Best Of

Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA

The trouble is you have all spent pages over the past few days essentially quibbling over the semantics around tax. Is it tax planning, tax avoidance, tax dodging, tax minimisation, who flipping cares?

I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.

If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate

You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.

Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.

You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.

He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.

I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority

Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.

I have made no attempt to avoid tax

I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)

I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.


Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:

- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)

- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else

- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)

- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.

Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.

In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.

There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.

It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy


PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.

PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?

WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.

The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.

Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you

Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.

Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.

Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold

We discussed this last:

a) I will give it to charity

b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?

And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?

* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.

@kjh

I heard that yesterday you passed a shop without buying anything. You evaded paying VAT, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.

If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate

You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.

Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.

You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.

He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.

I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority

Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.

I have made no attempt to avoid tax

I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)

I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.


Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:

- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)

- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else

- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)

- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.

Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.

In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.

There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.

It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy


PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.

PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?

WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.

The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.

Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you

Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.

Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.

Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold

We discussed this last:

a) I will give it to charity

b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?

And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?

* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.

@kjh

I heard that yesterday you passed a shop without buying anything. You evaded paying VAT, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Avoided. He did it wilfully but not illegally 😉

I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.

If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate

You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.

Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.

You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.

He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.

I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority

Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.

Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it

If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?

No, Reform won Basildon even last year

"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.

"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation.
BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.

Is HYUFD seriously defending loan fraud, or saying that Reform voters will ?
So much for the law and order reputation of the Tory party faithful.

Yep, but it appears that an ISA, Premium bonds, Pension or buying a house to live in which means you are not paying tax on potential revenue generated is really, really, really, evil.