executive pay

23 Nov 2011

Well we now read exuctive pay increased on average by 4000% over last 30 years...where the national average for the rest was 90% !! Just last year in the middle of a recession and when tough spending restrictions are hitting us all, we find the increase was 49% for exuctive pay...whilst national average was 1.2% !!
The chief executive at Barclays Bank last year had a salary a shade over 1 million pounds and earned a bonus of a further 6 million !!
I have to say I find these levels of salary and bonus to be obscene. Where on earth are you going to spend that sort of money ??? Maybe a cap of salary and bonus structure needs to be put in place.
Is it any wonder people are protesting at St Pauls and across the world about this greed. When so many young people are out of work, and desperate for some sort of employment, it must be so deflateing to think these companies are laying off workers, whilst paying out a salary and bonus like this !! I just can not see any justification for these sorts of payments.
The rich certainly are getting richer whilst the poor get poorer !!

23 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock

Well we now read exuctive pay increased on average by 4000% over last 30 years...where the national average for the rest was 90% !! Just last year in the middle of a recession and when tough spending restrictions are hitting us all, we find the increase was 49% for exuctive pay...whilst national average was 1.2% !!
The chief executive at Barclays Bank last year had a salary a shade over 1 million pounds and earned a bonus of a further 6 million !!
I have to say I find these levels of salary and bonus to be obscene. Where on earth are you going to spend that sort of money ??? Maybe a cap of salary and bonus structure needs to be put in place.
Is it any wonder people are protesting at St Pauls and across the world about this greed. When so many young people are out of work, and desperate for some sort of employment, it must be so deflateing to think these companies are laying off workers, whilst paying out a salary and bonus like this !! I just can not see any justification for these sorts of payments.
The rich certainly are getting richer whilst the poor get poorer !!

.
The problem is that the pay is not performance linked. The link between "earning" and getting paid got broken. I don't mind anyone getting huge salaries if what they are doing is making a positive difference. What I can't stomach is people being rewarded for failure.

23 Nov 2011

I hear what you are saying, but I am also uncomfortable with the idea of capping pay

23 Nov 2011

I would suggest that rather than 'capping' pay anyone over a certain threshold is taxed back to that level regardless of how much they're paid, i.e. anyone paid more than X amount has the surplus taken back in tax ... this way the money enters the public purse and doesn't disappear into some corporate black hole or get payed out as dividends ,I'd further suggest that these taxes are ring fenced and used to incentivise investment in industry and infrastructure

23 Nov 2011

It is the lowest pay that should be controlled. Bear with me - I'm not into depriving the coal-face workers of their hard earned money.
The highest paid (including non-salaried benefits) person in a company should get no more than 10 times the lowest paid person. And controls should be in place to stop the greedy sods fiddling it by playing with company identities etc.

23 Nov 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
It is the lowest pay that should be controlled. Bear with me - I'm not into depriving the coal-face workers of their hard earned money.
The highest paid (including non-salaried benefits) person in a company should get no more than 10 times the lowest paid person. And controls should be in place to stop the greedy sods fiddling it by playing with company identities etc.

I'd do that too .... honest I meant to say it before , but I was busy .... honest

24 Nov 2011

The usual envious twaddle and entirely expected responses on this Site. Just want to remind you that we live on a very small planet and big Corporations need to attract the best talent and this needs to be paid for. Perhaps some of you are too young to remember "the brain drain," when personal taxation rates were as high as 90%.
If you are saying that The Chairman of (for example ICI) should earn no more £60-£70 hour then you are completely deluded. It would never happen anyway because ICI would have de-camped long before any nonsenical tax regimes like that arrived and the UK would be awash with workers and no leaders.
If anyone increases profitability, creates growth (employment & tax take) and generally improves the standing of any Organisation then they deserve a share of that success. They would get that share in almost any country in the world and yet you propose capping them to 10X the minimum wage? Nonsense.
The real issue is reward for failure - that needs to stop very quickly.

24 Nov 2011

Too Hot's post :thumbup:

24 Nov 2011

I live in terror of the day that there is a shortage of " captains of industry" to whom I can doff my cap.

24 Nov 2011

I agree with too hot, tax them too much and they will simply register companies abroad, have offshore bank accounts paying thier employees wages into other offshore bank accounts or simply re-locate to other countries, the morals are right to stop them but the realities don't work.
I don't mind successfull people earning good money but I do hate it when we hear about huge bonuses paid to executives of failing companies, or companies that hike prices and lay off workers.
And what about the price of razor blades, how can a poxy razor blade cost more than a mobile phone ?

