politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Back at GE2010 polls from the second half of Feb 2010 prov
With so many polls coming out as we get closer to the big day I thought it might be useful to check back at the regular pollsters from the last election to see how their surveys from the second half of February compared with the actual result.
Comments
-
First again0
-
Pipped to the post!0
-
And no, I doubt the fag end of a 13 year single party administration is analogous to the end of the first term of a coalition. There are so many uncertainties (whither UKIP, the SNP or Greens) that weren't major factors at the last election.0
-
If the polls are right, the LibDems are doomed...0
-
Tsk, typical. All the lefties are still in bed.0
-
As your hero said, "people with their curtains drawn all day".......Alanbrooke said:Tsk, typical. All the lefties are still in bed.
Of course they could be avoiding tax engaging in legitimate tax planning.....0 -
This PB Tory hasn't gone to bed yetAlanbrooke said:Tsk, typical. All the lefties are still in bed.
(helped somewhat by the timezone) 0 -
Ooh who's that quote from ?CarlottaVance said:
As your hero said, "people with their curtains drawn all day".......Alanbrooke said:Tsk, typical. All the lefties are still in bed.
Of course they could be avoiding tax engaging in legitimate tax planning.....0 -
Just when Ed thinks he'd laid a punch on the Tories, Dacre and Co find this nugget lol:
"Red Ed the tax avoider: Property merry-go-rounds and how the Milibands changed a will, cutting their inheritance tax liability.
* Miliband family used a a tax-avoidance scheme follow their father's death
* The family home was split between Ed and David and their mother Marion
* They used a controversial tax loophole called a 'deed of variation'....
"Deeds of variation were described as ‘tax abuse’ by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2951553/Red-Ed-tax-avoider-Property-merry-rounds-Milibands-changed-cutting-inheritance-tax-liability.html
0 -
Just went onto Guido's blog. What the hell has happened??0
-
Just watched Mr Farage's speech.
http://youtu.be/KvHSbGRALHI
Towards the end he started talking about the 2020 election.0 -
Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.0 -
True. Someone's gonna have to come up with a new expression cos 'avoidance' has become toxic when in fact there's nothing wrong with it, and you'd be bloody stupid not to do it. Everyone should know this but whether they do's another matter.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Think this is gonna be a very dirty election campaign.0 -
I still think this is gonna come back and bite Miliband on the bum. If you start slinging mud you've gotta take it back.
We're in for a filthy campaign.0 -
George Osborne at Party ConferenceAlanbrooke said:
Ooh who's that quote from ?CarlottaVance said:
As your hero said, "people with their curtains drawn all day".......Alanbrooke said:Tsk, typical. All the lefties are still in bed.
Of course they could be avoiding tax engaging in legitimate tax planning.....0 -
Think this is gonna be a very dirty election campaignPurseybear said:
True. Someone's gonna have to come up with a new expression cos 'avoidance' has become toxic when in fact there's nothing wrong with it, and you'd be bloody stupid not to do it. Everyone should know this but whether they do's another matter.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Think this is gonna be a very dirty election campaign.
I seriously doubt that. The old chestnuts " this will be the dirtiest election ever" and " the most important election of our generation" are wheeled out with as much regularity as " last chance to save the NHS". They're as predictable as turkey at Christmas. With the exception of Scotland where it could be a real election of a lifetime, it's the same old same old.
I suspect this will be a pretty boring election. The lead players are as dull as dishwater, not a spark of life between them, they're all shit scared of doing anything controversial and to cap it all off they're all in an austerity auction.
I rather suspect we'll have 2 months of stupid stunts and minor announcements being made to sound significant while the major ones will be stuff they promised ages ago and which are retreads. Ed's promise on class sizes is simply the first out of the block.
Any interest will come only from the secondary characters ( bring on Prescott ) and people going off script. As for policy I doubt there will be much new.0 -
Mike Smithson says :
"Of course the past is no predictor to future performance."
My ARSE begs to differ and the evidence since 2005 is there for all to see.
0 -
Labour won last night's council by election in Harlow, taking the seat from UKIP.
The most noteworthy thing was that Lab and Con totalled virtually the same number of votes as in the main council election last May, but half of UKIP's May vote didn't bother voting yesterday.
0 -
Indeed. Mike deploys the well worn disclaimer of dodgy cheap-suit wearing financial advice peddlers down the ages.JackW said:Mike Smithson says :
"Of course the past is no predictor to future performance."
My ARSE begs to differ and the evidence since 2005 is there for all to see.
Being so well documented the ARSE has, so to speak, more bottom.0 -
Thank you for your endorsement.GeoffM said:
Indeed. Mike deploys the well worn disclaimer of dodgy cheap-suit wearing financial advice peddlers down the ages.JackW said:Mike Smithson says :
"Of course the past is no predictor to future performance."
