Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

Surprised no one has kicked off a thread about this.

I blame the politicians....

As for the queen, I bet she is mad as hell that her well paid advisers didnt cover her tracks properly.

What do you think? Is it right that the little people pay tax whether they can afford it or not but the rich can avoid it.

[Doctor Gollum]

The percentages are only viable with large sums. Thesis why it is difficult for normal people to invest in a tax efficient manner.

As for right or wrong... Put the shoe on the other foot then moan about it...

[hotel21]

It’s a variation of the age old saying.....

Rules and regulations are for the observance of fools and the guidance of the wise......

If you won the euro millions next week would you religiously pay your cut to HMG or look to keep as much as possible for as long as possible?

Hand on heart, if I won I know the path me and my team of financial advisers would march down..... 

[ronnyd]

Robbing barstewards, but, if we could do it ,we would.

[Varche]

Funnily enough i would pay Hacienda(Spanish tax man) tax on a big euro millions win. I won 8 euros a few weeks back and wont bother filing that next time. I suspect they only bother on wins you cannot get paid in the local outlet.

What about these global companies that pay miniscule taxes.? Was it Dewhurst the butchers that started that trend.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Don't blame them. Never give politicians any more of your money than you absolutely have to. They will waste almost all of it, if not all of it.

[STEMO]

I grew up in a culture where you worked very hard to earn your crust, if you didn’t turn up for work, there was always someone to take your place.



Apart from Monday morning, when I had to sign on. 

What’s the difference?

[BazaJT]

That's going back some years Varche! iirc Dewhursts[a big name at the time]paid £1 in tax and there was quite a stink kicked up about it.Tax avoidance is legal,tax evasion is not,if I had all those millions would I go the avoidance route?You bet your life I would!!

[TD]

Funnily enough i would pay Hacienda(Spanish tax man) tax on a big euro millions win. I won 8 euros a few weeks back and wont bother filing that next time. I suspect they only bother on wins you cannot get paid in the local outlet.

What about these global companies that pay miniscule taxes.? Was it Dewhurst the butchers that started that trend.

Don't know about Spanish tax laws, but in the UK you don't pay tax on gambling wins, only on the interest it earns from account its in, if you put it in a UK account. 

[Mister Rog]

Robbing barstewards, but, if we could do it ,we would.

Well, exactly. And, as for all the fuss about British territories (Bermuda,IOM, Jersey etc) If they didn't do it somebody else will, and all that cash sloshing around can't be bad for the local economy.

BTW . . . . . I wonder where Opti keeps his stash ?

[Sir Tigger KC]

The fault lies entirely with the tax authorities around the world and if tax structures were simpler globally it would be harder for the big companies and wealthy individuals to avoid paying up.  The bottom line should be that tax is payable in the country where the profit is made or money earnt, and practices like basing yourself in a low tax regime to avoid paying tax in a high tax regime should be outlawed. 

This issue periodically rears it's ugly head though and it's usually the BBC, Guardianistas and assorted lefties who shout and squeal about tax avoidance, which is entirely legal.    If people are engaging in legal practices to limit their tax exposure then good luck to them I say, but if their activities are illegal then they should face the full force of the law whether they are Apple Inc or Joe Bloggs down the road who 'forgot' to put his saturday work down on his tax return. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Here is my take on tax.

The unemployed pay none and rightly so.

The 'working poor' pay relatively little because they don't earn much, but a relatively large amount in percentage terms. There is also millions of the 'working poor' so the tax take is large.

The middle earners take the brunt.They earn enough to pay plenty of tax but not enough to avoid or evade tax.

The rich pay some tax, but not as much as they should due to dodgy tax avoidance schemes and smart accountants.

The super rich, be it individuals or corporations, pay virtually nothing. They are above the law, or the law is changed specifically so they don't pay tax.


.......in the words of Wolfie Smith. COME THE REVOLUTION.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Surprised no one has kicked off a thread about this.

I blame the politicians....

As for the queen, I bet she is mad as hell that her well paid advisers didnt cover her tracks properly.

What do you think? Is it right that the little people pay tax whether they can afford it or not but the rich can avoid it.

No.

