Libyan rescues

[clerriehibs]

Many, altho' I accept not all, of the Britons who are/were stuck in Libya work in the oil industry. Most of those earn very high amounts, because let's face it, Libya isn't the safest of places to work and live in. You could call it danger money. Most of those will pay little or no tax ... call it avoidance or evasion, you choose.

Personally, I'm happy for the British government to rescue anyone they see fit to rescue. What really sticks in the craw is to hear so many of these high "danger money" earners, non-tax payers, bleating because the government isn't doing enough, quickly enough to rescue them for the situation they find themselves in.

You take the money; you don't pay the tax; just be bloody glad you're getting rescued at all. And I hope the government see fit to have a look at who's earning what, and not paying what, and maybe have a looksee for the bleaters, and charge them a fair amount for rescue by charter plane, RAF Hercules, or Royal Nay frigate.

To those who do pay their taxes ... you've paid your dues, no beef with you guys.

[s.a.m]

Many, altho' I accept not all, of the Britons who are/were stuck in Libya work in the oil industry. Most of those earn very high amounts, because let's face it, Libya isn't the safest of places to work and live in. You could call it danger money. Most of those will pay little or no tax ... call it avoidance or evasion, you choose.

Personally, I'm happy for the British government to rescue anyone they see fit to rescue. What really sticks in the craw is to hear so many of these high "danger money" earners, non-tax payers, bleating because the government isn't doing enough, quickly enough to rescue them for the situation they find themselves in.

You take the money; you don't pay the tax; just be bloody glad you're getting rescued at all. And I hope the government see fit to have a look at who's earning what, and not paying what, and maybe have a looksee for the bleaters, and charge them a fair amount for rescue by charter plane, RAF Hercules, or Royal Nay frigate.

To those who do pay their taxes ... you've paid your dues, no beef with you guys.

I see where you're coming from.......but I don't think Libya has been considered dangerous or unstable recently (certainly compared with some other oil-producing countries), and the current shennanigans would not have been considered likely by most. It's also fair to say that we all use the product of oil companies, and most people don't enquire at the pump where their petrol comes from. I don't know much about the specifics of our oil's origin, but I'm guessing that at least some of it comes from regimes that we would take issue with. There is certainly a case for asking the oil companies to compensate the government for rescue costs, but is it not the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, rather than just tax-payers?(That's a factual question, not a moral one:greengrin)

I suppose what I'm saying is that the country needs people to work in the oil industry abroad, and these people are not (rightly or wrongly) acting outside the law.

[Marabou Stork]

'Civis Romanus sum'

[Twa Cairpets]

Many, altho' I accept not all, of the Britons who are/were stuck in Libya work in the oil industry. Most of those earn very high amounts, because let's face it, Libya isn't the safest of places to work and live in. You could call it danger money. Most of those will pay little or no tax ... call it avoidance or evasion, you choose.

Personally, I'm happy for the British government to rescue anyone they see fit to rescue. What really sticks in the craw is to hear so many of these high "danger money" earners, non-tax payers, bleating because the government isn't doing enough, quickly enough to rescue them for the situation they find themselves in.

You take the money; you don't pay the tax; just be bloody glad you're getting rescued at all. And I hope the government see fit to have a look at who's earning what, and not paying what, and maybe have a looksee for the bleaters, and charge them a fair amount for rescue by charter plane, RAF Hercules, or Royal Nay frigate.

To those who do pay their taxes ... you've paid your dues, no beef with you guys.

I find this astonishing. If we were talking about a group of mercenaries or drug dealers then maybe you'e have a point, but (assuming you accept the concept of nationhood and citizenship) you're wanting to judge the fairly reasonable questioning of the quality and speed of response asked by people based on what they earn?

To me, it comes across as petty jealousy. Charging for rescue? Really?

[bighairyfaeleith]

The governments response to this whole crisis has been shocking and has really shown cameron up for being no better than anyone that has went before him. The time it took for the government to actually react and start to get people out was far too long,the oil companies could arrange flights but wee willie winky couldnae, meanwhile davey boy is prancing around the middle east trying to sell more guns.

to top it all, cleggers is at his chalet in switzerland not knowing if he is running the country or not!!!

Hague actually came out and said people were not getting out because an airline cancelled some flights (aye because commercial airlines are really going to keep flying to fricking war zone ya fanny) and tried to use that as an excuse, they should have got there finger out there ***** quicker, thats the bottom line!!!

[bighairyfaeleith]

sorry forgot to mention the OP, couldn't disagree more, we look after our own regardless of how much money they earn!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Many, altho' I accept not all, of the Britons who are/were stuck in Libya work in the oil industry. Most of those earn very high amounts, because let's face it, Libya isn't the safest of places to work and live in. You could call it danger money. Most of those will pay little or no tax ... call it avoidance or evasion, you choose.

Personally, I'm happy for the British government to rescue anyone they see fit to rescue. What really sticks in the craw is to hear so many of these high "danger money" earners, non-tax payers, bleating because the government isn't doing enough, quickly enough to rescue them for the situation they find themselves in.

You take the money; you don't pay the tax; just be bloody glad you're getting rescued at all. And I hope the government see fit to have a look at who's earning what, and not paying what, and maybe have a looksee for the bleaters, and charge them a fair amount for rescue by charter plane, RAF Hercules, or Royal Nay frigate.

To those who do pay their taxes ... you've paid your dues, no beef with you guys.

By that logic, if there is some major life-threatening incident in a part of the UK where the majority of people are out of work and on benefits, we should just ignore them too.

[EH6 Hibby]

I find this astonishing. If we were talking about a group of mercenaries or drug dealers then maybe you'e have a point, but (assuming you accept the concept of nationhood and citizenship) you're wanting to judge the fairly reasonable questioning of the quality and speed of response asked by people based on what they earn?

To me, it comes across as petty jealousy. Charging for rescue? Really?


I don't see why they shouldn't charge for rescue if the person has the means to pay for it, if a person in this country requires residential or nursing care, the government expects them to sell their house and or use they're savings to pay for it. I don't think this is any different.

[Beefster]

By that logic, if there is some major life-threatening incident in a part of the UK where the majority of people are out of work and on benefits, we should just ignore them too.

It's not really the same though, is it? Most of those on benefits probably haven't chosen to do so, they don't have employers who could feasibly evacuate them, they probably won't be able to afford to rescue themselves and, even although they are on benefits, they will still contribute to the Treasury in VAT, fuel duty and so on.

It would be more akin to me heading off to Florida on holiday, a mammoth hurricane heading my way and me expecting the UK to send the Navy or RAF to rescue me.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's not really the same though, is it? Most of those on benefits probably haven't chosen to do so, they don't have employers who could feasibly evacuate them, they probably won't be able to afford to rescue themselves and, even although they are on benefits, they will still contribute to the Treasury in VAT, fuel duty and so on.

It would be more akin to me heading off to Florida on holiday, a mammoth hurricane heading my way and me expecting the UK to send the Navy or RAF to rescue me.

As a UK citizen, tax-paying or not, you would be entitled to it. One's passport says "to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't see why they shouldn't charge for rescue if the person has the means to pay for it, if a person in this country requires residential or nursing care, the government expects them to sell their house and or use they're savings to pay for it. I don't think this is any different.

Sorry but who has the means to pay for the SAS to fly in and grab you out of the desert?

[EH6 Hibby]

Sorry but who has the means to pay for the SAS to fly in and grab you out of the desert?

