Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
UK produced crude enters the international market. It would help the Exchequer in taxation terms but does not give us any greater self determination for our energy security. When the wind blows and the sun shines we generate good old British electricity for our own consumption. This is sovereign electricity.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
There is a gain (or may be, depending on the details) if you get the country moved to decarbonised energy solutions quicker.
We cannot afford to do things “in good time” given climate change so far. (I am aware that you are in persuaded by this given you think climate change is a giant scam.)
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Everyone's going to make their lives worse. In these circumstances, they may as well vote for someone who appears to like them.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
The outlook of the master remains the same, whether that master is right wing or left wing. Claim to be virtuous, while condemning the lower classes for being stupid.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
UK produced crude enters the international market. It would help the Exchequer in taxation terms but does not give us any greater self determination for our energy security. When the wind blows and the sun shines we generate good old British electricity for our own consumption. This is sovereign electricity.
UK oil is sold at the global price, and yes, helps increase the tax take and get us out of debt. Gas is priced locally.
Wind and Sun isn't sovereign, unless you mean the sovereign wealth funds of Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Norway and Spain.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Tice acted within the rules, like most of the expenses troughers did too. The rules are there to help the wealthy stay wealthy.
Tice says he acted within the rules. The Labour Party have suggested that that claim needs to be checked.
Ill give him the innocent till proven guilty benefit of the doubt for now. Inappropriately greedy for a public servant rather than mendacious
Neidle suggesting that the REIT used doesn't meet HMRC's conditions and tests. I suspect Neidle is referring to publicly traded / not Close company / max 10% stock holding conditions.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Everyone's going to make their lives worse. In these circumstances, they may as well vote for someone who appears to like them.
But they don’t like them ! Reform are frauds . They have one policy , blame immigrants for everything .
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
There is a gain (or may be, depending on the details) if you get the country moved to decarbonised energy solutions quicker.
We cannot afford to do things “in good time” given climate change so far. (I am aware that you are in persuaded by this given you think climate change is a giant scam.)
One can accept that the climate crisis is real and an urgent challenge but also understand the logic that the UK committing economic suicide to purify itself from emissions (whilst importing from fossil fuel guzzling countries) is extraordinarily foolish. Importing LNG produces more tonnes of CO2 than using domestically produced gas. The climate change argument for the current UK arrangements fails on its own terms.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Tice acted within the rules, like most of the expenses troughers did too. The rules are there to help the wealthy stay wealthy.
Tice says he acted within the rules. The Labour Party have suggested that that claim needs to be checked.
Ill give him the innocent till proven guilty benefit of the doubt for now. Inappropriately greedy for a public servant rather than mendacious
Neidle suggesting that the REIT used doesn't meet HMRC's conditions and tests. I suspect Neidle is referring to publicly traded / not Close company / max 10% stock holding conditions.
Thats for wiser old birds than me to sort. I'll stick with inappropriately greedy bugger unless and until he gets done
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Your views are repulsive, snobbish and idiotic
You’re hardly the Flying Nun ! So I’m going to ignore your pearl clutching , you’ve said much worse !
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
UK produced crude enters the international market. It would help the Exchequer in taxation terms but does not give us any greater self determination for our energy security. When the wind blows and the sun shines we generate good old British electricity for our own consumption. This is sovereign electricity.
UK oil is sold at the global price, and yes, helps increase the tax take and get us out of debt. Gas is priced locally.
Wind and Sun isn't sovereign, unless you mean the sovereign wealth funds of Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Norway and Spain.
Gas is priced locally - um it's not, it's priced on a global market which is why you will find filled LNG containers changing destination fairly often...
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
The outlook of the master remains the same, whether that master is right wing or left wing. Claim to be virtuous, while condemning the lower classes for being stupid.
I don’t claim to be virtuous. But my view is shared by many . Reform couldn’t give two hoots about poorer people and are just using division to turn people against each other. And if you’re poor and think Reform are the answer then don’t come crying when they screw you.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Who do most white working class voters without degrees now vote for? Reform. You may dislike them but Farage represents their anti woke low immigration patriotic values it seems
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
UK produced crude enters the international market. It would help the Exchequer in taxation terms but does not give us any greater self determination for our energy security. When the wind blows and the sun shines we generate good old British electricity for our own consumption. This is sovereign electricity.
UK oil is sold at the global price, and yes, helps increase the tax take and get us out of debt. Gas is priced locally.
Wind and Sun isn't sovereign, unless you mean the sovereign wealth funds of Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Norway and Spain.
Gas is priced locally - um it's not, it's priced on a global market which is why you will find filled LNG containers changing destination fairly often...
So why would they change destinations if the price was the same across the world?
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are plainly not the same thing. One is legal use of rules Parliament wrote, the other is breaking them. Pretending they are morally identical is just sloganeering for people who can’t be bothered with detail.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple: if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion; if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him; and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Your views are repulsive, snobbish and idiotic
Says the man living in Primrose Hill (borders) and cavorting around the world on paid jollies 180 days a year.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
More like Effluent middle class British Labour supporter!
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
UK produced crude enters the international market. It would help the Exchequer in taxation terms but does not give us any greater self determination for our energy security. When the wind blows and the sun shines we generate good old British electricity for our own consumption. This is sovereign electricity.
UK oil is sold at the global price, and yes, helps increase the tax take and get us out of debt. Gas is priced locally.
