Originally posted by Gunnery Sergeant Hartman
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Rupert Murdoch on Radio Five Live today
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Rupert Murdoch on Radio Five Live today"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by benn0I ... have no problem with paying the correct amount of tax.
It is used a lot by the Chancellor and the Paymaster General, and has come to mean "the maximum amount of tax we can get from people", and includes IR35, S660 and, worst of all, the ability to veto legal tax avoidance methods.
Given the uncertain nature of the above, who knows what "the correct amount of tax" is, other than what individual HMRC officers decide after running roughshod over reason, or, for the lucky few with resources, what individual taxpayers can win back through the courts?
Most of the opinion on here is because HMG and HMRC demand as much as they can, because they can, and you have to pay up. So if they are going to extremes, what is wrong with taxpayers fighting to keep every penny they can?
I'm sure you don't pay IR35 and S660 do you?
Leave a comment:
-
My problem with the Murdoch thing is that he is allowed to get away with paying a tiny amount of tax whereas when we try to minimise our tax exposure we are seen as tax cheats. Because he offers NL a pro NL press then his organisations tax affairs are not investigated, whereas us little guys, who are not even in a position to fight the IR, are seen as fair game.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by benn0I'll give you the benfit of the doubt.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by hyperDI refer my right honourable friend to my post above and ask him to show the board the sentence that criticises Murdoch.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by benn0You lot are criticising Murdoch for minimising his tax liabilities
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by benn0I have three kids. That has nothing to do with my argument on this thread which you failed to grasp and have not responded to. Probably down to your lack of intelligence. Also, I do not support the current government anyway as you seem to think I do. I don't take the moral high ground. If anyone is doing so it is you (as usual) - Nicely summed up in the above tirade. You lot are criticising Murdoch for minimising his tax liabilities when the whole theme of this board is a constant barrage of moaning abut having to pay too much tax. Hypocritical self serving idiots.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DodgyAgentBecause the money you pay in tax does nothing other than support a truly evil system of delivering public services. People like you support this system because you simply believe that by throwing lots of tax at the govt the social problems of this world are someone elses problems. The worst thing about people like you is that you seem to think that this somehow gives you some sort of moral integrity. People like us are little more concerned about the ils of society in that we actually question the ethics of giving money to people who effectively squander it in large quantities.
That is what I call a champagne socialists. BTW do you have kids?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by benn0At last. The penny drops. I thought you lot claimed to be intelligent.
Murdoch's criticism of liebour that is the same as pretty much everyone elses:
Originally posted by Murdoch"They have... extended the nanny state, the welfare state, and destroyed, gone a long way to destroy, this idea of personal responsibility for people's lives.
"It's up to people to get on, and it's up to the government to get out of their way, tax them less, give them more incentives."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by benn0I pay my dues. Without moaning. I work hard and have no problem with paying the correct amount of tax. Like anyone else I have issues with scroungers, but I also do not expect a free lunch with regards to education, defence, transport, health etc. Can you tell me what is Champagne Socialist about that? I suggest you do it after you have developed the ability to understand my original argument. Wendigo seems to be the only one who has read and understood my point. Probably the only one not pre-judging.
Because the money you pay in tax does nothing other than support a truly evil system of delivering public services. People like you support this system because you simply believe that by throwing lots of tax at the govt the social problems of this world are someone elses problems. The worst thing about people like you is that you seem to think that this somehow gives you some sort of moral integrity. People like us are little more concerned about the ils of society in that we actually question the ethics of giving money to people who effectively squander it in large quantities.
That is what I call a champagne socialists. BTW do you have kids?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SpartacusOh, I see. So it's alright for you to minimise your tax liabilities but not for anyone else. You are the stone-throwing hypocrite, my little champagne socialist friend.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by wendigo100Hang on, I don't think that is where benn0 is coming from. He thinks some OTHER posters here are implicitly criticising Murdoch for pursuing his own interests, when THEY would do exactly the same.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SpartacusBut then HE says HE does it as well. Making him a "throw the first stone" hypocrite also.
If he wasn't, then he's not a hypocrite.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by wendigo100Hang on, I don't think that is where benn0 is coming from. He thinks some OTHER posters here are implicitly criticising Murdoch for pursuing his own interests, when THEY would do exactly the same.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SpartacusOh, I see. So it's alright for you to minimise your tax liabilities but not for anyone else. You are the stone-throwing hypocrite, my little champagne socialist friend.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Secondary NI threshold sinking to £5,000: a limited company director’s explainer Dec 24 09:51
- Reeves sets Spring Statement 2025 for March 26th Dec 23 09:18
- Spot the hidden contractor Dec 20 10:43
- Accounting for Contractors Dec 19 15:30
- Chartered Accountants with MarchMutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants with March Mutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants Dec 19 15:05
- Unfairly barred from contracting? Petrofac just paid the price Dec 19 09:43
- An IR35 case law look back: contractor must-knows for 2025-26 Dec 18 09:30
- A contractor’s Autumn Budget financial review Dec 17 10:59
Leave a comment: