Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Thanks, I was due to go out, but change of plan, other than Silverstone, is it
the only live race they've shown this season?
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
On 14:02 12 Dec 2021, MB said:
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
It wouldn't be so monotonous if there was a bit more overtaking.
As far as I can tell, the general idea is for viewers to wait until a
mistake is made -- but that can take half a hour.
On 12/12/2021 14:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Thanks, I was due to go out, but change of plan, other than
Silverstone, is it the only live race they've shown this season?
Didn't they show the British GP live?
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
In article <sp4vu5$ub1$[email protected]>, Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 12/12/2021 14:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Thanks, I was due to go out, but change of plan, other than
Silverstone, is it the only live race they've shown this season?
Didn't they show the British GP live?
that was at Silverstone
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
On 12/12/2021 14:20, Pamela wrote:
On 14:02 12 Dec 2021, MB said:
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
It wouldn't be so monotonous if there was a bit more overtaking.
As far as I can tell, the general idea is for viewers to wait until a mistake is made -- but that can take half a hour.
For once this has been an exciting GP, and is going right up to the line.
Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 12/12/2021 14:20, Pamela wrote:
On 14:02 12 Dec 2021, MB said:
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now. >>>>
It wouldn't be so monotonous if there was a bit more overtaking.
As far as I can tell, the general idea is for viewers to wait until a
mistake is made -- but that can take half a hour.
For once this has been an exciting GP, and is going right up to the line.
What a pity it had such a farcical finish.
On 12/12/2021 14:02, MB wrote:
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:It doesn't concern you then!
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
On 12/12/2021 01:17 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
What about of us who couldn't care less?
On 12/12/2021 02:02 pm, MB wrote:
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
+1.
On 12/12/2021 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2021 01:17 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
What about of us who couldn't care less?
You seem to care a bit, you've made two contributions to this thread
already
On 12/12/2021 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2021 01:17 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
What about of us who couldn't care less?
You seem to care a bit, you've made two contributions to this thread
already
On 12/12/2021 04:38 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
On 12/12/2021 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2021 01:17 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
What about of us who couldn't care less?
You seem to care a bit, you've made two contributions to this thread already
Only to point out the mistake of thinking that everyone is interested in sport, let alone in the more boring sports.
On 12/12/2021 14:20, Pamela wrote:
On 14:02 12 Dec 2021, MB said:
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on
now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
It wouldn't be so monotonous if there was a bit more overtaking.
As far as I can tell, the general idea is for viewers to wait until
a mistake is made -- but that can take half a hour.
For once this has been an exciting GP, and is going right up to the
line.
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
--
Jeff
On 14:27 12 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
On 12/12/2021 14:20, Pamela wrote:
On 14:02 12 Dec 2021, MB said:
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on
now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
It wouldn't be so monotonous if there was a bit more overtaking.
As far as I can tell, the general idea is for viewers to wait until
a mistake is made -- but that can take half a hour.
For once this has been an exciting GP, and is going right up to the
line.
What exactly is the attraction? I have tried watching but it's so monotonous. Nothing happens.
On 14:02 12 Dec 2021, MB said:
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.
It wouldn't be so monotonous if there was a bit more overtaking.
As far as I can tell, the general idea is for viewers to wait until a
mistake is made -- but that can take half a hour.
Is this not the fault of the circuit designers though? If there were more overtaking opportunities then there would be some racing, at the moment it seems that defensive driving can in effect keep faster cars and drivers out of the picture.
Maybe each car should have its own lane.
I'm surprised by now they have not simply moved the drivers to a studio and >let them drive the cars remotely.
Brian
Yes well, Its all gone mega commercial these days.
There's a near equivalent of this already in the many online channels
showing people playing computer games. I don't understand the appeal
of it myself, but it seems to be popular. Think about it - you're
watching somebody on a screen who's watching somebody on a screen, who
isn't really there. If the on-screen game that the on-screen players
were playing were a car racing game, the result would be pretty much
what you describe - and what difference would it really make to the
viewers at home whether or not the cars were real?
On 13/12/2021 08:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Yes well, Its all gone mega commercial these days.
I remember one report explaining how the drivers are sponsored by a
number of companies so will wear one cap when they take off their helmet
off, then change to another when they get out of the car, another when
they go up on the podium etc etc!
Just gets very silly.
On 13/12/2021 08:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Yes well, Its all gone mega commercial these days.
I remember one report explaining how the drivers are sponsored by a
number of companies so will wear one cap when they take off their helmet
off, then change to another when they get out of the car, another when
they go up on the podium etc etc!
Just gets very silly.
On 12/12/2021 16:38, Mark Carver wrote:
On 12/12/2021 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2021 01:17 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
What about of us who couldn't care less?
You seem to care a bit, you've made two contributions to this thread
already
I think that taking the trouble to say you aren't interested in
something is weird. I mean, I'm not interested in nearly everything but
I don't trawl the internet commenting "I'm not interested in New Zealand tiddlywinks competitions," or "I'm not interested in the history of
Etruscan pottery."
"And what are you interested in?"
"I'm really interested in saying I'm not interested when people say
anything whatsoever."
Bill
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 17:53:44 +0000, williamwright wrote:
On 12/12/2021 16:38, Mark Carver wrote:
On 12/12/2021 14:36, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2021 01:17 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now. >>>>What about of us who couldn't care less?
You seem to care a bit, you've made two contributions to this thread
already
I think that taking the trouble to say you aren't interested in
something is weird. I mean, I'm not interested in nearly everything but
I don't trawl the internet commenting "I'm not interested in New Zealand
tiddlywinks competitions," or "I'm not interested in the history of
Etruscan pottery."
"And what are you interested in?"
"I'm really interested in saying I'm not interested when people say
anything whatsoever."
Bill
How did your neighbour's son get on Bill..?
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman
<[email protected]d>
wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Only if they pay enough.
On 13/12/2021 08:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Yes well, Its all gone mega commercial these days.
I remember one report explaining how the drivers are sponsored by a
number of companies so will wear one cap when they take off their helmet
off, then change to another when they get out of the car, another when
they go up on the podium etc etc!
Just gets very silly.
Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Martin wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
I ask again ... cite?
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:20:02 +0000, Andy Burns <[email protected]>
wrote:
Martin wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
I ask again ... cite?
Well after discussing this with a few dozen people the consensus is
now that F1 has become a soap opera which is really in the domain of
Ch4 and none of us will be paying any premium to watch soap.
And they/we won't bother watching the soap if they know the
manipulated storylines so it has to be live to maintain some semblance
of suspense.
Masi has dramatically devalued the franchise with decisions he's
invented this season and sponsors are already looking at their
options.
--
AnthonyL
Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?
In article <sp729c$ja4$[email protected]>,
MB <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/12/2021 08:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Yes well, Its all gone mega commercial these days.
I remember one report explaining how the drivers are sponsored by a
number of companies so will wear one cap when they take off their helmet
off, then change to another when they get out of the car, another when
they go up on the podium etc etc!
Just gets very silly.
I can remember seeing a film crew with Velcro patches on their jackets.
They then attached the relevant company logo.