[Viral_Jim]

The point about corporations is a valid one and one that has to be addressed at a government level. UKPLC have all sorts of levers that they could pull, which would garner an acceptable tax take but choose not to. All this bleating and whining from them about how companies need to "pay their fair share" is preposterous and basically amounts to asking companies to voluntarily structure their affairs to pay more tax than the law requires of them. 

Take facebook as an example, say they have worldwide profit before tax of £1bn and 10% of their users are UK based (both totally fictitious numbers), what do you suppose would happen if the government said to facebook "give us £1bn x 10%(uk users) x 19% (UK corporation tax rate) or we'll block your access to UK citizens and the revenue they generate, because that's what we think is a fair amount of tax to pay"? Hardly an unpopular move politically and FB would soon cough up rather than lose UK revenue. Yes there is scope for tit-for-tat deductions by other countries, but ultimately you would end up at a point where if you "in reality" generate revenue in a country, you pay tax there. Hardly the worst situation in the world, and would put big companies on the same footing as your local corner shop. Maybe you have to assess big corps on a case by case basis,but HMRC already do that with the various wierd and wonderful schemes they come up with to avoid tax.

All private companies exist for the benefit of their shareholders and voluntarily paying more tax than they need to is in direct conflict with a company director's overriding directive to deliver shareholder value. Its the same with wages, company directors should, under their remit, pay as little as possible to effectively deliver shareholder value. Now minimum wage laws, the power of unions etc all play into what that minimum number looks like, but as a society we shouldn't be asking company directors to not do their jobs properly. It is the role of the government to legislate as to what companies can and cannot do.

[Doctor Gollum]

After listening to Mr Whine for the last half hour, that's the most sensible thing I have heard, (read ) on the the matter 

If you only have a modest pot, then you want it to be as efficient as possible. If you have more money than God, then it automatically becomes more efficient due to scale, the percentages remain the same, but the saving is relatively exponential... The ultra rich should be judged by what they do with the money, not how they store it.

Invariably they employ a large number of people, set up bursary funds or foundations or invest in making other people's lives better.

Yes, there's the occasional Philips Green out there... He should be stripped of his wealth and have it redistributed proportionately across the BHS payroll but the majority do good things

[Sir Tigger KC]

After listening to Mr Whine for the last half hour, that's the most sensible thing I have heard, (read ) on the the matter 

They always get that old commie 'Dale' from Pontypridd on the Vine show when things like this crop up.  They must have his number and invite him on so he can have a rant about the evils of capitalism! 

[Lizzie Zoom]

It must not be forgotten in all this that most of this is completely legal, if in the "avoidance" category, and if you have any form of company or private pension you could also be involved as "investments" are made by the trustees in the open, global, financial markets.  So, you and I could be gaining from this "avoidance" to pay tax, not just the very wealthy.

As already said, if you were a multi-millionaire and could afford to employ the best tax avoidance specialists you would.  I know I would!  If you can legally avoid paying tax, like with the old duty free, why wouldn't you?  

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

The point about corporations is a valid one and one that has to be addressed at a government level. UKPLC have all sorts of levers that they could pull, which would garner an acceptable tax take but choose not to. All this bleating and whining from them about how companies need to "pay their fair share" is preposterous and basically amounts to asking companies to voluntarily structure their affairs to pay more tax than the law requires of them. 

Take facebook as an example, say they have worldwide profit before tax of £1bn and 10% of their users are UK based (both totally fictitious numbers), what do you suppose would happen if the government said to facebook "give us £1bn x 10%(uk users) x 19% (UK corporation tax rate) or we'll block your access to UK citizens and the revenue they generate, because that's what we think is a fair amount of tax to pay"? Hardly an unpopular move politically and FB would soon cough up rather than lose UK revenue. Yes there is scope for tit-for-tat deductions by other countries, but ultimately you would end up at a point where if you "in reality" generate revenue in a country, you pay tax there. Hardly the worst situation in the world, and would put big companies on the same footing as your local corner shop. Maybe you have to assess big corps on a case by case basis,but HMRC already do that with the various wierd and wonderful schemes they come up with to avoid tax.

