FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > George Osborne publishes tax return!
George Osborne publishes tax return!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn! "The multi millionaire Jeremy Corbyn ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn! "I thought he said that he had lost it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Corbyn has only published the last years tax return LoL what about the last 10 years ? " That's what Osborne has done too. But let's not forget, no-one suspects Jeremy Corbyn of having avoided tax. On the other hand, everyone suspects George and Dave of having done so. And only one of them published an actual tax return document.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn! "The house of commons session on tax avoidance/evasion started at 3:30pm. Corbyn released his at 3:35pm. Now why did he do that? Was he afraid of the tories scrutinising it before the commons session started and was he afraid of being asked awkward questions? Cameron released his tax details for the last 6 years but Osborne and Corbyn have only released last year's tax returns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I nearly shit to see what Nicola whatsitface was on ..... " I was also surprised, but not quite as much as yourself  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
The house of commons session on tax avoidance/evasion started at 3:30pm. Corbyn released his at 3:35pm. Now why did he do that? Was he afraid of the tories scrutinising it before the commons session started and was he afraid of being asked awkward questions?
Cameron released his tax details for the last 6 years but Osborne and Corbyn have only released last year's tax returns. "At least he published them during daytime. Cameron published his incomplete tax returns at midnight on Saturday night! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever " Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
The house of commons session on tax avoidance/evasion started at 3:30pm. Corbyn released his at 3:35pm. Now why did he do that? Was he afraid of the tories scrutinising it before the commons session started and was he afraid of being asked awkward questions?
Cameron released his tax details for the last 6 years but Osborne and Corbyn have only released last year's tax returns. "Your mate Nigel has categorically refused to even consider publishing his. Wonder why that could be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed." Have you published yours? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours?" Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The standard of BBC reporting on this issue is worryingly substandard. "Osborne Publishes Tax Returns" is the headline - since when has a letter from an accountant been a tax return? What a shambles." Yes you're right, but it will be an own goal for Osborne and also Cameron. People will just keep asking why they won't do what Corbyn has done. They are either both really stupid (a distinct possibility), or they really have something to hide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance?" No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever " As I keep saying it's not the preserve of the rich avoiding tax! Lots of self-employed people do it with creative accounting. What about those who take cash for lots of their work and put the minimum through their books. Those who employ a family member - just to get rid of some of their profits ? The whole system is open to loopholes. Adult children buying their parents property and letting them stay there to avoid inheritance tax and so it goes on. Sarah | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Beast of Bolsover has been kicked out of The Commons for calling Cameron "Dodge Dave" "*Dodgy Dave | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own?" Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them." No one is required to do so under our law. I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Beast of Bolsover has been kicked out of The Commons for calling Cameron "Dodge Dave"
*Dodgy Dave "Skinner was fantastic there. Here's the video if anyone is interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36017171 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax." Do YOU Trust Cameron | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. Do YOU Trust Cameron" The same guy who went aboard HMS Ark Royal, said how impressive it was then scrapped it and gave our Harrier's to the Americans for peanuts? That Cameron? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't understand your game plan, i still cant vote for Jeremy Corbyn? Cameron hasn't had anyone assassinated yet has he? Until he goes "the full Blair" he's just not that bad a PM. What do you actually want from Fab? If you feel so strongly you have to post almost daily about politics shouldn't you just run for local office?" You make a very fair point  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. Do YOU Trust Cameron" As much as I trust any politician. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You may as well label anyone with an ISA a tax dodger, or anyone who keeps there savings as cash under the bed." Now that tax isn't taken at source from the first lot of savings that would put any savings into the ISA category. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them. No one is required to do so under our law. I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax." There's non so blind as those who will not see. If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I'm no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'd trust him a lot more than I'd trust Cameron. Tax avoidance may not be illegal but it is morally indefensible, especially when in a position of trust. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
The house of commons session on tax avoidance/evasion started at 3:30pm. Corbyn released his at 3:35pm. Now why did he do that? Was he afraid of the tories scrutinising it before the commons session started and was he afraid of being asked awkward questions?
Cameron released his tax details for the last 6 years but Osborne and Corbyn have only released last year's tax returns.
Your mate Nigel has categorically refused to even consider publishing his. Wonder why that could be?"Maybe because he is not an MP.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
The house of commons session on tax avoidance/evasion started at 3:30pm. Corbyn released his at 3:35pm. Now why did he do that? Was he afraid of the tories scrutinising it before the commons session started and was he afraid of being asked awkward questions?