They may not be able to pay for the full cost, but they could contribute something, the same way a person who doesn't own their own house or have savings is expected to contribute something to their care in a home.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't see why they shouldn't charge for rescue if the person has the means to pay for it, if a person in this country requires residential or nursing care, the government expects them to sell their house and or use they're savings to pay for it. I don't think this is any different.

You don't think a civil war/revolution in a foreign country is any different to nursing care? Your opinion on the funding of residential care is one thing, but it is totally irrelevant compared to the rescue of nationals in Libya.

Apart from this viewpoint being morally questionable, the practicalities of it are ludicrous. Are you charged if you've been only out there a week? Do you need to show your bank statement before you board the rescue helicopter? Maybe the pilot has one of the little card swiping machines - "we're just securing your deposit sir"?

This reducing everything to a question of cost is repugnant to me. It is clearly the right thing to do to rescue your nationals from a warzone. That is one of the things that the army is paid to do. All taxpayers are to an extent investing in this type of service, and whilst I fervently hope never to be in a position when Im relying on the government to mobilise the military to rescue me, I've no problem in any of my money going towards them doing just that for someone else.

[WindyMiller]

By that logic, if there is some major life-threatening incident in a part of the UK where the majority of people are out of work and on benefits, we should just ignore them too.

I'm sure L&B's finest already work that way.

As for the OP; there's been many calls for people to be charged for sea/mountain rescue for not taking proper pre-cautions. Recently some in the government have suggested drunks that find themselves in A&E should be charged for their treatment. Perhaps the Government should be sending bills to the oil companies for rescuing what must be fairly important staff?

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm sure L&B's finest already work that way.

As for the OP; there's been many calls for people to be charged for sea/mountain rescue for not taking proper pre-cautions. Recently some in the government have suggested drunks that find themselves in A&E should be charged for their treatment. Perhaps the Government should be sending bills to the oil companies for rescuing what must be fairly important staff?

There is a big difference between irresponsible, arguably illegal activity and that of making one's living.

[EH6 Hibby]

You don't think a civil war/revolution in a foreign country is any different to nursing care? Your opinion on the funding of residential care is one thing, but it is totally irrelevant compared to the rescue of nationals in Libya.

Apart from this viewpoint being morally questionable, the practicalities of it are ludicrous. Are you charged if you've been only out there a week? Do you need to show your bank statement before you board the rescue helicopter? Maybe the pilot has one of the little card swiping machines - "we're just securing your deposit sir"?

This reducing everything to a question of cost is repugnant to me. It is clearly the right thing to do to rescue your nationals from a warzone. That is one of the things that the army is paid to do. All taxpayers are to an extent investing in this type of service, and whilst I fervently hope never to be in a position when Im relying on the government to mobilise the military to rescue me, I've no problem in any of my money going towards them doing just that for someone else.

Of course I don't think the two are the same, I was just using the nursing home comparison because through no fault of their own a person finds themselves needing care and is expected to pay for that care no matter what their financial situation is.

As for the practicalities, I'm not suggesting that the government means test people before deciding whether or not to rescue them, that could all be done once they are safely home. As has already been said, the people who have gone to work in countries such as Libya are generally very well paid, and while of course it is as you say the right thing to do to ensure they get home safely, I just don't think it's completely unreasonable for them to contribute something.

[CropleyWasGod]

Of course I don't think the two are the same, I was just using the nursing home comparison because through no fault of their own a person finds themselves needing care and is expected to pay for that care no matter what their financial situation is.

As for the practicalities, I'm not suggesting that the government means test people before deciding whether or not to rescue them, that could all be done once they are safely home. As has already been said, the people who have gone to work in countries such as Libya are generally very well paid, and while of course it is as you say the right thing to do to ensure they get home safely, I just don't think it's completely unreasonable for them to contribute something.

One could argue that BP pay enough to the UK Treasury already to expect some sort of protection for their employees.

[EH6 Hibby]

One could argue that BP pay enough to the UK Treasury already to expect some sort of protection for their employees.

You're probably right, I just didn't think that the money made by BP came to us for some reason, I thought the company was sold to foreigners but kept the name, I don't know a lot about it though so I am most likely wrong.

[Beefster]

As a UK citizen, tax-paying or not, you would be entitled to it. One's passport says "to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

If only I had known that the last time rather than barricading the family in an internal room! Now, if someone can provide the hotline for emergency Navy or RAF pickups for future reference......

[CropleyWasGod]

If only I had known that the last time rather than barricading the family in an internal room! Now, if someone can provide the hotline for emergency Navy or RAF pickups for future reference......

Certainly,sir, can I just see your P60 first? :greengrin

[clerriehibs]

You don't think a civil war/revolution in a foreign country is any different to nursing care? Your opinion on the funding of residential care is one thing, but it is totally irrelevant compared to the rescue of nationals in Libya.

Apart from this viewpoint being morally questionable, the practicalities of it are ludicrous. Are you charged if you've been only out there a week? Do you need to show your bank statement before you board the rescue helicopter? Maybe the pilot has one of the little card swiping machines - "we're just securing your deposit sir"?

This reducing everything to a question of cost is repugnant to me. It is clearly the right thing to do to rescue your nationals from a warzone. That is one of the things that the army is paid to do. All taxpayers are to an extent investing in this type of service, and whilst I fervently hope never to be in a position when Im relying on the government to mobilise the military to rescue me, I've no problem in any of my money going towards them doing just that for someone else.

That was the original point ... many, probably most, of these oil workers in foreign lands are paying no tax whatsoever, and are quite gleeful about it as well. And then get quite stroppy when they don't get an asap UK tax payer funded rescue.

The ones that do pay their taxes are perfectly entitled to a prompt rescue, but next time they take a highly paid job in a dodgy country, maybe just ask themselves the question about WHY it's so highly paid.

[WindyMiller]

One could argue that BP pay enough to the UK Treasury already to expect some sort of protection for their employees.

Why didn't they start pulling them out when things wee looking dodgy?


A Scot was just interviewed on the Beeb, arriving back from Libya, and stated that he was one of three Scots who were given the last seats on the plane.

He works for; http://www.wahaoil.net/profile.htm
British tax payer?

[Twa Cairpets]

That was the original point ... many, probably most, of these oil workers in foreign lands are paying no tax whatsoever, and are quite gleeful about it as well. And then get quite stroppy when they don't get an asap UK tax payer funded rescue.

The ones that do pay their taxes are perfectly entitled to a prompt rescue, but next time they take a highly paid job in a dodgy country, maybe just ask themselves the question about WHY it's so highly paid.

I'm guessing that that they will have paid taxes into the system for a good few years prior to going out. And as I said above, if theyve been there 2 weeks, is that ok? 3 months? 6 months? a year? What would be the cut-off for it not being fair?

Presumably the money they earn is predominantly spent back in the UK, contributing to VAT payments, for example.

To me it is very depressing that people would even consider this type of extreme situation coming down to a question of cost. "Ah, I see youre earning £100k tax free sir. Well unfortunately that means you're only eligible for the second class rescue. Week next Tuesday on a rusty barge suit you?".

Ever considered that it might be highly paid (if it is) because they are extremely doing a hard, difficult and dangerous job in the middle of desert, never mind the possibility of political upheaval. Fair play to them, if you ask me. What would you do - volunteer to pay taxes back to the UK?

[lapsedhibee]

Scuse my complete igorance in the matter, but why is it being suggested that some oil workers don't pay any tax on their earnings in Libya?