Wind and Sun isn't sovereign, unless you mean the sovereign wealth funds of Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Norway and Spain.
Gas is priced locally - um it's not, it's priced on a global market which is why you will find filled LNG containers changing destination fairly often...
So why would they change destinations if the price was the same across the world?
A wholly disingenuous interpretation of the post you're answering. As a free marketeer you should know that a "global market" does not mean that prices are the same throughout the world! I learned on PB itself that LNG tankers are chartered on the "spot market," so their cargo isn't always locked into a fixed destination by long-term contract. If prices surge in one region after a ship sails, say, a cold snap in Europe suddenly drives up gas prices, the cargo becomes far more valuable there than at the original destination. The owner or cargo trader can pocket the difference by diverting mid-voyage.
Much of the world's LNG is bought and sold by commodity traders who actively look for price discrepancies between markets. A ship at sea is essentially a floating warehouse, and redirecting it is standard.
Many LNG contracts are "free on board"/"destination-flexible". This explicitly gives the buyer the right to send the cargo wherever they want, unlike older long-term contracts had strict destination clauses. As alluded to above, this became highly visible during in 2021–2022 when dozens of LNG tankers headed to Asia were diverted to Europe mid-voyage because European gas prices spiked above Asian prices.
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
More like Effluent middle class British Labour supporter!
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Everyone's going to make their lives worse. In these circumstances, they may as well vote for someone who appears to like them.
I reckon one of the ways that Farage and Trump are most alike is that they both DESPISE their voters.
Ask yourself - why does Farage spend so little time in his constituency?
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
More like Effluent middle class British Labour supporter!
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
"Simpler" ?
This complex chain sounds as dodgy as a Trump promise to me (assuming that the account below is accurate).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyz0ep9g8lo ..The newspaper claimed, Tice had avoided paying corporation tax on the company's "multimillion-pound profits for most of 2018 to 2021" through gaining "rare legal status" for it as a real estate investment trust (Reit). The status gives firms a grace period in which they are exempt from corporation tax, according to the paper, and instead issue a portion of the company's earnings to shareholders who are taxed individually. Tice reportedly channelled these dividends into structures including an offshore trust and "a string of dormant businesses", which "reduced his exposure to tax". The paper also claimed Quidnet "did not pass the technical tests for Reit status at the time and never did", and had gained the status instead through a "legal quirk"...
It seems a lot like the "aggressive tax avoidance" that the Revenue takes a very dim view of , and it's entirely fair (IMO) to ask the Revenue to take a hard look at it.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
The outlook of the master remains the same, whether that master is right wing or left wing. Claim to be virtuous, while condemning the lower classes for being stupid.
I don’t claim to be virtuous. But my view is shared by many . Reform couldn’t give two hoots about poorer people and are just using division to turn people against each other. And if you’re poor and think Reform are the answer then don’t come crying when they screw you.
"Using division to turn people against each other" is the essence of identity politics and the spirit of the age. I mean I'd rather it wasn't but everyone is at it.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are plainly not the same thing. One is legal use of rules Parliament wrote, the other is breaking them. Pretending they are morally identical is just sloganeering for people who can’t be bothered with detail.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple: if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion; if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him; and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
When the Tax Gap clowns got going, one was to get banned from Murphy’s blog was to point out that about 90% of the Tax Gap is
- the personal tax allowance - Saving for pensions - ISAs
For even more fun, Gordon Brown introduced rules making it obligatory for Financial Advisor to advocate pensions and ISAs to their clients.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Everyone's going to make their lives worse. In these circumstances, they may as well vote for someone who appears to like them.
But they don’t like them ! Reform are frauds . They have one policy , blame immigrants for everything .
They don't blame immigrants for everything. They blame at least 7% of things on net zero.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
More like Effluent middle class British Labour supporter!
I've always thought that effluvium is quite a pretty sounding word... is there a word for this, words that sound like the opposite of what they mean?
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
There is a gain (or may be, depending on the details) if you get the country moved to decarbonised energy solutions quicker.
We cannot afford to do things “in good time” given climate change so far. (I am aware that you are in persuaded by this given you think climate change is a giant scam.)
One can accept that the climate crisis is real and an urgent challenge but also understand the logic that the UK committing economic suicide to purify itself from emissions (whilst importing from fossil fuel guzzling countries) is extraordinarily foolish. Importing LNG produces more tonnes of CO2 than using domestically produced gas. The climate change argument for the current UK arrangements fails on its own terms.
But you don't even accept that the climate crisis is real.
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Yours is a very good comment.
FWIW, my view is that only Rayner or Burnham has a hope of turn around a polling deficit against Farage in a six week GE campaign. It will need campaigning and comms of extraordinary levels. The rest are too leaden to be honest on that front. Starmer certainly wont be able to do it.
But Cooper would be a far better PM as far as day-to-day running of a government goes. Although one reads of whispers that she is seen as indecisive - so who knows.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Your views are repulsive, snobbish and idiotic
You are almost as bad as Trump.
Leon is nowhere near as bad.
He's something of a galloping narcissist, certainly. He's regularly and gratuitously abusive. But he's not a megalomaniac, nor is he entirely devoid of empathy, on occasion.
And it's possible to have a completely rational conversation with him. Sometimes.
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
The question facing Labour is how to avoid the same fate as the Parti Socialiste after Francois Hollande. Their VI poll ratings could take another big hit after May as their voters abandon the sinking ship.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
The outlook of the master remains the same, whether that master is right wing or left wing. Claim to be virtuous, while condemning the lower classes for being stupid.
