Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
It might be right on balance; I didn't say it was wrong. I said it wasn't as clear cut as that.
I know this is anecdotal, but I've been very struck by a change in attitude towards Ed amongst friends and acquaintances over the last couple of months. Whereas previously he was seen as a bit of a joke but fairly harmless, attitudes seem to be hardening into a much greater hostility. Now, these are mainly Conservative voters in this leafy part of Southern England, so I'm not claiming they are representative of the country as a whole. However, I believe they are representative of many Con-UKIP waverers.
Perhaps the election polarisation is beginning to happen, we shall see.
I have to say that I have also been aware of that. The attitude towards Ed has been changing from mockery and superior (justified or not) amusement to outright dislike and hostility.
Does this indicate, despite some appearances to the contrary, that Ed is finally making his mark and giving himself some definition? Maybe.
Could be. He's no longer a joke.
I remember Blair changing from Bambi to a red-eyed devil in double quick time. True in his case of course!
'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'
A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.
Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.
The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur. It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.
I state again. They saved nothing They have saved nothing They probably will save nothing
You need to look at intention.
They were putting in place a scheme that *would* have saved substantial money had certain unfortunate circumstances occurred.
I don't see any "scheme". The exercise was merely to take advantage of something that Parliament had explicitly given to Ralph, but his will had failed to utilise effectively.
Lots of people don't put money into ISAs each tax year. Are they allowed to exercise a deed of variation in May to allow them to utilise last year's allowance? I
I can't speak on ISAs, but in general you are allowed to amend your tax return, including more favourably, up to a year after filing it.
Similarly, in certain circs, you can amend a will.
Not sure what your point is, other than the rules on ISAs should be relaxed?
My point is that it is not usually possible to backdate intentions. Amending your tax return is usually a matter of correcting the record, not changing your actions [there are exceptions].
Not really. I've often amended my return because "I fancy utilising such and such in that year, rather than this year, to pay less tax a result..."
'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'
A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.
Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.
The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur. It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.
I state again. They saved nothing They have saved nothing They probably will save nothing
You need to look at intention.
They were putting in place a scheme that *would* have saved substantial money had certain unfortunate circumstances occurred.
I don't see any "scheme". The exercise was merely to take advantage of something that Parliament had explicitly given to Ralph, but his will had failed to utilise effectively.
Lots of people don't put money into ISAs each tax year. Are they allowed to exercise a deed of variation in May to allow them to utilise last year's allowance? I
I can't speak on ISAs, but in general you are allowed to amend your tax return, including more favourably, up to a year after filing it.
Similarly, in certain circs, you can amend a will.
Not sure what your point is, other than the rules on ISAs should be relaxed?
My point is that it is not usually possible to backdate intentions. Amending your tax return is usually a matter of correcting the record, not changing your actions [there are exceptions].
Not really. I've often amended my return because "I fancy utilising such and such in that year, rather than this year, to pay less tax a result..."
To be clear: Ed Miliband's tax affairs are fair political game, sauce for the goose and gander and all that. I have no issue with the Daily Mail's headline, but...
On the Milly angle - either Tom Baldwin has come out with a comparison so vile he should probably be sacked on the spot or Nick Robinson has made a genuine error of reporting judgement. One of the two.
Baldwin 1/8 Robinson 9/2
I won't be taking bets as we may never know the truth :-)
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
It might be right on balance; I didn't say it was wrong. I said it wasn't as clear cut as that.
I know this is anecdotal, but I've been very struck by a change in attitude towards Ed amongst friends and acquaintances over the last couple of months. Whereas previously he was seen as a bit of a joke but fairly harmless, attitudes seem to be hardening into a much greater hostility. Now, these are mainly Conservative voters in this leafy part of Southern England, so I'm not claiming they are representative of the country as a whole. However, I believe they are representative of many Con-UKIP waverers.
Perhaps the election polarisation is beginning to happen, we shall see.
I have to say that I have also been aware of that. The attitude towards Ed has been changing from mockery and superior (justified or not) amusement to outright dislike and hostility.
Does this indicate, despite some appearances to the contrary, that Ed is finally making his mark and giving himself some definition? Maybe.
Could be. He's no longer a joke.
I remember Blair changing from Bambi to a red-eyed devil in double quick time. True in his case of course!
To be clear: Ed Miliband's tax affairs are fair political game, sauce for the goose and gander and all that. I have no issue with the Daily Mail's headline, but...
On the Milly angle - either Tom Baldwin has come out with a comparison so vile he should probably be sacked on the spot or Nick Robinson has made a genuine error of reporting judgement. One of the two.
Baldwin 1/8 Robinson 9/2
I won't be taking bets as we may never know the truth :-)
+ Miliband is lucky that there is such little focus on his retraction of the allegation that Lord Fink is "dodgy". Miliband smeared a man who built a world-leading British business and is a noted philanthropist who dedicates substantial time and resources to helping under-privileged children, all on the (incorrect, it transpires) basis that a Swiss bank account was an indication of impropriety and solely for political reasons. Miliband then retracted his allegation in the most offensive and weasly way, by trying to pretend he had not made it. The context was clear. He could have been crucified, but he got away with it because...