If they're classed as 'resident in the UK' they will be due to pay tax on any earnings in Libya as 'overseas income'; if they're not classed as resident in the UK are they not then required to pay tax to the Libyan gumment?

[Jack]

Jack understands a special tax rate is applied to such overseas workers.
.
Who do these folk who were evacuated working for? Surely the employer would have a duty of care to get their employees out of danger long before 'special forces' warships and all were needed.
.
Profiteering before people caring?

[marinello59]

Jack understands a special tax rate is applied to such overseas workers.
.
Who do these folk who were evacuated working for? Surely the employer would have a duty of care to get their employees out of danger long before 'special forces' warships and all were needed.
.
Profiteering before people caring?

If it is the same rate as applied to Offshore workers and seafarers then it was fought for long and hard and well justified..

As to the employers getting the employees out. That plan was scuppered as soon as the commercial airlines balked at the increased insurance premiums to fly to Libya and cancelled all flights. Hence the need for the Government to use the military.

[Onceinawhile]

If they are not UK resident they will not be due to pay taxes in the UK.

They will pay it to the Libyan Government. I don't know what their rates are though.

[lapsedhibee]

If they are not UK resident they will not be due to pay taxes in the UK.

They will pay it to the Libyan Government. I don't know what their rates are though.

Looks like Libyan income tax is 10% + 3% jihad tax = 13%. A good bit lower than in the UK. Mibbe just send part of a plane to pick them up?

[Lucius Apuleius]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

It will depend on each person's circumstances. If they are on equal time on and off then they will pay full UK tax (if they live in the UK that is). If they are on rotations like mine 8 weeks on and 3 weeks off then you are entitled to 90 days in the UK (outwith medical and family emergencies) calculated over several year period to determine whether tax is payable or not. For thos of us who do still live in the UK, even though our salaries are UK tax free we pay plenty taxes on other things. There is no avoidance or evasion as far as I am concerned. It is the fiscal laws of the country.

[clerriehibs]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

It will depend on each person's circumstances. If they are on equal time on and off then they will pay full UK tax (if they live in the UK that is). If they are on rotations like mine 8 weeks on and 3 weeks off then you are entitled to 90 days in the UK (outwith medical and family emergencies) calculated over several year period to determine whether tax is payable or not. For thos of us who do still live in the UK, even though our salaries are UK tax free we pay plenty taxes on other things. There is no avoidance or evasion as far as I am concerned. It is the fiscal laws of the country.

Avoidance is within the fiscal laws.
Evasion isn't.

But I'm not suggesting they're evading tax. However, anyone who happily avoids paying income tax has no right to bleat about the cavalry not arriving quickly enough. If everyone avoided paying tax, there'd be no cavalry anyway.

[(((Fergus)))]

Avoidance is within the fiscal laws.
Evasion isn't.

But I'm not suggesting they're evading tax. However, anyone who happily avoids paying income tax has no right to bleat about the cavalry not arriving quickly enough. If everyone avoided paying tax, there'd be no cavalry anyway.

Surely if UK firms are not protected overseas by UK armed forces that will limit their scope of operations and thus reduce their income, employment opportunities and therefore tax revenue.

Incidentally, the post-War of Independence US Navy was specifically formed to deal with kidnapping and robbery of US merchant vessels by North African pirates. The US Marine Corp's first intervention on foreign soil was in what is now Libya ("...to the shores of Tripoli")

[Jack]

If it is the same rate as applied to Offshore workers and seafarers then it was fought for long and hard and well justified..

As to the employers getting the employees out. That plan was scuppered as soon as the commercial airlines balked at the increased insurance premiums to fly to Libya and cancelled all flights. Hence the need for the Government to use the military.

I appreciate what you're saying but being a wee bit of a devils advocate :devil: … :greengrin

The company chairman wouldn’t have been left waiting for the rescue party had he been doing a tour of the region at the time. :confused:

Another thing that’s struck me when watching the news was that none of the rescued men had a company logo between them. Now it might just be I’ve been watching the wrong things but whenever there's been footage of folk in the likes of refineries or platforms or installations they're bedecked in the company colours with logos all over the place. :blah: :blah:

[clerriehibs]

Surely if UK firms are not protected overseas by UK armed forces that will limit their scope of operations and thus reduce their income, employment opportunities and therefore tax revenue.

Incidentally, the post-War of Independence US Navy was specifically formed to deal with kidnapping and robbery of US merchant vessels by North African pirates. The US Marine Corp's first intervention on foreign soil was in what is now Libya ("...to the shores of Tripoli")

It's not UK companies that were complaining about not being rescued quickly enough, it's UK nationals.

UK companies are particularly quiet on the issue ... maybe it's them that haven't acted sufficiently or quickly enough.

And out there, I'd be surprised if there were too many UK companies ... most UK citizens will surely be contracted to flag of convenience multinationals?

[Twa Cairpets]

It's not UK companies that were complaining about not being rescued quickly enough, it's UK nationals.

UK companies are particularly quiet on the issue ... maybe it's them that haven't acted sufficiently or quickly enough.

And out there, I'd be surprised if there were too many UK companies ... most UK citizens will surely be contracted to flag of convenience multinationals?

What is a flag of convenience multinational?

[marinello59]

It's not UK companies that were complaining about not being rescued quickly enough, it's UK nationals.

UK companies are particularly quiet on the issue ... maybe it's them that haven't acted sufficiently or quickly enough.

And out there, I'd be surprised if there were too many UK companies ... most UK citizens will surely be contracted to flag of convenience multinationals?

The politics of envy are quite sad to observe. You obviously have done no research in to this at all have you but are merely throwing as much stuff as you can up in to the air to justify leaving those ''highly paid'' workers stranded.

[clerriehibs]

The politics of envy are quite sad to observe. You obviously have done no research in to this at all have you but are merely throwing as much stuff as you can up in to the air to justify leaving those ''highly paid'' workers stranded.

Pretend you're an oil worker. Search for some work in the off-shore oil industry on the internet. That's all it takes. Why you put highly-paid in quotes? Could you not be bothered doing any research of your own?

And it's not envy - it's the politics of everyone paying their fair share. And if they don't pay their fair share, then they have no right to bleat about the poor response from the British government. They haven't contributed to the cost of any kind of response.

[Twa Cairpets]

Pretend you're an oil worker. Search for some work in the off-shore oil industry on the internet. That's all it takes. Why you put highly-paid in quotes? Could you not be bothered doing any research of your own?

And it's not envy - it's the politics of everyone paying their fair share. And if they don't pay their fair share, then they have no right to bleat about the poor response from the British government. They haven't contributed to the cost of any kind of response.

Well I had a quick look, and it would seem that pay ranges vary from around $40,000 - $100,000. A decent wedge, but hardly up in the highest bracket and for a sod of a hard job, in a remote desert.

Your opinion is one of envy, otherwise you would not have mentioned the size of their income - if you are taking a moral standpoint you wouldnt have cared if they earned £10k or £100k. As has also been mentioned, you would presumably refuse to spend any taxpayers money on people who are unemployed - they dont pay taxes, maybe they never have.

If you're a citizen of a country, you get the help the nation can provide in exceptional corcumstances like Libya, and (if has been admitted by the government) the response was not as good as it should have been then people have every right to raise concern, even if you decide to call it bleating.

