How about thatcher? You know, when we had higher income tax, nationalised rail and a hedge fund free nhs?
If I remember correctly taxation was 83% (actually maybe higher? in the 90s?) when Denis Healey was chancellor in 1976. The same year the UK went cap in hand to the IMF for a Greek/Argentina style financial bailout because we were bankrupt.
But hey, don;t let facts get in the way of your socialist fantasy.
My grandfather used to pay 106% income tax under Healey: 83% + 15% unearned income supplement + 8% supplement for income generated from land
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?
I thought it was the Lib Dems who did that.
All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.
For what you say to be true, that would require the LibDems to be in Coalition Govt. Now that can't be right, or we would have heard them claiming credit for stuff, rather than criticising everything the Govt has done for the past five years.....
Notme You need £530,000 net worth to be in the global 1%, probably a bit more than £26,000 a year. (Albeit £50,000 for the top 10% and £2,400 for the top 50%) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30949796
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Me too. But enough with the self-defence. We need to go on the offensive against these barbarians.
Hmmm,
Who are these "barbarians": They are just the result of our post-history approach to governance or a correction of the facts? There are historical incidents - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing - that still pees me off!
Now I will play my hand openly: Never done anything but. As an Englishman of Cypriot [Turk] and Irish parentage I struggle to understand how some acts are good and t'others are bad. Murder is (or was, before the Neue-Arbeiter Jockanese screwed 'Double-Jepardy') clear cut: A year-and-a-day of death.*
So who should we punish? Should it be collective?
I have as much tolerance for Islam as I do for the Muslim prat who claims to be a sub-editor (Scots-born plastice-Yorkshireman). That said; I do not wish ill on his family (and I am sure he would not on my - connected, and slightly deranged - family).
As an Englishman I wish to offer the Jewish community all the protection that the law can provide. I am sure that the Jewish community will echo that sentiment. What we cannot tolerate is a witch-hunt of those whom oppose us: Two wrongs never make a right (or, an eye for an eye leaves us all blind).
Life is tough: Stand-up and be ready for '...the slings and arrows of outrageuos fortune"! Only then will we reach - and breach the - goal of St Crispins Day.
:peace:
* Special - Blair - dispensations for the Bog-trotter
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
And here's a list of Local Government Ministers during this government:
Grant Shapps 13/05/10 - 04/09/12 Mark Prist 04/09/12 - 07/10/13 Kris Hopkins 07/10/13 -
Did any of this trio take any action against Rotherham council ?
Hasn't Pickles forced the whole council to go up for reelection next time (therefore, by extension, Hopkins). But he had to wait for the official report to be published before he could take action.
It may be slower than you like, but to set aside an elected council like that is rightly difficult and slow
Pickles has now, though it looks like he expected Casey to produce a 'lessons have been learnt and systems strengthened' report thus allowing him to do nothing.
Casey to her credit didn't and Pickles to his credit is finally taking some action - how effective that action will be we don't know yet. Only when we see dozens of plods, social workers, councillors and council officials in jail will we know that proper action has been taken.
Though Pickles taking action exposes May's inaction with the South Yorkshire plods as even more contemptible.
But it has to be remembered that the initial research into Rotherham was conducted by the Times and the response of this government was to do nothing.
If Rotherham council hadn't commissioned the Jay report (and I suspect they were expecting something similar to the usual Ofsted whitewash) then this government would have continued to do nothing.
In short this government has chosen to take no action until forced into a position where it had no choice. Likewise it has been continually reluctant to admit there is a widespread problem with this issue.
Now that might seem right and proper to you but it goes against that famous quote of Edmund Burke which Conservatives are so fond of.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
That was a decent platform if Cameron had stuck with it. It would have kept people on board and voting for him. Instead we had
- the 50 p rate fiasco - greyish tax dealings - one law for bankers another for everyone else.
