Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

My Sunak 2022 exit bet is looking better – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,618
    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    kle4 said:

    Evidence emerges that undercover Lib Dem pie chart experts are working for Macron:

    image

    https://twitter.com/DatapraxisEU/status/1512370126401810432

    It's not a real dodgy bar/pie chart unless it's so off it is showing the minority side as larger than the majority.
    The hardcore LibDem barchart technology was given by Clegg to Facebook. That's why they pay him all that money.

    So attempting to deploy a traditional LibDem bar chart would get you into IP issues, now.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    ping said:

    Who the fuck do the Sunaks think they are?

    They’re taking the piss out of the British people.

    Just fuck off to whichever tax haven will have you. You have shown contempt for our country.

    Piss off. Now.

    I shouldn't really be surprised that there are people who'd rather get no tax at all from this particular family, should I?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,720
    edited April 8
    ping said:

    Who the fuck do the Sunaks think they are?

    They’re taking the piss out of the British people.

    Just fuck off to whichever tax haven will have you. You have shown contempt for our country.

    Piss off. Now.

    Who was it upthread who said that no one would bring up the "loyalty to the UK" thing.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,557
    Latest Opinion Way Kea poll . Field work April 5 to 8.

    1st round shows a stable race with no changes in the main candidates from yesterday’s poll.

    Macron 26
    Le Pen 22
    Mélenchon 17
    Pécresse 9
    Zemmour 9

    2nd round

    Macron 54 up 1
    Le Pen 46 down 1
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,720
    TOPPING said:

    ping said:

    Who the fuck do the Sunaks think they are?

    They’re taking the piss out of the British people.

    Just fuck off to whichever tax haven will have you. You have shown contempt for our country.

    Piss off. Now.

    Who was it upthread who said that no one would bring up the "loyalty to the UK" thing.
    Edit: and liked by @Farooq - that big melting pot come all ye PB poster.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kle4 said:

    Evidence emerges that undercover Lib Dem pie chart experts are working for Macron:

    image

    https://twitter.com/DatapraxisEU/status/1512370126401810432

    It's not a real dodgy bar/pie chart unless it's so off it is showing the minority side as larger than the majority.
    Eyeballing it, that's at about 5 o'clock, so showing 49% as 42%
  • Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left
    It would be covered by the double-taxation treaty, so you can offset your UK tax against any US tax. Basically you pay the higher of the two in any given category.

    The problem of course is the administrative nightmare. US tax returns are horrendous!
    Both today and yesterday I have tried to explain the double taxation treaty situation following posts by people thinking that you will pay all your tax twice or deprive India (in the examples I have answered) of their tax. I have to do this every year with Spanish and Swiss income. I appear to be wasting my time because the same stuff keeps appearing.

    Edit - Sorry just to make clear that wasn't a criticism of @IshmaelZ. Sorry if it came across as such.
    Is there a taxation treaty with India? Genuine question.
    Yes.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/india-tax-treaties
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    Yep - IR35, all its evil words and all its empty promises.

    The one big loophole that’s still there, is to have your spouse on the payroll, earning just under the 40% tax packet. That’s worth £15k or so if you can keep your income outside IR35 (which must be easy if you’re an MP and it’s a second income stream from journalism).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,971
    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    Calm down

    Macron is going to win 52:48

    Seriously, that is my prediction

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.

    It's rising, but if you're rich enough, not a problem.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,406
    Important to remember when comparing current Macron polling with 2017 is that he is now the incumbent with a record to defend. He wasn't then. If it is him versus Le Pen, the focus of the final two weeks will be who should be head of state. That will surely favour Macron.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,785
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379

    A man who drove to London in order to attack a stranger has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 36 years for the murder of primary school teacher Sabina Nessa.

    In cases like this, life should mean life.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,406
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    Calm down

    Macron is going to win 52:48

    Seriously, that is my prediction

    Or, in other words, an overwhelming majority!

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712
    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,618
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    Calm down

    Macron is going to win 52:48

    Seriously, that is my prediction

    The magic ratio. Seriously though, Le Pen should not be this close to power. Perhaps even worse, unless he is convicted, Trump seems on course for a second go, but without any restraint.

    Bad times.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,684
    Mr. Jonathan, recall the alternative to Johnson was Corbyn.

    That's not to say Johnson isn't unworthy of high office. But he was not the worst candidate for the job.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?
    Surely not.
  • Johnson has been just as terrible as Corbyn would have been
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,494
    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    We'll have Sinn Fein in government in the 26 and 6 counties to cheer us up.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    There is a reason that the IT industry has moved from everyone trying to be a contractor. And all those jobs in local government that were on contract, now being put back to permanent.

    And it isn't because of a sudden love of HMRC.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,618
    edited April 8

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?
    Right now I am concerned about Nato. Le Pen is on the record wanting to pull out. Trump is no friend of Nato and Boris is - at best - completely untrustworthy. Will this lot mount an effective defence of Eastern Europe? I wouldn't bet on that.

    So yes, sadly, Putin will look at this and smile.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,289
    edited April 8

    HYUFD said:


    ido vock
    @idvck
    ·
    41m
    EXCLUSIVE: Macron on 51 per cent to Le Pen's 49 per cent in the second round of voting for the French president, new poll shows.


    https://twitter.com/idvck/status/1512372475056775170

    Close. Melenchon voters now splitting almost equally between Macron and Le Pen of those who will vote in the runoff.

    Macron gets 58% against Melenchon, 65% against Zemmour and 67% against Pecresse however.
    So hard left voters would vote for an alt-right, anti-migrant nationalist when it comes down to it.

    I guess I shouldn't surprised.
    The closest equivalent here would be a runoff between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage or Nick Griffin for next PM in 2017.

