Dividends

[MyUserName]

Having now found the original article that is how I read it as well.

Care to share the original article?

[AtW]

Given the telling off that Osborne got last time for the number of leaks of what was going to be said, I'd be surprised if they knew too much this far in advance.

They leak most important stuff on purpose to test public's opinion, exception some real nasty stuff that they expect to get away with because nobody reads the small print.

[eek]

Care to share the original article?

Try APSCo and Lawspeed note how the government are now moving to address tax issues. | HMRC gets active | The Global Recruiter Magazine

[MyUserName]

Try APSCo and Lawspeed note how the government are now moving to address tax issues. | HMRC gets active | The Global Recruiter Magazine

This seems to be talking about companies using offshore schemes?

[NickFitz]

They leak most important stuff on purpose to test public's opinion, exception some real nasty stuff that they expect to get away with because nobody reads the small print.

Another standard technique is to get some total nut job on the extreme right of the party to make a speech in their constituency calling for some ludicrous measure, tipping off the media so it gets widely reported. Ministers then drone on about there being "no plans in that direction, though as a matter of course all options are considered in drafting future policies".

Leave it for six months to a year, and then somebody more senior will come out with something along remarkably similar lines. This time, they'll brief the Daily Mail et al. so as to get a bit of a moral panic going.

After another few months, whatever swivel-eyed loon happens to be minister will announce it as a policy that's being considered because of {whatever the moral panic whipped up by the Daily Mail was about}. And not long after that, they'll push it into law.

Go back and look at the history of many demented policies, not just from this lot but from governments of any stripe, and you'll see the pattern.

IIRC Maggie's poll tax was brought in by this road; the moral panic there was about little old ladies being forced to leave their family home, though of course it was actually multi-millionaires in mansions who saw the benefit. Nobody ever established the existence of any such little old ladies who actually benefitted from the policy, or would have really suffered if it hadn't been enacted.

[AtW]

IIRC Maggie's poll tax was brought in by this road; the moral panic there was about little old ladies being forced to leave their family home, though of course it was actually multi-millionaires in mansions who saw the benefit.

How exactly did multi-millionaires in mansions benefit from another tax, were they exempt?

And how is exactly poll-tax is different from council tax? Personally I find the concept of poll-tax much fairer - assuming the objective is to collect money for local services rather than use it as excuse for redistribution of wealth that was already very heavily taxed.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Given the telling off that Osborne got last time for the number of leaks of what was going to be said, I'd be surprised if they knew too much this far in advance.

Well in this case it's expected as it's something that the OTS have been looking into.

[jamesbrown]

This seems to be talking about companies using offshore schemes?

Presumably this:

Osborne To Close National Insurance Loophole

[NickFitz]

How exactly did multi-millionaires in mansions benefit from another tax, were they exempt?

And how is exactly poll-tax is different from council tax? Personally I find the concept of poll-tax much fairer - assuming the objective is to collect money for local services rather than use it as excuse for redistribution of wealth that was already very heavily taxed.

The preceding system was based on the rateable value of the property. The more the house was worth, the higher the bill. The poll tax changed to a per-person charge; so a couple living in a one-bed flat would pay more than one person living in a ten-bedroom house.

[AtW]

The preceding system was based on the rateable value of the property. The more the house was worth, the higher the bill. The poll tax changed to a per-person charge; so a couple living in a one-bed flat would pay more than one person living in a ten-bedroom house.

It seems sensible to charge for things like garbage collection on the basis of number of people, a fair version of the tax if there was one.

Why should somebody who paid taxes and bought house pay more just because the house is bigger? They already paid stamp duty on the purchase.

It's not like really rich people with houses worth tens of millions give a tulip about council tax, poll tax etc - it turns out many of them just bought house in name of offshore companies and even avoided stamp duty!