A prominent Brexiteer is planning to avoid up to £4bn in UK taxes after moving his home and money to Monaco, the Sunday Times reports on its front page. Sir Jim Radcliffe - who built up the chemicals giant Ineos and is Britain's richest man - has been working with accountants PwC on a "labyrinthine" tax avoidance plan, a source told the paper. The front of the newspaper also features claims that Brexit supporting Conservative MPs have rejected attempts by Theresa May to get them to back her deal for leaving the EU.
It quotes leaked WhatsApp messages from the deputy chairman of the European Research Group of Tory MPs, Steve Baker, saying it insists the so-called backstop - to prevent the return of a hard border in Ireland - be removed from the Withdrawal Agreement. He says a failure to do so would lead to a split in the party.
">"HAYSIE">A prominent Brexiteer is planning to avoid up to £4bn in UK taxes after moving his home and money to Monaco, the Sunday Times reports on its front page. Sir Jim Radcliffe - who built up the chemicals giant Ineos and is Britain's richest man - has been working with accountants PwC on a "labyrinthine" tax avoidance plan, a source told the paper.
My apologies should of said tax avoidance.
If he is going to live elsewhere, how is that tax avoidance?
I was reading what you posted.
Moving to Monaco to avoid paying tax in the UK is not tax avoidance.
If you read first line of your post it says what?
You are hard work. If the man goes to live in Monaco, he will be under no obligation to pay UK tax. Exactly the same as someone who goes to Portugal to work in a hotel. A mate of mine has a bar in Lanzarote, and pays tax there. None of them will be paying UK tax. Even though they could all be accused of avoiding paying tax in the UK, none of them will be guilty of "tax avoidance", as it is a completely different thing, which you clearly don't understand.
After moving to Monaco he will be paying his tax there.
I cant be bothered with any more explaining.
Congratulations on getting your own thread bye the way.
What tax avoidance is Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. Most tax avoidance schemes simply do not work, and those who use them may end up having to pay much more than the tax they tried to avoid, including penalties.
So maybe you shouldnt post fake news, it clearly says he is planning to move to AVOID paying tax. By the way its not my thread but day4 eire, i was just repaying him the compliment after he trolled me.
To further this argument, you would have to be able to understand that there is a difference between "tax avoidance", and moving abroad to remove any obligation to pay UK tax.
To say that someone has moved abroad essentially to avoid paying UK tax, does not make them guilty of "tax avoidance". It just probably means they will pay their tax, in the country they have moved to.
A prominent Brexiteer is planning to avoid up to £4bn in UK taxes after moving his home and money to Monaco, the Sunday Times reports on its front page. Sir Jim Radcliffe - who built up the chemicals giant Ineos and is Britain's richest man - has been working with accountants PwC on a "labyrinthine" tax avoidance plan, a source told the paper. The front of the newspaper also features claims that Brexit supporting Conservative MPs have rejected attempts by Theresa May to get them to back her deal for leaving the EU.
It quotes leaked WhatsApp messages from the deputy chairman of the European Research Group of Tory MPs, Steve Baker, saying it insists the so-called backstop - to prevent the return of a hard border in Ireland - be removed from the Withdrawal Agreement. He says a failure to do so would lead to a split in the party.
">"HAYSIE">A prominent Brexiteer is planning to avoid up to £4bn in UK taxes after moving his home and money to Monaco, the Sunday Times reports on its front page. Sir Jim Radcliffe - who built up the chemicals giant Ineos and is Britain's richest man - has been working with accountants PwC on a "labyrinthine" tax avoidance plan, a source told the paper.
My apologies should of said tax avoidance.
If he is going to live elsewhere, how is that tax avoidance?
I was reading what you posted.
Moving to Monaco to avoid paying tax in the UK is not tax avoidance.
If you read first line of your post it says what?
You are hard work. If the man goes to live in Monaco, he will be under no obligation to pay UK tax. Exactly the same as someone who goes to Portugal to work in a hotel. A mate of mine has a bar in Lanzarote, and pays tax there. None of them will be paying UK tax. Even though they could all be accused of avoiding paying tax in the UK, none of them will be guilty of "tax avoidance", as it is a completely different thing, which you clearly don't understand.
After moving to Monaco he will be paying his tax there.
I cant be bothered with any more explaining.
Congratulations on getting your own thread bye the way.
What tax avoidance is Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. Most tax avoidance schemes simply do not work, and those who use them may end up having to pay much more than the tax they tried to avoid, including penalties.
So maybe you shouldnt post fake news, it clearly says he is planning to move to AVOID paying tax. By the way its not my thread but day4 eire, i was just repaying him the compliment after he trolled me.
