Showing posts with label tax affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax affairs. Show all posts

Thursday, 20 January 2011

Just imagine...

There are some subjects on which the Murdoch press is on incredibly shaky ground. For some reason known only to Dominic Mohan, the Sun's editor, he's decided to dedicate an editorial to exactly one of those topics:

Taxing times

CONGRATULATIONS to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. They hope to recover up to £3billion from tax dodging accounts over the next five years. And that's JUST from tiny Liechtenstein.

Just imagine how much they would net if they managed to claw back ALL the money stashed in illegal accounts around the world.

It would be enough to pay off a big part of the debt that is making life tough for almost everyone.

Yesterday's jobless figures, showing the total soaring 49,000 to 2.5million were causing "huge concern".

So with bankers sticking two fingers up to the rest of us again over massive bonuses, it's hardly surprising that - for once - we are all cheering the taxman.

Yes, just imagine! The leader does rather hedge its bets: it talks of both tax dodging accounts and illegal accounts. While outright tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance itself is not. Tax avoidance is something News Corporation, the Sun's parent company has in the past been incredibly proficient at: from around 1988 to 1999 Rupert Murdoch's main British holding company paid no net corporation tax, saving a total sum of around £350 million. Were Murdoch to be generous and magnanimous enough in this country's hour of need to turn over a similar amount, it would at the least ensure that some of the harshest cuts being made, such as the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, could be either curtailed or dropped entirely. After all, we are - for once - cheering the taxman!

Wednesday, 8 July 2009

Michael Caine - in two minds

Wading through ankle deep through the shite that is the Sun, I came across an article dated 21 March by Michael Caine.
It's about the he was filming then, about an old widower ex-marine whos' only friend gets murdered by drug gangs and then take the law into his own hands and starts killing the gang members one by one in revenge.

The title in the URL is 'Michael Caine on Broken Britian', and the tie in there is that the film is based on reality. Apparently the makers, just like those of Slumdog Millionaire that used children from the real slum of Mumbai, used real youngsters from London estates. Whether those kids were real gangsters, which to make the comparison with Slumdog would need to be the case is not mentioned.

Anyway, apart from pointing out how wrong Michael is about the gangster of days gone by being gentlemen and not using guns and knives, there is a point to this post that your reading.

Michael, in March, says...
"You don't have to go to Mumbai to find slums.

"I am always looking for something to stretch me as an actor, and this film does it. It is also about something that interests me - the kids on the sink estates. We are all sort of responsible for them being there.

"Their family let them down, the education system let them down, the Government let them down.

"In other words, we all let them down, and that's why they are like they are."


"We all let them down"

In April Michael is all for throwing in the towel and turning his back on the place...
“We’ve got three and a half million layabouts on benefits and I’m 76 and getting up at 6am to go to work to keep them,” says the star of Billion Dollar Brain.

Sir Michael will move to America rather than pay more than half his earnings in tax to bail out these scroungers.


If Michael cares that much about the youngsters of these estates, why would he bugger off and desert them because of a mere 5% rise in tax. He might have a £45m fortune, but he is not going to be taxed at 50% on all of that as it isn't income. Also, if he isn't funnelling as much as he can through a tax haven, then he's probably the only millionaire that isn't.

S'funny how people can change their view so much in a month, isn't it.

Friday, 5 June 2009

It's a hard life

One of Roy Greenslades commentors pointed him in the direction of Tatler magazine. The particular piece in the mag is not online, but it is all about Rebekah Wade and her husband-to-be, Charlie Brooks.
So from Tatler via Roy...

When Charlie Brooks wakes up in the mornings at his barn in Oxfordshire, he likes nothing better than to fly to Venice from Oxford airport with his soon-to-be-wife Rebekah Wade, the dazzling redhead editor of The Sun, for lunch at Harry's Bar.

Later in the day, after shopping and sightseeing, the couple fly back to London for dinner at Wiltons in Jermyn Street.
...
When they're not in Venice, Charlie and Rebekah go on holiday with the Freuds on their boat... the Oppenheim Turners at their house in St Tropez... and with the Daventrys in the country.

They spend their weekdays at their flat in Chelsea Harbour... and weekends at their two-bedroom taupe-painted barn outside Chipping Norton... [where] a portrait of Rebekah by artist Jonathan Yeo, flame-haired and smiling, sits almost forgotten against a side wall...