All private companies exist for the benefit of their shareholders and voluntarily paying more tax than they need to is in direct conflict with a company director's overriding directive to deliver shareholder value. Its the same with wages, company directors should, under their remit, pay as little as possible to effectively deliver shareholder value. Now minimum wage laws, the power of unions etc all play into what that minimum number looks like, but as a society we shouldn't be asking company directors to not do their jobs properly. It is the role of the government to legislate as to what companies can and cannot do.

Very well put. There are alternatives which could completely eradicate this - global government or socialism (or both) but they are immeasurably worse than the far from perfect system we currently have.
Globalisation of big business is the root cause of the biggest part of the problem it seems. The only way I can see that changing is if business people themselves decide at some point, that it isn't actually the best way to do business and change it themselves, or people  vote with their money and make a point of dealing with smaller businesses, before every town & city in the world looks exactly like any other town or city.

[relluf]

The point about corporations is a valid one and one that has to be addressed at a government level. UKPLC have all sorts of levers that they could pull, which would garner an acceptable tax take but choose not to. All this bleating and whining from them about how companies need to "pay their fair share" is preposterous and basically amounts to asking companies to voluntarily structure their affairs to pay more tax than the law requires of them. 

Take facebook as an example, say they have worldwide profit before tax of £1bn and 10% of their users are UK based (both totally fictitious numbers), what do you suppose would happen if the government said to facebook "give us £1bn x 10%(uk users) x 19% (UK corporation tax rate) or we'll block your access to UK citizens and the revenue they generate, because that's what we think is a fair amount of tax to pay"? Hardly an unpopular move politically and FB would soon cough up rather than lose UK revenue. Yes there is scope for tit-for-tat deductions by other countries, but ultimately you would end up at a point where if you "in reality" generate revenue in a country, you pay tax there. Hardly the worst situation in the world, and would put big companies on the same footing as your local corner shop. Maybe you have to assess big corps on a case by case basis,but HMRC already do that with the various wierd and wonderful schemes they come up with to avoid tax.

All private companies exist for the benefit of their shareholders and voluntarily paying more tax than they need to is in direct conflict with a company director's overriding directive to deliver shareholder value. Its the same with wages, company directors should, under their remit, pay as little as possible to effectively deliver shareholder value. Now minimum wage laws, the power of unions etc all play into what that minimum number looks like, but as a society we shouldn't be asking company directors to not do their jobs properly. It is the role of the government to legislate as to what companies can and cannot do.

Very well put. There are alternatives which could completely eradicate this - global government or socialism (or both) but they are immeasurably worse than the far from perfect system we currently have.
Globalisation of big business is the root cause of the biggest part of the problem it seems. The only way I can see that changing is if business people themselves decide at some point, that it isn't actually the best way to do business and change it themselves, or people  vote with their money and make a point of dealing with smaller businesses, before every town & city in the world looks exactly like any other town or city.




Too late!  I feel we are almost at that point already, not including the third world sector ,which will soon catch us up.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

True enough.

[tunnie]

I have no problem with it, anyone in same situation would do similar. Why give the government more for is to be wasted? If you have that much, you've worked hard graft for it. (Generally)

[Mister Rog]

The point about corporations is a valid one and one that has to be addressed at a government level. UKPLC have all sorts of levers that they could pull, which would garner an acceptable tax take but choose not to. All this bleating and whining from them about how companies need to "pay their fair share" is preposterous and basically amounts to asking companies to voluntarily structure their affairs to pay more tax than the law requires of them. 

Take facebook as an example, say they have worldwide profit before tax of £1bn and 10% of their users are UK based (both totally fictitious numbers), what do you suppose would happen if the government said to facebook "give us £1bn x 10%(uk users) x 19% (UK corporation tax rate) or we'll block your access to UK citizens and the revenue they generate, because that's what we think is a fair amount of tax to pay"? Hardly an unpopular move politically and FB would soon cough up rather than lose UK revenue. Yes there is scope for tit-for-tat deductions by other countries, but ultimately you would end up at a point where if you "in reality" generate revenue in a country, you pay tax there. Hardly the worst situation in the world, and would put big companies on the same footing as your local corner shop. Maybe you have to assess big corps on a case by case basis,but HMRC already do that with the various wierd and wonderful schemes they come up with to avoid tax.