To further this argument, you would have to be able to understand that there is a difference between "tax avoidance", and moving abroad to remove any obligation to pay UK tax.
To say that someone has moved abroad essentially to avoid paying UK tax, does not make them guilty of "tax avoidance". It just probably means they will pay their tax, in the country they have moved to.
Perhaps the pair of you could possibly learn how to quote properly , so the rest of us , don't have to read through reams of previous comments ! As far as the snidey comment of yours , Haysie on the post for Rainmans attention , really helpful as regards forum harmony ! And why that particular post is allowed to exist on here ,is beyond me ...in all fairness if Rainman had posted it , he would have got at least a warning and probably worse .
@rainman215 I tried to help by holding out a proverbial Olive Branch, I really did. The explanation Haysie has given is correct, it’s a language thing, English is a conundrum at times, Tax Avoidance and Avoiding paying tax (by moving to another Country) are two different things ( although sounding the same)
Thank you Tom, just dont see what him moving to Monaco has to do with Brexit, and maybe the Sunday Times should not report the avoiding tax part of it.
That explanation completely ignores the fact that it was you that turned an article that was completely correct, into something completely different and untrue. If you don't approve of anything specific in the content, you don't have to post comments.
A prominent Brexiteer is planning to avoid up to £4bn in UK taxes after moving his home and money to Monaco, the Sunday Times reports on its front page. Sir Jim Radcliffe - who built up the chemicals giant Ineos and is Britain's richest man - has been working with accountants PwC on a "labyrinthine" tax avoidance plan, a source told the paper. The front of the newspaper also features claims that Brexit supporting Conservative MPs have rejected attempts by Theresa May to get them to back her deal for leaving the EU.
It quotes leaked WhatsApp messages from the deputy chairman of the European Research Group of Tory MPs, Steve Baker, saying it insists the so-called backstop - to prevent the return of a hard border in Ireland - be removed from the Withdrawal Agreement. He says a failure to do so would lead to a split in the party.
">"HAYSIE">A prominent Brexiteer is planning to avoid up to £4bn in UK taxes after moving his home and money to Monaco, the Sunday Times reports on its front page. Sir Jim Radcliffe - who built up the chemicals giant Ineos and is Britain's richest man - has been working with accountants PwC on a "labyrinthine" tax avoidance plan, a source told the paper.
My apologies should of said tax avoidance.
If he is going to live elsewhere, how is that tax avoidance?
I was reading what you posted.
Moving to Monaco to avoid paying tax in the UK is not tax avoidance.
If you read first line of your post it says what?
You are hard work. If the man goes to live in Monaco, he will be under no obligation to pay UK tax. Exactly the same as someone who goes to Portugal to work in a hotel. A mate of mine has a bar in Lanzarote, and pays tax there. None of them will be paying UK tax. Even though they could all be accused of avoiding paying tax in the UK, none of them will be guilty of "tax avoidance", as it is a completely different thing, which you clearly don't understand.
After moving to Monaco he will be paying his tax there.
I cant be bothered with any more explaining.
Congratulations on getting your own thread bye the way.
What tax avoidance is Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. Most tax avoidance schemes simply do not work, and those who use them may end up having to pay much more than the tax they tried to avoid, including penalties.
So maybe you shouldnt post fake news, it clearly says he is planning to move to AVOID paying tax. By the way its not my thread but day4 eire, i was just repaying him the compliment after he trolled me.
To further this argument, you would have to be able to understand that there is a difference between "tax avoidance", and moving abroad to remove any obligation to pay UK tax.
To say that someone has moved abroad essentially to avoid paying UK tax, does not make them guilty of "tax avoidance". It just probably means they will pay their tax, in the country they have moved to.
Nothing to do with Brexit then.
I suppose it was only relevant in that it is another prominent Brexiteer businessman, that has sung the praises of a post Brexit Britain, moving abroad.
Perhaps the pair of you could possibly learn how to quote properly , so the rest of us , don't have to read through reams of previous comments ! As far as the snidey comment of yours , Haysie on the post for Rainmans attention , really helpful as regards forum harmony ! And why that particular post is allowed to exist on here ,is beyond me ...in all fairness if Rainman had posted it , he would have got at least a warning and probably worse .
My comment was meant as light hearted banter. I appreciate that, what is banter in one persons eyes, will appear as something else in another persons view. I don't intend responding to any of his future posts.