    Where would Corbyn supporters have gone? I would suggest many would have stayed home, the others would have split relatively equally for both sides, albeit with Clegg still having the edge
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,861

    Johnson has been just as terrible as Corbyn would have been

    No he isn't.
    The Boris haters are being a tad hysterical.
    He is a poor PM. Not a disastrous one.
    Imagine Corbyn being in charge for covid. Imagine Corbyn being in charge for Ukraine.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    tlg86 said:

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    Blimey. Macron getting nervous?
    Also stirring in the Visegrad pot, perhaps.

    Hungary is threatening to veto the EU Russia oil import ban, which gives centralists a chance to insert a lever between Hungary and Poland, which is the most supportive of Ukraine.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,618

    Mr. Jonathan, recall the alternative to Johnson was Corbyn.

    That's not to say Johnson isn't unworthy of high office. But he was not the worst candidate for the job.

    That old chestnut, which even if you happen to agree with it, provides no reason for Johnson to remain in office today. Get rid.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,684
    Mr. Battery, I absolutely disagree with you.

    Boris Johnson is riddled with personal and professional failures that make him unsuitable for Cabinet, let alone the premiership. Yet these pale beside the mindlessly pro-Russian fool who marched alongside banners of Stalin and Lenin (maybe he'll add a portrait of Putin next time).

    The far left is not a cuddly version of the far right. It's just as wretched, even if the press and public give it softer treatment for reasons that are inexplicable.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,406

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,572
    Roger said:

    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    Flipping eck. I had £25 on no. I was about to post some people are thick and ask for my money, but it looks like I have lost.

    You can catch covid from farts 🤭 But bum masks help to some degree.

    They need to stick naked mice farting on each other and bum pant mice farting on each other in bowl for more info.
    I read your post about your father's thoughts on Rishi. A man grounded in the Nothern heartlands who thought Rishis budget would prove to be a masterstroke and the Tories were now the serious party on their way up....

    My reputation as the worst tipster on here was hard earned but I have to admit you're giving me a good run for my money
    Where your post was wrong, in many ways the budget was smart not to use all the ammo now in populist media loving splurge. What you are playing on is how you say something to applause when your stock is high, politicians same message not listened to when stock is low. But if someone brings out a decent forward looking budget at a difficult time, next month outed as peadophile, it doesn’t change how the budget should be understood and received, should it? We can be more gown up in our analysis on this blog than that Roger.

    Also wrong, and a bit rude, in your overdoing it as Northern Heartlands. My Dad has been a moderate remain voting Tory in same place in Yorkshire since birth. It’s a Tory constituency. Truth is his consistent views no longer majority in his local party let alone the whole North, nor the whole North Labour before Boris came along.

    Plenty of poor judgement in your post Roger you need to defend. You should be grown up enough to concede at least some of this.

    What’s going on in your avatar? Is it date rape?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Cookie said:

    Johnson has been just as terrible as Corbyn would have been

    No he isn't.
    The Boris haters are being a tad hysterical.
    He is a poor PM. Not a disastrous one.
    Imagine Corbyn being in charge for covid. Imagine Corbyn being in charge for Ukraine.
    Well, on covid the first year - when Boris was blindly following what the modellers were telling him - would have been no difference. Although Corbyn might have closed the synagogues sooner... After that, when he suddenly realised that NPIs were a political decision and the doommongers didn't necessarily need to be appeased, then you have a point.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    .

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms.
    And they aren't the only ones. "Not My President".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,684
    Mr. Cookie, to be fair, we'd probably be shipping just as many weapons into the war (just for the other side...).

    Mr. Jonathan, you may recall I repeatedly condemned the cowardice and poor judgement of Conservative MPs when they didn't axe the PM.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,971
    Applicant said:

    ping said:

    Who the fuck do the Sunaks think they are?

    They’re taking the piss out of the British people.

    Just fuck off to whichever tax haven will have you. You have shown contempt for our country.

    Piss off. Now.

    I shouldn't really be surprised that there are people who'd rather get no tax at all from this particular family, should I?
    It’s also unsurprising that these revelations have made people angry. It is easy to perceive the actions of the Sunaks as contemptuous of the UK.

    In fact, I’ll say it. They are contemptuous. But this is how the super-rich behave. They generally have no loyalty to anything other than their favourite tax strategies (there are noble exceptions). And they are so up themselves they don’t know - or care? - how their arrogance and entitlement is seen by hoi polio

    ‘Twas ever thus. They are the aristocracy of our era

    Of course you are right in your main point. It is counter-productive to point this out, as these people being tax pounds to UK plc. And often talent and enterprise. That’s why no one is gonna make non dom status illegal

    However on occasion the underlying anger will bubble up. As here
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,883

    MaxPB said:

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    The truth hurts, sometimes.
    Reading that, all of it is probably true.

    1) Talking with Putin is a bit like taking with Hitler
    2) Morawiecki is far-right
    3) Morawiecki associates with anti-Semites, and may well be one himself
    4) Morawiecki quite definitely bans LGBT people
    5) Morawiecki would probably be in favour of Le Pen winning.
    I commented on this the other day, as a quirk of how the war is making people contort themselves. I think that Morawiecki in the last resort probably wants Le Pen more as a strategic ally than he wants Macron to stop talking to Putin, which would be only a tactical success. He probably reckons he can talk Le Pen round in practice.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    There is a reason that the IT industry has moved from everyone trying to be a contractor. And all those jobs in local government that were on contract, now being put back to permanent.

    And it isn't because of a sudden love of HMRC.
    Isn't that because of the crackdown on IR35. And a lot of that was employers wanting their staff to be contractors to avoid NI and avoid employee commitments. I knew loads in the past whose justification for being a contractor could never be justified under IR35 but little was done about it.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939
    edited April 8

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    There is a reason that the IT industry has moved from everyone trying to be a contractor. And all those jobs in local government that were on contract, now being put back to permanent.

