Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he thereby lost the use of his own nil-rate IHT band [£150k in 1994]. Note there would have been no tax to pay at that point anyway, since spousal transfers are exempt. Say it was a property worth £600k. At some point in the future, assuming Mrs Miliband took no further steps to mitigate, on her death the full value including any uplift would become liable to IHT (less the nil-rate band allowance current at her death)
The DOV was simply used so as not to waste Ralph's NRB. The DOV gave the sons 20% each of the house [40% in total, or £150k] thereby utilising the NRB. Mrs M was left with shares of the house worth 60% [say £360k] As stated above, this would be tax-neutral for the Revenue at that point in time. Still no tax due.
The notional benefit to the family would be around £60k [40% tax on £150k] had Mrs M died shortly thereafter, (ignoring any quick-succession reliefs and property uplift) But she's still alive and well 20 years later.
So the Miliband boys got a share of the house, which their father could have written himself into his will, had he been well advised. This of course could become subject to CGT or IHT at some later date [too complex to speculate, depending on when they sold, transferred, died and what reliefs were available depending on their personal circumstances at the time].
The ironic thing is that the Labour government altered the rules in 2009 to allow widow/ers to make use of a spouse's unused NRB. [I personally benefited from this change after the death of my Dad last year.]
So, had the Milibands not done a DOV in 1994, Mrs M would now have an effective NRB of £650k.[current NRB is £325k]
Lets do the calcs, on her demise:
Current scenario (assumed). Value of house reputedly £1.6m, of which Mrs M owns 60%, or £960k. On death (assuming no other assets), tax due is (£960k-£325k)*40% = £254k
Had they not done the DOV, and Mrs M remained in sole possession, tax due is (£1.6m - £650k)*40% = £380k
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
Hardly a huge sum, and one Ralph could have saved himself if he had written his will the same way as the DOV.
A non-story, really.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
' Thirteen people have been arrested over a trafficking ring which saw a pregnant woman almost tricked into an abortion following a sham marriage.
The 20-year-old from Slovakia was sold for up to £15,000 by a gang in Greater Manchester who organised a marriage to a man facing deportation, police said. '
Remember the predictions of what the future of Britain would be like from the 1960s or 1970s or 1980s ? The science fiction stories of the time or the Tomorrow's World type programs.
What they predicted was a bright, shiny Britain of growing equality. All peace and prosperity and progress.
Instead we get parts of Britain turning into the most backward parts of the Balkans or the most lawless parts of the North West Frontier.
Meanwhile the 1% continually increase their control of the country's wealth while the government borrows money to subsidise immigrant carwashers and sandwich makers.
Its fashionable to sneer that some people want to turn the clock back.
They don't.
There are very few people nostalgic for outside toilets and yearning for the chance to swing a pick in a field or at a pitface.
What people actually want is the future they were promised, not the future they are getting.
People who criticise UKIP think it's a killer point to say they want to go back to the 1950s. Which was a period of rapid real wage rises, immense social mobility, probity in public life, technological innovation, and strong family units. I can think of worse periods to be alive.
Except for the confectionary, sugar, meat and petrol rationing.
National Service. Some enjoyed it but many hated it, some died as a result and for many it was life-disrupting.
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he thereby lost the use of his own nil-rate IHT band [£150k in 1994]. Note there would have been no tax to pay at that point anyway, since spousal transfers are exempt. Say it was a property worth £600k. At some point in the future, assuming Mrs Miliband took no further steps to mitigate, on her death the full value including any uplift would become liable to IHT (less the nil-rate band allowance current at her death)
The DOV was simply used so as not to waste Ralph's NRB. The DOV gave the sons 20% each of the house [40% in total, or £150k] thereby utilising the NRB. Mrs M was left with shares of the house worth 60% [say £360k] As stated above, this would be tax-neutral for the Revenue at that point in time. Still no tax due.
The notional benefit to the family would be around £60k [40% tax on £150k] had Mrs M died shortly thereafter, (ignoring any quick-succession reliefs and property uplift) But she's still alive and well 20 years later.
So the Miliband boys got a share of the house, which their father could have written himself into his will, had he been well advised. This of course could become subject to CGT or IHT at some later date [too complex to speculate, depending on when they sold, transferred, died and what reliefs were available depending on their personal circumstances at the time].
The ironic thing is that the Labour government altered the rules in 2009 to allow widow/ers to make use of a spouse's unused NRB. [I personally benefited from this change after the death of my Dad last year.]
So, had the Milibands not done a DOV in 1994, Mrs M would now have an effective NRB of £650k.[current NRB is £325k]
Lets do the calcs, on her demise:
Current scenario (assumed). Value of house reputedly £1.6m, of which Mrs M owns 60%, or £960k. On death (assuming no other assets), tax due is (£960k-£325k)*40% = £254k
Had they not done the DOV, and Mrs M remained in sole possession, tax due is (£1.6m - £650k)*40% = £380k
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
Hardly a huge sum, and one Ralph could have saved himself if he had written his will the same way as the DOV.
A non-story, really.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he thereby lost the use of his own nil-rate IHT band [£150k in 1994]. Note there would have been no tax to pay at that point anyway, since spousal transfers are exempt. Say it was a property worth £600k. At some point in the future, assuming Mrs Miliband took no further steps to mitigate, on her death the full value including any uplift would become liable to IHT (less the nil-rate band allowance current at her death)
...
Hardly a huge sum, and one Ralph could have saved himself if he had written his will the same way as the DOV.
A non-story, really.
The problem is not that what the Miliband's did was reasonable; it seems like it was.
The problem is when Ed accuses other people who are taking advantage of tax benefits as "bad" people. Then how he wants someone who bought a house that has risen in value (but without an uplift in income) to be clobbered by a "mansion" tax, and possibly forced from their home to pay it.
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this ..........
A non-story, really.
Agreed. But if a Lab/LD coalition scrap IHT and introduce a Beneficiaries Tax (LD policy) then the saving will be far, far greater.
Beneficiaries Tax means beneficiaries pay income tax on everything they inherit - so equivalent to a zero IHT nil rate band + top rate income tax at 50% instead of IHT at 40%.
However, with Mrs M still alive, maybe Ed will be keen to keep IHT!!!
