gettafa Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 No. Please enlighten me (serious question) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 May be data protection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 No. Please enlighten me (serious question) So they can't pin me down for gun running. Duh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commish Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 the real piss take is that it costs a grand a week for a room and a few minumum wage staff and about £3.50 per day per person meal allowanceTrue, that's fair comment too. I'm just pissed off as I've seen quite a few people do it recently and they're already gloating about how they're spending their windfall when they couldnt wait to offload their infirm parents onto the state and nab the house. It's pretty low behaviour in my book. Much worse than avoiding a bit of tax.Envious bugger.Yes funny how you can be envious that the state is milking you for your parents care fees as you can afford it and yet some spawny twat is driving round in a new car because he's dumped his liabilities onto the state and copped for a £200k house into the bargain. As I said these people are leeches and much worse than tax avoiders. I bet they think tax avoiding is wrong to whilst taking the piss to the tune of £1,000 a week. Yes, but they've worked hard all their lives to buy that house. The state should be providing the old age care and cut these greedy £1000 a week jokers out of the loop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 No. Please enlighten me (serious question) So they can't pin me down for gun running. Duh... Interestingly, it isn't called gun running on the Isle of Man. ..erm, in the same way that military aircraft dealing in Athol Street might be called...what was..oh yes 'crop spraying aircraft'. May be data protection? Praise be to the lord. For data protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commish Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Good point. By the way, if a person gifts his/her house to family and subsequently goes into residential or nursing care within a certain period - I think it might be ten years - the government still considers it as one of your assets when calculating any financial assistance towards the fees they may give, so it's a big gamble. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) There is no specific period. 7 years used to be the one bandied about. I do believe (and there is plenty of details on the internet) if it is considered that a property has been transferred to family to avoid such as care costs, then the authorities can treat the property as an asset of the former owner. Edited April 11, 2016 by gettafa 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 2:47:00 into this programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076b0ky Allan Bell was interviewed on the BBC R4 "Today" programme today about ten to nine and he was speaking from Tynwald building...He spoke well, clearly and firmly. He also said that the Island has agreed to an electronic data base showing beneficiaries etc with the aim of that information being available to tax and law enforcement authorities within "an hour"...On Mannin Line yesterday Advocate Gerry Carter said that Allan Bell was due in London soon to sign up to this agreement....Allan Bell also pointed out that on the Tax Justice Network the UK was 15th for lack of transparency and the Isle of Man down the list at 32...He also said that the IOM is not a tax haven and that it has never had banking secrecy and is in the forefront of effective offshore regulation.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Well done Allan Bell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessTickle Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Here's the same program: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b075ty6x/sunday-politics-north-west-10042016 On that program the conservative MP for Eddisbury claimed that details of companies registered in IOM were not transparent, which is not true of course. Anyone can go on-line or visit companies registry and for the appropriate fee get all the info they need. Arif Ansari, who is normally very thorough in his research, didn't correct the MP. Far less transparent than it used to be. Not so long ago you could find details based on a person's name. Now it is only via company name or company number. There is a massive difference. But in reality 90% (f not more) of the directors that came up were employed by CSP's so you didn't know who was behind the company, so I don't think this has changed anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 And why should it? The information is available to the people that matter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 He was on the news this morning on Radio 4. I thought he did an okay job, mentioned the UK has less regulation and left the journalists last words as "People in glass houses..."Approximate time? Running order doesn't namecheck him and I wouldn;t mind having a listen. 0710 or 0820 looks like the best bets. Sounded good. No waffle, answered the questions reasonably without dumping on any other jurisdiction and got his important points across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessTickle Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) That was rather the point I was making! Gettafa seems to have a real bee in his bonnet about the loss of the green screen and this is something he has mentioned more than once. He might previously have been able to search someone to see what companies they were directors of, but it meant nothing. There has been no loss of transparency at all. ETA - in response to notwell Edited April 11, 2016 by JessTickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 The loss of the green screens: All the shutters came down amidst sighs of relief from Athol Street and environs. And no one batted an eyelid. And why should it? The information is available to the people that matter. And who do you prefer the people that matter be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 There was a great 'expose' in the Sunday Mail yesterday - which I'm sure was tongue in cheek - about how Cameron avoided income tax by getting Osborne to reduce the high rate of tax by 5% thereby saving him thousands a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.