    And it isn't because of a sudden love of HMRC.
    Isn't that because of the crackdown on IR35. And a lot of that was employers wanting their staff to be contractors to avoid NI and avoid employee commitments. I knew loads in the past whose justification for being a contractor could never be justified under IR35 but little was done about it.

    Edit I also agree it has been made less attractive to be a contractor and it was beneficial in the past. I was just challenging the degree.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712

    Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.

    Some will for sure. They are not all idiots, just some of them. Conservatism isn't just about wealth, its about self reliance, hard work, family. It doesn't tend to favour just giving out more money. The situation the country (and indeed many others) finds itself in is a bit shit. A lot of things have converged. The need to decarbonise and move to green power sources. Brexit to an extent. The war in Ukraine. At some point you cannot help everyone.
    Should more be done immediately? Quite possibly.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712

    Johnson has been just as terrible as Corbyn would have been

    Differently terrible thought, differently...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,404
    edited April 8
    The mayor of Kramatorsk Olexander Honcharenko says after the Russian strike on the railway, hospitals can’t cope with the number of wounded.
    “There are a lot of seriously injured people without arms and legs. They are being operated by 30-40 surgeons at the same time.”

    https://twitter.com/KSergatskova/status/1512379454059859970

    I won't post the videos, but they are horrific.
    There were 4000 civilians in the station at the time,
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,178
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    Isn't the difference between dividend tax and income tax (even at the standard rate) quite substantial?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,971
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    There is a reason that the IT industry has moved from everyone trying to be a contractor. And all those jobs in local government that were on contract, now being put back to permanent.

    And it isn't because of a sudden love of HMRC.
    Isn't that because of the crackdown on IR35. And a lot of that was employers wanting their staff to be contractors to avoid NI and avoid employee commitments. I knew loads in the past whose justification for being a contractor could never be justified under IR35 but little was done about it.
    As we have discussed before, I looked into company status - as a sole trader - about ten years ago, and the benefits now are slender. HMRC has really cracked down. You do gain a few quid but you also get a lot more paperwork and hassle

    So I can see why Boris - being quite languid and not fond of boring hassle - thought fuck it, and just paid his whack
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,002

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.
    If one of the most important democratic norms is respecting the outcome of elections, then arguably more damage was done by those opponents of Trump and Johnson/Brexit who tried to delegitimise them by discrediting the elections and alleging that the results were unreliable due to 'Russian interference'.

    I think your argument is more theological than political. You see some ideas as fundamentally sinful and that it is only a matter of degrees between anything vaguely on the right and Nazism.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

    I assume you are referring to Johnson 'lying' to Parliament. I think there will be a reckoning for that soon enough. Partygate is incredibly toxic, and with the CoL crisis, and ongoing NHS issues, people will not be well disposed to vote tory anytime soon (well hopefully).

    I think Johnson's sins are of a much lesser type that Trumps. I don't really believe that the insurgency could ever have worked, but the refusal to accept the results led to idiots storming the house and people died. Johnson has done nothing on that scale.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    Cookie said:

    Johnson has been just as terrible as Corbyn would have been

    No he isn't.
    The Boris haters are being a tad hysterical.
    He is a poor PM. Not a disastrous one.
    Imagine Corbyn being in charge for covid. Imagine Corbyn being in charge for Ukraine.
    Corbyn would have been several orders of magnitude worse. The only positive being that he might not have lasted long as PM.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,404
    For those saying Corbyn wouldn't have been that bad, even Paul Mason has smelt the coffee.

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1512374800618041346
    Corbyn's Jacobin article is a catalogue of platitudes designed to mislead people about StW. He still won't acknowledge the Bucha massacre was perpetrated by Russia, but that's not the biggest problem... 1/
    2/ All wars are bad. Fine. How do we stop this one? Here's JC's answer... "political pressure on Russia". How? Sanctions? StW is against sanctions. A demo? StW has not joined a single pro-Ukrainian demo in London apart from its own, desultory march...
    3/ He accuses "politicians" of advocating war against Russia. A few Tories have done - but no Western government has done. None. Nor has NATO. They're actively avoiding it by using sanctions - that JC opposes...
    4/ Here's the dishonest payload. There's *plenty of evidence* that key figures in StW - inc its "patron" Galloway - are actively spreading Russian narratives. Functionally the demand to "dissolve NATO" and platforming of Uighur/Syria war crimes deniers is further evidence...
    5/ Starmer was right to stop MPs backing StW. As result JC is the only MP left on their platform. And he still can't bring himself to actually say "the Russian chemical weapons attack in Salisbury"......
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited April 8
    ..
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    I do think it shows the difference between the Brexiteer elite, like Sunak, who see it as a liberating freedom for their money to move around the world, taxed lightly if at all, and the culturally Conservative working class Brexiteers who want to protect a way of life. The discordant between these two can develop into quite a chasm, and the Tories need to choose a side.
    Ultimately, they will need to choose a side.

    But the recent success of the Conservative party has been underpinned by not choosing a side- you can call it cakeism, or the more respectable "and" theory of Conservatism (smugly contrasted with the way that humourless lefties expel anyone who departs from the orthodox path in any way).

    As the good book says, a man cannot serve two masters.
    They have chosen, the donor elite get liberated freedom and the hoi polloi get flags and trans protection.
    I'm sure that was the plan. And it's a plan that works for the US Republicans. But it only works for them because of the way the country and electoral system are set up.

    You need bread and circuses, after all- not just circuses.
    And the energy package isn't even jam tomorrow; it's jam in ten years time.
    Should we not be expecting energy prices to fall back fairly significantly in 2024?
    A jammed up economy for several decades unless sense prevails.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    There is a reason that the IT industry has moved from everyone trying to be a contractor. And all those jobs in local government that were on contract, now being put back to permanent.