I don’t claim to be virtuous. But my view is shared by many . Reform couldn’t give two hoots about poorer people and are just using division to turn people against each other. And if you’re poor and think Reform are the answer then don’t come crying when they screw you.
Reform are like MAGA: their rich donors want deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, and don't give 2 hoots about the poor.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are plainly not the same thing. One is legal use of rules Parliament wrote, the other is breaking them. Pretending they are morally identical is just sloganeering for people who can’t be bothered with detail.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple: if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion; if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him; and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
When the Tax Gap clowns got going, one was to get banned from Murphy’s blog was to point out that about 90% of the Tax Gap is
- the personal tax allowance - Saving for pensions - ISAs
For even more fun, Gordon Brown introduced rules making it obligatory for Financial Advisor to advocate pensions and ISAs to their clients.
The personal allowance, pensions and ISAs are not the issue. They are explicit, mass-market reliefs built into the system on purpose.
Aggressive avoidance through specialist vehicles is a different matter entirely, even if it remains lawful unless HMRC knocks it over.
So “people use ISAs” is not a rebuttal. It’s just an attempt to blur the line between ordinary tax planning and behaviour that is technically legal but politically and morally grubby.
If Tice did nothing beyond the equivalent of using an ISA, fine. If he used contrived structures beyond the reach of normal taxpayers while selling himself as their tribune, then criticism is entirely fair.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
But the accusation Neidle has made, AIUI, is that Tice is evading not avoiding.
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are plainly not the same thing. One is legal use of rules Parliament wrote, the other is breaking them. Pretending they are morally identical is just sloganeering for people who can’t be bothered with detail.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple: if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion; if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him; and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
There isn't a bright line between the two things (which is why General Anti-Abuse Rules were introduced a decade ago.)
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
The outlook of the master remains the same, whether that master is right wing or left wing. Claim to be virtuous, while condemning the lower classes for being stupid.
I don’t claim to be virtuous. But my view is shared by many . Reform couldn’t give two hoots about poorer people and are just using division to turn people against each other. And if you’re poor and think Reform are the answer then don’t come crying when they screw you.
Reform are like MAGA: their rich donors want deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, and don't give 2 hoots about the poor.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are plainly not the same thing. One is legal use of rules Parliament wrote, the other is breaking them. Pretending they are morally identical is just sloganeering for people who can’t be bothered with detail.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple: if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion; if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him; and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
When the Tax Gap clowns got going, one was to get banned from Murphy’s blog was to point out that about 90% of the Tax Gap is
- the personal tax allowance - Saving for pensions - ISAs
For even more fun, Gordon Brown introduced rules making it obligatory for Financial Advisor to advocate pensions and ISAs to their clients.
The personal allowance, pensions and ISAs are not the issue. They are explicit, mass-market reliefs built into the system on purpose.
Aggressive avoidance through specialist vehicles is a different matter entirely, even if it remains lawful unless HMRC knocks it over.
So “people use ISAs” is not a rebuttal. It’s just an attempt to blur the line between ordinary tax planning and behaviour that is technically legal but politically and morally grubby.
If Tice did nothing beyond the equivalent of using an ISA, fine. If he used contrived structures beyond the reach of normal taxpayers while selling himself as their tribune, then criticism is entirely fair.
But where is the line? It’s drawn by HMRC
After all, we were told that it was trivial for farmers to put everything in trust - or is that beyond the bounds now?
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Yours is a very good comment.
FWIW, my view is that only Rayner or Burnham has a hope of turn around a polling deficit against Farage in a six week GE campaign. It will need campaigning and comms of extraordinary levels. The rest are too leaden to be honest on that front. Starmer certainly wont be able to do it.
But Cooper would be a far better PM as far as day-to-day running of a government goes. Although one reads of whispers that she is seen as indecisive - so who knows.
Burnham will wreck the country. Rayner and Cooper are more responsible enough (a newish thing for the former).
The perfect Labour leader is one that can run the country whilst making it blindingly obvious that the Tories need to come back.
(Kemi is doing ok, but laying the groundwork for a Tory resurgence needs far more.)
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
What they - or rather he (since it's a Farage vehicle) - are trying to do is assemble a similar voting coalition to the Brexit one. It's quite a large pond to fish in. Their challenge, essentially, is to get right wing ex tories, plus almost all of the people who think the country's main problem is too many immigrants, plus that portion of the generally pissed off demographic who are susceptible to 'we just need some commonsense' messaging. Plenty of category overlap there obviously. Is it enough to win a GE? Maybe but I don't think so. I'm short of them at evens and pretty happy with that.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are plainly not the same thing. One is legal use of rules Parliament wrote, the other is breaking them. Pretending they are morally identical is just sloganeering for people who can’t be bothered with detail.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple: if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion; if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him; and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
There isn't a bright line between the two things (which is why General Anti-Abuse Rules were introduced a decade ago.)
Yes, quite.
The line between avoidance and evasion may not always be bright, especially once you get into artificial arrangements and the territory GAAR was designed to police.
But that is really the point, not a defence.
A politician should be steering miles clear of murky grey areas, not tiptoeing up to the boundary and then acting offended when people question it. “Not proven illegal” is a pretty feeble standard for someone asking voters to trust his judgment.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
But the accusation Neidle has made, AIUI, is that Tice is evading not avoiding.