My ARSE begs to differ and the evidence since 2005 is there for all to see.
Being so well documented the ARSE has, so to speak, more bottom.
However I have to say all the evidence suggest that OGH hasn't seen the days of a cheap suit since Burnley FC last won the FA Cup.
0 -
For those interested in cross breaks today's YouGov for Scotland is 51 per cent to 22 per cent SNP ahead of Labour. However it is reasonable to take a run of the last five or so as Statgeek sometimes does.0
-
FPT:
When will the Tory press begin to suggest that Ed Milliband is not fit to be PM because he fathered two bastards?
I think you will find that was Ralph Miliband0 -
How very dare you! I haven't worn a suit in over 10 years.GeoffM said:
Indeed. Mike deploys the well worn disclaimer of dodgy cheap-suit wearing financial advice peddlers down the ages.JackW said:Mike Smithson says :
"Of course the past is no predictor to future performance."
My ARSE begs to differ and the evidence since 2005 is there for all to see.
Being so well documented the ARSE has, so to speak, more bottom.0 -
Pointer to Thurrock. Red Kippers going back to mother.chestnut said:Labour won last night's council by election in Harlow, taking the seat from UKIP.
The most noteworthy thing was that Lab and Con totalled virtually the same number of votes as in the main council election last May, but half of UKIP's May vote didn't bother voting yesterday.0 -
Quentin Letts having fun:
I should admit that I am a tax avoider. Do it every Sunday, when I donate money to our church in a Gift Aid envelope. Do it when I go to a duty free shop or put savings into a pension pot or buy an ISA.
Gary Gibbon from Channel 4 asked if Labour would return any tax-efficient political donations.
‘Oh GOD!’ groaned the Labour crowd. ‘Not again!’ Mr Miliband’s answer was smudged.
And the BBC’s Robinson (a rigorously impartial reporter) wondered if the Miliband family itself had not once done a nifty bit of tax avoidance when David and Ed were handed a property fortune. Mr Miliband was prepared for that one. So what did he do? He landed his mother in it!
First he adopted a victim pose, explaining to the audience that Robinson’s detailed question was an attack on his brave self. Sob sob. Then he said: ‘This is something my mother did 20 years ago.’
Sorry, mum, you’re expendable. Twang. Over the citadel walls she flies in her catapult bucket.
Hey, once you’ve stiffed your older brother, it’s nothing to announce on TV that your elderly mum is, to use the new technical term, a ‘Fink’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2951599/Ed-victim-pose-landed-mum-QUENTIN-LETTS-Yesterday-Parliament.html#ixzz3RbnAlm2O0 -
There is straightforward tax avoidance using legislation that has been created for that purpose e.g. ISAs, deeds of variation, and I agree that there is nothing wrong with that.Purseybear said:
True. Someone's gonna have to come up with a new expression cos 'avoidance' has become toxic when in fact there's nothing wrong with it, and you'd be bloody stupid not to do it. Everyone should know this but whether they do's another matter.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Think this is gonna be a very dirty election campaign.
There is another category of tax allowance that exploits loopholes in the law which clearly hasn't been designed for that purpose and is often closed when HMRC catches up with the smart people who device these schemes for their wealthy clients.
I can give an example. Banks could put multi-million bonuses for their top bankers in off-shore trusts "for the benefit of employees" so no national insurance was payable. It was also allowable against corporation tax. Good for the Bank. But it gets better. The trust, which typically would have a life of 120 years, would make a non-recourse, non-interest bearing multi-million pound loan to the top bankers. No tax or NI was payable as it wasn't income, it was a loan. The loan would be for 120 years. So in effect the banker got to spend the bonus and avoid tax. This loophole has now been closed.
I would argue that exploiting this tax avoidance loophole, though legal at the time, was morally repugnant and to be condemned, unlike using ISAs and deeds of variation for the purposes intended by the legislation.
Government tries to close down these loopholes but the smart guys are always one step ahead. These smart guys are often the best ex-HMRC tax experts seduced away by much bigger rewards in high level tax consultancies.
0 -
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Tax free allowances, ISA, putting money into your pension fund, annual gift allowance, even annual CGT allowances. spouses transferring allowances etc. were created by Parliament and intended that they be used as such. Even making use of trusts which Parliament specifically allows like a Disabled Trust is not tax avoidance.
Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
0 -
Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.surbiton said:
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?
Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......
0 -
I would rather my political party was funded by the Trade Unions than the likes of Alexander Temerko. Certainly a lot of Conservative foreign policy as well as a few other decisions are now explained. Amazing how civic minded these shadowy transnational types are.0
-
They certainly increased the chance of the state picking up a care fees bill should Mum ever need it by carving out a chunk of the house away from her. That is for sure.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.surbiton said:
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?
Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......
Vanilla planning.0 -
Ukip are bombing. Wonder if they will soar again once Farage pops back on the scene. The election campaign still hasn't got going yet has it? Whats it gonna take for this country to cotton on? Dissolution of parliament?surbiton said:
Pointer to Thurrock. Red Kippers going back to mother.chestnut said:Labour won last night's council by election in Harlow, taking the seat from UKIP.
The most noteworthy thing was that Lab and Con totalled virtually the same number of votes as in the main council election last May, but half of UKIP's May vote didn't bother voting yesterday.0 -
Labour are definitely sliding into Soviet territory with their statement that Bankers who they deem to have acted ..inappropriately..will have their bonuses clawed back.. even after ten years...WTF...
First they came for the Bankers..0 -
Anyone fancying punts on cricket's world cup this is a good link on form and statistics http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/31428625
Don't fancy england one iota myself.0 -
I cannot see how this could be called Tax Avoidance. They used a method created by Parliament. It was not that Parliament did not know about the method.Scrapheap_as_was said:
They certainly increased the chance of the state picking up a care fees bill should Mum ever need it by carving out a chunk of the house away from her. That is for sure.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.surbiton said:
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?
Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......
Vanilla planning.0 -
A simple test for Tax Avoidance:CarlottaVance said:
Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.surbiton said:
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?
Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......
Was the method used created by Parliament ? If YES, then it is NOT Tax Avoidance0 -
I can't recall hearing from Ed Balls on the tax avoidance row. Curious?0
-
Dont agree mate. You're not factoring for Miliband. Labour fighting for their lives. Farage in the mix. LDs staring wipeout. Also some big decisions like exiting the EU next parliament. Then there's the Alex Salmond factor. Esp miliband though. He's a real dirty fighter and will throw stuff hard. One of Cammo's weaknesses is he gets riled easily.Alanbrooke said:
Think this is gonna be a very dirty election campaignPurseybear said:
True. Someone's gonna have to come up with a new expression cos 'avoidance' has become toxic when in fact there's nothing wrong with it, and you'd be bloody stupid not to do it. Everyone should know this but whether they do's another matter.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Think this is gonna be a very dirty election campaign.
I seriously doubt that. The old chestnuts " this will be the dirtiest election ever" and " the most important election of our generation" are wheeled out with as much regularity as " last chance to save the NHS". They're as predictable as turkey at Christmas. With the exception of Scotland where it could be a real election of a lifetime, it's the same old same old.
Gonna be the dirtiest campaign for a long long time.0 -
Because they avoided tax?surbiton said:
I cannot see how this could be called Tax Avoidance.Scrapheap_as_was said:
They certainly increased the chance of the state picking up a care fees bill should Mum ever need it by carving out a chunk of the house away from her. That is for sure.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.surbiton said:
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?
Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......
Vanilla planning.
0 -
A simpler method; 'Did it avoid tax'?surbiton said:
A simple test for Tax Avoidance:CarlottaVance said:
Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.surbiton said:
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?
Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......
Was the method used created by Parliament ? If YES, then it is NOT Tax Avoidance
0 -
Looks like his paymasters The Sun have stumped up the web design to me ;-)RobD said:Just went onto Guido's blog. What the hell has happened??
0 -
It's not, it's organising ones affairs 'efficiently' to protect some of the capital one has built up during a working life to leave an inheritance to your family. Re care fees, deliberate deprivation is not allowed but the planning by Mum and her family is fine here... it's an allowed deprivation you could say. Bottom line though is it increases the chance of the state ending up paying for future care for Mum.surbiton said:
I cannot see how this could be called Tax Avoidance. They used a method created by Parliament. It was not that Parliament did not know about the method.Scrapheap_as_was said:
They certainly increased the chance of the state picking up a care fees bill should Mum ever need it by carving out a chunk of the house away from her. That is for sure.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, but.....once you have to explain it, you've lost your audience.surbiton said:
Tax Avoidance is legal, yes ! But an ISA is NOT Tax Avoidance.Paul_Mid_Beds said:Tax Lesson for Ed:
Tax Avoidance is legal. Anyone who has an ISA or pays into a pension fund, or salary sacrifices for childcare vouchers is avoiding tax.
Tax Evasion is illegal arranging of your affairs so as to evade tax that you should rightly be paying.
Best not to accuse people of Tax Avoidance when the only reason they can do it is because Parliament frames the laws in such a way that it permits them to. Especially when you were in power and passed budget legislation for 13 years as it will probably come round and bite you on the backside.
Did the Miliband family (potentially, as Mum is still with us) avoid tax with the deed of variation?
