And that's why the more CEOs and Tory donors publicly make this kind of transparently pathetic and disingenuous argument, the more people are going to go running to vote Labour.
Ah right, I meant to say people are going to go running to vote Labour, then just as they reach the polling booth, they will suddenly be struck by the vivid memory of a Daily Mail article from 2012 about Tony Blair and vote for someone else instead.
"Labour claims to be going after tax avoiders. What does that mean? On what basis can you or anyone else say they won't go after those who put their money into an ISA as opposed to those who put their money into a pension which is held on trust (as most pensions are)?"
what a pity you and the many others on here didn't speak out so loudly in defense of Jimmy Carr when he was lawfully avoiding tax. It almost cost him his career.
Credit to him though. For all the blame he heaped on his accountant at least he never said " Well people put money into an ISA. That's avoiding tax"
No need to be sorry Roger.
There are lots of things I don't comment on. Bizarre to criticise me for it. I honestly cannot remember the Jimmy Carr matter. If it was a year or so ago, I was almost certainly more preoccupied with family health matters.
It seems today as though Ed Miliband is channelling TSE. So far he apparently has said "I believe that children are our future" and "reach for the stars".
He needs more imagination. "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next" would have been far more stylish.
And that's why the more CEOs and Tory donors publicly make this kind of transparently pathetic and disingenuous argument, the more people are going to go running to vote Labour.
You were just telling us all about what was moral, I assumed that was because you felt it had some relevance to the discussion. I contest that it doesn't, what is lawful is the only way to run a country.
I agree. It's also why I dislike politicians whining about corporations behaving immorally. Legislate or shut up. (See Cameron's "time for a pay rise" for a recent example)
But I don't see why it's not relevant to the discussion. We weren't having a discussion about how to run the country, were we? I just saw a lot of boo-hooing about Miliband's remarks and how it means he hates rich people or something. It's perfectly valid for a politician to try to make points about the moral character of his opponents. It's up to the public whether to agree with them.
@Richard_Nabavi We could ask the Goldsmith family about it? Zac gave up the status but his brother kept his. Their sister also gave up the status, but still has her house and other things paid for by the original offshore trust.
You were just telling us all about what was moral, I assumed that was because you felt it had some relevance to the discussion. I contest that it doesn't, what is lawful is the only way to run a country.
I agree. It's also why I dislike politicians whining about corporations behaving immorally. Legislate or shut up. (See Cameron's "time for a pay rise" for a recent example)
But I don't see why it's not relevant to the discussion. We weren't having a discussion about how to run the country, were we? I just saw a lot of boo-hooing about Miliband's remarks and how it means he hates rich people or something. It's perfectly valid for a politician to try to make points about the moral character of his opponents. It's up to the public whether to agree with them.
The Tories brought their backers to the front of the political debate, not Ed.
Ed wins the GE and forms a government. It runs into Euro trouble when Greece exits. To regain some popularity, he allows a referendum. Despite having all the high cards, Ed with his characteristic efficiency cocks it up. We vote to leave.
"I'm going to put some money into this year's ISA allowance. This will mean that I don't pay income tax on the interest earned on my savings. I will therefore avoid paying that income tax.
I am also putting some money into my pension and give some to various charities I support. These too will enable me to avoid paying tax.
Will Labour be pursuing me?"
For a well respected poster that's kindergarten stuff.
This site is surely too grown up for those sorts of reductio ad absurdum posts
It's a perfectly legitimate question which a number of Labour-supporting posters have been unable to answer.
Labour have deliberately - and apparently effectively - blurred the distinction between complying with the law (tax avoidance) and breaking it (tax evasion). They should not be surprised if others wonder where the law will be drawn should they be in government.
If you were unduly cynical you might suspect that they are perfectly happy to make use of tax avoidance themselves, while garnering political brownie points by criticising it in Tories, with no intention of changing the law to make what is currently legal tax avoidance illegal tax evasion.
Interesting use of the word unduly there, if I say so myself.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .
You've undermined your own argument right there.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
This government has done quite a bit to tackle exactly the sort of avoidance that BenM, Roger, et al are complaining about.
