egafd.com

Boys and girls,

You are probably aware of how much the Lib Dems are against tax avoidance, with Cleggie speaking of the importance of cracking down on the way big business exploits loopholes to avoid paying millions in tax.

Strange then that the Lib Dem Con coalition has appointed Philip Green, the billionaire owner of Top Shop to oversee the government's drive to cut public spending.

Green banked the biggest pay cheque in corporate history in 2005 when his Arcadia fashion business, which owns Topshop, paid a ?1.2bn dividend. The record-breaking payment was paid to his wife, Tina, who lives in Monaco and is the direct owner of Arcadia. As a result, no UK income tax was due. If this wizzo ploy hadn't been carried out, he would have had to pay about ?300 million in UK tax.

That would have paid for quite a few council care assistants who are otherwise now going to get the push, possibly as a result of Green's "drive to cut public spending".

So I give you Philip Green as a potential candidate for Hypocrite of the Year.

"And as for Clegg, he is the biggest charlatan of them all". Former Labour MP Chris Mullin talking about Westminster MPs.

Cheers
D

Good post. None of us knew what Johnson thought of the coalition (cos you've never mentioned it before) and we were all dying of curiosity. You should talk more on the subject because you have us riveted.

Hi,

My post is not about the coalition so much as the acceptance in the UK of tax avoiders as opposed to benefit scroungers. This is the whole concept behind Scrounger of the Year and Hypocrite of the Year, a balance against the endless tabloid and forum hammering of benefit scroungers.

And I am more than happy to accept that the Labour government were far from blameless in these areas. Just as the coalition government are not without blame either.

I do understand however, that you are very touchy about any criticism of your apparent hero.

Cheers
D

"Who would guess, listening to him prattling piously about MPs' expenses, that he was a maximum claimer? Or that six months ago, when it seemed to be the flavour of the hour, he was demanding 'bold and savage cuts' in public spending, a subject on which he is now silent. Or that this is a man who is capable of arguing with equal passion for or against retaining Trident nuclear missiles? "

Ex Labour MP Chris Mullin on Nick Clegg in April 2010

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Mr Green keeps thousands of people in employment so back off. He contributes far more to the UK than so called socialists like Vice President Blair and his equally rich land owning chums.
The simple fact is when you become successful you can employ the best tax advisors, lawyers etc. Harsh fact of life etc.

"Mr Green keeps thousands of people in employment so back off"

So the fact that you employ people gives you the right to either evade tax or use tax loopholes to take money from the Treasury does it?

And the fact that he was able to pay a 1.2 billion dividend to his wife was not sufficient reward for running a business, was it? He should get an extra award by being able to use tax avoidance loopholes in order to avoid paying the tax which millions of us have to pay in full to the UK government.

And if you are just an employee like the tens of millions that pay their fair share of tax, you can go fuck yourself presumably?

Your views seem very servile. Do you touch your forelock when you meet a rich person, by any chance?

Cheers
D

Have to agree with you Sam -------- it's all getting a bit tedious.

"Have to agree with you Sam -------- it's all getting a bit tedious."

Your life, your work, Philip Green, Nick Clegg, my criticism of Philip Green, my criticism of Clegg, the universe, your endless slagging off of dole scroungers, your attempt to find some figures that counter the ones I posted on tax evasion losses v. benefit scroungers fraud?

Cheers
D

David,old boy, I went to work at 0700 hrs yesterday morning. I returned at 2200 hrs last night. I went to work at 0700 hrs this morning and managed to get home at 1830 hrs tonight. So do you really expect me to even read your post, let alone trawl the net to find opposing figures ?
I'll try to be honest here, I don't wait with baited breath for your every post.
You (being self employed) obviously have plenty of time to search out facts and figures that suit your cause (business must be doing well) but I'm afraid I'm a mere employee with filters set which seriously limit my browsing.
To cut a long story short, you win David. I'm sure every member of the forum read your figures and judging by the replies, everybody agrees with you.
I'm sure you are a very happy and smug man.

All the best.

Dicky baby

"To cut a long story short, you win David."

Its not a question of winning or losing. You are the one who mercilessly slags off benefit scroungers.

When I countered your argument by illustrating that the losses to the Treasury through benefit fraud are far, far, far outweighed by the losses to corporate Britain's tax evaders and avoiders your response was "I'll see if I can find some figures which disagree with yours. I don't think it will be too hard."

Now I could describe that response as "smug" to use your description of me. But hey someone has to help to put a balanced view when 90% of the media concentrate on benefit scroungers and totally overlook the far greater tax problems.

Cheers
D

David, you conveniently omitted my statement ?if I get the chance? so I hope you understand that I don?t intend to waste my time finding figures to disagree with the figures you supplied (and I?ve so far not read)
I'll try to explain my point of view
I don't agree with any sort of fraud or tax evasion.
People who are making enough money to avoid tax are still paying in, council tax, employee wages, building rents and the like. Net result paying in, equals plus.
People on benefit, many of whom has never worked for years (and don?t intend to)
pay in nothing. Net result taking out, equals minus.
My old grandfather told me ?I?d rather employ a thief who made me money than an honest man who lost me money?
I doubt you would agree with that statement, but at the end of the day, I?d rather have somebody paying in 10 pence a week than somebody taking out 10 pence a week.
Simple mathematics to me.