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> >> wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Only if they pay enough.
On 14/12/2021 11:32, alan_m wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:There's no way they can afford it. If Sky do lose it, it'll be going to >Amazon or Netflix, not any UK PSBs
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman
<[email protected]d>
wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Only if they pay enough.
In article <sp729c$ja4$[email protected]>, MB <[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/12/2021 08:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Yes well, Its all gone mega commercial these days.
I remember one report explaining how the drivers are sponsored by a
number of companies so will wear one cap when they take off their helmet
off, then change to another when they get out of the car, another when
they go up on the podium etc etc!
Just gets very silly.
I stopped watching 'sports' like F1 many decades ago as they seemed boring
to me. Albeit they may be enjoyable by drivers. If so, good luck to them.
However what I did find weird was now learning that - apparently - when the >'safety car' comes out and the contestants have to queue up behind it, no >account is taken if one was many seconds behind the other just beforehand, >and hence this difference then gets 'lost' when the 'safety car' leaves.
To me that seems daft. I'd have assumed they had a way to add a 'handicap >time' to each car. One which perhaps was then reduced by X seconds per
later lap so it was gradually smoothed away. Lacking this it becomes in the >interest of someone well behind in 2nd or 3rd position to have their team
or a mate engineer an event that causes a 'safety car' episode and lets
then 'catch up'. Failing that, you may as well throw dice to decide who >'won'.
For me, just underlined how daft it was - except perhaps for those who make >loadsamoney from the racing regardless of who wins any individual race.
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:32:33 +0000, alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:According to this only Ziggo hold the NL rights.
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:In The Netherlands next year not only will the biggest cable company, Ziggo, provide full F1 coverage at no extra cost as they did this year, but public service broadcaster NOS will too. Are the Dutch getting a bargain or is somebody
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> >>> wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Only if they pay enough.
UK exaggerating the cost?
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> >> wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Only if they pay enough.
I can remember seeing a film crew with Velcro patches on their jackets.
They then attached the relevant company logo.
Martin <[email protected]d> wrote:
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Only if they pay enough.
Whoever buys Channel 4 will pay the billI read speculation somewhere that the existing C4 board were
contemplating signing up for expensive FI coverage as a means
of poisoning the proposed forced sale of the channel.
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:32:33 +0000, alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> >> wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Only if they pay enough.
Whoever buys Channel 4 will pay the bill
On 15/12/2021 13:34, :
I can remember seeing a film crew with Velcro patches on their jackets. They then attached the relevant company logo.
We were issued with jackets at work with company name held by Velcro so
it was easy to change each they changed the company name. :-)
PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it would
not show any sports?
The mere prospect of a sale should be enough to steer Bernie E
towards Sky Sports, Netflix or Amazon.
JNugent wrote:
The mere prospect of a sale should be enough to steer Bernie E
who he?
towards Sky Sports, Netflix or Amazon.
Sky seem to have live F1 exclusives in most of europe, with local
broadcaster getting their own country's local race
On 15/12/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it would
not show any sports?
No, your memory is very faulty. C4 from the very outset showed sports,
sports that BBC and ITV had ignored.
Notably American Football.
Although in 1983 ITV persuaded the IBA to let them palm Horse Racing off
onto them on weekdays, (but it only displaced the test card anyway).
On 15/12/2021 03:07 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
On 15/12/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it
would not show any sports?
No, your memory is very faulty. C4 from the very outset showed
sports, sports that BBC and ITV had ignored.
Notably American Football.
When did that start? It wasn't in 1982 - was it?
[Fancy "ignoring" American football!]
Although in 1983 ITV persuaded the IBA to let them palm Horse Racing
off onto them on weekdays, (but it only displaced the test card anyway).
That was when the ITV companies still had a certain amount of control
over C4, wasn't it?
On 15/12/2021 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/12/2021 03:07 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
On 15/12/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it
would not show any sports?
No, your memory is very faulty. C4 from the very outset showed
sports, sports that BBC and ITV had ignored.
Notably American Football.
When did that start? It wasn't in 1982 - was it?
Nov 2nd 1982
[Fancy "ignoring" American football!]
Although in 1983 ITV persuaded the IBA to let them palm Horse Racing
off onto them on weekdays, (but it only displaced the test card anyway).
That was when the ITV companies still had a certain amount of control
over C4, wasn't it?
They had to finance C4 from their own pockets. In exchange for that,
they sold and transmitted the ads on C4 in their own regions.
That arrangement lasted until Jan 1993, and in effect it made the
channel 'ITV 2' in all but name (However, still with the IBA waving
their stick)
That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
When did they start their American football relays?
On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
When did they start their American football relays?
It was the first weekend that month (Nov 6/7th) I think, but certainly
they started at some point in Nov 1982
Yes I'm waiting for F1 drone racing as we speak, or how about submarine racing? Brian
On 15/12/2021 04:49 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
When did they start their American football relays?
It was the first weekend that month (Nov 6/7th) I think, but certainly
they started at some point in Nov 1982
Really?
I am sure that my memory of Mr Isaacs declaring that there would be no
sport on Four is not a faulty one.
On 15/12/2021 04:49 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
When did they start their American football relays?
It was the first weekend that month (Nov 6/7th) I think, but
certainly they started at some point in Nov 1982
Really?
I am sure that my memory of Mr Isaacs declaring that there would be no
sport on Four is not a faulty one.
The main 'feature' of F1 racing that I've been aware of in recent years has been the reports wrt the main British driver has been described as
arranging his income and weath to dodge UK tax. Yet gets presented as the 'British' driver to admire.
Maybe the TV presenters do much the same, and see this as part of being 'British'. The ultra-wealthy do seem to treat tax-dodging as a 'sport'. or 'race' to see who can get the most money out of sight as fast as possible. 8-]
JNugent wrote:
The mere prospect of a sale should be enough to steer Bernie E
who he?
towards Sky Sports, Netflix or Amazon.
Sky seem to have live F1 exclusives in most of europe, with local broadcaster >getting their own country's local race
On 15/12/2021 13:39, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:32:33 +0000, alan_m <[email protected]> wrote: >>According to this only Ziggo hold the NL rights.
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:In The Netherlands next year not only will the biggest cable company, Ziggo, >> provide full F1 coverage at no extra cost as they did this year, but public >> service broadcaster NOS will too. Are the Dutch getting a bargain or is somebody
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <[email protected]d> >>>> wrote:
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now. >>>> Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
Only if they pay enough.
UK exaggerating the cost?
https://www.sportingfree.com/f1/formula-1-tv-channels-list/
Have you got a link to the NOS deal, if they have live FTA coverage, why >would anybody watch on Ziggo� ?
Andy Burns wrote:
Sky seem to have live F1 exclusives in most of europe, with local broadcaster
getting their own country's local race
All F1 races are shown live in both The Netherlands and Germany by local broadcasters.
Nov 2nd 1982
That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
We were issued with jackets at work with company name held by Velcro so
it was easy to change each they changed the company name.
On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
Nov 2nd 1982
That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
C4 transmitted a test card on ch41 from Emley Moor for a year. The
modulators in VCRs mostly covered that channel, and it was surprising
how many of them used it. A bit chaotic when the test card started.