For Roger: this is the sort of thing that Mr Carr was involved with, as far as I can see Lord F has not been accused of the same. Bordering on smear tactics to conflate the two.
So through the Deed of Covenant, Robinson opens up Miliband's personal tax affairs to millions of folks who never knew about it. If you're going to go against millionaire tax avoiders, the last thing you want coming to the voters attention is the idea that you might yourself be.... Er....a millionaire tax avoider...
Those who think Ed has played a blinder might just want to wait a while....
@Richard_Nabavi We could ask the Goldsmith family about it? Zac gave up the status but his brother kept his. Their sister also gave up the status, but still has her house and other things paid for by the original offshore trust.
Yes, it will depend on a whole host of things, see pages 27-33 of this HMRC guide for very quick overview:
You were just telling us all about what was moral, I assumed that was because you felt it had some relevance to the discussion. I contest that it doesn't, what is lawful is the only way to run a country.
I agree. It's also why I dislike politicians whining about corporations behaving immorally. Legislate or shut up. (See Cameron's "time for a pay rise" for a recent example)
You will get no disagreement with me on that one, I almost choked on my breakfast when I read that headline a few days ago. Its a strange world when politicians whine about morals and the clergy complain about laws.
You were just telling us all about what was moral, I assumed that was because you felt it had some relevance to the discussion. I contest that it doesn't, what is lawful is the only way to run a country.
I agree. It's also why I dislike politicians whining about corporations behaving immorally. Legislate or shut up. (See Cameron's "time for a pay rise" for a recent example)
But I don't see why it's not relevant to the discussion. We weren't having a discussion about how to run the country, were we? I just saw a lot of boo-hooing about Miliband's remarks and how it means he hates rich people or something. It's perfectly valid for a politician to try to make points about the moral character of his opponents. It's up to the public whether to agree with them.
The Tories brought their backers to the front of the political debate, not Ed.
It was a combination of Guardian, BBC and Labour who sought to smear the Tories.
@Richard_Nabavi Thanks Richard, but I already had a look, The actual law was apparently brought in in 1914, and it might just be me, but I am thinking it might have been framed for an entirely different era.
It beggars belief that Ed M is now trying to claim he didn't call Lord Fink 'dodgy'.
Let us take Stanley Fink, who gave £3 million to the Conservative party. The Prime Minister actually appointed him as treasurer of the party and gave him a peerage for good measure. Will he now explain what steps he is going to take about the tax avoidance activities of Lord Fink? ... [reply by Cameron] ... The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors.
Given that in the previous breath Ed had specifically mentioned Lord Fink by name, and named no-one else, and demanded that the PM should take steps in his regard, it really doesn't require a PhD in applied semantics, or a degree in law, to see that the only possible interpretation of the next sentence is that Ed was claiming Lord Fink was a "dodgy donor".
You were just telling us all about what was moral, I assumed that was because you felt it had some relevance to the discussion. I contest that it doesn't, what is lawful is the only way to run a country.
It's perfectly valid for a politician to try to make points about the moral character of his opponents. It's up to the public whether to agree with them.
Yes - let's look at the moral character of Labour politicians.
Hmm: let's see - a Labour Prime Minister interviewed by the police under caution and who is also a donor to the party and has arranged his tax affairs (according to today's press using a large number of offshore entities) to pay a very small amount of tax, a number of Labour MPs sent to prison for fraud, a party receiving a loan from a very rich person with a Swiss bank account (yes I know that's legal but that doesn't matter) and a party which sought to smear the wives and children of their opponents.
It beggars belief that Ed M is now trying to claim he didn't call Lord Fink 'dodgy'.
Let us take Stanley Fink, who gave £3 million to the Conservative party. The Prime Minister actually appointed him as treasurer of the party and gave him a peerage for good measure. Will he now explain what steps he is going to take about the tax avoidance activities of Lord Fink? ... [reply by Cameron] ... The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors.
Given that in the previous breath Ed had specifically mentioned Lord Fink by name, and named no-one else, and demanded that the PM should take steps in his regard, it really doesn't require a PhD is applied semantics, or a degree in law, to see that the only possible interpretation of the next sentence is that Ed was claiming Lord Fink was a "dodgy donor".
