The outrageousness of these people holding their money in Switzerland and then having influence over the British government as advisors is beyond shocking. There is really nothing to say. Lord Fink and his apologists are just making fools of themselves. There is going to be real anger about this. It'll make MP's duck houses pale into insignificance.
The outrageousness of these people holding their money in Switzerland and then having influence over the British government as advisors is beyond shocking.
Surely the way for Ed to lance this boil about all his own tax avoidance is to pay today the IHT he'd pay today if he inherited his mansion today?
By his own lights, if you live in a house worth more than £2 million, 1/ that's a mansion and 2/ you are rich.
Ed is a rich, rich man and so he should pay IHT now and in the same press release make it clear that as a rich man he will pay his own mansion tax out of his own pocket and will not expense it*.
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
No it's not. If you over pay tax by not using your tax free allowance you get given it back (this has happened to me when not working for part of the year, my automatically deducted tax meant I didn't use all of the allowance so I got a rebate).
How many people got IHT rebates because they didn't know they could do this?
It's why the law was changed in 2008, and why IHT is such a pernicious tax in practice, falling only on the secretive, the irrational, the unworldly, the ill or the just plain unlucky who don't have the wit or the time to seek proper advice...
And before it was changed the Miliband lads, like any good socialists would, thought that they should make full use of their inheriting potential.
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
As a life-long and committed Marxist, Ralph would have been horrified be the transfer of inherited wealth to his children. Their actions were a gross betrayal of everything he believed in and stood for.
Well he could have set up a trust, purely for the maintenance of his wife in her lifetime, if he felt so strongly about it.
Btw, the person who effectively made the deed of variation was Mrs Miliband (as the sole beneficiary), and she is a free agent.
The Miliboys had to sign it too.
In law, I don't think they did, since they were not "adversely affected beneficiaries" [or beneficiaries at all].
The outrageousness of these people holding their money in Switzerland and then having influence over the British government as advisors is beyond shocking.
You aren't jumping the gun there? It's wise sometimes to wait and watch which way things pan out like the tv debates which some said was a slam dunk cock up by Cameron.
What he seems to be attempting is to try to get 'the people' on his side at the expense of almost everyone with influence outside the grauniad and bbc. Cripes that's a high-risk strategy 3 months out. He could see an onslaught like never.
"What the public will see is not so much a shocking conspiracy as a reversion to type. It will observe an allegedly crooked bank helping its clients to evade fair taxation, and the boss of that bank not held to account but rewarded with a peerage and a senior post as a minister of the Crown.
Don’t forget: the period during which Green was appointed was presented by the Coalition parties as a time of national emergency, in which the deficit bequeathed by Labour was the principal threat to economic stability and national fortune. The recruitment of the HSBC boss was announced on September 7, 2010, little more than a month before George Osborne’s first, sweeping spending review."
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
You are wasting your time , pb tories do not need to to know anything about tax , they simply feel they can throw out smears left right and centre at political opponents especially Ed M .
What a trossock you are. Fine words from the party of Campbell and McBride. The party with nothing to offer but the politics of envy. Ed Miliband is no stranger to making smears. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426678/Ed-Miliband-KNEW-smear-campaigns-Gordon-Browns-spin-doctor-Labour-MPs-admits-party-fighting-begins.html ''Ed Miliband KNEW about smear campaigns by Gordon Brown's spin doctor, Labour MPs admits as party in-fighting begins'' ''Mr McBride confesses to helping Mr Brown drive his leading rivals out of the Cabinet by using the dark arts of media manipulation. In the disturbingly candid book, serialised in the Daily Mail, the spin doctor says he routinely discredited opponents by tipping off newspapers about ‘drug use, spousal abuse, alcoholism and extra-marital affairs’.'' ''Dame Tessa today admitted that Mr Miliband knew about the tactics used by Mr Brown's spin doctor to undermine rivals.''
That fool EdM actually derailed his own train today..now Labour and all of its apologists are running around like headless chickens..Do not stand up at the Despatch box and tell unsubstantiated porkies..lesson one...Good diversion away from the pink tampon tho.
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
That's right in substance, Alistair, although there may be a technical flaw.
I'm not altogether sure that you can waive your personal allowance. Maybe it's never been tested because nobody in their right mind would want to do so, any more than they would want to pay more inheritance tax than they had to.
Yes this would all be going swimmingly for Labour if Lord Paul wasn't such an unconvincing witness!
If both Labour and Tory doners are involved then it becomes more negative for Labour. Just like cash for honours people expect it of the Tories and therefore it does Labour more damage when they are involved.
They should stick to Lord Green in their attack since he is the only man in the frame appointed by Cameron as a Government Minister.
Seriously you need your head recalibrating. The man gives over a third of his income to charity, has built a company from the ground up and yet you, whose sole contribution to the happiness of the world is to flog bog roll, feels free to sneer.
"What the public will see is not so much a shocking conspiracy as a reversion to type. It will observe an allegedly crooked bank helping its clients to evade fair taxation, and the boss of that bank not held to account but rewarded with a peerage and a senior post as a minister of the Crown.
