I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
The Bulgarian National Archaeological Museum is chock full of treasures, but nonetheless this still stands out. A stone relief, cut from red schist in the 12 century AD, and gold medal winner in the category “World’s Worst Lion Sculpture”, Ravenna Expo, 1197
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I wonder how many voters, not just Reform voters, care about McMurdock. Many, I suspect, would be happy to avoid paying tax themselves, and would happily cheat the taxman if they thought they could get away with it.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
murders of black people don't tend to feature heavily on the usual alt-right social media feeds
I don't even know what an 'alt right social media feed' is, so I can't comment directly. However, two points: on murders like the one you mention there is usually nothing worthwhile to say as the media print the press release and nothing more is available. So apart from repeating how terrible murder is, which we knew, there isn't anything to add.
Most murders don't get national attention.
no, but we do get william glenn and leon regularly posting about such things, they strangely avoided this one
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
God this is like banging your head against a brick wall.
There is nothing for HMRC to trace no matter what resources they put into it. NOTHING. I don't avoid or evade tax. What is wrong with you?
I don't use any clever tax free schemes.
50% of my wealth is in my main home and holiday home 20% is in my DC pensions 27% in in savings and dividends upon which I pay all my tax 2% in ISAs 1% in Premium bonds
What are these tax free schemes I use to avoid tax that HMRC could find if they had the resources? Go on name one.
What you fail to understand is it isn't just me there will be thousands of us pensioners out there in the same position who have saved for their pension and live off a mix of all small income AND CAPITAL and therefore even though well off they don't hit the £35k INCOME mark. My income is a basic state pension and interest and dividends that are under £35k. I top it up by cashing in Capital.
So many people will be getting the WFA who shouldn't and most won't give it back.
How is it you don't get it? £35,000 is far too high a threshold and there should definitely be a Capital test to exclude people like me and the thousands in the same position. Because benefits are restricted if you have capital, previously there was in effect a Capital test that excluded me. That has gone. It is a cock up by the Govt in their U turn. How do you not get this?
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I wonder how many voters, not just Reform voters, care about McMurdock. Many, I suspect, would be happy to avoid paying tax themselves, and would happily cheat the taxman if they thought they could get away with it.
The McMurdock allegations aren't about tax avoidance, though. They're essentially about theft - lining your pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. Allegedly.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I wonder how many voters, not just Reform voters, care about McMurdock. Many, I suspect, would be happy to avoid paying tax themselves, and would happily cheat the taxman if they thought they could get away with it.
The McMurdock allegations aren't about tax avoidance, though. They're essentially about theft - lining your pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. Allegedly.
But they’re only allegations at the moment, which he has denied and he has the presumption of innocence here. Yet the way some people go on is as if he is guilty already (not aimed at you BTW)
Fuxsake. If you can't pick the right side when an authoritarian dictatorship invades a democracy as part of a war of conquest, then you have some serious issues.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes did I?
Tax avoidance has really negative connotations, you should use the more benign term ‘tax minimisation strategies.’
"“At this point I don’t see much of a future for Southend,” says Penny. “All the shops are closing, crime is getting worse, there’s graffiti and litter everywhere, drugs. I work and live here and so I see it on a daily basis. I think it’s gone pretty downhill.
Penny and Archie, two 19-year-olds living in Southend-on-Sea on the east coast are trying to find somewhere to buy food on their lunch break from the local college. Although both work part-time in hospitality jobs, they feel despondent about building a future for themselves in the town.”
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
Is HYUFD seriously defending loan fraud, or saying that Reform voters will ? So much for the law and order reputation of the Tory party faithful.
Yep, but it appears that an ISA, Premium bonds, Pension or buying a house to live in which means you are not paying tax on potential revenue generated is really, really, really, evil.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes did I?
Tax avoidance has really negative connotations, you should use the more benign term ‘tax minimisation strategies.’
It wasn't me who bloody well used it in the first place. You're a lawyer what are my damages prospects?