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .
You've undermined your own argument right there.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
Have you never heard of First Tier Tribunals?
The exact reason they exist is to deal with Tax Avoidance and only Tax Avoidance. Because Tax Efficiency is never questioned and Tax Evasion is dealt with as a Crime.
That's why the distinction is important. If you practise Tax Avoidance, you accept that because you are not using intended legistlative protocols to reduce your tax you are at risk of the structure being closed by legislation (which might eat up most of the costs you've paid out in Tax Advice) or the loophole not only being closed by being successfully challenged at the Tribunal by HMRC and you being handed a substantial bill for back tax, penalties and interest.
Put simple, under the law in the UK you can perfectly legally avoid tax and STILL end up with a big bill.
@Richard_Nabavi Thanks Richard, but I already had a look, The actual law was apparently brought in in 1914, and it might just be me, but I am thinking it might have been framed for an entirely different era.
It's mostly determined by case law, though. But yes, you are right in your implication that increased globalisation, international mobility, and ease of cross-border transfers makes this whole area quite a tricky one for the tax authorities in all countries.
It beggars belief that Ed M is now trying to claim he didn't call Lord Fink 'dodgy'.
Let us take Stanley Fink, who gave £3 million to the Conservative party. The Prime Minister actually appointed him as treasurer of the party and gave him a peerage for good measure. Will he now explain what steps he is going to take about the tax avoidance activities of Lord Fink? ... [reply by Cameron] ... The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors.
Given that in the previous breath Ed had specifically mentioned Lord Fink by name, and named no-one else, and demanded that the PM should take steps in his regard, it really doesn't require a PhD is applied semantics, or a degree in law, to see that the only possible interpretation of the next sentence is that Ed was claiming Lord Fink was a "dodgy donor".
Milliband would never dare repeat that exact statement outside the HoC.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .
You've undermined your own argument right there.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
Have you never heard of First Tier Tribunals?
The exact reason they exist is to deal with Tax Avoidance and only Tax Avoidance. Because Tax Efficiency is never questioned and Tax Evasion is dealt with as a Crime.
That's why the distinction is important. If you practise Tax Avoidance, you accept that because you are not using intended legistlative protocols to reduce your tax you are at risk of the structure being closed by legislation (which might eat up most of the costs you've paid out in Tax Advice) or the loophole not only being closed by being successfully challenged at the Tribunal by HMRC and you being handed a substantial bill for back tax, penalties and interest.
Put simple, under the law in the UK you can perfectly legally avoid tax and STILL end up with a big bill.
Since I'm currently dealing with exactly such a case I suspect I know rather more about this than you do.
It beggars belief that Ed M is now trying to claim he didn't call Lord Fink 'dodgy'.
Let us take Stanley Fink, who gave £3 million to the Conservative party. The Prime Minister actually appointed him as treasurer of the party and gave him a peerage for good measure. Will he now explain what steps he is going to take about the tax avoidance activities of Lord Fink? ... [reply by Cameron] ... The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors.
Given that in the previous breath Ed had specifically mentioned Lord Fink by name, and named no-one else, and demanded that the PM should take steps in his regard, it really doesn't require a PhD is applied semantics, or a degree in law, to see that the only possible interpretation of the next sentence is that Ed was claiming Lord Fink was a "dodgy donor".
From what you quote Ed is correct.
If you are right, Ed will be asked to say who he WAS calling dodgy then - so that they might issue a writ....
Of course he was talking about Fink. Stop being wilfully stupid. We know you aren't.
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .
You've undermined your own argument right there.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
Have you never heard of First Tier Tribunals?
The exact reason they exist is to deal with Tax Avoidance and only Tax Avoidance. Because Tax Efficiency is never questioned and Tax Evasion is dealt with as a Crime.
That's why the distinction is important. If you practise Tax Avoidance, you accept that because you are not using intended legistlative protocols to reduce your tax you are at risk of the structure being closed by legislation (which might eat up most of the costs you've paid out in Tax Advice) or the loophole not only being closed by being successfully challenged at the Tribunal by HMRC and you being handed a substantial bill for back tax, penalties and interest.