+ Miliband was also very lucky that Fink over-reacted and then had to withdraw his threat of litigation, and in doing so managed to reinforce the stereotype of wealthy Tories out of touch with the real world. That handed Labour the advantage yesterday. That said...
+ Some quarters of the press are focusing on his mother's tax planning, which planning was and remains entirely legitimate. They are making far too much of this. Miliband is not guilty of hypocrisy, but he has brought this on himself by playing fast and loose with the truth and being very arbitrary in his judgements. This could still play out very badly for him and for Labour if - as is quite possible - senior Labour politicians have employed or benefited from lawful tax avoidance mechanisms
+ It is therefore too early to declare who benefits from this. At the moment it is probably Miliband and Labour - because (a) Fink has reinforced a negative stereotype; (b) the over-the-top attack on Miliband will rally the left; and (c) Miliband's clear anti-avoidance position - while simplistic, opportunistic and muddle-headed - will be attractive to many on the left and many anti-politics types. But that could change. More likely it will just get bogged down in unedifying claim and counter-claim.
+ please can we have some more grown ups at party headquarters?
Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
What with Unions, plutocrats and stolen money they refuse to return, I don't think any of the traditional parties supporters have much moral high ground to stand on.
Lets see how the Sunday's round out 'a good week for Ed'.........
In denial my friend.
So you think Tim Montgomerie has this wrong?
The sheer shallowness of what is coming through in current threads is pathetic.
Name calling.
Not a sign of much confidence in your argument.....
And no, I don't hold IDS biggest fan in particular regard, but then I can understand Lib Dem squeamishness over charges of hypocrisy and donations.....
Leaving aside the legitimate tax arrangements: with all the focus on HSBC and the help they seem to have given to corrupt third-world officials, arms-smugglers, drug-dealers and other crooks, no-one seems to be asking whether other Swiss private-banking arms of big international banks were very different.
It just comes down to wickedness. Labour supporters are low-life scum. That said, I could have sworn that a fair few Labour MPs implicated in the expenses scandal lost their seats at the last election. I am not sure which perjurers, war criminals and kiddy fiddlers retained them.
If the cap fits. Can you cite an example of a Labour safe seat lost patently because of the sitting Labour MP's unsavoury reputation? Who is Labour's Neil Hamilton, its Jeremy Thorpe?
Equally, we have seen Labour's Rotherham police chief resign to be replaced by another Labourite. Where has anything like that ever happened in a Tory or LibDem area?
For some of us, it is a very uncomfortable feeling that 30+% of our fellow citizens are fine with being represented by such people. It is all quite 1930s Germany.
+ Miliband was also very lucky that Fink over-reacted and then had to withdraw his threat of litigation, and in doing so managed to reinforce the stereotype of wealthy Tories out of touch with the real world. That handed Labour the advantage yesterday. That said...
Yeah, Fink finked the whole thing up, really. If he was going to make one at all, he should have been much tighter on his threat - "if he calls me dodgy outside the Commons, I'll sue". As it is he was outmanoeuvred (albeit by a weaselly reformulation of the charge that clearly went past the Labour lawyers first).
There's probably been a small swing to Labour over this, though that may well fade. The biggest boost to Labour will be in the enthusiasm and morale of their activists. Just witness the last couple of days on here.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but spent 15 years wrestling with how to reduce our family bill, from £300k to zero, which I achieved. I have also completed the some 60 pages of form IHT400 and related schedules to permit a grant of probate.
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
[snipped]
You file the letter with your will and other financial papers. That's it. It is not a complicated technical scheme that abuses legislation. Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
Many thanks for taking the trouble. As I am in a similar position and need to do a similar deed, it is very useful to have my own understanding confirmed. (DYOR and all that, already done, of course). But what I could not find out was whether the letter had to be addressed to anyone or just 'to whom it may concern'. Did you come to any conclusion on that, please?
It doesn't have to be addressed or sent to anyone. It is just a record of the variation. You keep it with your papers in case your executor in due course has to show it to HMRC to prove that you didn't in fact inherit the money from the estate.
In the very unlikely event that more IHT has to be paid from the varied estate then you have to let HMRC know.
Excellent, thanks to both of you. In my case the IHT is unlikely to change, but I can see this being the case should (for instance) some of the variation be to redirect moneys to a charity (which would be exempt from IHT).
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
Leaving aside the legitimate tax arrangements: with all the focus on HSBC and the help they seem to have given to corrupt third-world officials, arms-smugglers, drug-dealers and other crooks, no-one seems to be asking whether other Swiss private-banking arms of big international banks were very different.
It's of minor importance, unless former high ranking executives have subsequently worked for the Tory Party.