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I wonder how many voters, not just Reform voters, care about McMurdock. Many, I suspect, would be happy to avoid paying tax themselves, and would happily cheat the taxman if they thought they could get away with it.
The McMurdock allegations aren't about tax avoidance, though. They're essentially about theft - lining your pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. Allegedly.
But they’re only allegations at the moment, which he has denied and he has the presumption of innocence here. Yet the way some people go on is as if he is guilty already (not aimed at you BTW)
Indeed, we only have allegations that he committed fraud. We should not confuse allegations with convictions. For example, he was convicted of repeatedly kicking his girlfriend as she lay on the ground.
Damn it i thought Laras record was going to be beaten...... Mulder declares with himself 367n.o. against the Zimbabweans, 5th highest test score in history
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes did I?
Tax avoidance has really negative connotations, you should use the more benign term ‘tax minimisation strategies.’
It wasn't me who bloody well used it in the first place. You're a lawyer what are my damages prospects?
Just ask him about the Royal Family's tax avoiding policies.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I wonder how many voters, not just Reform voters, care about McMurdock. Many, I suspect, would be happy to avoid paying tax themselves, and would happily cheat the taxman if they thought they could get away with it.
The McMurdock allegations aren't about tax avoidance, though. They're essentially about theft - lining your pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. Allegedly.
But they’re only allegations at the moment, which he has denied and he has the presumption of innocence here. Yet the way some people go on is as if he is guilty already (not aimed at you BTW)
Indeed, we only have allegations that he committed fraud. We should not confuse allegations with convictions. For example, he was convicted of repeatedly kicking his girlfriend as she lay on the ground.
What on earth is the point of that comment ?
We all know this and it’s not being excused.
Just that this is only an allegation and people are talking about him as if he is guilty.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I wonder how many voters, not just Reform voters, care about McMurdock. Many, I suspect, would be happy to avoid paying tax themselves, and would happily cheat the taxman if they thought they could get away with it.
The McMurdock allegations aren't about tax avoidance, though. They're essentially about theft - lining your pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. Allegedly.
But they’re only allegations at the moment, which he has denied and he has the presumption of innocence here. Yet the way some people go on is as if he is guilty already (not aimed at you BTW)
Indeed, we only have allegations that he committed fraud. We should not confuse allegations with convictions. For example, he was convicted of repeatedly kicking his girlfriend as she lay on the ground.
What on earth is the point of that comment ?
We all know this and it’s not being excused.
Just that this is only an allegation and people are talking about him as if he is guilty.
If we weren't allowed to say things that we all already know, traffic here would plummet by at least 20%.
Luckily I got to the ferry queue early enough to get the car on, since it left with a couple of lorries and a line of cars on the quay with a two and a half hour wait for it to return. I’m now on an island twenty miles out into the Norwegian Sea, at the same latitude as the northernmost tip of Iceland. With 75% blue sky, which is pretty remarkable; the last time I was here, also in July, it rained continuously for three days. This place has tons of Puffins.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I wonder how many voters, not just Reform voters, care about McMurdock. Many, I suspect, would be happy to avoid paying tax themselves, and would happily cheat the taxman if they thought they could get away with it.
The McMurdock allegations aren't about tax avoidance, though. They're essentially about theft - lining your pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. Allegedly.
But they’re only allegations at the moment, which he has denied and he has the presumption of innocence here. Yet the way some people go on is as if he is guilty already (not aimed at you BTW)
Indeed, we only have allegations that he committed fraud. We should not confuse allegations with convictions. For example, he was convicted of repeatedly kicking his girlfriend as she lay on the ground.
What on earth is the point of that comment ?
We all know this and it’s not being excused.
Just that this is only an allegation and people are talking about him as if he is guilty.
If we weren't allowed to say things that we all already know, traffic here would plummet by at least 20%.
If we weren't allowed to say things that we definitely don't know, traffic here would plummet by at least 80%.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes did I?