Put simple, under the law in the UK you can perfectly legally avoid tax and STILL end up with a big bill.
Since I'm currently dealing with exactly such a case I suspect I know rather more about this than you do.
Then you will know that the HMRC will appeal where it loses, will persist to the end and all your costs are likely to be unrecoverable even if you are one of the lucky ones that win. Perhaps the stringency of your argument is based more on personal slight at being pursued by HMRC rather than any genuine analysis of Tax Avoidance.
I believe* that "corker" came from the concept of closing the matter down (i.e. putting the cork in bottle). Eg such an amazing argument that it wins hands down.
I don't see how this poll comes anywhere close to that. Unless it refers to the LibDem position - and how it shows it's all over for them?
*I might be wrong. It has been known. Occasionally.
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .
You've undermined your own argument right there.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
Have you never heard of First Tier Tribunals?
The exact reason they exist is to deal with Tax Avoidance and only Tax Avoidance. Because Tax Efficiency is never questioned and Tax Evasion is dealt with as a Crime.
That's why the distinction is important. If you practise Tax Avoidance, you accept that because you are not using intended legistlative protocols to reduce your tax you are at risk of the structure being closed by legislation (which might eat up most of the costs you've paid out in Tax Advice) or the loophole not only being closed by being successfully challenged at the Tribunal by HMRC and you being handed a substantial bill for back tax, penalties and interest.
Put simple, under the law in the UK you can perfectly legally avoid tax and STILL end up with a big bill.
Since I'm currently dealing with exactly such a case I suspect I know rather more about this than you do.
Then you will know that the HMRC will appeal where it loses, will persist to the end and all your costs are likely to be unrecoverable even if you are one of the lucky ones that win. Perhaps the stringency of your argument is based more on personal slight at being pursued by HMRC rather than any genuine analysis of Tax Avoidance.
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
Let's hope some journalist asks: "So, Mr. Miliband, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to confirm that you were not in any way suggesting that Lord Fink is a 'dodgy donor? "
and a follow-up question:
"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"
[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
Someone deciding to work four days a week instead of five also deprives the Treasury of income.
Then you will know that the HMRC will appeal where it loses, will persist to the end and all your costs are likely to be unrecoverable even if you are one of the lucky ones that win. Perhaps the stringency of your argument is based more on personal slight at being pursued by HMRC rather than any genuine analysis of Tax Avoidance.
HMRC's record for winning cases isn't that great.
Wouldn't claim it was really. But the point I was trying to make was that Tax Avoidance is completely difference to Tax Efficiency (using the as intended legislative tax reduction schemes).
Cyclefree is arguing they are the same because they are both legal when in reality the risk is quite different for the two classes of tax reduction.
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
What was your prediction for the referendum, Yes @ 41%+/-1.5% with a certainty of 90-95% was it ?
"Let us take Stanley Fink, who gave £3 million to the Conservative party. The Prime Minister actually appointed him as treasurer of the party and gave him a peerage for good measure. Will he now explain what steps he is going to take about the tax avoidance activities of Lord Fink?"
I presume Ed knows of certain tax avoidance taken by Lord Fink. A Swiss bank account would probably be enough. He never suggested criminal activity so ANY aggressive avoidance would do. A Swiss bank account would under these circumstances take some explaining.
I repeat the case of Jimmy Carr is worth revisiting
I believe* that "corker" came from the concept of closing the matter down (i.e. putting the cork in bottle). Eg such an amazing argument that it wins hands down.
I don't see how this poll comes anywhere close to that. Unless it refers to the LibDem position - and how it shows it's all over for them?
*I might be wrong. It has been known. Occasionally.
@Richard_Nabavi Then the Tories are home and hosed, but we will have to see how the statement pans out. One thing for sure, if he makes it, it will get a wider audience than PMQ's
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Jack
I don't wish to cast doubt on your sound judgement, nor the quality output from your ARSE and other organs, but supposing - purely hypothetically - that by some extraordinary perverse quirk of fate this country does end up with Ed as Prime Minister.....to which country will you be emigrating?