Remember, that whatever the merits of the case, it's really about the politics.
Leaving aside the legitimate tax arrangements: with all the focus on HSBC and the help they seem to have given to corrupt third-world officials, arms-smugglers, drug-dealers and other crooks, no-one seems to be asking whether other Swiss private-banking arms of big international banks were very different.
It's of minor importance, unless former high ranking executives have subsequently worked for the Tory Party.
Let's not forget that the Tories kicked all this off by bringing their business supporters into the political debate to attack Labour.
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
It may not be as clear-cut as that. Of course those who hate the Tories will agree that this all shows how terrible the Tories are. However, the Mail front page was pretty bad for Ed and we may see some polarisation of views; realisation of quite what Ed Miliband is like is beginning to get through and I think will shore up the Conservative vote especially amongst Tory/UKIP waverers.
The Mail's front page will be bad for every non-Tory for the next 2 months. As I recall they tried to link Clegg to the Nazis during the last election. The Mail is a Tory attack dog, if anything its personal attacks unite Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP supporters against the Tories, everyone has suffered their tirades. I have long held the view that it is actually the Mail that gives the Tories the "nasty" party image that causes them so many problems. I just smile when people on here quote their latest salvo as though it is going to have a huge political impact.
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
.
MPs have been doing damn all for months now. Perhaps they could have spent some time delving into tax legislation to iron out some wrinkles? Especially those Labour MPs who are conspicuous by their absence, having legged it up to Scotland to try and save their seats....
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
Sure, that's the legal position. But if Ed's going to call what Lord Fink has done [what has he done?] tax avoidance, then he can in return be labelled a tax avoider. We've moved onto the natural English meaning of the word "avoid" rather than the technical meaning of "tax avoidance".
Clawing back bonuses after ten years seems the cult of the mob with pitchforks.
I've no love for bankers - they are scum on the pond of life. Banking should merely oil the wheels of industry, an administrative necessity, not a key to making a fortune. And they do themselves no favours by squealing that they'll clear off elsewhere if we dare to tax their ill-gotten gains.
But clawing money back after ten years? Childish, vindictive and unworthy of a grown-up political party.
Like most Labour party proposals it is less than it seems. Currently most banks have provisions which say that whatever compesation is awarded will consist - above a certain level - of shares which will not be given to the employee until a number of years have elapsed. There will also be clawback provisions depending on fault of some kind having been found, based on the firm's internal disciplinary measures. But once the shares have vested then it is difficult for an employer to claim them back - without taking legal action, though they can claw back by not paying any more if the employer has behaved badly in some way. Currently regulators are looking at extending the deferral period to 7 years. So Labour's proposal to extend it by a further 3 is not that great and not wholly unreasonable. Short-termism is one of the curses of this industry.
But note that it is contingent on the banker having been found to have done something wrong. If that is referring to criminal action, that is the issue - because the number of bankers who have behaved stupidly or negligently is far greater than the number who have behaved criminally. For the latter you need more and faster enforcement. For the former, this is already being dealt with by the sorts of measures I've summarised above.
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
Absolutely. The sheer ignorance and envy on display here is eye-opening.
Lord Clyde's judgement is still good law, AFAIK.
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores... [T]he taxpayer is ... entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
Independent editor on daily politcs, speaks well IMO
I think the latest IPSOS Mori could well be a low outlier for UKIP btw - I may be proved wrong in time but...
Probably... I genuinely don't get excited by 20%+ polls or disappointed by 9-11%ers... There are so many polls and so many different results it's almost boring because if the overkill
All you can hope for is a bookie to over react to one I suppose
This time last year ICM has Ukip on 20% in the euros in 3rd place I think... So what really?
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of individual out of their allegiance to Labour. It doesn't matter if Miliband is shown to be a hypocritical moral incompetent: Labour voters expect nothing better of their politicians and don't think it matters.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
Agreed. It's amazing how Labour MPs never lose their seats. God knows what everyone is going on about Scotland for.
Scotland has a new more-morally superior lefty alternative who are fighting the Evil Tories harder. Labour being punished for siding with the enemy during IndyRef.
Dunno about 'new' - the SNP and SSP have been around for some time. Or perhaps you mean the new left wing party the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition are looking at setting up in Scotland, according to the National this morning [no website AFAIK ergo no linky]. Specifically aimed at disaffected SLAB members and unionists. Intending to set up after the GE, but TUSC are already putting up a candidate in Glasgow South, Brian Smith who got 351 last time round (0.9%), against Tom Harris. Whether an increase in the TUSC vote is enough to help split the Labour vote remains to be seen.
Equally, we have seen Labour's Rotherham police chief resign to be replaced by another Labourite. Where has anything like that ever happened in a Tory or LibDem area?
For some of us, it is a very uncomfortable feeling that 30+% of our fellow citizens are fine with being represented by such people. It is all quite 1930s Germany.
Ummm... you *are* familiar with the circumstances surrounding the Eastleigh by-election, right?