All private companies exist for the benefit of their shareholders and voluntarily paying more tax than they need to is in direct conflict with a company director's overriding directive to deliver shareholder value. Its the same with wages, company directors should, under their remit, pay as little as possible to effectively deliver shareholder value. Now minimum wage laws, the power of unions etc all play into what that minimum number looks like, but as a society we shouldn't be asking company directors to not do their jobs properly. It is the role of the government to legislate as to what companies can and cannot do.

Very well put. There are alternatives which could completely eradicate this - global government or socialism (or both) but they are immeasurably worse than the far from perfect system we currently have.
Globalisation of big business is the root cause of the biggest part of the problem it seems. The only way I can see that changing is if business people themselves decide at some point, that it isn't actually the best way to do business and change it themselves, or people  vote with their money and make a point of dealing with smaller businesses, before every town & city in the world looks exactly like any other town or city.

Too late!  I feel we are almost at that point already, not including the third world sector ,which will soon catch us up.

Take a small to medium town. A decent chunk of their income is from business rates on shops/offices. Will that town reduce it's overall rate to the benefit of the small business, knowing that the big business will demand the same rate. If there are different rates for large and small, the large wiil cry foul ! Therefore big companies will dominate the retail space. Also, how many of those who say "support small business" shop online with Tesco? Generally, people WILL NOT put their money where their mouth is.





 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

And therein lies the problem I'm afraid. And I'm as guilty as most people.

[Rods2]

It all comes down to the Laffer curve and value for money for the rich. Since 1991 lazy politicians have put up taxes for higher earners exponentially in the UK, on the basis they can afford them and won't starve, now they are moving elsewhere or legally avoid them.

My latest business is currently building good earnings momentum, so if that continues then I'm going to be looking to move to the IOM. When you add up all the layers of tax and your economic output means you are working for everybody else, sorry but 50% is a red line for me, I won't be a slave of the state.

[LC0112G]

Field Marshal Dr. Opti - I'm afraid most of what you wrote is, err, what's the polite word, err, balderdash. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

The 'working poor' pay relatively little because they don't earn much, but a relatively large amount in percentage terms. There is also millions of the 'working poor' so the tax take is large.

Define working poor. You pay no Income tax if you earn below £11500 p/a, and no National Insurance either if you earn below £8164 p/a. The bottom 50% of income tax payers (i.e. those earning more than £11500 but less than about £25K) pay less than 10% of income tax receipts.

The middle earners take the brunt.They earn enough to pay plenty of tax but not enough to avoid or evade tax.

The "middle" 41% of income tax payers paid roughly 32% of income tax receipts.

The rich pay some tax, but not as much as they should due to dodgy tax avoidance schemes and smart accountants.

The top 10% of income tax payers (those with incomes over about £54,000) paid 59% of income tax

The super rich, be it individuals or corporations, pay virtually nothing. They are above the law, or the law is changed specifically so they don't pay tax.

The top 1% of income tax payers (those with gross incomes over about £164,000) contributed 27% of income tax receipts.

Personal taxation (Income tax, National Insurance and VAT) makes up about 62% of all government income. Corporation tax take is about 8%.

[aaronjb]

When Opti said "rich", I don't think he had £54,000 in mind.
When he said "super rich", I don't think he had £164,000 in mind, either.

I mean, my income is significantly over £54,000 (apologies for being crass) but I wouldn't consider myself "rich", and yet the tax man still brutally rapes me every year without lube because I'm (most likely) considered one of the "scum" high earners by that middle bracket.

[STEMO]

Field Marshal Dr. Opti - I'm afraid most of what you wrote is, err, what's the polite word, err, balderdash. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

The 'working poor' pay relatively little because they don't earn much, but a relatively large amount in percentage terms. There is also millions of the 'working poor' so the tax take is large.

Define working poor. You pay no Income tax if you earn below £11500 p/a, and no National Insurance either if you earn below £8164 p/a. The bottom 50% of income tax payers (i.e. those earning more than £11500 but less than about £25K) pay less than 10% of income tax receipts.