Tax avoidance has really negative connotations, you should use the more benign term ‘tax minimisation strategies.’
It wasn't me who bloody well used it in the first place. You're a lawyer what are my damages prospects?
Just ask him about the Royal Family's tax avoiding policies.
The King pays income tax, if he paid inheritance tax as well taxpayers would have to start buying Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle furniture and paintings soon
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
Is HYUFD seriously defending loan fraud, or saying that Reform voters will ? So much for the law and order reputation of the Tory party faithful.
Yep, but it appears that an ISA, Premium bonds, Pension or buying a house to live in which means you are not paying tax on potential revenue generated is really, really, really, evil.
No but by definition you will have used it to keep your WFA, you don't have to use them to minimise your tax to keep yourself under the WFA cut off taxable income threshold still
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".
That might just get through.
Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”
murders of black people don't tend to feature heavily on the usual alt-right social media feeds
I don't even know what an 'alt right social media feed' is, so I can't comment directly. However, two points: on murders like the one you mention there is usually nothing worthwhile to say as the media print the press release and nothing more is available. So apart from repeating how terrible murder is, which we knew, there isn't anything to add.
Most murders don't get national attention.
At an average of 607 per year, so not quite 2 a day. Most by partners or relatives. Most solved by the plod in minutes.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
As I already said it would cost HMRC far more in admin fees to try and trace how much wealth and income tax minimisers like you have to keep you under the WFA cut off point than any savings made from removing the WFA for you.
So don't whinge about keeping your WFA as if you and others like you didn't use so many tax minimising schemes you wouldn't keep your WFA
The Bulgarian National Archaeological Museum is chock full of treasures, but nonetheless this still stands out. A stone relief, cut from red schist in the 12 century AD, and gold medal winner in the category “World’s Worst Lion Sculpture”, Ravenna Expo, 1197
Way ahead of its time. Do it in 1920's Paris and it would be lauded.
Russian Transport Minister Roman Starovoit has been found dead from a gunshot wound in Moscow, just hours after Putin dismissed him by decree earlier today, without offering any official explanation about the decision. Russian media are reporting the death as a suicide... https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1942210763550015957
Though I don't discount the possibility that it was a genuine suicide, in preference to being forced to take a high dive.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
God this is like banging your head against a brick wall.
There is nothing for HMRC to trace no matter what resources they put into it. NOTHING. I don't avoid or evade tax. What is wrong with you?
I don't use any clever tax free schemes.
50% of my wealth is in my main home and holiday home 20% is in my DC pensions 27% in in savings and dividends upon which I pay all my tax 2% in ISAs 1% in Premium bonds
What are these tax free schemes I use to avoid tax that HMRC could find if they had the resources? Go on name one.
What you fail to understand is it isn't just me there will be thousands of us pensioners out there in the same position who have saved for their pension and live off a mix of all small income AND CAPITAL and therefore even though well off they don't hit the £35k INCOME mark. My income is a basic state pension and interest and dividends that are under £35k. I top it up by cashing in Capital.
So many people will be getting the WFA who shouldn't and most won't give it back.
How is it you don't get it? £35,000 is far too high a threshold and there should definitely be a Capital test to exclude people like me and the thousands in the same position. Because benefits are restricted if you have capital, previously there was in effect a Capital test that excluded me. That has gone. It is a cock up by the Govt in their U turn. How do you not get this?
AND THERE IS NO TAX AVOIDANCE OR EVASION. NONE.
Yes so you cash in capital to keep your taxable income under the WFA cut off point.
It would cost more to trace all that cash in hand your get from your capital that minimises tax than identify it all to cut your WFA off
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I wonder how many voters, not just Reform voters, care about McMurdock. Many, I suspect, would be happy to avoid paying tax themselves, and would happily cheat the taxman if they thought they could get away with it.
The McMurdock allegations aren't about tax avoidance, though. They're essentially about theft - lining your pockets at the expense of the taxpayer. Allegedly.