Before that comes the public finances data for January. I have read that this is a huge month because it's the month when Britain's small businesses and self employed return.
Plus, Osborne may have a war chest because gilt coupons are going through the floor
I agree totally.
There will be the usual vicissitudes in the polling till then. The budget is the last parliamentary chance to seriously steal the narrative. Osborne has proved he can both turn it for and against him. Will be interesting.
After that, it will be the non parliamentary stuff; campaign and the debates (if they happen).
All in all, Labour will be happy with the way this week has gone. Miliband is good on this pick-a-fight, moral outrage stuff. I don't think it changes anybody's vote any more than the Brown's-a-bully-who-throws-Nokias (God, remember when people used Nokias!) or Cameron-is-a-restaurant-destroying-Bullingdon-toff stuff.
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
Sure, that's the legal position. But if Ed's going to call what Lord Fink has done [what has he done?] tax avoidance, then he can in return be labelled a tax avoider. We've moved onto the natural English meaning of the word "avoid" rather than the technical meaning of "tax avoidance".
The question needs to be asked - will a Labour government legislate to ban the sort of tax avoidance used by Lord Fink? If not, why not? If not, why is rEd complaining about it?
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
Absolutely. The sheer ignorance and envy on display here is eye-opening.
Lord Clyde's judgement is still good law, AFAIK.
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores... [T]he taxpayer is ... entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
Under the bonkers PB Tory definition the government's own in-work bike scheme is tax avoidance, as are childcare vouchers.
As you say, wilful ignorance. Desperate. Utterly desperate.
Let's not forget that the Tories kicked all this off by bringing their business supporters into the political debate to attack Labour.
Jonathan - that is beneath you. Businessman A (who may or may not be a Tory supporter) attacks Miliband. So Miliband can legitimately smear businessman and philanthropist B, without any evidence, just because he's a Tory. I don't believe that's your honest view.
It just comes down to wickedness. Labour supporters are low-life scum. That said, I could have sworn that a fair few Labour MPs implicated in the expenses scandal lost their seats at the last election. I am not sure which perjurers, war criminals and kiddy fiddlers retained them.
If the cap fits. Can you cite an example of a Labour safe seat lost patently because of the sitting Labour MP's unsavoury reputation? Who is Labour's Neil Hamilton, its Jeremy Thorpe?
Equally, we have seen Labour's Rotherham police chief resign to be replaced by another Labourite. Where has anything like that ever happened in a Tory or LibDem area?
For some of us, it is a very uncomfortable feeling that 30+% of our fellow citizens are fine with being represented by such people. It is all quite 1930s Germany.
Rotherham did not have a police chief. South Yorkshire did.
When have the Tories stood aside so that the challenger to an unsavoury Labour MP could have a clear run? That's what happened with Hamilton - Labour and the LDs did not field a candidate. . Likewise, can you name a Labour MP involved in a high-profile attempted murder trial who fought an won his seat at the following election?
We get it, you hate the Labour party and its supporters. Don't try to pretend it is about anything more than prejudice and partisanship.
+ Miliband was also very lucky that Fink over-reacted and then had to withdraw his threat of litigation, and in doing so managed to reinforce the stereotype of wealthy Tories out of touch with the real world. That handed Labour the advantage yesterday. That said...
Yeah, Fink finked the whole thing up, really. If he was going to make one at all, he should have been much tighter on his threat - "if he calls me dodgy outside the Commons, I'll sue". As it is he was outmanoeuvred (albeit by a weaselly reformulation of the charge that clearly went past the Labour lawyers first).
There's probably been a small swing to Labour over this, though that may well fade. The biggest boost to Labour will be in the enthusiasm and morale of their activists. Just witness the last couple of days on here.
Maybe. Ed's IT issue used to be known by a handful of politicoes. Ed has now handed his opponents an opportunity to have that opened to a much, much wider audience. And there is now a crazy paving path of hypocrisy that leads right up to his front door. A path which he has laid.
For many, this election will come down to whether they can stomach the idea of Ed Miliband as our Prime Minister. The polls say the scales are finely balanced. Let's see in May whether having a bag of shit dumped on Ed has changed that balance. It may take until then for this to feed through to how people view Ed come polling day.
I'm always very doubtful about ascribing specific events so quickly to poll changes. It might be but we need to wait.
Even supposing the recent small, potentially due to random fluctuations, changes were due to the HSBC Swiss bank accounts, it will only matter if it is a sustained change.
The Tories have been rock solid/marooned on 31-33% for about 20 months now.
The Ashcroft Polls suggests that undecided 2010 Liberal Democrats are swinging behind Cameron, but none of the other pollsters are picking that up. It's the main thing that could boost the Tory poll score.
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
Absolutely. The sheer ignorance and envy on display here is eye-opening.
Lord Clyde's judgement is still good law, AFAIK.