Don’t forget: the period during which Green was appointed was presented by the Coalition parties as a time of national emergency, in which the deficit bequeathed by Labour was the principal threat to economic stability and national fortune. The recruitment of the HSBC boss was announced on September 7, 2010, little more than a month before George Osborne’s first, sweeping spending review."
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
As a life-long and committed Marxist, Ralph would have been horrified be the transfer of inherited wealth to his children. Their actions were a gross betrayal of everything he believed in and stood for.
Well he could have set up a trust, purely for the maintenance of his wife in her lifetime, if he felt so strongly about it.
Btw, the person who effectively made the deed of variation was Mrs Miliband (as the sole beneficiary), and she is a free agent.
The Miliboys had to sign it too.
In law, I don't think they did, since they were not "adversely affected beneficiaries" [or beneficiaries at all].
Oops.. think you're right there having looked into it more closely. I was sure I'd heard that they would have had to sign it..
Sorry for that Miliboys!
(See ed, it's not that hard to admit you got it wrong and apologise)
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
You are wasting your time , pb tories do not need to to know anything about tax , they simply feel they can throw out smears left right and centre at political opponents especially Ed M .
Guessing you're a Labour supporter? If so you don't think the super rich did exceptionally well under Mr Blair?
Seriously you need your head recalibrating. The man gives over a third of his income to charity, has built a company from the ground up and yet you, whose sole contribution to the happiness of the world is to flog bog roll, feels free to sneer.
Be careful. Charitable giving is no guarantee of probity.
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
That's right in substance, Alistair, although there may be a technical flaw.
I'm not altogether sure that you can waive your personal allowance. Maybe it's never been tested because nobody in their right mind would want to do so, any more than they would want to pay more inheritance tax than they had to.
IHT by its nature is a "once in a lifetime" tax, and it's amazing how many people are potentially liable for it, do nothing to minimize or eliminate it, and hence hand a large chunk of the fruits their lifelong toil to the taxman, completely unnecessarily...
you really do sum up a typical socialist - envy of the rich, anyone who has wealth must be evil, and treated with suspicion, and contempt. but without wealth creation there would be no NHS, no public services,etc. meanwhile your probably supping a glass of champagne in your socialist ivory tower
Seriously you need your head recalibrating. The man gives over a third of his income to charity, has built a company from the ground up and yet you, whose sole contribution to the happiness of the world is to flog bog roll, feels free to sneer.
Glad you said that. Was going to have a go at Roger for not understanding anything about money, business, travel, companies, multinationals, charitable giving - in fact not understanding anything much at all.
It's easy to take a snide swipe at business, and sometimes they definitely need calling to account but some of this smacks of pig ignorance mingled with envy and sheer stupidity.
This wholesale attack on wealth-creation is like stepping back into the pages of the Communist Manifesto.
Seriously you need your head recalibrating. The man gives over a third of his income to charity, has built a company from the ground up and yet you, whose sole contribution to the happiness of the world is to flog bog roll, feels free to sneer.
Be careful. Charitable giving is no guarantee of probity.
Exactly like that guy. I just saw him on Ch4 News and was reminded what an opportunist piece of work Blair was. Now though we're in a different era. Labour have changed. Cameron hasn't
With regards to the topic, this is all well and good but Labour have a pink van and as a result any and all analysis is useless and irrelevant. 98% swing Lab to Con because of the pink van, its shifting votes on a monumental scale as we speak. Why, someone called "Bob" even changed his vote this morning because of the pink van. I don't think this site and ScottP in particular has talked enough about the pink van and how it has completely and irreversibly changed the British political landscape.
Seriously you need your head recalibrating. The man gives over a third of his income to charity, has built a company from the ground up and yet you, whose sole contribution to the happiness of the world is to flog bog roll, feels free to sneer.
Be careful. Charitable giving is no guarantee of probity.
"What the public will see is not so much a shocking conspiracy as a reversion to type. It will observe an allegedly crooked bank helping its clients to evade fair taxation, and the boss of that bank not held to account but rewarded with a peerage and a senior post as a minister of the Crown.
Don’t forget: the period during which Green was appointed was presented by the Coalition parties as a time of national emergency, in which the deficit bequeathed by Labour was the principal threat to economic stability and national fortune. The recruitment of the HSBC boss was announced on September 7, 2010, little more than a month before George Osborne’s first, sweeping spending review."
I wonder whether CCHQ might want to remind people about Labour's second and third largest individual donors.
I know nothing about their tax affairs, but have read plenty about the ease with which their property firm got planning permission for some huge projects in Croydon shortly after they donated rather large sums to their comrades.
Ed wasn't leader then, but he's still taking a lot of money off the type who seem to donate for favours
Exactly like that guy. I just saw him on Ch4 News and was reminded what an opportunist piece of work Blair was. Now though we're in a different era. Labour have changed. Cameron hasn't
I hope Ed has instructed for that £2 million loan from Richard Caring is to be paid back immediately. I mean he wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite would he?
