permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/533480218
Chutney Posted on 21/10 12:25
Boiling Blood

I hate this sort of thing. Dirty, greedy fcker.

Link: "Mr Green's £1.2bn will not be taxed..."

jono_feds Posted on 21/10 12:29
re: Boiling Blood

What exactly do you hate about it?

mufflar Posted on 21/10 12:30
re: Boiling Blood

that its not him getting it!!

Chutney Posted on 21/10 12:31
re: Boiling Blood

Have a look at the words next to "Link:" and then take a wild guess, jono.

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 12:31
re: Boiling Blood

He took the risks, he gets the reward.

Craigmas Posted on 21/10 12:32
re: Boiling Blood

I think he hates the fact that we all pay tax on our income, yet mr Green takes £1.2 bill out of the country tax free!

downings_left_foot Posted on 21/10 12:32
re: Boiling Blood

If I had that sort of money I wouldn't want it all going to the taxman either!

jono_feds Posted on 21/10 12:33
re: Boiling Blood

I can see your point about tax but who wouldn't?

BoroMutt Posted on 21/10 12:33
re: Boiling Blood

I thought you'd been watching that "River Cottage" thing, where Hugh Ferny-Thingybob demonstrated how to make black pudding...

dooderooni Posted on 21/10 12:34
re: Boiling Blood

Apart from making money out of the British economy and no doubt helping to fuel the burgeoning levels of consumer credit, is it really right that he can get away with not paying any tax?

Don't know how many hospitals it would fund but it might help.

downings_left_foot Posted on 21/10 12:35
re: Boiling Blood

It'd pay a bunch of dole wallers to sit on their arses.

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 12:35
re: Boiling Blood

Great isn't it. People moan about dole scroungers and asylum seekers, but they are nowhere near as criminal as the likes of Green who avoid paying taxes on their already ridiculous renumerations. It's not just him. There are thousands doing it.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 21/10 12:36 ---

jono_feds Posted on 21/10 12:36
re: Boiling Blood

Isn't there more of an issue with how our tax is used rather the fact that someone wants to keep the money he earned through a loophole?

jono_feds Posted on 21/10 12:37
re: Boiling Blood

Morally it's very dodgy indeed! I just don't blame him doing it!

Chutney Posted on 21/10 12:39
re: Boiling Blood

It's the fact that the people who do this are those who least need to penny pinch like this.

Imagine having to pay tax and only ending up with a payout of around £750m. He'd have to miss more home games than Briggsy.

Kilburn Posted on 21/10 12:40
re: Boiling Blood

Great isn't it. We all pay more tax becasue scum like him avoid paying theirs.

Even better, some of the fools who are paying more because of the likes of him, say 'good luck to him'.

Seeing as how he is paying the money to his wife to avoid tax, I hope she leaves him and takes it all.

London_Boro Posted on 21/10 12:50
re: Boiling Blood

Fair play to him. I'd do it if I could and so would everybody else.

Chutney Posted on 21/10 12:52
re: Boiling Blood

I wouldn't. And don't try and tell me different.

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 12:53
re: Boiling Blood

Greed is good, eh? Wonder were this philosophy came from.

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/10 12:54
re: Boiling Blood

Go on Jimmy, start another one off. I'm with you!

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 12:58
re: Boiling Blood

How many jobs has is entreprenerism generated? Or should we just sit back and maon about what everybody else who are busy achieving whilst we lot continue sciving from our own jobs talking footy and shtye?

Chutney Posted on 21/10 13:02
re: Boiling Blood

As opposed to moaning about a 58p loaf of bread?

No-one's complaining about the jobs, or even how much he's been paid, just the fact that with such a colossal payout he feels the need to duck around like a snide market trader to avoid paying the same tax that the rest of us have to.

Is it really so stupid to have just one or two principles and motivations other than single minded self interest.

dooderooni Posted on 21/10 13:02
re: Boiling Blood

Apparently.

downings_left_foot Posted on 21/10 13:05
re: Boiling Blood

People who are saying they'd be willing to give a massive chunk of their 1.7bn quid to the taxman are lying!

onthemap Posted on 21/10 13:05
re: Boiling Blood

Maninmboro - spot on.
This is not some crook not paying his dues.He is taking advantage of the tax laws applicable to offshore tax havens.He has built the company through heavy investment. The bank will not have financed the venture without some form of security and he took the risks and is reaping the rewards.
Not one person on here pays more tax than they are legally required to.

Chutney Posted on 21/10 13:07
re: Boiling Blood

Given that I willingly give a chunk of my considerably smaller pay packet to the taxman, what makes you think the prospect of a 10 figure salary would suddenly make me feel I had to dodge tax to make ends meet, dlf?

zoec Posted on 21/10 13:09
re: Boiling Blood

Chutney - I'm with you. I'd pay the tax and I'm not lying.

downings_left_foot Posted on 21/10 13:10
re: Boiling Blood

Willingly? You are required to do so by law.

zoec Posted on 21/10 13:11
re: Boiling Blood

I mean, I wouldn't pay it to a partner to avoid paying tax. How much can you spend in life? Slightly less than £1.2bn.

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 13:11
re: Boiling Blood

That's the difference, DLF. There are no loopholes for the likes of us to exploit.

downings_left_foot Posted on 21/10 13:13
re: Boiling Blood

Fair enough, but that's the Governments problem isn't it. If I had his money I wouldn't want a penny to go to the taxman, call me selfish if you like but I'm just being honest.

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 13:16
re: Boiling Blood

But he's ploughing all of this money into a new venture to create more jobs and wealth for all.

Green-eyed monsters, get over it.

onthemap Posted on 21/10 13:16
re: Boiling Blood

Looks as if as lot of people on here do not know that they can make voluntary donations to the inland revenue with any spare cash they have.