[marinello59]

Pretend you're an oil worker. Search for some work in the off-shore oil industry on the internet. That's all it takes. Why you put highly-paid in quotes? Could you not be bothered doing any research of your own?

And it's not envy - it's the politics of everyone paying their fair share. And if they don't pay their fair share, then they have no right to bleat about the poor response from the British government. They haven't contributed to the cost of any kind of response.

I put highly paid in quotes as it seems to be your main motivation for your viewpoint here. (Zero points for grammar I admit.) Have you any hard facts yet to back up your generalisations?

[clerriehibs]

I put highly paid in quotes as it seems to be your main motivation for your viewpoint here. (Zero points for grammar I admit.) Have you any hard facts yet to back up your generalisations?

Pretend you're an oil worker looking for work. Search on the internet as though you're interested in finding out how to work off shore (i.e. not UK, as opposed to on a North Sea installation).

You'll find the main attractors used in recruitment are high pay and little or no taxes.

Although I suppose the agencies could be making that up just to attract people, and then pay them minimum wage. Funnily enough, people on minimum wage who are in the UK still pay taxes.

[clerriehibs]

Well I had a quick look, and it would seem that pay ranges vary from around $40,000 - $100,000. A decent wedge, but hardly up in the highest bracket and for a sod of a hard job, in a remote desert.

Your opinion is one of envy, otherwise you would not have mentioned the size of their income - if you are taking a moral standpoint you wouldnt have cared if they earned £10k or £100k. As has also been mentioned, you would presumably refuse to spend any taxpayers money on people who are unemployed - they dont pay taxes, maybe they never have.

If you're a citizen of a country, you get the help the nation can provide in exceptional corcumstances like Libya, and (if has been admitted by the government) the response was not as good as it should have been then people have every right to raise concern, even if you decide to call it bleating.

Envy? Give it up. Why do people who quote envy always show ther jealousy? In this case, as in earleir cases on this thred, it's about complaining about people on benefits not paying their way.

The VAST majority of people on benefits don't have money, other than state handouts for the basics of survival.

What are you? Jealous of the money you have paid in taxes, that money possibly being used to help the have nots have a slightly better life?

This thread isn't about the have nots not paying their share to society. It's about the haves not paying their share to society. If you want to complain about people on benefits, start another, your own, thread.

And if you'll read the OP again, you'll see why I mentioned the size of their income; it's because they work in a dangerous country. That's why their income is very high. It's because the country is not safe.

If the country is not safe but you go there anyway, and you don't pay taxes because you're off-shore ... don't bleat about the government's slow response. The ability to respond has to be paid for ... by TAXES.

Someone else quoted "civis Romanus sum" in defence of having a citizen's rights, if you are a citizen. What it sactually means is a citizen has rights & duties .. another name for tax is duty, and that's not a coincidence.

And in response to your earlier question ...
flag of convenience multinaltional (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0903/1224278127779.html)

[marinello59]

Pretend you're an oil worker looking for work. Search on the internet as though you're interested in finding out how to work off shore (i.e. not UK, as opposed to on a North Sea installation).

You'll find the main attractors used in recruitment are high pay and little or no taxes.

Although I suppose the agencies could be making that up just to attract people, and then pay them minimum wage. Funnily enough, people on minimum wage who are in the UK still pay taxes.

Why would I do that?
You really should do a little bit more research instead of just bleating on about the level of tax these guys pay. Do you know why some ex-pat workers / Seafarers / Offshore workers have tax concessions? (And note it is a concession, not evasion.) Perhaps you should look in to it
Are you also ignoring the fact that the UK Government actively sought to do business in Libya as it would benefit our entire economy. As far as UK PLC was concerned Libya was a stable and safe country in which to operate so your whole danger money argument is garbage too.
If the Government was happy to benefit from having those workers there then surely they have a duty of care. Don't they?

[clerriehibs]

Why would I do that?
You really should do a little bit more research instead of just bleating on about the level of tax these guys pay. Do you know why some ex-pat workers / Seafarers / Offshore workers have tax concessions? (And note it is a concession, not evasion.) Perhaps you should look in to it
Are you also ignoring the fact that the UK Government actively sought to do business in Libya as it would benefit our entire economy. As far as UK PLC was concerned Libya was a stable and safe country in which to operate so your whole danger money argument is garbage too.
If the Government was happy to benefit from having those workers there then surely they have a duty of care. Don't they?

I know some guys who work ex-UK in the oil industry ... what do you want, their NI numbers? One is away 50-50, he pays UK income tax; the other is away more than 50-50, he doesn't pay UK income tax.

I've already said, I don't see it as tax evasion, which is illegal. It's tax avoidance, which isn't illegal.

I've said, if you don't pay the tax (and many, if not most, don't), then don't bleat about a rescue, funded by UK tax payers, not happening quickly enough.

The government benefits from an onshore manufacturing industry. The vast majority of employees in that industry pay their taxes.

The government benefits from an onshore finance industry. The vast majority of employees in that industry pay their taxes.

The government benefits from an onshore services industry. The vast majority of employees in that industry pay their taxes.

So why should anyone in another industry not pay taxes?

It might not be described as "danger" money ... but, as you're so obviously in the know, just why was it so rewarding to work in Libya?

And, as you're so obviously in the know, why don't you explain exactly why off shore workers pay little or no tax, instead of throwing up an accusative smokescreen? As a simple search on "off shore oil work tax" in google shows, it's not all fluffy "away fro family" reasons. It's all about maximising income.

And to hell with the UK and the reasons for paying tax ... oh, that's until you need the services, gratis, of a Royal Navy frigate, that is.

[marinello59]

I know some guys who work ex-UK in the oil industry ... what do you want, their NI numbers? One is away 50-50, he pays UK income tax; the other is away more than 50-50, he doesn't pay UK income tax.

I've already said, I don't see it as tax evasion, which is illegal. It's tax avoidance, which isn't illegal.

I've said, if you don't pay the tax (and many, if not most, don't), then don't bleat about a rescue, funded by UK tax payers, not happening quickly enough.

The government benefits from an onshore manufacturing industry. The vast majority of employees in that industry pay their taxes.

The government benefits from an onshore finance industry. The vast majority of employees in that industry pay their taxes.

The government benefits from an onshore services industry. The vast majority of employees in that industry pay their taxes.

So why should anyone in another industry not pay taxes?

It might not be described as "danger" money ... but, as you're so obviously in the know, just why was it so rewarding to work in Libya?

And, as you're so obviously in the know, why don't you explain exactly why off shore workers pay little or no tax, instead of throwing up an accusative smokescreen? As a simple search on "off shore oil work tax" in google shows, it's not all fluffy "away fro family" reasons. It's all about maximising income.

And to hell with the UK and the reasons for paying tax ... oh, that's until you need the services, gratis, of a Royal Navy frigate, that is.

This is just a jealous rant. It's not tax avoidance. There are concessions in place. Can 't you see the difference?
Workers want to maximise income for doing highly skilled work in arduous conditions? Shockeroonie. Shoot them.:agree:

[clerriehibs]

This is just a jealous rant. It's not tax avoidance. There are concessions in place. Can 't you see the difference?
Workers want to maximise income for doing highly skilled work in arduous conditions? Shockeroonie. Shoot them.:agree:

Actually, it is tax avoidance, and perfectly legal, although morally suspect. Sorry to disappoint. (It's not tax evasion, but I've never claimed it is. Do some research to find out the difference.)