    And it isn't because of a sudden love of HMRC.
    Isn't that because of the crackdown on IR35. And a lot of that was employers wanting their staff to be contractors to avoid NI and avoid employee commitments. I knew loads in the past whose justification for being a contractor could never be justified under IR35 but little was done about it.
    As we have discussed before, I looked into company status - as a sole trader - about ten years ago, and the benefits now are slender. HMRC has really cracked down. You do gain a few quid but you also get a lot more paperwork and hassle

    So I can see why Boris - being quite languid and not fond of boring hassle - thought fuck it, and just paid his whack
    Back when we are talking about - before IR35 - the difference was very substantial.

    You should have heard the howling in the IT industry from people who thought that a 20% tax rate was a human right....
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939
    edited April 8

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left
    It would be covered by the double-taxation treaty, so you can offset your UK tax against any US tax. Basically you pay the higher of the two in any given category.

    The problem of course is the administrative nightmare. US tax returns are horrendous!
    Both today and yesterday I have tried to explain the double taxation treaty situation following posts by people thinking that you will pay all your tax twice or deprive India (in the examples I have answered) of their tax. I have to do this every year with Spanish and Swiss income. I appear to be wasting my time because the same stuff keeps appearing.

    Edit - Sorry just to make clear that wasn't a criticism of @IshmaelZ. Sorry if it came across as such.
    Is there a taxation treaty with India? Genuine question.
    Good question. I don't know. In s previous post I covered the situation in both cases. I believe someone said there was and I could have looked it up by the time I made this post. Of course if there isn't it does make a huge difference and would be a good defence.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    Isn't the difference between dividend tax and income tax (even at the standard rate) quite substantial?
    Yes - that's where the whole personal company things *starts*

    It gets much more complicated, of course.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,971

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.
    If one of the most important democratic norms is respecting the outcome of elections, then arguably more damage was done by those opponents of Trump and Johnson/Brexit who tried to delegitimise them by discrediting the elections and alleging that the results were unreliable due to 'Russian interference'.

    I think your argument is more theological than political. You see some ideas as fundamentally sinful and that it is only a matter of degrees between anything vaguely on the right and Nazism.
    Quite. The Remoaners who wanted to annul the biggest vote in our history and have “another people’s vote” so as to reverse the first - without ever enacting it - were very clearly a far greater threat to democracy than anything Boris has done or will do. Some of them now realise this, the shame is obvious as they quickly try to move the subject on; the really stupid or deranged still do not accept it, perhaps it is too cognitively painful and strange. They are the baddies
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,406

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

    I assume you are referring to Johnson 'lying' to Parliament. I think there will be a reckoning for that soon enough. Partygate is incredibly toxic, and with the CoL crisis, and ongoing NHS issues, people will not be well disposed to vote tory anytime soon (well hopefully).

    I think Johnson's sins are of a much lesser type that Trumps. I don't really believe that the insurgency could ever have worked, but the refusal to accept the results led to idiots storming the house and people died. Johnson has done nothing on that scale.

    No, I am thinking of legislating to make it harder to vote, to criminalise peaceful protest, to take control of the Electoral Commission and to reduce the role of the courts in holding the executive to account, all while bypassing Parliament or severely limiting Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,971
    Nigelb said:

    The mayor of Kramatorsk Olexander Honcharenko says after the Russian strike on the railway, hospitals can’t cope with the number of wounded.
    “There are a lot of seriously injured people without arms and legs. They are being operated by 30-40 surgeons at the same time.”

    https://twitter.com/KSergatskova/status/1512379454059859970

    I won't post the videos, but they are horrific.
    There were 4000 civilians in the station at the time,


    The videos are indeed horrific. And this is only going to get worse
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,404
    IshmaelZ said:

    Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.

    It's rising, but if you're rich enough, not a problem.
    The Tory messaging is... suboptimal.

    https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1512187116033388548
    “It’s not a loan, it is a discount”

    “What are you all shouting? They’re saying it’s a loan”

    @Greghands tries to explain to the #bbcqt audience why the government’s £200 energy discount is not a loan.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,404
    https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1512375012946292736
    Shortly before the attack on Kramatorsk railway station, at around 10.25 AM, two missiles were launched from pro-Russian controlled Shakhtarsk city (DNR). The Kramatorsk railway station was also hit by two missiles, this could be the location from where it was launched.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939
    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    Isn't the difference between dividend tax and income tax (even at the standard rate) quite substantial?
    Yes but it is more complicated than that as @Malmesbury says. Firstly if you have a company you will pay corporation tax which more than wipes that out. But you do save on NI. The biggest gain (assuming you are not trying it on with some dubious scheme) is the flexibility on when you pay dividends and therefore attract dividend tax.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,437

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
    The whole non dom thing is a tax dodge. Of course it is legal. But it is still a tax dodge, a special arrangement for the mega wealthy to avoid paying the same taxes as the rest of us.
    It is sickening that Sunak carps on about balancing the budget, usually in the context of why we can't afford to give people an extra £20 per week so they can feed their children, while his own household plays the system to avoid paying taxes, which they could eadily afford, that might help to balance the budget.
    Would you rather than they didn’t come here but went somewhere else instead?

    Lots of people decide to avoid America because of the global tax issue
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,505
    edited April 8

    Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.

    Some will for sure. They are not all idiots, just some of them. Conservatism isn't just about wealth, its about self reliance, hard work, family. It doesn't tend to favour just giving out more money. The situation the country (and indeed many others) finds itself in is a bit shit. A lot of things have converged. The need to decarbonise and move to green power sources. Brexit to an extent. The war in Ukraine. At some point you cannot help everyone.
    Should more be done immediately? Quite possibly.
    But current issues aren't simply affecting the undeserving poor. Absolute grafters doing the best for their families on poverty wages are selecting whether to pay for food or heating.

