Paradise Papers: Tax Havens Exposed

Dai Corner · 9 Nov 2017

DarloRich said:
I note the point but reiterate the resources available and the numbers to be treated are vastly different. That isnt to say things couldn't be made better btw just that i feel you are complaining a 2017 Ferrari with a 1970's double decker and wondering why the bus is slow away from the lights.

If you want a Transport analogy, I'm comparing driving to the shop three times a week for groceries with doing one big shop.

RailUK Forums

Bromley boy · 9 Nov 2017

DarloRich said:
Perhaps I should have said indirectly - the consultant you see in your private clinic also (often) does NHS work. The more private work he does the less time he can offer to the NHS. His staff, trained no doubt, by the NHS are deprived to that service by way of being offered better wages and nicer hours. Such is life, but it is damaging to the NHS and by extension us mere plebs waiting patiently in the queue for help.

There are strict BMA rules around consultants offering private health services to specifically prevent this. I won't comment on how effective they are, as I don't know, but I would suggest any criticisms should be levelled at BMA rather than the private sector.

As a general point the NHS is pretty much the only area of government spending which has been ring fenced from cuts. Spending increases year or year and yet how ever much money is thrown into it all we ever hear about is how strapped for cash it is, on the point of collapse, needs yet more money etc. Case in point - didn't they recently waste £1bn or so on an IT system that didn't even work in the end and was abandoned?!

We have a choice. We can carry on doing what we've always done, expecting different results, or maybe it's time to get a bit more creative and look for other solutions to ease the pressure, perhaps including the private sector. The trouble is any suggestion of changing work practices or improving efficiency is shouted down as "wanting to destroy the NHS" etc.

EDIT: for the record, I don't personally have private health cover, although I have in the past.

Dai Corner · 9 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
We have a choice. We can carry on doing what we've always done, expecting different results, or maybe it's time to get a bit more creative and look for other solutions to ease the pressure, perhaps including the private sector. The trouble is any suggestion of changing work practices or improving efficiency is shouted down as "wanting to destroy the NHS" etc.

EDIT: for the record, I don't have personally have private health cover.

As I recounted above there are those working in the NHS who can see how things could be done better but there seems to be much resistance to change. My consultant was sufficiently frustrated to leave and set up his own clinic, showing how it should be done.

And for the record, I don't have private health insurance either, but am fortunate to have some savings I could use.

Bromley boy · 9 Nov 2017

Dai Corner said:
As I recounted above there are those working in the NHS who can see how things could be done better but there seems to be much resistance to change. My consultant was sufficiently frustrated to leave and set up his own clinic, showing how it should be done.

And for the record, I don't have private health insurance either, but am fortunate to have some savings I could use.

Anecdotally I know a few medics and have come across others working for the NHS in a variety of roles, all of whom would say exactly the same as your consultant. Frustrated and doing the best they can in the confines of the system. Anyone suggesting changes or improvements quickly realises they are p*ssing in the wind and gives up.

The problem with the NHS is definitely the culture, not the people, but changing a culture is like changing the course of a supertanker, so the whole mess just lumbers on and on without ever improving.

It has very strong parallels with the railway, I must say!

Yew · 9 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
The problem with the NHS is definitely the culture, not the people, but changing a culture is like changing the course of a supertanker, so the whole mess just lumbers on and on without ever improving.

It has very strong parallels with the railway, I must say!

Typically the issue is Doctors ending in senior management positions, and looking down and vetoing actual management and logistical professionals due to the fact that they don't have a medical degree. Therefore, those who want improvements to systems are ignored and denied opportunities or resources.

Tetchytyke · 9 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
If you believe tax avoidance (which can be as innocuous as opening an isa account, claiming tax deductible expenses, or paying into a pension) is the same as “stealing a telly” (a criminal offence) you have quite evidently not understood a single word of it.

Opening an ISA isn't the same, not least because of the revised tax rules on savings.

But we all know that opening an ISA is *not* the same thing as, say, buying all your coffee from your supplier (owned by you) in the famed coffee-growing region of, er, Luxembourg. At prices which, purely by coincidence, offset all your profit in the UK.

It's taking the mickey out of you and me and, even more importantly, taking the mickey out of competitors who don't get to offshore their profit.

Paul Lewis, the Moneybox one, refers to it as e-voidance. It being lawful doesn't make it equal to putting some money in a pension. It's this level of moral bankruptcy that led us to 2007.