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
I live in terror of the day that there is a shortage of " captains of industry" to whom I can doff my cap.

Agreed Ben,
However despite what several have said there hasn't been a mass let's scarper from the UK
however it seems that there are other more tax efficient dodges for the various Captains of Industry
Spotted in one of the heavyweight papers over the weekend, "Ownership of the iconic scallop sign which appears on thousands of Shell petrol station forecourts has migrated to a Swiss tax haven."
It seems that Legal ownership of the trademarks now belongs to a subsidiary set up in the low-tax canton of Zug, which is entitled to charge royalties for their use to other Shell companies. The canton hosts about 18,000 companies, mostly foreign entities set up to take advantage of corporate tax rates as low as 8%.
It would seem that Shell are not alone, as Diageo the owners of many famous trademarks such as Johnnie Walker whisky & J & B Rare, transfered 'ownership' to Diageo Brands BV in Amsterdam using a technique known in tax circles as "outward domestication". By this means, Johnnie Walker became "Dutch". Via various other corporate changes, J&B finally ended up alongside other whisky brands, as part of Diageo Brands BV.
Unusual, it appears not.
The title to more than 40 GlaxoSmithKline trademarks went to a factory in Puerto Rico, including the trademark for the top-selling diabetes drug Avandia. In 2007, the Puerto Rico trademarks, including Avandia, were shifted on to the firm's Irish operation in Cork. The trademark for the newly launched breast cancer drug Tykerb was assigned to Ireland, another low-tax regime, in 2005, followed there by the firm's Sensodyne toothpaste brand in January 2008.
Also, it seems that when HM Customs & Revenue (HMRC) changed some rules back in 2004 they've admitted that there have been some 14,000 tax avoidance schemes since then, and via a Parlimentary answer to Austin Mitchel MP, no fewer than 90 promoters are under investigation for failing to disclose schemes.
Based on 2005 figures from the HMRC, the official estimated gap between the £40bn corporation tax actually collected and "the theoretical tax liability if all taxpayers complied with the letter and the spirit of the law" was somewhere between and not collected.
In 2008, the Commons Public Accounts Committee was told by HMRC that there was of "potential corporation tax at risk", according to its initial review of 2006-7 company tax returns. "It is currently using these estimates to develop a measure of the tax gap."
HMRC has also advised, in recent years, that it recovers between £100m and £250m a year in tax lost through what it considers incorrect transfer pricing by large businesses. (In 2006/07 the figure rose to £473m after the settlement of a major investigation into Barclays Bank's payment protection insurance business, whose policies were sold in the UK but booked in Dublin.)
If all the above is true, which it seems to be given the main source being HMRC and Parliamentary committee.
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopicpage/348644/20.html
So lets see shall we, the corporate entity with which people are associated with/'employed by' is registered in a Tax 'beneficial' Country and said company pays salary, directors fees, etc. to it's employees locally.
Now forgive me if I get this wrong, said companies also have large Tax Departments, which besides advising the Company they also advise senior employees over Tax 'efficient' ways of dealing with monies paid to them from multiple sources, including Tax 'beneficial' Country earnings. What makes you think that these monies are actually repatriated to the UK and therefore subject to HMRC ?
Various sources, both print and television, have reported Captains of Industry doing just this for years.
Whilst their companies are well know 'UK brands/names' just check, if you can, what family trusts, discretionary trusts, and other nominee compoanies they are involved with, then try and follow the money through to the various off-shore Tax Havens that exist in the world, Belize, Caymans, etc. any one ?
As for thge Swiss 'loophole', then the HMRC/Swiss withholding tax of 48% on investment income and 27% on gains will be levied by banks on any accounts held by UK residents in Switzerland doesn't become effective until May 2013, And then it's only applicable to those who still have assets in Swiss bank accounts at that time, giving people months in which to move their assets into one of the many other tax havens available.
Last year HMRC were sold details of secret accounts from HSBC’s private bank in Geneva and by striking this deal, they are refusing to use this information to actively prosecute and bring these individuals and corporations to justice for crimes of tax evasion. Whereas in the US, two businessmen were recently convicted for hiding $50m in Switzerland.
With tax evasion estimated to cost the government £15bn a year anyone can understand that this is a significant amount of money, which could make a big difference. With so many different organisations facing spending cuts to save tiny fractions of this sum, tackling the illegal activity of tax evasion by large corporations and individuals would appear to be a worthwhile venture.