During that year the guy who had the contract to service the communal TV systems for one of the local councils went round fitting notch filters
at the head-ends to kill ch41. When programmes started and tenants
complained of poor or no reception of the new channel he charged £15 PER DWELLING to 'add equipment to enable reception of Channel Four'. Not
bad, £15 x 14 per 14 block, £15 x 60 per 60 block, etc.
On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
Nov 2nd 1982
That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
C4 transmitted a test card on ch41 from Emley Moor for a year. The
modulators in VCRs mostly covered that channel, and it was surprising
how many of them used it. A bit chaotic when the test card started.
In The Netherlands next year not only will the biggest cable company, Ziggo,
provide full F1 coverage at no extra cost as they did this year, but public >>> service broadcaster NOS will too. Are the Dutch getting a bargain or is somebody
UK exaggerating the cost?
Have you got a link to the NOS deal, if they have live FTA coverage, why
would anybody watch on Ziggo ?
NOS are doing Zandvoort F! live and summaries of the rest; similar to Channel 4
with British F1. Ziggo are doing all races. I can't explain why NOS are doing this.
On 15/12/2021 12:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The main 'feature' of F1 racing that I've been aware of in recent
years has been the reports wrt the main British driver has been
described as arranging his income and weath to dodge UK tax. Yet gets presented as the 'British' driver to admire.
Maybe the TV presenters do much the same, and see this as part of
being 'British'. The ultra-wealthy do seem to treat tax-dodging as a 'sport'. or 'race' to see who can get the most money out of sight as
fast as possible. 8-]
Nothing wrong with any of that.
We all sell our labour to the highest bidder. At least that's what those
of us with any sense do. I think it's strange that in a capitalist
society some people think that individuals should display philanthropy
by voluntarily missing out on opportunities to amass capital. There's
nothing clever or moral about leaving yourself short.
If I excelled at anything to the extent that I could corner a market I'd exploit the situation to the max. Then I'd have the option of
philanthropic giving according to my own judgement.
Bill
On 16/12/2021 13:49, williamwright wrote:
On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
Nov 2nd 1982
That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
C4 transmitted a test card on ch41 from Emley Moor for a year. The
modulators in VCRs mostly covered that channel, and it was surprising
how many of them used it. A bit chaotic when the test card started.
Also, I gather NRK in Norway contacted the IBA, because it was causing
CCI on the input feed to one of their relays.
Not if*you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling up',
etc, that Tax is used for.
Mind you the Norwegians were always a mardy lot. Didn't they have a
moan about Bilsdale at one point?
On 17/12/2021 05:33, williamwright wrote:
Quite possibly, but then so did Yorkshire TV !
Mind you the Norwegians were always a mardy lot. Didn't they have a
moan about Bilsdale at one point?
On 16/12/2021 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Not if*you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling
up', etc, that Tax is used for.
It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
tax efficient.
It's a characteristic of the left to regard personal
morality as being more important than simple compliance to the tax laws.
If it's wrong what the rich kids do, the law should be changed.
On 17/12/2021 05:33, williamwright wrote:
Mind you the Norwegians were always a mardy lot. Didn't they have a
moan about Bilsdale at one point?
Quite possibly, but then so did Yorkshire TV !
In article <[email protected]>, williamwright <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16/12/2021 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Not if*you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling
up', etc, that Tax is used for.
It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
tax efficient.
OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume you
can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
It's a characteristic of the left to regard personal
morality as being more important than simple compliance to the tax laws.
Nice use of "compliance" there. :-) cf below...
If it's wrong what the rich kids do, the law should be changed.
The snag being that the 'law' and its application is largely decided by the "rich kids" and their chumocracy. Yes, the law *should* be changed. That's been true for decades. But for some odd reason those who gain power and
weath seem to forget this once they have gained the wealth and power. Odd, eh?...
If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the 1980s.
It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's beingOK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume you
tax efficient.
can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the 1980s.
On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who'sOK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume
being tax efficient.
you can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
No, re-read what I said.
UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.
Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
1980s.
Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats because they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as income or wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top x%" are just for those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.
The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the UK'
by means other than a 'salary', etc.
OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport, but then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay in, say, a big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they 'visit' the UK. They have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK company holds the wealth
and gets any income - using tax dodges that make it seem like 'costs' for
any UK arm.
e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners. Big examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and 'chemists' shop chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the profits go abroad.
The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and then 'visit' the UK to
use property owned abroad.
UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.
No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...
Jim
In article <[email protected]>, williamwright <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
No, re-read what I said.It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who'sOK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume
being tax efficient.
you can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
OK< so you're NOT happy about this. So what do you propose we do to change the situation?
Jim
On 18/12/2021 10:43 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since
the 1980s.
Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats
because they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as income or wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top
x%" are just for those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.
The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the
UK' by means other than a 'salary', etc.
OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport,
but then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay
in, say, a big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they
'visit' the UK. They have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK company holds the wealth and gets any income - using tax dodges that
make it seem like 'costs' for any UK arm.
e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners.
Big examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and
'chemists' shop chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the profits go abroad. The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and
then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad.
UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And
thus the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.
No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...
Jim
So many things which be=g other questions, but...
"...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
How does that work?
In article <[email protected]>, Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
1980s.
Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats because they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as income or wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top x%" are just for those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.
The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the UK'
by means other than a 'salary', etc.
OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport, but then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay in, say, a big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they 'visit' the UK. They have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK company holds the wealth
and gets any income - using tax dodges that make it seem like 'costs' for
any UK arm.
e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners. Big examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and 'chemists' shop chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the profits go abroad.
The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and then 'visit' the UK to
use property owned abroad.
UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.
No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 18/12/2021 10:43 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top >>>> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since
the 1980s.
Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats
because they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as
income or wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top
x%" are just for those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.
The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the
UK' by means other than a 'salary', etc.
OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport,
but then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay
in, say, a big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they
'visit' the UK. They have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK
company holds the wealth and gets any income - using tax dodges that
make it seem like 'costs' for any UK arm.
e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners.
Big examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and
'chemists' shop chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the
profits go abroad. The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and
then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad.
UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And
thus the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK
tax.
No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...
Jim
So many things which be=g other questions, but...
"...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
How does that work?
In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish Investment Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.
Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming >countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?
One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
any individual can possess.
On 19/12/2021 10:38, Roderick Stewart wrote:
One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
any individual can possess.
Could only work under a totalitarian system.
Can you imagine the reaction of all the football fans when told that all >their best players will be leaving the country?
Similarly all their favourite TV stars and pop singers.
etc etc.
So many things which be=g other questions, but...
"...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
How does that work?
I haven't said a word about whether I'm happy about it not. I said that
my happiness or otherwise is immaterial to the rich guy. He's entitled
to pay whatever tax the law demands and not a penny more.
In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish
Investment Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.
Is "this village" in the UK or abroad?
Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?