What a load of hypocrites.Which one of you pay more tax than you are legally obliged to ...come on just one.

zoec Posted on 21/10 13:18
re: Boiling Blood

I don't have any spare cash, but that's not the point. He's not paying any tax, let alone more than what's due.

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 21/10 13:21
re: Boiling Blood

He is a tax dodger however you look at it.
He is taking the pi ss out of the law. He no doubt spends a large proportion of his time in this country and therefore benfits from the fruits of a society that is partly based on progressive taxation. The reason he "pays" it to his wife will be because as far as the taxman is aware she will not be domicilled in the UK, in effect this means that she just needs to own a house in monaco she can still live in this country and enjoy the benefits while not paying for them.

The only extra jobs tax dodgers like these two generate is in the overpayed leaches in tax accountancy and their associated legal bretheren who dream up these schemes to avoid paying there dues whilst matianing a thin veneer of legality. A layer of society we could all do without.

I would suspect they pay a lot less tax than all those who are congratulating them imagine they do. I suggest that anyone who is intrested dig out the gaurdian expose of the tax games played by the guy who invented tetra pack and is one of britians richest men who as I recall payed next to nothing despite living in hampshire (domocilled in sweden).

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 13:22
re: Boiling Blood

Which self-employed person in this country pays the correct amount of tax. They all employ creative accountants to identify loopholes. the ones that the Government meanwhile are busy trying to close.

Do you think Gibbo's wealth is based on being a philantropist?? Grow up and get out a bit more!!

--- Post edited by maninmboro on 21/10 13:23 ---

onthemap Posted on 21/10 13:24
re: Boiling Blood

He opened 95 new stores last year, including those acquired with the purchase of the Etam chain. He said he intended to open another 48 this year, creating 1,400 jobs. He described the figures as "an excellent set of results" and praised the contribution made by his staff. A "multimillion-pound bonus pot" had been set up to reward their efforts.

No tax being paid there then.Maybe he should shut the branches throw people on the dole, stop benefitting the economy at all and then there will be no profits and no tax.
I suppose Steve Gibson does not use tax shelters?

red_rebel Posted on 21/10 13:33
re: Boiling Blood

ďHow many jobs has is entreprenerism generated?Ē

Are you saying that if people create jobs they should be exempt from tax?


What about if they have slashed jobs, what then?

This ruthless suit has earned his money for shareholders by increasing profitability - and he has done that by axing 3,500 jobs across Arcadia over the last 18 months.

He has also shifted the workforce towards more part timers on less than 16 hours a week to avoid pension contributions and other benefit.

He did the same at Argos before that and when he tried to buy Marksies last year job cuts were central to his business plan.

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 21/10 13:37
re: Boiling Blood

so are you saying that if he had to pay his taxes he wouldn't expand his business?

If you would actual read the article, instead of picking selective quotes to justify your morally bankrupt position, what he is paying himself is a massive bonus in the form of a share dividend, ie he is taking money out of his firm and therfore out of the sum of money he has for expansion.

I fail to see what difference it makes if gibbo pays all his taxes or not. Doubtless as a very rich man he pays what he can't get away with not paying, but that doesn't make it right. If he does the same he is another tax dodger.

Glad to see you agree he is a tax dodger maninboro

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 13:38
re: Boiling Blood

If he's axing jobs and incresaing profitability - that's pretty impressive stuff.

He should be a politician.

Kilburn Posted on 21/10 13:47
re: Boiling Blood

In any moral or practical sense he is stealing from our country.

He may be sticking to the letter of the law, but nobody could claim that he is acting within the spirit of it in any sense.

I assume that he would expect protection from the country in time of war, and legal protection against anyone who commits crimes against him. However, despite being able to afford to pay his share towards the country's defence and judicial system, he chooses to dodge such responsibilities.

Juventus Posted on 21/10 13:54
re: Boiling Blood

Awwwwww - are all the lefties offended that the nasty Mr Green's benefited his own hard work, dedication and effort?

"Boo hoo hoo"

dooderooni Posted on 21/10 13:56
re: Boiling Blood

Next time a family member or friend needs one of those expensive treatments for cancer or some other such disease, think how much easier it would be if the governements coffers were a little fuller.

Kilburn Posted on 21/10 13:57
re: Boiling Blood

Abolish all tax eh Juventus? Yeah, that'll work.

Well, that's what this bloke has unilaterally done.

red_rebel Posted on 21/10 13:57
re: Boiling Blood

Kilburn:

At the first sign of the clouds of war he and his peers will be off to the Bahamas for the duration.

Chutney Posted on 21/10 14:05
re: Boiling Blood

So how was this morning's "Learn how to miss the point entirely" seminar, Juve?

speckyget Posted on 21/10 14:05
re: Boiling Blood

In the old days that doubtless some of our neocon chums would consider 'good', only a property or business that had forked out accordingly would be tended by the fire bobbies in the event of a blaze. They hung out a sign to show they were in the scheme (a sun in the case of Sun Alliance).

I wonder if we could reinvent this tradition in reverse in such cases? A small effigy of a fat cat hanging over Top Shops perhaps to indicate to prospective ramraiders that the goods therein do not qualify for the protection of the law?

moxzin Posted on 21/10 14:44
re: Boiling Blood

He hasn't done anything illegal, that needs to be emphasised. The problem you guys have is not with the man but with the system. Either you shouldn't be allowed to have a loophole in the law like this where you can get off via a tax haven like Monaco, or the tax on these matters is too high otherwise people wouldn't need to hire accountants to move this money around the world. Its not "morally bankrupt" at all but common sense that if these opportunities are open to you, you should take them. You have more money than sense if you willingly pay more tax than you have to. How many hospitals would his money have generated? More like how much wastage and Co-Ordination Officers would it have paid for? This man has probably been taxed all his life and now he's found a bit of cash and he is privileged enough to be able to benefit from the vagaries of international banking.

speckyget Posted on 21/10 14:46
re: Boiling Blood

No mox, it's both.

