George Osborne's family company has paid no tax for seven years

[BigGully]

I think you have comprehensively misunderstood my entire post.

It isnt unheard of ........

 

[Triggaaar]

I have had to pile a couple of quid in to get things going and any profits the businesses make are being reinvested into growing them.

I didn't know you could not pay tax on profit if it was being reinvested into the business? Is that generally how it works?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Looks like a Private Eye article.

Indeed it is. I have just found it in the current edition, which I haven't read yet. First inside page.

 

[GT49er]

I'm not defending Gideon, (even though he's my constituency MP) but he's not responsible for the activities of his relatives surely?

Oh, you mean like Ernest Marples became completely impartial with no conflict of interest when he handed over his shares in his road and motorway construction firm - to his wife?

 

[Diego Napier]

I understand that BG, but given that Gideon OIiver Osborne, who will become the Eighteenth Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon in the County of Waterford, is the man responsible for closing such loopholes, he could be accused of having a conflict of interest.

As others have said, all the company has done is apply the rules. Whether the rules are equitable is a separate issue.

Whether the rules are equitable is the heart of the matter.

All the apologist guff on this thread about it being within the law is dim or wilful deflection and prevarication. The key point made by the OP is a moral one; an extremely wealthy man who is in charge of our economy is presiding over a system whereby he and his relatives accrue even more wealth whilst preaching his austerity cant and extolling the virtue and necessity of "all being in it together".

Absolute hypocrite, fabulously wealthy and morally bankrupt.

 

[Nibble]

Whether the rules are equitable is the heart of the matter.

All the apologist guff on this thread about it being within the law is dim or wilful deflection and prevarication. The key point made by the OP is a moral one; an extremely wealthy man who is in charge of our economy is presiding over a system whereby he and his relatives accrue even more wealth whilst preaching his austerity cant and extolling the virtue and necessity of "all being in it together".

Absolute hypocrite, fabulously wealthy and morally bankrupt.[/QUOTE


This. This twice round the carpark and back again. This.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Whether the rules are equitable is the heart of the matter.

All the apologist guff on this thread about it being within the law is dim or wilful deflection and prevarication. The key point made by the OP is a moral one; an extremely wealthy man who is in charge of our economy is presiding over a system whereby he and his relatives accrue even more wealth whilst preaching his austerity cant and extolling the virtue and necessity of "all being in it together".

Absolute hypocrite, fabulously wealthy and morally bankrupt.

Best post on this thread and sums it all up rather neatly.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

I didn't know you could not pay tax on profit if it was being reinvested into the business? Is that generally how it works?

No, you're right, you can't. What I mean is instead of standing still and just taking what profits we could have made now you employ more people, spend more on marketing and develop news products or services which "eats in" to any profit you would have made but at least grows the business and creates more profit, albeit further down the line.

 

[beorhthelm]

The more profitable the company the less tax you pay?

as we refer to the company in the example, it apparently hasnt made much profit. how do you go from this story to a claim that the more profit you make, the less tax you pay? or are you just making up some empty rhetoric.

i wonder for any of those appalled by the story to answer, how much should this company have paid in tax?

 

[GT49er]

as we refer to the company in the example, it apparently hasnt made much profit. how do you go from this story to a claim that the more profit you make, the less tax you pay? or are you just making up some empty rhetoric.

i wonder for any of those appalled by the story to answer, how much should this company have paid in tax?

Short answer?

More than they have.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Indeed, creating a firm that employs a hundred that all pay tax & NI, maybe 500k or £1m all in.
Hands up those families on here that do more
It's why they walked the Election

Seriously??
You genuinely believe that it's ok for extremely wealthy people to avoid paying corporation tax, because they employ people who have tax and NI taken from their income?
And that makes the Employers the good guys?

 

[beorhthelm]

Seriously??
You genuinely believe that it's ok for extremely wealthy people to avoid paying corporation tax, because they employ people who have tax and NI taken from their income?
And that makes the Employers the good guys?

are you saying employers are bad?

people really need to get over how much corporation tax is paid, or at least understand that its only paid of profits, and that companies often legitimately dont see a profit for many reasons. tax is not due on turnover, whether £1m or £1bn, and many companies will spend their cash investing in the business rather than have a surplus profit at the end of the year. what Vegas is highlighting is that company operations, employment of staff and general economic activity, is what contributes to the economy and create far more in tax revenues than they ever pay in corporation tax directly.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Seriously??
You genuinely believe that it's ok for extremely wealthy people to avoid paying corporation tax, because they employ people who have tax and NI taken from their income?
And that makes the Employers the good guys?

Corporation tax revenue is a very small part of government income. If you make £1 million profit over a year, and decide to open another branch of your business employing another 10 people instead of paying corporation tax, which is better?
It's an oversimplication, but journalists still want to use the stick to beat wealthy people especially politicians.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Corporation tax revenue is a very small part of government income. If you make £1 million profit over a year, and decide to channel that through a artificial royalty payment in a low-tax country, which is better?

I have corrected your post.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I have corrected your post.

You think you have.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You think you have.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

are you saying employers are bad?
.

No.

Employers need employees to make their profits. They don't employ them from the goodness of their hearts or to ensure there is enough tax going back into the economy. If a company is not making enough profit they will get rid of some of these employees as they see fit. That is the way it works,neither good nor bad.

The argument made in the post I replied to, was "which family has done more". Which sounded to me as if the poster felt that the tax paid by employees was a benign act wholly attributable to the Osborne's. Which we should be thankful for.

 

[beorhthelm]

I have corrected your post.

you highlight a seperate problem in the current tax regulations, once we come out of EU that practice will be closed.

 

[gordonchas]

No.

Employers need employees to make their profits. They don't employ them from the goodness of their hearts or to ensure there is enough tax going back into the economy. If a company is not making enough profit they will get rid of some of these employees as they see fit. That is the way it works,neither good nor bad..

And Corporation Tax is not paid by a company either. The company can't pay, because it doesn't exist as a tangible being. People pay taxes.

There are three groups of people who can pay Corporation Tax: Shareholders (in the form of reduced dividends), Customers (in the form of higher prices) or Employees (in the form of reduced wages or lay-offs).

Studies have shown the latter group is the hardest hit. It would be much better if Corporation Tax was scrapped altogether. At least that would put paid to the ignorance about the tax displayed on this thread.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The problem is that HMRC are too cosy with big business, cutting them slack the rest of us small fry don't get. This results in them paying less CT.

This Osborn story confirms the Tories don't have the stomach for the fight to recoup CT from big business. They'd rather continue to go after the small man, e.g the 7 1/2% dividend tax, the 3 1/2% rise in insurance premium tax.