I've been encouraged by the progress made recently through the OECD with
the two-pillar plan. If you reckon the UK governments could have dealt
with it unilaterally, how?
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
So many things which be=g other questions, but...
"...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
How does that work?
IIUC the going rate for buying a UK passport is about a million quid. If
you show you've got that kind of wealth, you can get a passport. You can
then fly in and stay here. The live in a property 'owned by a company
outwith the UK'. You ensure that - so far as IRC are concerned, get no pay from any UK source. But the offshore company allows you to stay there
without charging you rent. (And of course, you own that company.)
Lots of ultra-high-worth (sic) people do this in London. There was a recent book doumenting it. I did buy a copy. I'll see if I can find it so I can
give the title and author. As books go, it is boring, but the facts it
lists are illuminating.
You can add in all the land - lots of it in Scotland - that is owned by offshore companies and then used in this way. I think some of them also
have private heliports so the 'visitors' can get to and from the local airports without having to stoop to travelling along the roads that mere 'locals' use.
Private Eye has also often documented this, and its links with the Tories. There was an interesting item on Jacob Reely-Smug in the latest issue. Byzantine financial arrangements. When it comes to tax dodging, Balony
Baffle Brains, eh? Particularly when UK Government has cut back the number
of people at IRC who can investigate. Just add in LLPs, tax havens that
fail to disclose benrficial ownership, etc. Stir to mix up an opaque soup
of tax dodging and wealth-concealment.
The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
You've missed the point, which wasn't the slightest bit complicated.
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish
Investment Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.
Is "this village" in the UK or abroad?
As an aside I can say that the Scots Government has legislated for a full *public* register of all Land Ownership which can then be scrutinised. One
of the main reasons for this is to expose where the problem exists and then deal with it. It has also passed other related legislation which at present those 'down south' can currently only dream about.
e.g. to allow groups of tenants to buy their land and cease to be tenants
of a controlling estate who charges them for the priviledge.
e.g.2. The effective abolition of what in England is 'leasehold'.
So changes *are* possible if people decide they've had enough of being
taken for mugs. You can see some examples if you just look across a close border.
Beware Lawyers and Accountants who will tell you the situation can't be improved. They may mean *their* situation, not yours! :-) Note also - as
also in the MOD - the tendency for Civil Servants to 'go native'. Also cf
PE ad Naus wrt the "Revolving Door" effect here. "Nothing can be done for
the first time!" can be a mantra that lives on long after "Yes minister".
8-]
In article <[email protected]>, Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?
Nope. Since I live in the UK (pro tem) my concern is for how people here
are being exploited via tax dodging. I'm sure similar games are deployed elsewhere as well, but that's where it becomes useful to have the various discoveries like the "Panama Papers", etc. If you look there you can
probably answer your own questions.
Yes, the ultra-wealthy do play countries off against each others. Just as
the bribe... erm support policians who let them do it. cf below...
I can say that allowing dodges like LLPs and the use of tax havens that
fail to disclose beneficial ownership need to be ended so we can get a clearer view to decide who should actually pay tax in the UK. Similarly,
I'd say that when legal eagles come up with a new 'cunning plan' to dodge
tax it should need to be 'registered' in some way which can be decided
openly by UK Government *before* it can legally be employed.
If other Governments have different ideas, that's for them to decide.
I've been encouraged by the progress made recently through the OECD with
the two-pillar plan. If you reckon the UK governments could have dealt
with it unilaterally, how?
You tell us if you have special knowledge of the area. Clearly the current system is broken, so should be changed. The corruption it breeds extends to the top - as some 'Lords' could admit if honest about how they gained
ermine!
My personal view at present is that we need a wealth tax to be applied to those who fall into the category of non-doms or visitors who 'stay' in big properties 'owned outwith the UK'. In reality the main result of the
present system is to drive up land and property prices. Which is a big problem for ordinary citizens.
CF PE Ad Naus. Write to them if it bothers you. :-)
The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
So many things which be=g other questions, but...
"...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
How does that work?
IIUC the going rate for buying a UK passport is about a million quid. If
you show you've got that kind of wealth, you can get a passport. You can
then fly in and stay here. The live in a property 'owned by a company
outwith the UK'. You ensure that - so far as IRC are concerned, get no pay from any UK source. But the offshore company allows you to stay there
without charging you rent. (And of course, you own that company.)
Lots of ultra-high-worth (sic) people do this in London. There was a recent book doumenting it. I did buy a copy. I'll see if I can find it so I can
give the title and author. As books go, it is boring, but the facts it
lists are illuminating.
You can add in all the land - lots of it in Scotland - that is owned by offshore companies and then used in this way. I think some of them also
have private heliports so the 'visitors' can get to and from the local airports without having to stoop to travelling along the roads that mere 'locals' use.
Private Eye has also often documented this, and its links with the Tories. There was an interesting item on Jacob Reely-Smug in the latest issue. Byzantine financial arrangements. When it comes to tax dodging, Balony
Baffle Brains, eh? Particularly when UK Government has cut back the number
of people at IRC who can investigate. Just add in LLPs, tax havens that
fail to disclose benrficial ownership, etc. Stir to mix up an opaque soup
of tax dodging and wealth-concealment.
The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
On 19/12/2021 10:38, Roderick Stewart wrote:
One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
any individual can possess.
Could only work under a totalitarian system.
Can you imagine the reaction of all the football fans when told that all their best players will be leaving the country?
Similarly all their favourite TV stars and pop singers.
Yes, it would have to apply to the concept of money itself, so that it applied everywhere. It wouldn't work if different countries had
different rules.
We already have some differences in the tax rules
between countries and people exploit those, so presumably they'd exploit
any other differences that they could.
But somehow we've managed to achieve international co-operation
regarding the value of money, which is effectively just tokens that
don't have any real intrinsic value, and people mostly respect that
system without the need for totalitarian government, so in theory it
should be possible to modify it to include limits.
In article <[email protected]>, williamwright <[email protected]> wrote:
I haven't said a word about whether I'm happy about it not. I said that
my happiness or otherwise is immaterial to the rich guy. He's entitled
to pay whatever tax the law demands and not a penny more.
Even when he pays the politicians to arrange that he can dodge tax, rather than contribute to when you need the NHS?
You seem remarkably devoid of any concern for the burden their behaviour dumps on others. Like the 'left behind' who need 'levelling up', not being dumped.
If so, you may be a part of the problem for those who struggle withAnd if your groundless hypothesis has no basis in fact I'm not part of
poverty, etc.
However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational TV company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now. And who knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for their favoured UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to realise that some current 'stars' cost them more than the high price of game tickets and TV viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up paying more tax and/or
having a poorer NHS, etc.
On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational TV
company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now. And who
knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for their favoured >> UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to realise that some
current 'stars' cost them more than the high price of game tickets and TV
viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up paying more tax and/or
having a poorer NHS, etc.
They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.
I suspect most here are "dodging" tax with tax relief on mortgages,
pensions etc.
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official
figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
What is wrong with that,
I doubt any of them are a drain on the NHS.
They usually provide employment in rural areas, often the main employer.