24 Nov 2011

Quote by HnS
I live in terror of the day that there is a shortage of " captains of industry" to whom I can doff my cap.

Agreed Ben,
However despite what several have said there hasn't been a mass let's scarper from the UK
however it seems that there are other more tax efficient dodges for the various Captains of Industry
Spotted in one of the heavyweight papers over the weekend, "Ownership of the iconic scallop sign which appears on thousands of Shell petrol station forecourts has migrated to a Swiss tax haven."
It seems that Legal ownership of the trademarks now belongs to a subsidiary set up in the low-tax canton of Zug, which is entitled to charge royalties for their use to other Shell companies. The canton hosts about 18,000 companies, mostly foreign entities set up to take advantage of corporate tax rates as low as 8%.
It would seem that Shell are not alone, as Diageo the owners of many famous trademarks such as Johnnie Walker whisky & J & B Rare, transfered 'ownership' to Diageo Brands BV in Amsterdam using a technique known in tax circles as "outward domestication". By this means, Johnnie Walker became "Dutch". Via various other corporate changes, J&B finally ended up alongside other whisky brands, as part of Diageo Brands BV.
Unusual, it appears not.
The title to more than 40 GlaxoSmithKline trademarks went to a factory in Puerto Rico, including the trademark for the top-selling diabetes drug Avandia. In 2007, the Puerto Rico trademarks, including Avandia, were shifted on to the firm's Irish operation in Cork. The trademark for the newly launched breast cancer drug Tykerb was assigned to Ireland, another low-tax regime, in 2005, followed there by the firm's Sensodyne toothpaste brand in January 2008.
Also, it seems that when HM Customs & Revenue (HMRC) changed some rules back in 2004 they've admitted that there have been some 14,000 tax avoidance schemes since then, and via a Parlimentary answer to Austin Mitchel MP, no fewer than 90 promoters are under investigation for failing to disclose schemes.
Based on 2005 figures from the HMRC, the official estimated gap between the £40bn corporation tax actually collected and "the theoretical tax liability if all taxpayers complied with the letter and the spirit of the law" was somewhere between and not collected.
In 2008, the Commons Public Accounts Committee was told by HMRC that there was of "potential corporation tax at risk", according to its initial review of 2006-7 company tax returns. "It is currently using these estimates to develop a measure of the tax gap."
HMRC has also advised, in recent years, that it recovers between £100m and £250m a year in tax lost through what it considers incorrect transfer pricing by large businesses. (In 2006/07 the figure rose to £473m after the settlement of a major investigation into Barclays Bank's payment protection insurance business, whose policies were sold in the UK but booked in Dublin.)
If all the above is true, which it seems to be given the main source being HMRC and Parliamentary committee.
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopicpage/348644/20.html
So lets see shall we, the corporate entity with which people are associated with/'employed by' is registered in a Tax 'beneficial' Country and said company pays salary, directors fees, etc. to it's employees locally.
Now forgive me if I get this wrong, said companies also have large Tax Departments, which besides advising the Company they also advise senior employees over Tax 'efficient' ways of dealing with monies paid to them from multiple sources, including Tax 'beneficial' Country earnings. What makes you think that these monies are actually repatriated to the UK and therefore subject to HMRC ?
Various sources, both print and television, have reported Captains of Industry doing just this for years.
Whilst their companies are well know 'UK brands/names' just check, if you can, what family trusts, discretionary trusts, and other nominee compoanies they are involved with, then try and follow the money through to the various off-shore Tax Havens that exist in the world, Belize, Caymans, etc. any one ?
As for thge Swiss 'loophole', then the HMRC/Swiss withholding tax of 48% on investment income and 27% on gains will be levied by banks on any accounts held by UK residents in Switzerland doesn't become effective until May 2013, And then it's only applicable to those who still have assets in Swiss bank accounts at that time, giving people months in which to move their assets into one of the many other tax havens available.
Last year HMRC were sold details of secret accounts from HSBC's private bank in Geneva and by striking this deal, they are refusing to use this information to actively prosecute and bring these individuals and corporations to justice for crimes of tax evasion. Whereas in the US, two businessmen were recently convicted for hiding $50m in Switzerland.
With tax evasion estimated to cost the government £15bn a year anyone can understand that this is a significant amount of money, which could make a big difference. With so many different organisations facing spending cuts to save tiny fractions of this sum, tackling the illegal activity of tax evasion by large corporations and individuals would appear to be a worthwhile venture.
the most sensible thing to do would be to tax foreign companies a trading levy which would then make their taxes higher to trade in the uk as apposed to being a British trading company from the uk simple
do think Barclay's could afford not to have its uk deposits or customers somehow i doubt it
if you try to import a new BMW into china it'll cost you the same again in taxes
which is probably why china are far better placed in this crisis than the rest of the world

