Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Paying Cash IS Evasion Loz - I'd add giving money to a charitable trust - say for arts,- donating to charity, investing in films etc all as legitimate tax avoidance that give more choice etc and create different positive outcomes rather than 'the state' just decising what and who gets what. However buying wine and clever switching of bonuses etc are all avoidance but feel far less savoury.


The hysterical and typical ignorance and normal sh1te on Social media abouty this depresses me. But it would be better if they changed the semantics around 'avoidance'.....

There must be a lot of people on this forum who are paid via limited company and who use expenses, pension, entertainment etc to 'mitigate' (ie evade) their tax liability. I don't think it's fair to set the system and then accuse people of avoidance if they use those same rules to reduce their tax burden. Just fix the system and make the lines clearer.

Pensions is a good example - you can argue about the fairness of 40% relief maybe - but tax relief for private pension contributions at the basic rate make sense all round. Means that us poor private sectors pensioners have an incentice to put away for our retirements (that public sector Final salary and/or defined contribution schemes don't need) which hopefully maens we'll have a decent enough (and taxable) income in retirement to not have to rely totally on the state...


Tax avoiding tossers we are of course.....

Quids - as it was something Mrs Miliband did and not Ed I'm not sure how you blame the sins of the mother on the son. But if we want to talk about inherited wealth I'd be delighted to examine the fortune due to the resident of no11 Downing Street.


Meanwhile, as if to crow about their feminist credentials the Tories demean their most senior female MP, Teresa May, by renting her out as a personal shopper. You could buy a trip to get some shoes with the Home Sec at the last Tory fundraiser.


I think satire just ate itself.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Meanwhile, as if to crow about their feminist credentials the Tories demean their most senior

> female MP, Teresa May, by renting her out as a personal shopper. You could buy a trip to get some

> shoes with the Home Sec at the last Tory fundraiser.

>

> I think satire just ate itself.


Why? May is known for her love of a good pair of shoes. Is is somehow anti-feminist to fund raise by offering something you actually like doing? Why is that more unacceptable than another MP offering dinner at their home? Does it matter that that MP is male or female? Or a afternoon jogging with another MP? Does that matter if that one is male or female?


Surely none of that is worse than putting your most senior female MP behind a kitchen table in a pink Barbie van?

'It's not about the average EDF user.'


I thought the same, but the first photo-call was in a kitchen on a 'leafy Peckham street' (it looked like Choumert Road to me) with a story-teller, her partner and sons Archie and Milo. I don't think you'd need to stray too far from the 'Family Room' to find a similar family.



As regards Ed's tax arrangements: 'It was something Mrs Miliband did and not Ed.'


Ed's IHT and CGT liabilities would both have been affected by the change, so its highly likely he would have been a signatory. He's certainly not in any rush to get the document out in the open.


Ed was twenty odd at the time, and a key member of Gordon Brown's team as Shadow Chancellor. For him to basically say 'My Mum did it' and expect people to accept that as the end of the matter is preposterous.


If his mother didn't think he could trusted with his own financial arrangements, maybe he should have had a word with Tony Benn.


He also 'tax-planned' his way out substantial death duties.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quids - as it was something Mrs Miliband did and

> not Ed I'm not sure how you blame the sins of the

> mother on the son. But if we want to talk about

> inherited wealth I'd be delighted to examine the

> fortune due to the resident of no11 Downing

> Street.

>

> Meanwhile, as if to crow about their feminist

> credentials the Tories demean their most senior

> female MP, Teresa May, by renting her out as a

> personal shopper. You could buy a trip to get some

> shoes with the Home Sec at the last Tory

> fundraiser.

>

> I think satire just ate itself.



Yup but it's not about inherited wealth is it. I've no problems with that as I don't hate wealth or wealth creation and actually I think 'mrs' Miliband was well within her rights to avoid tax (which is legal after all); it's about the utter hypocracy of Labour trying to make this a political issue when they are as guilty - see also their attitudes to private education. They are just middle-class cunts on the take too, in reality

I think that's true ????. There's no doubt that those who create and run the system take full advantage of it too. And all MPs of all political parties are equally guilty of that. It's abit like awarding themselves a massive pay rise whilst everyone else is limited to either 1% or have had their salaries frozen. Politicians do have a poor image and they only have themselves to blame.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...