Jump to content

 

 

Celtic shareholder Dermot Desmond’s private jet firm used tax haven


Recommended Posts

If an ordinary Joe on State Benefits having their rent paid by the state is seen to have so much wealth that they can stash their cash off shore .

The Daily Mail,Express and every right wing retard in the UK would be screaming blue murder at the scrounger taking State Benefits and pleading poverty.

We are returning one of her palaces with over 600 bedrooms to the tune of £350 million ,meanwhile in the real world over 1 million UK citizens are having to use food banks just to stave of starvation.

She is by fluke of birth the head of state she should set a better example and keep everything onshore and pay full taxes.

It is a disgrace but because we are Rangers we have to show blind obedience and say nothing,

It is wrong ,it is a disgrace and her and her entire family are on State Benefits never forget that.

The Mall is where they should make the next series of Bnefit Street.

 

Please refrain from derogatory terms such as retard. It is unbecoming of this site.

 

Have you seen the number of people getting rent paid by the state who have wealth stashed ? There are a few as you see every now and then in the press.

 

If you are suggesting that the queen gets her rent paid by the state then I think you are wrong. I haven't seen the numbers recently but I was pretty sure that the Queen is a net contributor to the UK in terms of inward investment (i.e. convincing nations and corporations to bring their business to the UK). How much does Buckingham Palace contribute to the economy in a given year ? And don't say zero as that is patently untrue - they have tours and you also have to consider visitors who come to the UK primarily to go view it (and there are people who come for that reason).

 

Yes, it is by fluke of birth. And if you had that same fluke of birth the chances are you would be taking a polar opposite view to that situation right now.

 

You also are assuming that she was in full knowledge of her financial affairs - chances are she had no idea some of her wealth was invested offshore. She still takes ultimate responsibility for her personal tax arrangements but given she has VOLUNTARILY paid tax since 1993 so as to not be viewed in such a manner as you see her, I suspect that her offshore investments will be a thing of the past fairly swiftly - and even then people like you will be crowing that she only did it because she got caught, as opposed to not even knowing that she was doing it. If she was so hell-bent on avoiding taxes as to invest offshore then why bother ? Instead of investing offshore she could just as easily have went to HMRC and said "Right, I have no obligation to pay tax under the Constitution so lets go back to the constitution". Someone willingly paying tax they have no obligation to do so is not likely to be someone who then is looking at personal tax avoidance strategies - its effectively an oxymoron to voluntarily pay tax AND try to avoid it at the same time.

 

What the F*** has "We are Rangers" have to do with anything when discussing HMQ ? Keep the debate clear

 

As I said, there are a number of Royals who are indeed net takers from the system. The Queen, IMHO, is not one of them. She contributes to the economy - if she wasn't there the British economy would likely be worse off. That is a net contribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please refrain from derogatory terms such as retard. It is unbecoming of this site.

 

Have you seen the number of people getting rent paid by the state who have wealth stashed ? There are a few as you see every now and then in the press.

 

If you are suggesting that the queen gets her rent paid by the state then I think you are wrong. I haven't seen the numbers recently but I was pretty sure that the Queen is a net contributor to the UK in terms of inward investment (i.e. convincing nations and corporations to bring their business to the UK). How much does Buckingham Palace contribute to the economy in a given year ? And don't say zero as that is patently untrue - they have tours and you also have to consider visitors who come to the UK primarily to go view it (and there are people who come for that reason).

 

Yes, it is by fluke of birth. And if you had that same fluke of birth the chances are you would be taking a polar opposite view to that situation right now.

 

You also are assuming that she was in full knowledge of her financial affairs - chances are she had no idea some of her wealth was invested offshore. She still takes ultimate responsibility for her personal tax arrangements but given she has VOLUNTARILY paid tax since 1993 so as to not be viewed in such a manner as you see her, I suspect that her offshore investments will be a thing of the past fairly swiftly - and even then people like you will be crowing that she only did it because she got caught, as opposed to not even knowing that she was doing it. If she was so hell-bent on avoiding taxes as to invest offshore then why bother ? Instead of investing offshore she could just as easily have went to HMRC and said "Right, I have no obligation to pay tax under the Constitution so lets go back to the constitution". Someone willingly paying tax they have no obligation to do so is not likely to be someone who then is looking at personal tax avoidance strategies - its effectively an oxymoron to voluntarily pay tax AND try to avoid it at the same time.

 

What the F*** has "We are Rangers" have to do with anything when discussing HMQ ? Keep the debate clear

 

As I said, there are a number of Royals who are indeed net takers from the system. The Queen, IMHO, is not one of them. She contributes to the economy - if she wasn't there the British economy would likely be worse off. That is a net contribution.

 

One of the biggest canards of monarchists is the absolute nonsense that the Royal Family and Palaces net more income by way of tourism than we subsidies them by,it is patently untrue.

The French have even higher tourist numbers and revenue with no Royal parasites living for free off of the State.

The Queen is one of the wealthiest woman on the planet and yet she has the begging bowl out to get the British Tax Payer to fund her palace refurbishment in part due to the fact she and her minions have been negligent in the general upkeep of her600+ bedroom gaffe.

We have over recent time refurbished homes for Princess aMargaret , Charles, William & Kate the Kents and Gloucesters.

Meanwhile pensioners throughout the UK exist on the lowest pensions in EU .

Even the so called poorer Eastern European countries pay their pensioners more.

Of all the developed countries only UK has had a decrease in wages real time since 2008.

We are apparently so skint yet the 1% centile like Betty Windsor have seen their incomes and wealth grow by over 25#%.

Meantime our nurses,doctors,firemen ,teachers have in effect had pay cuts with many of those public servants now having to use foodbanks.

I say to Betty Windsor ,Dermot Desmond and all these other lot we don’t want you to pay more taxes just a your fair bloody share.

If Dermot Desmond should be paying his fair and equitable taxes so should Betty Windsor and her entourage of extended family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the modern world, the rewards can be very strange indeed. In your example, a fireman or someone should therefore be the richest. When you see the likes of what Green el al to Ashley get rewarded for what they do, it looks like if you want to be a master criminal, just learn about business instead, and use your lack of empathy and ethics to make you rich but still legal. Then instead of getting thugs to beat people up and get your kicks, use expensive lawyers to grind poorer people into the ground.

 

 

 

That may be true, but when looked at objectively, it can be massively disproportionate. It's like that rich actress who claimed she worked incredibly hard for her £20m fee and so deserved it. Like she worked a thousand times harder than some guy down the pit...

 

Then while she lives in the lap of luxury, she'll be whinging about how, after all her tax avoidance, she still had to pay say £4m in tax, while the miner is getting stressed about the cost of Christmas, and whether he'll have a job next week.

 

I get the leverage of jobs, but it seems fair that the more leverage you have the more you need to give back.

 

 

 

I think communism is a bit of a straw man argument here. No-one is arguing for that extreme; however, I'm countering the arguments for the other extreme - where we should all pay the same tax.

 

 

 

Even if true, you could say there are Prime Ministers and others like those who founded Building Societies and Co-ops who have done the same and more and don't get to make billions and then deserve to pay the same tax as the workers you talk of. The likes of Trump is reward way more than enough - even if he pays his full tax due.

 

 

 

I think there will still be jobs without the richest entrepreneurs, but their will be none of the richest without workers.

 

 

 

I think you're misrepresenting what I said. I think we have a decent enough democracy which is flawed like all the others. However, we are not yet in danger of a revolution as we implement our laws to tax the rich more than the poor. And the wealth gap is still pretty massive.

 

If most people get sick of it, instead of a call to arms, they will vote in a party who will raise the taxes for the rich again. That's what makes it decent.

 

Answering in numbering cal - quoting and seeing the previous thread becomes difficult.

 

1. I think you are misrepresenting what I said when I said "most risk, most reward" - I am sure you knew I meant financial risk. I have nothing but respect for our services and believe they should be paid well. As they are civil servants (or paid from the public purse) maybe you should put it to your local MP that they should be the highest paid of all. Be prepared for your tax bill to increase to sustain it though :thup: Not sure how you can include "criminal" and "legal" in the same sentence. If they are legal then they wont be a master criminal, will they ? Empathy and ethics are for the individual, and to be able to look in the mirror each morning and like what they see - some like Ashley don't actually care and all they crave is filthy lucre. But he will still go about using the legal and tax systems to benefit as best he can. Moral ? Again, if the system allows it then complain about the system, not those utilizing it to the best of their own abilities. Not every business person, and not every person using tax avoidance schemes, is so morally bankrupt as Mike Ashley.

 

2. Of course it can be disproportionate - however, that is what happens when you have public and private enterprise. You also see the same disproportion within these sectors. In the private sector the "C-Suite" get paid the most but in many instances will do less "work" than the non-C-suite people. However, it also should be said that in the vast majority of cases, those in the C-Suite have better strategic, forward-thinking views than those who aren't - and they know how to drive a business forward to generate equity, profit and indeed jobs. That rich actress you talk about still gave back more than the miner though, right ? She paid 4 million in tax on her inflated salary. What did the miner pay ? What was her marginal rate of tax vs his ?

 

3. If we should all pay the same tax, as you say.... then just what is the marginal tax rate of those using tax avoidance schemes ? I bet many of them are avoiding their tax rate down to about the same as the base rate of tax that most of us pay. Remember, their starting position of tax is double what us regular Joe's pay because they will have a 40 or 50% tax rate with a very small (proportionately) personal tax allowance

 

4. "even if true" - is your dislike of Trump that extreme that you call into question whether his organization has created thousands of jobs ?? Trump NYC alone probably employs over a thousand people. Anyway... The extremity of how much he made is what it is. In some respects it is a reflection of the industry he is in. Should Jeff Bezos be worth $93 billion because he founded Amazon ? He is worth as much as he is because his Company is highly valued by customers, investors and sponsors alike. Am I envious of these guys and their wealth ? Not really, money doesn't make you happy, but it should make like a little easier. Warren Buffett is worth over $50 billion and pays every penny of tax he is due, but I bet he still uses tax avoidance schemes - and I bet he has made many a person wealthy by either hiring them into Berkshire Hathaway or because they invested in that entity - should he also be criticized ?

