Author Topic: Arcadia Group going bust?  (Read 4107 times)

Offline Blackpool Rock

Not looking good for Arcadia group, no doubt the cunt Phillip Green & his wife will have already hived off some extra cash before the collapse  :thumbsdown:
Not that he needs it of course, buy Arcadia in 2003 then take 1.2 Billion dividend only 2 years later which is paid tax free as his wife is resident in Monaco  :diablo:
Then roll on a few years and knowing BHS was in shit street sell it for £1 and the next year it goes bust leaving a £571 Million deficit in the pension scheme  :angry:

Perhaps we need a thread for prize cunts, this guy could be the 1st entry

I feel sorry for anyone who gets made redundant as they will struggle to find a new job in the current climate, no doubt they will also be royally shafted by Phillip before he departs to his yacht, hopefully he will meet the same demise as the other pension plunderer Maxwell and fall overboard  :drinks:

External Link/Members Only

Offline B4bcock

I know a guy who had a small business manufacturing clothing and who supplied one of the Arcadia group outlets.  As soon as Green took it over he cut the price paid to all his suppliers with a take it or leave it offer.  This guy went straight out of business and next thing you know, Blair gives Green a Knighthood for being a top businessman.  As mentioned, he then pays his missus a stonking tax free bonus, effectively sucking the business dry.  I wait to see if he repays any of his vast wealth back into the employee pension schemes which have been left short.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2020, 10:03:39 am by B4bcock »

Offline Blackpool Rock

I know a guy who had a small business manufacturing clothing and who supplied one of the Arcadia group outlets.  As soon as Green took it over he cut the price paid to all his suppliers with a take it or leave it offer.  This guy went straight out of business and next thing you know, Blair gives Green a Knighthood for being a top businessman.  As mentioned, he then pays his missus a stonking tax free bonus, effectively sucking the business dry.  I wait to see if he repays any of his vast wealth back into the employee pension schemes which have been left short.
He did actually top up the Debenhams pension fund but only after a big scandal and enquiry etc and still left it around £200 Million short, left to his own devices he wouldn't have contributed fuck all.

Let's be perfectly honest here if he genuinely felt that he was neither legally or morally obliged to put money in then he wouldn't have therefore the only conclusion is that he owed the money and was previously happy to rip off the pensioners, cunt  :diablo:

Offline petermisc

Must admit that my initial reaction was that Green is finally getting his comeuppance.  However, I expect that he has well insulated himself from this, and it will be the poor employees who suffer. And I wish that the press wouldn't keep calling it "Green's Arcadia Group" - it is his wife that owns it, not him.  Deliberately done so he avoids paying tax.

A point made on the radio last night is that Green invests very little in his businesses, which is why the Arcadia brands have very little on-line presence, and have suffered particularly badly of late, even before the pandemic.  He has basically had the knack of buying up successful businesses, then squeezing as much profit out of them as he can while running them into the ground.  Like BHS, which was a very successful business, but just stagnated under his ownership.  Thank goodness he didn't succeed in taking over M&S, as their employees would surely also be in the same situation now if he had.  Most telling is that Green has announced that he won't be buying any bits of Arcadia out of administration - he has bled it dry, and there is nothing left in it for him.

Offline Adoniron

Green has underinvested in the business for years while taking out vast sums in dividends. The pension fund currently has a deficit of £138m so thousands risk losing jobs and their pensions. If the company goes bust he should be stripped of his knighthood and disqualified from acting as company director.

Offline Colston36

Must admit that my initial reaction was that Green is finally getting his comeuppance.  However, I expect that he has well insulated himself from this, and it will be the poor employees who suffer. And I wish that the press wouldn't keep calling it "Green's Arcadia Group" - it is his wife that owns it, not him.  Deliberately done so he avoids paying tax.

A point made on the radio last night is that Green invests very little in his businesses, which is why the Arcadia brands have very little on-line presence, and have suffered particularly badly of late, even before the pandemic.  He has basically had the knack of buying up successful businesses, then squeezing as much profit out of them as he can while running them into the ground.  Like BHS, which was a very successful business, but just stagnated under his ownership.  Thank goodness he didn't succeed in taking over M&S, as their employees would surely also be in the same situation now if he had.  Most telling is that Green has announced that he won't be buying any bits of Arcadia out of administration - he has bled it dry, and there is nothing left in it for him.

