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

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

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.

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!

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

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.

kjh said:

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough 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

tlg86 said:

williamglenn 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.

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.

Roger said:

MoonRabbit said:

MattW said:

MoonRabbit 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?

.

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs 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".

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

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

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.

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,

kjh said:

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie 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

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs 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. 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.

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"......

noneoftheabove said:

OldKingCole said:

Stuartinromford said:

noneoftheabove said:

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tlg86 said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs 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. 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

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

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

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.

CarlottaVance said:

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jim_Miller 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

F1: no qualifying tip, but a couple of ruminations:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/04/australia-pre-qualifying-2022.html

kjh said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

Nigelb said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

MoonRabbit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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.

turbotubbs said:

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs said:

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs 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. 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.

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

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

kle4 said:

williamglenn 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

turbotubbs said:

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.

@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

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs said:

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs 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. 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.

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*

williamglenn said:

@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

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

Mr. Graves, welcome to PB.

Farooq said:

Applicant said:

.

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs 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.

Sentencing remarks in the Sabina Nessa case:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/R-v-Koci-Selmaj-sentencing-remarks-080422.pdf

Not once did the judge address the subject of a whole life tariff. That really ought to have at least been a consideration in this case.

MoonRabbit said:

NorthofStoke said:

Cookie said:

CorrectHorseBattery 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?

Oh, it's completely irrelevant to the next general election, withich will be either Boris v SKS or A.N.Other v SKS, and won and lost on its merits.

But its's notable that here it's a lefty who brought the comparison up in the first place.

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

turbotubbs 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. 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?

No - it begins with people turning a blind eye to the erosion of democracy because it does not affect them. That said, New Labour did not introduce voting or decriminalise peaceful protest.

Leon said:

Cheers PB

I finally found a lovely place to eat and drink in Izmir

Presumably that should be 'I have found the only lovely place to eat and drink in Izmir' based on your previous posts?

I have decided to resume my search for the five pocket fleece, far harder than Jason's quest for the golden fleece (he at least knew where it bloody was) tomorrow.

Good day, everyone.

TimT said:

Two for Leon. Things not looking good in China:

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1512157788859891718/photo/1

https://twitter.com/serpentza/status/1511936214323982341

Wow. That’s not good. Tho it would be nice (suffering aside) if the virus *potentially enhanced* in a Chinese lab came back to bite the CCP and removed Xi from power

I am not expecting it, but it would be the final triumph of my Second Rule of Covid: the Virus always comes back to haunt anyone that gloated about their handling of it. This rule has verified repeatedly throughout the two years of the pandemic

China is the last major hold-out. It’s just the Kiwis apart from them. And one has to wonder what 2 years of total global isolation have done to a lot of people in NZ