A few years ago we visited the house owned by one of wealthiest people,
there is small community around the estate with a whole range of
activities, the house is rented out some of the time when they are away,
many local businesses and craftsmen have benefited from work done there.
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking about something I didn't write.
In article <spnp1s$glk$[email protected]>, MB <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official
figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
What is wrong with that,
Un-snip what prompted the comment to find out.
"Robin" had commented that:
] If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
] 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
] 1980s.
I was respnding to that. cf below...
I doubt any of them are a drain on the NHS.
My response was that this "top 1%" don't include a group of other
ultra-rich people who for tax purposes are 'phantoms' in the UK because
they arrange for their income and wealth to all manifest *outside* the
UK - even when they live here. And they gather money from here and then
shift it abroad.
They *do* dodge the taxes that helps fund the NHS. Again, go back to what
you snipped alleging that the "top x% paid Y% of UK tax". That statement is false because many of the "top" income and wealth people hide it abroad. So don't show up on these official figures.
This has been documented multiple times by many investigative journaliists. cf PE, 'Panama Papers" etc, etc, ad naus over decades now.
The reality, as exposed in a variety of investigations, is that this loss
to us is quite substantial. So consider if they, say, had to pay up. It
might mean a similar sum to the "30%" being *added* to our tax take. That could make a dramatic impact on funding for the NHS, Social Care, or
even the much-fabled "levelling up" for those in areas of the UK where
decent jobs, housing, transport, etc, are scarce.
They usually provide employment in rural areas, often the main employer.
A few years ago we visited the house owned by one of wealthiest people,
there is small community around the estate with a whole range of
activities, the house is rented out some of the time when they are away,
many local businesses and craftsmen have benefited from work done there.
Wonderful. So how does that compare with the tax they dodge and the effect they have on lifting land and property prices in general?
Maybe hard to
answer given that the real info is hidden from us.
The problem is that
the collude with top politicians and own the newspapers, so hide in
plain sight.
Sure, *some* of the ultra-rich like to show how generous and kind they
are. But does that come close to what they'd contribute if they *all*
paid tax, etc, without the dodging? All your comment does is take us
back to the fudal system and relying on the Lord of the Manor being
a 'jolly good chap' when the feel like it.
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..." >>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and plenty of it.
On 19/12/2021 10:38, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, williamwright <[email protected]> wrote:
I haven't said a word about whether I'm happy about it not. I said
that my happiness or otherwise is immaterial to the rich guy. He's
entitled to pay whatever tax the law demands and not a penny more.
Even when he pays the politicians to arrange that he can dodge tax,
rather than contribute to when you need the NHS?
So are you saying that the government is complicit in large scale
corruption?
You seem remarkably devoid of any concern for the burden their
behaviour dumps on others. Like the 'left behind' who need 'levelling
up', not being dumped.
I haven't seen anything to show that the lawful management of tax
liability of the rich significantly impacts on the poor. You postulate a 'burden' with no evidence of its existence.
If so, you may be a part of the problem for those who struggle with poverty, etc.And if your groundless hypothesis has no basis in fact I'm not part of
the problem. In fact, I could be part of the solution. You never know...
On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational
TV company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now.
And who knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for
their favoured UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to realise that some current 'stars' cost them more than the high price
of game tickets and TV viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up paying more tax and/or having a poorer NHS, etc.
They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.
I suspect most here are "dodging" tax with tax relief on mortgages,
pensions etc.
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official
figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
A few brief points:
a. nothing new in this: much the same under Labour governments
c. the individual will pay taxes such as VAT in the UK and the company council tax or business rates
d. you omit to say what the solution is - ie what tax the UK should
charge the individual if they have no income or gains or property in the
UK. Be nice to have at least some idea.
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..." >>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or vice-versa)?
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..." >>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking >>>>> about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and >>> plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
vice-versa)?
I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
MB <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational
TV company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now.
And who knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for
their favoured UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to
realise that some current 'stars' cost them more than the high price
of game tickets and TV viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up
paying more tax and/or having a poorer NHS, etc.
They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.
They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to play
for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.
IIRC many people on this group got very angry when it was found that some
BBC people used - gasp! - this trick. Yet it seems to be fine for footballers.
I suspect most here are "dodging" tax with tax relief on mortgages,
pensions etc.
If you wish to think so, and you can at least see that and argue it should
be changed. Personally, yes, I've always found that odd given the relative lack of help for renters. But I guess this is because the British seem obsessed with owning their home in a way that some other countries are not.
The key difference is that mortgage tax relief is something everyone is
aware of and many can choose to use openly. Whereas the ultra-rich use
dodges that tend to be hidden from view anduse the law in ways many may
feel wasn't justified given that they are ultra-wealthy and would remain
so even if they paid up like most of us. The problem isn't just the tax
lost. It is that wealth goes abroad and we get effects like increased property and land prices for everyone here - which then gets partly
paid for via that mortgage tax relief. In effect we then pay out tax
money to compensate for property prices driven up by the wealthy!
Again, all hidden just under the surface appearances.
TBH I and my better half saved up money before we bought, so we got a relatively small mortgage, and haven't moved since. We didn't want to jump
on the 'bandwaggon' some friends urged us to join of repeatedly 'going up
the ladder' with the biggest possible mortgage.
As I'd suspected, that for them ended in tears in a few cases. But we paid our mortgage off as quickly as we could. Much less than the nominal term.
So probably got less tax relief than was common - before the brown stuff
hit the rotating object!
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking
about something I didn't write.
Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the
UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
and plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or vice-versa)?
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking >>>>> about something I didn't write.
Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the >>>> UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
and plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
vice-versa)?
It doesn't and nobody but yourself has memntioned property outside the UK.
On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
asking about something I didn't write.
Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in
the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
and plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK
(or vice-versa)?
I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
That's a big assumption.
On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..." >>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking >>>>> about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and >>> plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or
vice-versa)?
I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
That's a big assumption.
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property ownedYour've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK? >>>>>
asking about something I didn't write.
Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in >>>>>> the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy >>>>> and plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK
(or vice-versa)?
I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
That's a big assumption.
It's what the OP ststad.
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..." >>>>>>>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking >>>>>>> about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and >>>>> plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or >>>> vice-versa)?
I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
That's a big assumption.
To illustrate it, let's put the boot on the other foot. Let's say
that you bought a holiday home in e.g. France. The ownership of
that property resides in the UK. You then go to visit that holiday
home but pay no rent to the property owner (yourself in the UK)
for that privilege, thereby depriving the French authorities of tax
due on that foregone rental payment.
On 20/12/2021 01:53 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad.."
How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking >>>>>>> about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or >>>> vice-versa)?
I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
That's a big assumption.
To illustrate it, let's put the boot on the other foot. Let's say
that you bought a holiday home in e.g. France. The ownership of
that property resides in the UK. You then go to visit that holiday
home but pay no rent to the property owner (yourself in the UK)
for that privilege, thereby depriving the French authorities of tax
due on that foregone rental payment.
But I would never say that I was visiting the UK in order to visit
property owned abroad.
BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 01:53 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 01:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad.."