System sucks for allowing it. The man is a parasite for availing himself of the opportunity.

moxzin Posted on 21/10 14:49
re: Boiling Blood

Why is he a parasite? He's paid taxes all his life and no doubt this money was taxed when it went into the company. Should he be taxed to take it out again? 92% of the company he owns. All the firm's money is practically his.

speckyget Posted on 21/10 14:50
re: Boiling Blood

Dividends are taxable.

moxzin Posted on 21/10 14:51
re: Boiling Blood

Not in Monaco they're not.

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 14:52
re: Boiling Blood

Well he should feck off to Monaco then.

The_Commisar Posted on 21/10 14:53
re: Boiling Blood

as usual the left throws a strop because someone is succesful.
Suggest those of you who in a state funded job should get down on our knees every night and give thanks for those who create welath.
failing that, get a bloody productive job.

speckyget Posted on 21/10 14:55
re: Boiling Blood

Quite so, mox. Not everyone has such convenient recourse to tax havens. Not everyone has access to amounts of money the reasonable gadge on the Clapham Omnibus would struggle to spend in ten lifetimes. Not everyone thinks that it is ok to deprive the common weal of such funds just because they can.

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 14:56
re: Boiling Blood

As usual Commisar tries to score points by missing the point. There's nothing wrong with success as long as people pay their dues and are made to pay them. Why should they be different to the rest of us? As for "welath" creation, well it's quite obvious whose wealth he's ultimately bothered about.

speckyget Posted on 21/10 14:56
re: Boiling Blood

Commi - haven't we already established that this gentleman is going out of his way to DEPRIVE the state of funding?

Oh, and who is throwing a strop about the guy making money?

beeline Posted on 21/10 14:58
re: Boiling Blood

Yup, Commissar always quick with the insults. Unpleasant fella.

The_Commisar Posted on 21/10 15:03
re: Boiling Blood

No
YOU have an opinion that he is going to deprive the state.
If he did nothing he would not be depriving the state.
The fact he has generated significant amounts of corporation tax has been ignored.
The fact the people he has created jobs and wealth forpay taxes has been ignored.
The money is his, not the states.
Just because you can think of things to spend it on does not make it yours.

And Jimmy, it's his right not to pay taxes FFS !
I van guess those most upset are from the chattering classes.

Stop trying to spend other peoples money !!!

--- Post edited by The_Commisar on 21/10 15:04 ---

speckyget Posted on 21/10 15:04
re: Boiling Blood

So he hasn't gone out of his way to exercise a tax loophole then? Must have missed that - thanks for setting me straight.

Kilburn Posted on 21/10 15:06
re: Boiling Blood

So, it is common sense to indulge in tax-evasion, on the basis that a loophole in the law makes it possible to get away with it.

In that case, if I found a loophole in the law that allowed me to kill someone who was inconveniencing me and not be breaking the law, would it also be 'common sense' for me to do it?

SidSnot Posted on 21/10 15:09
re: Boiling Blood

Lottery winners don't pay tax - that's far more of a scandal.

The wife owns the business - she doesn't live in the UK and if she spent more than 60 days a year here she'd have to pay tax.

In addition, the company will have already paid corporation tax on it's profits. This dividend is paid out of profits and capital. It has already been taxed.

Chutney Posted on 21/10 15:09
re: Boiling Blood

mox - "if these opportunities are open to you, you should take them".

Why "should" we? Do you mean we're obliged to take them?

Let's not forget, we're not talking about the few hundred quid out of the few thousand quid a month tax burden that most on here will have, this is someone who with no taxation wriggling will still have more personal wealth than any individual could ever need, and yet still it seems to be considered right that the likes of you an me should meet a greater obligation to the public coffers than him.

Do you not have any youthful idealism whatsoever?

Depressing reading.

onthemap Posted on 21/10 15:11
re: Boiling Blood

Funny how the ones complaining about using the tax loopholes are the ones who have no way of attaining the type of money needed to make the choice.

Dont run a business - dont comment, just be thankful some people choose to generate wealth for you.

speckyget Posted on 21/10 15:13
re: Boiling Blood

Funny how those defending the super rich who decide which laws they will adhere to would be the first to condemn a dole claimant supplementing his benefits with a few hours behind a bar.

beeline Posted on 21/10 15:18
re: Boiling Blood

onthemap - like Commissar quick with the assumptions. Do you know me? If not, how do you know that I don't run a business, that my politics are of the left, that I'm throwing a strop, that I work in a state run industry or am engaged in some meaningless work?

Sparky_Lightbourne Posted on 21/10 15:20
re: Boiling Blood

The point is snot, she probably does live in the UK, just not for tax purposes.

The link is to the article from the guardian I referred to earlier, detialing how mr tetra pack avoids paying much tax, quite an eyeopener.

A short except from that bastion of left wing thought, the house of lords.

Years ago, the law lords pointed their judicial finger at the moral ambiguity of lawful tax avoidance. Lord Simon declared: "Of recent years, much ingenuity has been expended in certain quarters in attempting to devise methods of disposition of income by which those who were prepared to adopt them might enjoy the benefits of residence in this country ... without sharing in the appropriate burden of British taxation.