The middle earners take the brunt.They earn enough to pay plenty of tax but not enough to avoid or evade tax.

The "middle" 41% of income tax payers paid roughly 32% of income tax receipts.

The rich pay some tax, but not as much as they should due to dodgy tax avoidance schemes and smart accountants.

The top 10% of income tax payers (those with incomes over about £54,000) paid 59% of income tax

The super rich, be it individuals or corporations, pay virtually nothing. They are above the law, or the law is changed specifically so they don't pay tax.

The top 1% of income tax payers (those with gross incomes over about £164,000) contributed 27% of income tax receipts.

Personal taxation (Income tax, National Insurance and VAT) makes up about 62% of all government income. Corporation tax take is about 8%.

Hang about, guvnor, that’s 128%. 

[Viral_Jim]

The 'working poor' pay relatively little because they don't earn much, but a relatively large amount in percentage terms. There is also millions of the 'working poor' so the tax take is large.

Define working poor. You pay no Income tax if you earn below £11500 p/a, and no National Insurance either if you earn below £8164 p/a. The bottom 50% of income tax payers (i.e. those earning more than £11500 but less than about £25K) pay less than 10% of income tax receipts.

I'm sure the good Lord can speak for himself. However, the key difference between his statement and your response is "tax" vs "income tax". If you consider VAT, Council Tax, duty on petrol, alcohol, VED etc etc, those who are working poor (defined as those households with 60% or less of median uk income after housing costs, the figure was £15,750 in 2015/16) pay a much higher percentage of their income than any other income bracket.

I mean, my income is significantly over £54,000 (apologies for being crass) but I wouldn't consider myself "rich", and yet the tax man still brutally rapes me every year without lube because I'm (most likely) considered one of the "scum" high earners by that middle bracket.

I would also put myself in this boat. That frigging pie chart they send round every year telling me how they spent my tax take is usually enough to have me looking at the jobs pages for Dubai, Kuwait or Abu Dhabi 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

The 'working poor' pay relatively little because they don't earn much, but a relatively large amount in percentage terms. There is also millions of the 'working poor' so the tax take is large.

Define working poor. You pay no Income tax if you earn below £11500 p/a, and no National Insurance either if you earn below £8164 p/a. The bottom 50% of income tax payers (i.e. those earning more than £11500 but less than about £25K) pay less than 10% of income tax receipts.

I'm sure the good Lord can speak for himself. However, the key difference between his statement and your response is "tax" vs "income tax". If you consider VAT, Council Tax, duty on petrol, alcohol, VED etc etc, those who are working poor (defined as those households with 60% or less of median uk income after housing costs, the figure was £15,750 in 2015/16) pay a much higher percentage of their income than any other income bracket.

I mean, my income is significantly over £54,000 (apologies for being crass) but I wouldn't consider myself "rich", and yet the tax man still brutally rapes me every year without lube because I'm (most likely) considered one of the "scum" high earners by that middle bracket.

I would also put myself in this boat. That frigging pie chart they send round every year telling me how they spent my tax take is usually enough to have me looking at the jobs pages for Dubai, Kuwait or Abu Dhabi 

Yes.....we are taxed on almost everything and as a percentage of earnings it it people on least money who pay the most.

The tax on a gallon of petrol for a man earning minimum wage (assume 70% tax and VAT) is roughly 2%. Pretty easy to work out the percentage of tax on a full tank.

The same applies to everything the poor pay tax and  VAT on.

Of course, if you happen to be one of the super rich you are somehow exempt from the £3.3 Million VAT on your new jet.

I don't actually blame the rich and super rich for taking advantage of the loopholes. The government is  to blame.

 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

When Opti said "rich", I don't think he had £54,000 in mind.
When he said "super rich", I don't think he had £164,000 in mind, either.

I mean, my income is significantly over £54,000 (apologies for being crass) but I wouldn't consider myself "rich", and yet the tax man still brutally rapes me every year without lube because I'm (most likely) considered one of the "scum" high earners by that middle bracket.

Correct again, Aaron.