    The absolute contrast between, for example Sunak fighting tooth and nail to keep heating assistance down to a minimum whilst his billionaire family save millions in tax avoidance schemes...or Boris Johnson taking bungs to pay for his wife's exorbitantly priced wallpaper whilst children miss meals is mind boggling.

    It's enough to turn a Centrist Liberal to Communism.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,437
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.
    If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?
    Most of us with a share portfolio invest in various different countries but we pay tax on it where we're domiciled. She appears to be living in the UK so she must have chosen to be domiciled elsewhere for some other reason
    Domicile is derived from place of birth
    It means for tax purposes where your permanent home is.
    Where your “forever” home is not your “permanent” home
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,437

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    It was poorly expressed.

    But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community

    That behaviour is not meritorious
    I had lunch the other day with a group of retirees from my former employer. One of them spends his time travelling between several homes so he does not end up tax resident anywhere. He looked exhausted.
    There’s someone very wealthy I know who organises his affairs like that. I can’t think why you would do that to save a few euros
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,934
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.

    It's rising, but if you're rich enough, not a problem.
    The Tory messaging is... suboptimal.

    https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1512187116033388548
    “It’s not a loan, it is a discount”

    “What are you all shouting? They’re saying it’s a loan”

    @Greghands tries to explain to the #bbcqt audience why the government’s £200 energy discount is not a loan.
    Has HYUFD been training him up?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,684
    F1: no qualifying tip, but a couple of ruminations:
    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/04/australia-pre-qualifying-2022.html
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,572
    edited April 8

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.

    It's rising, but if you're rich enough, not a problem.
    The Tory messaging is... suboptimal.

    https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1512187116033388548
    “It’s not a loan, it is a discount”

    “What are you all shouting? They’re saying it’s a loan”

    @Greghands tries to explain to the #bbcqt audience why the government’s £200 energy discount is not a loan.
    Has HYUFD been training him up?
    The Tory messaging to take heat off Sunak is brilliant. Like this

    “ Boris Johnson refuses to rule out another lockdown”

    We can add to that, bum masks as well as face masks this time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278
    kjh said:

    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    Isn't the difference between dividend tax and income tax (even at the standard rate) quite substantial?
    Yes but it is more complicated than that as @Malmesbury says. Firstly if you have a company you will pay corporation tax which more than wipes that out. But you do save on NI. The biggest gain (assuming you are not trying it on with some dubious scheme) is the flexibility on when you pay dividends and therefore attract dividend tax.
    And yet hundreds of thousands of contractors howled to the heavens when they were cut off by IR35.

    They weren't doing it just for the NI savings.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,712

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

    I assume you are referring to Johnson 'lying' to Parliament. I think there will be a reckoning for that soon enough. Partygate is incredibly toxic, and with the CoL crisis, and ongoing NHS issues, people will not be well disposed to vote tory anytime soon (well hopefully).

    I think Johnson's sins are of a much lesser type that Trumps. I don't really believe that the insurgency could ever have worked, but the refusal to accept the results led to idiots storming the house and people died. Johnson has done nothing on that scale.

    No, I am thinking of legislating to make it harder to vote, to criminalise peaceful protest, to take control of the Electoral Commission and to reduce the role of the courts in holding the executive to account, all while bypassing Parliament or severely limiting Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation.
    Most countries require ID to vote. You can argue it makes it harder to vote, but I would have a system of either (a) Present your polling card or (b) some form of ID. Voting is incredibly important and you should have to prove you are the person you say you are.

    Peaceful protest must be protected. Is what extinction rebellion do peaceful protest? Do they have the right to stop someone visiting a dying relative in hospital? Does that Stop Brexit idiot have the right to harass politicians? Hopefully a more moderate version of the proposed bill will evolve.

    With no written constitution who is right about the courts and parliamentary sovereignty?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,720
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.

    It's rising, but if you're rich enough, not a problem.
    The Tory messaging is... suboptimal.

    https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1512187116033388548
    “It’s not a loan, it is a discount”

    “What are you all shouting? They’re saying it’s a loan”

    @Greghands tries to explain to the #bbcqt audience why the government’s £200 energy discount is not a loan.
    That clip will form the @HYUFD remote learning module for April.

    But you can see why @HY does what he does. He aspires to be a Cons politician and Cons politicians do just what Hands did. Try to steamroll their way through talking points even when they are demonstrably incorrect.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,971
    ON topic, has anyone ever been to Pergamom? Is it worth a major effort to see?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,505

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Just wondering if the Tories have any ideas about CoL yet.

    It's rising, but if you're rich enough, not a problem.
    The Tory messaging is... suboptimal.

    https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1512187116033388548
    “It’s not a loan, it is a discount”

    “What are you all shouting? They’re saying it’s a loan”

    @Greghands tries to explain to the #bbcqt audience why the government’s £200 energy discount is not a loan.
    Has HYUFD been training him up?
    The Tory messaging to take heat off Sunak is brilliant. Like this

    “ Boris Johnson refuses to rule out another lockdown”
    The Conservatives are on the cusp of becoming Major Government toxic. To pull it back Johnson and Sunak need to go quickly.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,168
    Paul Goodnan on R4 - Sunak does probably realise toxicity of issue, but is sticking with it. Also doesn’t believe No.10 is behind briefing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,406

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

    I assume you are referring to Johnson 'lying' to Parliament. I think there will be a reckoning for that soon enough. Partygate is incredibly toxic, and with the CoL crisis, and ongoing NHS issues, people will not be well disposed to vote tory anytime soon (well hopefully).

    I think Johnson's sins are of a much lesser type that Trumps. I don't really believe that the insurgency could ever have worked, but the refusal to accept the results led to idiots storming the house and people died. Johnson has done nothing on that scale.