I have to say I do find it hard to understand why someone who wants to give a third of their income to charity would also want to be a Treasurer for the Tory party. Perhaps he feels it's the natural move for someone who who wants to belong to the upper echelons of society to support the Tories? Don't deny that there are plenty of snobby philanthropists out there.
Exactly like that guy. I just saw him on Ch4 News and was reminded what an opportunist piece of work Blair was. Now though we're in a different era. Labour have changed. Cameron hasn't
Labour have changed? what - like Falkirk, Rotherham?
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
That's right in substance, Alistair, although there may be a technical flaw.
I'm not altogether sure that you can waive your personal allowance. Maybe it's never been tested because nobody in their right mind would want to do so, any more than they would want to pay more inheritance tax than they had to.
IHT by its nature is a "once in a lifetime" tax, and it's amazing how many people are potentially liable for it, do nothing to minimize or eliminate it, and hence hand a large chunk of the fruits their lifelong toil to the taxman, completely unnecessarily...
It's a while since I was in the biz, Rod, and even when I was IHT was never really my subject but I recall it always had the reputation of being the most avoidable of tax.
There may not be such a thing as a good tax, but some are worse than others and IHT has to be one of the worse, since it falls largely on the ignorant, the ill-advised and the unlucky. It doesn't bring in much money, either.
I hope Ed has instructed for that £2 million loan from Richard Caring is to be paid back immediately. I mean he would want to be seen as a hypocrite would he?
yes but according to Roger Labour has changed LOL!
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
That's right in substance, Alistair, although there may be a technical flaw.
I'm not altogether sure that you can waive your personal allowance. Maybe it's never been tested because nobody in their right mind would want to do so, any more than they would want to pay more inheritance tax than they had to.
IHT by its nature is a "once in a lifetime" tax, and it's amazing how many people are potentially liable for it, do nothing to minimize or eliminate it, and hence hand a large chunk of the fruits their lifelong toil to the taxman, completely unnecessarily...
What do you do if you have one single large family house worth, say, £800k by itself?
Short of trading down to a smaller house below the IHT threshold, and dumping the balance of funds into some sort of trust, I'm not sure what the "average" Middle-class family can do to avoid IHT on their main property.
Of course, through doing that, you lose the main family home and can't pass it on to your kids.
I have to say I do find it hard to understand why someone who wants to give a third of their income to charity would also want to be a Treasurer for the Tory party.
Because he wants to do the best for Britain, of course. The same reason I donate (rather more modestly than Lord Fink!) to the Conservative Party. The same reason, no doubt, that J K Rowling donates to Labour, and the same reason that activists pound the streets for Labour, the Tories, UKIP, the Greens, and the LibDems.
I wonder whether CCHQ might want to remind people about Labour's second and third largest individual donors.
I know nothing about their tax affairs, but have read plenty about the ease with which their property firm got planning permission for some huge projects in Croydon shortly after they donated rather large sums to their comrades.
Ed wasn't leader then, but he's still taking a lot of money off the type who seem to donate for favours
Why don`t you do some research yourself then Jimmy ?
You seem to do plenty regarding the Milliband family.
I have to say I do find it hard to understand why someone who wants to give a third of their income to charity would also want to be a Treasurer for the Tory party. Perhaps he feels it's the natural move for someone who who wants to belong to the upper echelons of society to support the Tories? Don't deny that there are plenty of snobby philanthropists out there.
One can be pro-wealth and pro-charity at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive platforms.
@MaxPB Not that I am suggesting impropriety, but charities are much the same as Swiss bank accounts. They can be altruistic, but also a means of tax avoidance. Again, I am not suggesting that in this case there is anything dodgy, just that "charitable giving" is not always what it seems
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
You are wasting your time , pb tories do not need to to know anything about tax , they simply feel they can throw out smears left right and centre at political opponents especially Ed M .
Guessing you're a Labour supporter? If so you don't think the super rich did exceptionally well under Mr Blair?
Me a Labour supporter , you are new here aren't you ?
@MaxPB Not that I am suggesting impropriety, but charities are much the same as Swiss bank accounts. They can be altruistic, but also a means of tax avoidance. Again, I am not suggesting that in this case there is anything dodgy, just that "charitable giving" is not always what it seems
No doubt that many charity donations are used to offset tax, but so what? It is legal and encourages charitable giving. The latter is important to our societal well-being, if rich people need to be bribed into giving vast sums to charity then that is a price I can live with if it means worth causes receive funding they would not otherwise have.
"What the public will see is not so much a shocking conspiracy as a reversion to type. It will observe an allegedly crooked bank helping its clients to evade fair taxation, and the boss of that bank not held to account but rewarded with a peerage and a senior post as a minister of the Crown.
Don’t forget: the period during which Green was appointed was presented by the Coalition parties as a time of national emergency, in which the deficit bequeathed by Labour was the principal threat to economic stability and national fortune. The recruitment of the HSBC boss was announced on September 7, 2010, little more than a month before George Osborne’s first, sweeping spending review."