He is a prize slimebag, but BHS was in trouble before he bought it.

Offline Blackpool Rock

Green has underinvested in the business for years while taking out vast sums in dividends. The pension fund currently has a deficit of £138m so thousands risk losing jobs and their pensions. If the company goes bust he should be stripped of his knighthood and disqualified from acting as company director.
Yeah he plundered the company profits by paying dividends mainly to himself or other family members, also rent and management charges paid to family members while he ran the businesses into the ground with lack of investment and squeezed out what he could before ditching it

External Link/Members Only

Offline Blackpool Rock

He is a prize slimebag, but BHS was in trouble before he bought it.
Yes it was already in trouble but it didn't stop him from taking what he could out of the business

Offline Jimmyredcab

“Sir” Philip Green will come out of this smelling of roses, he is far too clever to ever go skint. I feel sorry for the workers who could end up on the dole with very little chance of finding alternative employment. Of course the person laughing in the background has to be Jeff Bezoz, currently worth 186 billion dollars and rising by the minute.

Offline hullad

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,162
  • Likes: 20
  •  
  • Reviews: 96
What does anyone expect from these lowlife.

Many more will go the same way once the virus slush fund is empty, too many companies being held afloat. The simple fact is we are paying a massive amount of money out into rich peoples back pockets, whilst starving smaller firms any help.

The high Street concept is now dead, lets move on and redefine them post virus money betterment then propping up failing businesses

Online advent2016

If covid has show us one thing it was unless your business had a well developed on-line presence it was doomed unless it was cash rich and could weather a storm.  There's not much hospitality; flight, hotel, pubs could have done except having an agile delivery option but it's the rents that will kill them in the long run.
Some people say Green was evil taking out such large dividends buts that is how business works, I've even done it myself as a small business pay myself a low wage and take a largish dividend out each year on advice from my accountant. 

Offline tynetunnel

I read today that while Arcadia is on its knees, that wanker, his wife and two grown children are all on his super-yacht “Lionheart” in Monaco. Lady Green said to be on the phone “close to the yacht’s bar where a bartender was on hand”

If anyone ever deserved something bad to happen...

Offline Bonker

"he wouldn't have contributed fuck all."
I think he would have done the opposite.

Offline Blackpool Rock

"he wouldn't have contributed fuck all."
I think he would have done the opposite.
Just looking at him I think he looks like a smarmy slimy cunt and remember when he told the MP to stop staring at him during the select committee hearing about the BHS pension, obviously didn't like being questioned as he felt trapped and couldn't deliver a stinging one liner then promptly exit stage right
External Link/Members Only

It appears he was also pissed off with sky news too  :D
External Link/Members Only

Offline petermisc

The high Street concept is now dead, lets move on and redefine them post virus money betterment then propping up failing businesses
It might stand a chance if the businesses weren't crippled by excessive business rates and rents.  Unfortunately no High Street is going to survive if ALL the shops turn into coffee shops and the like - there has to be something to tempt people there in the first place.

Offline Adoniron

It might stand a chance if the businesses weren't crippled by excessive business rates and rents.  Unfortunately no High Street is going to survive if ALL the shops turn into coffee shops and the like - there has to be something to tempt people there in the first place.
People's shopping habits change. Businesses must adapt or die. No business has a right to exist; their trading model must be based on what their customers want.

Offline Londonpunter30

"he wouldn't have contributed fuck all."
I think he would have done the opposite.

Good spot on the double negative.

Somehow this smarmy git has weeded his way into government.  Didn’t he do a report on how UK Gov wasted money and poor business practice ?

It’s the way business has been going for decades.  Seems every company these days is owned by a hedge fund or similar.  All they seem to do is suck out any profit to people who are already rich and don’t need it.  Very few businesses are own by individuals who are will to reinvest profit , or pump money back in to keep a business going during hard times.

Offline winkywanky

Years ago they had a very good name for people like Green.

Spiv.

Yes, he has a nice big yacht, and that simply makes him a spiv in a yacht.

Offline Bonker

Spot on WW.
The ordinary worker gets screwed on his pension while rich bastards get richer.

Offline Mr Sinister

He's an absolute slimey, bullying, groping c*unt. To think Topshop/Man were king of the high St and toast of fashion week, Green bought into to own celebrity and its pretty much why they are struggling now. Green's personal wealth will be fine but peoples livelihoods not.