Cameron screwed up his "detox" by detoxing on the wrong issues. Social issues were fine for the good times, but in a recession when everyone is hurting he needed to do it on wealth. This is a great government if you are a gay high rate taxpayer working in London financial services. Unfortunately for the Conservatives that's not an election winning recipe, there just aren't enough of them nor are they in the right places.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Why the heck does Stephen Kinnock want to spend 5 years messing about in a Welsh backwater, when he has a wife like that back home in Denmark?
Canny MPs get to hang around in Westminster and meet lots of businessmen. It's a great step up on the road to ever more riches. Look at the careers of the more intelligent Labour politicians post politics.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
2000 fat people on benefits.. probably the max 26000 a yr that's 52 million smackers, no wonder lefties just don't understand how much it all costs...
You will not save twenty six thousand pounds each. They will claim something else.
About time they were made to work.
thats the issue. Before there was always a fall back. If you dropped out of one benefit there was some other one that you would end up on. There was no real consequence for behaviours. Then sanctions were brought in, and a massive shock it was.
Some people never thought that they would be left with no help, no matter how little responsibility they took. There is no other benefit that these people will be falling onto.
IDS will be seen as a great reformer, in the same way as Beveridge.
Mr. Richard, disagree. The benefits and health costs of the 'fat boy' are paid for by the taxpayer even though the fatness is almost always self-inflicted. The money's flowing from the taxpayer to the obese. It's better for them, and for the public purse, to cut the fat and get in better shape.
If you're monitoring YouGov sub samples then much the best to take at least the last five.
This week's straight average from Scotland is shown below. The weekly averages have been remarkably steady since aftre the referendum late September last year, with the SNP moving up and Labour trending slightly down. This would give confidence that this is a credible thing to do
1) LAST FIVE POLLS UNTIL TODAYl
SNP 43% LAB 27% TORY 18% LIB 6% UKIP 4% GREEN 3%
2) LAST FIVE IN SEPTEMBER 2014
SNP 41% LAB 29% TORY 17% LIB 6% UKIP 3% GREEN 4%
These steady figures are one reason why there is so much confidence among those of us interested in the stats that the SNP breakthrough will happen big time in May and that , if anything, the Murphy effect is a negative for Labour.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
2000 fat people on benefits.. probably the max 26000 a yr that's 52 million smackers, no wonder lefties just don't understand how much it all costs...
And how many obese tax avoiders are there ? I expect costing the country rather more than 52 million smackers
Was that crook who gave the LIb Dem's 2.4 million a fattie? Shocking to think the LD's accepted the proceeds of crime as a donation. Wasn't he a fraudster (convicted)
Notme You need £530,000 net worth to be in the global 1%, probably a bit more than £26,000 a year. (Albeit £50,000 for the top 10% and £2,400 for the top 50%) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30949796
people on benefits in the uk are richer than most of the non western world could only ever dream about. Put 26k of income into that, clearly within the top 1%.
Mr. Richard, disagree. The benefits and health costs of the 'fat boy' are paid for by the taxpayer even though the fatness is almost always self-inflicted. The money's flowing from the taxpayer to the obese. It's better for them, and for the public purse, to cut the fat and get in better shape.
I don't disagree - my point was about the imagery.
@Alanbrooke Using advisers to minimize tax is not illegal though. Tax evasion is.
I wasn't talking about evasion, but the 50 p tax rate.
Frankly why Osborne moved it is beyond me it impacts PAYE high rate payers. If CEOs of companies that pay their taxes in Luxemburg or public sector fatcats have to pay 50p in the pound that doesn't worry me in the least.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
2000 fat people on benefits.. probably the max 26000 a yr that's 52 million smackers, no wonder lefties just don't understand how much it all costs...
And how many obese tax avoiders are there ? I expect costing the country rather more than 52 million smackers
Do you mean 'tax evaders'? 'Tax avoiders' by definition don't cost the country anything, because they simply pay the minimum tax they are required to by law, which is pretty much all anyone pays.
Otherwise, as somebody who has all his savings in an ISA and is therefore avoiding paying tax on it, I am costing the country money. Which as far as I am concerned, I am not.