Cameron released his tax details for the last 6 years but Osborne and Corbyn have only released last year's tax returns.
Your mate Nigel has categorically refused to even consider publishing his. Wonder why that could be?
Maybe because he is not an MP. "Not for the want of trying. And trying and trying again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. " I don't think that is fair to say. I have no particular affiliation with any party. However the story concerning the gift Cameron received from his mother is a real non story.That is not me defending him regardless of what he has done. Anyone due to inherit money would consider receiving it as a gift prior to death to reduce/avoid paying tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not disputing the need to reduce national debt. Ant wealth rhetoric will not achieve greater prosperity or raise HMRC revenues." and who do you consider is responsible for this ever increasing dept? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them. No one is required to do so under our law. I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. There's non so blind as those who will not see. If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I'm no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'd trust him a lot more than I'd trust Cameron. Tax avoidance may not be illegal but it is morally indefensible, especially when in a position of trust. " Not only is there no "incontrovertible proof," there isn't even any allegation. I don't trust politicians but can't see any dodgy dealings there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I don't think that is fair to say. I have no particular affiliation with any party. However the story concerning the gift Cameron received from his mother is a real non story.That is not me defending him regardless of what he has done. Anyone due to inherit money would consider receiving it as a gift prior to death to reduce/avoid paying tax. " I don't think it's a non-story for the many disabled people who've just had their meagre incomes slashed by the Government that these people head up. I don't think it's a non-story for the millions of people who struggle to make ends meet and are seeing public services decimated. I don't think it's a non-story for many public sector workers who have seen their pay depreciated substantially under this Government and will take another major hit on their pensions this month. But, they're all apparently just envious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The great irony in all of this is that whilst the Panama papers outline fraud, money laundering and criminality on an epic and industrial scale right across the globe... We have a quaintly British storm in a teacup about whether or not someone acted immorally. No one has broke the law, no-one has done anything wrong and yet despite the activities outlined in these papers the centre of the universe would appear to be Westminster. I mean, really... WTF. What a refreshing change it would be to see proof that any British politician had embezzled a few £billion and got caught... But no, we have to put up with subjective character assassinations based on some sort of indeterminate moral code dreamed up by the spiritual leader of the great unwashed." And the prize for the "total bollocks" post of the day goes to Too Hot! I expect you'll be trotting out the old "politics of envy" cliché next. You just can't stop with the dogma, and as a consequence I cannot take anything you say seriously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I don't think that is fair to say. I have no particular affiliation with any party. However the story concerning the gift Cameron received from his mother is a real non story.That is not me defending him regardless of what he has done. Anyone due to inherit money would consider receiving it as a gift prior to death to reduce/avoid paying tax. I don't think it's a non-story for the many disabled people who've just had their meagre incomes slashed by the Government that these people head up. I don't think it's a non-story for the millions of people who struggle to make ends meet and are seeing public services decimated. I don't think it's a non-story for many public sector workers who have seen their pay depreciated substantially under this Government and will take another major hit on their pensions this month. But, they're all apparently just envious." How does your point about decisions Cameron makes in his job relate to what Cameron does with personal affairs? The 7 year rule is the same rule used by people up and down the Country, wealthy or not. Are you going to have a go at them for reducing their inheritance tax liability? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them. No one is required to do so under our law. I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. There's non so blind as those who will not see. If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I'm no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'd trust him a lot more than I'd trust Cameron. Tax avoidance may not be illegal but it is morally indefensible, especially when in a position of trust. Not only is there no "incontrovertible proof," there isn't even any allegation. I don't trust politicians but can't see any dodgy dealings there." Refer to first paragraph. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The great irony in all of this is that whilst the Panama papers outline fraud, money laundering and criminality on an epic and industrial scale right across the globe... We have a quaintly British storm in a teacup about whether or not someone acted immorally. No one has broke the law, no-one has done anything wrong and yet despite the activities outlined in these papers the centre of the universe would appear to be Westminster. I mean, really... WTF. What a refreshing change it would be to see proof that any British politician had embezzled a few £billion and got caught... But no, we have to put up with subjective character assassinations based on some sort of indeterminate moral code dreamed up by the spiritual leader of the great unwashed." your character assassinating!