Highly aggressive tax planning actually and the journalist who wrote the article, which Neidle assisted on, stated it was Avoidance.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
The outlook of the master remains the same, whether that master is right wing or left wing. Claim to be virtuous, while condemning the lower classes for being stupid.
I don’t claim to be virtuous. But my view is shared by many . Reform couldn’t give two hoots about poorer people and are just using division to turn people against each other. And if you’re poor and think Reform are the answer then don’t come crying when they screw you.
Reform are like MAGA: their rich donors want deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, and don't give 2 hoots about the poor.
I think Davey has faced some tough challenges in his life and has more empathy for the electorate than Christopher Harborne (Reform UK's biggest donor).
Axios: Some in [Trump's] inner circle have what one official called "buyer's remorse" —growing fears that attacking Iran was a mistake.
No shit, Sherlock.
But Bibi doesn't think so.
America got bounced. By a President who is bouncier than a bouncy ball.
If you had sat 10 random PB posters down and asked them for their prognosis of attacking Iran in the way that has happened, they would have come up with a day by day summary of what has come to pass.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are plainly not the same thing. One is legal use of rules Parliament wrote, the other is breaking them. Pretending they are morally identical is just sloganeering for people who can’t be bothered with detail.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple: if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion; if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him; and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
When the Tax Gap clowns got going, one was to get banned from Murphy’s blog was to point out that about 90% of the Tax Gap is
- the personal tax allowance - Saving for pensions - ISAs
For even more fun, Gordon Brown introduced rules making it obligatory for Financial Advisor to advocate pensions and ISAs to their clients.
The personal allowance, pensions and ISAs are not the issue. They are explicit, mass-market reliefs built into the system on purpose.
Aggressive avoidance through specialist vehicles is a different matter entirely, even if it remains lawful unless HMRC knocks it over.
So “people use ISAs” is not a rebuttal. It’s just an attempt to blur the line between ordinary tax planning and behaviour that is technically legal but politically and morally grubby.
If Tice did nothing beyond the equivalent of using an ISA, fine. If he used contrived structures beyond the reach of normal taxpayers while selling himself as their tribune, then criticism is entirely fair.
But where is the line? It’s drawn by HMRC
After all, we were told that it was trivial for farmers to put everything in trust - or is that beyond the bounds now?
They can stop what Tice is doing in an afternoon.
They need to follow due process, investigate and get a response from Tice. That will take more than an afternoon.
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Yours is a very good comment.
FWIW, my view is that only Rayner or Burnham has a hope of turn around a polling deficit against Farage in a six week GE campaign. It will need campaigning and comms of extraordinary levels. The rest are too leaden to be honest on that front. Starmer certainly wont be able to do it.
But Cooper would be a far better PM as far as day-to-day running of a government goes. Although one reads of whispers that she is seen as indecisive - so who knows.
Burnham will wreck the country. Rayner and Cooper are more responsible enough (a newish thing for the former).
The perfect Labour leader is one that can run the country whilst making it blindingly obvious that the Tories need to come back.
(Kemi is doing ok, but laying the groundwork for a Tory resurgence needs far more.)
That’s a wonderfully dismal standard: the ideal Labour leader is one who runs things just well enough to steady the ship while making the case for the Tories’ return.
Not so much democratic choice as alternating management of decline. Britain really does know how to dream.
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
There is a gain (or may be, depending on the details) if you get the country moved to decarbonised energy solutions quicker.
We cannot afford to do things “in good time” given climate change so far. (I am aware that you are in persuaded by this given you think climate change is a giant scam.)
One can accept that the climate crisis is real and an urgent challenge but also understand the logic that the UK committing economic suicide to purify itself from emissions (whilst importing from fossil fuel guzzling countries) is extraordinarily foolish. Importing LNG produces more tonnes of CO2 than using domestically produced gas. The climate change argument for the current UK arrangements fails on its own terms.
But you don't even accept that the climate crisis is real.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
But the accusation Neidle has made, AIUI, is that Tice is evading not avoiding.
Highly aggressive tax planning actually and the journalist who wrote the article, which Neidle assisted on, stated it was Avoidance.
I stand (well, sit with a cat on my lap) corrected.
Neidle appears to be phrasing his words to say the most accusatory thing he can without actually quite saying evading. Presumably out of concern of litigation.
Poor, thick and voting for people who will make their lives even worse . If you’re poor and vote for Reform then you’re a moron who needs to stop breeding .
Behold the worldview of the affluent middle class British Labour supporter
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
I’ve never been called affluent before ! My point stands . Reform as the “ working class hero “ party is laughable!
Your views are repulsive, snobbish and idiotic
You are almost as bad as Trump.
Leon is nowhere near as bad.
He's something of a galloping narcissist, certainly. He's regularly and gratuitously abusive. But he's not a megalomaniac, nor is he entirely devoid of empathy, on occasion.
And it's possible to have a completely rational conversation with him. Sometimes.
Also uses less make up and doesn’t smell quite as much of pooh, so on the whole an improvement.
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Yours is a very good comment.
FWIW, my view is that only Rayner or Burnham has a hope of turn around a polling deficit against Farage in a six week GE campaign. It will need campaigning and comms of extraordinary levels. The rest are too leaden to be honest on that front. Starmer certainly wont be able to do it.
But Cooper would be a far better PM as far as day-to-day running of a government goes. Although one reads of whispers that she is seen as indecisive - so who knows.