His daughter is bang average but her 'baby daddy' secured the bag good job.

Offline Colston36

I read today that while Arcadia is on its knees, that wanker, his wife and two grown children are all on his super-yacht “Lionheart” in Monaco. Lady Green said to be on the phone “close to the yacht’s bar where a bartender was on hand”

If anyone ever deserved something bad to happen...

Best comment: External Link/Members Only

Offline Gordon Bennett

I'm not sure why the Limited Company structure is allowed to prevail in the 21st century to be honest - it just seems to be a mechanism for cunts to keep on being cunts over and over and over.

Offline snaitram99

I expect the yacht is also owned by his wife and he manages it for her, like the shops.

Or it may be owned by a limited company that she owns. Then if they no longer want it at some point the company owning it can just go bankrupt but they can keep their personal fortune.

Offline winkywanky

Perhaps the yacht is legally a country, and all his/her assets are 'offshore' in it?

It's certainly fucking big enough  :rolleyes:.

Wouldn't it be great if there were still some U-Boats around?

Offline alftupper

Basically he's a cunt, but he's not the only one, just the one everyone seems to have heard of
External Link/Members Only

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,170
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
I'm not sure why the Limited Company structure is allowed to prevail in the 21st century to be honest - it just seems to be a mechanism for cunts to keep on being cunts over and over and over.

It is also fundamental to allowing the market economy to operate.  Without it very few people would want to go into business when your entire wealth is on the line with no regard as to whether it is your fault.  That would also include passive investors - so your pension fund would be entirely vulnerable to one of the investments going bad.


Offline Adoniron

I'm not sure why the Limited Company structure is allowed to prevail in the 21st century to be honest - it just seems to be a mechanism for cunts to keep on being cunts over and over and over.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of limited liability. They just need to crack down on those who abuse it.

Offline Gordon Bennett

There's nothing wrong with the concept of limited liability. They just need to crack down on those who abuse it.

What's "right" about it then? It seems to be a concept that assumes that businessman are honest, professional and content to pay tax. Bit like trusts, designed centuries ago to protect assets of soldiers off defending the realm but used today by millionaires to avoid taxes.
These instruments need totally overhauling in order to account for the modern grasping shitbag.

Offline Adoniron

What's "right" about it then? It seems to be a concept that assumes that businessman are honest, professional and content to pay tax. Bit like trusts, designed centuries ago to protect assets of soldiers off defending the realm but used today by millionaires to avoid taxes.
These instruments need totally overhauling in order to account for the modern grasping shitbag.
A limited company is a newer business model than partnership or sole trader, dating from the 19th century. Once a business reaches a certain size its the only viable model from a funding and governance point of view. Imagine BP being a partnership or Rolls Royce being owned by one individual, especially a Trump like character.

Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,170
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
What's "right" about it then? It seems to be a concept that assumes that businessman are honest, professional and content to pay tax. Bit like trusts, designed centuries ago to protect assets of soldiers off defending the realm but used today by millionaires to avoid taxes.
These instruments need totally overhauling in order to account for the modern grasping shitbag.

The limited company law is regularly reviewed and changed/updated.  You are talking nonsense - the whole modern economy would collapse without the concept of limited liability businesses.  Even partnerships were updated so that they could use a LLP structure as a mix of partnership and company.  There is also very good transparency with accounts and other documents filed and available for anyone to see on Companies House.

Offline chrishornx

What's "right" about it then? It seems to be a concept that assumes that businessman are honest, professional and content to pay tax. Bit like trusts, designed centuries ago to protect assets of soldiers off defending the realm but used today by millionaires to avoid taxes.
These instruments need totally overhauling in order to account for the modern grasping shitbag.

so what is your solution GB ? Fair enough you have your view but what do you suggest takes the place of a limited company  ?

Offline Gordon Bennett

so what is your solution GB ? Fair enough you have your view but what do you suggest takes the place of a limited company  ?

I'd just specify that limited liability is lost if the business is found engaging in any activity that is detrimental to the public purse or causes danger to the public. I'm sure there must be current sanctions designed to bring rogue directors/companies to book but they don't go far enough.
I've got no problem with a director having personal protection from company losses deriving from normal business trading or market forces. But setting up a company to indulge in shithousery and then winding it down, moving on and repeating the process is not on, even if company law supports that process.