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores... [T]he taxpayer is ... entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
Quite so - I arrange my own affairs in such a manner too. I don't have any envy over the wealth of Lord Fink or the Milibands. I'm just following Ed's charge of tax avoidance to its logical conclusion.
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of individual out of their allegiance to Labour. It doesn't matter if Miliband is shown to be a hypocritical moral incompetent: Labour voters expect nothing better of their politicians and don't think it matters.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
Agreed. It's amazing how Labour MPs never lose their seats. God knows what everyone is going on about Scotland for.
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
Sure, that's the legal position. But if Ed's going to call what Lord Fink has done [what has he done?] tax avoidance, then he can in return be labelled a tax avoider. We've moved onto the natural English meaning of the word "avoid" rather than the technical meaning of "tax avoidance".
The question needs to be asked - will a Labour government legislate to ban the sort of tax avoidance used by Lord Fink? If not, why not? If not, why is rEd complaining about it?
One suspects not, since once outside of the political arena, former Labour politicians seem very fond of such structures as they pursue riches and further business interests.
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event. .
No, it wouldn't. At least not within any mainstream (by which I mean the consensus point of the views of the Tories, Labour, HMT and HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation) definition of "tax avoidance". Using a relief granted by Parliament in the manner in which Parliament intended it within the timescales allowed is not, in general, tax avoidance. See the pile of dull links I posted earlier for more dull background on this.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
.
MPs have been doing damn all for months now. Perhaps they could have spent some time delving into tax legislation to iron out some wrinkles? Especially those Labour MPs who are conspicuous by their absence, having legged it up to Scotland to try and save their seats....
It certainly begs the question why there isn't a team of civil servants at HMRC permanently employed to investigate tax avoidance schemes, and if they are not having the effect that they were supposed to, proposing legislation to close them down. I would also routinely look into the affairs of all high net worth individuals and large corporations who are paying less tax than expected, and work out how we could make them pay more.
Of course one way, as pointed out on Channel 4 News last night is to drastically reduce the complexity of the tax code and abolish a whole slew of allowances and fiddles. You would probably then be able to cut rates for most people. Of course it would mean governments would have to give up trying to persuade us to do stuff by perennially tinkering with the tax system.
Leaving aside the legitimate tax arrangements: with all the focus on HSBC and the help they seem to have given to corrupt third-world officials, arms-smugglers, drug-dealers and other crooks, no-one seems to be asking whether other Swiss private-banking arms of big international banks were very different.
It's of minor importance, unless former high ranking executives have subsequently worked for the Tory Party.
Let's not forget that the Tories kicked all this off by bringing their business supporters into the political debate to attack Labour.
Exactly.
The Tories are frothing because under the Dan Hodges \ John Rentoul Labour Party model the Party would have slinked away from the battlefield tail between legs, mewing pitifully while apologising profusely to these supposed doyens of business thereby handing Tories an easy victory.
Instead they've been faced with a leader who's returned the fire on them, causing quite a bit of damage in the process and solidifying the Labour vote in the polls.
You can smell the fear in them and their newspapers. It is looking justified.
A Labour spokesman even told the Daily Mail: said: "An official talked about how the news story on Milly Dowler crystallised what a lot of people thought about the Press.
A Labour spokesman claims a Labour official brought Milly Dowler into the conversation
Sure, that's the legal position. But if Ed's going to call what Lord Fink has done [what has he done?] tax avoidance, then he can in return be labelled a tax avoider. We've moved onto the natural English meaning of the word "avoid" rather than the technical meaning of "tax avoidance".
You may be right there. It's quite hard to be sure based on the information in the public domain, although as I said earlier, the specific event referred to doesn't sound egregious. I've worked with enough hedge funds that I think it's unlikely that any successful hedge fund professional wouldn't be linked with anything that would fall squarely within the definition of "tax avoidance" - a situation rather exacerbated by the recent changes to the taxation of partnerships which IIRC have been claimed repeatedly by Cameron to be evidence of the Conservatives tackling avoidance. The fact that his response was "this is vanilla tax planning" rather than "I have not engaged in tax avoidance" doesn't suggest that all is beyond reasonable attack.
(For completeness, the chances of no senior Labour figure having engaged in proper tax avoidance must be vanishingly small. Unless Ed's vetting operation is better than... well, pretty much anything else he does, you can see that it won't be long until he's asked why he hasn't fired xyz front bencher for their tax avoidance activities).
OT Technical Question - I'm totally stumped re installing Hyper-V unless I buy W8 Pro so I can run W7 on a W8 laptop. Given I want to use W7 this seems OTT, but MSoft are thwarting me at every turn. I've been all over the web/it's all a bit beyond me - my laptop can run SLAT so I know it's possible. I'm damned if I'm going to spend £80 buying an upgrade to downgrade. Or waste £99!!!! on buying the Windows Media Player W8 compatible option.