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he thereby lost the use of his own nil-rate IHT band [£150k in 1994]. Note there would have been no tax to pay at that point anyway, since spousal transfers are exempt. Say it was a property worth £600k. At some point in the future, assuming Mrs Miliband took no further steps to mitigate, on her death the full value including any uplift would become liable to IHT (less the nil-rate band allowance current at her death)
The DOV was simply used so as not to waste Ralph's NRB. The DOV gave the sons 20% each of the house [40% in total, or £150k] thereby utilising the NRB. Mrs M was left with shares of the house worth 60% [say £360k] As stated above, this would be tax-neutral for the Revenue at that point in time. Still no tax due.
The notional benefit to the family would be around £60k [40% tax on £150k] had Mrs M died shortly thereafter, (ignoring any quick-succession reliefs and property uplift) But she's still alive and well 20 years later.
So the Miliband boys got a share of the house, which their father could have written himself into his will, had he been well advised. This of course could become subject to CGT or IHT at some later date [too complex to speculate, depending on when they sold, transferred, died and what reliefs were available depending on their personal circumstances at the time].
The ironic thing is that the Labour government altered the rules in 2009 to allow widow/ers to make use of a spouse's unused NRB. [I personally benefited from this change after the death of my Dad last year.]
So, had the Milibands not done a DOV in 1994, Mrs M would now have an effective NRB of £650k.[current NRB is £325k]
Lets do the calcs, on her demise:
Current scenario (assumed). Value of house reputedly £1.6m, of which Mrs M owns 60%, or £960k. On death (assuming no other assets), tax due is (£960k-£325k)*40% = £254k
Had they not done the DOV, and Mrs M remained in sole possession, tax due is (£1.6m - £650k)*40% = £380k
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
Hardly a huge sum, and one Ralph could have saved himself if he had written his will the same way as the DOV.
A non-story, really.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Of itself, that isn't. Having benefitted from it in the past, while now advocating hefty fines for aggressive tax avoidance, on the other hand, might be considered to be.
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he thereby lost the use of his own nil-rate IHT band [£150k in 1994]. Note there would have been no tax to pay at that point anyway, since spousal transfers are exempt. Say it was a property worth £600k. At some point in the future, assuming Mrs Miliband took no further steps to mitigate, on her death the full value including any uplift would become liable to IHT (less the nil-rate band allowance current at her death)
The DOV was simply used so as not to waste Ralph's NRB. The DOV gave the sons 20% each of the house [40% in total, or £150k] thereby utilising the NRB. Mrs M was left with shares of the house worth 60% [say £360k] As stated above, this would be tax-neutral for the Revenue at that point in time. Still no tax due.
The notional benefit to the family would be around £60k [40% tax on £150k] had Mrs M died shortly thereafter, (ignoring any quick-succession reliefs and property uplift) But she's still alive and well 20 years later.
So the Miliband boys got a share of the house, which their father could have written himself into his will, had he been well advised. This of course could become subject to CGT or IHT at some later date [too complex to speculate, depending on when they sold, transferred, died and what reliefs were available depending on their personal circumstances at the time].
The ironic thing is that the Labour government altered the rules in 2009 to allow widow/ers to make use of a spouse's unused NRB. [I personally benefited from this change after the death of my Dad last year.]
So, had the Milibands not done a DOV in 1994, Mrs M would now have an effective NRB of £650k.[current NRB is £325k]
Lets do the calcs, on her demise:
Current scenario (assumed). Value of house reputedly £1.6m, of which Mrs M owns 60%, or £960k. On death (assuming no other assets), tax due is (£960k-£325k)*40% = £254k
Had they not done the DOV, and Mrs M remained in sole possession, tax due is (£1.6m - £650k)*40% = £380k
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
Hardly a huge sum, and one Ralph could have saved himself if he had written his will the same way as the DOV.
A non-story, really.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
They expressly asked accountants to reduce their IHT bill. While telling everyone else to cough up.
Evening all. I caught a suggestion on the last thread that somehow the Scottish Tories and SLAB should form some sort of Unionist alliance to take on the SNP.
As a lifelong Scottish Tory who counts arguably the greatest Labour Secretary of State for Scotland among my ancestors (non direct) hell would freeze over before I would countenance a formal alliance with the party of James Gordon Brown, Margaret Curran and co. However that is not to say that as with Better Together there is room to cooperate with people like Jim Murphy, Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander but not to enter into any sort of pact.
We Tories are looking at a number of our former seats where the effect of the SNP splitting the non-Tory vote could let us back in next May.
What on earth is "The straight choice" hinting at?
And why can't she get the basics right - For instance Rochester & Strood should be bold in the first line to correspond with London; and so on.
No it shouldn't.
It's in parenthesis so it should not be put in bold. Back to school Ishmael.
Parentheses (not parenthesis) means "brackets". "Rochester and Strood" is not in brackets. In any case I have never come across a rule forbidding bold text within brackets, and, judging by a google of "bold within parentheses," nor has anybody else.
As I cannot see what benefit or clarity such a rule would add in any case, if such a rule did exist it would seem so arbitrary and pointless it should be considered a duty to ignore it in order to tidy up the language by ignoring such things.
That said, as someone who regularly writes paragraph long sentences with something like 6 commas (and multiple parentheses) and maybe a dashes along the way, I clearly have something against certain rules of syntax and grammar.
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
...
A non-story, really.
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
They expressly asked accountants to reduce their IHT bill. While telling everyone else to cough up.
Looks like hypocrisy to me.
I've already explained. The bill was already zero in 1994, so the DOV produced no immediate tax benefit...
The DOV might produce some unquantifiable benefit, perhaps decades in the future, dependant on as yet unknown tax changes in the years ahead, and on any other strategies the family might employ to mitigate tax. As it happens, the 2009 Finance Act has already reduced much of the benefit the Milibands may otherwise have had...
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Of itself, that isn't. Having benefitted from it in the past, while now advocating hefty fines for aggressive tax avoidance, on the other hand, might be considered to be.
Eh, I think someone would have to already be highly negatively disposed to Ed M for that to gain any traction, so not much chance of it being used to much effect.
What is with all the surprise about Deeds of Variation. They have always been a standard vehicle for families to re-write the will of a deceased in order to make a more tax efficient division of the estate.
In Scotland they can be executed by all the beneficiaries within 2 years of the date of death. I was using them back in the early 1980s to reduce Capital Transfer Tax for client estates.
The double standards apply when Labour politicians decry others for using the same perfectly lawful tax arrangements they have. Lady Hodge moans about companies like Amazon but not about her brother using perfectly legitimate provisions to reduce his (and her) corporate tax bill to £14 million on £1.5 billion of turnover. Tony Benn decried every capitalist practice but proved himself to be the ultimate capitalist ensuring his £5 million estate attracted little or no Inheritance Tax liability. If Ed and David Miliband did the same with their father's estate, fair enough but if Ed now decries others for doing the same or wants to prevent it for others, he rightly deserves to be criticised as a hypocrite.