But they’re only allegations at the moment, which he has denied and he has the presumption of innocence here. Yet the way some people go on is as if he is guilty already (not aimed at you BTW)
Indeed, we only have allegations that he committed fraud. We should not confuse allegations with convictions. For example, he was convicted of repeatedly kicking his girlfriend as she lay on the ground.
What on earth is the point of that comment ?
We all know this and it’s not being excused.
Just that this is only an allegation and people are talking about him as if he is guilty.
If we weren't allowed to say things that we all already know, traffic here would plummet by at least 20%.
That’s not really answered my question. Never mind.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes did I?
Tax avoidance has really negative connotations, you should use the more benign term ‘tax minimisation strategies.’
The advice given to me is to use "mitigation".
Though I'm not sure it is the exact definition we are after.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
Do the Woking and Surrey by-elections cover at least some of the same area? Haven't checked myself yet.
They overlap but are quite different. The Hoe Valley ward is more working class.
Thanks. I guess it was the same person representing both previously.
I think it's Will Forster - the current Woking MP - but quite why it's taken this long to sort out, I don't know.
It can't be good for democracy to have someone representing 3 different types of democratic mandate for a year or so. Surprised it's allowed. I know lots of people represent at least 2 at the same time.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
Another Reform councillor elected in May has quit, in Donny, by election to come
Sam Booth, Bentley ward. Elected 2 x Ref, 1x Lab in May. Labour will have a good chance at retaking it based on last week's efforts by Reform in their own by elections
We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".
That might just get through.
Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”
There are Americans who think FDR was lulled into the war by Churchill's oratory and British propaganda.
ETA critics of Priti Patel's personal foreign policy should remember that FDR was in communication with Churchill before he became Prime Minister.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
It must be nice cos Rich Holden chicken ran there all the way from Durham!
(I don't think it ever went to Bazzer in my 2 years in Essex)
We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".
That might just get through.
Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”
There are Americans who think FDR was lulled into the war by Churchill's oratory and British propaganda.
We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".
That might just get through.
Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”
There are Americans who think FDR was lulled into the war by Churchill's oratory and British propaganda.
I recently discovered MAGAs who think Pearl Harbor (sic) was a false flag attack.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
I heard that yesterday you passed a shop without buying anything. You evaded paying VAT, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Which brings back very distant memories of having to be careful in France, as some shops had a rule that if you entered you had to buy something. Sounds unlikely now, but I am sure it was once a thing?
As we are banned from linking, I will merely have to mention - in outrage - that’s there’s a Spectator article claiming the world’s oldest Koran is “in Birmingham”
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Well perhaps they should. Dodgy applications for furlough grants should be investigated and if need be fraudulent payments returned. Are you OK with friends, family and donors PPE fast lane potential fraud?
I also believe we should have paid our furlough payments back in less troubled times via direct additional taxation or reduction in benefit payments for those no longer paying tax.
murders of black people don't tend to feature heavily on the usual alt-right social media feeds
I don't even know what an 'alt right social media feed' is, so I can't comment directly. However, two points: on murders like the one you mention there is usually nothing worthwhile to say as the media print the press release and nothing more is available. So apart from repeating how terrible murder is, which we knew, there isn't anything to add.
Most murders don't get national attention.
At an average of 607 per year, so not quite 2 a day. Most by partners or relatives. Most solved by the plod in minutes.
We only hear about the outlyers.
This is one of the advantages of a smaller country. There were 77 murders in Ireland last year (and one this morning) and so every murder is on the national news. The gangland killings. The family disputes. All the many women killed by their husbands and boyfriends. And the occasional more random murders.
We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".
That might just get through.
Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”
To be fair, here's FDR in 1939: "The nation will remain a neutral nation, as long as it remains within my power to prevent, there will be no blackout of peace in the United States."