Burnham will wreck the country. Rayner and Cooper are more responsible enough (a newish thing for the former).
The perfect Labour leader is one that can run the country whilst making it blindingly obvious that the Tories need to come back.
(Kemi is doing ok, but laying the groundwork for a Tory resurgence needs far more.)
That’s a wonderfully dismal standard: the ideal Labour leader is one who runs things just well enough to steady the ship while making the case for the Tories’ return.
Not so much democratic choice as alternating management of decline. Britain really does know how to dream.
Fair enough. However I'm a lifelong Tory and my hopes that the Tory party can actually deliver something worthwhile are (against all logic) undiminished.
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
There is a gain (or may be, depending on the details) if you get the country moved to decarbonised energy solutions quicker.
We cannot afford to do things “in good time” given climate change so far. (I am aware that you are in persuaded by this given you think climate change is a giant scam.)
One can accept that the climate crisis is real and an urgent challenge but also understand the logic that the UK committing economic suicide to purify itself from emissions (whilst importing from fossil fuel guzzling countries) is extraordinarily foolish. Importing LNG produces more tonnes of CO2 than using domestically produced gas. The climate change argument for the current UK arrangements fails on its own terms.
But you don't even accept that the climate crisis is real.
Axios: Some in [Trump's] inner circle have what one official called "buyer's remorse" —growing fears that attacking Iran was a mistake.
No shit, Sherlock.
But Bibi doesn't think so.
America got bounced. By a President who is bouncier than a bouncy ball.
If you had sat 10 random PB posters down and asked them for their prognosis of attacking Iran in the way that has happened, they would have come up with a day by day summary of what has come to pass.
Well, it would depend on the random sample. 1 of them might have said that the US would quickly win due to access to UFO-based supertechnologies.
Axios: Some in [Trump's] inner circle have what one official called "buyer's remorse" —growing fears that attacking Iran was a mistake.
No shit, Sherlock.
But Bibi doesn't think so.
America got bounced. By a President who is bouncier than a bouncy ball.
If you had sat 10 random PB posters down and asked them for their prognosis of attacking Iran in the way that has happened, they would have come up with a day by day summary of what has come to pass.
Well, it would depend on the random sample. 1 of them might have said that the US would quickly win due to access to UFO-based supertechnologies.
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
There is a gain (or may be, depending on the details) if you get the country moved to decarbonised energy solutions quicker.
We cannot afford to do things “in good time” given climate change so far. (I am aware that you are in persuaded by this given you think climate change is a giant scam.)
One can accept that the climate crisis is real and an urgent challenge but also understand the logic that the UK committing economic suicide to purify itself from emissions (whilst importing from fossil fuel guzzling countries) is extraordinarily foolish. Importing LNG produces more tonnes of CO2 than using domestically produced gas. The climate change argument for the current UK arrangements fails on its own terms.
But you don't even accept that the climate crisis is real.
Burn the heretic.
Burning heretics does nothing to help rising CO2 levels. Alkaline hydrolysis, however, is an effective method of... disposal with less carbon footprint.
Axios: Some in [Trump's] inner circle have what one official called "buyer's remorse" —growing fears that attacking Iran was a mistake.
No shit, Sherlock.
But Bibi doesn't think so.
America got bounced. By a President who is bouncier than a bouncy ball.
If you had sat 10 random PB posters down and asked them for their prognosis of attacking Iran in the way that has happened, they would have come up with a day by day summary of what has come to pass.
Well, it would depend on the random sample. 1 of them might have said that the US would quickly win due to access to UFO-based supertechnologies.
Axios: Some in [Trump's] inner circle have what one official called "buyer's remorse" —growing fears that attacking Iran was a mistake.
No shit, Sherlock.
But Bibi doesn't think so.
America got bounced. By a President who is bouncier than a bouncy ball.
If you had sat 10 random PB posters down and asked them for their prognosis of attacking Iran in the way that has happened, they would have come up with a day by day summary of what has come to pass.
Well, it would depend on the random sample. 1 of them might have said that the US would quickly win due to access to UFO-based supertechnologies.
That still might be the correct call. They just can't use it without giving the game away...
Axios: Some in [Trump's] inner circle have what one official called "buyer's remorse" —growing fears that attacking Iran was a mistake.
No shit, Sherlock.
But Bibi doesn't think so.
America got bounced. By a President who is bouncier than a bouncy ball.
If you had sat 10 random PB posters down and asked them for their prognosis of attacking Iran in the way that has happened, they would have come up with a day by day summary of what has come to pass.
Well, it would depend on the random sample. 1 of them might have said that the US would quickly win due to access to UFO-based supertechnologies.
Another would have blamed Ed Miliband.
That still might be the correct call.
For some it has been the right call on every issue, ever since it became irrelevant to blame Gordon Brown on every issue instead.
A lot of twaddle being talked by non-experts here about what Tice has done and whether it is avoidance or evasion, and what those labels actually mean.
Evasion requires dishonesty. There's no single offence of tax evasion, there's common law cheating the revenue and then there's lots of statutory offences, but dishonesty is the key, usually some sort of deception about the existence of something or its true nature.
Avoidance means different things to different people. But if we take it to mean obtaining a tax advantage without dishonesty but in circumstances where parliament did not intend the advantage to be given, then most avoidance these days is doomed to fail, because there are so many anti avoidance rules even before the GAAR might come into play, because most avoidance schemes involve a degree of circularity or some other artificiality, and because the courts are completely unsympathetic.