Their weekend routine includes shopping at Daylesford, the most extravagant supermarket in England. They call it 'the mothership'... On Sundays they throw the occasional lunch for 20.


Tax cuts for the rich, anyone?

Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Have we got tax for you.

Another day, yet another editorial in the Sun demanding an immediate election. It's worth a mention though because it brings up a subject which the paper very rarely touches on, for good reason:

We cannot continue with a Cabinet - and a Shadow Cabinet - whose members have so many questions over their own tax affairs.

Can the Sun really start talking about tax affairs when Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation as a whole are such notorious tax evaders? Actually, perhaps it's a good idea - if the Sun starts deciding that the tax affairs of politicians are important, then it's surely time that we start asking why and how Murdoch and his papers should have such influence over our politics when they do everything they can to avoid paying their own fair share, while of course lambasting other organisations, such as the BBC, that are funded by taxpayers and which stand in their way of further business opportunities. One can't help but feel that maybe the leader writer might be getting a pointer in not mentioning such sensitive subjects in the future...

Wednesday, 29 April 2009

Defending the rich

Trevor Kavanagh has a piece in the Sun, published on Monday just gone (27/04) full of woe for Alistair Darlings budget.

It was a silly budget because now not only is everyone going to lose their jobs but all the wealth creators are going to flee:
The Budget is less than a week old and already Britain’s wealth creators are deserting the sinking ship.

The Sunday Times’ latest Rich List shows our star earners have lost hundreds of millions. Why would they stay in a hostile tax environment?

And what about those who simply aspire to be in that Rich List some day? It’s not just so-called fat cats who are leaving.

Queues are forming for visas to Australia, Canada and the USA.


Wow. I'm not much into finance myself, but that sounds like a seriously rubbish budget.
The examples that Trevor chooses to use to highlight the plight of the poor little rich boys are, erm, dubious at best: Michael Caine, actor and all round national treasure; Tony Blair, ex-Prime Minister now peace envoy to the middle east on behalf of The Quartet,palm greaser special advisor for Morgan Stanley and after dinner/public speaker; Richard Branson, industrialist and the only real wealth creator out of the three.

First off, Michael Caine:
“We’ve got three and a half million layabouts on benefits and I’m 76 and getting up at 6am to go to work to keep them,” says the star of Billion Dollar Brain.

Sir Michael will move to America rather than pay more than half his earnings in tax to bail out these scroungers.

“I will not pay the Government more than I get. No way, ever,” he says.

Does anyone care about an actor packing up his £45million fortune and leaving in a huff?

Micheal is indeed 76 and probably does get up at 6 am to go to work, but he isn't going to work to keep anybody. Trevor points out Michael has a £45 million fortune so if he is still working way past the age when ordinary people are wanting to, if not able to, retire he is doing it out of love for his profession. An actor doesn't really create employment, like a businessman might.
Michael owns and co-owns a few restaurants in Britain, about 5 I think, and a couple of other countries. So not exactly a big employer there either.

Tony Blair, is an ex PM and is not really what you could call a wealth creator either, beyond his office staff. He makes his money from advising Morgan Stanley and giving speeches. He is now an employee, not an employer.

Richard Branson is a slightly different kettle of fish. Branson is a true entrepreneur, starting with nothing and working his way to where he is now but selling and trading and starting companies and building a group of companies. The only good example here.

It's not too good overall so far, 1 good example out of 3. That score gets worse when you consider:
Sir Richard Branson has a complicated series of offshore trusts and companies that own his business empire. Branson, whose wealth is calculated at £3,065m, pays relatively little tax as his wealth is tied up in these companies.

It means that when he retires, he could move abroad — to the island he owns in the Caribbean — and liquidate his assets virtually tax-free.


and I would bet that Michael and Tony have very compentent accountants to help minimise their tax burden.

The Sun is asking the reader to i) feel sorry for rich people that can and do avoid paying their full share of tax and ii) fear for the future of the country by screaming about the flight of wealth creators by using examples of extremely wealthy people that either do not create wealth or avoid paying their taxes.
If these three do leave, their businesses won't. Michaels restaurants are profitable and Virgin isn't just going to up sticks and go and Tony will look a right arse if he turns his back on Britain.
So if these guys do go they will still employ people here who have no choice but to stay andpay their taxes.

Hmmm. I wonder what how much Trevor earns...?