There is a different and legitimate point to be made about ensuring that tax is straightforward to understand and therefore easy to pay and hard to avoid. But that has a lot to do with our ridiculous tax code, as much as anything else. If that were drastically rewritten from first principles to get rid of the complexity (mostly left by the last two Labour governments) I'm pretty sure we'd see an end to the schemes of Amazon, Starbucks, Margaret Hodge et al.
Worth noting that after a week of "championship quality tennis" Ed Miliband's approval rating has climbed three points to a mighty -47. One point lower than where he was two week ago. That may be priced in, but let's see whether people drag themselves out of bed for him in May.
Cracking interview of IDS on Marr. A first class minister, master of his brief, thoroughly grilled in an informative and challenging interview. The comparison to the tetchy and low quality Balls interview was stark.
This would be the very same IDS who has presided over the Universal Credit – one of the most expensive public project cockups for decades?
Mr Johnston at The Telegraph has now been won over:
The future of the German grassroots anti-Islamization movement known as PEGIDA has been thrown into doubt after a leadership split resulted in key members leaving the group.
Only 2,000 people attended a weekly rally held in the eastern German city of Dresden on February 9, a sharp decrease from the 17,000 who assembled at the previous rally held on January 25.
notme People on benefits may be in the top half of people globally in terms of wealth but they are not in the top 1%, you would need wealth of more than £500k for that, including house value, as I said. If you are doing it purely on income rather than wealth you would have more of a point, then those on £26,000 may just scrape in
@Alanbrooke I was tax evasion I was talking about. The 50p tax and it's reduction was a bit of a mistake I think personally.
Osborne should have left it in place and said a reduction was for the next Parliament. Might have given him soomething worthwhile to stuff in a manifaesto.
Steve Garner - If anyone was watching This Week they'd have noted the eye-catching remarks from Diane Abbott. She stated that the reason Miliband is doing all the running on tax avoidance and the like is because Balls won't touch it. If the Tories wren't such a bunch of amateurs they'd be trying to put distance between the Eds who plainly don't agree.
I do think Miliband deserves serious praise if he becomes PM. He might be up against the useless Tories and have the voting system on his side but when you take into account the hostility of the press, the disloyalty of his own side from the shadow chancellor downwards, the financial disadvantage compared to the Tories and the less than warm words coming from some of our corporate leaders, it would be a major achievement.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
That was a decent platform if Cameron had stuck with it. It would have kept people on board and voting for him. Instead we had
- the 50 p rate fiasco - greyish tax dealings - one law for bankers another for everyone else.
Cameron screwed up his "detox" by detoxing on the wrong issues. Social issues were fine for the good times, but in a recession when everyone is hurting he needed to do it on wealth. This is a great government if you are a gay high rate taxpayer working in London financial services. Unfortunately for the Conservatives that's not an election winning recipe, there just aren't enough of them nor are they in the right places.
Camneron can't do numbers.
But to Cameron there's nothing toxic about vast wealth (even when its state backed as with banks) or greyish tax dealings.
Its what the whole Notting Hill gentrification is based upon.
Miliband also has a helpful BBC, electoral set-up, faces a coalition making something approaching cuts, and is the leader of the only major nationwide opposition party [UKIP has significant support but sod all prospect of achieving anything like a majority].
Several of those negatives (funding and his own party not being enamoured with him) are his own fault.
Steve Garner - If anyone was watching This Week they'd have noted the eye-catching remarks from Diane Abbott. She stated that the reason Miliband is doing all the running on tax avoidance and the like is because Balls won't touch it. If the Tories wren't such a bunch of amateurs they'd be trying to put distance between the Eds who plainly don't agree.
I do think Miliband deserves serious praise if he becomes PM. He might be up against the useless Tories and have the voting system on his side but when you take into account the hostility of the press, the disloyalty of his own side from the shadow chancellor downwards, the financial disadvantage compared to the Tories and the less than warm words coming from some of our corporate leaders, it would be a major achievement.