Yes, yes, but what about the pink van ?
I must say I am surprised effort has been made to keep that story going, at least as far as Guido and a few other places. It seemed your typical evening diversion sort of thing but no more than that, but some real attempt has been made to keep it going. An odd choice.
Now I wonder why is interested in supporting Miliband? Nothing to do with the fact that Miliband wants to break up the big energy companies and his guy happens to run a smaller operation in that sector?
Or that he gets all his power from renewables, which rely on massive state handouts, and that Ed is much more likely to keep bunging the money their way?
I have no idea , but it must have been quite a bit for him to do it. You can imagine the little shit rubbing his hands with glee at all that extra lolly.
He has avoided £0 pounds of tax.
In fact, due to legislation changes his position is exactly the same now as if they hadn't done anything at all.
weasel words.. How much tax did he avoid at the time it would have been due by using the deed of variation? 50K 100k 200k ? do tell us.. The fact of what would be due now is irrelevant..He would have had to have paid it at the time of his fathers death had it not been for the deed cof variation. So he avoided it DIDNT HE !!
THE FACT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED IS FURTHER IRRELEVANT , IF HE HAD PAID IT AT THE TIME, HE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLAIN IT BACK NOW !
It was legal tax avoidance. No different to what Miliband is attacking others for right now.
Wrong. No tax was avoided. None was payable!
Was none payable because it was avoided?? Chicken and egg stuff here.
Nope. Spousal transfers on death [the original terms of the will] are entirely free from IHT.
You are wasting your time , pb tories do not need to to know anything about tax , they simply feel they can throw out smears left right and centre at political opponents especially Ed M .
Guessing you're a Labour supporter? If so you don't think the super rich did exceptionally well under Mr Blair?
Me a Labour supporter , you are new here aren't you ?
@MaxPB Not that I am suggesting impropriety, but charities are much the same as Swiss bank accounts. They can be altruistic, but also a means of tax avoidance. Again, I am not suggesting that in this case there is anything dodgy, just that "charitable giving" is not always what it seems
There is absolutely no justification whatever for tax relief on charitable donations.
If you want to give to charity, that's fine. But why should other taxpayers be obliged to donate too, which is what happens when tax relief is claimed?
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the level of charitable giving if this absurd concession were removed.
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
That's right in substance, Alistair, although there may be a technical flaw.
I'm not altogether sure that you can waive your personal allowance. Maybe it's never been tested because nobody in their right mind would want to do so, any more than they would want to pay more inheritance tax than they had to.
IHT by its nature is a "once in a lifetime" tax, and it's amazing how many people are potentially liable for it, do nothing to minimize or eliminate it, and hence hand a large chunk of the fruits their lifelong toil to the taxman, completely unnecessarily...
What do you do if you have one single large family house worth, say, £800k by itself?
Short of trading down to a smaller house below the IHT threshold, and dumping the balance of funds into some sort of trust, I'm not sure what the "average" Middle-class family can do to avoid IHT on their main property.
Of course, through doing that, you lose the main family home and can't pass it on to your kids.
I've been out, but you asked on a previous thread why I thought that political correctness was a big factor in the Rotherham scandal.
You may not have had the time to read from the Casey or Jay reports but they are the sources I'm using.
"The Council’s culture is unhealthy: bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced ‘political correctness’ have cemented its failures ... a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths, silencing whistle-blowers and paying off staff rather than dealing with difficult issues ... The issue of race is contentious, with staff and Members lacking the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion." are just a few of the comments.
I suggest you read both reports and form your own opinion.
@MaxPB Not that I am suggesting impropriety, but charities are much the same as Swiss bank accounts. They can be altruistic, but also a means of tax avoidance. Again, I am not suggesting that in this case there is anything dodgy, just that "charitable giving" is not always what it seems
There is absolutely no justification whatever for tax relief on charitable donations.
If you want to give to charity, that's fine. But why should other taxpayers be obliged to donate too, which is what happens when tax relief is claimed?
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the level of charitable giving if this absurd concession were removed.
I understand both points of view, but the sums involved are pretty vast and giving tax relief encourages high net worth individuals to give to charity rather than keep their wealth locked up in wealth management account. Most charitable giving recycles the money back into the UK and global economy better than money sitting in a bank account. The net loss to the government from charity tax relief isn't really that high but charities and good causes gain significantly from it.
@saddened I don't care if he is a Martian Nationalist, there are lots of clever ways of managing your finances. Or are you the same as @TheWatcher, in believing that wealth confers morality?
@MaxPB Not that I am suggesting impropriety, but charities are much the same as Swiss bank accounts. They can be altruistic, but also a means of tax avoidance. Again, I am not suggesting that in this case there is anything dodgy, just that "charitable giving" is not always what it seems
There is absolutely no justification whatever for tax relief on charitable donations.
If you want to give to charity, that's fine. But why should other taxpayers be obliged to donate too, which is what happens when tax relief is claimed?
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the level of charitable giving if this absurd concession were removed.