Tetchytyke · 9 Nov 2017

Dai Corner said:
Having worked in the public sector I know how much money can be wasted

This is the standard response to any arguments about poor funding in health and education services. It's nothing but a platitude. It is a meaningless soundbite. Anyone can choose isolated examples of "waste", from any sector.

Ironically, of course, under-staffing is actually incredibly inefficient: staff make more mistakes, they burn out, they take sick days, they leave and their replacements need to be trained.

Tetchytyke · 9 Nov 2017

Dai Corner said:
As I recounted above there are those working in the NHS who can see how things could be done better but there seems to be much resistance to change. My consultant was sufficiently frustrated to leave and set up his own clinic, showing how it should be done.

Who "resists" change? The staff who've not had a pay rise for ten years? The burned out nurses, surviving on food banks, who leave? The commissioners who couldn't find their own backside with both hands (and were put in their position by Jeremy *unt purely because they were incapable of doing the job)?

I'm genuinely interested. The "culture needs changing" is a common sound bite. It has been since the NHS was invented. Trouble is , nobody ever identifies which culture, who creates it, and what it should be changed to.

Tetchytyke · 9 Nov 2017

Dai Corner said:
That wasn't my point. My point was that the clinic gave a better service using fewer resources and why can't the NHS be that well organised (or at least better organised than it seems to be).

Fewer resources?!?!?

There are, of course, many reasons. A smaller caseload, for one. The fact that the private sector only deal with routine problems, for two. A more stable and educated client base, for another. Who are paying handsomely for the service.

It's easy to have few cancellations, and no complications, when you're dealing with people who are fundamentally stable. They will turn up to their appointmentsike good boys and girls. And, as they're not emergency cases, there won't be complications and staff won't be called away to deal with a major crisis elsewhere because the crises get dumped on the NHS.

Private practice "efficiency" is nothing more than the efficiency of being able to pick and choose who you treat.

Dai Corner · 9 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
This is the standard response to any arguments about poor funding in health and education services. It's nothing but a platitude. It is a meaningless soundbite. Anyone can choose isolated examples of "waste", from any sector.

Ironically, of course, under-staffing is actually incredibly inefficient: staff make more mistakes, they burn out, they take sick days, they leave and their replacements need to be trained.

The difference is that in a well-managed organisation the waste is sought out and reduced. A poorly managed private company which fails to control its costs will eventually go out of business but in some parts of the public sector response is 'we need more money' and a refusal to accept that more could be done within existing budgets.

I agree that understaffing can lead to the problems you mention. The secret is to organise well and control procurement costs so you can employ enough staff and give them the tools they need to do a good job.

Tetchytyke · 9 Nov 2017

Dai Corner said:
control procurement costs

The NHS has been "controlling procurement costs" (i.e. no pay rises) for ten years. How is that working with staff retention?

The simple fact is that you cannot indefinitely turn water into wine. Things cost money.

Dai Corner · 9 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
The NHS has been "controlling procurement costs" (i.e. no pay rises) for ten years. How is that working with staff retention?

The simple fact is that you cannot indefinitely turn water into wine. Things cost money.

Procurement costs are the costs of goods and services bought in. Reduce these by only buying what you actually need and getting the best prices and you'd have more left for staff costs (including pay).

Tetchytyke · 9 Nov 2017

Again, one cannot indefinitely turn water into wine. Things cost money.

As is proven every time that NICE say the NHS should not supply a "miracle cancer drug" to some dying person because it is too expensive. There's hell on.

The idea that there are billions of pounds of savings to be had, if only the dunces let the clever private sector minds take over, is simply laughable.

43021HST · 9 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
The idea that there are billions of pounds of savings to be had, if only the dunces let the clever private sector minds take over, is simply laughable.

I agree with your points entirely and merely wish to expand your point, this belief that private industry is more efficient than state owned is a myth, it's private industry that creates duplication and wastage through competition. Often it's the state that has to clear up the mess left behind by private the private sector.

Dai Corner · 9 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
Again, one cannot indefinitely turn water into wine. Things cost money.

As is proven every time that NICE say the NHS should not supply a "miracle cancer drug" to some dying person because it is too expensive. There's hell on.

The idea that there are billions of pounds of savings to be had, if only the dunces let the clever private sector minds take over, is simply laughable.

I'm not advocating 'letting the private sector take over' I'm talking about looking to see what the private sector does better and seeing how those methods could be used to improve the NHS. My previous posts give an example.