Balls really has no political nous at all. He constantly opposes all the hits that Miliband comes up with (apparently he opposed the energy price freeze too) while trying to steer Labour into unwinnable dutch auctions about whether they'll be as "tough" as the Tories in cutting spending.
Steve Garner - If anyone was watching This Week they'd have noted the eye-catching remarks from Diane Abbott. She stated that the reason Miliband is doing all the running on tax avoidance and the like is because Balls won't touch it. If the Tories wren't such a bunch of amateurs they'd be trying to put distance between the Eds who plainly don't agree.
I do think Miliband deserves serious praise if he becomes PM. He might be up against the useless Tories and have the voting system on his side but when you take into account the hostility of the press, the disloyalty of his own side from the shadow chancellor downwards, the financial disadvantage compared to the Tories and the less than warm words coming from some of our corporate leaders, it would be a major achievement.
Balls really has no political nous at all. He constantly opposes all the hits that Miliband comes up with (apparently he opposed the energy price freeze too) while trying to steer Labour into unwinnable dutch auctions about whether they'll be as "tough" as the Tories in cutting spending.
It's more than that. Balls has his own record as Brown's chief economic advisor. I wouldn't say they were intensely relaxed about tax avoidance but the record was hardly stellar. Balls probably realises this can be hammered back at him.
Steve Garner - If anyone was watching This Week they'd have noted the eye-catching remarks from Diane Abbott. She stated that the reason Miliband is doing all the running on tax avoidance and the like is because Balls won't touch it. If the Tories wren't such a bunch of amateurs they'd be trying to put distance between the Eds who plainly don't agree.
I do think Miliband deserves serious praise if he becomes PM. He might be up against the useless Tories and have the voting system on his side but when you take into account the hostility of the press, the disloyalty of his own side from the shadow chancellor downwards, the financial disadvantage compared to the Tories and the less than warm words coming from some of our corporate leaders, it would be a major achievement.
Balls really has no political nous at all. He constantly opposes all the hits that Miliband comes up with (apparently he opposed the energy price freeze too) while trying to steer Labour into unwinnable dutch auctions about whether they'll be as "tough" as the Tories in cutting spending.
Considering the energy price freeze is one reason why prices are proving so slow to come down (costing us all quite a lot of money) even as wholesale gas prices have done a passable impression of a lead balloon, that's not a good example.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue it does give the image of the school bullies picking on the fatboy.
If this was a serious initiative it would have got underway a long time ago. It's an effort to demonise a tiny section of society in order to get a few votes back from UKIP.
Regarding the leisurely timescales of HMRC action in the tax avoidance story.
It should be remembered that SME sized businesses often have to provide HMRC with tax returns and tax payments within a few days or weeks of the relevant transactions.
Failure to do so results in automatic fines and letters threatening to effectively shut down the business.
That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?
I thought it was the Lib Dems who did that.
All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.
For what you say to be true, that would require the LibDems to be in Coalition Govt. Now that can't be right, or we would have heard them claiming credit for stuff, rather than criticising everything the Govt has done for the past five years.....
Groan.....
The Lib Dems signed up for a Coalition Government, on the basis of a coalition agreement over policy.
The Lib Dems in government have stuck to that agreement - everybody comments on their reliability in government.
In contrast, a lot of Tories seemed to think that the Lib Dems had signed up to Tory policies. And tried to treat the Coalition Goverment as though it was a Tory one. Which is very definitely has not been. A Tory one would have been very different.
Consequently, they got a bit peeved when Lib Dems criticised their Tory colleagues for implementing Tory policies rather than agreed coalition policies. Take the original Lansley proposals for the NHS for example.
It is the disloyal Tory politiciams who should be criticised for unsettling the Coalition. And the Lib Dems who should be given their fair share of credit for the successful outcomes of agreed policy.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.