"Brilliant to be at an #Irexit conference in Cork this afternoon 🇮🇪
Irish people increasingly want to leave the European Union and take back control of their money, borders and laws"
“We collectively voted to remain in the EU and political unionism has given a definitive expression to promote Brexit. “We think that that is inconsistent with the majority view and we consider that the convention of this conference provides an opportunity to rebalance that inequity.” He added: “Political unionism has set its face against rights, against progressive, inclusive politics and has misrepresented the outcome of the referendum. This jurisdiction voted to remain and that is not being appropriately represented.”
From everything I've read and heard Flybybmi have been struggling for quite a while ...heard a reporter say earlier on a radio news broadcast , they had been constantly struggling with underfilled flights .
Right , its a bit early for a serious question , but I will leave you this one before I go out walking for the day .....How do you think Brexit will negatively affect you personally ?
I think it impossible to properly answer this question, until a deal is done, or not done.
Nearly three years since the referendum, and we still have no idea what any deal may look like, or even if there will be a deal.
We do know that no deal means disaster.
We also know that every Brexit option damages our economy.
Any damage to the economy, usually means more tax. This is likely to make those of us that haven't moved to Monaco, or bank off shore, worse off.
My views are based on what I think is best for the country, unlike many of our politicians.
Job losses seem inevitable, and the future of things like manufacturing, farming etc, are in doubt.
I think that many of the arguments used by the leave side, are just untrue. The so called benefits of leaving don't ring true to me.
Many politicians have completely unbalanced views, where taking control of our borders may really mean no control or no borders.
We seem to have a completely biased view of Freedom of Movement. We only see it in terms of immigration, and never in terms of the rights, and freedoms it gives us.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when every Brexiteer MP that appears on tv is keen to point out that 17.4 million people voted in favour of Brexit, but ask them about numbers of homeless people, those suffering mental health issues that cant get treated, those waiting for surgery in the NHS, and they wouldn't have a clue.
Brexit has given this Government an excuse for not addressing any of the Burning Injustices, that the PM referred to in her fist speech as PM.
This Government has botched Brexit, and done nothing else.
I will have to get back to you on a proper answer to the question, after we have done a deal, assuming I live that long.
Sorry , but this one isn't getting past at all.
You say in the first bolded part , that it is impossible to answer the question until a deal is done . Then go on to say that every brexit option damages our economy and job losses are inevitable . If you can't answer the question because of your initial reason , then you also can't make wild speculations about what's going to happen . You can't have your cake and eat it with flawed reasoning!
From everything I've read and heard Flybybmi have been struggling for quite a while ...heard a reporter say earlier on a radio news broadcast , they had been constantly struggling with underfilled flights .
Right , its a bit early for a serious question , but I will leave you this one before I go out walking for the day .....How do you think Brexit will negatively affect you personally ?
I think it impossible to properly answer this question, until a deal is done, or not done.
Nearly three years since the referendum, and we still have no idea what any deal may look like, or even if there will be a deal.
We do know that no deal means disaster.
We also know that every Brexit option damages our economy.
Any damage to the economy, usually means more tax. This is likely to make those of us that haven't moved to Monaco, or bank off shore, worse off.
My views are based on what I think is best for the country, unlike many of our politicians.
Job losses seem inevitable, and the future of things like manufacturing, farming etc, are in doubt.
I think that many of the arguments used by the leave side, are just untrue. The so called benefits of leaving don't ring true to me.
Many politicians have completely unbalanced views, where taking control of our borders may really mean no control or no borders.
We seem to have a completely biased view of Freedom of Movement. We only see it in terms of immigration, and never in terms of the rights, and freedoms it gives us.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when every Brexiteer MP that appears on tv is keen to point out that 17.4 million people voted in favour of Brexit, but ask them about numbers of homeless people, those suffering mental health issues that cant get treated, those waiting for surgery in the NHS, and they wouldn't have a clue.
Brexit has given this Government an excuse for not addressing any of the Burning Injustices, that the PM referred to in her fist speech as PM.
This Government has botched Brexit, and done nothing else.
I will have to get back to you on a proper answer to the question, after we have done a deal, assuming I live that long.
Sorry , but this one isn't getting past at all.
You say in the first bolded part , that it is impossible to answer the question until a deal is done . Then go on to say that every brexit option damages our economy and job losses are inevitable . If you can't answer the question because of your initial reason , then you also can't make wild speculations about what's going to happen . You can't have your cake and eat it with flawed reasoning!
I think that is a fairly reasonable position. Don't forget where we are. The position is that we have a Withdrawal Agreement, which includes 7 pages of text that comprise an unbinding framework for future trade discussions. So there is much speculation on what may be included in a future trade deal. A number of possible deals have some support in Parliament. We could end up with The PMs deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, something completely different, or no deal. On this basis I don't think you could answer the question without knowing which deal. On the second point, The Government has done projections on each of the Brexit options. Each option causes damage to our economy, no deal being the most damaging. Some of the job losses have already occurred.