You haven't come up with a coherent argument yet. Continuing to peddle Daily Mail-esque right wing rhetoric such as "politics of envy" is just that. Rhetoric. No substance.

I haven't complained about maximising income. Everyone should do that, couldn't agree more. I've only pointed out that they are high earners, many of whom pay little or no UK income tax.

Everyone should pay their dues to society. And if you don't pay your taxes, you can't complain about a poor service.

[Twa Cairpets]

Envy? Give it up. Why do people who quote envy always show ther jealousy? In this case, as in earleir cases on this thred, it's about complaining about people on benefits not paying their way.

The VAST majority of people on benefits don't have money, other than state handouts for the basics of survival.

What are you? Jealous of the money you have paid in taxes, that money possibly being used to help the have nots have a slightly better life?

This thread isn't about the have nots not paying their share to society. It's about the haves not paying their share to society. If you want to complain about people on benefits, start another, your own, thread.

I dont think it would be possible to interpret my point more incorrectly than you have managed to do.

You are basing your stance, as far as I can see, on whether or not people pay taxes. Far from arguing for the rights of the rich, I'm actually arguing a much more communal view that as a citizen of a nation the default position is one of a duty of care being supplied by the state. The reason why your position is to me one of jealousy/envy is that you seem to object to people who for whatever reason pay less or no tax at the moment as a result of the job they do.

Before you go off on a rant accusing me of something I havent said, could I very politely suggest you read what is written rather than just make massively erroneous assumptions. With apologies for quoting myself, with added boldening:

"...otherwise you would not have mentioned the size of their income - if you are taking a moral standpoint you wouldnt have cared if they earned £10k or £100k. As has also been mentioned, you would presumably refuse to spend any taxpayers money on people who are unemployed - they dont pay taxes, maybe they never have." Is there anything, whatsoever, in this sentence that suggests this is my viewpoint?

For the record, while most low wage or unemployed people are not in that position due to choice, there are people who have never contributed a bean to the cost of society - I have no problem with those people having access to the same rights as anyone else, that's all part of being part of a relatively civilised nation.

I am more than happy for my taxes to be used to help law abiding citizens in distress, be this being stuck in the desert during a civil uprising or a homeless person knocked over by a car.


And if you'll read the OP again, you'll see why I mentioned the size of their income; it's because they work in a dangerous country. That's why their income is very high. It's because the country is not safe.

If the country is not safe but you go there anyway, and you don't pay taxes because you're off-shore ... don't bleat about the government's slow response. The ability to respond has to be paid for ... by TAXES.

Someone else quoted "civis Romanus sum" in defence of having a citizen's rights, if you are a citizen. What it sactually means is a citizen has rights & duties .. another name for tax is duty, and that's not a coincidence.

I would raise again the point that the people who are in these places would, I would think, have paid a fair whack into the exchequer over their working life. A fair assumption, given the job. Is your opinion the second that they stop paying tax their right to a quality response is reduced, or is it time limited?



And in response to your earlier question ...
flag of convenience multinaltional (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0903/1224278127779.html)
Thanks - interesting read.

[clerriehibs]

I dont think it would be possible to interpret my point more incorrectly than you have managed to do.

You are basing your stance, as far as I can see, on whether or not people pay taxes. Far from arguing for the rights of the rich, I'm actually arguing a much more communal view that as a citizen of a nation the default position is one of a duty of care being supplied by the state. The reason why your position is to me one of jealousy/envy is that you seem to object to people who for whatever reason pay less or no tax at the moment as a result of the job they do.

Before you go off on a rant accusing me of something I havent said, could I very politely suggest you read what is written rather than just make massively erroneous assumptions. With apologies for quoting myself, with added boldening:

"...otherwise you would not have mentioned the size of their income - if you are taking a moral standpoint you wouldnt have cared if they earned £10k or £100k. As has also been mentioned, you would presumably refuse to spend any taxpayers money on people who are unemployed - they dont pay taxes, maybe they never have." Is there anything, whatsoever, in this sentence that suggests this is my viewpoint?

For the record, while most low wage or unemployed people are not in that position due to choice, there are people who have never contributed a bean to the cost of society - I have no problem with those people having access to the same rights as anyone else, that's all part of being part of a relatively civilised nation.

I am more than happy for my taxes to be used to help law abiding citizens in distress, be this being stuck in the desert during a civil uprising or a homeless person knocked over by a car.



I would raise again the point that the people who are in these places would, I would think, have paid a fair whack into the exchequer over their working life. A fair assumption, given the job. Is your opinion the second that they stop paying tax their right to a quality response is reduced, or is it time limited?


Thanks - interesting read.

Objecting to someone not paying tax isn't a position of jealousy/envy. I don't want to be in a position where I'm not paying my dues to society. Such dues have to be paid by EVERYONE who is able to pay their fair share; if no-one did, we don't have a society. I do find it morally wrong not to pay when you are able to.

Those who don't pay have the position of jealousy, as in "it's my money and the Government is not getting any of it".

If you stop paying tax, then yes, my opinion is that it should be the Government IS less responsible for you. Rather better would be if all loopholes and tax avoidance schemes were closed, but that will never happen.

And I have to ask; if you think they've paid a fair share over their working lives up to some point, do you really think there's a finite amount that should be set as a tax contribution, and once you're there, no need to pay any more?

[marinello59]

Actually, it is tax avoidance, and perfectly legal, although morally suspect. Sorry to disappoint. (It's not tax evasion, but I've never claimed it is. Do some research to find out the difference.)

Tax avoidance is generally recognised as a manipulation of peoples finances in order to pay less tax by legitimate ,(although sometimes morally suspect) means. Is that what ex-pat workers are doing? I don't think so. HMRC has very transparent rules which apply to overseas workers. (Including having taxation treaties with other countries, including Libya.) It ain't tax avoidance. Remember their families will continue to pay VAT, Council Tax etc.

You haven't come up with a coherent argument yet. Continuing to peddle Daily Mail-esque right wing rhetoric such as "politics of envy" is just that. Rhetoric. No substance.

Oh dear. My stance is that regardlesss of the level of tax paid the Government has a duty of care to all of its citizens...a universal benefit if you like. Your ''I pay my taxes, why should those freeloaders get the same as me'' style argument is much more familiar to readers of the Daily Mail.

I haven't complained about maximising income. Everyone should do that, couldn't agree more. I've only pointed out that they are high earners, many of whom pay little or no UK income tax.

Everyone should pay their dues to society. And if you don't pay your taxes, you can't complain about a poor service.

They do pay their dues to society. You just can't seem to comprehend that it could be measured by anything other than the amount of individual income tax paid. You deny that you are envious but your whole argument is based on the fact that they pay less income tax than yourself.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Actually, it is tax avoidance, and perfectly legal, although morally suspect. Sorry to disappoint. (It's not tax evasion, but I've never claimed it is. Do some research to find out the difference.)

You haven't come up with a coherent argument yet. Continuing to peddle Daily Mail-esque right wing rhetoric such as "politics of envy" is just that. Rhetoric. No substance.

I haven't complained about maximising income. Everyone should do that, couldn't agree more. I've only pointed out that they are high earners, many of whom pay little or no UK income tax.

Everyone should pay their dues to society. And if you don't pay your taxes, you can't complain about a poor service.

Sorry but they do pay there taxes, just because there taxes are less than yours doesn't make them less british, I mean FFS!!