    No, I am thinking of legislating to make it harder to vote, to criminalise peaceful protest, to take control of the Electoral Commission and to reduce the role of the courts in holding the executive to account, all while bypassing Parliament or severely limiting Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation.
    Most countries require ID to vote. You can argue it makes it harder to vote, but I would have a system of either (a) Present your polling card or (b) some form of ID. Voting is incredibly important and you should have to prove you are the person you say you are.

    Peaceful protest must be protected. Is what extinction rebellion do peaceful protest? Do they have the right to stop someone visiting a dying relative in hospital? Does that Stop Brexit idiot have the right to harass politicians? Hopefully a more moderate version of the proposed bill will evolve.

    With no written constitution who is right about the courts and parliamentary sovereignty?

    I am sure there are ways to justify each measure individually, there always are, but taken together there is a clear direction of travel - especially when you throw in the constant lies and the grift. No, the UK is not Poland or Hungary, let alone Russia, but we are closer than we used to be; and it's a journey France will also begin if Le Pen is elected.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,905

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
    The whole non dom thing is a tax dodge. Of course it is legal. But it is still a tax dodge, a special arrangement for the mega wealthy to avoid paying the same taxes as the rest of us.
    It is sickening that Sunak carps on about balancing the budget, usually in the context of why we can't afford to give people an extra £20 per week so they can feed their children, while his own household plays the system to avoid paying taxes, which they could eadily afford, that might help to balance the budget.
    Would you rather than they didn’t come here but went somewhere else instead?

    Lots of people decide to avoid America because of the global tax issue
    The reality is that the very rich are very rich indeed, and if a country can scrape a small percentage of that it's good business. But, as people rightly said about another issue, it's not just about the money.

    The two greatest commandments for elites who want to avoid a revolution are:

    1 Don't take the piss, even if it's otherwise legal to do so.
    2 Don't rub the little people's noses in it.

    And that's why Rishi, like Boris, has a problem.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,404
    As we're not going back to Afghanistan, sending these is a no brainer.
    Ukrainę has a serious need for armoured transport to get soldiers and kit from the west to the front in the east.

    Britain will be sending an unspecified number of Mastiff heavily armoured patrol vehicles to Ukraine, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has confirmed.
    https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1512403520556838926
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,002
    edited April 8

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.
    If one of the most important democratic norms is respecting the outcome of elections, then arguably more damage was done by those opponents of Trump and Johnson/Brexit who tried to delegitimise them by discrediting the elections and alleging that the results were unreliable due to 'Russian interference'.

    I think your argument is more theological than political. You see some ideas as fundamentally sinful and that it is only a matter of degrees between anything vaguely on the right and Nazism.

    There is a journey that begins with constraining democracy, then taking it over then destroying it. When you legislate as a government to make it harder to vote, to take control of the Electoral Commission, to criminalise peaceful protest and to prevent the courts from scrutinising your actions, all while substantially reducing the role of Parliament and putting your supporters in charge of the media, you are starting on the path.
    So the 'journey' to wars of aggression begins with questioning the role of New Labour-era institutions?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,939

    kjh said:

    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
    How could it be huge? There is practically no difference between expenses on self employed compared to a company. Obviously if you are on a payroll the allowed expenses is very limited, but if you are writing opinion type articles that should be a pretty limited difference.

    I'm sure if you really work at it you can find all sorts of schemes that are borderline avoidance/evasion and save heaps, but I think you need to really go at it to benefit to that extent.

    I had a limited company from 1993. I had it because it made my life a lot easier and I knew how to do it all myself, so I didn't have the headache and cost of an accountant. Yes I used the system to avoid paying too much tax because I didn't need to take money out of the company to live on so I was flexible in how I paid myself, but the saving wouldn't have been huge and that option would be limited to anyone who needs to take the money out to live on.

    Those halving their tax bill in the past sound like they must have been pushing the bounds of legality.
    Isn't the difference between dividend tax and income tax (even at the standard rate) quite substantial?
    Yes but it is more complicated than that as @Malmesbury says. Firstly if you have a company you will pay corporation tax which more than wipes that out. But you do save on NI. The biggest gain (assuming you are not trying it on with some dubious scheme) is the flexibility on when you pay dividends and therefore attract dividend tax.
    And yet hundreds of thousands of contractors howled to the heavens when they were cut off by IR35.

    They weren't doing it just for the NI savings.
    I suspect we are talking at cross purposes. I am referring to the difference between a sole trader and a company. It has just become apparent to me that you are talking about the difference between an employee and company. I agree that is a big difference and IR35 rightly stamped down on it, although not enough as I knew several who fell foul or it and continued to do so.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.
    If one of the most important democratic norms is respecting the outcome of elections, then arguably more damage was done by those opponents of Trump and Johnson/Brexit who tried to delegitimise them by discrediting the elections and alleging that the results were unreliable due to 'Russian interference'.

    I think your argument is more theological than political. You see some ideas as fundamentally sinful and that it is only a matter of degrees between anything vaguely on the right and Nazism.
    Well said. Even more so when one candidate’s campaign fabricates evidence to get the FBI to spy on their rival’s campaign, something which is becoming increasingly evident with HRC’s campaign in 2016.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    ON topic, has anyone ever been to Pergamom? Is it worth a major effort to see?

    I have

    It depends if you like Greek cities with acropolises and such - it's a very fine example, magnificent stonework. I am biased in that I am a Galen specialist and it's where the bloviating windbag came from, but it is pretty special.

    Aphrodisias prob even better if it's realistic alternative. Or Tlos.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    Applicant said:

    .

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms.
    And they aren't the only ones. "Not My President".
    People were saying that when Obama was in power. And when Bush was in power. It's a pretty meaningless howl of disapproval.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,278

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

    I assume you are referring to Johnson 'lying' to Parliament. I think there will be a reckoning for that soon enough. Partygate is incredibly toxic, and with the CoL crisis, and ongoing NHS issues, people will not be well disposed to vote tory anytime soon (well hopefully).