How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking >>>>>>>>> about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK (or >>>>>> vice-versa)?
I presume that the ownership is abroad rather than the property.
That's a big assumption.
To illustrate it, let's put the boot on the other foot. Let's say
that you bought a holiday home in e.g. France. The ownership of
that property resides in the UK. You then go to visit that holiday
home but pay no rent to the property owner (yourself in the UK)
for that privilege, thereby depriving the French authorities of tax
due on that foregone rental payment.
But I would never say that I was visiting the UK in order to visit
property owned abroad.
BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
So all this is just a semantics nit-pick?
OK, I'm out.
On 20/12/2021 01:29 pm, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
asking about something I didn't write.
Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in
the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
and plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK
(or vice-versa)?
It doesn't and nobody but yourself has memntioned property outside the
UK.
What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
abroad..."
How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
asking about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and plenty of it.
That does not militate against what the PP said. He said that 1% of the
UK's population (not people who live elsewhere - sheesh!) pay 30% of the
UK's income tax receipts.
Is that correct or incorrect?
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
That does not militate against what the PP said. He said that 1% of the
UK's population (not people who live elsewhere - sheesh!) pay 30% of the
UK's income tax receipts.
Is that correct or incorrect?
Depends, for example, if you include people who live here as their main location and have a UK passport, but get any 'pay' go to a non-UK concern and thus claim they have no personal income here, etc. Hence pay no UK tax. Ditto for those who are similar but do not have a UK passport. I don't
recall a checkable source for the statement given that we can examine.
Not clear why you are worried about that, though. If they don't pay tax
here then they may be counted in the 'zero income' lowest part, but still dodge the tax. Are you just nit-picking as an alternative to dealing with
the actual problem that tax dodging loses us tax that we might otherwise claim from people who reside in the UK?
The bottom line is that we have a number of people of high wealth and high income who essentially live here but dodge the tax via having their income and wealth 'offshore'.
In article <[email protected]>, charles <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
abroad..."
How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
asking about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy and
plenty of it.
I get the feeling JNugent wants to nit-pick rather than deal with the
actual problem of tax dodging by 'offshoring' income and wealth.
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 01:29 pm, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 12:39 pm, charles wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property ownedYour've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
abroad..." How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK? >>>>>
asking about something I didn't write.
Not at all. How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in >>>>>> the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy >>>>> and plenty of it.
How does being in the UK facilitate visiting property not in the UK
(or vice-versa)?
It doesn't and nobody but yourself has memntioned property outside the
UK.
What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
Quite simply that the owner of the property is abroad.
On 20/12/2021 01:16 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, charles <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned
abroad..."
How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're
asking about something I didn't write.
Not at all.
How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?
The property can be IN the UK, but the owner is not in the UK. Easy
and plenty of it.
I get the feeling JNugent wants to nit-pick rather than deal with the actual problem of tax dodging by 'offshoring' income and wealth.
I simply wish to know how anyone may visit the UK in order to enjoy
property which isn't here.
Were you unaware that mortgage tax relief was abolished in 1997 by
Gordon Broon immediately on taking office (even though it had not been mentioned in the Labour Manifesto for the General Election that year)?
BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
In article <spo0g3$1h3$[email protected]>, MB <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational
TV company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now.
And who knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for
their favoured UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to
realise that some current 'stars' cost them more than the high price
of game tickets and TV viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up
paying more tax and/or having a poorer NHS, etc.
They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.
They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to play
for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.
IIRC many people on this group got very angry when it was found that some
BBC people used - gasp! - this trick. Yet it seems to be fine for footballers.
In article <[email protected]>, Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official
figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
A few brief points:
a. nothing new in this: much the same under Labour governments
Yup. Didn't say otherwise. If it helps you in 'party political' terms I'll include LLPs being a trick that Tony B Liar invented and has been used enthusiastically by tax dodgers and wealth-concealers ever since,
c. the individual will pay taxes such as VAT in the UK and the company
council tax or business rates
If you trade/manufacture you can also claim back the nominal VAT on what
you have to buy in. This lets you sell things to your UK company from other companies which you own, abroad. Leads to tricks like the one now popular
for 'chain shops'. They charge for their 'brand name' and basic supplies coming from a non-UK source, and ensure the UK shops make 'no proifit' and that they can offset a lot of the taxes in the UK.
If you read PE this has also been repeatedly documented for a number of well-known 'brand' chain shops.
d. you omit to say what the solution is - ie what tax the UK should
charge the individual if they have no income or gains or property in the
UK. Be nice to have at least some idea.
OK, here are you 10 starters:
Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.
Step 2 would be to increase the number of their staff and their levels of skills in these areas.
Step 3 would be for the IRC, etc, to be proactive in investigating these areas more aggressively - including when MPs are involved.
Step 4 would be to forbid any of their staff from leaving to take a job on the 'other side of the fence' for, say, five years after leaving their Government job.
Step 5 would be to change the law to make many of the current tax dodging practices illegal.
Step 6 would be to require any new trick that 'saved tax' to have to be approved by the IRC, etc, *before* it could be used to dodge tax. Ditto for any undeclared methods found after investigations.
Step 7 might be to stop being so easy on 'companies' that declare late or inaccurately.
Step 8 might be to make LLPs illegal in their current form.
Step 9 might be to ban any involvement with offshore companies that fail to openly and accurately declare their beneficial owners so they can be traced and investigated. No more tax havens that hide who is useing them, etc.
Step 10 might be to be a tad more investigative about the roles played by banks, the big 'accountancy' firms, etc and the way the tend to promote tricks, play games, etc, often in the process destroying simple UK
companies. (again PE, Panama Papers, etc, as naus.)
No doubt more would help.
None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income, >capital gains or property in the UK.
But I don't doubt that given power you would do great things, like King Lear
"I will do such things,-
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth."
On 20/12/2021 13:30, JNugent wrote:
Were you unaware that mortgage tax relief was abolished in 1997 byIt wasn't abolished as such. It simply moved from being something that
Gordon Broon immediately on taking office (even though it had not been
mentioned in the Labour Manifesto for the General Election that year)?
the mortgagee claimed as income tax relief from the Inland Revenue, to a reduction in the interest charged by the mortgager where the resultant reduction in profit was reflected in a reduced Corporation Tax liability.
Jim
On 20/12/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
Only by you.
(As you have ignored every body else's attempts to educate you, feel
free to ignore mine too. It is your loss, not mine)
Jim
What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
Quite simply that the owner of the property is abroad.
Like my friend's apartment in Malaga?
What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
If it helps you, I've been talking about property which is in the UK, but which is 'owned' by a company outwith the UK.
Then in some/many cases that
property is used by someone who is living IN the UK wo also owns that
company abroad. That person may well have bought a UK passport so as to
gain the 'rights' of being here. Or may be a 'non dom' for tax reasons.
etc, etc, etc. Various games are played wrt status, etc, but such dodgers.
I realise this is complex. Many tax dodges use deliberate complications
like this. But it is exampled and evidenced many times over by sources like PE and the various international 'unearthings' like the Panama Papers, etc.