+ Miliband was also very lucky that Fink over-reacted and then had to withdraw his threat of litigation, and in doing so managed to reinforce the stereotype of wealthy Tories out of touch with the real world. That handed Labour the advantage yesterday. That said...
Yeah, Fink finked the whole thing up, really. If he was going to make one at all, he should have been much tighter on his threat - "if he calls me dodgy outside the Commons, I'll sue". As it is he was outmanoeuvred (albeit by a weaselly reformulation of the charge that clearly went past the Labour lawyers first).
There's probably been a small swing to Labour over this, though that may well fade. The biggest boost to Labour will be in the enthusiasm and morale of their activists. Just witness the last couple of days on here.
Maybe. Ed's IT issue used to be known by a handful of politicoes. Ed has now handed his opponents an opportunity to have that opened to a much, much wider audience. And there is now a crazy paving path of hypocrisy that leads right up to his front door. A path which he has laid.
No there isn't you are deliberately conflating an mundane, officially sanctioned measure with large scale efforts to avoid large chucks of income tax. Rod, Polruan and others have outlined this in clear terms – I suggest you read their posts before going further.
@MarqueeMark Ed's opponents have opened up an opportunity to have Cameron's fathers will and estate held to scrutiny. As a man who made his fortune creating tax limiting schemes offshore (including one in Switzerland at the time of the present leaks) it may prove illuminating as a comparison. The majority of the Cameron families fortune is based on tax avoidance, not just a possible one off variation.
Bill is a father of two, earns £40,000pa. He bikes to work on a racer he purchased through the government's own cycle-to-work scheme, in which is he able to pay for the bike from his gross salary rather than his take-home-pay. He uses childcare vouchers to reduce the burden of paying for his older daughter's after school club and his two-year-old son's day care. Other than these salary sacrifices, he pays normal income tax to HMRC at the basic rate.
Bob is a multinational oligarch who shelters much of his annual profits in offshore tax havens, thus reducing his tax obligations to HMRC by £17m a year.
Bill learns of Bob's circumstances and thinks he is unreasonably avoiding paying his way. Is he a hypocrite?
No there isn't you are deliberately conflating an mundane, officially sanctioned measure with large scale efforts to avoid large chucks of income tax.
There you go again. You really can't help yourselves, can you? The hypocrisy is so ingrained that you can't see it even when it's right in front of you in your own words.
The Miliband family uses a mundane, officially sanction arragement: fine.
The Fink family uses a mundane, officially sanctioned arrangement: unacceptable tax avoidance.
What's the difference? Lord Fink is a Conservative. That is all. That is why you make the distinction.
Why are so many people missing the point about Ed's tax arrangements? Yes, of course using a Deed of Variation was entirely legitimate, and within both the spirit and the letter of the law. In that respect it was exactly like Lord Fink's arrangements. That is why Ed is being attacked, and quite rightly so. If he smears innocent people, what does he expect?
How do you know Ed Ms tax arrangements are exactly the same as Lord Fink's , the latter has not made his tax arrangements public . Why don't you pb tories just fezz up and move along . You are the party of the super rich , hedge fund managers , tax avoiders and tax dodgers and are divorced from the problems ordinary people face .
Of course one way, as pointed out on Channel 4 News last night is to drastically reduce the complexity of the tax code and abolish a whole slew of allowances and fiddles. You would probably then be able to cut rates for most people. Of course it would mean governments would have to give up trying to persuade us to do stuff by perennially tinkering with the tax system.
It's not really the intricacies of code that's the biggest issue. The root of it all is that tax rates on labour are amongst the highest of all tax rates.
What makes it seem *real* is that it's so left-field. Who in their right-mind would conjure up such a comparison as an attack on Labour?
It's beyond absurd. It does smack of a victim mindset and attempting to throw mud at another with a known stone/invoking NOTW blah blah. A Tory would need to out FU Francis Urqhart to do this. I just can't see it.
A Labour spokesman even told the Daily Mail: said: "An official talked about how the news story on Milly Dowler crystallised what a lot of people thought about the Press.
A Labour spokesman claims a Labour official brought Milly Dowler into the conversation
@MarqueeMark Ed's opponents have opened up an opportunity to have Cameron's fathers will and estate held to scrutiny. As a man who made his fortune creating tax limiting schemes offshore (including one in Switzerland at the time of the present leaks) it may prove illuminating as a comparison. The majority of the Cameron families fortune is based on tax avoidance, not just a possible one off variation.
The Guardian covered this in article a couple of years ago. You can Google it.
OSM..Could you explain that to the Wedgewood Benns..nowt paid when dear old Wedgie popped off..on a 5 mil estate..Nowt like socialism for the top socialists
This is precisely the problem. This issue should not have anything to do with individual morality. If everyone has to pay tax under the same rules then morality doesn't come into it - but at the moment the rules appear to be very different on a £5million estate and a £500k estate.
That is what stinks. I note that Labour appear not to be suggesting any remedies to this situation. They're happy to play the morality game because they know the other side has more rich people, and so will come off looking just slightly worse - and that's good enough for them.