"Judicial dicta may be cited which point out that, however elaborate and artificial such methods may be, those who adopt them are 'entitled' to do so. There is, of course, no doubt that they are within their legal rights but that is no reason why their efforts, or those of the professional gentlemen who assist them in the matter, should be regarded as a commendable exercise of ingenuity or as a discharge of the duties of good citizenship. On the contrary, one result of such methods, if they succeed, is of course to increase pro tanto the load of tax on the shoulders of the great body of good citizens who do not desire or do not know how to adopt these manoeuvres."

Link: how to be a low down tax dodger

The_Commisar Posted on 21/10 15:26
re: Boiling Blood

MrBeeline
I have not assumed
that you don't run a business,
that your politics are of the left,
that your throwing a strop,
that you work in a state run industry or am engaged in some meaningless work?
I have assumed your talking bolloxs
cheers
have a nice day

Chutney Posted on 21/10 15:29
re: Boiling Blood

And can we assume you didn't read beeline's post properly, commy?

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 15:30
re: Boiling Blood

"while wage-earners work on Pay As You Earn, the rich Pay As They Like."

Spot on.

The_Commisar Posted on 21/10 15:31
re: Boiling Blood

I have been told I make assumptions, I have made only 1

onthemap Posted on 21/10 15:42
re: Boiling Blood

Maybe we abolish the tax haven options for anyone running a business in the UK and then put higher rate taxes back up to 98%.
No more nasty Mr Greens or investment in the UK.But inevitably a few business owners will stay with the UK for a while and all the extra tax revenue will ensure that those who dont want to work will at least be on a par with those nasties who started their businesses for themselves.

It is not the system in this country that is at fault it is the countries whose sole existence is the offering of tax free judiciaries.These facilities are available to businessmen world wide.

Who is going to start the campaign against Gibson or is it ok as long as its our chairman

beeline Posted on 21/10 15:45
re: Boiling Blood

You made 3 in your first post. Read it again.

Chutney Posted on 21/10 15:47
re: Boiling Blood

"Maybe we abolish the tax haven options for anyone running a business in the UK and then put higher rate taxes back up to 98%"

You must be psychic, that's precisely what I was advocating - 98% income tax. Well done on such a worthwhile debating construct.

"It is not the system in this country that is at fault it is the countries whose sole existence is the offering of tax free judiciaries"

Is it just me, or does this sound suspiciously like the old "that little minx was asking for it" r a p e defence?

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 15:47
re: Boiling Blood

I wondered when someone would bring Gibbo up. As if such a parochial consideration makes a difference to the argument.
And the usual use of total extremes and putting words in others mouths. No-one on here is advocating 98% income tax, they just want to see fairness, and not one rule for them and one rule for the rest.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 21/10 15:49 ---

riverboat_captain Posted on 21/10 15:56
re: Boiling Blood

The husband of one of his employees was on radio today.
She manages one of his large stores, works 50 hours a week and earns little over the minimum wage.

He no doubt sources a lot of his merchandise from 3rd world sweat shops.

onthemap Posted on 21/10 16:00
re: Boiling Blood

Chutney
You a little bit bitter about something comrade.

PumpingGnome Posted on 21/10 16:00
re: Boiling Blood

Can I ask a question? Ta. Now for another one.

Would you like him to buy Gibbo out?

Thought not.

Kilburn Posted on 21/10 16:03
re: Boiling Blood

I agree with onthemaps point that the countries that offer themselves as tax-havens to attract the mega-rich are a problem.

Maybe a solution would be to remove the exemption on UK taxation for residents of these countries who were not born there.

Chutney Posted on 21/10 16:03
re: Boiling Blood

Perceptive, onthemap.

And it only took a 75+ thread for you to deduce that.

What's next for you then, a definitive unveiling of the identity of Deep Throat?

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 16:03
re: Boiling Blood

Good one, PG.

That's just as I suspected, RC. So much for this much-vaunted wealth creation. She also pays more tax than she really should because of people like Green.

onthemap Posted on 21/10 16:06
re: Boiling Blood

Chutney
Your a student arent you.

beeline Posted on 21/10 16:06
re: Boiling Blood

Just reading some of Gibson's interview on Century last night which seems relevant:

SG: Letís just talk about the authority that a football club has in the local community and people may not be aware of what we do in the local community. Not far from our ground we have some of the most under privledged children in the area. At Eston we have set up the Míbro accadamy which is about youth development not as footballers but as people as individuals. We have 6000 kids on that scheme teaching them how to take care of themselves,how to eat correctly, the important of diet, the important of non-smoking, the problems with drugs and football has that power to listen. What weíve got is all of our players are commited to doing 4 hours work per week with these kids.

Weíre not a PLC, we donít have shareholders, we donít pay dividends, we donít take millions of pounds out of the football club, everything that comes into the football club goes towards improving the facilities, goes to helping the local community and thatís what our football club is all about.

onthemap Posted on 21/10 16:08
re: Boiling Blood

All commendable Beeline but Gibsons money isnt generated from MFC.

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/10 16:14
re: Boiling Blood

Erm, having read the article now I am not sure that this isn't just sloppy journalism because it certainly won't be the case that no tax has been paid.

Basically dividends are paid out of profits left in the company AFTER corporation tax has been paid. So on last years quoted profit figures of £253m tax at 30% would have been paid by the company, who are the shareholders after all, of circa £75m. This would leave funds of £178 for distribution among the shareholders, if the company wished to do so.

It is impossible to say from the article where the additional £1bn that has been distributed has come from but the rules on the plc's mean that the funds can't be dished out if they are not there in the first place.

Ultimately therefore the funds must come from profits acheived in earlier years and Corporation Tax will have already been paid on them. Even if Philip Green was not a shareholder when these profits were acheived he has effectively bought those retained profits when he purchased the company. So you could think of much of this money as a repayment rather than earnings.