London is an international favourite for these kinds of games by people who become non doms here, etc, as suits their tactics. Their income from UK sources is paid to a company abroad, so they 'have no income to declare'.
As with LLPs that fail to declare a genuine owner, they then leave the authorities here to whistle.
Jim
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:56:05 +0000, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]>
wrote:
What does the phrase "property owned abroad" mean?
Quite simply that the owner of the property is abroad.
Like my friend's apartment in Malaga?
I don't think it's "quite simply" clear at all.
There seems to be confusion about whether the phrase "property owned
abroad" means that it is the property that is abroad, or the ownership
of it that is abroad (with the property itself being here).
If invited to vote to establish a consensus I'm not even sure which I
would choose myself. I think if I wanted to convey either meaning I
would use different words to avoid ambiguity, or if I preferred to
make frequent use of a short phrase I would have to define it first.
It reminds me of the road signs "ROAD AHEAD CLOSED" and "ROAD CLOSED
AHEAD", which apparently have different meanings, though until
somebody pointed this out I hadn't even noticed that there were two
different signs.
Thank you, but I don't feel I need lessons in basic English from your
good self.
On 20/12/2021 10:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <spo0g3$1h3$[email protected]>, MB <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to
play for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.
Those arrangements are for payments for image rights, not for playing.
Only some - by no means all - involve overseas companies.
Similar arrangements for payments under their contracts to play for the
club wd be ineffective. They are contracts of employment.
Clubs may try to dress up contractual payments as payments for image
rights but HMRC can and do challenge the split. Just as they do for
others - eg UK engineers and scientists working for multinational
companies - who return most of their income as for work done outside the
UK under dual contracts.
IIRC many people on this group got very angry when it was found that
some BBC people used - gasp! - this trick. Yet it seems to be fine for footballers.
Different issue. The BBC cases turned on whether or not the person was
was an employee. Nothing to do with image rights. And in the cases
I've seen reported, no overseas companies.
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 23:59:15 +0000, Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip loads of stuff Lesurf penned]
None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income, >capital gains or property in the UK.
But I don't doubt that given power you would do great things, like King >Lear
"I will do such things,- What they are, yet I know not: but they shall
be The terrors of the earth."
Jim has spent too miuch time in Senior Common Rooms discussing the inadequaciers of the world. Forgive him.
I simply wish to know how anyone may visit the UK in order to enjoy
property which isn't here.
On 20/12/2021 09:52 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/12/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
Only by you.
(As you have ignored every body else's attempts to educate you, feel
free to ignore mine too. It is your loss, not mine)
Jim
Thank you, but I don't feel I need lessons in basic English from your
good self.
"Property owned abroad" would always be taken in everyday English to
mean property in another country owned by someone who lives here ("here" meaning in the country of the person speaking or writing).
On 20/12/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.
Do you mean HMRC?
Step 2 would be to increase the number of their staff and their levels
of skills in these areas. Step 3 would be for the IRC, etc, to be
proactive in investigating these areas more aggressively - including
when MPs are involved. Step 4 would be to forbid any of their staff
from leaving to take a job on the 'other side of the fence' for, say,
five years after leaving their Government job.
That can be put more simply as "you can't do anything that reduces your
tax bill unless [HMRC] have given their prior approval". ECHR/HRA is an inconvenient truth again.
Step 7 might be to stop being so easy on 'companies' that declare late
or inaccurately. Step 8 might be to make LLPs illegal in their current form. Step 9 might be to ban any involvement with offshore companies
that fail to openly and accurately declare their beneficial owners so
they can be traced and investigated. No more tax havens that hide who
is useing them, etc. Step 10 might be to be a tad more investigative
about the roles played by banks, the big 'accountancy' firms, etc and
the way the tend to promote tricks, play games, etc, often in the
process destroying simple UK companies. (again PE, Panama Papers, etc,
as naus.)
No doubt more would help.
None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income, capital gains or property in the UK.
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
So you are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
Given that neither of us seem to know the actual definition used for the claim, it is impossible to say. All I can say is that you keep hanging on tight to the wrong end of the stick. :-)
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 09:52 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/12/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
BTW: As a simple matter of language, "property owned abroad" would
always be interpreted to mean property in another country.
Only by you.
(As you have ignored every body else's attempts to educate you, feel
free to ignore mine too. It is your loss, not mine)
Jim
Thank you, but I don't feel I need lessons in basic English from your
good self.
You may think so, but I couldn't possibly comment. :-)
"Property owned abroad" would always be taken in everyday English to
mean property in another country owned by someone who lives here ("here"
meaning in the country of the person speaking or writing).
You perhaps are unfamilar with the way reading tends to be interpreted in
its context.
Curious, then, that I'm not the only person who has tried to point out your mistake. The curio is why you then ignored my clarifications.
In article <[email protected]>, Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 10:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <spo0g3$1h3$[email protected]>, MB <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
They get paid via an offshore company that in return allows them to
play for the club. This lets them dodge UK tax.
Those arrangements are for payments for image rights, not for playing.
Only some - by no means all - involve overseas companies.
So only "some" use in a way that dodges UK tax.
Similar arrangements for payments under their contracts to play for the
club wd be ineffective. They are contracts of employment.
Clubs may try to dress up contractual payments as payments for image
rights but HMRC can and do challenge the split. Just as they do for
others - eg UK engineers and scientists working for multinational
companies - who return most of their income as for work done outside the
UK under dual contracts.
IIRC many people on this group got very angry when it was found that
some BBC people used - gasp! - this trick. Yet it seems to be fine for
footballers.
Different issue. The BBC cases turned on whether or not the person was
was an employee. Nothing to do with image rights. And in the cases
I've seen reported, no overseas companies.
Yet one of the reported objections was it enabling tax dodging. The
portions of the media that hate the BBC seemed pretty sure of that IIRC.
That said, for the BBC-fearing media to hit the BBC with a fantasy stick wouldn't be unique. Nor would the hypocracy given they way some press
owners dodge UK tax via being 'offshore'.
No fantasy. It is "dodging tax" to pay as if you were self-employed
when you were an employee. That was the issue with some of the BBC
staff using service companies. I'm surprised PE don't cover. To their credit, the BBC do. Eg the case of Christa Ackroyd:
In article <[email protected]>, Robin <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, Robin
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.
Do you mean HMRC?
I'm meaning Inland Revenue and Customs. i.e. broad cover of the way UK Government takes in payments as taxes, etc.
Step 2 would be to increase the number of their staff and their levels
of skills in these areas. Step 3 would be for the IRC, etc, to be
proactive in investigating these areas more aggressively - including
when MPs are involved. Step 4 would be to forbid any of their staff
from leaving to take a job on the 'other side of the fence' for, say,
five years after leaving their Government job.
That can be put more simply as "you can't do anything that reduces your
tax bill unless [HMRC] have given their prior approval". ECHR/HRA is an
inconvenient truth again.
Are these 'laws' written By God and cannot be changed by mere mortals?
That said, what is or is not 'legal' in ECHR terms would depend on an
actual ruling on the specific case. Not a magic wand generalisation.