Yes, but, but, but.... it wasn't 'Tax avoidance'.......
Vanilla planning.0 -
A simple test..If an individual takes any steps to avoid giving money to the Government it is called tax avoidance.I am quite happy to say I do it all the time and will continue to do so..only a fool wouldn't.
And further to my post re the claw back of bankers bonuses, my advice to a banker would be..take the dosh and get it offshore, then make plans to follow it.0 -
You are Diane Abbott and I claim 50p for defrocking you.steve_garner said:I can't recall hearing from Ed Balls on the tax avoidance row. Curious?
She made EXACTLY that point on This Week last night, she said people should note that it is Ed M making the running and that Ed B despite it being in his 'area' is saying absolutely nothing and she said we should note that.... very curious what she meant by that.0 -
I would define tax avoidance as the use of tax reliefs in a manner of which the person addressing the subject disapproves.0
-
Got a hunch the Sundays are going to be hot this week. May be wrong. Just hunch that the pack are out hunting Lab tax stories. If you dish dirt expect it back and you'd best be squeaky.steve_garner said:I can't recall hearing from Ed Balls on the tax avoidance row. Curious?
0 -
The "person" is usually HMRC, and they disapprove of anyone not paying all the tax possible, to the extent that if you ask them if your arrangements are lawful they tend to reply that you should try it and then see what tax bill you get at the end of the year. Look at the complete clusterf*ck around employment status, especially the construction industry scheme, the intermediaries legislation, status inspections etc.antifrank said:I would define tax avoidance as the use of tax reliefs in a manner of which the person addressing the subject disapproves.
0 -
Morning all.richardDodd said:A simple test..If an individual takes any steps to avoid giving money to the Government it is called tax avoidance.
A tiny niggle Mr Dodd – I’d clarify that statement with ‘legal steps’ – but otherwise agree.
oh what a tangled web we weave, when we attempt to conflate evasion with avoidance.
0 -
SSC I would never do anything illegal of course..one doesn't need to.0
-
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?surbiton said:Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
0 -
The massive Tory sulk this morning in the press and on social media is as ugly as one would expect lashing out impotently in all directions - but also it is sweet.0
-
Mr Dodd,
"First they came for the Bankers.. "
Clawing back bonuses after ten years seems the cult of the mob with pitchforks.
I've no love for bankers - they are scum on the pond of life. Banking should merely oil the wheels of industry, an administrative necessity, not a key to making a fortune. And they do themselves no favours by squealing that they'll clear off elsewhere if we dare to tax their ill-gotten gains.
But clawing money back after ten years? Childish, vindictive and unworthy of a grown-up political party.0 -
IMO there are only two ways to reduce your tax bill, lawfully, and unlawfully, there shouldn't be any middle ground, the fact that there is, is because politicians are too lazy to frame laws with clear boundaries and amend laws to remove inadvertent loopholes, because the whole thing is monstrously too complicated, and because HMRC are incentivized on revenue collection so its in their interests to try and push the boundaries of what the law lets you get away towards the minimum possible.SimonStClare said:
Morning all.richardDodd said:A simple test..If an individual takes any steps to avoid giving money to the Government it is called tax avoidance.
A tiny niggle Mr Dodd – I’d clarify that statement with ‘legal steps’ – but otherwise agree.
oh what a tangled web we weave, when we attempt to conflate evasion with avoidance.0 -
What period do the OFCOM rules cover? When does government enter purdah?Purseybear said:
Ukip are bombing. Wonder if they will soar again once Farage pops back on the scene. The election campaign still hasn't got going yet has it? Whats it gonna take for this country to cotton on? Dissolution of parliament?surbiton said:
Pointer to Thurrock. Red Kippers going back to mother.chestnut said:Labour won last night's council by election in Harlow, taking the seat from UKIP.
The most noteworthy thing was that Lab and Con totalled virtually the same number of votes as in the main council election last May, but half of UKIP's May vote didn't bother voting yesterday.
The campaign hasn't started yet. This is just the warm-up.0 -
The wealthy, but not super rich, Milibands sought to limit the inheritance tax bill on the family home. Sorry does anyone think the British people care, good reason raising the inheritance tax limit is always so popular.0
-
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?Life_ina_market_town said:
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?surbiton said:Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
0 -
CD13..Exactly..and one wonders where that thought process would lead..there are a couple of horrific examples from the last century..0
-
I had previously proposed the exercise Mike has now carried out, but also giving comparative data of polls this far out in earlier (pre-2005) elections - a kind of Previous Election National Intention Synopsis.JackW said:Mike Smithson says :
"Of course the past is no predictor to future performance."
My ARSE begs to differ and the evidence since 2005 is there for all to see.