Or we might consider what Billie Eilish said in 2019:
"So you're a tough guy Like it really rough guy Just can't get enough guy Chest always so puffed guy I'm that bad type Make your mama sad type Make your girlfriend mad tight Might seduce your dad type I'm the bad guy"
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
As we are banned from linking, I will merely have to mention - in outrage - that’s there’s a Spectator article claiming the world’s oldest Koran is “in Birmingham”
Fie on them
I think that’s true. Was listening to a podcast series about some Museum of the Bible in the US and fraudulent old religious docs and trade in v old religious script and this came up.
We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".
That might just get through.
Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”
There are Americans who think FDR was lulled into the war by Churchill's oratory and British propaganda.
ETA critics of Priti Patel's personal foreign policy should remember that FDR was in communication with Churchill before he became Prime Minister.
Including the US Ambassador to the UK, one Joe Kennedy.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes did I?
Tax avoidance has really negative connotations, you should use the more benign term ‘tax minimisation strategies.’
The advice given to me is to use "mitigation".
Though I'm not sure it is the exact definition we are after.
"Tax planning" is on the face of it neutral, though I've never met anyone who "planned" to pay more tax than necessary.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
I am sure you know them both well.
I lived within 10 miles of Basildon for many years, saw the New Town grow from nothing to what it is today, and worked for the NHS Trust there for nearly 15 years before retirement. So yes, I know quite a few people there.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
I am sure you know them both well.
Good afternoon
First post I've read today and frankly you are a disgrace
As we are banned from linking, I will merely have to mention - in outrage - that’s there’s a Spectator article claiming the world’s oldest Koran is “in Birmingham”
Fie on them
I think that’s true. Was listening to a podcast series about some Museum of the Bible in the US and fraudulent old religious docs and trade in v old religious script and this came up.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Well perhaps they should. Dodgy applications for furlough grants should be investigated and if need be fraudulent payments returned. Are you OK with friends, family and donors PPE fast lane potential fraud?
I also believe we should have paid our furlough payments back in less troubled times via direct additional taxation or reduction in benefit payments for those no longer paying tax.
Everyone who was furloughed should. Those of us who, effectively, had to work full time for 20% of our salary should not.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
We should beat his head whilst telling him "Ukraine is the good guy".
That might just get through.
Its 1940. JD vance posts “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Britain] is the good guy and this [Gemrany] is the bad guy.”
To be fair, here's FDR in 1939: "The nation will remain a neutral nation, as long as it remains within my power to prevent, there will be no blackout of peace in the United States."
Or we might consider what Billie Eilish said in 2019:
"So you're a tough guy Like it really rough guy Just can't get enough guy Chest always so puffed guy I'm that bad type Make your mama sad type Make your girlfriend mad tight Might seduce your dad type I'm the bad guy"
One issue is that National Insurance is effectively plugging the gap - Income Protection Insurance is essentially inaccessible for people with severe mental illness, often excluded entirely or subject to massive premiums that are unaffordable for low to medium pay.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
I am sure you know them both well.
I lived within 10 miles of Basildon for many years, saw the New Town grow from nothing to what it is today, and worked for the NHS Trust there for nearly 15 years before retirement. So yes, I know quite a few people there.
The majority of them elected McMurdock, I doubt they would even see him collecting extra business loans to keep his business going through lockdown as dishonest.
Even if you in typical sanctimonious holier than thou leftism clearly see it as the gravest sin known to mankind
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
As I already said it would cost HMRC far more in admin fees to try and trace how much wealth and income tax minimisers like you have to keep you under the WFA cut off point than any savings made from removing the WFA for you.
So don't whinge about keeping your WFA as if you and others like you didn't use so many tax minimising schemes you wouldn't keep your WFA
You are out of step with the actual laws. You can minimise if you wish. You can't evade.
Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax
murders of black people don't tend to feature heavily on the usual alt-right social media feeds
I don't even know what an 'alt right social media feed' is, so I can't comment directly. However, two points: on murders like the one you mention there is usually nothing worthwhile to say as the media print the press release and nothing more is available. So apart from repeating how terrible murder is, which we knew, there isn't anything to add.
Most murders don't get national attention.
no, but we do get william glenn and leon regularly posting about such things, they strangely avoided this one
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold
We discussed this last:
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
As I already said it would cost HMRC far more in admin fees to try and trace how much wealth and income tax minimisers like you have to keep you under the WFA cut off point than any savings made from removing the WFA for you.
So don't whinge about keeping your WFA as if you and others like you didn't use so many tax minimising schemes you wouldn't keep your WFA
You are out of step with the actual laws. You can minimise if you wish. You can't evade.
Every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
I am sure you know them both well.
I lived within 10 miles of Basildon for many years, saw the New Town grow from nothing to what it is today, and worked for the NHS Trust there for nearly 15 years before retirement. So yes, I know quite a few people there.
The majority of them elected McMurdock, I doubt they would even see him collecting extra business loans to keep his business going through lockdown as dishonest.
Even if you in typical sanctimonious holier than thou leftism clearly see it as the gravest sin known to mankind
How can you say that about @OldKingCole who is a greatly respected part of our community
You pay lip service to Christianity and shame our party
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
Is HYUFD seriously defending loan fraud, or saying that Reform voters will ? So much for the law and order reputation of the Tory party faithful.
Yep, but it appears that an ISA, Premium bonds, Pension or buying a house to live in which means you are not paying tax on potential revenue generated is really, really, really, evil.
I minimise my tax by: not smoking not driving not drinking (at home at least), only to be sociable living in a house rated band C for council tax.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
I am sure you know them both well.
I lived within 10 miles of Basildon for many years, saw the New Town grow from nothing to what it is today, and worked for the NHS Trust there for nearly 15 years before retirement. So yes, I know quite a few people there.
The majority of them elected McMurdock, I doubt they would even see him collecting extra business loans to keep his business going through lockdown as dishonest.
Even if you in typical sanctimonious holier than thou leftism clearly see it as the gravest sin known to mankind
How can you say that about @OldKingCole who is a greatly respected part of our community
You pay lip service to Christianity and shame our party
Blah, blah, blah.
'Our party' wasn't elected in Basildon at the last GE, Reform was
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
I'm glad you've now changed your original argument that Basildon business owners never supported any lockdown and have now moved onto the second and third. Now why do you think that those who legitimately claimed various COVID relief money wouldn't be annoyed at someone who (If the allegation are proved) did it fraudulently? People were annoyed at the suggestions of lockdown breaking levelled against Boris Johnson precisely because most people adhered to it.
Most in Basildon didn't care about partygate and nor do they want HMRC nosing into how much their small business or local pub or takeaway claimed in lockdown furlough
Have you ever been to Basildon? Let alone worked in the area? Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
I am sure you know them both well.
I lived within 10 miles of Basildon for many years, saw the New Town grow from nothing to what it is today, and worked for the NHS Trust there for nearly 15 years before retirement. So yes, I know quite a few people there.
The majority of them elected McMurdock, I doubt they would even see him collecting extra business loans to keep his business going through lockdown as dishonest.
Even if you in typical sanctimonious holier than thou leftism clearly see it as the gravest sin known to mankind
Comments
Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.
There is nothing for HMRC to trace no matter what resources they put into it. NOTHING. I don't avoid or evade tax. What is wrong with you?
I don't use any clever tax free schemes.
50% of my wealth is in my main home and holiday home
20% is in my DC pensions
27% in in savings and dividends upon which I pay all my tax
2% in ISAs
1% in Premium bonds
What are these tax free schemes I use to avoid tax that HMRC could find if they had the resources? Go on name one.
What you fail to understand is it isn't just me there will be thousands of us pensioners out there in the same position who have saved for their pension and live off a mix of all small income AND CAPITAL and therefore even though well off they don't hit the £35k INCOME mark. My income is a basic state pension and interest and dividends that are under £35k. I top it up by cashing in Capital.