Multiply by 1000 for the definition of rich and super rich.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I have no problem with it, anyone in same situation would do similar. Why give the government more for is to be wasted? If you have that much, you've worked hard graft for it. (Generally)

Try paying no tax, Mr Tunnie.
 
I very much doubt HMRC will be as 'reasonable and understanding' as they are when arse-licking the super rich.

The point being that you, I, and everyone else on this forum would never to able to get away with it.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

When Opti said "rich", I don't think he had £54,000 in mind.
When he said "super rich", I don't think he had £164,000 in mind, either.

I mean, my income is significantly over £54,000 (apologies for being crass) but I wouldn't consider myself "rich", and yet the tax man still brutally rapes me every year without lube because I'm (most likely) considered one of the "scum" high earners by that middle bracket.

'Fookin ell' Aaron. They usually send me a nasty letter first.

[Doctor Gollum]

If you were to own a £3.3 million pound jet/superyacht/Caribbean beach chalet... then you would probably rent them out when you don't want to use them in order to cover costs...

If you do this as a private individual then you would pay tax on any income... However, if you set up a company by which you manage your assets/investments/toys then everything becomes an operating cost and therefore deductible except for the two weeks of the year you actually use them.

If you or your accountant is switched on, then you pay your company for the time you use the item, effectively paying yourself for the privilege of use.

In the jet example, A N Other racing driver probably pays a charter cost to his company for the use of the jet which is probably operated by a company that he is the only shareholder. He, being self employed, is probably also legitimately able to write off the charter costs as business expenses in order to get to and from work... effectively making the jet 'free'.

Given a certain level of cash flow, the super rich lifestyle actually costs alot less than you might think...

Mere mortals can just as freely apply this way of thinking to our lives, but the scale of the savings may not make it viable.

If you can get your employer to change your contract to one of a self employed consultant, renewable on say a five-year basis, for the same gross salary, then all your work related expenses such as clothes, travel, meals at work, office space in your house (with a proportion of your mortgage/rent, utilities etc) all get off set against your income tax... Hell, whilst your at it, set the house up as a B and B... (nothing to say you actually have to have paying guests...) and claim the entire cost of the property against your business.

OK you have to file a tax return every year, and it might not save enough to be worth the hassle, but the principle is the same as if you have millions in the (offshore) bank.

By way of example, if I were to do this, then my annual tax liability might drop to around £600 if I had a second car for private use. A saving of around £1,800...

Food for thought...

[Sir Tigger KC]

Strange thing that when ever this Off Shore business gets dragged up, the hard nosed investigative journalists at the Guardian and BBC never seem to point the finger at wealthy people like Blair or Mandelson.  Wonder why? 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Strange thing that when ever this Off Shore business gets dragged up, the hard nosed investigative journalists at the Guardian and BBC never seem to point the finger at wealthy people like Blair or Mandelson.  Wonder why? 

I wouldn't trust Blair as far I could throw him.

.......and as for that poofter Mandelson.

[Kevin Wood]

Strange thing that when ever this Off Shore business gets dragged up, the hard nosed investigative journalists at the Guardian and BBC never seem to point the finger at wealthy people like Blair or Mandelson.  Wonder why? 

They are obviously squeaky clean.

[LC0112G]

Hang about, guvnor, that’s 128%. 

When TB gets to be PM and starts implementing the cull list, someone remind him not to appoint Stemo as Chancellor.

I assume you realise that the top 1% are by definition also part of the top 10% too? Ok it still comes to 101%, but that's due to me rounding the figures for the hard of understanding. The figures, to one decimal place are in the IFS report.

When Opti said "rich", I don't think he had £54,000 in mind.
When he said "super rich", I don't think he had £164,000 in mind, either.

Which is why I said you need to define what you mean by 'working poor', and the same applies to rich and super rich. There are apparently about 50K people that earn over £1M a year in the UK - are they super rich, or merely rich? Either way if you tax them at 47% (45% income tax and 2% NI) then they'd pay at least £470K a year each. £470K buys you a lot of financial advice and makes it relatively attractive to live somewhere else if you get fed up with what your current govt is taking from you. 