The tax 'dodge' comes because if the dividend came to a UK resident they are deemed to have had already paid income tax of 10% as shown on the tax voucher issued with the dividend. Historically I believe it is a kind of way of recognising that the shareholder, as the company, have already paid Corporation Taxes on profits earned.

10% is the normal tax rate for dividends and no more tax is due unless by adding this dividend income to all your other income you fall into the higher rate tax bracket, when the dividend tax rate becomes 32.5%. Stay with me.

As the tax already deemed as paid is only 10% the individual will have to pay over an extra 22.5%. That is under UK income tax rules.

If you live abroad you will be subject to that countries rules on income tax. I assume that the taxable rate on foreign dividends in Monaco is either nil or 10% with a double taxation agreement in place with the UK.

To reverse the situation, if someone came to me from China say and asked me to put £100m into a company there and that company made profits then I think that I would have no complaints if the company had to pay tax on those profits at whatever rate China charges but I would feel a little aggrieved at either having to pay tax on money I had put in in the first place or getting taxed as an individual living in the UK for a second time by the chinese where I receive no benefits from that tax.

I still think the guy is a w***r though. He is obviously a resident here and keeps his wife out of the country just to avoid paying over his FAIR SHARE. Paying over the further £270m wouldn't bankrupt him would it.

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 21/10 16:17 ---

beeline Posted on 21/10 16:16
re: Boiling Blood

I know it isn't, but I'll make the assumption that you get the point.

Kilburn Posted on 21/10 16:18
re: Boiling Blood

Just to set right another claim that has been made in favour of this man.

Apparently he has created 'thousands' of jobs in the UK.

Wrong.

The total number of people employed in the High St retail sector has not increased as a result of anything he has done.

Yes, he is one of the larger employers in the sector, but he hasn't created any of those jobs, he has just shuffled them around. His empire consits of other retail chains that he has taken over, and new stores that are mainly replacing existing capacity elsewhere.

onthemap Posted on 21/10 16:19
re: Boiling Blood

Agreed Lefty the extra burden wouldnt make too much difference but his wife and family live in Monte Carlo - he works in the UK Mon to Fri and abides by the applicable tax laws.
Who are we to insist he pays more than he legally has to.

zaphod Posted on 21/10 16:36
re: Boiling Blood

As has been pointed out already, the dividends are taken out of taxed profits, so they've already been taxed at 30% and only a portion of that can be offset against Green's own income tax liability. The system is iniquitous, not just in taxing the same income twice in effect, but in taking no account of the tax suffered on money left in the business.

Given the burdensome nature of the British tax system, Green would be mad not to take steps to minimise his tax bill.

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/10 16:39
re: Boiling Blood

Well onthemap

I agree that he has done nothing illegal. He is legally working his way around the system.

The argument here seems to me to be a moral one about whether he should or how far he should.

I think it is fair to say, based on the divorce laws in this country that the law regards a marriage as a 50/50 partnership. His wife in this case is the foreign 'investor' looking for a return on his money, but Mr Green himself as you say spends an awful lot of time here.

Surely therefore he should have at least 50% of the Return and pay the taxes due thereon. Be honest now, by making the wife the owner of all the shares (as implied by the article) rather than half he is avoiding paying over his fair share.

As someone said earlier, if they divorce I hope she keeps the lot.

captain5 Posted on 21/10 16:45
re: Boiling Blood

I find it highly unlikely that there will be nothing written down to prevent this happening.

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/10 16:46
re: Boiling Blood

Zaphod,

Are our taxes unfair?

Well if enough people work the system like Mr Green has then when Mr Brown starts to find that his budget is going pear shaped how much more unfair are they likely to get?

We will all end up like Mr Blonde then.

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/10 16:51
re: Boiling Blood

Captain,

Do you mean a pre-nup. I'm no lawyer but if there is then I would have thought it would have been putting a cap on the amount of his money she could get her hands on.

This is 'her' money.

I suspect their finances and agreements will be so interlinked and complicated that the lawyers would argue for a long time then settle at 50/50 more or less.

He will have then got his hands on his half share then, but he will have avoided the tax.

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 21/10 16:52 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/10 16:54
re: Boiling Blood

LittleJimmy is right. Let's moan about about asylum seekers getting £5 a day to live on (if they're lucky) instead. Bloody parasites.

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 16:57
re: Boiling Blood

LittleJimmy is right.
LittleJimmy is right.
LittleJimmy is right.
LittleJimmy is right.
LittleJimmy is right.
LittleJimmy is right.
LittleJimmy is right.

Sounds sweet.

onthemap Posted on 21/10 16:57
re: Boiling Blood

Lefty
I dont think it is a moral issue.Of course we would all applaud if he paid taxes in excess of what he was legally obliged to but in reality he is doing what every businessman does ie maximising his profits and personal income.
I dont think that a moral judgement can be made by anyone not in the same position and given that I do not face the problems associated with billion pound dividend payments I cant justify berating him.
I can however sympathise with those who hold the view that given the risks and rewards at that level he is welcome to whatever he makes.
Read somewhere that his stores are responsible for 12% of all womens clothing purchases in the UK, sounds like he knows what he is doing and should be rewarded accordingly.
Love the idea of making him pay a lot more tax to suit the idealists but as in your calcultions he is not exacltly a drain on society.

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/10 16:57
re: Boiling Blood

LJ

--- Post edited by Revol_Tees on 21/10 16:58 ---

zaphod Posted on 21/10 16:59
re: Boiling Blood

They're unfair because Green would end up paying about 48% of the grossed up dividend in tax if he did nothing, not to mention the tax on his profits reinvested. The top rate of 40% income tax is fair; why should he pay more? If we want to encourage investment, we shouldn't put investors in this position.