Interesting after May 7 to compare results and see how good the fit is between your ARSE and my... I think we'll leave that one there.
0 -
It is also counterproductive: taking an issue which plays badly for the Conservatives and making as much noise about it as possible. If Fink had done nothing, PMQs would have been forgotten about by teatime.BenM said:The massive Tory sulk this morning in the press and on social media is as ugly as one would expect lashing out impotently in all directions - but also it is sweet.
0 -
AF
"I would define tax avoidance as the use of tax reliefs in a manner of which the person addressing the subject disapproves."
I think this a better explanation.....
"Several readers' letters published in the Times today also point to the venality surrounding these schemes - with correspondent Richard Gunning proclaiming: "To describe this arranging as 'morally repugnant' is extreme, but there is a moral dimension to paying a just amount of tax. Rather like a lawyer 'arranging' the defence of his client, perhaps to avoid the truth, 'arranging' one's tax affairs via artificial schemes smacks of cynicism. It also smacks of greed…""0 -
@ResiRichard: Labour tax affairs under scrutiny after Fink clash - http://t.co/qs7vPqN9z7 via @PickardJE http://t.co/7FQPHNfaUs
This terrible for the Tories.
Oh, wait...0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31450005
French press find original 2008 email to HMRC. Gordon was saving the world, and sacking people for losing Child Benefit disks, and the then Chief Exec of HMRC, Dame Lesley Strathie, is no longer with us, though she replaced her predecessor in November of that year.0 -
Virtually nothing. The trust for the sale of land under which Mrs Miliband would have held the house after the deed of variation was until 1996 the only way (other than the rare device of a strict settlement under the Settled Land Act 1925) of holding co-owned land. It was an incredibly common device, used by literally millions of people. It is today called a trust of land under the provisions of the Trustees of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, but many of the principles remain the same.nigel4england said:Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
0 -
Well we don't care, they are quite entitled to use legal means to reduce their tax bill, as am I, as is Lord Fink. However there is still a theory that hypocrisy is quite unpopular. And what did Labour do to close down tax planning opportunities when in power? What will it do if elected in May? Will they seek to abolish the tax avoidance measures admitted by Fink? If not, why not?FalseFlag said:The wealthy, but not super rich, Milibands sought to limit the inheritance tax bill on the family home. Sorry does anyone think the British people care, good reason raising the inheritance tax limit is always so popular.
0 -
Just as an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their Doctor......antifrank said:I would define tax avoidance as the use of tax reliefs in a manner of which the person addressing the subject disapproves.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Flag, it's not the deed, it's the hypocrisy.
"Lord Fink did something entirely legal in order to reduce his tax bill!" wibbled Miliband.
"Like you, then?"
"Mum did it, not me."
Very heroic.0 -
That seems to imply that someone accused of a crime shouldn't get the best defense available, next people will be saying it isn't "moral" to defend yourself in court when you have "obviously" done the crime. That way lies the lynch mob, or as it is known these days, Twitter.Roger said:Rather like a lawyer 'arranging' the defence of his client, perhaps to avoid the truth, 'arranging' one's tax affairs via artificial schemes smacks of cynicism. It also smacks of greed…""
0 -
Yesterday, it was the other end of the range: SNP 40; LAB: 32.scotslass said:For those interested in cross breaks today's YouGov for Scotland is 51 per cent to 22 per cent SNP ahead of Labour. However it is reasonable to take a run of the last five or so as Statgeek sometimes does.
0 -
The Harlow result last night further evidence we're beyond peak UKIP.
The constituency threat to Labour in places like Great Grimsby - if it existed at all - is probably receding. Could boost the Tories nationally though.0 -
Since 94% of UK estates don't pay inheritance tax, worrying about it at all clearly sets the Milibands apart from the vast majority of the UK population...FalseFlag said:The wealthy, but not super rich, Milibands sought to limit the inheritance tax bill
0 -
Ed Miliband has successfully distanced himself from Blair, in contrast to Cameron. There is no comparison with Fink and avoiding inheritance tax on the family home. Again how and who has been funding the Conservative party raises serious questions, as it does with other political parties too.JohnLilburne said:
Well we don't care, they are quite entitled to use legal means to reduce their tax bill, as am I, as is Lord Fink. However there is still a theory that hypocrisy is quite unpopular. And what did Labour do to close down tax planning opportunities when in power? What will it do if elected in May? Will they seek to abolish the tax avoidance measures admitted by Fink? If not, why not?FalseFlag said:The wealthy, but not super rich, Milibands sought to limit the inheritance tax bill on the family home. Sorry does anyone think the British people care, good reason raising the inheritance tax limit is always so popular.