It reads like they have played the system. It is a bit rich to lecture and criticise others for doing the same.
People who inherit glass houses...
No it doesn't it reeks of a smear campaign by desperate Tories and I am not a fan or supporter of EdM or Labour
The Millipedes gamed the system to reduce their IHT bill. They scream abuse at others doing the same.
Looks like hypocrisy. Smear assumes something is untrue. To my knowledge the Millipedes have not denied reducing their IHT bill through gaming the system (legally).
On topic, as it's only football at the end of the day, when all's said and done, it's a game of two halves and I'm as sick as a parrot...
I'd be as interested in the SELL prices as the BUY on some of these. If the seat range for UKIP as an example is small, a SELL at 9 looks very tempting (I think they'll get 2-3 at most). The LD figure of around 30 looks about right and I don't see much margin there.
The Labour and Conservative numbers don't look very inviting either to be honest. It's hard to see much downside to the Labour number in the 280s but equally hard to see much upside either.
' Thirteen people have been arrested over a trafficking ring which saw a pregnant woman almost tricked into an abortion following a sham marriage.
The 20-year-old from Slovakia was sold for up to £15,000 by a gang in Greater Manchester who organised a marriage to a man facing deportation, police said. '
Remember the predictions of what the future of Britain would be like from the 1960s or 1970s or 1980s ? The science fiction stories of the time or the Tomorrow's World type programs.
What they predicted was a bright, shiny Britain of growing equality. All peace and prosperity and progress.
Instead we get parts of Britain turning into the most backward parts of the Balkans or the most lawless parts of the North West Frontier.
Meanwhile the 1% continually increase their control of the country's wealth while the government borrows money to subsidise immigrant carwashers and sandwich makers.
Its fashionable to sneer that some people want to turn the clock back.
They don't.
There are very few people nostalgic for outside toilets and yearning for the chance to swing a pick in a field or at a pitface.
What people actually want is the future they were promised, not the future they are getting.
People who criticise UKIP think it's a killer point to say they want to go back to the 1950s. Which was a period of rapid real wage rises, immense social mobility, probity in public life, technological innovation, and strong family units. I can think of worse periods to be alive.
Except for the confectionary, sugar, meat and petrol rationing.
National Service. Some enjoyed it but many hated it, some died as a result and for many it was life-disrupting.
That reminds me - when I was at school we put on a production of "The Long and the short and the tall". Coming onstage and shouting "hands off your cocks and on with your socks" to an audience of parents was quite liberating.
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this ..........
A non-story, really.
Agreed. But if a Lab/LD coalition scrap IHT and introduce a Beneficiaries Tax (LD policy) then the saving will be far, far greater.
Beneficiaries Tax means beneficiaries pay income tax on everything they inherit - so equivalent to a zero IHT nil rate band + top rate income tax at 50% instead of IHT at 40%.
However, with Mrs M still alive, maybe Ed will be keen to keep IHT!!!
It's a bit silly. Taking it to the ultimate, no politicians could ever change the tax laws [who else is going to change them?] lest they may incidentally benefit from the change/have benefited from the previous rules, thereby rendering themselves 'hypocrites'...
Once again Ed's rhetoric fails to fire it's harpoons into the comet of reality...
@JohnRentoul: CS suggests UK has the most equal wealth distribution of 46 countries apart from France, Belgium, Australia & Japan. https://t.co/nsTdHTfKUi
It's often said that the 1966 World Cup helped propel Harold Wilson to victory. Next spring we have a royal baby to look forward to, as well as the usual spring incumbency bounce. However, national moods can change very very fast. Notice how 4 days after England lost to W. Germany in 1970, voters then dumped Wilson: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2010/apr/21/world-cup-1970-harold-wilson
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this ..........
A non-story, really.
Agreed. But if a Lab/LD coalition scrap IHT and introduce a Beneficiaries Tax (LD policy) then the saving will be far, far greater.
Beneficiaries Tax means beneficiaries pay income tax on everything they inherit - so equivalent to a zero IHT nil rate band + top rate income tax at 50% instead of IHT at 40%.
However, with Mrs M still alive, maybe Ed will be keen to keep IHT!!!
It's a bit silly. Taking it to the ultimate, no politicians could ever change the tax laws [who else is going to change them?] lest they may incidentally benefit from the change/have benefited from the previous rules, thereby rendering themselves 'hypocrites'...
Rather than whinge about people following the law, politicians should seek to change laws where they think that following them is taking the p1ss (or having unintended consequences).
For example, on corporate tax planning... a sensible approach would be to have a team of specialist tax inspectors that look at all corporations where the effective rate of tax is less than x% of profit or y% of turnover. You would then look at the tax planning, work out if it is legitimate, and if not change the law in next year's Finance Act. Simples.
On personal tax rates, why not have a simple cap - however many (legal) tax avoidance schemes you operate, your overall tax may never go below x% of income. Again, simples.
It's often said that the 1966 World Cup helped propel Harold Wilson to victory. Next spring we have a royal baby to look forward to, as well as the usual spring incumbency bounce. However, national moods can change very very fast. Notice how 4 days after England lost to W. Germany in 1970, voters then dumped Wilson: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2010/apr/21/world-cup-1970-harold-wilson
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he thereby lost the use of his own nil-rate IHT band [£150k in 1994]. Note there would have been no tax to pay at that point anyway, since spousal transfers are exempt. Say it was a property worth £600k. At some point in the future, assuming Mrs Miliband took no further steps to mitigate, on her death the full value including any uplift would become liable to IHT (less the nil-rate band allowance current at her death)
The DOV was simply used so as not to waste Ralph's NRB. The DOV gave the sons 20% each of the house [40% in total, or £150k] thereby utilising the NRB. Mrs M was left with shares of the house worth 60% [say £360k] As stated above, this would be tax-neutral for the Revenue at that point in time. Still no tax due.
The notional benefit to the family would be around £60k [40% tax on £150k] had Mrs M died shortly thereafter, (ignoring any quick-succession reliefs and property uplift) But she's still alive and well 20 years later.
So the Miliband boys got a share of the house, which their father could have written himself into his will, had he been well advised. This of course could become subject to CGT or IHT at some later date [too complex to speculate, depending on when they sold, transferred, died and what reliefs were available depending on their personal circumstances at the time].