Some people use the avoidance label to mean wholly intended tax advantages like using your ISA allowance. Those people need psychological rather than legal help.
Axios: Some in [Trump's] inner circle have what one official called "buyer's remorse" —growing fears that attacking Iran was a mistake.
No shit, Sherlock.
But Bibi doesn't think so.
America got bounced. By a President who is bouncier than a bouncy ball.
If you had sat 10 random PB posters down and asked them for their prognosis of attacking Iran in the way that has happened, they would have come up with a day by day summary of what has come to pass.
Trump was played by Netanyahu but I doubt it was difficult.
"Donald, just think about it. The president who finally whupped Iran."
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are plainly not the same thing. One is legal use of rules Parliament wrote, the other is breaking them. Pretending they are morally identical is just sloganeering for people who can’t be bothered with detail.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple: if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion; if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him; and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
There isn't a bright line between the two things (which is why General Anti-Abuse Rules were introduced a decade ago.)
Yes, quite.
The line between avoidance and evasion may not always be bright, especially once you get into artificial arrangements and the territory GAAR was designed to police.
But that is really the point, not a defence.
A politician should be steering miles clear of murky grey areas, not tiptoeing up to the boundary and then acting offended when people question it. “Not proven illegal” is a pretty feeble standard for someone asking voters to trust his judgment.
I agree. Any politician claiming "patriotism", and indulging in schemes like that, deserves ridicule. At the very least.
OT - There are few Lab politicians markedly LESS able at communication than Ed - but Yvette Cooper is certainly one of them.
I'd be worried for the Lab Party's sanity but the story is in the Mail so its probably been planted by No 10 (assuming its not just made up whole cloth). So that's one issue sorted of the thousands upon which to question the Lab Party's sanity
Yes, Cooper is basically a UK Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or another Theresa May
Yvette Cooper may well be better than Starmer in the narrow sense of seeming more competent, more grounded and less eerily focus-grouped. But that is still a very low bar.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Yours is a very good comment.
FWIW, my view is that only Rayner or Burnham has a hope of turn around a polling deficit against Farage in a six week GE campaign. It will need campaigning and comms of extraordinary levels. The rest are too leaden to be honest on that front. Starmer certainly wont be able to do it.
But Cooper would be a far better PM as far as day-to-day running of a government goes. Although one reads of whispers that she is seen as indecisive - so who knows.
Burnham will wreck the country. Rayner and Cooper are more responsible enough (a newish thing for the former).
The perfect Labour leader is one that can run the country whilst making it blindingly obvious that the Tories need to come back.
(Kemi is doing ok, but laying the groundwork for a Tory resurgence needs far more.)
I heard yesterday that Greater Manchester is the fastest growing area in the UK.
Was giving some further thought to the locals and likely NEV Last year was Ref 30-32 Lab 19-20 LD 16-17 Con 15-18 Green 11
I can't see Reform 10 plus points clear this year, so I'm cery dubious as yosome of the 'sweeps' it all county predictions
They got, for example, about 17% East of England in 2024 on a national 14.5% If they hit mud twenties NEV then maybe, what, high 20s in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex? Probably not enough for majority control..... DYOR etc
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
But the accusation Neidle has made, AIUI, is that Tice is evading not avoiding.
Highly aggressive tax planning actually and the journalist who wrote the article, which Neidle assisted on, stated it was Avoidance.
I stand (well, sit with a cat on my lap) corrected.
Neidle appears to be phrasing his words to say the most accusatory thing he can without actually quite saying evading. Presumably out of concern of litigation.
It would come under GAAR, so a scheme that HMRC hadn't anticipated, which is termed "abusive, contrived, or abnormal tax avoidance arrangements" rather than using unpleasant terms such as evasion. Which is where HMRC's terminology contributes to the confusion between intended tax avoidance schemes (ISAs, pensions, EVs, cycle to work, season ticket loans etc) and unintended avoidance schemes such as setting up an REIT and offshore vehicles.
A lot of twaddle being talked by non-experts here about what Tice has done and whether it is avoidance or evasion, and what those labels actually mean.
Evasion requires dishonesty. There's no single offence of tax evasion, there's common law cheating the revenue and then there's lots of statutory offences, but dishonesty is the key, usually some sort of deception about the existence of something or its true nature.
Avoidance means different things to different people. But if we take it to mean obtaining a tax advantage without dishonesty but in circumstances where parliament did not intend the advantage to be given, then most avoidance these days is doomed to fail, because there are so many anti avoidance rules even before the GAAR might come into play, because most avoidance schemes involve a degree of circularity or some other artificiality, and because the courts are completely unsympathetic.
Some people use the avoidance label to mean wholly intended tax advantages like using your ISA allowance. Those people need psychological rather than legal help.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
I'm fully aware of the difference.
May be we should brand the criminals with an A on their forehead
The Evaders an E on their wrist
A would be denied any public service when released from prison
E would have to pay a surcharge for public services
Struggling to see how anyone cannot agree Ed M is absolutely right about the need to get off fossil fuels and onto nuclear and renewables as soon as possible.
He is right, Horse, but he is also Ed Milliband and should not be allowed anywhere near 10 Downing Street.
I'm not sure why this is a struggle for Horse. There is no gain to be made in forcing the public and companies to adopt renewables (especially shit ones) via punitive measures, whilst also importing from countries that pollute big. It rewards polluters by off-shoring our economy to them.