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them. No one is required to do so under our law. I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. There's non so blind as those who will not see. If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I'm no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'd trust him a lot more than I'd trust Cameron. Tax avoidance may not be illegal but it is morally indefensible, especially when in a position of trust. Not only is there no "incontrovertible proof," there isn't even any allegation. I don't trust politicians but can't see any dodgy dealings there. Refer to first paragraph." And? I'm obviously missing the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I don't think that is fair to say. I have no particular affiliation with any party. However the story concerning the gift Cameron received from his mother is a real non story.That is not me defending him regardless of what he has done. Anyone due to inherit money would consider receiving it as a gift prior to death to reduce/avoid paying tax. I don't think it's a non-story for the many disabled people who've just had their meagre incomes slashed by the Government that these people head up. I don't think it's a non-story for the millions of people who struggle to make ends meet and are seeing public services decimated. I don't think it's a non-story for many public sector workers who have seen their pay depreciated substantially under this Government and will take another major hit on their pensions this month. But, they're all apparently just envious. How does your point about decisions Cameron makes in his job relate to what Cameron does with personal affairs? The 7 year rule is the same rule used by people up and down the Country, wealthy or not. Are you going to have a go at them for reducing their inheritance tax liability? " I'm not suggesting that Cameron has necessarily done anything illegal, but he did come up with the political catchphrase "We're all in this together", which was always patent nonsense but has been now shown up for the crass statement it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How does your point about decisions Cameron makes in his job relate to what Cameron does with personal affairs? The 7 year rule is the same rule used by people up and down the Country, wealthy or not. Are you going to have a go at them for reducing their inheritance tax liability? I'm not suggesting that Cameron has necessarily done anything illegal, but he did come up with the political catchphrase "We're all in this together", which was always patent nonsense but has been now shown up for the crass statement it is. " Has it? As far as I understand, he has received: - A lump sum from his mother, which might not be subject to tax (but could well be); and - shares in a offshore fund from his dad, which he sold before coming PM. Both sums are relatively small when compared to some of the dealings in the Panama leaks. The focus on Cameron etc is taking the focus off the real issue which is that of the large scale avoidance which has been going on. People can criticise the Government all they want for their cuts and the failure to deal with tax avoidance. That I can agree with. But to criticise him over these alleged scandals is a waste of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them. No one is required to do so under our law. I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. There's non so blind as those who will not see. If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I'm no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'd trust him a lot more than I'd trust Cameron. Tax avoidance may not be illegal but it is morally indefensible, especially when in a position of trust. Not only is there no "incontrovertible proof," there isn't even any allegation. I don't trust politicians but can't see any dodgy dealings there. Refer to first paragraph. And? I'm obviously missing the point." Obviously  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever " . And whio said that HMCR do not rigourously pursue those who evade tax as opposed to those using legitimate tax reliefs . If you look around at the number of people driving new cars and eating in restaurants , there is little evidence of a recession . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them. No one is required to do so under our law. I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. There's non so blind as those who will not see. If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I'm no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'd trust him a lot more than I'd trust Cameron. Tax avoidance may not be illegal but it is morally indefensible, especially when in a position of trust. Not only is there no "incontrovertible proof," there isn't even any allegation. I don't trust politicians but can't see any dodgy dealings there. Refer to first paragraph. And? I'm obviously missing the point. Obviously "Thanks for the clarification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is the point of providing a TAX return; this will not show any criminal wrong doings Most of us do not have any real choice about how much tax we pay. For many of us, the tax we owe is deducted from our salary or accounts by our employer or by our Bank or Building Society at source. These days, very few of us even fill in an annual tax return. Equally, most of us pay our taxes (and pay it on time). Figures from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggest that 93% of tax due is paid. But some people can, and do, make choices. The people I want to talk about today are those who dishonestly and fraudulently evade tax. They choose to hide their income and wealth to evade tax, claim tax relief to which they are not entitled and subvert the tax and excise systems to make money for themselves. They are criminals and, like other fraudsters, they are dishonest and motivated by greed. Their criminal activity may be less visible than other more familiar criminal activity, such as burglary, robbery or simple theft, but they belong in the same category of criminals. Tax evasion has to be dealt with robustly all the time. But in a recession, when ordinary law-abiding tax payers are suffering real hardship, the need to deter, detect and prosecute those who evade tax is greater than ever Yes, completely agree. But this is a start. Once the press have got to grips with everyone's tax returns, we will soon find demands for the senior politicians to reveal the extent and sources of their true wealth, and then things will get very interesting indeed. Have you published yours? Why do