The ironic thing is that the Labour government altered the rules in 2009 to allow widow/ers to make use of a spouse's unused NRB. [I personally benefited from this change after the death of my Dad last year.]
So, had the Milibands not done a DOV in 1994, Mrs M would now have an effective NRB of £650k.[current NRB is £325k]
Lets do the calcs, on her demise:
Current scenario (assumed). Value of house reputedly £1.6m, of which Mrs M owns 60%, or £960k. On death (assuming no other assets), tax due is (£960k-£325k)*40% = £254k
Had they not done the DOV, and Mrs M remained in sole possession, tax due is (£1.6m - £650k)*40% = £380k
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
Hardly a huge sum, and one Ralph could have saved himself if he had written his will the same way as the DOV.
A non-story, really.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he thereby lost the use of his own nil-rate IHT band [£150k in 1994]. Note there would have been no tax to pay at that point anyway, since spousal transfers are exempt. Say it was a property worth £600k. At some point in the future, assuming Mrs Miliband took no further steps to mitigate, on her death the full value including any uplift would become liable to IHT (less the nil-rate band allowance current at her death)
The DOV was simply used so as not to waste Ralph's NRB. The DOV gave the sons 20% each of the house [40% in total, or £150k] thereby utilising the NRB. Mrs M was left with shares of the house worth 60% [say £360k] As stated above, this would be tax-neutral for the Revenue at that point in time. Still no tax due.
The notional benefit to the family would be around £60k [40% tax on £150k] had Mrs M died shortly thereafter, (ignoring any quick-succession reliefs and property uplift) But she's still alive and well 20 years later.
So the Miliband boys got a share of the house, which their father could have written himself into his will, had he been well advised. This of course could become subject to CGT or IHT at some later date [too complex to speculate, depending on when they sold, transferred, died and what reliefs were available depending on their personal circumstances at the time].
The ironic thing is that the Labour government altered the rules in 2009 to allow widow/ers to make use of a spouse's unused NRB. [I personally benefited from this change after the death of my Dad last year.]
So, had the Milibands not done a DOV in 1994, Mrs M would now have an effective NRB of £650k.[current NRB is £325k]
Lets do the calcs, on her demise:
Current scenario (assumed). Value of house reputedly £1.6m, of which Mrs M owns 60%, or £960k. On death (assuming no other assets), tax due is (£960k-£325k)*40% = £254k
Had they not done the DOV, and Mrs M remained in sole possession, tax due is (£1.6m - £650k)*40% = £380k
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
Hardly a huge sum, and one Ralph could have saved himself if he had written his will the same way as the DOV.
A non-story, really.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?
Surely if something is legal you are allowed to do it, and the Government should not express an opinion against it.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?Surely if something is legal you are allowed to do it, and the Government should not express an opinion against it.
They shouldn't, but they do.
Neither should politicos point fingers at others who do what they themselves do.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?
See the answer I gave previously.
No politician could ever propose a change to a law from which they may have benefited from (still only notionally, in Miliband's case) perhaps decades earlier...
It's often said that the 1966 World Cup helped propel Harold Wilson to victory. Next spring we have a royal baby to look forward to, as well as the usual spring incumbency bounce. However, national moods can change very very fast. Notice how 4 days after England lost to W. Germany in 1970, voters then dumped Wilson: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2010/apr/21/world-cup-1970-harold-wilson
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?Surely if something is legal you are allowed to do it, and the Government should not express an opinion against it.
They shouldn't, but they do.
Neither should politicos point fingers at others who do what they themselves do.
Miliband is proposing to penalise people who use "aggressive tax avoidance" so is making legal tax planning the subject of government sanction.
It seems quite reasonable to discuss his own tax avoidance, just as it is reasonable to expose the affairs of a politician who claims to be a family man.
Politicians want one rule for themselves and another for us. A good way of demonstrating an end to this would be for the Inland Revenue to apply the same tax laws on parliamentary allowances and perks as apply to the rest of us.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?Surely if something is legal you are allowed to do it, and the Government should not express an opinion against it.
They shouldn't, but they do.
Neither should politicos point fingers at others who do what they themselves do.
Miliband is proposing to penalise people who use "aggressive tax avoidance" so is making legal tax planning the subject of government sanction.
It seems quite reasonable to discuss his own tax avoidance, just as it is reasonable to expose the affairs of a politician who claims to be a family man.
Politicians want one rule for themselves and another for us. A good way of demonstrating an end to this would be for the Inland Revenue to apply the same tax laws on parliamentary allowances and perks as apply to the rest of us. .................................................... How is a DOV, which changed nothing at the time in respect of tax, "aggressive tax avoidance"?
If not a (legal) tax dodge, then what was the purpose of the DoV?
I dodge taxes all the time via my SIPP and ISA and even use of my allowances. The issue is that EdM wants to crackdown on legal tax dodges. This is not just closure of loopholes, but retrospective action.
Noticed today that a large bottle of Bombay Sapphire costs 19 Euros = £14 in a Lisbon supermarket. In the UK it's usually about £22 IIRC.
A litre of Scotch say Famous Grouse is usually marketed at about £20 and on offer anywhere from £15.00 upwards. At Palma Airport I bough a litre at 14 Euros 30 and at 1.2565 exchange that's £11.38...
If not a (legal) tax dodge, then what was the purpose of the DoV?
I dodge taxes all the time via my SIPP and ISA and even use of my allowances. The issue is that EdM wants to crackdown on legal tax dodges. This is not just closure of loopholes, but retrospective action.
Not so much dodging taxes as keeping your own money.
Still waiting to see anything along the lines of ED Miliband doing anything smart or plucky as stated by Henry G... Ed's playing the victim.. not smart.
If not a (legal) tax dodge, then what was the purpose of the DoV?
I dodge taxes all the time via my SIPP and ISA and even use of my allowances. The issue is that EdM wants to crackdown on legal tax dodges. This is not just closure of loopholes, but retrospective action.
Not so much dodging taxes as keeping your own money.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep your money and keeping the State away from p!ssing it up against the wall.
The point here is Ed wants others to pay, and tells everyone they should let the State steal more of their money. He simply used a tax wheeze so as not to pay himself.
The conclusion I draw, perhaps unfairly, is that many posters are wage-slaves PAYEers, who don't really know much about the tax system...
[dislosure: I paid no tax or NI last year. Zilch. Hope to repeat that this year.]
What's so odd about all this is that all this DOV stuff is pretty much what you would find in the relevant Which guide.