From everything I've read and heard Flybybmi have been struggling for quite a while ...heard a reporter say earlier on a radio news broadcast , they had been constantly struggling with underfilled flights .
Right , its a bit early for a serious question , but I will leave you this one before I go out walking for the day .....How do you think Brexit will negatively affect you personally ?
I think it impossible to properly answer this question, until a deal is done, or not done.
Nearly three years since the referendum, and we still have no idea what any deal may look like, or even if there will be a deal.
We do know that no deal means disaster.
We also know that every Brexit option damages our economy.
Any damage to the economy, usually means more tax. This is likely to make those of us that haven't moved to Monaco, or bank off shore, worse off.
My views are based on what I think is best for the country, unlike many of our politicians.
Job losses seem inevitable, and the future of things like manufacturing, farming etc, are in doubt.
I think that many of the arguments used by the leave side, are just untrue. The so called benefits of leaving don't ring true to me.
Many politicians have completely unbalanced views, where taking control of our borders may really mean no control or no borders.
We seem to have a completely biased view of Freedom of Movement. We only see it in terms of immigration, and never in terms of the rights, and freedoms it gives us.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when every Brexiteer MP that appears on tv is keen to point out that 17.4 million people voted in favour of Brexit, but ask them about numbers of homeless people, those suffering mental health issues that cant get treated, those waiting for surgery in the NHS, and they wouldn't have a clue.
Brexit has given this Government an excuse for not addressing any of the Burning Injustices, that the PM referred to in her fist speech as PM.
This Government has botched Brexit, and done nothing else.
I will have to get back to you on a proper answer to the question, after we have done a deal, assuming I live that long.
Sorry , but this one isn't getting past at all.
You say in the first bolded part , that it is impossible to answer the question until a deal is done . Then go on to say that every brexit option damages our economy and job losses are inevitable . If you can't answer the question because of your initial reason , then you also can't make wild speculations about what's going to happen . You can't have your cake and eat it with flawed reasoning!
I think that is a fairly reasonable position. Don't forget where we are. The position is that we have a Withdrawal Agreement, which includes 7 pages of text that comprise an unbinding framework for future trade discussions. So there is much speculation on what may be included in a future trade deal. A number of possible deals have some support in Parliament. We could end up with The PMs deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, something completely different, or no deal. On this basis I don't think you could answer the question without knowing which deal. On the second point, The Government has done projections on each of the Brexit options. Each option causes damage to our economy, no deal being the most damaging. Some of the job losses have already occurred.
That seems to make sense to me.
No , you have been banging on now since ,what seems like eternity , about how bad for us all Brexit is going to be , you are continuing to do this ....but when asked a straightforward question , you can't come up with any negatives for you personally and about turn and say you cant answer it because you don't know what deal we are going to get . Yet bearing that in mind , you are quite prepared to continue saying how disasterous Brexit will be.........whooosh >>>>>> that was credibility leaving the building.
People constantly talked about "taking back control", during the referendum, particularly in reference to our borders.
Immigration was also a popular topic, and many Leave voters are against the continuation of Freedom of Movement.
There is no border that currently exists in the world that relies on technology alone, and has no infrastructure.
After leaving the Irish border becomes our border with 27 EU countries.
All sides have said they don't want a hard border, on the island of Ireland.
A hard border would be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement, and may result in a return to violence on the island.
Theresa May has also made clear that no UK PM would entertain a border between the UK, and Northern Ireland, as this would effectively split The Union.
Freedom of Movement will end in the UK when we leave the EU.
This will obviously continue in Ireland.
So what is the plan then?
How can you take back control, and cut back on immigration, with an open border between the UK and the EU.
The citizens of all EU countries will continue to have the right to travel to Ireland, and be able to just drive across the border into the UK.
There has been much talk about the options that would allow frictionless trade to continue after Brexit, but I cant recall controlling immigration being mentioned.
Another Brexit impossibility.
Taking back control of our borders means not having them.
From everything I've read and heard Flybybmi have been struggling for quite a while ...heard a reporter say earlier on a radio news broadcast , they had been constantly struggling with underfilled flights .
Right , its a bit early for a serious question , but I will leave you this one before I go out walking for the day .....How do you think Brexit will negatively affect you personally ?
I think it impossible to properly answer this question, until a deal is done, or not done.
Nearly three years since the referendum, and we still have no idea what any deal may look like, or even if there will be a deal.
