Jump to content

Panama tax evasion


Mr Rational

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 577
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Zetterlund said:

Panorama on the subject just now, somehow making Lewis Hamilton come across even more unlikeable. 

Hope his two day's non-business use of his jet isn't the biggest scandal, or the cast of Mrs Brown's boys. I'm wary that the hedge fund c***s and serious politicos will be nowhere near this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Hope his two day's non-business use of his jet isn't the biggest scandal, or the cast of Mrs Brown's boys. I'm wary that the hedge fund c***s and serious politicos will be nowhere near this stuff.

It's quite amusing, but sadly being strictly legal it will only cause mild embarrassment to whoever gets rumbled. 

In certain cases we should try the Saudi approach of just declaring that all dodgy assets now belong to the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite amusing, but sadly being strictly legal it will only cause mild embarrassment to whoever gets rumbled. 
In certain cases we should try the Saudi approach of just declaring that all dodgy assets now belong to the state.


Nope. Corbyn going after the Queen in this week of all weeks means we should be arresting the royal family and gathering all power to the soviets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can’t understand why Ashcroft isn’t featuring more prominently.  Also if Corbyn had half a brain that’s who he’d be going after rather than the queen.  Corbyn is becoming a master of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of  Apple, I'm sure I saw that they paid around 4% on the £241bn of profit outside the US. That's c £9.6bn. They paid a total of £35bn in tax so over £25bn was to the US treasury. What I haven't seen is the size of their US profits. Be interesting to see the %age paid on home soil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Can’t understand why Ashcroft isn’t featuring more prominently.  Also if Corbyn had half a brain that’s who he’d be going after rather than the queen.  Corbyn is becoming a master of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I don't think Corbyn said anything specific about the Queen though did he? I thought he made a general comment and it turned into a sensationalist headline that made Corbyn look like an anti monarchy anti British lout. Easy pickings for the Telegraph and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, GiGi said:

I don't think Corbyn said anything specific about the Queen though did he? I thought he made a general comment and it turned into a sensationalist headline that made Corbyn look like an anti monarchy anti British lout. Easy pickings for the Telegraph and the like.

Who sponsors the headlines? Who sponsors the political parties?  It's the people that  really know how to use these schemes. The ones with really obscene amounts of money They're not interested in closing loopholes. They'd rather highlight a few easy high profile targets until it blows over and gets forgotten about. 

We shouldn't be concentrating on individuals but on a system that allows it. A good start might be applying civil law burden of proof. e.g It's within the letter of the law to get loans without paying them back. But is it reasonable to expect a loan to be paid back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chances are the majority of people named as having these investments have next to no idea how they work or why they are beneficial to them. There will be accountants, auditors and advisors all offering them advice that they themselves in many cases won't actually get as their agent/manager will be taking care of that and just making sure their client is getting paid.

Ignorance is obviously no excuse, but the individuals being named are not really the problem. The fact there is a whole industry that not only exploits the loopholes, but in many cases helped advise the government departments that design the tax set up in the UK and beyond in the first place, is the story that journalists should be going after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GiGi said:

I don't think Corbyn said anything specific about the Queen though did he? I thought he made a general comment and it turned into a sensationalist headline that made Corbyn look like an anti monarchy anti British lout. Easy pickings for the Telegraph and the like.

In this instance I am obviously one of these fools who had been suckered by the headline without checking it’s veracity.

Damn you fake news!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The greed of the Queen beggars belief.

She was never happy with the income from the Civil List and has campaigned for income from the Crown Estate for decades.

The Civil list was introduced in 1689 to provide income to the monarchy, at this point they still accrued income from the Crown Estate

In 1760 George the 3rd surrendered the Crown Estate to the government, this meant that bodies such as the Civil service would be funded by the government and not by the monarchy, the crown estate monies could then be spent on the needs of the country.

Monarchs since then were never happy with this arrangement, especially George the 4th who constantly harangued the government for money, the government finally caved in and paid the equivalent of £24,000.000 in today's terms to pay off his debt.