Yep, it's entirely uncontroversial. "Oh silly Dad has forgotten to use his NRB. Let's rewrite the old duffer's Will as if he'd had the brains to do it himself..."
And, as I've demonstrated, it had no impact on the instant tax position...
In the USA tax avoidance is legally minimizing your taxes, tax evasion is doing it illegally.
There is no reason for anyone to arrange their financial affairs so as to pay the maximum amount of tax.
aggressive tax avoidance. Great sounding phrase. Good luck defining it.
The govt have already set off on that route. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/gaar.htm ''The General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR), that came into force on 17 July 2013, is one part of the Government's approach to managing the risk of tax avoidance. It has been introduced to strengthen HM Revenue & Customs' (HMRC's) anti-avoidance strategy and help HMRC tackle abusive avoidance. The GAAR legislation defines what are, for its purposes, tax arrangements that are abusive.'' The notion that Jimmy Car can pay 'less tax than his cleaner' is a bit 'morally repugnant' to me.
The problem with people who abuse the system is that the 'ordinary' people that the system is meant to assist get penalised. A double whammy of repugnance.
The conclusion I draw, perhaps unfairly, is that many posters are wage-slaves PAYEers, who don't really know much about the tax system...
[dislosure: I paid no tax or NI last year. Zilch. Hope to repeat that this year.]
What's so odd about all this is that all this DOV stuff is pretty much what you would find in the relevant Which guide.
Yep, it's entirely uncontroversial. "Oh silly Dad has forgotten to use his NRB. Let's rewrite the old duffer's Will as if he'd had the brains to do it himself..."
And, as I've demonstrated, it had no impact on the instant tax position...
The conclusion I draw, perhaps unfairly, is that many posters are wage-slaves PAYEers, who don't really know much about the tax system...
[dislosure: I paid no tax or NI last year. Zilch. Hope to repeat that this year.]
What's so odd about all this is that all this DOV stuff is pretty much what you would find in the relevant Which guide.
Yep, it's entirely uncontroversial. "Oh silly Dad has forgotten to use his NRB. Let's rewrite the old duffer's Will as if he'd had the brains to do it himself..."
And, as I've demonstrated, it had no impact on the instant tax position...
It is not about the impact or the sums - it is about the perception of someone who decries those who use the tax system for their best advantage doing exactly the same for his family.
That is why it is an issue - and will continue to be one.
Noticed today that a large bottle of Bombay Sapphire costs 19 Euros = £14 in a Lisbon supermarket. In the UK it's usually about £22 IIRC.
A litre of Scotch say Famous Grouse is usually marketed at about £20 and on offer anywhere from £15.00 upwards. At Palma Airport I bough a litre at 14 Euros 30 and at 1.2565 exchange that's £11.38...
Get Ye down to Aldi where Never heard of Grouse will give it a good run for its money (You could always decant it into an expensive labelled bottle).
I haven't got the patience to deal with SPIN. Last election their markets were down 50% of the time and 'suspended'. Doesn't seem to be any different this time.
I want access to my trading positions as close to 100% of the time as possible.
To be fair to SPIN, they do explicitly say that the market will be open from 9am to 6pm only.
It's true that they have been a bit of a pain suspending their Most Seats and 'Swingometer' markets for most of the last couple of years. The other side of the coin, though, is that they offer credit, and you can get some quite chunky bets on.
I expect Spreadex will offer some markets as we get closer to the election, but for now we should be grateful that SPIN have woken up.
Noticed today that a large bottle of Bombay Sapphire costs 19 Euros = £14 in a Lisbon supermarket. In the UK it's usually about £22 IIRC.
A litre of Scotch say Famous Grouse is usually marketed at about £20 and on offer anywhere from £15.00 upwards. At Palma Airport I bough a litre at 14 Euros 30 and at 1.2565 exchange that's £11.38...
Get Ye down to Aldi where Never heard of Grouse will give it a good run for its money (You could always decant it into an expensive labelled bottle).
I haven't got the patience to deal with SPIN. Last election their markets were down 50% of the time and 'suspended'. Doesn't seem to be any different this time.
I want access to my trading positions as close to 100% of the time as possible.
To be fair to SPIN, they do explicitly say that the market will be open from 9am to 6pm only.
It's true that they have been a bit of a pain suspending their Most Seats and 'Swingometer' markets for most of the last couple of years. The other side of the coin, though, is that they offer credit, and you can get some quite chunky bets on.
I expect Spreadex will offer some markets as we get closer to the election, but for now we should be grateful that SPIN have woken up.
In my experience, Spreadex only ever apes Sporting.
I bought a few UKIP shares with sporting index last week and now it says they're down slightly, which is odd because according to OGH's graph they're up 1%.
The bill to build the Keystone XL pipeline passed the House today with 31 Dems joining Republicans.
Mary Landrieu is in a runoff for her LA Senate seat, and is desperate for the bill to come to the floor in the Senate which Harry Reid has refused to do so far.
The house bill was sponsored by Landrieu's oponent, Bill Cassidy.
Regardless of what happens, she's toast on December 6.
The conclusion I draw, perhaps unfairly, is that many posters are wage-slaves PAYEers, who don't really know much about the tax system...
[dislosure: I paid no tax or NI last year. Zilch. Hope to repeat that this year.]
What's so odd about all this is that all this DOV stuff is pretty much what you would find in the relevant Which guide.
Yep, it's entirely uncontroversial. "Oh silly Dad has forgotten to use his NRB. Let's rewrite the old duffer's Will as if he'd had the brains to do it himself..."
And, as I've demonstrated, it had no impact on the instant tax position...
It is not about the impact or the sums - it is about the perception of someone who decries those who use the tax system for their best advantage doing exactly the same for his family.
That is why it is an issue - and will continue to be one.
Hypocrisy is never attractive.
Stop whingeing. You have no idea what happened in the Miliband family 20 years ago, which, as I have demonstrated, was tax-neutral then in any case. The sons were in their early 20s at that time.
Mrs Miliband may have sought legal advice. And she is a free-agent, not running for office, or subject to any obligations to anyone, other than to her own family...
I bought a few UKIP shares with sporting index last week and now it says they're down slightly, which is odd because according to OGH's graph they're up 1%.
Much as I applaud Sporting for introducing this GE Seats spreads market, I fail to see any value in their prices right now. My own strategy is to sell the Tories at 290 seats or above, should they reach such levels on the back of improving poll results for them.
I have figured out why this leaflet is so laughable.
All of the Reckless points apply to David Cameron, if not more so.