We appear to have a situation where if someone on the Left does it, the only issue is whether it's legal and morality doesn't come into it but if someone on the Right does it, the fact that it's legal is irrelevant if the Left decides it's morally dubious. Sometimes the position is reversed.
Meanwhile the rest of us are left wondering whether our own entirely legal arrangements might suddenly be deemed to have crossed this invisible morality line, made up by politicians who - as a class - are the last people from whom we should be taking lessons on morality.
Bill is a father of two, earns £40,000pa. He bikes to work on a racer he purchased through the government's own cycle-to-work scheme, in which is he able to pay for the bike from his gross salary rather than his take-home-pay. He uses childcare vouchers to reduce the burden of paying for his older daughter's after school club and his two-year-old son's day care. Other than these salary sacrifices, he pays normal income tax to HMRC at the basic rate.
Bob is a multinational oligarch who shelters much of his annual profits in offshore tax havens, thus reducing his tax obligations to HMRC by £17m a year.
Bill learns of Bob's circumstances and thinks he is unreasonably avoiding paying his way. Is he a hypocrite?
I am not a Tory, but I have no problem with Bob earning more than Bill. Envy is a pretty destructive emotion, hence one of the seven deadly sins.
Bob will recycle a lot of the money via the economy by employing people who pay income tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, alcohol duty and fuel duty. Probably a lot of air passenger duty too. He will not be a drain on the country.
Comments
I remember Blair changing from Bambi to a red-eyed devil in double quick time. True in his case of course!
I won't be taking bets as we may never know the truth :-)
My views:
+ Miliband is lucky that there is such little focus on his retraction of the allegation that Lord Fink is "dodgy". Miliband smeared a man who built a world-leading British business and is a noted philanthropist who dedicates substantial time and resources to helping under-privileged children, all on the (incorrect, it transpires) basis that a Swiss bank account was an indication of impropriety and solely for political reasons. Miliband then retracted his allegation in the most offensive and weasly way, by trying to pretend he had not made it. The context was clear. He could have been crucified, but he got away with it because...
+ Miliband was also very lucky that Fink over-reacted and then had to withdraw his threat of litigation, and in doing so managed to reinforce the stereotype of wealthy Tories out of touch with the real world. That handed Labour the advantage yesterday. That said...
+ Some quarters of the press are focusing on his mother's tax planning, which planning was and remains entirely legitimate. They are making far too much of this. Miliband is not guilty of hypocrisy, but he has brought this on himself by playing fast and loose with the truth and being very arbitrary in his judgements. This could still play out very badly for him and for Labour if - as is quite possible - senior Labour politicians have employed or benefited from lawful tax avoidance mechanisms
+ It is therefore too early to declare who benefits from this. At the moment it is probably Miliband and Labour - because (a) Fink has reinforced a negative stereotype; (b) the over-the-top attack on Miliband will rally the left; and (c) Miliband's clear anti-avoidance position - while simplistic, opportunistic and muddle-headed - will be attractive to many on the left and many anti-politics types. But that could change. More likely it will just get bogged down in unedifying claim and counter-claim.
+ please can we have some more grown ups at party headquarters?
Not a sign of much confidence in your argument.....
And no, I don't hold IDS biggest fan in particular regard, but then I can understand Lib Dem squeamishness over charges of hypocrisy and donations.....
Equally, we have seen Labour's Rotherham police chief resign to be replaced by another Labourite. Where has anything like that ever happened in a Tory or LibDem area?
For some of us, it is a very uncomfortable feeling that 30+% of our fellow citizens are fine with being represented by such people. It is all quite 1930s Germany.
There's probably been a small swing to Labour over this, though that may well fade. The biggest boost to Labour will be in the enthusiasm and morale of their activists. Just witness the last couple of days on here.
The mere reduction of tax is not tax avoidance - not in the terms in which Miliband criticises it, nor Cameron. Avoidance is reduction of tax in a manner which is legal but was not an intended consequence of the laws passed by Parliament. There are some problems with that definition, but it's basically what's accepted as a starting point.
Remember, that whatever the merits of the case, it's really about the politics.
They do seem to have belatedly adjusted to acknowledge the SNP surge in Scotland.
But note that it is contingent on the banker having been found to have done something wrong. If that is referring to criminal action, that is the issue - because the number of bankers who have behaved stupidly or negligently is far greater than the number who have behaved criminally. For the latter you need more and faster enforcement. For the former, this is already being dealt with by the sorts of measures I've summarised above.
Lord Clyde's judgement is still good law, AFAIK.
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores... [T]he taxpayer is ... entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
All you can hope for is a bookie to over react to one I suppose
This time last year ICM has Ukip on 20% in the euros in 3rd place I think... So what really?
There will be the usual vicissitudes in the polling till then. The budget is the last parliamentary chance to seriously steal the narrative. Osborne has proved he can both turn it for and against him. Will be interesting.