You may have noticed that Judges don't always do what politicians think
they will. :-)
Or do you mean that no-one is legally required to disclose what they are doing when it is for the purpose of dodging tax? And no-one is ever
allowed to investigate when this might be the case?
If so, it seems clear who has decided the 'laws' here and that it needs
some scrutiny. The point is that they will know they do it to dodge tax. Aiding that may also be regarded as criminal.
Step 7 might be to stop being so easy on 'companies' that declare late
or inaccurately. Step 8 might be to make LLPs illegal in their current
form. Step 9 might be to ban any involvement with offshore companies
that fail to openly and accurately declare their beneficial owners so
they can be traced and investigated. No more tax havens that hide who
is useing them, etc. Step 10 might be to be a tad more investigative
about the roles played by banks, the big 'accountancy' firms, etc and
the way the tend to promote tricks, play games, etc, often in the
process destroying simple UK companies. (again PE, Panama Papers, etc,
as naus.)
No doubt more would help.
None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income,
capital gains or property in the UK.
You tax the money being 'exported' to the non-UK entity. And require them
to checkably identifiable their beneficial owners. If that isn't done
then the transfer without tax paid is treated as illegal - i.e. the
nominal payer have no legal obligation to pay it, and doing so may be an illegal act by the payer. Thus merits investigation.
I doubt it is beyond the wit of expensive lawyers to devise a suitable
method to deal with this that they'd say was 'legal' - if paid enough to
do so. :-)
"Nothing can be done" strikes me as a poor way to excuse a lack of any actions to tackle the problem. I agree it is often deployed as a
convenient cover blanket, though.
On 21/12/2021 10:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, Robin
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/12/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, Robin
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent
<jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
Step 1 would be the change the basis of how the IRC, etc, operate.
Do you mean HMRC?
I'm meaning Inland Revenue and Customs. i.e. broad cover of the way UK
Government takes in payments as taxes, etc.
Step 2 would be to increase the number of their staff and their levels >>>> of skills in these areas. Step 3 would be for the IRC, etc, to be
proactive in investigating these areas more aggressively - including
when MPs are involved. Step 4 would be to forbid any of their staff
from leaving to take a job on the 'other side of the fence' for, say,
five years after leaving their Government job.
That can be put more simply as "you can't do anything that reduces your
tax bill unless [HMRC] have given their prior approval". ECHR/HRA is an >>> inconvenient truth again.
Are these 'laws' written By God and cannot be changed by mere mortals?
That said, what is or is not 'legal' in ECHR terms would depend on an
actual ruling on the specific case. Not a magic wand generalisation.
You may have noticed that Judges don't always do what politicians think
they will. :-)
Or do you mean that no-one is legally required to disclose what they are
doing when it is for the purpose of dodging tax? And no-one is ever
allowed to investigate when this might be the case?
If so, it seems clear who has decided the 'laws' here and that it needs
some scrutiny. The point is that they will know they do it to dodge tax.
Aiding that may also be regarded as criminal.
Step 7 might be to stop being so easy on 'companies' that declare late >>>> or inaccurately. Step 8 might be to make LLPs illegal in their current >>>> form. Step 9 might be to ban any involvement with offshore companies
that fail to openly and accurately declare their beneficial owners so
they can be traced and investigated. No more tax havens that hide who
is useing them, etc. Step 10 might be to be a tad more investigative
about the roles played by banks, the big 'accountancy' firms, etc and
the way the tend to promote tricks, play games, etc, often in the
process destroying simple UK companies. (again PE, Panama Papers, etc, >>>> as naus.)
No doubt more would help.
None of that answers how you propose to tax someone who has no income,
capital gains or property in the UK.
You tax the money being 'exported' to the non-UK entity. And require them
to checkably identifiable their beneficial owners. If that isn't done
then the transfer without tax paid is treated as illegal - i.e. the
nominal payer have no legal obligation to pay it, and doing so may be an
illegal act by the payer. Thus merits investigation.
I doubt it is beyond the wit of expensive lawyers to devise a suitable
method to deal with this that they'd say was 'legal' - if paid enough to
do so. :-)
"Nothing can be done" strikes me as a poor way to excuse a lack of any
actions to tackle the problem. I agree it is often deployed as a
convenient cover blanket, though.
I don't recall saying "nothing can be done". Just that IMO you
underestimate by several orders of magnitude what's involved in
practicable action.
No confusion. Someone using that phrase in the UK would be assumed - in context - to be talking about property outside the UK. That's the way
that the language works.
I don't recall saying "nothing can be done". Just that IMO you
underestimate by several orders of magnitude what's involved in
practicable action.
On 21/12/2021 10:27 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
So you are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
Given that neither of us seem to know the actual definition used for
the claim, it is impossible to say. All I can say is that you keep
hanging on tight to the wrong end of the stick. :-)
We both know what the definition is: it's the result of process of
simply arithmetic involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and
(long) division.
Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
optics" (as the kids have it these days).
On 21/12/2021 10:27 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
I simply wish to know how anyone may visit the UK in order to enjoy
property which isn't here.
I simply want to point out that not's what I was saying. :-)
That's debatable.
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
On 21/12/2021 10:27 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
So you are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
Given that neither of us seem to know the actual definition used for
the claim, it is impossible to say. All I can say is that you keep
hanging on tight to the wrong end of the stick. :-)
We both know what the definition is: it's the result of process of
simply arithmetic involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and
(long) division.
That defines "population"?
Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
optics" (as the kids have it these days).
Probably true for those who can't understand my actual point. cf above.
That defines "population"?
It defines the 1% and the 30%. It's just arithmetic.
Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
optics" (as the kids have it these days).
Probably true for those who can't understand my actual point. cf above.
You are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
Perhaps at some time in the future you will say *why* you dispute it.
JNugent <jennings&[email protected]> wrote:
That defines "population"?
It defines the 1% and the 30%. It's just arithmetic.
Remarking that you don't know how 30% is calculated is hardly "good
optics" (as the kids have it these days).
Probably true for those who can't understand my actual point. cf above.
You are disputing the statement (by a previous poster, not that he
formulated it) that 1% of the UK's population (people who live in the
UK, even though they might occasionally do outlandish things like go
abroad on business or holidays) pay 30% of the income tax collected.
Perhaps at some time in the future you will say *why* you dispute it.
IIRC I did some time ago but it whooshed past you. :-) But one basic point is: What if some of the ultra wealthy who stay in the UK and extract wealth from us via ensuring it is directly send abroad to a company they own,
aren't counted in that "population"?
e.g. are "Non Doms" counted? I dunno. But of course others may be here, but not with even 'Non Dom' status.
Bear in mind the old warning: There ae Lies, Damn Lies, and Government Statistics.
In theory, even PLLs and offshore concerns are meant now to declare who
their benefical owners may be... but in practice many still don't. cf PE ad naus.
It is actually a side-point to the main one. But one you seem not to understand - just like you struggled with how some of the wealthy live here whilst ensuring money goes direct to a company abroad which they own, enabling them to dodge tax on an epic scale.
You don't understand the difference between a company and a human being.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 138:26:45 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,398 |