The Worcester Park inferno is a good example. Berkley Homes sets up a subsidiary company and jerry-builds a death trap estate. Once it builds the estate it dissolves the company. All legal and above board in company law. A block subsequently goes up like a matchbox but residents can't get redress - whole thing stinks. Berkley, its board, accountants and lawyers need to be fucked up big time - not hiding behind limited liability and still building houses using subsidiary companies.
This illustrates that existing measures are toothless and do not work in terms of the public good despite Berkley apparently acting entirely in accordance with prevailing tax legislation and corporate law.


Offline sub_marine

Something should be done that taxes money that crosses borders.  But that will never happen as thats how the rich stay rich, live in one place an earn in another.

So take a local independant coffee shop, owned by the women down the street.  Everything about it is registered in UK, so all taxes paid go to HMRC.  There are a few staff on minimum wage, and the owner makes about twice the minimum wage.  So basically the whole turnover is generated in UK, then spent in UK.   

Then look at the Starbucks model in the UK, they have roughly 1000 shops, they basically do the same business so you'd think the ratio of tax to turnover would be the same, ie pay 1000x the tax.  But it is skewed miles away, because Starbucks UK pays a massive payment before tax to Starbucks Luxemburg for the use of the Starbucks brand name.  So the ratio of profit and there for tax on the UK books is a lot less.  Meanwhile that cash sent to Luxembugh will never see the light of day in UK ever again.  All the big international firms are at the same game, Monoco, Caymans, Dublin etc. 

These big firms make sure to give donations to the political parties, so they get the laws written that suit them, never mind they are bleeding the country dry.

Offline paper7

Everything he, and his wife have, should be seized under The proceeds of Crime Act. Why should his ex-employees suffer any more than they are doing?

Offline Adoniron

I'd just specify that limited liability is lost if the business is found engaging in any activity that is detrimental to the public purse or causes danger to the public. I'm sure there must be current sanctions designed to bring rogue directors/companies to book but they don't go far enough.
I've got no problem with a director having personal protection from company losses deriving from normal business trading or market forces. But setting up a company to indulge in shithousery and then winding it down, moving on and repeating the process is not on, even if company law supports that process.

The Worcester Park inferno is a good example. Berkley Homes sets up a subsidiary company and jerry-builds a death trap estate. Once it builds the estate it dissolves the company. All legal and above board in company law. A block subsequently goes up like a matchbox but residents can't get redress - whole thing stinks. Berkley, its board, accountants and lawyers need to be fucked up big time - not hiding behind limited liability and still building houses using subsidiary companies.
This illustrates that existing measures are toothless and do not work in terms of the public good despite Berkley apparently acting entirely in accordance with prevailing tax legislation and corporate law.

If a company commits a criminal offence as a result of consent connivance or neglect then the director can be prosecuted as well as the company.
A director who commits offences in connection with the running of a company or is responsible for the insolvency of a company can be disqualified from acting as a director.

Offline sub_marine

Everything he, and his wife have, should be seized under The proceeds of Crime Act. Why should his ex-employees suffer any more than they are doing?

He hasn't broken a single law though, in fact the politicians loved him, hence why he was knighted.

Offline paper7

He hasn't broken a single law though, in fact the politicians loved him, hence why he was knighted.
Then the law 'isn't fit for purpose' and needs changing. Why  should his employees, who, lets face it, made his fortune for him, suffer?

Offline sub_marine

Then the law 'isn't fit for purpose' and needs changing. Why  should his employees, who, lets face it, made his fortune for him, suffer?

It happens all the time, Robert Maxwell was living off of his employees pensions as well, after his death his kids fought the UK government in the courts to retain the stolen cash after the state tried to claim some of his estate.  Nothing is ever going to change.

Online advent2016

My lodger works for Bonmarché. She's been paying me the maximum amount that doesn't incur any tax £625 per month and keeps the place clean, takes in parcels, operates as my chauffeur . I'm hoping she's going to ask for a reduction and payment in kind. Maybe this belongs in "The Cleaner" thread.
I've already banged her sister (blonde knockout) when she came to stay a while back, when her sister was baby sitting her two kids.

Offline Ali Katt

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,971
  • Likes: 33
  •  
  • Reviews: 28
I think things go through trend were as Topshop, Topman and Burton were student staples 20 years ago, now Primark (or even George, F+F etc) are cheaper. River Island is seen as being better quality which is debatable. Uniqlo and H&M are considered cooler.