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .
You've undermined your own argument right there.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
Have you never heard of First Tier Tribunals?
The exact reason they exist is to deal with Tax Avoidance and only Tax Avoidance. Because Tax Efficiency is never questioned and Tax Evasion is dealt with as a Crime.
That's why the distinction is important. If you practise Tax Avoidance, you accept that because you are not using intended legistlative protocols to reduce your tax you are at risk of the structure being closed by legislation (which might eat up most of the costs you've paid out in Tax Advice) or the loophole not only being closed by being successfully challenged at the Tribunal by HMRC and you being handed a substantial bill for back tax, penalties and interest.
Put simple, under the law in the UK you can perfectly legally avoid tax and STILL end up with a big bill.
Since I'm currently dealing with exactly such a case I suspect I know rather more about this than you do.
Then you will know that the HMRC will appeal where it loses, will persist to the end and all your costs are likely to be unrecoverable even if you are one of the lucky ones that win. Perhaps the stringency of your argument is based more on personal slight at being pursued by HMRC rather than any genuine analysis of Tax Avoidance.
Not me personally. I am involved in this in a professional capacity.
Still nice to see that your response was to level an ad hominem insult without knowing the facts.
Then you will know that the HMRC will appeal where it loses, will persist to the end and all your costs are likely to be unrecoverable even if you are one of the lucky ones that win. Perhaps the stringency of your argument is based more on personal slight at being pursued by HMRC rather than any genuine analysis of Tax Avoidance.
HMRC's record for winning cases isn't that great.
Wouldn't claim it was really. But the point I was trying to make was that Tax Avoidance is completely difference to Tax Efficiency (using the as intended legislative tax reduction schemes).
Cyclefree is arguing they are the same because they are both legal when in reality the risk is quite different for the two classes of tax reduction.
HMRC are so bad they are the only outfit to lose to Rangers in recent times..
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
Let's hope some journalist asks: "So, Mr. Miliband, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to confirm that you were not in any way suggesting that Lord Fink is a 'dodgy donor? "
and a follow-up question:
"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"
[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]
What if the Miliband tax issue (eek, nearly wrote "dodge" wouldn't want Eddie suing) really blows up and dominates the press?
Imagine it became so big that Miliband was forced to resign and Labour somehow came up with a credible leader. I mean, surely they have one somewhere in their ranks.
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
Let's hope some journalist asks: "So, Mr. Miliband, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to confirm that you were not in any way suggesting that Lord Fink is a 'dodgy donor? "
and a follow-up question:
"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"
[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]
There's definitely blood in the water now on this.... If Lord Fink isn't the dodgy donor he was referring to - then who is?
By teatime, Labour will be trying to tell us that Hansard has it wrong, and Ed was ACTUALLY referring to a dodgy donner kebab he had when out with Gareth...
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
Let's hope some journalist asks: "So, Mr. Miliband, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to confirm that you were not in any way suggesting that Lord Fink is a 'dodgy donor? "
and a follow-up question:
"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"
[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]
What if the Miliband tax issue (eek, nearly wrote "dodge" wouldn't want Eddie suing) really blows up and dominates the press?
Imagine it became so big that Miliband was forced to resign and Labour somehow came up with a credible leader. I mean, surely they have one somewhere in their ranks.
They only have one, and he doesn't want the job !!!
Then you will know that the HMRC will appeal where it loses, will persist to the end and all your costs are likely to be unrecoverable even if you are one of the lucky ones that win. Perhaps the stringency of your argument is based more on personal slight at being pursued by HMRC rather than any genuine analysis of Tax Avoidance.
Not me personally. I am involved in this in a professional capacity.
Still nice to see that your response was to level an ad hominem insult without knowing the facts.
Personal slight or personal interest, it's the same effect. Your interest blinds you to the reality. Tax Avoidance is not anything like Tax Efficiency as while both are legal, one can have quite significant consequences.
If Labour was lead by Alan Johnson, Conservatives by Dan Hannan, UKIP by Douglas Carswell, Lib Dems by Tim Farron (We'll keep Sturgeon in as SNP leader - she's genuinely better than Salmond...) what would the polling be like now ?