In the event, he's paid less (ignoring reinvested profits) than 40%. If Corporation tax was married up with income tax rates and dividends came with a full tax credit, we wouldn't have this problem.

sasboro Posted on 21/10 17:05
re: Boiling Blood

if an accountant came to any of us and said i can save you lots of money on your tax, are you likely to tell him to fook off or more likely to say tell me more then

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/10 17:05
re: Boiling Blood

Imgine if he did end up paying 48% of the grossed up dividend in tax. Christ, he'd only be able to afford four mansions instead of seven. I wouldn't wish that on any poor f-cker.

zaphod Posted on 21/10 17:10
re: Boiling Blood

Revol_Tees, your jealousy (or perhaps class resentment) seems to have got the better of you there. You would have done well in the 1960s and 1970s Labour Party that brought the country to its kness.

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/10 17:11
re: Boiling Blood


Kilburn Posted on 21/10 17:24
re: Boiling Blood

I wouldn't mind so much if he ran John Lewis Partnership, who treat their employees with respect and dignity, and source their products with some degree of consideration for the ethics of their production and their environmental impact.

Or even Marks and Spencer, who are a generally fair employer who also have introduced ethical purchasing policies.

But no, he runs Arcadia group, who have led the way in maximising 'efficiency' by treating employees as badly as they can get away with, and driving down prices by dealing with supliers who use sweatshop labour in countries where they can behave as badly they like.

There is a body called the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), made up of companies, non-governmental organisations and trade unions, that sets minimum standards for worker welfare.

From a recent article on the ETI:

"But while most of the UK high street has agreed to the ETI's ethical labour standards, there are some notable absentees. Philip Green's Bhs and Arcadia are not members of ETI"

speckyget Posted on 21/10 17:45
re: Boiling Blood

All this 'taxed twice' stuff is a red herring, or 'bollox' for those who prefer. Should I try to avoid VAT on goods on the grounds that the income I am disposing has already been taxed? Well I could of course, as VAT avoidance is as fair game as avoidance of other taxes. Wouldn't mean I wasn't an arse though, as is this Green guy.

--- Post edited by speckyget on 21/10 17:45 ---

Juventus Posted on 21/10 18:11
re: Boiling Blood

Why did people start bringing in the refugees? As it happens, I think they are parasites, but that's another discussion entirely.

Anyway, my hat goes off to Mr Green. Top notch entrepreneurialismness.

Lefty3668 Posted on 21/10 18:28
re: Boiling Blood

I agree Specky.

The Companies are entities in their own right and suffer their own tax. If the share holders leave the money in the company it does not get taxed again.

Only when they want to take it out for personal use does it get taxed again.

For a genuine investor, who is looking for a return on investment I have some sympathy with the double taxation point as they divi the profits up after the company has paid tax but they get their tax relief with the 10% dividends rate, where up to that threshold the tax is considered to have been paid.

It is only if the individuals total income is deemed to be of a sufficient level - and I would argue that this is a moral judgement because the people of this country decided though their elected representatives what they considered was a fair rate and threshold - that more tax is due.

I do not see where Zaphod gets his 48% from. If the money was taken as a wage the he would be paying tax at 40% and NI at 1%.

The 32.5% higher rate for dividends is still a large saving on £1bn.

As far as Green is concerned I refer again to the artificial 100% rather than a 50/50 split with his wife.

Kilburn - That is interesting. When the Maggie debate comes around again that will link in nicely to the argument I intend but have ran out of steam before I could get to it because I spend so long getting certain dunderheads to realise that she was stupid and disgusting over the miners.

--- Post edited by Lefty3668 on 21/10 18:32 ---

Chutney Posted on 21/10 18:47
re: Boiling Blood

Am I a student?

Once.

Is that the only way you can reconcile someone being even vaguely principled or idealistic?

onthemap Posted on 21/10 18:50
re: Boiling Blood

or blind and bitter?

green_beret20 Posted on 21/10 19:28
re: Boiling Blood

Well unfortunately there is idealism and then there is reality.

Can't you see the problem, its quite simply the system that is at fault if we are scaring away rich entrepreneurs. More fool us as instead of receiving a fair amount of tax we quite simply lose out on acquiring any amount of tax.
If you think a blanket measure of laws will solve the problem then all we will do scare away even more entrepreneurs.

Plus I have absolutely no problem with someone (after paying the required correct tax) to take their money offshore if it means they gain a better income. Thats our right, a free society I believe its called.

What do you expect when we have such a purposely built complicated tax system and such p*ss poor interest rates?

Kilburn Posted on 21/10 20:04
re: Boiling Blood

The thing is, this guy isn't contributing anything meaningful to our economy. The only wealth he is creating is for himself, and his shareholders.

He is importing cheap goods manufactured in the Far East and Eastern Europe, flogging them to the british public, and taking the money abroad.

The least that 'Entrepreneurs' like him owe the country that they are doing so well out of, is to stand up and pay their share.

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 20:24
re: Boiling Blood

I must confess when I was a student I had similar idealogical views about successful people.Fortunately I grew up a little, dropped the bitterness and accept all people for what they are. Some bad, greedy, stupid, arrogant, blinkered, selfish.

Onethemap: sterling job in standing up to the lefty student types.

I agree with your points - all well made with no abuse.

zaphod Posted on 21/10 21:00
re: Boiling Blood

The 48% is 30% on the original profit, plus 22.5% (32.5% less 10%) on the dividend after it's been grossed up for the 10%.

