Pandora Papers

[whelk]

Anyone got the attention span to be interested?

Booo to Tony Blair the hypocrite

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Anyone got the attention span to be interested?

Booo to Tony Blair the hypocrite

Is anybody surprised ?

[Matthew Le God]

44 minutes ago, whelk said:

Booo to Tony Blair the hypocrite

What was he hypocritical about?

[Fan The Flames]

Bought a building via a holding company to avoid stamp duty. Normal sort of shit for those with money, not illegal.

[whelk]

Giving speeches back in 90s about closing tax loopholes and having a tax system on ‘ability to pay’. But don’t worry about the stamp duty as will pay capital gains tax when they sell.

Although the overall story doesn’t seem too exciting and suspect will die quickly

Edited 3 October, 2021 by whelk

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

Bought a building via a holding company to avoid stamp duty. Normal sort of shit for those with money, not illegal.

It was for his charitable foundation wasn’t it ?

[rooney]

On 04/10/2021 at 00:48, buctootim said:

On 03/10/2021 at 21:49, Fan The Flames said:

Bought a building via a holding company to avoid stamp duty. Normal sort of shit for those with money, not illegal.

 

The property was already owned by the company before he bought it. It happens all the time.

[warsash saint]

Sounds about right ... focus on a leader in charge nearly 15 years ago & completely gloss over the millions donated to the current corrupt lot by dodgy donors!

It's as if this website is a snapshot of the British media!! 

[Mystic Force]

The nice thing about laws is that we can change them, so if something seems dodgy but legal we can fix it. Although I doubt there will be much appetite for actually doing anything.

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Mystic Force said:

The nice thing about laws is that we can change them, so if something seems dodgy but legal we can fix it. Although I doubt there will be much appetite for actually doing anything.

Certainly not among the law makers who are looking forward to collecting their share of the pie.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On 05/10/2021 at 08:56, rooney said:

The property was already owned by the company before he bought it. It happens all the time.

But definitely shouldn't be allowed.

[rooney]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

But definitely shouldn't be allowed.

But he was buying shares in the company whose assets comprised a building. If you are saying the stamp duty for share purchases should be the same for property purchases, you would have a revolution on your hands. Think how many millions of shares are traded on the UK Stock Exchange each day and if this reduced, the Capital System in this country would  collapse. However all immaterial, as a change in the Finance Act would never be voted for by all MP'S in the House.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

6 minutes ago, rooney said:

But he was buying shares in the company whose assets comprised a building. If you are saying the stamp duty for share purchases should be the same for property purchases, you would have a revolution on your hands. Think how many millions of shares are traded on the UK Stock Exchange each day and if this reduced, the Capital System in this country would  collapse. However all immaterial, as a change in the Finance Act would never be voted for by all MP'S in the House.

I get your point.  But if you purchase a property and then live in it or rent it out for living, then it should be subject to the same rules.  If you're buying it as part of a genuine business investment then that is different.  I appreciate this stuff isn't easy to decipher/police but surely everyone should agree that "intentional tax avoidance" should be illegal.

[Mystic Force]

The one way to guarantee you fix such a problem is when too many people start doing it. Someone go check Jimmy Carr's house, if he is doing it they will definitely do it!

[rooney]

17 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I get your point.  But if you purchase a property and then live in it or rent it out for living, then it should be subject to the same rules.  If you're buying it as part of a genuine business investment then that is different.  I appreciate this stuff isn't easy to decipher/police but surely everyone should agree that "intentional tax avoidance" should be illegal.

Cannot disagree with your final sentence but I do not think many would enter into  business transaction of his size simply to avoid tax. It would be down to its usefulness or  what the asset can earn, to be the primary consideration, in my opinion. If it is happens to be owned by a corporate body, that would be a bonus to the purchaser in this particular case.