It's almost as if the Tories think David Cameron is unknown to the good people of Rochester and Strood, despite his having been there at least four times in recent weeks.
And being Prime Minister for the last four and a half years, of course.
It reads like they have played the system. It is a bit rich to lecture and criticise others for doing the same.
People who inherit glass houses...
No it doesn't it reeks of a smear campaign by desperate Tories and I am not a fan or supporter of EdM or Labour
The Millipedes gamed the system to reduce their IHT bill. They scream abuse at others doing the same.
Looks like hypocrisy. Smear assumes something is untrue. To my knowledge the Millipedes have not denied reducing their IHT bill through gaming the system (legally).
I am amused at Milibands hypocricy but both brothers will eventually have to pay capital gains tax.
It reads like they have played the system. It is a bit rich to lecture and criticise others for doing the same.
People who inherit glass houses...
No it doesn't it reeks of a smear campaign by desperate Tories and I am not a fan or supporter of EdM or Labour
The Millipedes gamed the system to reduce their IHT bill. They scream abuse at others doing the same.
Looks like hypocrisy. Smear assumes something is untrue. To my knowledge the Millipedes have not denied reducing their IHT bill through gaming the system (legally).
I am amused at Milibands hypocricy but both brothers will eventually have to pay capital gains tax.
There are plenty of (legal) ways round that too. So don't hold your breath...
It reads like they have played the system. It is a bit rich to lecture and criticise others for doing the same.
People who inherit glass houses...
No it doesn't it reeks of a smear campaign by desperate Tories and I am not a fan or supporter of EdM or Labour
The Millipedes gamed the system to reduce their IHT bill. They scream abuse at others doing the same.
Looks like hypocrisy. Smear assumes something is untrue. To my knowledge the Millipedes have not denied reducing their IHT bill through gaming the system (legally).
I am amused at Milibands hypocricy but both brothers will eventually have to pay capital gains tax.
There are plenty of (legal) ways round that too. So don't hold your breath...
And all done (very) legally. While at the same time telling everyone else to cough up.
The conclusion I draw, perhaps unfairly, is that many posters are wage-slaves PAYEers, who don't really know much about the tax system...
[dislosure: I paid no tax or NI last year. Zilch. Hope to repeat that this year.]
There's remarkably little how much us PAYErs can do about the tax we pay unless I am very much mistaken ^^;
Would expanding my knowledge of tax allow me to reclaim it all from the inland revenue :P ? I doubt it
The big secret is its only paye people who pay their full whack. Everyone else has it sorted. That plumber and Sparky who charge you 80 quid an hour plus vat, and drive around in a top end range rover, you realise he only earns about 10k a year. He's doing better than four years ago though, he only earnt 6k then.
Its always entirely coincidental that no matter how busy/snowed under/ 7 days a week he seems to be working, he just earns slightly under the tax free allowance.
But every now and then he'll suddenly have a two or three good years. Those just happen to be before he needs to secure a new Mortgage. Again just a coincidence.
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
...
A non-story, really.
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
They expressly asked accountants to reduce their IHT bill. While telling everyone else to cough up.
Looks like hypocrisy to me.
I've already explained. The bill was already zero in 1994, so the DOV produced no immediate tax benefit...
The DOV might produce some unquantifiable benefit, perhaps decades in the future, dependant on as yet unknown tax changes in the years ahead, and on any other strategies the family might employ to mitigate tax. As it happens, the 2009 Finance Act has already reduced much of the benefit the Milibands may otherwise have had...
I am all in favour of criticising Miliband and am more than happy to do so. But unless people want to look stupid thay should actually criticise him on the facts.
The ultimate criticism of father Ralph rather than his family is that good marxists believe property is theft. But they were happy to own all sorts of property.
In the end all socialists are hypocrites so its not a big story for me. And to use the vageries of this story as an excuse for excusing real agressive tax avoidance which impverishes the rest of us is pretty pathetic.
It reads like they have played the system. It is a bit rich to lecture and criticise others for doing the same.
People who inherit glass houses...
No it doesn't it reeks of a smear campaign by desperate Tories and I am not a fan or supporter of EdM or Labour
The Millipedes gamed the system to reduce their IHT bill. They scream abuse at others doing the same.
Looks like hypocrisy. Smear assumes something is untrue. To my knowledge the Millipedes have not denied reducing their IHT bill through gaming the system (legally).
I am amused at Milibands hypocricy but both brothers will eventually have to pay capital gains tax.
There are plenty of (legal) ways round that too. So don't hold your breath...
And all done (very) legally. While at the same time telling everyone else to cough up.
It reads like they have played the system. It is a bit rich to lecture and criticise others for doing the same.
People who inherit glass houses...
No it doesn't it reeks of a smear campaign by desperate Tories and I am not a fan or supporter of EdM or Labour
The Millipedes gamed the system to reduce their IHT bill. They scream abuse at others doing the same.
Looks like hypocrisy. Smear assumes something is untrue. To my knowledge the Millipedes have not denied reducing their IHT bill through gaming the system (legally).
I am amused at Milibands hypocricy but both brothers will eventually have to pay capital gains tax.
There are plenty of (legal) ways round that too. So don't hold your breath...
And all done (very) legally. While at the same time telling everyone else to cough up.
* After deducting 18 seats for N.I., Fisher is therefore allocating a combined total of only 12 seats for UKIP, SNP, Plaid, Greens, etc. Whereas by my calculation, applying Sporting's current mid-spread prices, they are allocating a total of 30 seats to these parties. Shurely shome mishtake shomewhere?
Piecing it together, what happened in the family Miliband was this:-
...
A non-story, really.
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
They expressly asked accountants to reduce their IHT bill. While telling everyone else to cough up.
Looks like hypocrisy to me.
I've already explained. The bill was already zero in 1994, so the DOV produced no immediate tax benefit...
The DOV might produce some unquantifiable benefit, perhaps decades in the future, dependant on as yet unknown tax changes in the years ahead, and on any other strategies the family might employ to mitigate tax. As it happens, the 2009 Finance Act has already reduced much of the benefit the Milibands may otherwise have had...
I am all in favour of criticising Miliband and am more than happy to do so. But unless people want to look stupid thay should actually criticise him on the facts.
The ultimate criticism of father Ralph rather than his family is that good marxists believe property is theft. But they were happy to own all sorts of property.
In the end all socialists are hypocrites so its not a big story for me. And to use the vageries of this story as an excuse for excusing real agressive tax avoidance which impverishes the rest of us is pretty pathetic.
