Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Manximus Aururaneus

Tax avoidance hypocrisy of Guardian Newspaper et al

Recommended Posts

The Guardian newspaper (Guardian Media Group) was/is funded by a 'Trust' that had, at it's heart, the    idea of 'Avoiding death duties' i.e. Avoiding Tax. The Trust has a current net worth of £993,800,00 (a billion) based on the tax-free accumulation of wealth from an initial 'seed-funding' by the benefactor John Scott.

Is this legal"

Is this moral?

Is this ethical"

Or is it just plain hypocrisy?

Discuss....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question could be better balanced.

The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust Limited - a company from which no shareholder can take a dividend. It is designed this way to ensure durability and editorial independence. The trading company and the ownership vehicle are UK companies and their audited accounts are freely available.

There is no Inheritance Tax exposure as there is no-one who has any value in their estate.

I am no friend of socialism but I find it hard to be offended by a newspaper which has secured independent ownership so that it can spread its message free from editorial interference.

If any tax has been avoided, it was by the original owner who gave the business away. I suspect that this was way before Inheritance Tax existed and if it happened today, Business Property Relief would mean there was no tax to pay.

If you do not like their message, challenge it with an appropriate argument. If you resort to slurring the messenger, you have lost your argument.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love a big linky me

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Your question could be better balanced.

The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust Limited - a company from which no shareholder can take a dividend. It is designed this way to ensure durability and editorial independence. The trading company and the ownership vehicle are UK companies and their audited accounts are freely available.

There is no Inheritance Tax exposure as there is no-one who has any value in their estate.

I am no friend of socialism but I find it hard to be offended by a newspaper which has secured independent ownership so that it can spread its message free from editorial interference.

If any tax has been avoided, it was by the original owner who gave the business away. I suspect that this was way before Inheritance Tax existed and if it happened today, Business Property Relief would mean there was no tax to pay.

If you do not like their message, challenge it with an appropriate argument. If you resort to slurring the messenger, you have lost your argument.

 

 

Sadly I find their reporting unbalanced. And for some reason, I find the independent ownership issue is a red herring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

Barclay brothers fight back

Fixed!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 10:33 AM, Phillip Dearden said:

Your question could be better balanced.

The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust Limited - a company from which no shareholder can take a dividend. It is designed this way to ensure durability and editorial independence. The trading company and the ownership vehicle are UK companies and their audited accounts are freely available.

There is no Inheritance Tax exposure as there is no-one who has any value in their estate.

I am no friend of socialism but I find it hard to be offended by a newspaper which has secured independent ownership so that it can spread its message free from editorial interference.

If any tax has been avoided, it was by the original owner who gave the business away. I suspect that this was way before Inheritance Tax existed and if it happened today, Business Property Relief would mean there was no tax to pay.

If you do not like their message, challenge it with an appropriate argument. If you resort to slurring the messenger, you have lost your argument.

 

 

Your answer could be better balanced too!

1. I am not in any way 'offended' - that word has been introduced by you, not me.

2. I am in no way opposed to (legal) tax avoidance (I run my own SIPPS and SSAS's for example) - at no time have I criticised the Scott Trust Ltd. or their activities - that is an (incorrect) assumption by you.

My issue is that of the Guardian leading a witch hunt against certain activities whilst they themselves are 100% dependent on those very activities.

Less shooting from the hip might serve you well.

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/11/2017 at 11:33 PM, Manximus Aururaneus said:

The Guardian newspaper (Guardian Media Group) was/is funded by a 'Trust' that had, at it's heart, the    idea of 'Avoiding death duties' i.e. Avoiding Tax. The Trust has a current net worth of £993,800,00 (a billion) based on the tax-free accumulation of wealth from an initial 'seed-funding' by the benefactor John Scott.

Is this legal"

Is this moral?

Is this ethical"

Or is it just plain hypocrisy?

Discuss....

Do two wrongs make a right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Your answer could be better balanced too!

1. I am not in any way 'offended' - that word has been introduced by you, not me.

2. I am in no way opposed to (legal) tax avoidance (I run my own SIPPS and SSAS's for example) - at no time have I criticised the Scott Trust Ltd. or their activities - that is an (incorrect) assumption by you.

My issue is that of the Guardian leading a witch hunt against certain activities whilst they themselves are 100% dependent on those very activities.

Less shooting from the hip might serve you well.

Balance - I try, sometimes I fail.

Offended - I referred to myself not being offended. I did not mention you.

Avoidance - SIPPs and SSASs are created by UK statute. To call them avoidance is to give the term a very wide definition...but some people do.

Witchhunt and hypocrisy - here is the nub of the matter. The Guardian often takes a stand I find hard to agree with but  do think they believe in what they say. I can't see that their ownership structure is "avoidance" or hypocrisy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am certain they believe in what they say, just like their kind at the BBC. Doesn't make it true or to be revered in any way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Balance - I try, sometimes I fail.

Offended - I referred to myself not being offended. I did not mention you.

Avoidance - SIPPs and SSASs are created by UK statute. To call them avoidance is to give the term a very wide definition...but some people do.

Witchhunt and hypocrisy - here is the nub of the matter. The Guardian often takes a stand I find hard to agree with but  do think they believe in what they say. I can't see that their ownership structure is "avoidance" or hypocrisy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the joy's of the internet - In the real world I doubt that we would be very far apart in this. With respect the Guardian I take the well-worn phrase 'I might not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right.....' - I truly believe in a wide-ranging free press.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not they are being hypocritical.

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

That's the joy's of the internet - In the real world I doubt that we would be very far apart in this. With respect the Guardian I take the well-worn phrase 'I might not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right.....' - I truly believe in a wide-ranging free press.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not they are being hypocritical.

OK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the other thread:

"When CP Scott retired from managing and editing the paper in July 1929, he passed control to his two sons. John was manager and Edward (Ted) took over as editor.

The death of CP Scott and son Ted within three months of each other in 1932 brought a very real threat to the future independence of the Guardian.

The Inland Revenue would claim full death duties, or inheritance tax, in the event of John’s death and would mean the end of the Manchester Guardian as an independent liberal newspaper.

To prevent this, John renounced all financial benefit in the business for himself and his family by transferring all the ordinary shares in the company – a stake worth more than £1 million at the time – to a group of trustees. The Scott Trust became the owner of the Manchester Guardian."

So he gave up over £1m, a fortune at the time, to keep the paper running.

Not a very good tax dodger then.

He should have gone to Appleby...."

So not exactly

"Tax avoidance hypocrisy of Guardian newspaper et al"

but rather

"Total non-story"

unless, of course, you think you can be a tax dodger when you're dead....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×