We do know that no deal means disaster.
We also know that every Brexit option damages our economy.
Any damage to the economy, usually means more tax. This is likely to make those of us that haven't moved to Monaco, or bank off shore, worse off.
My views are based on what I think is best for the country, unlike many of our politicians.
Job losses seem inevitable, and the future of things like manufacturing, farming etc, are in doubt.
I think that many of the arguments used by the leave side, are just untrue. The so called benefits of leaving don't ring true to me.
Many politicians have completely unbalanced views, where taking control of our borders may really mean no control or no borders.
We seem to have a completely biased view of Freedom of Movement. We only see it in terms of immigration, and never in terms of the rights, and freedoms it gives us.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when every Brexiteer MP that appears on tv is keen to point out that 17.4 million people voted in favour of Brexit, but ask them about numbers of homeless people, those suffering mental health issues that cant get treated, those waiting for surgery in the NHS, and they wouldn't have a clue.
Brexit has given this Government an excuse for not addressing any of the Burning Injustices, that the PM referred to in her fist speech as PM.
This Government has botched Brexit, and done nothing else.
I will have to get back to you on a proper answer to the question, after we have done a deal, assuming I live that long.
Sorry , but this one isn't getting past at all.
You say in the first bolded part , that it is impossible to answer the question until a deal is done . Then go on to say that every brexit option damages our economy and job losses are inevitable . If you can't answer the question because of your initial reason , then you also can't make wild speculations about what's going to happen . You can't have your cake and eat it with flawed reasoning!
I think that is a fairly reasonable position. Don't forget where we are. The position is that we have a Withdrawal Agreement, which includes 7 pages of text that comprise an unbinding framework for future trade discussions. So there is much speculation on what may be included in a future trade deal. A number of possible deals have some support in Parliament. We could end up with The PMs deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, something completely different, or no deal. On this basis I don't think you could answer the question without knowing which deal. On the second point, The Government has done projections on each of the Brexit options. Each option causes damage to our economy, no deal being the most damaging. Some of the job losses have already occurred.
That seems to make sense to me.
No , you have been banging on now since ,what seems like eternity , about how bad for us all Brexit is going to be , you are continuing to do this ....but when asked a straightforward question , you can't come up with any negatives for you personally and about turn and say you cant answer it because you don't know what deal we are going to get . Yet bearing that in mind , you are quite prepared to continue saying how disasterous Brexit will be.........whooosh >>>>>> that was credibility leaving the building.
I am not sure which bit you don't understand. How is it possible to know the effect of a deal until it is actually agreed? Secondly, what I have clearly said is that Government projections have pointed to each Brexit option damaging the economy. It is not me saying that it is our Government. Jobs have been clearly lost already.
No , you have been banging on now since ,what seems like eternity , about how bad for us all Brexit is going to be , you are continuing to do this ....but when asked a straightforward question , you can't come up with any negatives for you personally and about turn and say you cant answer it because you don't know what deal we are going to get . Yet bearing that in mind , you are quite prepared to continue saying how disasterous Brexit will be.........whooosh >>>>>> that was credibility leaving the building.
The ex Brexit Secretary is not alone in saying that, given a choice between The PMs deal, and staying in, he would choose to stay in.
The Times says Prime Minister Theresa May is braced for what it calls "howls of rage" - as ministers finalise the tariffs that would apply to imported goods in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The paper says International Trade Secretary Liam Fox wants to move to "zero tariffs" in as many areas as possible - but other ministers want protection for producers, including farmers, who would struggle to compete with cheaper imports. The paper points out that under World Trade Organization rules, the UK must apply any tariffs to all other countries, not just those in the EU.
The Times says Prime Minister Theresa May is braced for what it calls "howls of rage" - as ministers finalise the tariffs that would apply to imported goods in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The paper says International Trade Secretary Liam Fox wants to move to "zero tariffs" in as many areas as possible - but other ministers want protection for producers, including farmers, who would struggle to compete with cheaper imports. The paper points out that under World Trade Organization rules, the UK must apply any tariffs to all other countries, not just those in the EU.
Am I thick? This seems to say that we could remove all tariffs. This would jeopardise some UK industries, that couldn't compete with cheap imports. WTO rules say that you cant differentiate from country to country. So if you removed tariffs on say cars, then cars are imported tariff free, wherever they came from. So if this was the case we could be importing tariff free from the EU, but they could still charge tariffs on UK goods. That would be a good plan for them.
I am not sure which bit you don't understand. How is it possible to know the effect of a deal until it is actually agreed? Secondly, what I have clearly said is that Government projections have pointed to each Brexit option damaging the economy. It is not me saying that it is our Government. Jobs have been clearly lost already.