0 -
So that could be it for Swingback
Wow that was dramatic0 -
@DPJHodges: Today Ukip's big launch bombed. So next week Farage will say something staggeringly, off-the-charts offensive, to get some coverage.BenM said:The Harlow result last night further evidence we're beyond peak UKIP.
0 -
Quite agree wrt to complexity; I could be wrong, but I don’t think it is entirely down to ‘laziness’ however – for parliament to enact Tax laws that cover every conceivable eventually, would be just too cumbersome, time consuming and probably self-defeating. – Keep it simple, then tidy up any glaring loop holes later.Indigo said:
IMO there are only two ways to reduce your tax bill, lawfully, and unlawfully, there shouldn't be any middle ground, the fact that there is, is because politicians are too lazy to frame laws with clear boundaries and amend laws to remove inadvertent loopholes, because the whole thing is monstrously too complicated, and because HMRC are incentivized on revenue collection so its in their interests to try and push the boundaries of what the law lets you get away towards the minimum possible.SimonStClare said:
Morning all.richardDodd said:A simple test..If an individual takes any steps to avoid giving money to the Government it is called tax avoidance.
A tiny niggle Mr Dodd – I’d clarify that statement with ‘legal steps’ – but otherwise agree.
oh what a tangled web we weave, when we attempt to conflate evasion with avoidance.0 -
OT Anyone proposing to see the John Major tribute movie- a warning! Though directed by the (sometimes) talented Sam Taylor-Wood it has the worst score I remember on IMDB even beating my next door neighbour.0
-
John, you did ask me what my predictions are for the GE, I didn't reply as I was using an iPad and it is painful at times, no disrespect intended.bigjohnowls said:So that could be it for Swingback
Wow that was dramatic
FWIW nothing original I am afraid, NOM but couldn't say who will be PM yet, too much to play for in the next few weeks.0 -
I would rephrase that as "the use of tax reliefs in a manner that governmen did not intend when it passed the legislation".antifrank said:I would define tax avoidance as the use of tax reliefs in a manner of which the person addressing the subject disapproves.
I think a good phrase to identify this is "abusive tax avoidance schemes" - abusing the legislation.
The government is tackling this with GAAR - the General Anti-Abuse Rule which makes abusive tax avoidance schemes illegal.
See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-avoidance-general-anti-abuse-rules
There is a lot of politically motivated hot air on this subject where people try to conflate normal legal tax mitigation practices such as deed of variation with abusive schemes, which under GAAR are actually illegal tax evasion. It is important to keep the distinction if we are to tackle the abuse.
0 -
I believe that is what is known as an "opinion". The law describes both activities as lawful. Would you like to live in a country where the baying mobs on social media, decide what is acceptable, we are getting perilously close.FalseFlag said:
Ed Miliband has successfully distanced himself from Blair, in contrast to Cameron. There is no comparison with Fink and avoiding inheritance tax on the family home.
0 -
I'd be cautious about reading too much into one local council by-election.BenM said:The Harlow result last night further evidence we're beyond peak UKIP.
The constituency threat to Labour in places like Great Grimsby - if it existed at all - is probably receding. Could boost the Tories nationally though.
Anthony Wells has a good piece on the trend in UKIP support. It's gone from a peak of 16.1% in October to 15.2% in January, a glacial rate of decline.
I'd still expect UKIP to be on 11-13% on the day.
0 -
GAAR doesn't reclassify anything as tax evasion, it enables HMRC to charge you for the tax as if the arrangement you had made did not exist. Its also only covers mitigation practises that are caught by the "double reasonableness test", that is to say it has to be an arrangement that most reasonable people would not think is a reasonable way to arrange your affairs. It also requires the approval of a steering committee to level the charge, it does not give HMRC carte blanche to bill people for schemes it doesn't like, and most certainly doesn't reclassify anything as evasion.Barnesian said:There is a lot of politically motivated hot air on this subject where people try to conflate normal legal tax mitigation practices such as deed of variation with abusive schemes, which under GAAR are actually illegal tax evasion. It is important to keep the distinction if we are to tackle the abuse.
0 -
UKIP recently won a by-election in Thurrock, quite comfortably.surbiton said:
Pointer to Thurrock. Red Kippers going back to mother.chestnut said:Labour won last night's council by election in Harlow, taking the seat from UKIP.
The most noteworthy thing was that Lab and Con totalled virtually the same number of votes as in the main council election last May, but half of UKIP's May vote didn't bother voting yesterday.
0 -
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/566150996574101504
Nick Robinson still being weirdly vague about whether or not that was an actual quote0 -
Hey Scott.