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
I live in terror of the day that there is a shortage of " captains of industry" to whom I can doff my cap.

On occasions Ben, you make me laugh out load! lol

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Too Hot
The usual envious twaddle and entirely expected responses on this Site. Just want to remind you that we live on a very small planet and big Corporations need to attract the best talent and this needs to be paid for. Perhaps some of you are too young to remember "the brain drain," when personal taxation rates were as high as 90%.
If you are saying that The Chairman of (for example ICI) should earn no more £60-£70 hour then you are completely deluded. It would never happen anyway because ICI would have de-camped long before any nonsenical tax regimes like that arrived and the UK would be awash with workers and no leaders.
If anyone increases profitability, creates growth (employment & tax take) and generally improves the standing of any Organisation then they deserve a share of that success. They would get that share in almost any country in the world and yet you propose capping them to 10X the minimum wage? Nonsense.
The real issue is reward for failure - that needs to stop very quickly.

I think you're the first to mention the minimum wage ... the suggestion was 10X the lowest paid worker in the company ... with, I believe, the intention that that low wage would increase
As HnS says there is little evidence to support the idea that companies would instantly decamp.

Quote by Too Hot
The usual envious twaddle and entirely expected responses on this Site

And your usual response ... I have yet to see you or anyone else supply evidence of this 'envy',wanting a fairer, more just and equal society is not envy, I look forward to your explanation as to why it is

Quote by Too Hot
awash with workers and no leaders

I'm quite sure that there are more than a few corporate entities who could be decapitated and still function perfectly well .... I suspect there are far fewer that could lose their legs and do the same

Quote by Too Hot
If anyone increases profitability, creates growth (employment & tax take) and generally improves the standing of any Organisation then they deserve a share of that success

Excepting obviously those on the shop floor who actually implement all these changes ... they just get to plod on receiving little by way of reward other than the vicarious pleasure of the chairmans multi-million pound bonus

24 Nov 2011

You are obviously too young to remember the brain drain when personal taxation levels were at 90%. No-one with half a brain was going stand for that if they were in a qualifying pay bracket. They did de camp and in a big way.
I imagine the lowest paid worker would be on the minimum wage no?
The Chinese Prime minister referred to British workers as fat with complacency and he is right. As an aside there is talk about capping social benefits at £25,000 p.a. and all of this is because we all feel that we are owed something. But we are not. To get on in life you have to get off your arse and make things happen. Do you think the very many people who have worked they way up from the shop/factory floor to positions of high management duid it for any other reason than to better themselves? Complacency kills you in war and makes you poor in peace. Unfortunately life is not fair and the people who realise that become successful whilst others look for cause and blame and excuses. Like it or not we are animals and our world is small and competitive - it is a dog eat dog world BECAUSE we are not an isolated little island anymore and we are now incapable of living our lives unaffected by global events and global condations.
Shop floor workers are the poor bloody infantry yes they are, but with education, ambition and attitude anyone can rise above the life of plod as you call it.
I have very strong feelings about all of this having being made redundant from an industry made uncompetitive by Unions whilst in my early 20's. At the time, I thought the Unions were great at the time fighting the bosses and getting us better and better conditions until in the space of 5 years the entire Industry disappeared from these shores with thousands upon thousands of redundancies - I am talking about shipping. Shipping went foreign flag because it was cheaper for the companies to operate out of almost any other country than the UK.
I am all in favour of strong leadership both political and Industrial and men/women who will put their balls in the drawer to make tough life changing decisions and when they get it right they deserve reward. My argument is they should NOT get rewarded for failure.
The poor bloody infantry had choices to get a better education and choices to help improve their own position but as long as they continue looking for someone to blame and being envious of others success then they will stay plodding.
C'est la vie

24 Nov 2011

A company employing 300 'plods' has maybe 3 top bosses. If the plods want to imprive their positions only 1% will find a position to fill and only then if one of the 3 at the top bugger off and die.
Saying, if you don't think conditions as a plod are acceptable work your way up is overly simplistic. Even the plods shold benefit from the work they do.
It isn't the execs that make the money in a company - it IS the plods. The execs facilitate that. But the plods MAKE the money by doing the WORK.
All I argue for is a reduction of the appallaing and in some cases obscene disparity between the top bods and the plod bods.