Tetchytyke · 9 Nov 2017

Dai Corner said:
My previous posts give an example.

I'm not sure they do, to be honest, because you're not comparing apples with apples.

The private sector manages to be "efficient" by selecting the patients it will treat. They don't do chaotic and they don't do emergency. I'm at a loss as to how BUPA picking and choosing who they treat can teach us anything.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with more details than "I don't queue at my well-funded, well-staffed, selective private clinic and so the NHS is rubbish".

Dai Corner · 9 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
I'm not sure they do, to be honest, because you're not comparing apples with apples.

The private sector manages to be "efficient" by selecting the patients it will treat. They don't do chaotic and they don't do emergency. I'm at a loss as to how BUPA picking and choosing who they treat can teach us anything.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with more details than "I don't queue at my well-funded, well-staffed, selective private clinic and so the NHS is rubbish".

It's probably got lost in the subsequent discussions but my point was that the private clinic got everything done in one afternoon with one consultant whereas the NHS took several visits and several consultants' time to do the same thing. I'm wondering why the NHS can't do that and therefore see more patients more quickly without employing any more staff or other resources.

The emergency treatment I received when I originally had my heart attack was brilliant but I feel the subsequent outpatients follow up could have been better.

Bromley boy · 10 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
The idea that there are billions of pounds of savings to be had, if only the dunces let the clever private sector minds take over, is simply laughable.

But no one has actually said that. You've just gone down the usual rabbit hole of conflating some sensible suggestions that the NHS could, God forbid, learn something from the private sector and change for the better with advocating a wholesale private sector takeover.

As we are constantly being told the current system isn't working, perhaps it's time to think about changing it in ways beyond just throwing ever more money into a bottomless pit.

Many of us are fed up with reading the same tired old headlines about how the NHS is strapped for cash and about to collapse in the certain knowledge that in 2, 5, 10 years time the budget will have continued to mushroom, we'll still be reading the same headlines and nothing will have changed.

Bromley boy · 10 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
Opening an ISA isn't the same, not least because of the revised tax rules on savings.

But we all know that opening an ISA is *not* the same thing as, say, buying all your coffee from your supplier (owned by you) in the famed coffee-growing region of, er, Luxembourg. At prices which, purely by coincidence, offset all your profit in the UK.

It's taking the mickey out of you and me and, even more importantly, taking the mickey out of competitors who don't get to offshore their profit.

Paul Lewis, the Moneybox one, refers to it as e-voidance. It being lawful doesn't make it equal to putting some money in a pension. It's this level of moral bankruptcy that led us to 2007.

Sorry but these points have been extensively debated up thread, in quite a bit of detail.

Suffice it to say, equating tax avoidance with "stealing a telly" indicates you have insufficient understanding of the subject at hand to make any further discussion worthwhile!

DarloRich · 10 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
Sorry but these points have been extensively debated up thread, in quite a bit of detail.

Suffice it to say, equating tax avoidance with "stealing a telly" indicates you have insufficient understanding of the subject at hand to make any further discussion worthwhile!

Exactly - stealing a TV has much less impact on society as a whole compared with the damage done by the millions "saved" under clever and all very legal tax avoidance scams enjoyed by the mega being denied to our society

Tetchytyke · 10 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
Many of us are fed up with reading the same tired old headlines about how the NHS is strapped for cash and about to collapse in the certain knowledge that in 2, 5, 10 years time the budget will have continued to mushroom, we'll still be reading the same headlines and nothing will have changed.

The budget isn't "mushrooming", but the required funding will increase. Longer lifespans, more complicated procedures, more technologically advanced drugs. They all cost money, and lots of it. And that's even before we consider big standard inflation.

The choice, quite starkly, is pay the cash or don't do the things. One cannot demand the NHS does ever-more amazing and advanced things and then moan because there's a price tag attached. The budget used to be smaller because, quite frankly, the only thing that could be done was pump them full of morphine and await their death.

Tetchytyke · 10 Nov 2017

Bromley boy said:
Sorry but these points have been extensively debated up thread, in quite a bit of detail.

Have they?

"I disagree with you, so you're an idiot" isn't much of a debate.

Suffice it to say, equating tax avoidance with "stealing a telly" indicates you have insufficient understanding of the subject at hand to make any further discussion worthwhile!

No, tax e-voidance is much, much worse.

But of course I'm not an ex-banker who made my money in a morally bankrupt industry, so I don't know what I'm talking about. Bless the proles, they know not of what they speak.