This is a seriously sad thread:rolleyes:

[Twa Cairpets]

Objecting to someone not paying tax isn't a position of jealousy/envy. I don't want to be in a position where I'm not paying my dues to society. Such dues have to be paid by EVERYONE who is able to pay their fair share; if no-one did, we don't have a society. I do find it morally wrong not to pay when you are able to.
Those who don't pay have the position of jealousy, as in "it's my money and the Government is not getting any of it".

If you stop paying tax, then yes, my opinion is that it should be the Government IS less responsible for you. Rather better would be if all loopholes and tax avoidance schemes were closed, but that will never happen.

And I have to ask; if you think they've paid a fair share over their working lives up to some point, do you really think there's a finite amount that should be set as a tax contribution, and once you're there, no need to pay any more?

So - entirely legally - an individual finds the opportunity to work in an environment where less of his/her income finds its way into the UK exchequer. You believe, if I understand you correctly, that this means they are less entitiled to aid in Libya.

I think that regardless of their circumstances, as long as what they are doing is legal, they should be afforded equal help and assistance of citizens of the UK.

Your last question is pretty meaningless, and, not for the first time, you're apparently wilfully misrepresenting what I've posted. I have nowhere suggested that I "... really think there's a finite amount that should be set as a tax contribution, and once you're there, no need to pay any more".

My point was that in any society, there will be swings and roundabouts. If you apply the principle of getting out only what you put in, you're going to have a hell of a lot more inequality than there is even now. You pay your taxes (either directly via income tax or indirectly - maybe some hefty future capital gains tax on property or VAT), and it is distributed in accordance with governement policy. Some will do better out of it than others in relation to their pay/contributions whether you measure these in absolute or relative terms.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I earn a 6 figure salary. I pay no income tax. I have been told by the National Insurance I should no longer pay any NI as I have paid all that is needed (voluntarily I should add). The government has made the rules. They would not take income tax off me even if I offered it. I have never evaded tax in my life and for year after year submitted my tax return form only for the government to eventually get fed up with reimbursing me all the income tax I had paid for the year and put me on an NT coding so as I do not pay my tax at source at all and therefore no need to submit a form anually. I also work damned hard with a hell of a lot of responsibility on my shoulders to earn that salary that I think is more than deserved. I also think I am entitled to assistance by the government or armed forces in the event something goes wrong in the country I am working.
I do, as said before pay plenty other taxes, probably more than others. Any idea how many litres of petrol (at £1.39 a bloody litre) an Aston Martin uses?

















Not that I have one though:wink:

[steakbake]

I wonder how they'd go about setting up the check-in at Tripoli Airport for people to distinguish between Working Class and the Bourgeoisie?

Perhaps when they board the plane, they should have wage slips at the ready for inspection and the check-in staff can check their hands for callouses caused by hard graft or soft hands from being paper pushers.

Anyone with soft hands and/or with a wage slip which has too many numbers before the decimal point would immediately have to pay a surcharge... to be rescued... and flown back... to their home country.

[Just Jimmy]

'Civis Romanus sum'

From the West Wing

Bartlet: Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the Earth unharmed, cloaked only in the protection of the words civis Romanus -- I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Surely the idea that you only get rescued if you have paid x amount of money in taxes etc is essentially a communist viewpoint where everyone receives and pays equal amounts??

Hold on, the russians sent planes in far quicker than us to rescue there tax haven oil workers:confused:

Maybe they just thought it was the right thing to do:agree:

[clerriehibs]

So - entirely legally - an individual finds the opportunity to work in an environment where less of his/her income finds its way into the UK exchequer. You believe, if I understand you correctly, that this means they are less entitiled to aid in Libya.

I think that regardless of their circumstances, as long as what they are doing is legal, they should be afforded equal help and assistance of citizens of the UK.

Your last question is pretty meaningless, and, not for the first time, you're apparently wilfully misrepresenting what I've posted. I have nowhere suggested that I "... really think there's a finite amount that should be set as a tax contribution, and once you're there, no need to pay any more".

My point was that in any society, there will be swings and roundabouts. If you apply the principle of getting out only what you put in, you're going to have a hell of a lot more inequality than there is even now. You pay your taxes (either directly via income tax or indirectly - maybe some hefty future capital gains tax on property or VAT), and it is distributed in accordance with governement policy. Some will do better out of it than others in relation to their pay/contributions whether you measure these in absolute or relative terms.

For someone who perpetually complains about misrepresentation, you perpetrate it consistently in every posting yourself.
I have never said you should only get out what you put in; I have only said, if you're earning, you should pay income tax [directly], which is normally more or less proportionate to your earnings.
To choose not to pay income tax by avoidance (legal) is morally wrong ... and it seems the smaller part of the coalition agrees - see here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/17/liberal-democrats-clampdown-tax-avoidance).
If you choose to disengage from your financial commitments to your country, then you're not in a position to complain when your country doesn't react quite quickly enough to get you out of a dodgy situation. Possibly, if there was no such thing as tax avoidance, the £4bn saved per year, see here (http://www.ambition.co.uk/news/2064-Tax-avoidance-'costs-%A34bn'), might have led to a quicker rescue.



Sorry but they do pay there taxes, just because there taxes are less than yours doesn't make them less british, I mean FFS!!

This is a seriously sad thread:rolleyes:

Some do. Many don't. It doesn't make them less British, but if they don't contribute, they should put on a British stiff upper lip and wait on the rescue, which was always going to come, instead of bleating that what they haven't paid for isn't coming quickly enough.


Surely the idea that you only get rescued if you have paid x amount of money in taxes etc is essentially a communist viewpoint where everyone receives and pays equal amounts??

Hold on, the russians sent planes in far quicker than us to rescue there tax haven oil workers:confused:

Maybe they just thought it was the right thing to do:agree:

No, believing that everyone should pay their taxes isn't a communist viewpoint.

[Twa Cairpets]

For someone who perpetually complains about misrepresentation, you perpetrate it consistently in every posting yourself.
I have never said you should only get out what you put in; I have only said, if you're earning, you should pay income tax [directly], which is normally more or less proportionate to your earnings.
To choose not to pay income tax by avoidance (legal) is morally wrong ... and it seems the smaller part of the coalition agrees - see here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/17/liberal-democrats-clampdown-tax-avoidance).
If you choose to disengage from your financial commitments to your country, then you're not in a position to complain when your country doesn't react quite quickly enough to get you out of a dodgy situation. Possibly, if there was no such thing as tax avoidance, the £4bn saved per year, see here (http://www.ambition.co.uk/news/2064-Tax-avoidance-'costs-%A34bn'), might have led to a quicker rescue.


Im not complaining, Im just pointing out that youre are arguing (repeatedly) against points Im not making.

As for the morality of taxation, thats a whole different issue, but the links you provide arent really anything to do with this particualr issue, are they. Unless you choose to describe people earning between £50 and £100k a year as the super-rich, which I don't.

If you want to argue against tax loopholes for people earning millions, I'm with you. Guys earning a wage in the desert just isnt a problem for me, and no matter how you've tried to spin it in this thread, it still looks appears to me that you're either (a) jealous that theyre doing what they do and "getting away" without paying taxes, or (b) pissed off that youre tax-pound is going towards picking them up, both of which, in my eyes seem to be very petty.

[lyonhibs]

Has everyone become so absolutely fixated with the "bottom line" of The Exchequer's accounts that we think that British citizens in a volatile and violent part of the world should just "get on with it" when they get left hanging by a Government cock-up??