I don't actually agree with you, but it's interesting to recall what happened when the coalition proposed to limit the maximum deduction to £50K a year or 25% of an individual's income, whichever is higher. All hell broke loose, and the Guardian-reading classes who'd previously been up in arms at the rich not paying enough tax suddenly became incredibly indignant that their pet causes were going to be badly hit. In the end it was dropped:
Because Ralph hadn't used his tax free allowance. The the deed of variance meant that the tax free allowance was used.
And the Miliband boys thought "Dad would definitely have wanted us to avoid this tax"?
I'd be surprised if they or he thought that...
It's on the same level as "using" your tax free allowance on your yearly income tax bill.
That's right in substance, Alistair, although there may be a technical flaw.
I'm not altogether sure that you can waive your personal allowance. Maybe it's never been tested because nobody in their right mind would want to do so, any more than they would want to pay more inheritance tax than they had to.
IHT by its nature is a "once in a lifetime" tax, and it's amazing how many people are potentially liable for it, do nothing to minimize or eliminate it, and hence hand a large chunk of the fruits their lifelong toil to the taxman, completely unnecessarily...
What do you do if you have one single large family house worth, say, £800k by itself?
Short of trading down to a smaller house below the IHT threshold, and dumping the balance of funds into some sort of trust, I'm not sure what the "average" Middle-class family can do to avoid IHT on their main property.
Of course, through doing that, you lose the main family home and can't pass it on to your kids.
Paul Lambert sacked Posted at 19:58 Here is the statement in full from Aston Villa: "Aston Villa Football Club has parted company this evening with manager Paul Lambert. "First-team coach Scott Marshall and goalkeeping coach Andy Marshall will continue to prepare the squad for Sunday's FA Cup tie with Leicester City at Villa Park. "The club would also like to place on record its thanks to Paul and take this opportunity to wish him every success in the future. "The club will announce a new manager in due course. "There will be no further comment from the club at this stage."
I wonder whether CCHQ might want to remind people about Labour's second and third largest individual donors.
I know nothing about their tax affairs, but have read plenty about the ease with which their property firm got planning permission for some huge projects in Croydon shortly after they donated rather large sums to their comrades.
Ed wasn't leader then, but he's still taking a lot of money off the type who seem to donate for favours
Why don`t you do some research yourself then Jimmy ?
You seem to do plenty regarding the Milliband family.
If CCHQ will pay me for it I'd be delighted to.
My research time so far on the Milibands' tax affairs is about five minutes. I've spent a bit more time looking at what he said before he became Loto but there's not much to see and it's all pretty dull.
@saddened I don't care if he is a Martian Nationalist, there are lots of clever ways of managing your finances. Or are you the same as @TheWatcher, in believing that wealth confers morality?
It's pointless discussing anything with you, it's obvious from your user name you're not the most opened minded. So I'm happy to leave it here and let you declare victory.
Watch the real expert give advice on tax. You have to love the eyebrows. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI (The https:// is removed from the link for site rules)
@MaxPB Not that I am suggesting impropriety, but charities are much the same as Swiss bank accounts. They can be altruistic, but also a means of tax avoidance. Again, I am not suggesting that in this case there is anything dodgy, just that "charitable giving" is not always what it seems
There is absolutely no justification whatever for tax relief on charitable donations.
If you want to give to charity, that's fine. But why should other taxpayers be obliged to donate too, which is what happens when tax relief is claimed?
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the level of charitable giving if this absurd concession were removed.
I don't actually agree with you, but it's interesting to recall what happened when the coalition proposed to limit the maximum deduction to £50K a year or 25% of an individual's income, whichever is higher. All hell broke loose, and the Guardian-reading classes who'd previously been up in arms at the rich not paying enough tax suddenly became incredibly indignant that their pet causes were going to be badly hit. In the end it was dropped:
As you would appreciate, Richard, the beneficiaries of tax relief are those that are around when it is introduced. After that the market adjusts, and the global effect is neutral. When it is removed, the losers are those around at the time. In short, nobody benefits overall, but there are winners and losers - at the beginning and the end.
The squeals you heard were from the losers. 'Twas ever thus.
nothing directly relevant (though shameless plug: our Political Monitor is out tomorrow and it's a corker)
What was the previous Ipsos? Lab lead of 1? A corker must either show a massive Tory lead or a massive Labour lead. Not sure what else could be classified as a corker. Given the direction of travel the former seems much more likely.
nothing directly relevant (though shameless plug: our Political Monitor is out tomorrow and it's a corker)
What was the previous Ipsos? Lab lead of 1? A corker must either show a massive Tory lead or a massive Labour lead. Not sure what else could be classified as a corker. Given the direction of travel the former seems much more likely.
Yeah, last Ipsos-Mori had a Lab lead of 1, and Lab up 5%,
The chap that tweeted is, isn't one to suffer from hyperbole, so it must be a real corker.