    I think Johnson's sins are of a much lesser type that Trumps. I don't really believe that the insurgency could ever have worked, but the refusal to accept the results led to idiots storming the house and people died. Johnson has done nothing on that scale.

    No, I am thinking of legislating to make it harder to vote, to criminalise peaceful protest, to take control of the Electoral Commission and to reduce the role of the courts in holding the executive to account, all while bypassing Parliament or severely limiting Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation.
    Most countries require ID to vote. You can argue it makes it harder to vote, but I would have a system of either (a) Present your polling card or (b) some form of ID. Voting is incredibly important and you should have to prove you are the person you say you are.

    Peaceful protest must be protected. Is what extinction rebellion do peaceful protest? Do they have the right to stop someone visiting a dying relative in hospital? Does that Stop Brexit idiot have the right to harass politicians? Hopefully a more moderate version of the proposed bill will evolve.

    With no written constitution who is right about the courts and parliamentary sovereignty?

    I am sure there are ways to justify each measure individually, there always are, but taken together there is a clear direction of travel - especially when you throw in the constant lies and the grift. No, the UK is not Poland or Hungary, let alone Russia, but we are closer than we used to be; and it's a journey France will also begin if Le Pen is elected.

    Genuine question on protest - what do you make of the Canadian reaction to the truck protests?

    One thing the protestors are always surprised by is the reaction to their inventing a new protest method.

    1) "We will beat them now, by blocking the roads!"
    2) "Why have the fascist bastard scumbags made blocking roads illegal?"

    I like following the chain of action and reaction. The longest one I can think of is the the one that has come to the Home Sec having the power to withdraw citizenship. Which began with a determination (by some) that Hookhand should never face a Jordanian prison, and the idea that Treason was obsolete in the International Age..
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,926
    kle4 said:

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    Jeez, bit more of the European harmony, guys.
    Morawiecki regularly equates the German government with Hitler, so I guess Macron merely negotiating with him is an improvement
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,993

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    It was poorly expressed.

    But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community

    That behaviour is not meritorious
    I had lunch the other day with a group of retirees from my former employer. One of them spends his time travelling between several homes so he does not end up tax resident anywhere. He looked exhausted.
    There’s someone very wealthy I know who organises his affairs like that. I can’t think why you would do that to save a few euros
    Wasn't that the cause of Boris Becker's financial downfall ? Some uber-obsessed fan worked out he had spent more than 183 days in Germany one year ?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,883



    Most countries require ID to vote. You can argue it makes it harder to vote, but I would have a system of either (a) Present your polling card or (b) some form of ID. Voting is incredibly important and you should have to prove you are the person you say you are.

    Peaceful protest must be protected. Is what extinction rebellion do peaceful protest? Do they have the right to stop someone visiting a dying relative in hospital? Does that Stop Brexit idiot have the right to harass politicians? Hopefully a more moderate version of the proposed bill will evolve.

    With no written constitution who is right about the courts and parliamentary sovereignty?

    The thing about ID is that nearly everyone else has ID cards which people carry as routinely as we carry credit cards, so asking people to show it is no big deal at all. Lots of people in Britain don't routinely carry phot ID, so they need to remember to dig it out before they go to vote. It's a minor hassle and some won't bother or will forget.

    Insofar as we have a loophole, it must be family influencing each other for postal votes. The problem of people turning up and pretending to be someone else is virtually non-existent. People can barely be arsed to turn up as themselves.

    I agree about protest, though.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 699
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379

    A man who drove to London in order to attack a stranger has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 36 years for the murder of primary school teacher Sabina Nessa.

    In cases like this, life should mean life.

    No, in cases like this, he should hang.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,002
    @maxseddon
    Russia's defense ministry initially said it used high-precision rockets on three railway stations in the Donbas today.

    But after the scale of the casualties in Kramatorsk became clear, it claimed the strike was a "provocation" that "has nothing to do with reality."


    https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1512370386100527110
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,505

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.
    If one of the most important democratic norms is respecting the outcome of elections, then arguably more damage was done by those opponents of Trump and Johnson/Brexit who tried to delegitimise them by discrediting the elections and alleging that the results were unreliable due to 'Russian interference'.

    I think your argument is more theological than political. You see some ideas as fundamentally sinful and that it is only a matter of degrees between anything vaguely on the right and Nazism.

    There is a journey that begins with constraining democracy, then taking it over then destroying it. When you legislate as a government to make it harder to vote, to take control of the Electoral Commission, to criminalise peaceful protest and to prevent the courts from scrutinising your actions, all while substantially reducing the role of Parliament and putting your supporters in charge of the media, you are starting on the path.

    ...and removing the 15 year restriction on ex pats who have no intention of ever returning to the UK, voting Conservative in General Elections. To what constituencies are these renewed Conservative voters to be allocated? And how rigorous will their international postal vote security checks be?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms. There is little doubt that a professed admirer of Orban and Putin would seek to do the same in France. That's the start of the journey. It's one that is a little further down the line in both Hungary and Poland. It's one that ends with what Putin is now doing in Ukraine.

    I assume you are referring to Johnson 'lying' to Parliament. I think there will be a reckoning for that soon enough. Partygate is incredibly toxic, and with the CoL crisis, and ongoing NHS issues, people will not be well disposed to vote tory anytime soon (well hopefully).

    I think Johnson's sins are of a much lesser type that Trumps. I don't really believe that the insurgency could ever have worked, but the refusal to accept the results led to idiots storming the house and people died. Johnson has done nothing on that scale.