It is normally a principle of tax that you don't tax the same income twice. The Inland Revenue allow the overseas residence thing to entice foreign entities to invest in UK, so it won't be stopped, though they might change the rules a bit to catch obvious fiddles. Paying VAT is not the same, as Green would be paying that like anyone else on his consumption, even if he was taxed twice.

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 21:24
re: Boiling Blood

You could say you grew up. Or you could just say you sold your soul.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 21/10 21:34 ---

moxzin Posted on 21/10 21:29
re: Boiling Blood

"Do you not have any youthful idealism whatsoever?"

I think I do have my fair share, if not more. While some of it is channelled into the usual places (International Brigades etc) some of it is reserved for other principles that you wouldn't agree with. Its still idealism, though. I live in an idealistic frame of mind where the entire world has free and open borders, elections and markets.

Part of this though leads me to defend the capitalist, free trade Ideal (that word again) and when I see a man like Phillip Green earn himself £1.2bn I defend his right to do so and can only aspire to that level of success, like everyone should really. Rather than sit around arguing about how much we should take away from his pie, why not admire the impressive pie that he has ammassed, from hard work and sound business ideas.

The fact that he and many others like him have built up these fortunes through merit and hard work and enterprise fills me with hope and ambition, no longer do we have Lords and Earls being created and fortunes granted at the whim of an Autocrat, and, crucially, we don't live in a society where every one is a drone, a worker ant, plugging away at a factory all day to earn a pittance with the majority going to the state and the state officials, with no hope of escape from the drudgery unless you join the Party, and you can't speak out because the NKVD may come a knockin'. The kind of society where anyone can, and has, made it and anyone can aspire to greatness such like deciding where to place your newly found £1,200,000,000.

THAT is my idealism.

Gillandi Posted on 21/10 21:29
re: Boiling Blood

"I agree with your points - all well made with no abuse."


Shame you couldn't take a leaf out of his book Maninmboro, you patronising donkey dongler.


Moxzin - You advocate human exploitation in the far east and eastern europe then?






--- Post edited by Gillandi on 21/10 21:34 ---

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 21:33
re: Boiling Blood

I mean, God, you have to lose your principles and idealism to "grow up", don't you? BOLLOX. What we DO gain as we get older is bitterness. Bitterness at the crap lies we hear from the ruling elite who think they know what's best for all of us (as long as they keep their position protected). Bitterness at finding out that opportunity isn't really freely available, because capitalism makes more losers than it does winners. Bitterness at realising that the only thing that matters is money, money, money, and screw anyone and anything that gets in the way of the margin. And most of all, bitterness at government by corrupt, corporate-lead politicians who spin and lie and hope we keep watching the X-factor so we don't notice what they're really doing. You'd better believe it.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 21/10 21:36 ---

moxzin Posted on 21/10 21:40
re: Boiling Blood

Gillandi I believe firmly that the consumer controls everything. Therefore if Arcadia produce clothes in the far east there are two things at work here. Firstly, the countries they will operate in won't force people to work at these factories (generally speaking). Therefore there is a degree of choice involved in taking a job at an Arcadian producer. Arcadian pay may be poor by our standards, but if the job is paying better than farming, say, people choose to go and work for them. But its not an ideal situation, but don't blame western companies, blame the poor GDP's and currencies of the nations that allow this to happen.

But the most important thing about this is us, the Arcadian customers. If we buy products willingly and knowledgeably from far eastern sources we know to be suspect we are endorsing that practice. In the free market, consumer is king. If the majority of customers didn't want their products to be made in sweatshops, they would stop buying products from there and companies would have to stop the practice and would instead market their goods from an ethical working standpoint.

But because the majority of people it seems are happy to pay up for these products, companies will keep doing it and countries will keep allowing it to happen.

Its up to us, no-one else, to stop buying, and corporations will follow our tunes like the pied piper NOT the other way around.

But if we mandate these companies to exploit people and resources because we demand cheap goods, we have no-one to blame but ourselves.

Link: ignore this one

Sceptic_Frank Posted on 21/10 21:40
re: Boiling Blood

What is with the idea that if you think he should pay tax, then you must therefore hate people who are successful? No one has suggested this anywhere in this thread. I hate the patronising dismisal of it being a 'lefty-student' argument. It's just a cheap attempt to discredit valid points.

Similarly there's an arrogance in the notion that it's not 'living in the real world' or it's naive idealism to think that he might pay. Kilburn's last post seems perfectly logical and reasonable. Why is it considered so wrong to have morals?

The_Commisar Posted on 21/10 21:42
re: Boiling Blood

So Jimmy, you want to dear down the wlls of socoety, have a revolution and replace what we have with another set of politicians ? Hopefully they will follow and appreciate the LJ party line, and you will gain your opportunity to become first amongst equals ?

At the end of the day you are scathing in your criticism of the current political set up, yet the alternative so pushed by the left is no better, and in many ways worse.

For every person who hates the right, the libertarian view, you'll find one that suffered worse under the left.

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 21:45
re: Boiling Blood

Touchy touchy.

Put the guardian down and stop reading those pontificating gucci-socialist types.

FFS - I guy does well from taking massive risks and then reaps the rwards. Big deal. It goes on, has been for years and will do for many more - it is called life. We all worship Gibbo but using parallels with him were soon dismissed.

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 21:46
re: Boiling Blood

So we should just shut up and put up, Commi? Accept the lesser of many evils (if it is that)? There's no magic answer. Power corrupts, that's why socialism didn't work. But capitalism sure ain't working for billions on the planet. But, hey, I'm alright Jack, screw everyone else. I wish I could think like that. I wish I was happy watching the X-factor and aspiring to have a better TV, but I can't. I'm cursed.