Offline Ali Katt

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,971
  • Likes: 33
  •  
  • Reviews: 28
Something should be done that taxes money that crosses borders.  But that will never happen as thats how the rich stay rich, live in one place an earn in another.

So take a local independant coffee shop, owned by the women down the street.  Everything about it is registered in UK, so all taxes paid go to HMRC.  There are a few staff on minimum wage, and the owner makes about twice the minimum wage.  So basically the whole turnover is generated in UK, then spent in UK.   

Then look at the Starbucks model in the UK, they have roughly 1000 shops, they basically do the same business so you'd think the ratio of tax to turnover would be the same, ie pay 1000x the tax.  But it is skewed miles away, because Starbucks UK pays a massive payment before tax to Starbucks Luxemburg for the use of the Starbucks brand name.  So the ratio of profit and there for tax on the UK books is a lot less.  Meanwhile that cash sent to Luxembugh will never see the light of day in UK ever again.  All the big international firms are at the same game, Monoco, Caymans, Dublin etc. 

These big firms make sure to give donations to the political parties, so they get the laws written that suit them, never mind they are bleeding the country dry.
It's not illegal. More to the point Starbucks, Apple, Virgin all employ thousands of people in the UK, surely that's a good thing. There's a simple solution why not cap income tax for millionaires at 20% why should nearly half their wages go to pay for Lord's pension pot. Fix that, then they have no excuse, then go after them.

We had the same thing with that anarchist group who wore the guy Fawkes mask wearing designer jackets and using iPhones, can't call yourself an anarchist and have that shit.

Also it's not just big business what about all the wasted taxes that are sent abroad through Money gram?

Offline Adoniron

It's not illegal. More to the point Starbucks, Apple, Virgin all employ thousands of people in the UK, surely that's a good thing. There's a simple solution why not cap income tax for millionaires at 20% why should nearly half their wages go to pay for Lord's pension pot. Fix that, then they have no excuse, then go after them.

We had the same thing with that anarchist group who wore the guy Fawkes mask wearing designer jackets and using iPhones, can't call yourself an anarchist and have that shit.

Also it's not just big business what about all the wasted taxes that are sent abroad through Money gram?

Nobody said it was illegal.

Most millionaires don't pay tax at anywhere near 20%. They pay accountants and lawyers to minimise their tax liability.

Offline Mr Sinister

My lodger works for Bonmarché. She's been paying me the maximum amount that doesn't incur any tax £625 per month and keeps the place clean, takes in parcels, operates as my chauffeur . I'm hoping she's going to ask for a reduction and payment in kind. Maybe this belongs in "The Cleaner" thread.
I've already banged her sister (blonde knockout) when she came to stay a while back, when her sister was baby sitting her two kids.

Bonmarche is fucked, not sure how she is going to pay you at all. Payment in kind is an option, just play it cooly tho

Anyway back on topic.

Offline Blackpool Rock

It's not illegal. More to the point Starbucks, Apple, Virgin all employ thousands of people in the UK, surely that's a good thing. There's a simple solution why not cap income tax for millionaires at 20% why should nearly half their wages go to pay for Lord's pension pot. Fix that, then they have no excuse, then go after them.

We had the same thing with that anarchist group who wore the guy Fawkes mask wearing designer jackets and using iPhones, can't call yourself an anarchist and have that shit.

Also it's not just big business what about all the wasted taxes that are sent abroad through Money gram?
You can add Amazon and Vodafone etc to that list too, i've heard that argument before about how it's OK for them to pay little or no tax due to them employing people who pay tax through their PAYE and also pay taxes such as VAT when they spend their wages etc.

Sorry but I just don't buy it, the argument is fundamentally flawed otherwise how about I stop paying my PAYE (which is impossible as it's taken at source due to them knowing many people wouldn't pay it otherwise) on the basis that if I have more money in my pocket i'll spend more and effectively pay it back in another way through VAT etc and also boost employment and those people will then also pay more VAT

Millionaires can pay less tax than a normal guy earning £20K a year by getting an accountant to find ways to avoid paying tax, some like pensions and ISA's are fair enough as they are publicised and well known to evetybody to use however many have been dubious loopholes to say the least.

