Donate SIGN UP

Biting The Hand That Feeds You

Avatar Image
chrisgel | 09:04 Tue 11th Jun 2013 | News
17 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338946/Businessman-fought-asylum-UK-child-wins-High-Court-battle-850-000-tax-bill.html

I think that this is almost the definition of greed. Here we have a modern day "Boy done good" story. A man who was granted asylum in this country and went on to be a successful entrepeneur and then fought like hell to avoid paying his dues to the country that gave him the opportunities.
How can he get away with this?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by chrisgel. 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.
seems like he's become a true Brit, using UK law to avoid paying any more tax than he has to, which is what everyone does. Up to the government to change the laws if they want.
While I know many "English" people avoid paying tax, we have to remember that many immigrants come from countries where the concept of paying ANY sort of tax is alien to them.

It was reported recently that the majority of MPs in Pakistan pay no tax at all, I think it was even reported the Prime minster of Pakistan pays no tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22017091

This is why when people come to the UK from India and Pakistan they do all they can to avoid paying any sort of tax.

You will notice many Asians own corner shops and newsagents where most of the payment is in cash, so very easy to avoid putting it through their "books".

Many Asian shops also employ members of the family to work in the shop (husbands, wives, children, grandparents etc.) but they don't actually pay them any wages, and hence they don't have to pay any tax as they don't actually earn any money.

You will probably find the only person in the shop who actually earns a salary is the husband, and he will earn the minimum wage, so he does not have to pay any income tax. The rest of the family pay no tax at all, even though they work in the shop.

I recently went to a huge cash and carry to do some shopping for a local fete our town was running. I live on the edge of Birmingham and the whole place was full of Asians (it was also RUN by Asians). EVERY Asian had a huge trolley full of stuff and every Asian I saw buying anything was paying hundreds of pounds in cash. You can be certain none of it went through their books.

I don't think many English people realise how we are being taken for a ride by many of these Asian immigrants. They want all the benefits of living in the UK, but are not willing to pay their bit towards it.
He hasn't "got away with it".
He could have, due to a ridiculous concept, non-domicile, and sued his accountants for failing to advise him how to.
I can't see a) what he's done wrong and b) how his being an asylum seeker at the age of 12 has any relevance at all.

Anyone care to explain either or both?
Well direct taxation has always been the easiest to avoid. We should move more towards unavoidable indirect taxes. Those described above still have to buy things.

Apparantly in India on 3% of the puvlic pay taxes, of course what they mean is direct taxation. They must have a lot of indirect tax to compensate.
Question Author
Fred - I posted it because a) I think it is morally wrong to avoid paying your dues (Legal or not) b) Because he has been given opportuities by this country that he wouldn't have had in his home country.
That is my opinion and why I posted it.
What's the relevance of his opportunities? I don't see why, because he was born abroad and cannot go back to his own country, he is to be treated as inferior to the rest of us. This man has started with little, given employment to many and provided a service .Who cares what country he's from? He's not got any more obligation not to use tax -saving schemes than the rest of us have. He's one of us.

Had he been born and bred British he would, if he had any sense, established a foreign tax domicile for himself or his business. Do you condemn Sir Philip Green,for example, a self-made British businessman, for having a foreign tax domicile?( He owns Top Shop and other fashion stores) He's been knighted, so someone thinks he's done some good (He has; he's rescued countless stores and turned them to profit, thereby saving and creating jobs)
Bad choice of comparision, fred.
I doubt Green has many AB fans.
Question Author
I don't condemn anybody but successive Governments for not closing all these loopholes as and when they arose.
I paid tax all my working life, unfortunately I never earned enough to be able to pay a fancy lawyer and accountant to tell me how not to pay tax.
I paid my taxes in the knowledge that people before me had paid their dues in order that I could get an education, be kept healthy and enjoy the infrastructure of a civilised country.
Sir Philip Green and Hossein Mehjoo also enjoyed these benefits so they should, as all the rest of us do, pay some of it back.
Question Author
//thereby saving and creating jobs// and in the process made himself incredibly wealthy on the backs of those employed in those jobs. That's his reward. It doesn't give him carte blanche to avoid paying his dues like the rest of us do.
That's just greed.
it gives him exactly the same right as anyone else to avoid paying taxes that aren't due, though.
Well, I like Green, svejk ! I expect that many cheerfully buy in his shops but think he should pay more tax and there are some on AB who aren't happy with capitalism to start with, let alone rich capitalist tax- avoiders.

But what I found offensive was the idea that because a man is foreign- born and here he must not act as anybody who is not.Every immigrant comes here because they think there is more opportunity here. He has done better than most. How is the fact that he was an asylum seeker make him worse or less entitled than any other immigrant or native? If the USA had worked on the adverse principle suggested, it could have hardly existed, being largely built on the fortune of people who couldn't go back home!
Question Author
I quite agree with you that tax needs reform, but I think it's up to the government to do it (rather than just blathering about how wicked Starbucks are, which is all they've done so far). Meanwhile, we have a duty to pay the taxes we owe under the present system, and no duty to pay any that we don't owe.
As far as i can see , he and other people and corporations are using legal instruments to avoid paying anymore tax than they have to - this is tax avoidance not evasion .
You shouldn't be suprised that they only pay , what they need to - that's human nature .

You can argue that morally they should pay more in taxation - that's another arguement .

It's no good the government huffing and puffing about these people and companies .

What they need to do is work to change the taxation laws internationally and the situation where a company can use the ruse of registerring their company in some tax haven .
Mention has been made of Indians not paying tax. The second richest man in Britain is Lakshmi Mittal. He is Indian, not a British citizen, but chooses to live here, not India. Clearly he's not worried overmuch by paying our taxes, but there's no prize for guessing why that is.
In case you are wondering: The richest man in Britain is Alisher Usmanov, a Russian. The richest native- born British resident is the Duke of Westminster and he is only the eighth richest. The first seven are all Russian or Indian. This may say more about our tax assessment and collecting than our attractive climate!

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Biting The Hand That Feeds You

Answer Question >>