 

5. There may still be jobs without the richest entrepreneurs, but there will be less of them. Highly unlikely that the same number of jobs will be available without entrepreneurs or job creators. Every entity will need workers, and then supply and demand kicks in. Some jobs will be worth more than others. That is the way of the world, whether we like it or not.

 

6. Presumably you had a democracy in mind as "not being decent" - care to name which one(s) ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you spent most of the year outside the UK then you shouldn't have been paying tax - to be considered UK resident you have to have lived in the UK for at least 182 days of a tax year. When I left in September 2000 I got a tax refund because of this. Small, but still a refund I didn't think I was due.

 

I don't think they are robbing at all. It seems like it to you because you paid tax when you didn't live in the UK. Looks more like you didn't have good tax advice, unless I am missing something in your situation boabie (which is more than plausible).

 

If your tax rate is 20% why shouldn't they mitigate theirs down to that level too ?

 

In my day you were allowed no more than 63 days in the UK. Any more and you paid full UK taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Expenses rise to meet income - someone on 100k plus may have less than you - probably poor financial management by them, but it doesn't make them rich.

 

Rich people usually have it passed on to them as property/inheritance. The UK banks consider someone to have material wealth if their overall worth is over £1m. Then you are rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest canards of monarchists is the absolute nonsense that the Royal Family and Palaces net more income by way of tourism than we subsidies them by,it is patently untrue.

The French have even higher tourist numbers and revenue with no Royal parasites living for free off of the State.

The Queen is one of the wealthiest woman on the planet and yet she has the begging bowl out to get the British Tax Payer to fund her palace refurbishment in part due to the fact she and her minions have been negligent in the general upkeep of her600+ bedroom gaffe.

We have over recent time refurbished homes for Princess aMargaret , Charles, William & Kate the Kents and Gloucesters.

Meanwhile pensioners throughout the UK exist on the lowest pensions in EU .

Even the so called poorer Eastern European countries pay their pensioners more.

Of all the developed countries only UK has had a decrease in wages real time since 2008.

We are apparently so skint yet the 1% centile like Betty Windsor have seen their incomes and wealth grow by over 25#%.

Meantime our nurses,doctors,firemen ,teachers have in effect had pay cuts with many of those public servants now having to use foodbanks.

I say to Betty Windsor ,Dermot Desmond and all these other lot we don’t want you to pay more taxes just a your fair bloody share.

If Dermot Desmond should be paying his fair and equitable taxes so should Betty Windsor and her entourage of extended family.

 

France v Britain is not a like-for-like comparison. That's just silly to say France has more tourists therefore the Royal Family aren't contributing. France is bigger, has more tourist things to see, has a better climate, and that's before you get into cost, currency debates.

 

What you should really be asking yourself is whether the revenue that is brought into the UK would be the same WITHOUT the Royal Family - answer is, IMHO, no.

 

Lol. "Pay your fair share Liz" and then conveniently ignore that The Queen has been paying tax she had no obligation to pay for the last 25 years. Aye, OK then. You continue to ignore that inconvenient fact as much as you like. Dermot Desmond isn't a UK national so if he doesn't reside in the UK for more than half the year he actually isn't a UK tax avoider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich people usually have it passed on to them as property/inheritance. The UK banks consider someone to have material wealth if their overall worth is over £1m. Then you are rich.

 

That absolutely isn't true in many cases. That is a sweeping generalization.

 

Presumably you mean NET worth.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, there are plenty of people at both ends of the economic scale skimming the system.

 

Pointing the finger at one but ugnoring the other is either naive or intentional.

 

It is the other end of the scale that was my prime motivator to leave the UK, plus a change in scenery and weather :D

 

See, I have no real issue with people legally avoiding taxes - people can call is immoral all they like but if the system wasn't open to being manipulated then they wouldn't be able to. Blame the system. It is legal though.

 

On the other end - and to preface this, my decision was borne out of my own family skimming the system. They were claiming benefits they weren't justly entitled to... one relative was claiming mobility whilst dancing on the tables at the masonic every Saturday night. And when I called her on it she said "Phone the social, they will see I cant walk properly when they come to assess me". Was the final straw to me, watching someone ILLEGALLY skimming the system of the hard earned money that we all pay taxes into.

 

That is where I can absolve those avoiding taxes, because they are doing so within a system that not only allows them to, but effectively wishes them to (otherwise close those loopholes....). But when my own family were abusing the system, illegally obtaining money they weren't entitled to, and effectively taking money out of my pocket, I drew the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.