Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: She had to jack in being an MP after they brought her career to an end. I think we should draw this subject to a close. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainspotter Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 So that’s what Johnson’s ‘dead in a ditch’ comment was referring to then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 The Scottish Lib Dem leadership were split. Jo could never support IndyRef 2, but Willie Wood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 I'm bowled over by this news 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 7 hours ago, MixuFixit said: There's a substantial chance Jo Swinson lost her seat because the council (lib dem/tory) closed a bowling green: Clear bias in that report 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 12 hours ago, Mark Connolly said: Clear bias in that report You’re really shit at puns. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 There's a substantial chance Jo Swinson lost her seat because the council (lib dem/tory) closed a bowling green:All news is local, all politics is local. pic.twitter.com/mqEGJwc7hp— Scott Reid [emoji368] (@scottreid1980) December 20, 2019 Sounds like a call for the unions to strike. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 43 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: You’re really shit at puns. That's the worst one yet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernLights Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 On 18/11/2019 at 22:42, sophia said: It's Ryan Houghton and if he's out of the running in Aberdeen North, the transfer of votes could see the end of Kirsty Blackman. She might be glad that the brexit party are standing. Just a reminder it was more comfortable for Blackman then it was in 2017. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 I was surprised to find a French wine producer commemorating the recent Conservative victory... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 On 12/12/2019 at 17:03, oaksoft said: For the love of god. You are lucky I've run out of red dot privileges for the day. #What an absolutely ridiculous post. Benefit fraud is ILLEGAL. Period. Tax avoidance is not. Learn the difference. Tax evasion is illegal and it's THIS which needs clamped down on alongside and at exactly the same time as benefits fraud. Found this article that shows the issues surrounding tax avoidance/evasion and how the margins between them are blurring and I thought it might help. https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/opinion/legal-tax-avoidance/ ‘Evoiding’ the issue – when legal tax avoidance is anything but. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 The article ends by saying "Hence evoidance – the grey hinterland where something thought to be legal avoidance turns out to have been outside the law all along." So in other words it wasn't tax avoidance. It was outside the law and therefore tax evasion. It doesn't need new words or phrases. It's either legal or it isn't.That's the point - the accountants are using the rules in ways that were never envisioned when they were drawn up and they'll continue to do so until someone spots what they're doing and stops them. However, there's barely anyone left at HMRC to inspect the books and assess the legality of their interpretation of the rules so they could get away with it for years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, oaksoft said: The point is that people keep trying to conflate tax avoidance and tax evasion. I am saying that the two are entirely different Thousands of very well paid tax lawyers are prospering from the many grey areas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 The point is that people keep trying to conflate tax avoidance and tax evasion. I am saying that the two are entirely different and that article you quoted ends up agreeing with that. Whether HMRC have enough inspectors of the correct skill level to investigate this tax evasion is another issue and not one where we would disagree.But tax avoidance can be tax evasion once it's been assessed by an HMRC officer. The point of the article is that the difference between the two has become blurred to the point of needing a new word to describe the current situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 Feels like a wee audit of oaksoft's returns might turn up some nuggets.Ew. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 That is considerably ruder than it first appears. [emoji3][emoji23] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 You can repeat this all you like but it doesn't make it true. If it's tax evasion then it's tax evasion.All the evidence shows businesses and individuals adopting schemes that blur the edges and definition of evasion and avoidance but you know better than the experts, clearly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, oaksoft said: FFS Baxter is it beyond you to simply accept that other people hold a different view from you? You have to "win" every fucking discussion. Get over yourself FFS. You can't have a different "view" about facts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 2 hours ago, Baxter Parp said: 18 hours ago, oaksoft said: You can repeat this all you like but it doesn't make it true. If it's tax evasion then it's tax evasion. All the evidence shows businesses and individuals adopting schemes that blur the edges and definition of evasion and avoidance but you know better than the experts, clearly. In fairness oaksoft strikes me as the sort of person who has some knowledge and experience of tax evasion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 20, 2020 Share Posted January 20, 2020 7 minutes ago, oaksoft said: You have just spent two pages arguing the opposite that the line between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion is blurred. By definition then, the position of the line is up for debate and not fact based. You have even quoted experts not knowing for sure where the line is. There are no FACTS here. Not yet anyway. Oh ffs. Are you pretending that you don't know what a blur is now? It means there is no "line". You've been arguing that evasion is evasion and avoidance is avoidance and never the twain shall meet and it's utter bollocks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.