@Danny565 Pienaar interviewed Ed B on radio five this morning. Ed B has to distance himself from the affair because of his brief. but among the usual dramatic fireworks that we expect from an interview these days there was a small sentence that solved one of the puzzles I had about Ed M's tax accusations
Waiting for the latest ELBOW Sunil? Increased Labour lead I'm guessing after the week as Ed has had. Admittedly, the tax issue was an open goal but Ed has slotted it in. Of course the rabid right-wing nutjobs on here will defend those sleazy dodgy individuals to the last but his attacks resonated well within the country....
How rich do you need to be to make it worthwhile to employ a tax lawyer or tax accountant ?
Not very. Probably over a few £10,000s/ yr of self employed income or £25,000 or so of savings.
These people shouldn't be obliged to use an accountant - the law should be unambiguous and clear, with only one amount of tax payable, no matter how you structure your affairs.
@murali_s It hasn't been slotted in yet. The shot is on it's way and the crowd are willing it in, or wanting it to miss or be saved depending on allegiances. Lot's of noise and confusion, but no decision.
Ed Balls this morning vowed to launch a review of a tax ploy used by Labour leader Ed Miliband if party wins the general election in May.
The shadow chancellor said he would look at 'every area' of tax avoidance as part of a wider crackdown after the election.
Mr Balls confirmed this would include 'deeds of variation' – a legal move used by the Labour leader after his father died in 1994 to receive a share of his family's home.
Ed Balls refuses to back Ed Miliband tax loophole Ed Balls has said that he might close a tax loophole used by Ed Miliband, after insisting he would crack down on "aggressive tax avoidance".
The Shadow Chancellor failed to back the Labour leader’s over his family’s use of a “deed of variation”, which changed his father’s will posthumously to minimise the amount paid in inheritance tax.
That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?
I thought it was the Lib Dems who did that.
All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.
For what you say to be true, that would require the LibDems to be in Coalition Govt. Now that can't be right, or we would have heard them claiming credit for stuff, rather than criticising everything the Govt has done for the past five years.....
Groan.....
The Lib Dems signed up for a Coalition Government, on the basis of a coalition agreement over policy.
The Lib Dems in government have stuck to that agreement - everybody comments on their reliability in government.
In contrast, a lot of Tories seemed to think that the Lib Dems had signed up to Tory policies. And tried to treat the Coalition Goverment as though it was a Tory one. Which is very definitely has not been. A Tory one would have been very different.
Consequently, they got a bit peeved when Lib Dems criticised their Tory colleagues for implementing Tory policies rather than agreed coalition policies. Take the original Lansley proposals for the NHS for example.
It is the disloyal Tory politiciams who should be criticised for unsettling the Coalition. And the Lib Dems who should be given their fair share of credit for the successful outcomes of agreed policy.
And that post, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic example of why one should never drink sambuca on a Sunday lunchtime.
A make-work scheme for tax lawyers and tax accountants.
How rich do you need to be to make it worthwhile to employ a tax lawyer or tax accountant ?
It's not really about the absolute quantum of your wealth.
It's not that difficult to DIY, if you're numerate, your affairs aren't too complicated, and you have the time. There's any amount of free advice and examples available on the internet from HMRC, lawyers and accountants.
So Tom Watson says the tax row is not about who is dodgy and who is not, it's about the wealthy paying their taxes. That's a bit hard to square with Miliband kicking the row off by claiming Cameron is a dodgy PM with a bunch of dodgy donors.
Jim Murphy has been challenged to say he will not accept money from Sir David Garrard after revelations in the Sunday Times on his use of offshore trusts.
The Sunday Times reports that Labour donor Sir David Garrard had placed shares in offshore trusts, a mechanism that can be used to avoid tax. Earlier this week Ed Miliband pledged an inquiry into tax avoidance, making the suggestion that Labour donors could have been involved in the practice extremely damaging.
On Thursday the Times quoted Sir David Garrard saying “we’re talking tens of thousands” when asked how much he planned to donate to Jim Murphy. The Labour Donor had previously donated £1,570 to Jim Murphy’s leadership campaign.