24 Nov 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
A company employing 300 'plods' has maybe 3 top bosses. If the plods want to imprive their positions only 1% will find a position to fill and only then if one of the 3 at the top bugger off and die.
Saying, if you don't think conditions as a plod are acceptable work your way up is overly simplistic. Even the plods shold benefit from the work they do.
It isn't the execs that make the money in a company - it IS the plods. The execs facilitate that. But the plods MAKE the money by doing the WORK.
All I argue for is a reduction of the appallaing and in some cases obscene disparity between the top bods and the plod bods.

By the way it is also the poor bloody infantry who do the killing. But we recognise the names of Patton, Montgommery, Mountbatten because they were the leaders. Private Dick Johns of the Fusiliers had a much tougher war than the Generals - but that is just the way it is.
Question, if it were you earning the top salary - would you give it up and distribute it amongst the rest of the animals on the farm? Doubtful. You would feel that you earn your salary and would fight tooth and claw to keep it.
Not that long ago I went to work for a Company and negotiated a commission deal that meant I would earn more than the MD within the space of six months. The other sales people started to hate me for embarrassing them and accused me of "taking advantage" by working longer and harder. The end result was that I was made sales manager and i sacked all the whingers and replaced them with hungry salespeople. The Company quadrupled its turnover in a year by killing complacency. I deserved every penny of my salary, commission and year end bonus and I could not give a monkeys about the lazy, complacent people who lost their job because they just wanted me out the door so they could continue their cozy, complacent life.

24 Nov 2011

I think I fall more in line with Toohot,I am not comfortable with capping what people can earn.

24 Nov 2011

I have no problems with anyone earning bundles of money.
IMO, the people who moan about it are jealous.

24 Nov 2011

No problem with people earning money, either as a factory floor, shop floor, sales counter, middle management or as a boss/owner, nor with people having the options to train, skill and progress.
The whole part of the original news story, which some seem to have got distracted from with personal ideologies, dogma, etc., was around the dis-parate growth in earnings between the 'top' and the 'bottom' in companies over the last 30years.
Looking at the story, it mentions Barclays and the fact that in 1980 'top' pay was 13 times the average UK wage, in reality at that time in Barclays many of the lower level salaried staff actually qualified and received income support. The same situation occurred in Lloyds, Nat West, etc.
Moving forward 30 years in the same company, Barclays, this disparity had grown from 13 times to 169 times the average UK wage.
Have a look at the annual reports and accounts for Barclays over the last few years and track profits against bonus/reward, whether deferred or taken. Least Barclays isn't state owned/propped up, so perhaps a better we might be better looking at Lloyds TSB and RBS/Natwest over the same period ?
Fred 'the shred' Goodwin and his £16m+ pay off
or
Eric Daniels the former Lloyds/TSB boss who was being paid a reported £100,000 per month (over £1m per year) for doing nothing since he was replaced in March until September, oh and he continued to enjoy other lavish executive rewards, chauffeur-driven car, plus the bank paying for his tax adviser’s bills, and the office he used in central London. That's before his reported £5m pension pot.
Now I'm no LibDem, however I do agree with Vince Cable when said he was not opposed "in principle" to people earning huge sums but he did not believe in rewarding failure.
High Pay Commission chairman Deborah Hargreaves said: "When pay for senior executives is set behind closed doors, does not reflect company success, and is fuelling massive inequality, it represents a deep malaise at the very top of our society. The British people believe in fairness and, at a time of unparalleled austerity, one tiny section of society - the top 0.1% - continues to enjoy huge annual increases in pay awards"
As some one said, no problems with people earning bundles of money, the emphasis is on earning
banghead

24 Nov 2011

169 times 30,000 equals over half a million and that is obscene.

24 Nov 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
169 times 30,000 equals over half a million and that is obscene.

technically you're right it is over half a million, it also happens to be over 5 million as well....