China has done the opposite - used the cheapest, dirtiest fuels, widened its lead over Western economies (especially the British economy - in the 90s we actually used to manufacture solar panels), and is no using renewables in a considered way where it makes economical sense. Do they face a storm of invectice from us for taking that approach? Nope. Instead UK greenies like ours here coo and gush about the amazing strides they've made in 'emissions increases decelerating' like parents admiring a shit picture by their child.
We should do the same. Use fossil fules to power our economy, our technological growth, and our transition away from fossile fuels, in good time.
There is a gain (or may be, depending on the details) if you get the country moved to decarbonised energy solutions quicker.
We cannot afford to do things “in good time” given climate change so far. (I am aware that you are in persuaded by this given you think climate change is a giant scam.)
One can accept that the climate crisis is real and an urgent challenge but also understand the logic that the UK committing economic suicide to purify itself from emissions (whilst importing from fossil fuel guzzling countries) is extraordinarily foolish. Importing LNG produces more tonnes of CO2 than using domestically produced gas. The climate change argument for the current UK arrangements fails on its own terms.
But you don't even accept that the climate crisis is real.
Are you trying to win the argument, or trying to put your opponents in a beyond the pale non-person box so you don't have to defend your views?
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
But the accusation Neidle has made, AIUI, is that Tice is evading not avoiding.
Highly aggressive tax planning actually and the journalist who wrote the article, which Neidle assisted on, stated it was Avoidance.
I stand (well, sit with a cat on my lap) corrected.
Neidle appears to be phrasing his words to say the most accusatory thing he can without actually quite saying evading. Presumably out of concern of litigation.
Possibly. He’s a smart guy Dan and I suspect he’s also aware that as a Labour supporter and donor, he gave £2500 to my MPs campaign funds for one, he’s at risk of being accused of being impartial
Personally I’d trust his judgement and think he’s just switched on.
Tice pitches that people should pay the minimum possible Tax, to cover up his own nefarious activities.
Whether they break the Law or not, Tax avoidance is as bad as Tax evasion in my eyes and always has been.
Tice may need to explain to his core vote the C and D categories who will rely more on public services than most, that by choice he will be destroying any concept of public services
That in part defines a reason why well off and wealthy do lean left and vote left. It is because we believe in equality of opportunity irrespective of what we were born in to, the polar opposite of the silver spoon brigade, but that wealth earned should be distributed via tax to the less well off, and inherited wealth should certainly be more equally distributed.
That does not allow the NEET state Boris, Truss and Sunak created however.
I will take to my grave my time spent in Sweden when Olaf Palme was in power, a high tax, world class public service system that rewarded enterprise and deliver hope and prosperity. A generation who glady contributed to the wonderful services provided by the State for the benefit of everyone.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
But the accusation Neidle has made, AIUI, is that Tice is evading not avoiding.
Highly aggressive tax planning actually and the journalist who wrote the article, which Neidle assisted on, stated it was Avoidance.
I stand (well, sit with a cat on my lap) corrected.
Neidle appears to be phrasing his words to say the most accusatory thing he can without actually quite saying evading. Presumably out of concern of litigation.
Possibly. He’s a smart guy Dan and I suspect he’s also aware that as a Labour supporter and donor, he gave £2500 to my MPs campaign funds for one, he’s at risk of being accused of being impartial
Personally I’d trust his judgement and think he’s just switched on.
FYI, Neidle is a former partner in one of the Magic Circle law firms - Linklaters, I think. So he's probably as clued up on libel, slander and defamation as any journalist.
Comments
And then Labour wonders why it is polling at historic lows
https://x.com/edwardjdavey/status/2033542606081147125
We cannot afford to do things “in good time” given climate change so far. (I am aware that you are in persuaded by this given you think climate change is a giant scam.)
Wind and Sun isn't sovereign, unless you mean the sovereign wealth funds of Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Norway and Spain.
Tax evasion is a crime.
Legal behaviour is not as bad as criminal behaviour and never has been.
If you don't want tax avoidance to happen, then change the law.
If taxes are complicated with exemptions then people will minimise tax by engaging in lawful avoidance, which is the system the politicians have created.
Flatter, simpler taxes without exemptions paid equitably by all are the way to go, but that requires simplifying our tax code.
That said, “legal” is not the same as “defensible”, especially for politicians who like to wrap themselves in flag, family and ordinary taxpayer cosplay while using structures most ordinary taxpayers will never see in their lives.
So the right test is fairly simple:
if Tice acted lawfully, then it isn’t evasion;
if the structure was artificial and didn’t meet the rules, HMRC should flatten him;
and if he wants to preach about how everyone should minimise tax, he can also explain which services he’d cut for the voters he claims to represent.
As an answer to Labour’s current malaise, she feels like thin gruel: more administrative than inspirational, more capable than compelling. A tidier manager of decline is still managing decline.
If Labour’s problem is lack of clarity, energy and purpose, replacing Starmer with Cooper feels less like renewal and more like changing accountants halfway through an audit.
Much of the world's LNG is bought and sold by commodity traders who actively look for price discrepancies between markets. A ship at sea is essentially a floating warehouse, and redirecting it is standard.
Many LNG contracts are "free on board"/"destination-flexible". This explicitly gives the buyer the right to send the cargo wherever they want, unlike older long-term contracts had strict destination clauses. As alluded to above, this became highly visible during in 2021–2022 when dozens of LNG tankers headed to Asia were diverted to Europe mid-voyage because European gas prices spiked above Asian prices.