....Does it worry you that the money the Tories pay you to scour the internet and twitter for stories denigrating their opponents has probably been paid out of tax avoided money?0 -
@gallaghereditor: Now Ed has to explain his tax affairs. Would he like to publish all his tax documentation? P1 today. http://t.co/WwgAs8MyV9
@DPJHodges: If Labour saying Ed's deed of variation not for tax purposes, what was it for.0 -
If a certain G Brown Esq didn't spend years churning out Finance Acts with over a 1000 pages in it we might be in a better place. Endless wheezes by Chancellors trying to social engineer, or raise taxes without looking like they are raising taxes, and trying to target very small groups for tax rises in the hopes of not pissing off too many voters has left us with a monstrously complicated tax system that is so hard to understand that even HMRC fail to produce an accurate assessment.SimonStClare said:
Quite agree wrt to complexity; I could be wrong, but I don’t think it is entirely down to ‘laziness’ however – for parliament to enact Tax laws that cover every conceivable eventually, would be just too cumbersome, time consuming and probably self-defeating. – Keep it simple, then tidy up any glaring loop holes later.Indigo said:
IMO there are only two ways to reduce your tax bill, lawfully, and unlawfully, there shouldn't be any middle ground, the fact that there is, is because politicians are too lazy to frame laws with clear boundaries and amend laws to remove inadvertent loopholes, because the whole thing is monstrously too complicated, and because HMRC are incentivized on revenue collection so its in their interests to try and push the boundaries of what the law lets you get away towards the minimum possible.SimonStClare said:
Morning all.richardDodd said:A simple test..If an individual takes any steps to avoid giving money to the Government it is called tax avoidance.
A tiny niggle Mr Dodd – I’d clarify that statement with ‘legal steps’ – but otherwise agree.
oh what a tangled web we weave, when we attempt to conflate evasion with avoidance.
0 -
Hello everyone. Sorry to have left you alone for so long, but now there's a GE *and* an argument about tax, it seems a good time to re-delurk.
Some helpful reading here on definitions of tax avoidance:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tempted-by-tax-avoidance
"You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay
more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can
save tax, for example by saving in a tax-free ISA, making donations to charity
through Gift Aid, claiming capital allowances on assets used in your business
or paying into a pension scheme. But there is a big difference between using tax
reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and
trying to bend the rules to avoid tax."
One of the main legislative authorities for a definition of avoidance (a little more user-friendly than case law, although actually a generously narrow definition. It's been tightened up a lot in subsequent amendments to these regs)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1543/regulation/5/made
And a discussion from way back in 2001 including input from one Edward Troup, head of Tax Strategy at a major law firm. I'm sure that name's familiar.
http://www.tax.org.uk/tax-policy/tax-adviser-articles/2001/tax-avoidance-discussed
The final link is interesting in that it shows there's certainly not a clear line dividing avoidance from planning the most tax-efficient way of implementing a commercial transaction; but it also shows that no credible professional or tax official would get into squawking "oh,oh... but ISAs! ISAs!" like a befuddled moron while discussing the ambit of avoidance.
I'm not sure where this leaves dear Ed's deed of variation. Most practitioners would not consider this to be avoidance, unless one considers the act of making a will while bearing in mind IHT allowances etc as avoidance. As far as I know, neither HMRC nor HMT currently do.0 -
Populus have released a model of some variety, predicting the likelihood of each government permutation post-election. They find a 31% of a Conservative-led government, and a 69% chance of Labour-led. Personally I think their chart is broadly accurate, but mostly because I agree with those two figures and can't be asked to think beyond my bias this morning. Clearly if they are right then the Next PM markets are ludicrously generous to EdM, but DYOR:
https://twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/5661572250064855040 -
Carry on Scott..money well spent.0
-
Correct.Indigo said:
GAAR doesn't reclassify anything as tax evasion, it enables HMRC to charge you for the tax as if the arrangement you had made did not exist. Its also only covers mitigation practises that are caught by the "double reasonableness test", that is to say it has to be an arrangement that most reasonable people would not think is a reasonable way to arrange your affairs. It also requires the approval of a steering committee to level the charge, it does not give HMRC carte blanche to bill people for schemes it doesn't like, and most certainly doesn't reclassify anything as evasion.Barnesian said:There is a lot of politically motivated hot air on this subject where people try to conflate normal legal tax mitigation practices such as deed of variation with abusive schemes, which under GAAR are actually illegal tax evasion. It is important to keep the distinction if we are to tackle the abuse.
And most GAAR systems include an 'Advance Ruling' procedure. If you are not sure about your proposed scheme, you can submit details to the Authority and if they OK it, you are safe.0 -
Very odd phrasing as well "stand up to powerful like when that story broke"Stereotomy said:
Nick Robinson still being weirdly vague about whether or not that was an actual quote
Powerful what ? There appears to be a subject missing from that sentence.