:confused:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Some do. Many don't. It doesn't make them less British, but if they don't contribute, they should put on a British stiff upper lip and wait on the rescue, which was always going to come, instead of bleating that what they haven't paid for isn't coming quickly enough.



No, believing that everyone should pay their taxes isn't a communist viewpoint.

What a load of balls, seriously, if you are a british citizen and you are in danger then our country should do everything in our power to help. There was very little guarantee that this government was going to help, it was only once they where embarrassed that the French and Russians had managed to save people that they got there finger out. If I was in libya I would have been angry with the government as well, they just assumed that people would sort themselves out but funnily enough as we are seeing thats not really possible in a warzone.

Imagine you are in libya, people are roaming the streets with machine guns, killing at will, and you call the embassy and they say,"stiff upper my boy, we'll get there a week on tuesday". Tax payer or not you would not be happy would you?

Some things are just more important than the bottom line as david cameron has found out!!

Believing that you only get out what you put in is a communist view though is it not and that is very much what you are saying?

[steakbake]

Has everyone become so absolutely fixated with the "bottom line" of The Exchequer's accounts that we think that British citizens in a volatile and violent part of the world should just "get on with it" when they get left hanging by a Government cock-up??

:confused:

Yeah, it's the big society in action. They'll just have to look after themselves! :wink:

[clerriehibs]

You pay your taxes (either directly via income tax or indirectly - maybe some hefty future capital gains tax on property or VAT), and it is distributed in accordance with governement policy. Some will do better out of it than others in relation to their pay/contributions whether you measure these in absolute or relative terms.

Anyone who pays their taxes directly is also subject to indirect taxation via potential capital gains tax or through VAT. It's not an 'or' for them. So it's absolutely misleading to claim it's swings and roundabouts and not relevant to this discussion.



As for the morality of taxation, thats a whole different issue, but the links you provide arent really anything to do with this particualr issue, are they. Unless you choose to describe people earning between £50 and £100k a year as the super-rich, which I don't.

If you want to argue against tax loopholes for people earning millions, I'm with you. Guys earning a wage in the desert just isnt a problem for me, and no matter how you've tried to spin it in this thread, it still looks appears to me that you're either (a) jealous that theyre doing what they do and "getting away" without paying taxes, or (b) pissed off that youre tax-pound is going towards picking them up, both of which, in my eyes seem to be very petty.

I'm not putting any measure on whether I think anyone is super rich or other wise. My point has only ever been - if you earn, you are or should be subject to direct taxation. If you don't earn enough to qualify to pay tax, fine, if the govt decides to raise or lower the tax rate boundaries as they see fit, just as fine, but everyone who considers themselves to be an earning UK citizen should have their income evaluated for direct tax.

The only time I have mentioned the amount they earn is to point out that earning a premium over normal wages elsewhere by working in Libya happens for a reason ... it is and was dangerous. You wouldn't get me doing it for any amount (so I'm not 'jealous', although the appropriate word is 'envious'). If they're not earning enough ... couldn't agree more, get the employers to pay more, but the income tax should always be paid.

You may think I appear as thinking differently to that ... but that's you putting your slant on my opinion. Something that's not on, apparently.



Imagine you are in libya, people are roaming the streets with machine guns, killing at will, and you call the embassy and they say,"stiff upper my boy, we'll get there a week on tuesday". Tax payer or not you would not be happy would you?

Believing that you only get out what you put in is a communist view though is it not and that is very much what you are saying?

I've never said you should only get out what you put in. I've only ever said everyone who is able should have their income tax subject to evaluation for direct tax contributions. I don't believe that you only get out as much as you put in. You contribute an amount depending on what you earn and then you have the right to take from society what you need when you need it.

If you don't pay income tax, and think tax avoidance (remember, that's legal, I'm not saying anyone is breaking the law) is a jolly old way to bump up your bottom line, then why should you have a right to expect anything from society, when you don't contribute? And you certainly shouldn't be bleating on TV about a tardy rescue attempt when you think it's great to be paying nothing towards the upkeep of HMS Cumberland..

And ... if you think paying income tax is communism, well I think the Yanks had better come clean, no?

[bighairyfaeleith]

The measure of a British citizen is not how much tax they pay. I don't know anyone who has the opportunity to minimise there tax bill that doesn't take it.

The bottom line though is that the suggestion of paying to be rescued is unworkable and the suggestion that you shouldn't complain when your country leaves you high and dry in a warzone is just laughable!

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[Twa Cairpets]

Anyone who pays their taxes directly is also subject to indirect taxation via potential capital gains tax or through VAT. It's not an 'or' for them. So it's absolutely misleading to claim it's swings and roundabouts and not relevant to this discussion.

It is swings and roundabouts and it is absolutely relevant to this discussion.

Why? Across all areas of taxation and expenditure, some people will contribute proportionately much more than they ever take out and the converse will apply equally. When exceptional circumstances present themselves such as the Libya situation, the morality of potentially saving lives of your citizens quite rightly becomes the imperative over someones tax status.



I'm not putting any measure on whether I think anyone is super rich or other wise. My point has only ever been - if you earn, you are or should be subject to direct taxation. If you don't earn enough to qualify to pay tax, fine, if the govt decides to raise or lower the tax rate boundaries as they see fit, just as fine, but everyone who considers themselves to be an earning UK citizen should have their income evaluated for direct tax.

The only time I have mentioned the amount they earn is to point out that earning a premium over normal wages elsewhere by working in Libya happens for a reason ... it is and was dangerous. You wouldn't get me doing it for any amount (so I'm not 'jealous', although the appropriate word is 'envious'). If they're not earning enough ... couldn't agree more, get the employers to pay more, but the income tax should always be paid.

You may think I appear as thinking differently to that ... but that's you putting your slant on my opinion. Something that's not on, apparently.

I have no issue whatsoever with you taking a slant on my opionion - thats what discussions are about. I do have an issue when you misrepresent what it is I am saying.

And I think it would be fair to regard jealous and envious as fairly synonymous.

[clerriehibs]

It is swings and roundabouts and it is absolutely relevant to this discussion.

Wrong; you said it was swings and roundabouts because someone not paying direct income tax would possibly get taxed via a hefty capital gains tax or VAT bill.

That might be true - but however liable someone not paying income tax is to CG tax or VAT, anyone who DOES pay income tax is JUST as liable to CG tax or VAT. So if it's swings and roundabouts, it's a hell of an unbalanced swings and roundabouts.

Why? Across all areas of taxation and expenditure, some people will contribute proportionately much more than they ever take out and the converse will apply equally.
I agree and that's how it should be.

When exceptional circumstances present themselves such as the Libya situation, the morality of potentially saving lives of your citizens quite rightly becomes the imperative over someones tax status.
I agree - my issue is that those who are being rescued without paying direct taxes should not be greeting about the lack of pace of the rescue effort.




I have no issue whatsoever with you taking a slant on my opionion - thats what discussions are about. I do have an issue when you misrepresent what it is I am saying.
Likewise, so please desist and I will too.

And I think it would be fair to regard jealous and envious as fairly synonymous.

You can think it's fair all you like, and you'd be wrong - envy/jealousy are not synonymous.
.

[bighairyfaeleith]

.

So if you go abroad to Work for a couple of years and pay your taxes to the Saudis for those two years you are no longer a British citizen.

Imagine a Pakistani in this country said I will not pay you any tax for my shop on leith walk, instead. I will pay it to Pakistan.