After that, it will be the non parliamentary stuff; campaign and the debates (if they happen).
All in all, Labour will be happy with the way this week has gone. Miliband is good on this pick-a-fight, moral outrage stuff. I don't think it changes anybody's vote any more than the Brown's-a-bully-who-throws-Nokias (God, remember when people used Nokias!) or Cameron-is-a-restaurant-destroying-Bullingdon-toff stuff.
As you say, wilful ignorance. Desperate. Utterly desperate.
When have the Tories stood aside so that the challenger to an unsavoury Labour MP could have a clear run? That's what happened with Hamilton - Labour and the LDs did not field a candidate. . Likewise, can you name a Labour MP involved in a high-profile attempted murder trial who fought an won his seat at the following election?
We get it, you hate the Labour party and its supporters. Don't try to pretend it is about anything more than prejudice and partisanship.
For many, this election will come down to whether they can stomach the idea of Ed Miliband as our Prime Minister. The polls say the scales are finely balanced. Let's see in May whether having a bag of shit dumped on Ed has changed that balance. It may take until then for this to feed through to how people view Ed come polling day.
The Tories have been rock solid/marooned on 31-33% for about 20 months now.
The Ashcroft Polls suggests that undecided 2010 Liberal Democrats are swinging behind Cameron, but none of the other pollsters are picking that up. It's the main thing that could boost the Tory poll score.
Of course one way, as pointed out on Channel 4 News last night is to drastically reduce the complexity of the tax code and abolish a whole slew of allowances and fiddles. You would probably then be able to cut rates for most people. Of course it would mean governments would have to give up trying to persuade us to do stuff by perennially tinkering with the tax system.
The Tories are frothing because under the Dan Hodges \ John Rentoul Labour Party model the Party would have slinked away from the battlefield tail between legs, mewing pitifully while apologising profusely to these supposed doyens of business thereby handing Tories an easy victory.
Instead they've been faced with a leader who's returned the fire on them, causing quite a bit of damage in the process and solidifying the Labour vote in the polls.
You can smell the fear in them and their newspapers. It is looking justified.
So Nick Robinson made it up...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/13/milly-dowler-row-over-mil_n_6676728.html
(For completeness, the chances of no senior Labour figure having engaged in proper tax avoidance must be vanishingly small. Unless Ed's vetting operation is better than... well, pretty much anything else he does, you can see that it won't be long until he's asked why he hasn't fired xyz front bencher for their tax avoidance activities).
Any ideas?
Too often, it would at least appear, the concept of honesty seems to be missing!
And yes, when I was self-employed I arranged my tax affairs in accordance with Lord Clyade’s dictum.
But it's business as usual for some of them especially the trolls just spouting out the diatribe from the loony right wing press.
It's hilarious....long may this 'fun' continue!
"Ed Miliband - 10 More Years" springs to mind - you claimed to be jesting at that Dirty Dicks event. LOL whatever the case.
Ed's opponents have opened up an opportunity to have Cameron's fathers will and estate held to scrutiny.
As a man who made his fortune creating tax limiting schemes offshore (including one in Switzerland at the time of the present leaks) it may prove illuminating as a comparison.
The majority of the Cameron families fortune is based on tax avoidance, not just a possible one off variation.
Bill is a father of two, earns £40,000pa. He bikes to work on a racer he purchased through the government's own cycle-to-work scheme, in which is he able to pay for the bike from his gross salary rather than his take-home-pay. He uses childcare vouchers to reduce the burden of paying for his older daughter's after school club and his two-year-old son's day care. Other than these salary sacrifices, he pays normal income tax to HMRC at the basic rate.
Bob is a multinational oligarch who shelters much of his annual profits in offshore tax havens, thus reducing his tax obligations to HMRC by £17m a year.
Bill learns of Bob's circumstances and thinks he is unreasonably avoiding paying his way. Is he a hypocrite?
The Miliband family uses a mundane, officially sanction arragement: fine.
The Fink family uses a mundane, officially sanctioned arrangement: unacceptable tax avoidance.
What's the difference? Lord Fink is a Conservative. That is all. That is why you make the distinction.
It's beyond absurd. It does smack of a victim mindset and attempting to throw mud at another with a known stone/invoking NOTW blah blah. A Tory would need to out FU Francis Urqhart to do this. I just can't see it. A Labour spokesman claims a Labour official brought Milly Dowler into the conversation
So Nick Robinson made it up...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/13/milly-dowler-row-over-mil_n_6676728.html
Meanwhile the rest of us are left wondering whether our own entirely legal arrangements might suddenly be deemed to have crossed this invisible morality line, made up by politicians who - as a class - are the last people from whom we should be taking lessons on morality.
It's pathetic.
Bob will recycle a lot of the money via the economy by employing people who pay income tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, alcohol duty and fuel duty. Probably a lot of air passenger duty too. He will not be a drain on the country.