CD13 Tax evasion is illegal until you get caught, then in the vast majority of cases it stops being illegal. (except in one in seven thousand cases apparently)
Comments
Disappointed to see yet another innocent Jewish person has been brutally murdered in Europe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953594/Shots-fired-Copenhagen-cafe-free-speech-event.html
It is truly tragic that we are unable to provide them with a basic level of security.
you think the rest of them are going to come out with sensible costed policies ?
There is no money.
This election is an austerity auction with parties bidding for votes on "we will hurt you least".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30949796
When does tax evasion stop being illegal for an individual or company?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945341/The-3m-bash-Dave-doesn-t-want-know-ANDREW-PIERCE-tonight-s-Tory-Black-White-Ball.html
Who are these "barbarians": They are just the result of our post-history approach to governance or a correction of the facts? There are historical incidents - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing - that still pees me off!
Now I will play my hand openly: Never done anything but. As an Englishman of Cypriot [Turk] and Irish parentage I struggle to understand how some acts are good and t'others are bad. Murder is (or was, before the Neue-Arbeiter Jockanese screwed 'Double-Jepardy') clear cut: A year-and-a-day of death.*
So who should we punish? Should it be collective?
I have as much tolerance for Islam as I do for the Muslim prat who claims to be a sub-editor (Scots-born plastice-Yorkshireman). That said; I do not wish ill on his family (and I am sure he would not on my - connected, and slightly deranged - family).
As an Englishman I wish to offer the Jewish community all the protection that the law can provide. I am sure that the Jewish community will echo that sentiment. What we cannot tolerate is a witch-hunt of those whom oppose us: Two wrongs never make a right (or, an eye for an eye leaves us all blind).
Life is tough: Stand-up and be ready for '...the slings and arrows of outrageuos fortune"! Only then will we reach - and breach the - goal of St Crispins Day.
:peace:
* Special - Blair - dispensations for the Bog-trotter
No cigar.
That is tax avoidance, or tax efficiency if you prefer (at least as far as anyone knows at present) and is legal.
Hundreds of charities throw parties to raise money every year. This one was just a bit more expensive and thrown by a political party.
Casey to her credit didn't and Pickles to his credit is finally taking some action - how effective that action will be we don't know yet. Only when we see dozens of plods, social workers, councillors and council officials in jail will we know that proper action has been taken.
Though Pickles taking action exposes May's inaction with the South Yorkshire plods as even more contemptible.
But it has to be remembered that the initial research into Rotherham was conducted by the Times and the response of this government was to do nothing.
If Rotherham council hadn't commissioned the Jay report (and I suspect they were expecting something similar to the usual Ofsted whitewash) then this government would have continued to do nothing.
In short this government has chosen to take no action until forced into a position where it had no choice. Likewise it has been continually reluctant to admit there is a widespread problem with this issue.
Now that might seem right and proper to you but it goes against that famous quote of Edmund Burke which Conservatives are so fond of.
No cigar either
- the 50 p rate fiasco
- greyish tax dealings
- one law for bankers another for everyone else.
Cameron screwed up his "detox" by detoxing on the wrong issues. Social issues were fine for the good times, but in a recession when everyone is hurting he needed to do it on wealth. This is a great government if you are a gay high rate taxpayer working in London financial services. Unfortunately for the Conservatives that's not an election winning recipe, there just aren't enough of them nor are they in the right places.
Camneron can't do numbers.
Has anyone told Ed?
"Has anyone told Ed?"
I would imagine so, and very very carefully at that.
As we have seen.
In most cases, it would be the only place you could say it directly.
It is why I asked the original question.
Getting closer, but not quite there.
The super rich as we have seen use advisers. High tax rates hit people on PAYE since they have nowhere else to hide it.
Some people never thought that they would be left with no help, no matter how little responsibility they took. There is no other benefit that these people will be falling onto.
IDS will be seen as a great reformer, in the same way as Beveridge.
IT'S THE CROSS BREAKS
If you're monitoring YouGov sub samples then much the best to take at least the last five.