@Pulpstar Much the same as it is now? Clouded and confused.
They'd probably all cancel each other out to be fair.
Party members would all possibly be happier though (Farage is on huge ratings with kippers though so they're fine with him) ~ Johnson for Miliband would be the biggest effect and then Farron for Clegg methinks.
If Labour was lead by Alan Johnson, Conservatives by Dan Hannan, UKIP by Douglas Carswell, Lib Dems by Tim Farron (We'll keep Sturgeon in as SNP leader - she's genuinely better than Salmond...) what would the polling be like now ?
A few Budgets back Osborne sought to close the loopholes whereby rich people used charitable giving to reduce their tax bill with little apparent benefit to charities. The noise from those complaining - including the Labour party - was deafening. And Osborne, wrongly in my view, backed down.
Funny how all the concern now being expressed by Labour at tax avoidance and artificial schemes and rich people not paying their fair share etc etc did not apply to them. Labour were desperate to defend rich people using tax avoidance schemes then.
Then you will know that the HMRC will appeal where it loses, will persist to the end and all your costs are likely to be unrecoverable even if you are one of the lucky ones that win. Perhaps the stringency of your argument is based more on personal slight at being pursued by HMRC rather than any genuine analysis of Tax Avoidance.
Not me personally. I am involved in this in a professional capacity.
Still nice to see that your response was to level an ad hominem insult without knowing the facts.
Personal slight or personal interest, it's the same effect. Your interest blinds you to the reality. Tax Avoidance is not anything like Tax Efficiency as while both are legal, one can have quite significant consequences.
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Jack
I don't wish to cast doubt on your sound judgement, nor the quality output from your ARSE and other organs, but supposing - purely hypothetically - that by some extraordinary perverse quirk of fate this country does end up with Ed as Prime Minister.....to which country will you be emigrating?
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
What was your prediction for the referendum, Yes @ 41%+/-1.5% with a certainty of 90-95% was it ?
The result was an outlier.
For over 2 years I was advising PB that YES would not win and the scale of the defeat was the only matter in question. I also advised early on that turnout would exceed 80% and my final projection, one month out, was 85%.
If I had stayed on PB to polling day the projection would have moved to around 56/44 - not too shabby but still 2 points out.
My success at GE's here and in the US is unparalleled in the history of mankind - I am of course TOTY and have been since 2010.
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Jack
I don't wish to cast doubt on your sound judgement, nor the quality output from your ARSE and other organs, but supposing - purely hypothetically - that by some extraordinary perverse quirk of fate this country does end up with Ed as Prime Minister.....to which country will you be emigrating?
If Ed is Prime Minister, then it will surely only be a matter of months before an independent Scotland is an option?
I believe* that "corker" came from the concept of closing the matter down (i.e. putting the cork in bottle). Eg such an amazing argument that it wins hands down.
I don't see how this poll comes anywhere close to that. Unless it refers to the LibDem position - and how it shows it's all over for them?
The Ipsos headline is "LDs at lowest level of support since 1990"
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Jack
I don't wish to cast doubt on your sound judgement, nor the quality output from your ARSE and other organs, but supposing - purely hypothetically - that by some extraordinary perverse quirk of fate this country does end up with Ed as Prime Minister.....to which country will you be emigrating?
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
What was your prediction for the referendum, Yes @ 41%+/-1.5% with a certainty of 90-95% was it ?
The result was an outlier.
For over 2 years I was advising PB that YES would not win and the scale of the defeat was the only matter in question. I also advised early on that turnout would exceed 80% and my final projection, one month out, was 85%.
If I had stayed on PB to polling day the projection would have moved to around 56/44 - not too shabby but still 2 points out.
My success at GE's here and in the US is unparalleled in the history of mankind - I am of course TOTY and have been since 2010.
You'll need some good tips to retain that title this year.
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Jack
I don't wish to cast doubt on your sound judgement, nor the quality output from your ARSE and other organs, but supposing - purely hypothetically - that by some extraordinary perverse quirk of fate this country does end up with Ed as Prime Minister.....to which country will you be emigrating?