And now the queen after all these years of arguments driven by greed has finally shed the civil list and now gets 15% of the Crown Estate which this year amounted to £76,000.000 and with her £19,000.000 from the Duchy of Lancaster that brings her 2017 income to £95,000.000. 

By the way that amount she gets from the crown estate can never be lower than the year before.

And don't forget she is NOT tied into a fixed tax rate like us but pays a voluntary tax rate on that £95 million for this year, that voluntary rate is never disclosed, it may be hinted at by the media but never disclosed in the public domain, do you think for one minute she is paying 40% tax?

And she owns outright The Balmoral Estate, Sandringham Estate and Windsor Castle.

No one body deserves or need £95 million a years, money which could be earnestly used by the NHS.

Plus the Government for years has been trying to ascertain ownership of sculptures and paintings in the Queens Gallery and elsewhere. When she makes a state visit to a country she receives presents, some of which especially from the Saudis are expensive, now as she is head of state when receiving them these presents belong to the country but she insists that these are personal gifts and will not part with them.

The present monarchy are mired in avarice and firmly belief they deserve the millions by opening plaques and smiling for press photos, the whole concept is outdated.

You will note that the all of the media have whitewashed her involvement in this Tax Haven disclosures along the lines that she never knew it was going on, gimme a feckin break she is as shrewd as any greedy banker when it comes to what she see's as her money, does the media honestly think we are as daft as believe that her financial advisors just spread her money around as they see fit, buy that shite if you will.

I am not anti monarchy as such as there are ways in which a monarchy is preferable to a presidency, but what we need is absolute transparency by the monarchy and a lot less financial gains for family personal benefit, for the government to spend hundreds of thousands refurbishing Williams and Kate's Kensington Palace apartments while Prince Charles in his own right earns millions a year from the Duchy of Cornwall is a complete nonsense when the NHS has to close wards. To say that the Queen needs all these millions a year to maintain the likes of Buck House is also nonsensical and an insult to the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

I am not anti monarchy as such as there are ways in which a monarchy is preferable to a presidency, but what we need is absolute transparency by the monarchy and a lot less financial gains for family personal benefit, for the government to spend hundreds of thousands refurbishing Williams and Kate's Kensington Palace apartments while Prince Charles in his own right earns millions a year from the Duchy of Cornwall is a complete nonsense when the NHS has to close wards. To say that the Queen needs all these millions a year to maintain the likes of Buck House is also nonsensical and an insult to the people.

You forgot to mention all the third and fourth cousins to the Queen who also receive financial assistance from the state, in case a stray meteor should wipe out the first 83 in line to the throne and we are left for several days without a head of state who has at least a 6.25% DNA overlap with the current monarch.  Absolute mayhem would ensue - I am sure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Panorama programme should be aired every night with different cases until these parasites and the general public get the message.

The Isle of Man is a basket case, although not alone.

That company Appleby deserve the leak and deserve to be shutdown.

These uber rich need to realise, society has a price and they must pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The monarchy tax avoidance scam whitewash continues big style with 'A Royal Correspondent' on the BBC insisting that Queen had absolutely no idea that here money had been transferred to a Tax Haven Investment Fund.

Honestly!! Do the BBC think the people are that stupid to have us believe that the Queen didn't know that £10 million pounds of her money  had been transferred overseas.!!!

A total tissue of lies and fabrications to ring fence and protect a corrupt and greed driven outdated type of monarchy and rotten establishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At their annual conference this week, the Scottish National Party backed a plan to scrap public funding of the royal family, arguing that the money should instead be spent on "the wider public good".

The motion was backed by a number of MPs and MSPs and overwhelmingly supported by the conference delegation.

The motion read:

"Conference believes that profits from the Crown Estate, which is a public asset, should be spent on the wider public good.

Conference therefore resolves to support the repeal of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter who it is. Not knowing where or how your money is managed is never an acceptable excuse for the average taxpayer. It can't be wheeled out just because you've got so much of the stuff that you shouldn't need a tax haven anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...