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > That defines "population"?

> It defines the 1% and the 30%. It's just arithmetic.

> >> Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
> >> optics" (as the kids have it these days).

> > Probably true for those who can't understand my actual point. cf above.

> You are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
> formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
> UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
> abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.

> Perhaps at some time in the future you will say *why* you dispute it.

IIRC I did some time ago but it whooshed past you. :-) But one basic point
is: What if some of the ultra wealthy who stay in the UK and extract wealth
from us via ensuring it is directly send abroad to a company they own,
aren't counted in that "population"?

e.g. are "Non Doms" counted? I dunno. But of course others may be here, but
not with even 'Non Dom' status.

Bear in mind the old warning: There ae Lies, Damn Lies, and Government
Statistics.

In theory, even PLLs and offshore concerns are meant now to declare who
their benefical owners may be... but in practice many still don't. cf PE ad
naus.

It is actually a side-point to the main one. But one you seem not to
understand - just like you struggled with how some of the wealthy live here
whilst ensuring money goes direct to a company abroad which they own,
enabling them to dodge tax on an epic scale.

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 25/12/2021 12:50 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:

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

[ ??? ]

>>> That defines "population"?
>
>> It defines the 1% and the 30%. It's just arithmetic.
>
>>>> Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
>>>> optics" (as the kids have it these days).
>
>>> Probably true for those who can't understand my actual point. cf above.
>
>> You are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
>> formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
>> UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
>> abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
>
>> Perhaps at some time in the future you will say *why* you dispute it.
>
> IIRC I did some time ago but it whooshed past you. :-) But one basic point
> is: What if some of the ultra wealthy who stay in the UK and extract wealth
> from us via ensuring it is directly send abroad to a company they own,
> aren't counted in that "population"?

People who don't live in the UK are not counted as people who live in
the UK, if that's what you are trying to ask.

What would make you think otherwise?

> e.g. are "Non Doms" counted? I dunno. But of course others may be here, but
> not with even 'Non Dom' status.
>
> Bear in mind the old warning: There ae Lies, Damn Lies, and Government
> Statistics.
>
> In theory, even PLLs and offshore concerns are meant now to declare who
> their benefical owners may be... but in practice many still don't. cf PE ad
> naus.
>
> It is actually a side-point to the main one. But one you seem not to
> understand - just like you struggled with how some of the wealthy live here
> whilst ensuring money goes direct to a company abroad which they own,
> enabling them to dodge tax on an epic scale.

You don't understand the difference between a company and a human being.

Quelle surprise.

But perhaps it is more likely that you simply don't want to understand
the difference between a company and a human. That would be similar tp
those who pretend they can't see a difference between turnover and
profit, wailing that Company X paid "only" £x Corporation Tax on £y
turnover.

In article <j2rfm4Faqj6U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> You don't understand the difference between a company and a human being.

I did LOL at that. :-) Nice try.

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