Yes.
I don't like Miliband... I hate Labour... I loathe his father, and antecedents...
However, I can detect a specious, manufactured and factually-inaccurate argument from 10 paces. And I won't entertain it.
It reads like they have played the system. It is a bit rich to lecture and criticise others for doing the same.
People who inherit glass houses...
No it doesn't it reeks of a smear campaign by desperate Tories and I am not a fan or supporter of EdM or Labour
The Millipedes gamed the system to reduce their IHT bill. They scream abuse at others doing the same.
Looks like hypocrisy. Smear assumes something is untrue. To my knowledge the Millipedes have not denied reducing their IHT bill through gaming the system (legally).
I am amused at Milibands hypocricy but both brothers will eventually have to pay capital gains tax.
There are plenty of (legal) ways round that too. So don't hold your breath...
So how do you legally avoid paying capital gains tax on a property you own and do not live in? Oh clearly you have costs of maintenence, but that clearly reduces your 'gain'.
Obsessing about Miliband to defend the likes of Jimmy Carr is rubbish.
The conclusion I draw, perhaps unfairly, is that many posters are wage-slaves PAYEers, who don't really know much about the tax system...
[dislosure: I paid no tax or NI last year. Zilch. Hope to repeat that this year.]
There's remarkably little how much us PAYErs can do about the tax we pay unless I am very much mistaken ^^;
Would expanding my knowledge of tax allow me to reclaim it all from the inland revenue :P ? I doubt it
The big secret is its only paye people who pay their full whack. Everyone else has it sorted. That plumber and Sparky who charge you 80 quid an hour plus vat, and drive around in a top end range rover, you realise he only earns about 10k a year. He's doing better than four years ago though, he only earnt 6k then.
Its always entirely coincidental that no matter how busy/snowed under/ 7 days a week he seems to be working, he just earns slightly under the tax free allowance.
But every now and then he'll suddenly have a two or three good years. Those just happen to be before he needs to secure a new Mortgage. Again just a coincidence.
You can manipulate your income if you are employed by your own company.
A friend of mine with custody of two children does exactly that to maximise tax credits.
Comments
The problem is not that what the Miliband's did was reasonable; it seems like it was.
The problem is when Ed accuses other people who are taking advantage of tax benefits as "bad" people. Then how he wants someone who bought a house that has risen in value (but without an uplift in income) to be clobbered by a "mansion" tax, and possibly forced from their home to pay it.
That seems like hypocrisy.
Beneficiaries Tax means beneficiaries pay income tax on everything they inherit - so equivalent to a zero IHT nil rate band + top rate income tax at 50% instead of IHT at 40%.
However, with Mrs M still alive, maybe Ed will be keen to keep IHT!!!
While telling everyone else to cough up.
Looks like hypocrisy to me.
As a lifelong Scottish Tory who counts arguably the greatest Labour Secretary of State for Scotland among my ancestors (non direct) hell would freeze over before I would countenance a formal alliance with the party of James Gordon Brown, Margaret Curran and co. However that is not to say that as with Better Together there is room to cooperate with people like Jim Murphy, Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander but not to enter into any sort of pact.
We Tories are looking at a number of our former seats where the effect of the SNP splitting the non-Tory vote could let us back in next May.
People who inherit glass houses...
That said, as someone who regularly writes paragraph long sentences with something like 6 commas (and multiple parentheses) and maybe a dashes along the way, I clearly have something against certain rules of syntax and grammar.
The DOV might produce some unquantifiable benefit, perhaps decades in the future, dependant on as yet unknown tax changes in the years ahead, and on any other strategies the family might employ to mitigate tax. As it happens, the 2009 Finance Act has already reduced much of the benefit the Milibands may otherwise have had...
In Scotland they can be executed by all the beneficiaries within 2 years of the date of death. I was using them back in the early 1980s to reduce Capital Transfer Tax for client estates.
The double standards apply when Labour politicians decry others for using the same perfectly lawful tax arrangements they have. Lady Hodge moans about companies like Amazon but not about her brother using perfectly legitimate provisions to reduce his (and her) corporate tax bill to £14 million on £1.5 billion of turnover. Tony Benn decried every capitalist practice but proved himself to be the ultimate capitalist ensuring his £5 million estate attracted little or no Inheritance Tax liability. If Ed and David Miliband did the same with their father's estate, fair enough but if Ed now decries others for doing the same or wants to prevent it for others, he rightly deserves to be criticised as a hypocrite.
Whether it's a smear or not, depends on the truth of it.
You may see it as nothing, but there will be plenty who see yet another politician who has preached one thing and done another.
They scream abuse at others doing the same.
Looks like hypocrisy. Smear assumes something is untrue. To my knowledge the Millipedes have not denied reducing their IHT bill through gaming the system (legally).
On topic, as it's only football at the end of the day, when all's said and done, it's a game of two halves and I'm as sick as a parrot...
I'd be as interested in the SELL prices as the BUY on some of these. If the seat range for UKIP as an example is small, a SELL at 9 looks very tempting (I think they'll get 2-3 at most). The LD figure of around 30 looks about right and I don't see much margin there.
The Labour and Conservative numbers don't look very inviting either to be honest. It's hard to see much downside to the Labour number in the 280s but equally hard to see much upside either.
The Craven Herald gave me a good review
Still, Greece! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesus is the lamb of God. Does this mean Mary had a little lamb?
@JohnRentoul: CS suggests UK has the most equal wealth distribution of 46 countries apart from France, Belgium, Australia & Japan. https://t.co/nsTdHTfKUi
http://news.sky.com/story/1373357/m25-shutdown-pothole-chaos-on-road-to-hell
It's often said that the 1966 World Cup helped propel Harold Wilson to victory. Next spring we have a royal baby to look forward to, as well as the usual spring incumbency bounce. However, national moods can change very very fast. Notice how 4 days after England lost to W. Germany in 1970, voters then dumped Wilson:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2010/apr/21/world-cup-1970-harold-wilson
"[Ed] looks bloody ridiculous!"
For example, on corporate tax planning... a sensible approach would be to have a team of specialist tax inspectors that look at all corporations where the effective rate of tax is less than x% of profit or y% of turnover. You would then look at the tax planning, work out if it is legitimate, and if not change the law in next year's Finance Act. Simples.
On personal tax rates, why not have a simple cap - however many (legal) tax avoidance schemes you operate, your overall tax may never go below x% of income. Again, simples.
The story is not the numbers; it's the apparent hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?Surely if something is legal you are allowed to do it, and the Government should not express an opinion against it.