And manimboro, I hope you enjoy your Daily Mail-tainted existence. Yeah, we can use cheap shots too.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 21/10 21:48 ---

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 21/10 21:48 ---

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 21:50
re: Boiling Blood

It's cheaper shyte than the guardian.

Sceptic_Frank Posted on 21/10 21:54
re: Boiling Blood

I don't read the Guardian, I've never been on a anti-capitalism, anti-war march and I don't, and have never, worn a Che Guevara t-shirt Hope that's dispelled a few stereotypes.

He took risks, he earnt a huge amount of money. I can only congratulate him on that. I admire people who generate self-made fortunes.

How any of this means he should be exempt from paying a contribution to the society in which he made his millions is beyond me.

The_Commisar Posted on 21/10 21:54
re: Boiling Blood

LJ, no we do not put up and shut up, but believing in some myth called socialism does no one any good, it had it's day, we took from it what was good, we now need to realise that it is no longer relevant, Marx and Engels (?SP) were writing about a time long gone, a time when the world was entirely different to what we have now.

If Socialism was that good, why did so many people get killed by it, not of poverty, but cold blooded murder ?

Is socialism just a replacement for some god you no longer believe in ?
Will a great leader emerge who will take us all to some socialist future ? I think not.

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 21:57
re: Boiling Blood

It mentioned above that he pays corporation tax and tax on dividends - .......since when has the tax man been kind?

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 22:01
re: Boiling Blood

How can you say Socialism killed people? It was the people in power, corrupted by the power, who killed so they could remain in power. There is no part of the system of socialism that instructs its users to kill. It's like saying religion kills people. It doesn't. People kill people in the name of religion.

And as long as we continue to vote for the main political parties in the voting system we have, we ARE putting up and shutting up. The people no longer rule. Big Corporations do. And nothing you can say will make me believe otherwise.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 21/10 22:03 ---

littlejimmy Posted on 21/10 22:06
re: Boiling Blood

Anyway, I'm going to bed. I've got a stinking cold and the wife's watching some mind-numbing crap about Jordan and Peter fooking Andre. FFS.

maninmboro Posted on 21/10 22:09
re: Boiling Blood

On that note LJ you have thankfully killed this thread. Thank god!

Gillandi Posted on 21/10 22:37
re: Boiling Blood

Fuctifino what any of this has got to to do with socialism. Tax avoidance and fair trading isn't it?


Mox "Its up to us, no-one else, to stop buying, and corporations will follow our tunes like the pied piper NOT the other way around."

You a big supporter of the volunteers who distribute educational leaflets about fair trading outside non ETI high street stores then?





--- Post edited by Gillandi on 21/10 22:51 ---

Eddie_Catflap Posted on 21/10 23:25
re: Boiling Blood

I believe in the Google way - You can make money without doing evil (that's not to say they don't avoid tax mind). I'll pay all my tax when I become a billionaire.

Chutney Posted on 21/10 23:32
re: Boiling Blood

How about a bit of clarification?

1) Condemning someone for exploiting the law to legally avoid tax - yup, I condemned that.

2) Condemning someone for making an awful lot of money - no siree, never said that, you know I didn't and you can't prove that I did.

To all those who've taken issue with my stance on point (1) - thanks for the debate, all views welcome.

To all those who've tried to lob sentiment (2) into my line of argument - you're lying and your deceit means you lose. Sit down and shut up.

And mox - I know you're an idealist, I only said that to make sure I got an answer. I'd still take issue with the "like everyone should" comment though. What's with all this "should"? Who are you to judge what our aspirations "should" be?


Deceit with a "p"??? Sort it out, Chuts.

--- Post edited by Chutney on 21/10 23:38 ---

Revol_Tees Posted on 21/10 23:36
re: Boiling Blood

Gillandi


"Its up to us, no-one else, to stop buying, and corporations will follow our tunes like the pied piper NOT the other way around."

Damn right. I think mox has arrived at the right conclusion by accident, as Winston Churchill would say.

Lefty3668 Posted on 22/10 10:49
re: Boiling Blood

Sparky, I've just read that link about Britains Richest Man.

Wow.

Three things struck me.

1) What an absolutely fantastic piece of investigative journalism.
2) What brilliance by the man in question and his lawyers/accountants.

3) The other thing that struck me was the words of that judge

Years ago, the law lords pointed their judicial finger at the moral ambiguity of lawful tax avoidance. Lord Simon declared: "Of recent years, much ingenuity has been expended in certain quarters in attempting to devise methods of disposition of income by which those who were prepared to adopt them might enjoy the benefits of residence in this country ... without sharing in the appropriate burden of British taxation.
"Judicial dicta may be cited which point out that, however elaborate and artificial such methods may be, those who adopt them are 'entitled' to do so. There is, of course, no doubt that they are within their legal rights but that is no reason why their efforts, or those of the professional gentlemen who assist them in the matter, should be regarded as a commendable exercise of ingenuity or as a discharge of the duties of good citizenship. On the contrary, one result of such methods, if they succeed, is of course to increase pro tanto the load of tax on the shoulders of the great body of good citizens who do not desire or do not know how to adopt these manoeuvres."

That is pretty much what I and many others have been arguing on this thread.

I could argue with such a lot of what has been said on this thread since I logged off yesterday but, where to start?!!

The point I will make though - I don't think it has been made but apologies if I missed it - is about this risk business that Green undertook.

When he invested his money in the shares of the company he wasn't risking that much because the value of the assets - premises etc. - was extremely high, so he was always likely to get most of his money back. Why do you think he got backing - because the risk wasn't that high.

It is like the bookies giving you evens on Chelsea to win the title right now, but if they don't manage it then them guaranteeing to refund 80% of the stake money. We'd all take that bet wouldn't we? Its just we'd struggle to raise the £850m minimum bet.