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
Let's hope some journalist asks: "So, Mr. Miliband, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to confirm that you were not in any way suggesting that Lord Fink is a 'dodgy donor? "
and a follow-up question:
"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"
[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]
What if the Miliband tax issue (eek, nearly wrote "dodge" wouldn't want Eddie suing) really blows up and dominates the press?
Imagine it became so big that Miliband was forced to resign and Labour somehow came up with a credible leader. I mean, surely they have one somewhere in their ranks.
Having a rich tory donor trying to sue EdM during the campaign would do wonders for his poll ratings.
If Labour was lead by Alan Johnson, Conservatives by Dan Hannan, UKIP by Douglas Carswell, Lib Dems by Tim Farron (We'll keep Sturgeon in as SNP leader - she's genuinely better than Salmond...) what would the polling be like now ?
That would depend when they took over. Farron would have left the Coalition the same day he was elected. Carswell would have rejoined a Tory Party under Dan Hannon, as would most of UKIP. LibDems and Labour would be scrapping over the same body of voters.
If the Greens changed to a leader who wasn't bat-shit crazy, that might shake things up too....
Comments
There are lots of things I don't comment on. Bizarre to criticise me for it. I honestly cannot remember the Jimmy Carr matter. If it was a year or so ago, I was almost certainly more preoccupied with family health matters.
The Ipsos Mori numbers for England are Con 38%, Labour 37%, UKIP 10%, Green 8%, Others 7%.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/17/mystery-tony-blairs-money-solved
12 weeks to save Crossover!
But I don't see why it's not relevant to the discussion. We weren't having a discussion about how to run the country, were we? I just saw a lot of boo-hooing about Miliband's remarks and how it means he hates rich people or something. It's perfectly valid for a politician to try to make points about the moral character of his opponents. It's up to the public whether to agree with them.
MORI poll - more a plain Jane than a corker if you ask me.
We could ask the Goldsmith family about it? Zac gave up the status but his brother kept his.
Their sister also gave up the status, but still has her house and other things paid for by the original offshore trust.
UKIP in single digits for the first time in any poll since September?
Ed wins the GE and forms a government. It runs into Euro trouble when Greece exits. To regain some popularity, he allows a referendum. Despite having all the high cards, Ed with his characteristic efficiency cocks it up. We vote to leave.
Ukip win by proxy.
Interesting use of the word unduly there, if I say so myself.
This government has done quite a bit to tackle exactly the sort of avoidance that BenM, Roger, et al are complaining about.
For Roger: this is the sort of thing that Mr Carr was involved with, as far as I can see Lord F has not been accused of the same. Bordering on smear tactics to conflate the two.
Big turnaround.
Those who think Ed has played a blinder might just want to wait a while....
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/366836/rdr1_1_.pdf
Thanks Richard, but I already had a look, The actual law was apparently brought in in 1914, and it might just be me, but I am thinking it might have been framed for an entirely different era.
Let us take Stanley Fink, who gave £3 million to the Conservative party. The Prime Minister actually appointed him as treasurer of the party and gave him a peerage for good measure. Will he now explain what steps he is going to take about the tax avoidance activities of Lord Fink?
...
[reply by Cameron]
...
The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors.
Given that in the previous breath Ed had specifically mentioned Lord Fink by name, and named no-one else, and demanded that the PM should take steps in his regard, it really doesn't require a PhD in applied semantics, or a degree in law, to see that the only possible interpretation of the next sentence is that Ed was claiming Lord Fink was a "dodgy donor".
Hmm: let's see - a Labour Prime Minister interviewed by the police under caution and who is also a donor to the party and has arranged his tax affairs (according to today's press using a large number of offshore entities) to pay a very small amount of tax, a number of Labour MPs sent to prison for fraud, a party receiving a loan from a very rich person with a Swiss bank account (yes I know that's legal but that doesn't matter) and a party which sought to smear the wives and children of their opponents.
The exact reason they exist is to deal with Tax Avoidance and only Tax Avoidance. Because Tax Efficiency is never questioned and Tax Evasion is dealt with as a Crime.