This week's straight average from Scotland is shown below. The weekly averages have been remarkably steady since aftre the referendum late September last year, with the SNP moving up and Labour trending slightly down. This would give confidence that this is a credible thing to do
1) LAST FIVE POLLS UNTIL TODAYl
SNP 43% LAB 27% TORY 18% LIB 6% UKIP 4% GREEN 3%
2) LAST FIVE IN SEPTEMBER 2014
SNP 41% LAB 29% TORY 17% LIB 6% UKIP 3% GREEN 4%
These steady figures are one reason why there is so much confidence among those of us interested in the stats that the SNP breakthrough will happen big time in May and that , if anything, the Murphy effect is a negative for Labour.
Only the little people pay taxes.
Using advisers to minimize tax is not illegal though.
Tax evasion is.
people on benefits in the uk are richer than most of the non western world could only ever dream about. Put 26k of income into that, clearly within the top 1%.
Frankly why Osborne moved it is beyond me it impacts PAYE high rate payers. If CEOs of companies that pay their taxes in Luxemburg or public sector fatcats have to pay 50p in the pound that doesn't worry me in the least.
Do you mean 'tax evaders'? 'Tax avoiders' by definition don't cost the country anything, because they simply pay the minimum tax they are required to by law, which is pretty much all anyone pays.
Otherwise, as somebody who has all his savings in an ISA and is therefore avoiding paying tax on it, I am costing the country money. Which as far as I am concerned, I am not.
There is a different and legitimate point to be made about ensuring that tax is straightforward to understand and therefore easy to pay and hard to avoid. But that has a lot to do with our ridiculous tax code, as much as anything else. If that were drastically rewritten from first principles to get rid of the complexity (mostly left by the last two Labour governments) I'm pretty sure we'd see an end to the schemes of Amazon, Starbucks, Margaret Hodge et al.
The future of the German grassroots anti-Islamization movement known as PEGIDA has been thrown into doubt after a leadership split resulted in key members leaving the group.
Only 2,000 people attended a weekly rally held in the eastern German city of Dresden on February 9, a sharp decrease from the 17,000 who assembled at the previous rally held on January 25.
27 per cent of those polled indicated they would or might change their mind before the big day
This is what helps the super rich.
If the tax code was simplified then it would be the super rich who lost out and would threaten to leave the country.
I was tax evasion I was talking about.
The 50p tax and it's reduction was a bit of a mistake I think personally.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31477237
I do think Miliband deserves serious praise if he becomes PM. He might be up against the useless Tories and have the voting system on his side but when you take into account the hostility of the press, the disloyalty of his own side from the shadow chancellor downwards, the financial disadvantage compared to the Tories and the less than warm words coming from some of our corporate leaders, it would be a major achievement.
VAT is avoidable on certain things as long as you are reasonably careful, and not on PAYE.
I thought Labour was going to have a positive campaign rather than go negative?
Its what the whole Notting Hill gentrification is based upon.
Miliband also has a helpful BBC, electoral set-up, faces a coalition making something approaching cuts, and is the leader of the only major nationwide opposition party [UKIP has significant support but sod all prospect of achieving anything like a majority].
Several of those negatives (funding and his own party not being enamoured with him) are his own fault.
It depends on how careful you want to be, but even if it is evasion, the chances of being caught are fairly slim.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11413940/Ed-Balls-refuses-to-back-Ed-Miliband-tax-loophole.html
It should be remembered that SME sized businesses often have to provide HMRC with tax returns and tax payments within a few days or weeks of the relevant transactions.
Failure to do so results in automatic fines and letters threatening to effectively shut down the business.
Britain's is 17000 pages...
The Lib Dems signed up for a Coalition Government, on the basis of a coalition agreement over policy.
The Lib Dems in government have stuck to that agreement - everybody comments on their reliability in government.
In contrast, a lot of Tories seemed to think that the Lib Dems had signed up to Tory policies. And tried to treat the Coalition Goverment as though it was a Tory one. Which is very definitely has not been. A Tory one would have been very different.
Consequently, they got a bit peeved when Lib Dems criticised their Tory colleagues for implementing Tory policies rather than agreed coalition policies. Take the original Lansley proposals for the NHS for example.