25 Nov 2011

Tee hee

25 Nov 2011

Quote by browning
I have no problems with anyone earning bundles of money.
IMO, the people who moan about it are jealous.

:thumbup:
these peeple who moan about the amounts of money others earn, i am sure that if they had the chance they would take that money as well. it is only because they cannot that they moan about it.
yes mr browning being jealous is exactly what this is all about and how sad is that?

25 Nov 2011

How sad is it...that people measure success by how much money they earn !!!
I'm not jealous at all. I am happy and content in my life, my daughter is well balanced and happy in her life, and I would never swap that for a million pounds.
What I do feel, is compassion. There are people being put out of work, plunging families into debt and despair, while the cheif executive of thet company earns a 6 million pound bonus !!! No..in my eyes that is not right. They are indeed at the bottom of the rung, in the company structure. However it is not their fault the company has taken the wrong decisions and not making the profits they used to do. Yet it is them that have to suffer, whilst the ones that made those decisions continue to feather their nest.
Jealous....NO
Sad........NO
Compassionate....YES
All this I'm alright Jack...fuck you... is what exactly gets us in this mess in the first place.
Money does not make you a successful person.

25 Nov 2011

Quote by deancannock
How sad is it...that people measure success by how much money they earn !!!
I'm not jealous at all. I am happy and content in my life, my daughter is well balanced and happy in her life, and I would never swap that for a million pounds.
What I do feel, is compassion. There are people being put out of work, plunging families into debt and despair, while the cheif executive of thet company earns a 6 million pound bonus !!! No..in my eyes that is not right. They are indeed at the bottom of the rung, in the company structure. However it is not their fault the company has taken the wrong decisions and not making the profits they used to do. Yet it is them that have to suffer, whilst the ones that made those decisions continue to feather their nest.
Jealous....NO
Sad........NO
Compassionate....YES
All this I'm alright Jack...fuck you... is what exactly gets us in this mess in the first place.
Money does not make you a successful person.

I agree with all you say, but I still do not care how unfare the pay scale may be, I personaly would never seek to cap earnings for anyone.
This is my feelings also on another thread re the pension strike, using your words; What I do feel, is compassion. There are people being put out of work, plunging families into debt and despair, while the cheif executive of thet company earns a 6 million pound bonus !!! No..in my eyes that is not right. They are indeed at the bottom of the rung, in the company structure. However it is not their fault the company has taken the wrong decisions and not making the profits they used to do. Yet it is them that have to suffer, whilst the ones that made those decisions continue to feather their nest.
My heart is with the ones you mention above, who have no pention, rather than those loosing some of what they thought they should get, does that make sense?

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Bluefish2009
My heart is with the ones you mention above, who have no pention, rather than those loosing some of what they thought they should get, does that make sense?

I agree to a point, then wonder whether those that start losing some of what they thought they should get puts them under the living allowance that they had saved for. Suddenly they find themselves having to go cap in hand to the government asking for benefit as the money they planned to retire on is no longer there.
So the money the government saves today, pays out tommorrow. If the pensions are stripped back then people will not take one out. This will then put the onus back on the government/taxpayer to provide in their old age.
Leaving a sustainable pension alone may save more in the future. Fiddle with it now and it could break something that wasn't broke.
Dave_Notts

25 Nov 2011

As for thge Swiss 'loophole', then the HMRC/Swiss withholding tax of 48% on investment income and 27% on gains will be levied by banks on any accounts held by UK residents in Switzerland doesn't become effective until May 2013, And then it's only applicable to those who still have assets in Swiss bank accounts at that time, giving people months in which to move their assets into one of the many other tax havens available.
Eh! what's this all about please, I have a few pennies in my suisse account can someone please tell me what is going to happen and what I should do about it, all advice greatfully recieved.

25 Nov 2011

Quote by MidsCouple24
Eh! what's this all about please, I have a few pennies in my suisse account can someone please tell me what is going to happen and what I should do about it, all advice greatfully recieved.

All funds should be forwarded to me. I will invest them safely on your behalf and issue a signed crisp packet as your proof of ownership. You can withdraw the sum at any time, provided you can find me.
Oh and UK residents are sposed to declare world wide income, rememebr ken dodd he made that "mistake".

25 Nov 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx

Eh! what's this all about please, I have a few pennies in my suisse account can someone please tell me what is going to happen and what I should do about it, all advice greatfully recieved.