The Times: "Labour must axe austerity if it wants deal, says Sturgeon" That has to be worth 1% - 2% for the Tories, particularly in England. Btw Casino - have you noticed how a Lab/SNP deal is becoming increasingly talked about .... perhaps not as "foolhardy" a bet as you suggested .... now a 6/1 shot, compared with my 25/1 bet.
The story in the news is Ed Miliband taking on possible tax avoiding billionaire with Cameron positioned as sticking up for the Billionaire
I couldnt care less about Cameron, the Conservatives, Labour or Miliband.. but this is why Miliband asked the questions he did today.. he wanted this row to be public and for Cameron to be seen to be in this position
The Times: "Labour must axe austerity if it wants deal, says Sturgeon" That has to be worth 1% - 2% for the Tories, particularly in England. Btw Casino - have you noticed how a Lab/SNP deal is becoming increasingly talked about .... perhaps not as "foolhardy" a bet as you suggested .... now a 6/1 shot, compared with my 25/1 bet.
a Lab/SNP coalition will go down like a cup of cold sick in England, and will destroy Labour possibly forever
nothing directly relevant (though shameless plug: our Political Monitor is out tomorrow and it's a corker)
What was the previous Ipsos? Lab lead of 1? A corker must either show a massive Tory lead or a massive Labour lead. Not sure what else could be classified as a corker. Given the direction of travel the former seems much more likely.
Yeah, last Ipsos-Mori had a Lab lead of 1, and Lab up 5%,
The chap that tweeted is, isn't one to suffer from hyperbole, so it must be a real corker.
Any clue as to what time it is due to be released?
The story in the news is Ed Miliband taking on possible tax avoiding billionaire with Cameron positioned as sticking up for the Billionaire
I couldnt care less about Cameron, the Conservatives, Labour or Miliband.. but this is why Miliband asked the questions he did today.. he wanted this row to be public and for Cameron to be seen to be in this position
nothing directly relevant (though shameless plug: our Political Monitor is out tomorrow and it's a corker)
What was the previous Ipsos? Lab lead of 1? A corker must either show a massive Tory lead or a massive Labour lead. Not sure what else could be classified as a corker. Given the direction of travel the former seems much more likely.
nothing directly relevant (though shameless plug: our Political Monitor is out tomorrow and it's a corker)
What was the previous Ipsos? Lab lead of 1? A corker must either show a massive Tory lead or a massive Labour lead. Not sure what else could be classified as a corker. Given the direction of travel the former seems much more likely.
Yeah, last Ipsos-Mori had a Lab lead of 1, and Lab up 5%,
The chap that tweeted is, isn't one to suffer from hyperbole, so it must be a real corker.
Any clue as to what time it is due to be released?
Normally it is published in the evening standard, so any time between 11am and 2 pm
The story in the news is Ed Miliband taking on possible tax avoiding billionaire with Cameron positioned as sticking up for the Billionaire
I couldnt care less about Cameron, the Conservatives, Labour or Miliband.. but this is why Miliband asked the questions he did today.. he wanted this row to be public and for Cameron to be seen to be in this position
Cameron, as far as I can see, hasn't stuck up for anyone. Lord Fink has piped up himself, but Cameron hasn't said anything.
The story in the news is Ed Miliband taking on possible tax avoiding billionaire with Cameron positioned as sticking up for the Billionaire
I couldnt care less about Cameron, the Conservatives, Labour or Miliband.. but this is why Miliband asked the questions he did today.. he wanted this row to be public and for Cameron to be seen to be in this position
Kippers for Miliband continues to gain momentum..
I know you're trolling, but I am not for either, they're just the same.. but I like to watch the pretend differences being exaggerated
Made a record of my PB Bets last night, saw Ive taken UKIP over the Lib Dems votes at 10/11 w you.. forgot about that one, nice!!
I have to say I do find it hard to understand why someone who wants to give a third of their income to charity would also want to be a Treasurer for the Tory party. Perhaps he feels it's the natural move for someone who who wants to belong to the upper echelons of society to support the Tories? Don't deny that there are plenty of snobby philanthropists out there.
Some super-rich people are philanthropists. As Andrew Carnegie put it "He who dies rich dies disgraced.". In fact, he did die rich, but he founded libraries and schools all over the English speaking world. Bill Gates is in the same mould. They're happy to give away vast sums, but want to spend it on the causes they select.
I wonder whether CCHQ might want to remind people about Labour's second and third largest individual donors.
I know nothing about their tax affairs, but have read plenty about the ease with which their property firm got planning permission for some huge projects in Croydon shortly after they donated rather large sums to their comrades.
Ed wasn't leader then, but he's still taking a lot of money off the type who seem to donate for favours
Why don`t you do some research yourself then Jimmy ?
You seem to do plenty regarding the Milliband family.
If CCHQ will pay me for it I'd be delighted to.
My research time so far on the Milibands' tax affairs is about five minutes. I've spent a bit more time looking at what he said before he became Loto but there's not much to see and it's all pretty dull.
I totally agree.
I would have thought someone is already been paid. I honestly can not remember him before he became leader.
Guessing you're a Labour supporter? If so you don't think the super rich did exceptionally well under Mr Blair?