So many people will be getting the WFA who shouldn't and most won't give it back.
How is it you don't get it? £35,000 is far too high a threshold and there should definitely be a Capital test to exclude people like me and the thousands in the same position. Because benefits are restricted if you have capital, previously there was in effect a Capital test that excluded me. That has gone. It is a cock up by the Govt in their U turn. How do you not get this?
AND THERE IS NO TAX AVOIDANCE OR EVASION. NONE.
a) I will give it to charity
b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?
And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?
* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.
Penny and Archie, two 19-year-olds living in Southend-on-Sea on the east coast are trying to find somewhere to buy food on their lunch break from the local college. Although both work part-time in hospitality jobs, they feel despondent about building a future for themselves in the town.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/07/young-people-uk-coast-mental-health-coastal-communities-deprivation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYpSTrusgEA
Also egg prices and DIY dentistry.
https://x.com/ditzkoff/status/1941975107175321635
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-will-not-pay-tax-on-inheritance-from-the-queen
South Korea says it will spend the money on drones instead
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1942167844067619103
We all know this and it’s not being excused.
Just that this is only an allegation and people are talking about him as if he is guilty.
We are back to the petty, grubby little grifters that annoyed us all in 2008/9.
1. Bassetlaw / Ranskill.
2. Hartlepool / Throston.
3. Isle of Wight / Wroxall, Lowtherville & Bonchurch.
4. Mole Valley / Bookham East & Eastwick Park
5. Rotherham / Keppel
6. Surrey / Woking South
7. Tewkesbury / Northway
8. Vale of White Horse / Botley & Sunningwell
9. Wealden / Horam & Punnetts Town
10.Woking / Hoe Valley
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19406/local-council-elections-10th-july
We only hear about the outlyers.
So don't whinge about keeping your WFA as if you and others like you didn't use so many tax minimising schemes you wouldn't keep your WFA
That's novel.
Russian Transport Minister Roman Starovoit has been found dead from a gunshot wound in Moscow, just hours after Putin dismissed him by decree earlier today, without offering any official explanation about the decision. Russian media are reporting the death as a suicide...
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1942210763550015957
Though I don't discount the possibility that it was a genuine suicide, in preference to being forced to take a high dive.
It would cost more to trace all that cash in hand your get from your capital that minimises tax than identify it all to cut your WFA off
Though I'm not sure it is the exact definition we are after.
I heard that yesterday you passed a shop without buying anything. You evaded paying VAT, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Good job – 18% (-2)
Bad job – 61% (+1)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/live/c8d6p0375jjt
Yes there are some chancers, as there are anywhere, but there are also some decent honest people.
Labour will have a good chance at retaking it based on last week's efforts by Reform in their own by elections
ETA critics of Priti Patel's personal foreign policy should remember that FDR was in communication with Churchill before he became Prime Minister.
(I don't think it ever went to Bazzer in my 2 years in Essex)
Fie on them
I also believe we should have paid our furlough payments back in less troubled times via direct additional taxation or reduction in benefit payments for those no longer paying tax.
Or we might consider what Billie Eilish said in 2019:
"So you're a tough guy
Like it really rough guy
Just can't get enough guy
Chest always so puffed guy
I'm that bad type
Make your mama sad type
Make your girlfriend mad tight
Might seduce your dad type
I'm the bad guy"
NEW THREAD
So yes, I know quite a few people there.
First post I've read today and frankly you are a disgrace
Even if you in typical sanctimonious holier than thou leftism clearly see it as the gravest sin known to mankind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Westminster's_Case
You pay lip service to Christianity and shame our party
not smoking
not driving
not drinking (at home at least), only to be sociable
living in a house rated band C for council tax.
'Our party' wasn't elected in Basildon at the last GE, Reform was
Mind, I suppose he is worth five points on his own…