How much tax do you think Bill Gates, or Barak Obama, or Elvis Presleys' estate pays in the UK? I'll guess that they're all close to (if not actually) zero.  If it's Ok for them to not pay UK tax then why should anyone else not resident in the UK have to pay tax on income not earned here? Lewis Hamilton is domiciled in Monaco AIUI just like lots of other rich people. The reason is pretty simple - they can save more tax by living there than it costs to actually live there. LH only really needs to visit the UK for perhaps 4 days a year - the Silverstone Weekend - the same time as all the other F1 drivers. So I'm not sure why he's been singled out. Loads of other private jets are registered in the IOM. Clamp down on that and they'll just move registration to somewhere else.

[Viral_Jim]

If you can get your employer to change your contract to one of a self employed consultant, renewable on say a five-year basis, for the same gross salary, then all your work related expenses such as clothes, travel, meals at work, office space in your house (with a proportion of your mortgage/rent, utilities etc) all get off set against your income tax... Hell, whilst your at it, set the house up as a B and B... (nothing to say you actually have to have paying guests...) and claim the entire cost of the property against your business.

OK you have to file a tax return every year, and it might not save enough to be worth the hassle, but the principle is the same as if you have millions in the (offshore) bank.

By way of example, if I were to do this, then my annual tax liability might drop to around £600 if I had a second car for private use. A saving of around £1,800...

Food for thought...

But even this opportunity is closed to most mere mortals, as HMRC have closed the "loophole"  by way of IR35 legislation. This basically says that, even if you declare yourself a self-employed contractor, and your chosen company agrees, HMRC can "deem you employed" and tax you accordingly. You can be deemed employed if your working arrangements meet some/all of the criteria of employment. For example:

- You have set working hours
- You have a pre-defined/fixed work location/pattern of locations
- You have no right to substitute yourself for another person to carry out your duties
- You only have a commercial arrangement with one entity which provides you with all your income.
- Some more things I can't think of atm...

If HMRC "deem" you employed, the re-calculate your tax, plus any penalties and interest and then you have to fight them to convince them you are actually self-employed. SWMBO's tax accountant gets her to fill out an annual IR35 questionnaire to get comfort that she isn't caught by it.

On a separate note of caution, making a house a B&B makes it a business asset and can make you liable for Capital Gains Tax on sale. Could be painful! 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Most of the people classed as "talent" employed by the BBC (for example) seem to have found a way around all of the above.

[Viral_Jim]

Company to company payments are outside the scope of IR35. You'll probably find that Chris Evans Ltd. was paid rather well last year, but the ginger one himself probably didn't get a penny from aunty beeb. 

[Doctor Gollum]

You could arguably have a contract with your children whereby you pay them pocket money, say £20 per week, and have them then pay you £5 a week for parental services... Given you are a parent 24/7, you could argue that they are your primary employer... The B&B could be a third employer...

Either way the hassle and savings aren't necessarily worth it at this end of the food chain, but when your weekly income is into 5 figures, then the savings are very much worthwhile...

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

The Mail reported yesterday that Labours London HQ is rented from a company registered in the channel islands, and John McDonnell receives a pension from former work for a council, which comes from a company in the Channel islands.
Made my day. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Company to company payments are outside the scope of IR35. You'll probably find that Chris Evans Ltd. was paid rather well last year, but the ginger one himself probably didn't get a penny from aunty beeb. 

So that's the loophole which loops around the closed loophole. 

[Sir Tigger KC]

The Mail reported yesterday that Labours London HQ is rented from a company registered in the channel islands, and John McDonnell receives a pension from former work for a council, which comes from a company in the Channel islands.
Made my day. 

I didn't see that on the BBC or the Guardian.....                                      

[Rods2]

Strange thing that when ever this Off Shore business gets dragged up, the hard nosed investigative journalists at the Guardian and BBC never seem to point the finger at wealthy people like Blair or Mandelson.  Wonder why? 

I wouldn't trust Blair as far I could throw him.

.......and as for that poofter Mandelson.

This Peter Cook "Biased Judge" satire about the Jeremy Thorp case reminds me of "the self-inflicted player of the pink oboe" on your list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZdaQQBZ3as