Although you are technically wrong about Mark Senior's politics, you have correctly spotted that he is as thick as elephant shit so it's an understandable mistake.
Guessing you're a Labour supporter? If so you don't think the super rich did exceptionally well under Mr Blair?
Although you are technically wrong about Mark Senior's politics, you have correctly spotted that he is as thick as elephant shit so it's an understandable mistake.
Ah words of unwisdom from the biggest crock of shite amongst pb tory lapdogs on here.
I wonder whether CCHQ might want to remind people about Labour's second and third largest individual donors.
I know nothing about their tax affairs, but have read plenty about the ease with which their property firm got planning permission for some huge projects in Croydon shortly after they donated rather large sums to their comrades.
Ed wasn't leader then, but he's still taking a lot of money off the type who seem to donate for favours
Why don`t you do some research yourself then Jimmy ?
You seem to do plenty regarding the Milliband family.
If CCHQ will pay me for it I'd be delighted to.
My research time so far on the Milibands' tax affairs is about five minutes. I've spent a bit more time looking at what he said before he became Loto but there's not much to see and it's all pretty dull.
I totally agree.
I would have thought someone is already been paid. I honestly can not remember him before he became leader.
"Senior figures in UKIP think radical reform of the NHS is needed and internal disagreements about the idea are likely to resurface after the general election.
I understand that one senior official very closely involved in writing the party's general election manifesto believes the current system "can't go on"."
Comments
@Channel4News: Lord Paul tells #c4news has house in Switzerland and needs bank account there so can spend money http://t.co/awthmvjcDG
I am shocked. Shocked I tell you...
By his own lights, if you live in a house worth more than £2 million, 1/ that's a mansion and 2/ you are rich.
Ed is a rich, rich man and so he should pay IHT now and in the same press release make it clear that as a rich man he will pay his own mansion tax out of his own pocket and will not expense it*.
Job done, story killed, social justice served.
* Batty Hattie can do the same.
no surprise there then?
I thought you needed Swiss residency or a Swiss based company...
You might be right but not so sure. I've a sneaky feeling this could all go horribly wrong for Miliband http://order-order.com/2015/02/11/stanley-fink-to-ed-miliband-bring-it-on/
What he seems to be attempting is to try to get 'the people' on his side at the expense of almost everyone with influence outside the grauniad and bbc. Cripes that's a high-risk strategy 3 months out. He could see an onslaught like never.
"@OliverCooper: Labour's plan is now to defame Lord Fink: a man that gives a third of his income to charity. http://t.co/qXSPMbyLji http://t.co/9eaMLgSzrh"
Poor guy. That only leaves him £30,000,000 a year
Ed Miliband is no stranger to making smears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426678/Ed-Miliband-KNEW-smear-campaigns-Gordon-Browns-spin-doctor-Labour-MPs-admits-party-fighting-begins.html
''Ed Miliband KNEW about smear campaigns by Gordon Brown's spin doctor, Labour MPs admits as party in-fighting begins''
''Mr McBride confesses to helping Mr Brown drive his leading rivals out of the Cabinet by using the dark arts of media manipulation.
In the disturbingly candid book, serialised in the Daily Mail, the spin doctor says he routinely discredited opponents by tipping off newspapers about ‘drug use, spousal abuse, alcoholism and extra-marital affairs’.''
''Dame Tessa today admitted that Mr Miliband knew about the tactics used by Mr Brown's spin doctor to undermine rivals.''
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426678/Ed-Miliband-KNEW-smear-campaigns-Gordon-Browns-spin-doctor-Labour-MPs-admits-party-fighting-begins.html#ixzz3RSxXOAxo
You can also find pictures of the Blessed Margaret in sexist pink.
I'm not altogether sure that you can waive your personal allowance. Maybe it's never been tested because nobody in their right mind would want to do so, any more than they would want to pay more inheritance tax than they had to.
Yes this would all be going swimmingly for Labour if Lord Paul wasn't such an unconvincing witness!
If both Labour and Tory doners are involved then it becomes more negative for Labour. Just like cash for honours people expect it of the Tories and therefore it does Labour more damage when they are involved.
They should stick to Lord Green in their attack since he is the only man in the frame appointed by Cameron as a Government Minister.
Sorry for that Miliboys!
(See ed, it's not that hard to admit you got it wrong and apologise)
It's easy to take a snide swipe at business, and sometimes they definitely need calling to account but some of this smacks of pig ignorance mingled with envy and sheer stupidity.
This wholesale attack on wealth-creation is like stepping back into the pages of the Communist Manifesto.
She had no aversion to pink if it suited her, tank or none.
Does he claim tax relief on these donations?
@Channel4News: Lord Paul tells #c4news has house in Switzerland and needs bank account there so can spend money http://t.co/awthmvjcDG"
Exactly like that guy. I just saw him on Ch4 News and was reminded what an opportunist piece of work Blair was. Now though we're in a different era. Labour have changed. Cameron hasn't
any and all analysis is useless and irrelevant. 98% swing Lab to Con because of the pink van, its shifting votes on a monumental scale as we speak. Why, someone called "Bob" even changed his vote this morning because of the pink van. I don't think this site and ScottP in particular has talked enough about the pink van and how it has completely and irreversibly changed the British political landscape.