They shouldn't, but they do.
Neither should politicos point fingers at others who do what they themselves do.
No politician could ever propose a change to a law from which they may have benefited from (still only notionally, in Miliband's case) perhaps decades earlier...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_British_betting_scandal
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy for a family to act on impartial legal advice...
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?Surely if something is legal you are allowed to do it, and the Government should not express an opinion against it.
They shouldn't, but they do.
Neither should politicos point fingers at others who do what they themselves do.
Miliband is proposing to penalise people who use "aggressive tax avoidance" so is making legal tax planning the subject of government sanction.
It seems quite reasonable to discuss his own tax avoidance, just as it is reasonable to expose the affairs of a politician who claims to be a family man.
Politicians want one rule for themselves and another for us. A good way of demonstrating an end to this would be for the Inland Revenue to apply the same tax laws on parliamentary allowances and perks as apply to the rest of us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqZTP8-8wIs
Perhaps he should shut the feck up criticising others re legal tax arrangements then?Surely if something is legal you are allowed to do it, and the Government should not express an opinion against it.
They shouldn't, but they do.
Neither should politicos point fingers at others who do what they themselves do.
Miliband is proposing to penalise people who use "aggressive tax avoidance" so is making legal tax planning the subject of government sanction.
It seems quite reasonable to discuss his own tax avoidance, just as it is reasonable to expose the affairs of a politician who claims to be a family man.
Politicians want one rule for themselves and another for us. A good way of demonstrating an end to this would be for the Inland Revenue to apply the same tax laws on parliamentary allowances and perks as apply to the rest of us.
....................................................
How is a DOV, which changed nothing at the time in respect of tax, "aggressive tax avoidance"?
There is no reason for anyone to arrange their financial affairs so as to pay the maximum amount of tax.
aggressive tax avoidance. Great sounding phrase. Good luck defining it.
Noticed today that a large bottle of Bombay Sapphire costs 19 Euros = £14 in a Lisbon supermarket. In the UK it's usually about £22 IIRC.
Gameday is in Tuscaloosa tomorrow morning.
I dodge taxes all the time via my SIPP and ISA and even use of my allowances. The issue is that EdM wants to crackdown on legal tax dodges. This is not just closure of loopholes, but retrospective action.
Ed's playing the victim.. not smart.
[dislosure: I paid no tax or NI last year. Zilch. Hope to repeat that this year.]
The point here is Ed wants others to pay, and tells everyone they should let the State steal more of their money. He simply used a tax wheeze so as not to pay himself.
Tax is for proles and little people.
£1.30 for a packet of 20 for you smokers out there!
Would expanding my knowledge of tax allow me to reclaim it all from the inland revenue :P ? I doubt it
And, as I've demonstrated, it had no impact on the instant tax position...
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/gaar.htm
''The General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR), that came into force on 17 July 2013, is one part of the Government's approach to managing the risk of tax avoidance. It has been introduced to strengthen HM Revenue & Customs' (HMRC's) anti-avoidance strategy and help HMRC tackle abusive avoidance. The GAAR legislation defines what are, for its purposes, tax arrangements that are abusive.''
The notion that Jimmy Car can pay 'less tax than his cleaner' is a bit 'morally repugnant' to me.
The problem with people who abuse the system is that the 'ordinary' people that the system is meant to assist get penalised. A double whammy of repugnance.
Perhaps Ed will now clarify his position.
That is why it is an issue - and will continue to be one.
Hypocrisy is never attractive.
Well done, Nigerian government.
It's true that they have been a bit of a pain suspending their Most Seats and 'Swingometer' markets for most of the last couple of years. The other side of the coin, though, is that they offer credit, and you can get some quite chunky bets on.
I expect Spreadex will offer some markets as we get closer to the election, but for now we should be grateful that SPIN have woken up.
Mary Landrieu is in a runoff for her LA Senate seat, and is desperate for the bill to come to the floor in the Senate which Harry Reid has refused to do so far.
The house bill was sponsored by Landrieu's oponent, Bill Cassidy.
Regardless of what happens, she's toast on December 6.
The whole thing is really quite funny. UKIP's message is equally surreal:
"Vote for real change. Vote for, err, the same guy you had before"
https://twitter.com/cgi247/status/529606159423242240/photo/1
Mrs Miliband may have sought legal advice. And she is a free-agent, not running for office, or subject to any obligations to anyone, other than to her own family...
My own strategy is to sell the Tories at 290 seats or above, should they reach such levels on the back of improving poll results for them.
I have figured out why this leaflet is so laughable.
All of the Reckless points apply to David Cameron, if not more so.
It's almost as if the Tories think David Cameron is unknown to the good people of Rochester and Strood, despite his having been there at least four times in recent weeks.
And being Prime Minister for the last four and a half years, of course.
In the billboard, he's still wearing the Tory blue tie!
It seems the Tories have a Kipper candidate and use Kipper arguments, but with added tits, and the Kippers have a former Conservative.
Meanwhile, down in Thanet South...
UKIP: Vote for the leader of UKIP.
Tories: Vote for the former leader of UKIP.
Its always entirely coincidental that no matter how busy/snowed under/ 7 days a week he seems to be working, he just earns slightly under the tax free allowance.
But every now and then he'll suddenly have a two or three good years. Those just happen to be before he needs to secure a new Mortgage. Again just a coincidence.
But unless people want to look stupid thay should actually criticise him on the facts.
The ultimate criticism of father Ralph rather than his family is that good marxists believe property is theft. But they were happy to own all sorts of property.
In the end all socialists are hypocrites so its not a big story for me. And to use the vageries of this story as an excuse for excusing real agressive tax avoidance which impverishes the rest of us is pretty pathetic.
:roll
Con .......... 300 seats
Lab ........... 292 seats
LibDems ..... 28 seats
Others ........ 30 seats*
Total ........ 650 seats
* After deducting 18 seats for N.I., Fisher is therefore allocating a combined total of only 12 seats for UKIP, SNP, Plaid, Greens, etc. Whereas by my calculation, applying Sporting's current mid-spread prices, they are allocating a total of 30 seats to these parties.
Shurely shome mishtake shomewhere?
I don't like Miliband...
I hate Labour...
I loathe his father, and antecedents...
However, I can detect a specious, manufactured and factually-inaccurate argument from 10 paces. And I won't entertain it.
Obsessing about Miliband to defend the likes of Jimmy Carr is rubbish.
A friend of mine with custody of two children does exactly that to maximise tax credits.