News1 min ago
The man who used to be PM
'accounts show a company set up by Mr Blair to manage his business affairs paid just £315,000 in tax last year on an income of more than £12 million. In that time, he employed 26 staff and paid them total wages of almost £2.3 million.'
http://www.telegraph....lion-tax-mystery.html
Is this fair to the millions of ordinary taxpayers in the UK? Legal probably, but such creative accounting leaves a sour taste in my PAYE mouth.
http://www.telegraph....lion-tax-mystery.html
Is this fair to the millions of ordinary taxpayers in the UK? Legal probably, but such creative accounting leaves a sour taste in my PAYE mouth.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by abstibus. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's profit that counts not income
What was the profit? - Oh look they haven't said
Barclays in contrast made 11.6 Billion in *Profit* and paid only £113 Million in tax!
http://www.guardian.c...-113m-corporation-tax
What was the profit? - Oh look they haven't said
Barclays in contrast made 11.6 Billion in *Profit* and paid only £113 Million in tax!
http://www.guardian.c...-113m-corporation-tax
A quote from the article itself: "There is no suggestion that Mr Blair’s tax affairs are anything other than legitimate." So, why write about them?
I wonder whether the same newspaper, The Telegraph, ever did a similarly detailed examination of the tax affairs of Lord Ashcroft, until about 15 months ago the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. Perhaps they even reported on the fact that Thatcher coined in $50,000 per speech after SHE was defenestrated by her colleagues...worth a sight more now...given that they quote what Tony Blair gets for the same effort.
Propaganda, pure and simple!
I wonder whether the same newspaper, The Telegraph, ever did a similarly detailed examination of the tax affairs of Lord Ashcroft, until about 15 months ago the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. Perhaps they even reported on the fact that Thatcher coined in $50,000 per speech after SHE was defenestrated by her colleagues...worth a sight more now...given that they quote what Tony Blair gets for the same effort.
Propaganda, pure and simple!
If you actually read the article jake-the peg, it said....
"The accounts show a turnover of £12.005 million and administrative expenses of £10.919 million, leaving Windrush Ventures with a profit of just over £1 million, on which Mr Blair paid tax of £315,000. The tax was paid at the corporate tax rate of 28 per cent. "
"The accounts show a turnover of £12.005 million and administrative expenses of £10.919 million, leaving Windrush Ventures with a profit of just over £1 million, on which Mr Blair paid tax of £315,000. The tax was paid at the corporate tax rate of 28 per cent. "
The Barclay Brother who own the Telegraph are masters at Tax Avoidance.
http://www.thisislond...brothers-tax-shock.do
The famously lived on Sark to avoid UK mainland Tax rates.
http://www.thisislond...brothers-tax-shock.do
The famously lived on Sark to avoid UK mainland Tax rates.
Boxtops, if you read the article, you'll SEE what Tony Blair "actually did to earn all this dosh", as you put it.
In brief, he runs a business consultancy, he is an adviser to JP Morgan - a global financial services company - and an adviser to Zürich International - a global insurance company. In addition, he is paid for delivering speeches and lectures to various bodies.
Clearly such companies, societies and organisations would not pay for these services if they did not value what he has to say on matters which are of interest to them.
(More of us ought to know that - post Prime-Ministership - Thatcher clawed in multi thousands as an adviser to Philip Morris Inc, the world's largest tobacco company. Her task was, apparently, to advise on how to stop EC countries bringing in anti-smoking measures.)
In brief, he runs a business consultancy, he is an adviser to JP Morgan - a global financial services company - and an adviser to Zürich International - a global insurance company. In addition, he is paid for delivering speeches and lectures to various bodies.
Clearly such companies, societies and organisations would not pay for these services if they did not value what he has to say on matters which are of interest to them.
(More of us ought to know that - post Prime-Ministership - Thatcher clawed in multi thousands as an adviser to Philip Morris Inc, the world's largest tobacco company. Her task was, apparently, to advise on how to stop EC countries bringing in anti-smoking measures.)
Even The Grauniad has it:
http://www.guardian.c...-earnings?INTCMP=SRCH
http://www.guardian.c...-earnings?INTCMP=SRCH
It comes down to the old adage "its not what you know but whom you know'.
His contacts in office have certainly shored up his earnings but the one that stands out is JP Morgan probably linked to his dealings with GW Bush. He could never foresee his US patriotism leading to such riches but maybe he learnt from previous Prime ministers who had.
His contacts in office have certainly shored up his earnings but the one that stands out is JP Morgan probably linked to his dealings with GW Bush. He could never foresee his US patriotism leading to such riches but maybe he learnt from previous Prime ministers who had.
1 to 12 of 12