So you haven't put forward your own opinions at all then , just to be clear , is that what you are saying ? You haven't said that Brexit would be bad for the uk ? If your answers to both of the above is of course I have and yes I have said that , then you should be able to formulate a basic answer on how it will negatively effect you .
I am not sure which bit you don't understand. How is it possible to know the effect of a deal until it is actually agreed? Secondly, what I have clearly said is that Government projections have pointed to each Brexit option damaging the economy. It is not me saying that it is our Government. Jobs have been clearly lost already.
So you haven't put forward your own opinions at all then , just to be clear , is that what you are saying ? You haven't said that Brexit would be bad for the uk ? If your answer to both of the above is no , then you should be able to formulate a basic answer on how it will negatively effect you .
I have said that Brexit will be bad for the UK,
The Chancellor has said Brexit will be bad for the UK.
How bad will depend on what the deal is.
We haven't even started to negotiate the future terms and conditions.
I am arguing, as I have said a number of times that it will be bad for the UK.
I don't think it possible to illustrate how it will affect each of us personally until the deal is done, and the full effects become known.
It is enough for me to know that the Governments own projections show that each Brexit option will damage the economy.
The effects of a no deal will be far worse than if a deal is done.
Each of the options will have a better or worse effect.
I did make it clear in my original post that I thought it was a bad move for our country.
My views are based on what I think is best for the country, unlike many of our politicians.
Job losses seem inevitable, and the future of things like manufacturing, farming etc, are in doubt.
I think that many of the arguments used by the leave side, are just untrue. The so called benefits of leaving don't ring true to me.
Many politicians have completely unbalanced views, where taking control of our borders may really mean no control or no borders.
We seem to have a completely biased view of Freedom of Movement. We only see it in terms of immigration, and never in terms of the rights, and freedoms it gives us.
I am not sure which bit you don't understand. How is it possible to know the effect of a deal until it is actually agreed? Secondly, what I have clearly said is that Government projections have pointed to each Brexit option damaging the economy. It is not me saying that it is our Government. Jobs have been clearly lost already.
So you haven't put forward your own opinions at all then , just to be clear , is that what you are saying ? You haven't said that Brexit would be bad for the uk ? If your answer to both of the above is no , then you should be able to formulate a basic answer on how it will negatively effect you .
I have said that Brexit will be bad for the UK,
The Chancellor has said Brexit will be bad for the UK.
How bad will depend on what the deal is.
We haven't even started to negotiate the future terms and conditions.
I am arguing, as I have said a number of times that it will be bad for the UK.
I don't think it possible to illustrate how it will affect each of us personally until the deal is done, and the full effects become known.
It is enough for me to know that the Governments own projections show that each Brexit option will damage the economy.
The effects of a no deal will be far worse than if a deal is done.
Each of the options will have a better or worse effect.
I did make it clear in my original post that I thought it was a bad move for our country.
My views are based on what I think is best for the country, unlike many of our politicians.
Job losses seem inevitable, and the future of things like manufacturing, farming etc, are in doubt.
I think that many of the arguments used by the leave side, are just untrue. The so called benefits of leaving don't ring true to me.
Many politicians have completely unbalanced views, where taking control of our borders may really mean no control or no borders.
We seem to have a completely biased view of Freedom of Movement. We only see it in terms of immigration, and never in terms of the rights, and freedoms it gives us.
I'm just asking you to tell us in your opinion how things might negatively impact you post Brexit ( not asking you to provide substantiative facts ) .....for example the price of the pound and possible extra travel fees for travelling to Europe ...If you holiday abroad a fair bit , then one could reasonably expect you to say imo , the cost of my holidays will be dearer. If you believe prices of goods will generally go up post brexit , then if you believe that , it would be reasonable for you to say my weekly shop will be more expensive ....the list goes on and clearly mirrors some of the views and projections you have championed ..yet you seem unprepared to publish an opinion now on how you might be affected .
Comments
I was reading what you posted.
Moving to Monaco to avoid paying tax in the UK is not tax avoidance.
If you read first line of your post it says what?
You are hard work.
If the man goes to live in Monaco, he will be under no obligation to pay UK tax.
Exactly the same as someone who goes to Portugal to work in a hotel.
A mate of mine has a bar in Lanzarote, and pays tax there.
None of them will be paying UK tax.
Even though they could all be accused of avoiding paying tax in the UK, none of them will be guilty of "tax avoidance", as it is a completely different thing, which you clearly don't understand.
After moving to Monaco he will be paying his tax there.
I cant be bothered with any more explaining.
Congratulations on getting your own thread bye the way.
What tax avoidance is
Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
Most tax avoidance schemes simply do not work, and those who use them may end up having to pay much more than the tax they tried to avoid, including penalties.
So maybe you shouldnt post fake news, it clearly says he is planning to move to AVOID paying tax.
By the way its not my thread but day4 eire, i was just repaying him the compliment after he trolled me.
To further this argument, you would have to be able to understand that there is a difference between "tax avoidance", and moving abroad to remove any obligation to pay UK tax.
To say that someone has moved abroad essentially to avoid paying UK tax, does not make them guilty of "tax avoidance". It just probably means they will pay their tax, in the country they have moved to.
If you read first line of your post it says what?
You are hard work.
If the man goes to live in Monaco, he will be under no obligation to pay UK tax.
Exactly the same as someone who goes to Portugal to work in a hotel.
A mate of mine has a bar in Lanzarote, and pays tax there.
None of them will be paying UK tax.
Even though they could all be accused of avoiding paying tax in the UK, none of them will be guilty of "tax avoidance", as it is a completely different thing, which you clearly don't understand.
After moving to Monaco he will be paying his tax there.
I cant be bothered with any more explaining.
Congratulations on getting your own thread bye the way.
What tax avoidance is
Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
Most tax avoidance schemes simply do not work, and those who use them may end up having to pay much more than the tax they tried to avoid, including penalties.
So maybe you shouldnt post fake news, it clearly says he is planning to move to AVOID paying tax.
By the way its not my thread but day4 eire, i was just repaying him the compliment after he trolled me.
To further this argument, you would have to be able to understand that there is a difference between "tax avoidance", and moving abroad to remove any obligation to pay UK tax.
To say that someone has moved abroad essentially to avoid paying UK tax, does not make them guilty of "tax avoidance". It just probably means they will pay their tax, in the country they have moved to.
Nothing to do with Brexit then.
As far as the snidey comment of yours , Haysie on the post for Rainmans attention , really helpful as regards forum harmony ! And why that particular post is allowed to exist on here ,is beyond me ...in all fairness if Rainman had posted it , he would have got at least a warning and probably worse .
If you don't approve of anything specific in the content, you don't have to post comments.
If you read first line of your post it says what?
You are hard work.
If the man goes to live in Monaco, he will be under no obligation to pay UK tax.
Exactly the same as someone who goes to Portugal to work in a hotel.
A mate of mine has a bar in Lanzarote, and pays tax there.
None of them will be paying UK tax.
Even though they could all be accused of avoiding paying tax in the UK, none of them will be guilty of "tax avoidance", as it is a completely different thing, which you clearly don't understand.
After moving to Monaco he will be paying his tax there.
I cant be bothered with any more explaining.
Congratulations on getting your own thread bye the way.
What tax avoidance is
Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
Most tax avoidance schemes simply do not work, and those who use them may end up having to pay much more than the tax they tried to avoid, including penalties.
So maybe you shouldnt post fake news, it clearly says he is planning to move to AVOID paying tax.
By the way its not my thread but day4 eire, i was just repaying him the compliment after he trolled me.
To further this argument, you would have to be able to understand that there is a difference between "tax avoidance", and moving abroad to remove any obligation to pay UK tax.
To say that someone has moved abroad essentially to avoid paying UK tax, does not make them guilty of "tax avoidance". It just probably means they will pay their tax, in the country they have moved to.
Nothing to do with Brexit then.
I suppose it was only relevant in that it is another prominent Brexiteer businessman, that has sung the praises of a post Brexit Britain, moving abroad.
Seen on Twitter this afternoon;
"Brilliant to be at an #Irexit conference in Cork this afternoon 🇮🇪
Irish people increasingly want to leave the European Union and take back control of their money, borders and laws"
I appreciate that, what is banter in one persons eyes, will appear as something else in another persons view.
I don't intend responding to any of his future posts.
This is unlikely to inconvenience me in any way.
“We think that that is inconsistent with the majority view and we consider that the convention of this conference provides an opportunity to rebalance that inequity.”
He added: “Political unionism has set its face against rights, against progressive, inclusive politics and has misrepresented the outcome of the referendum. This jurisdiction voted to remain and that is not being appropriately represented.”
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/brexit-conference-to-rebalance-misrepresentation-by-unionist-politicians-898215.html
You say in the first bolded part , that it is impossible to answer the question until a deal is done . Then go on to say that every brexit option damages our economy and job losses are inevitable .