We look after our own. Bottom line

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[Beefster]

So if you go abroad to Work for a couple of years and pay your taxes to the Saudis for those two years you are no longer a British citizen.

Imagine a Pakistani in this country said I will not pay you any tax for my shop on leith walk, instead. I will pay it to Pakistan.

We look after our own. Bottom line

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

I don't think CH has ever said that.

If the Pakistani in question's life was in danger, would Pakistan send a military rescue mission or would the UK sort it out? I'm not sure how that example backs up your argument, to be honest.

There's validity in the 'we look after our own' argument but I think this thread started out as questioning why they were moaning about the UK government response when their own employer's (i.e. Libyan oil companies) and the country they pay direct taxes to (i.e. Libya), both of who are on the scene and have much more resources in Libya that the UK government, had done the equivalent of nothing to help them.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't think CH has ever said that.

If the Pakistani in question's life was in danger, would Pakistan send a military rescue mission or would the UK sort it out? I'm not sure how that example backs up your argument, to be honest.

There's validity in the 'we look after our own' argument but I think this thread started out as questioning why they were moaning about the UK government response when their own employer's (i.e. Libyan oil companies) and the country they pay direct taxes to (i.e. Libya), both of who are on the scene and have much more resources in Libya that the UK government, had done the equivalent of nothing to help them.

my point is that you have to pay the taxes of the land you work in, not the country of which you are a citizen. We have many citizens of other coutnries that pay us tax, and we have many citizens that do not.

To claim though that this means they cannot complain about the governments shoddy response to this issue is frankly so laughable I can't even believe this thread exists.

[Beefster]

my point is that you have to pay the taxes of the land you work in, not the country of which you are a citizen. We have many citizens of other coutnries that pay us tax, and we have many citizens that do not.

To claim though that this means they cannot complain about the governments shoddy response to this issue is frankly so laughable I can't even believe this thread exists.

None of which deals with my post.

[bighairyfaeleith]

None of which deals with my post.

And none of yours dealt with mine so I thought I better clarify as you appeared confused

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't think CH has ever said that.

If the Pakistani in question's life was in danger, would Pakistan send a military rescue mission or would the UK sort it out? I'm not sure how that example backs up your argument, to be honest.

There's validity in the 'we look after our own' argument but I think this thread started out as questioning why they were moaning about the UK government response when their own employer's (i.e. Libyan oil companies) and the country they pay direct taxes to (i.e. Libya), both of who are on the scene and have much more resources in Libya that the UK government, had done the equivalent of nothing to help them.

The thread started by having a go at people for daring to criticise the governments response because they probably don't pay taxes to the british government. Therefore they should just sit quietly back in the middle of a warzone until our government decides if it wants to rescue them or not (which it took far too long to decide upon)

Sorry but that is ridiculous and the attempts to twist the thread since into being one about taxation is also a nonsense. The bottom line is we should always make every attempt to save our own when they are in trouble, the question of cost is not one to be had in this case as it is unfeasible and morally just repugnant to the majority of the people in this country.

Libya currently has no government, it has no structure at all any more, it has nothing so to expect a Libyan company to save our citizens is the stuff fairy tales are made of, the fact this government actually expected that to happen seriously worries me and probably a lot of other people as well.

Lots of other governments could see something needed to be done, but davey to was too busy smoozing the saudis to buy more guns. Seriously you could not make this stuff up!!

[Beefster]

The thread started by having a go at people for daring to criticise the governments response because they probably don't pay taxes to the british government. Therefore they should just sit quietly back in the middle of a warzone until our government decides if it wants to rescue them or not (which it took far too long to decide upon)

Sorry but that is ridiculous and the attempts to twist the thread since into being one about taxation is also a nonsense. The bottom line is we should always make every attempt to save our own when they are in trouble, the question of cost is not one to be had in this case as it is unfeasible and morally just repugnant to the majority of the people in this country.

Libya currently has no government, it has no structure at all any more, it has nothing so to expect a Libyan company to save our citizens is the stuff fairy tales are made of, the fact this government actually expected that to happen seriously worries me and probably a lot of other people as well.

Lots of other governments could see something needed to be done, but davey to was too busy smoozing the saudis to buy more guns. Seriously you could not make this stuff up!!

I know that criticising the government is like a hobby for you so I won't intrude too much into ruining your fun.

Considering the turmoil in the region recently, it was evident very early that things were going to go downhill. The UK citizens, the Libyan government and the Libyan oil companies had ample opportunity and resources to get everyone out of their own accord.

The UK government didn't react quickly enough and have acknowledged this. They are far from the only government to do so, despite what you'd like us to believe. It's not a uniquely 'Tory' thing either - sometimes bureaucracies take a while to react to events - especially when they are not on the scene.

Most of the people I've heard complaining in the media have taken no responsibility for their situation. They don't accept any responsibility yet they expect airline staff and service personnel to risk their lives to save them.

Anyway, at the risk of helping you turn the thread into yet another Tory-bashing - Beefster out.

[mjhibby]

The governments response to this whole crisis has been shocking and has really shown cameron up for being no better than anyone that has went before him. The time it took for the government to actually react and start to get people out was far too long,the oil companies could arrange flights but wee willie winky couldnae, meanwhile davey boy is prancing around the middle east trying to sell more guns.

to top it all, cleggers is at his chalet in switzerland not knowing if he is running the country or not!!!

Hague actually came out and said people were not getting out because an airline cancelled some flights (aye because commercial airlines are really going to keep flying to fricking war zone ya fanny) and tried to use that as an excuse, they should have got there finger out there ***** quicker, thats the bottom line!!!

The coalition has been shown up to what most sensible people knew they were.A marriage of convenience whereby the tories put through their draconian cuts and the libs dems by default get some trappings of power.They are like two naughty public school boys and along with osbourne it is frightening that these total novices are meant to be steering this country through its worse recession in generations.All we get is that we are trying to sort out the mess labour left but every country in europe and the americas has the same economic problems or was brown to blame for that.
It is the banks who got us into this mess and now with the three muppets of clegg,cameron and osbourne they are running rings round them the latest being the bonuses paid out and the laughable tax paid by them.The tories will always help the higher middle and upper classes,they dont give a damn about the ordinary man in the street and it will only get worse as more and more jobs go.I find it amazing that of course cameron can tell gaddafi to stand down as he sells more arms to the region but doesnt surprise me as the media are giving the coalition such an easy ride.Its laughable the tories moaning about bbc bias when two thirds of newspapers are supporting them.The bbc is the only organisation challenging the cuts as nobody else does as sky is just a joke as they showed in their bias during the election campaign.
They say we get the govt we deserve but i certainly didnt vote for them and since now we can not believe any pre election statements are we now to accept that polticians just tell wee fibs all the time.No wonder there is no respect in this country.Rant over.

[SaudiHibby]

I live and work overseas in the Middle East. Most if not all UK expats have an insurance scheme paid for by their companies called SOS which guarantees immediate withdrawal to a place of safety in the event of war or serious illness. It is commonly understood by all of us that if you are in trouble in a foreign country the last (and I mean very last) people you go to for help is the UK Foreign Office. If you are stood in front of some jidahist or Islamic police/army official they get very wound up when Timothy the Trumpet turns up in his crumpled suit and briefcase spouting international law. Use your local contacts and work the system. If you don't have any then more fool you. I came out here with a full understanding that I would be on my own to look after me and mine and I would be on my own looking after me and mine if it all kicked off. And I paid tax for 25 years before making that decision.