Is it fair for a Millionaire to pay for a Lord, well probably yes as he's on a similar level, is it fair for a dustman to pay for the same Lord  :unknown: Tough shit he pays taxes straight out of his wages  :angry:

Offline sub_marine

It's not illegal. More to the point Starbucks, Apple, Virgin all employ thousands of people in the UK, surely that's a good thing. There's a simple solution why not cap income tax for millionaires at 20% why should nearly half their wages go to pay for Lord's pension pot. Fix that, then they have no excuse, then go after them.

We had the same thing with that anarchist group who wore the guy Fawkes mask wearing designer jackets and using iPhones, can't call yourself an anarchist and have that shit.

Also it's not just big business what about all the wasted taxes that are sent abroad through Money gram?

Kind of missing the point though, if you took 1000 independent bakeries, they are all employing people and those employees pay taxes through PAYE, its just that starbucks doesnt pay much tax beyond that as a company, whereas the independent bakeries do not have that option as they can't hide profit through entities in Luxemburg

Also, a 20% tax cap for millionaires, so your happy for a dentist or solicitor to be in the 40% band since they earn £100k, not really balancing things.

Not heard about taxes being wated and sent abroad via money gram, so cannot comment on that.

I think the saviour in the last 20 years is that most firms have switched to money purchase pension schemes, away from the older final salary system, so that means employers don't have access to the pension pots, so I'd imagine more modern bandits like Mike Ashley won't be spunking the pension funds of his hard working employees. 

Offline Ali Katt

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,971
  • Likes: 33
  •  
  • Reviews: 28
Kind of missing the point though, if you took 1000 independent bakeries, they are all employing people and those employees pay taxes through PAYE, its just that starbucks doesnt pay much tax beyond that as a company, whereas the independent bakeries do not have that option as they can't hide profit through entities in Luxemburg

Also, a 20% tax cap for millionaires, so your happy for a dentist or solicitor to be in the 40% band since they earn £100k, not really balancing things.

Not heard about taxes being wated and sent abroad via money gram, so cannot comment on that.

I think the saviour in the last 20 years is that most firms have switched to money purchase pension schemes, away from the older final salary system, so that means employers don't have access to the pension pots, so I'd imagine more modern bandits like Mike Ashley won't be spunking the pension funds of his hard working employees.
I think the Singapore model is the way forward and nobody should pay more than 20% tax.

With Moneygram it's more money that goes to India, Poland or wherever so it doesn't stay in England and get taxed on purchases.

Independent bakeries are rarely operating outside a small area so emply far fewer people. Many don't employ outside family. I'm not saying they are worse, but they're not perfect. Also a lot of independents don't pay full tax, I doubt chippies and newsagents declare their full earnings as it's cash in hand.

Offline MilleMiglia


Offline RedKettle

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,170
  • Likes: 77
  •  
  • Reviews: 102
I'd just specify that limited liability is lost if the business is found engaging in any activity that is detrimental to the public purse or causes danger to the public. I'm sure there must be current sanctions designed to bring rogue directors/companies to book but they don't go far enough.
I've got no problem with a director having personal protection from company losses deriving from normal business trading or market forces. But setting up a company to indulge in shithousery and then winding it down, moving on and repeating the process is not on, even if company law supports that process.

The Worcester Park inferno is a good example. Berkley Homes sets up a subsidiary company and jerry-builds a death trap estate. Once it builds the estate it dissolves the company. All legal and above board in company law. A block subsequently goes up like a matchbox but residents can't get redress - whole thing stinks. Berkley, its board, accountants and lawyers need to be fucked up big time - not hiding behind limited liability and still building houses using subsidiary companies.
This illustrates that existing measures are toothless and do not work in terms of the public good despite Berkley apparently acting entirely in accordance with prevailing tax legislation and corporate law.
I think you completely misunderstand limited liability. It protects the shareholders for liability above their investment. It does not protect the company or directors or advisers.

Offline j_181


With Moneygram it's more money that goes to India, Poland or wherever so it doesn't stay in England and get taxed on purchases.


If I work in the UK and pay my income tax, why shouldn't I be allowed to send MY money to Poland or India, or Zimbabwe or Antarctica or wherever TF I want to?

Offline chrishornx

Perhaps all the financial experts chuntering on about tax rates for millionaires could step back for a moment and before coming uo with more theories actual define the term Millionaire

A man lives in a £1million house and earns £100,000 -does he pay 20% tax

whilst a man renting an apartment and earning £150,000 pays 40% - i that what is being suggested

DEFINE MILLIONAIRE