If you can't answer the question because of your initial reason , then you also can't make wild speculations about what's going to happen . You can't have your cake and eat it with flawed reasoning!
Don't forget where we are.
The position is that we have a Withdrawal Agreement, which includes 7 pages of text that comprise an unbinding framework for future trade discussions.
So there is much speculation on what may be included in a future trade deal.
A number of possible deals have some support in Parliament.
We could end up with The PMs deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, something completely different, or no deal.
On this basis I don't think you could answer the question without knowing which deal.
On the second point, The Government has done projections on each of the Brexit options.
Each option causes damage to our economy, no deal being the most damaging.
Some of the job losses have already occurred.
That seems to make sense to me.
People constantly talked about "taking back control", during the referendum, particularly in reference to our borders.
Immigration was also a popular topic, and many Leave voters are against the continuation of Freedom of Movement.
There is no border that currently exists in the world that relies on technology alone, and has no infrastructure.
After leaving the Irish border becomes our border with 27 EU countries.
All sides have said they don't want a hard border, on the island of Ireland.
A hard border would be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement, and may result in a return to violence on the island.
Theresa May has also made clear that no UK PM would entertain a border between the UK, and Northern Ireland, as this would effectively split The Union.
Freedom of Movement will end in the UK when we leave the EU.
This will obviously continue in Ireland.
So what is the plan then?
How can you take back control, and cut back on immigration, with an open border between the UK and the EU.
The citizens of all EU countries will continue to have the right to travel to Ireland, and be able to just drive across the border into the UK.
There has been much talk about the options that would allow frictionless trade to continue after Brexit, but I cant recall controlling immigration being mentioned.
Another Brexit impossibility.
Taking back control of our borders means not having them.
How is it possible to know the effect of a deal until it is actually agreed?
Secondly, what I have clearly said is that Government projections have pointed to each Brexit option damaging the economy.
It is not me saying that it is our Government.
Jobs have been clearly lost already.
No , you have been banging on now since ,what seems like eternity , about how bad for us all Brexit is going to be , you are continuing to do this ....but when asked a straightforward question , you can't come up with any negatives for you personally and about turn and say you cant answer it because you don't know what deal we are going to get . Yet bearing that in mind , you are quite prepared to continue saying how disasterous Brexit will be.........whooosh >>>>>> that was credibility leaving the building.
The ex Brexit Secretary is not alone in saying that, given a choice between The PMs deal, and staying in, he would choose to stay in.
The paper says International Trade Secretary Liam Fox wants to move to "zero tariffs" in as many areas as possible - but other ministers want protection for producers, including farmers, who would struggle to compete with cheaper imports.
The paper points out that under World Trade Organization rules, the UK must apply any tariffs to all other countries, not just those in the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47274338
This seems to say that we could remove all tariffs.
This would jeopardise some UK industries, that couldn't compete with cheap imports.
WTO rules say that you cant differentiate from country to country.
So if you removed tariffs on say cars, then cars are imported tariff free, wherever they came from.
So if this was the case we could be importing tariff free from the EU, but they could still charge tariffs on UK goods.
That would be a good plan for them.
I am not sure which bit you don't understand.
How is it possible to know the effect of a deal until it is actually agreed?
Secondly, what I have clearly said is that Government projections have pointed to each Brexit option damaging the economy.
It is not me saying that it is our Government.
Jobs have been clearly lost already.
So you haven't put forward your own opinions at all then , just to be clear , is that what you are saying ? You haven't said that Brexit would be bad for the uk ? If your answers to both of the above is of course I have and yes I have said that , then you should be able to formulate a basic answer on how it will negatively effect you .
The Chancellor has said Brexit will be bad for the UK.
How bad will depend on what the deal is.
We haven't even started to negotiate the future terms and conditions.
I am arguing, as I have said a number of times that it will be bad for the UK.
I don't think it possible to illustrate how it will affect each of us personally until the deal is done, and the full effects become known.
It is enough for me to know that the Governments own projections show that each Brexit option will damage the economy.
The effects of a no deal will be far worse than if a deal is done.
Each of the options will have a better or worse effect.
I did make it clear in my original post that I thought it was a bad move for our country.
My views are based on what I think is best for the country, unlike many of our politicians.
Job losses seem inevitable, and the future of things like manufacturing, farming etc, are in doubt.
I think that many of the arguments used by the leave side, are just untrue. The so called benefits of leaving don't ring true to me.
Many politicians have completely unbalanced views, where taking control of our borders may really mean no control or no borders.
We seem to have a completely biased view of Freedom of Movement. We only see it in terms of immigration, and never in terms of the rights, and freedoms it gives us.