Xenophon PCDGS · 10 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
No, tax e-voidance is much, much worse. But of course I'm not an ex-banker who made my money in a morally bankrupt industry, so I don't know what I'm talking about. Bless the proles, they know not of what they speak.

Damascene moments such as this are most welcome to read.

talltim · 10 Nov 2017

DarloRich said:
The media suggests that they are paying less than me. That does make me angry. Why are you not angry about that? Why does it not bother you? Do you not care that the country could improve the NHS or schools or the police with some of that money.

Like private jets? According to the papers Lewis Hamilton got a £3m VAT rebate on his jet purchase/lease because it is used for business. His main business is driving formula one cars so I assume he uses the jet to commute to work. Can I get a VAT refund on my car because I drive it to work everyday?

You couldn’t if you use it to get to work, you could if you use it at work. Presumably Lewis’s ‘shift’ starts before boards it

DarloRich · 10 Nov 2017

talltim said:
You couldn’t if you use it to get to work, you could if you use it at work. Presumably Lewis’s ‘shift’ starts before boards it

My insurance precludes the use of my vehicle for company business. I hope Lewis checked his Jet policy. BTW If i check my email on my phone before setting off has my shift started?

pemma · 10 Nov 2017

DarloRich said:
BTW If i check my email on my phone before setting off has my shift started?

Are you required to or do you choose to do it?

Bromley boy · 10 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
The budget isn't "mushrooming", but the required funding will increase. Longer lifespans, more complicated procedures, more technologically advanced drugs. They all cost money, and lots of it. And that's even before we consider big standard inflation.

The choice, quite starkly, is pay the cash or don't do the things. One cannot demand the NHS does ever-more amazing and advanced things and then moan because there's a price tag attached. The budget used to be smaller because, quite frankly, the only thing that could be done was pump them full of morphine and await their death.

So your attitude basically is that the only thing that could ever possibly wrong with the NHS is that it’s underfunded and certainly couldn’t learn a thing from the evil private sector.

Public sector = good, private sector = bad. How depressingly predictable.

It is precisely this blinkered approach that maintains it in its current status quo, never changing, never improving.

Bromley boy · 10 Nov 2017

Arctic Troll said:
Have they?

"I disagree with you, so you're an idiot" isn't much of a debate.

No, tax e-voidance is much, much worse.

But of course I'm not an ex-banker who made my money in a morally bankrupt industry, so I don't know what I'm talking about. Bless the proles, they know not of what they speak.

I didn’t use the word idiot, or prole, I said your previous (rather silly) comment makes you appear to be badly informed. If you are offended by that, I apologise. On the contrary it is you who has now lost the argument by making things personal.

You’re accusation that I’m an “ex banker” also belies a complete lack of knowledge - I’ve never even worked for a bank. What do you think a “banker” actually is, other than some kind of mythical bogeyman you’ve read about in the left press?

You should also remember financial services, and those evil bankers you hate so much, make a rather large contribution to the coffers of your beloved and untouchable NHS.

It’s very clear that, for you, public sector = good, private sector = bad, financial services = evil.

I prefer to debate in a reasoned and informed manner. There’s little pleasure, and precisely nothing to be learned, from discussions with those who view everything through a simplistic prism of “good and evil”, “moral and immoral” with next to no knowledge of experience of what they are talking about!

I suggest we now bring this debate to a close, until the next time...

DarloRich · 10 Nov 2017

jcollins said:
Are you required to or do you choose to do it?

Just wondering how Lewis Hamilton can "clock on" before arriving at the circuit. Perhaps he reads engineering data on his car performance on the plane. I read reports on engineering data if I get the train. Neither he nor I am obliged to do so. However it helps make the day manageable.

it seems only one of us can claim a VAT refund on those journeys. I think that is wrong. Many here seem to accept that.

Bromley boy · 10 Nov 2017

DarloRich said:
Just wondering how Lewis Hamilton can "clock on" before arriving at the circuit. Perhaps he reads engineering data on his car performance on the plane. I read reports on engineering data if I get the train. Neither he nor I am obliged to do so. However it helps make the day manageable.

it seems only one of us can claim a VAT refund on those journeys. I think that is wrong. Many here seem to accept that.

I believe the VAT in question is on the purchase price of the aircraft, the use of which must be such that it meets the relevant definition of "business asset". Perhaps it's leased out to others while he isn't using it, etc.

Paradise Papers: Tax Havens Exposed

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member