The Conservative Party/Government

The graph title is incorrect and misleading. They’ve lumped together evaded taxes and avoided taxes. One is perfectly legal, the other not.
Tax avoidance, is "legal", but it isn't "perfectly legal"...

The definition used for 'tax avoidance' is:

Avoidance is exploiting the tax rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no commercial purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

Whenever one of these articles comes out, people often incorrectly talk about ISAs and other legal tax schemes - but this is people bending the rules, or using unintentional loopholes in the law.
 
Tax avoidance, is "legal", but it isn't "perfectly legal"...

The definition used for 'tax avoidance' is:

Avoidance is exploiting the tax rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no commercial purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

Whenever one of these articles comes out, people often incorrectly talk about ISAs and other legal tax schemes - but this is people bending the rules, or using unintentional loopholes in the law.
Tax avoidance, is "legal", but it isn't "perfectly legal"...

The definition used for 'tax avoidance' is:

Avoidance is exploiting the tax rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no commercial purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

Whenever one of these articles comes out, people often incorrectly talk about ISAs and other legal tax schemes - but this is people bending the rules, or using unintentional loopholes in the law.
Avoidance is exploiting the tax rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no commercial purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

All perfectly legal!
 
Avoidance is exploiting the tax rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no commercial purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

All perfectly legal!
It's only 'perfect' for the people with enough money already, who can pay accountants to find loopholes, so they can pay less tax than the rest of us.

Morally wrong when we've got waiting lists for cancer treatment, and kids going hungry, so "perfectly" legitimate for any Government to target.
 
Badenoch has admitted in the past hacking and altering the e-mails of a member of the opposition - Staunton has no history of lies or scandal in a long career in business. Badenoch is a serial knee jerk tweeter and I can't help but feel he is simply offering her enough rope before producing the evidence she lied to Parliament and kills her own leadership ambition stone dead

 
Badenoch has admitted in the past hacking and altering the e-mails of a member of the opposition - Staunton has no history of lies or scandal in a long career in business. Badenoch is a serial knee jerk tweeter and I can't help but feel he is simply offering her enough rope before producing the evidence she lied to Parliament and kills her own leadership ambition stone dead

After both their statements, I’m interested to see the evidence.

Badenoch’s is already dodgy with the immediacy of compensation, which was way down the bottom of the list, and the extra petty bile from her about bullying, Staunton just needs to show that what he said was minuted.

If not, well …
 
After both their statements, I’m interested to see the evidence.

Badenoch’s is already dodgy with the immediacy of compensation, which was way down the bottom of the list, and the extra petty bile from her about bullying, Staunton just needs to show that what he said was minuted.

If not, well …
Yep , popcorn out for the parliamentary hearing... hopefully she's fucking toast
 
After both their statements, I’m interested to see the evidence.

Badenoch’s is already dodgy with the immediacy of compensation, which was way down the bottom of the list, and the extra petty bile from her about bullying, Staunton just needs to show that what he said was minuted.

If not, well …
I don't doubt Staunton but I very much doubt it was minuted.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.