    No, I am thinking of legislating to make it harder to vote, to criminalise peaceful protest, to take control of the Electoral Commission and to reduce the role of the courts in holding the executive to account, all while bypassing Parliament or severely limiting Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation.
    I still can't quite understand why it should be easier to vote than to, say, collect a parcel from the sorting office. Or, indeed, why Northern Ireland should benefit from a more secure voting system than Great Britain. And by linking this (in my eyes) very sensible reform to other things, the Left puts me off seeing those other things as particularly serious.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,404
    Hamilton, after free practice.
    "Nothing we change on the car makes a difference..."

    Apparently Mercedes' performance has little or no correlation with what they are seeing in the simulators, so they are effectively lost for a direction to develop the car in - and setup changes on track aren't telling them anything either.

    Looks as though this season might be a write off for them.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,684
    edited April 8
    Mr. B, yeah, I was tempted by the evens bet I mention but the time frame puts me off.

    Edited extra bit: my old fleece's zip is utterly done so I need a new one. It seems five pocket fleeces are some sort of mythical beast that were hunted to extinction in the last decade or two. *sighs*
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,572

    Cookie said:

    Johnson has been just as terrible as Corbyn would have been

    No he isn't.
    The Boris haters are being a tad hysterical.
    He is a poor PM. Not a disastrous one.
    Imagine Corbyn being in charge for covid. Imagine Corbyn being in charge for Ukraine.
    Corbyn would have been several orders of magnitude worse. The only positive being that he might not have lasted long as PM.
    “ Corbyn would have been several orders of magnitude worse “. Absolutely true!

    But can Tories put that on leaflets and win elections, maintain and add voters with that line on leaflets now, or the days of Corbyn winning them elections long gone?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,404
    edited April 8

    @maxseddon
    Russia's defense ministry initially said it used high-precision rockets on three railway stations in the Donbas today.

    But after the scale of the casualties in Kramatorsk became clear, it claimed the strike was a "provocation" that "has nothing to do with reality."


    https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1512370386100527110

    What was it that Darth Putin said ?

    'If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, denies it’s a duck, demands you prove it's a duck, accuses you of being a duck, says your dog is a duck, that your friend's cat is a duck & that all 3 'ducks' are Russophobic ducks paid to be crisis actors, it’s a Kremlin duck'
    https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1511754788307939329
  • JamesgravesJamesgraves Posts: 24

    Johnson has been just as terrible as Corbyn would have been

    The Tories have been performing very well in real elections though under Johnson such as last night's by election in High Peak where the Conservatives trounced Labour.

    The Tories could do well at the local elections and tie with Labour like in 2018. Labour aren't even certain to gain any London councils.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,971
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    ON topic, has anyone ever been to Pergamom? Is it worth a major effort to see?

    I have

    It depends if you like Greek cities with acropolises and such - it's a very fine example, magnificent stonework. I am biased in that I am a Galen specialist and it's where the bloviating windbag came from, but it is pretty special.

    Aphrodisias prob even better if it's realistic alternative. Or Tlos.
    ooh. Ta

    Will look now

    i do love classical ruins. I love all the tiny things about them. The crunch of the little pebbles under your boots as you tread the ancient roads, in the hot sun, knowing that in about three hours you will have absorbed all this beauty and you will be downing a cold beer in the shade of the green green cypress trees. Glorious
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,572
    Nigelb said:

    Hamilton, after free practice.
    "Nothing we change on the car makes a difference..."

    Apparently Mercedes' performance has little or no correlation with what they are seeing in the simulators, so they are effectively lost for a direction to develop the car in - and setup changes on track aren't telling them anything either.

    Looks as though this season might be a write off for them.
    Yep. They have been out thought by Red Bulls brilliant underside of the car.

    How much is everyone paid at Mercedes to be such colossal losers?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,684
    Mr. Graves, welcome to PB.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    Johnson has been just as terrible as Corbyn would have been

    The Tories have been performing very well in real elections though under Johnson such as last night's by election in High Peak where the Conservatives trounced Labour.

    The Tories could do well at the local elections and tie with Labour like in 2018. Labour aren't even certain to gain any London councils.
    The Conservatives lost all the seats that they contested yesterday, apart from that one, which looks better for them then you think because it was a by election in a multi-member seat. In which they finished first last time.

    You need better evidence than that for your claim.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    .

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms.
    And they aren't the only ones. "Not My President".
    People were saying that when Obama was in power. And when Bush was in power. It's a pretty meaningless howl of disapproval.
    Rather more intensely with each successive president, though.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    Applicant said:

    Farooq said:

    Applicant said:

    .

    Jonathan said:

    Johnson in London
    Le Pen in Paris
    Trump in Washington
    Putin smiling in Moscow

    What a total shitshow lurks on the horizon.

    But that democracy for three of those nations. And try as you might, you should not include Trump, Johnson and Le Pen in the same class as Putin. Putin has invaded a neighbour, killed thousands of people (including his own troops), overseen war crimes, launched chemical weapons attacks across the globe. What did Trump do (in office)? Started the process of pulling out of Afghanistan. Confused the hell out of Rocketman in North Korea. Avoided blowing up the world by accident. What of Johnson? He pushed through a form of brexit that many don't like and probably isn't going to work or last in the long term - another government will correct that. He tried his best in the pandemic, and got some things right and some things wrong. He broke his own laws over socialising and was wrong to do so, but he didn't invade France. And Le Pen - what are her policies? Invading Germany? Or is it just that she is of the right that you don't like her?

    Trump and Johnson have both used their time in power to weaken democratic norms.
    And they aren't the only ones. "Not My President".
    People were saying that when Obama was in power. And when Bush was in power. It's a pretty meaningless howl of disapproval.
    Rather more intensely with each successive president, though.
    Well, social media has grown.
    Famous commentators like Sean Hannity (who said it about Obama) have helped to normalise it.
This discussion has been closed.