That's why the distinction is important. If you practise Tax Avoidance, you accept that because you are not using intended legistlative protocols to reduce your tax you are at risk of the structure being closed by legislation (which might eat up most of the costs you've paid out in Tax Advice) or the loophole not only being closed by being successfully challenged at the Tribunal by HMRC and you being handed a substantial bill for back tax, penalties and interest.
Put simple, under the law in the UK you can perfectly legally avoid tax and STILL end up with a big bill.
Labour barely behind in the south is interesting.
Of course he was talking about Fink. Stop being wilfully stupid. We know you aren't.
Admittedly Mr Blue - however I was expecting changes of more than 1 or 2%. for a 'corker'..!
Well, yes, but in the Blair/Brown era they'd have been less transparent about it.
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
2005?
Doesn't sound good.
I don't see how this poll comes anywhere close to that. Unless it refers to the LibDem position - and how it shows it's all over for them?
*I might be wrong. It has been known. Occasionally.
and a follow-up question:
"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"
[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]
Don't tell me people think the polls are total b8llocks...???
Surely not
It's record on bringing cases forward is hardly stellar either.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Someone deciding to work four days a week instead of five also deprives the Treasury of income.
That's not a very good test for dodgy-ness.
Cyclefree is arguing they are the same because they are both legal when in reality the risk is quite different for the two classes of tax reduction.
"Let us take Stanley Fink, who gave £3 million to the Conservative party. The Prime Minister actually appointed him as treasurer of the party and gave him a peerage for good measure. Will he now explain what steps he is going to take about the tax avoidance activities of Lord Fink?"
I presume Ed knows of certain tax avoidance taken by Lord Fink. A Swiss bank account would probably be enough. He never suggested criminal activity so ANY aggressive avoidance would do. A Swiss bank account would under these circumstances take some explaining.
I repeat the case of Jimmy Carr is worth revisiting
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/nyregion/neighborhood-report-long-island-city-yeasty-smell-blows-sea-era-ends-fink-bakery.html
Then the Tories are home and hosed, but we will have to see how the statement pans out.
One thing for sure, if he makes it, it will get a wider audience than PMQ's
Now which party accepted a donation in shares recently, and why was it made in shares?
I don't wish to cast doubt on your sound judgement, nor the quality output from your ARSE and other organs, but supposing - purely hypothetically - that by some extraordinary perverse quirk of fate this country does end up with Ed as Prime Minister.....to which country will you be emigrating?
Still nice to see that your response was to level an ad hominem insult without knowing the facts.
Imagine it became so big that Miliband was forced to resign and Labour somehow came up with a credible leader. I mean, surely they have one somewhere in their ranks.
By teatime, Labour will be trying to tell us that Hansard has it wrong, and Ed was ACTUALLY referring to a dodgy donner kebab he had when out with Gareth...
Much the same as it is now? Clouded and confused.
The "dodgy PM backed by dodgy donors" has really hit its target. Smoke pouring from the Tory bunker today.
Party members would all possibly be happier though (Farage is on huge ratings with kippers though so they're fine with him)
~
Johnson for Miliband would be the biggest effect and then Farron for Clegg methinks.
CON -
LD +
UKIP -
Funny how all the concern now being expressed by Labour at tax avoidance and artificial schemes and rich people not paying their fair share etc etc did not apply to them. Labour were desperate to defend rich people using tax avoidance schemes then.
For over 2 years I was advising PB that YES would not win and the scale of the defeat was the only matter in question. I also advised early on that turnout would exceed 80% and my final projection, one month out, was 85%.
If I had stayed on PB to polling day the projection would have moved to around 56/44 - not too shabby but still 2 points out.
My success at GE's here and in the US is unparalleled in the history of mankind - I am of course TOTY and have been since 2010.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3527/Liberal-Democrats-at-lowest-level-of-support-since-1990.aspx
Got any ?
@Antifrank and @Peterthepunter are in a clear lead right now.
If the Greens changed to a leader who wasn't bat-shit crazy, that might shake things up too....
When you post the results of your arse, have you ever considered using a pie chart to illustrate them?