0 -
Well said. The sad thing is that it apparently needed to be said at all, given how common-sense it is. The right-wingers here are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise all this.Polruan said:Hello everyone. Sorry to have left you alone for so long, but now there's a GE *and* an argument about tax, it seems a good time to re-delurk.
Some helpful reading here on definitions of tax avoidance:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tempted-by-tax-avoidance
"You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay
more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can
save tax, for example by saving in a tax-free ISA, making donations to charity
through Gift Aid, claiming capital allowances on assets used in your business
or paying into a pension scheme. But there is a big difference between using tax
reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and
trying to bend the rules to avoid tax."
One of the main legislative authorities for a definition of avoidance (a little more user-friendly than case law, although actually a generously narrow definition. It's been tightened up a lot in subsequent amendments to these regs)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1543/regulation/5/made
And a discussion from way back in 2001 including input from one Edward Troup, head of Tax Strategy at a major law firm. I'm sure that name's familiar.
http://www.tax.org.uk/tax-policy/tax-adviser-articles/2001/tax-avoidance-discussed
The final link is interesting in that it shows there's certainly not a clear line dividing avoidance from planning the most tax-efficient way of implementing a commercial transaction; but it also shows that no credible professional or tax official would get into squawking "oh,oh... but ISAs! ISAs!" like a befuddled moron while discussing the ambit of avoidance.
I'm not sure where this leaves dear Ed's deed of variation. Most practitioners would not consider this to be avoidance, unless one considers the act of making a will while bearing in mind IHT allowances etc as avoidance. As far as I know, neither HMRC nor HMT currently do.0 -
Nothing. You don't even need a lawyer [although one is advisable]. There are DIY templates floating around.nigel4england said:
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?Life_ina_market_town said:
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?surbiton said:Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
0 -
Why should it, Tax avoidance is legal. Its only social justice warriors like you with their pitchforks that want to stretch the law to what they personally don't approve of.. unless we are talking about tax arrangements of prominent left wing donors, causes or newspapers which are apparently different.Roger said:Hey Scott.
....Does it worry you that the money the Tories pay you to scour the internet and twitter for stories denigrating their opponents has probably been paid out of tax avoided money?
0 -
"Media foes of Ed M generating row re Milly Dowler. I reported aides saw this as moment to stand up to powerful like when that story broke"
I'm really baffled by these abour haters tactics. All they seem to be doing is massively increasing the profile of someone previously thought of as an incompetent dork.
This can be doing him notthing but good. They need to get the Saatchis on board before they blow it compleely. Calling Scott. Take a time out and get on the blower. Tell them you heard it from a well-wisher0 -
0
-
This is what the Labour Party said in 1994Stereotomy said:The right-wingers here are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalise all this.
"It is not the very wealthy who pay most of the Inheritance Tax, they are very effective at exploiting loopholes to avoid it. Among the loopholes now used are farm land, conditional exemption for works of art and land, trusts, potentially exempt transfers, insurance schemes and deeds of variation."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/2807995/If-theres-a-will-theres-a-way.html0 -
The fact is that tax avoidance is any act that your opponents (of any colour) can smear you with for political advantage.
That is what we are reduced to. The facts matter not one jot.0 -
"I'd still expect UKIP to be on 11-13% on the day."Sean_F said:
I'd be cautious about reading too much into one local council by-election.BenM said:The Harlow result last night further evidence we're beyond peak UKIP.
The constituency threat to Labour in places like Great Grimsby - if it existed at all - is probably receding. Could boost the Tories nationally though.
Anthony Wells has a good piece on the trend in UKIP support. It's gone from a peak of 16.1% in October to 15.2% in January, a glacial rate of decline.
I'd still expect UKIP to be on 11-13% on the day.
I'd agree with that. Yet considerably higher than my last "revision" which placed UKIP GE2015 at 8-10%.0 -
I've just done it. My mother has died and I'm her executor. She left me a sum of money. I don't need it and I have varied the will to leave it to my child, her grandchild who needs it more than me.nigel4england said:
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?Life_ina_market_town said:
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?surbiton said:Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
You don't need a solicitor. It doesn't even have to be a witnessed deed. You simply write a dated letter within two years of the death making clear what the variation is and that the provisions of the 1984 Inheritance Act shall apply. If any other beneficiary is disadvantaged they also need to agree in writing. But DYOR.
"This variation is made by me Barnesian of [address]. Mrs Barnesian of [address] died on 12 February 2015. In her will she left me a legacy of £10,000. I redirect that legacy to my son John Barnesian. I intend that the provisions of section 142(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 shall apply to this redirection of that legacy.
Signed ….................................................................
Barnesian
Date …..................................................................."
You file the letter with your will and other financial papers. That's it. It is not a complicated technical scheme that abuses legislation. Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.0