Meanwhile, always wrong and never ever learn....
Umm....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27144637
I do, however, know that the recipients of the money benefit hugely.
Yes, yes, but what about the pink van ?
I know nothing about their tax affairs, but have read plenty about the ease with which their property firm got planning permission for some huge projects in Croydon shortly after they donated rather large sums to their comrades.
Ed wasn't leader then, but he's still taking a lot of money off the type who seem to donate for favours
Ed has proved today that they haven't.
The only thing which has changed is that their anti-prosperity agenda means that their non-union donations have collapsed.
There may not be such a thing as a good tax, but some are worse than others and IHT has to be one of the worse, since it falls largely on the ignorant, the ill-advised and the unlucky. It doesn't bring in much money, either.
Do away with it, I say!
Short of trading down to a smaller house below the IHT threshold, and dumping the balance of funds into some sort of trust, I'm not sure what the "average" Middle-class family can do to avoid IHT on their main property.
Of course, through doing that, you lose the main family home and can't pass it on to your kids.
This isn't hard to understand, surely?
You seem to do plenty regarding the Milliband family.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11189430/Tony-Benns-inheritance-tax-dodge-how-it-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-too.html
Not that I am suggesting impropriety, but charities are much the same as Swiss bank accounts.
They can be altruistic, but also a means of tax avoidance.
Again, I am not suggesting that in this case there is anything dodgy, just that "charitable giving" is not always what it seems
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c4681fc-b11d-11e4-831b-00144feab7de.html#axzz3RT4rMKtS
Or that he gets all his power from renewables, which rely on massive state handouts, and that Ed is much more likely to keep bunging the money their way?
You might get a public apology.
If you want to give to charity, that's fine. But why should other taxpayers be obliged to donate too, which is what happens when tax relief is claimed?
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the level of charitable giving if this absurd concession were removed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/advice/propertyclinic/7207543/Property-advice-reducing-inheritance-tax-liability.html
I've been out, but you asked on a previous thread why I thought that political correctness was a big factor in the Rotherham scandal.
You may not have had the time to read from the Casey or Jay reports but they are the sources I'm using.
"The Council’s culture is unhealthy: bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced ‘political correctness’ have cemented its failures ... a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths, silencing whistle-blowers and paying off staff rather than dealing with difficult issues ... The issue of race is contentious, with staff and Members lacking the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion." are just a few of the comments.
I suggest you read both reports and form your own opinion.
I don't care if he is a Martian Nationalist, there are lots of clever ways of managing your finances.
Or are you the same as @TheWatcher, in believing that wealth confers morality?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17680069
Posted at 19:58
Here is the statement in full from Aston Villa:
"Aston Villa Football Club has parted company this evening with manager Paul Lambert.
"First-team coach Scott Marshall and goalkeeping coach Andy Marshall will continue to prepare the squad for Sunday's FA Cup tie with Leicester City at Villa Park.
"The club would also like to place on record its thanks to Paul and take this opportunity to wish him every success in the future.
"The club will announce a new manager in due course.
"There will be no further comment from the club at this stage."
My research time so far on the Milibands' tax affairs is about five minutes. I've spent a bit more time looking at what he said before he became Loto but there's not much to see and it's all pretty dull.
nothing directly relevant (though shameless plug: our Political Monitor is out tomorrow and it's a corker)
You have to love the eyebrows.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI
(The https:// is removed from the link for site rules)
The squeals you heard were from the losers. 'Twas ever thus.
The chap that tweeted is, isn't one to suffer from hyperbole, so it must be a real corker.
"Labour must axe austerity if it wants deal, says Sturgeon"
That has to be worth 1% - 2% for the Tories, particularly in England.
Btw Casino - have you noticed how a Lab/SNP deal is becoming increasingly talked about .... perhaps not as "foolhardy" a bet as you suggested .... now a 6/1 shot, compared with my 25/1 bet.
Suit yourself, I just can't be as balanced in my opinions as the PBTories are.
I couldnt care less about Cameron, the Conservatives, Labour or Miliband.. but this is why Miliband asked the questions he did today.. he wanted this row to be public and for Cameron to be seen to be in this position
Corker might mean the Greens are in third place with Ipsos-Mori.
Same way as they were destroyed after the last election?
Unfortunately despite some mighty blasts on the arse trumpet, that didn't happen.
Made a record of my PB Bets last night, saw Ive taken UKIP over the Lib Dems votes at 10/11 w you.. forgot about that one, nice!!
I would have thought someone is already been paid.
I honestly can not remember him before he became leader.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31431460
"Senior figures in UKIP think radical reform of the NHS is needed and internal disagreements about the idea are likely to resurface after the general election.
I understand that one senior official very closely involved in writing the party's general election manifesto believes the current system "can't go on"."