It is the disloyal Tory politiciams who should be criticised for unsettling the Coalition. And the Lib Dems who should be given their fair share of credit for the successful outcomes of agreed policy.
How rich do you need to be to make it worthwhile to employ a tax lawyer or tax accountant ?
Pienaar interviewed Ed B on radio five this morning. Ed B has to distance himself from the affair because of his brief. but among the usual dramatic fireworks that we expect from an interview these days there was a small sentence that solved one of the puzzles I had about Ed M's tax accusations
Bloody Hell, only £600 a show ! Doesn't really compare to what actors get these days for TV...
Not very. Probably over a few £10,000s/ yr of self employed income or £25,000 or so of savings.
These people shouldn't be obliged to use an accountant - the law should be unambiguous and clear, with only one amount of tax payable, no matter how you structure your affairs.
It hasn't been slotted in yet. The shot is on it's way and the crowd are willing it in, or wanting it to miss or be saved depending on allegiances.
Lot's of noise and confusion, but no decision.
The shadow chancellor said he would look at 'every area' of tax avoidance as part of a wider crackdown after the election.
Mr Balls confirmed this would include 'deeds of variation' – a legal move used by the Labour leader after his father died in 1994 to receive a share of his family's home.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954259/Balls-vows-investigate-tax-ploy-used-Labour-leader-Ed-Miliband-Chancellor-election.html
Ed Balls has said that he might close a tax loophole used by Ed Miliband, after insisting he would crack down on "aggressive tax avoidance".
The Shadow Chancellor failed to back the Labour leader’s over his family’s use of a “deed of variation”, which changed his father’s will posthumously to minimise the amount paid in inheritance tax.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11413940/Ed-Balls-refuses-to-back-Ed-Miliband-tax-loophole.html
Maybe this is due to his own situation in the GE in May.
However, he did not seem happy, when accused of the worst kind of pork barrel politics for his own seat.
It would be hard for Ed Balls to back any "loophole" when the Labour Party are promising a full review?
Given the comments coming from Labour this morning, I see there are 2 types of tax avoidance:-
The "predator" tax avoider (aka Tory donor) and the "producer" tax avoider (aka Labour donor).
Well I'm glad they cleared that up.
No, but hopefully Dave and Ozzie think the same way you do.
It makes Milliband's task a lot easier.
(easier, not easy)
Labour donor puts pressure on Miliband over Europe
LABOUR’S biggest individual donor is calling on Ed Miliband to hold a referendum on Europe if he wins power in May.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/558254/Ed-Miliband-eu-referendum
Does being a donor to a political party give you a right to dictate a policy then Carlotta?
It's not that difficult to DIY, if you're numerate, your affairs aren't too complicated, and you have the time. There's any amount of free advice and examples available on the internet from HMRC, lawyers and accountants.
Labour: 'Legitimate tax planning'
Tory: 'Avoiding/evading, they're Tories so its much the same thing really'
But not if you are merely individually wealthy? Then it is pure altruism?
Tax evasion is illegal
Tax avoidance is legal
Tax abuse is tax avoidance practiced by the other party.
Hypocrisy is what all politicians indulge in.
Clear?
Jim Murphy has been challenged to say he will not accept money from Sir David Garrard after revelations in the Sunday Times on his use of offshore trusts.
The Sunday Times reports that Labour donor Sir David Garrard had placed shares in offshore trusts, a mechanism that can be used to avoid tax. Earlier this week Ed Miliband pledged an inquiry into tax avoidance, making the suggestion that Labour donors could have been involved in the practice extremely damaging.
On Thursday the Times quoted Sir David Garrard saying “we’re talking tens of thousands” when asked how much he planned to donate to Jim Murphy. The Labour Donor had previously donated £1,570 to Jim Murphy’s leadership campaign.
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/feb/murphy-challenged-over-donations
Tax evasion is illegal until you get caught, then in the vast majority of cases it stops being illegal. (except in one in seven thousand cases apparently)