Ask yourself - why does Farage spend so little time in his constituency?
No shit, Sherlock.
This complex chain sounds as dodgy as a Trump promise to me (assuming that the account below is accurate).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyz0ep9g8lo
..The newspaper claimed, Tice had avoided paying corporation tax on the company's "multimillion-pound profits for most of 2018 to 2021" through gaining "rare legal status" for it as a real estate investment trust (Reit).
The status gives firms a grace period in which they are exempt from corporation tax, according to the paper, and instead issue a portion of the company's earnings to shareholders who are taxed individually.
Tice reportedly channelled these dividends into structures including an offshore trust and "a string of dormant businesses", which "reduced his exposure to tax".
The paper also claimed Quidnet "did not pass the technical tests for Reit status at the time and never did", and had gained the status instead through a "legal quirk"...
It seems a lot like the "aggressive tax avoidance" that the Revenue takes a very dim view of , and it's entirely fair (IMO) to ask the Revenue to take a hard look at it.
- the personal tax allowance
- Saving for pensions
- ISAs
For even more fun, Gordon Brown introduced rules making it obligatory for Financial Advisor to advocate pensions and ISAs to their clients.
But Cooper would be a far better PM as far as day-to-day running of a government goes. Although one reads of whispers that she is seen as indecisive - so who knows.
He's something of a galloping narcissist, certainly. He's regularly and gratuitously abusive. But he's not a megalomaniac, nor is he entirely devoid of empathy, on occasion.
And it's possible to have a completely rational conversation with him. Sometimes.
Aggressive avoidance through specialist vehicles is a different matter entirely, even if it remains lawful unless HMRC knocks it over.
So “people use ISAs” is not a rebuttal. It’s just an attempt to blur the line between ordinary tax planning and behaviour that is technically legal but politically and morally grubby.
If Tice did nothing beyond the equivalent of using an ISA, fine. If he used contrived structures beyond the reach of normal taxpayers while selling himself as their tribune, then criticism is entirely fair.
https://x.com/paulembery/status/2033459288564261151?s=61
After all, we were told that it was trivial for farmers to put everything in trust - or is that beyond the bounds now?
They can stop what Tice is doing in an afternoon.
The perfect Labour leader is one that can run the country whilst making it blindingly obvious that the Tories need to come back.
(Kemi is doing ok, but laying the groundwork for a Tory resurgence needs far more.)
The line between avoidance and evasion may not always be bright, especially once you get into artificial arrangements and the territory GAAR was designed to police.
But that is really the point, not a defence.
A politician should be steering miles clear of murky grey areas, not tiptoeing up to the boundary and then acting offended when people question it. “Not proven illegal” is a pretty feeble standard for someone asking voters to trust his judgment.
https://x.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/2032951446593786219?s=61
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqNVsahS8v4
America got bounced. By a President who is bouncier than a bouncy ball.
If you had sat 10 random PB posters down and asked them for their prognosis of attacking Iran in the way that has happened, they would have come up with a day by day summary of what has come to pass.
Not so much democratic choice as alternating management of decline. Britain really does know how to dream.
Neidle appears to be phrasing his words to say the most accusatory thing he can without actually quite saying evading. Presumably out of concern of litigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvpQx3Ojh1U
"Trump ignored the obvious and went to war. Now the obvious is getting its revenge."
We did see such a thing once.
BREAKING news on Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles
https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/2033573849153802613?s=20
Evasion requires dishonesty. There's no single offence of tax evasion, there's common law cheating the revenue and then there's lots of statutory offences, but dishonesty is the key, usually some sort of deception about the existence of something or its true nature.
Avoidance means different things to different people. But if we take it to mean obtaining a tax advantage without dishonesty but in circumstances where parliament did not intend the advantage to be given, then most avoidance these days is doomed to fail, because there are so many anti avoidance rules even before the GAAR might come into play, because most avoidance schemes involve a degree of circularity or some other artificiality, and because the courts are completely unsympathetic.
Some people use the avoidance label to mean wholly intended tax advantages like using your ISA allowance. Those people need psychological rather than legal help.
"Donald, just think about it. The president who finally whupped Iran."
Stroking the narcissism. Pushing at an open flaw.
Any politician claiming "patriotism", and indulging in schemes like that, deserves ridicule. At the very least.
So maybe we all misjudged him?
Last year was
Ref 30-32
Lab 19-20
LD 16-17
Con 15-18
Green 11
I can't see Reform 10 plus points clear this year, so I'm cery dubious as yosome of the 'sweeps' it all county predictions
They got, for example, about 17% East of England in 2024 on a national 14.5%
If they hit mud twenties NEV then maybe, what, high 20s in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex? Probably not enough for majority control.....
DYOR etc
Some of us have ethics
NEW THREAD
May be we should brand the criminals with an A on their forehead
The Evaders an E on their wrist
A would be denied any public service when released from prison
E would have to pay a surcharge for public services
Personally I’d trust his judgement and think he’s just switched on.
At this point he's released 3 'proof of life' videos.
First one: AI (6 fingers).
Second: AI (coffee physics).
Third: AI (???).
We've reached peak digital paranoia where world leaders literally cannot prove they exist.
https://x.com/heyshrutimishra/status/2033581457852027139
*I'm ruling out "both", for now.