you ask, do you think I am a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? No idea. Are you? Is there a senior member of parliament suspected of tax avoidance? You seem keen on the publication of tax returns. Just wondered if you were keen on publishing your own? Yes I would be happy to, if all private citizens were required to. I favour the Norwegian system. However, I rather suspect that the only reason you are asking the question is that you wish to try to draw people's attention away from the fact that our Prime Minister, who is suspected of possibly having avoided tax, hasn't really published his own tax returns, but excerpts from them. No one is required to do so under our law. I haven't seen any reputable source suggesting that Mr Cameron has been evading tax. There's non so blind as those who will not see. If there was incontrovertible proof that Cameron had evaded paying tax, some of you would still be making excuses for him. I'm no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn, but I'd trust him a lot more than I'd trust Cameron. Tax avoidance may not be illegal but it is morally indefensible, especially when in a position of trust. " . Only a fool would pay more tax than they are required to. No one is going to thank you in any event for doing so. What is interesting is that David Cameron pays a lot more tax than most people . We should be gratefull for this contribution , not criticising him for it . It is worth pointing out that the richest 1 %. in Britain pay 27 % of all tax and the top 10 % pay over half at 55 %. 12 % of workers pay no tax at all . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I fail to see how having a pro business, pro wealth agenda somehow negates the need for good fiscal management by governments of either colour. The current anti wealth hysteria however may well dampen aspiration to start small businesses or scare off inward investment in this country."  Well said . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. " What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. " Probably why he wants us to stay in the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law?" It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. " But he's not a tax avoider | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. But he's not a tax avoider" Granted. I meant to say he had benefitted from tax avoidance. The £100k gift that avoids inheritance tax. I just think he should be a better example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benjamin Disraeli once stated that " the Conservative government is an organised hypocrisy" More true than ever. What a collection of nasty, corrupt and downright dishonest low life." For hypocrisy, read Labour Party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. " . I don't think that many voters are that bothered . He has published his tax return which clearly illustrates that he pays more than his fair share of tax . Only a fool would pay more tax than they are required to.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. But he's not a tax avoider Granted. I meant to say he had benefitted from tax avoidance. The £100k gift that avoids inheritance tax. I just think he should be a better example. " A gift is a gift. What should he say? No thank you, I want to wait until you die? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But he's not a tax avoider Granted. I meant to say he had benefitted from tax avoidance. The £100k gift that avoids inheritance tax. I just think he should be a better example. " I take on board your point in terms of what he should be seen to be doing. Just so you are aware though it is his mothers gift to him rather than anything discretionary on his part and he may still pay tax on it as the determining factor is when his mother passes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. What taxes has he avoided?" . He's avoided Inheritance tax. But he's not evaded it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn! "I would have laughed my arse off even more if dennis skinner turned around and called him "dodgy george" like he called cameron "dodgy dave" In the commons room... about time some one in that room tells them for what they really are and it looks like an old man had the balls to come out and say it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. But he's not a tax avoider Granted. I meant to say he had benefitted from tax avoidance. The £100k gift that avoids inheritance tax. I just think he should be a better example. " The £100,000 gifts from his mother are as lawful as any gift that any parent would give to their offspring. Where do you draw the line? Are all our kids tax avoiders because we helped them out with their first car, or helped with a deposit on a house, or gave them an allowance whilst at Uni? As it happens, the £100,000 x 2 will be taxed at the IHT rate if the mother passes within seven years of the gift. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. . I don't think that many voters are that bothered . He has published his tax return which clearly illustrates that he pays more than his fair share of tax . Only a fool would pay more tax than they are required to.." So you're calling him a fool as you say he pays "more than his fair share".
There isn't any paying "more of a fair share" it is paying what is required.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. What taxes has he avoided?. He's avoided Inheritance tax. But he's not evaded it. " He has avoided IHT because it does not come in to play for amounts under £325,000 and gifts from parents are simply gifts unless the parent passes within seven years. In that case, the gift would be taken as being part of the Estate. Cameron and his family has acted in a way that any family would. The realist that has not yet been mentioned is that the Cameron Estate will pay plenty of IHT when his mother does eventually pass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone know why Labour didn't clamp down on tax avoidance schemes or tax loopholes while in power? "It's the same answer regardless of party politics: every bit of tax "fixes" in the budgets adds more words to tax law. This in turn creates more loopholes. Tax law has grown exponentially in the last 25 years. Both parties have had their moments of trying to clamp down on something. It rarely helps the average tax payer but those who can afford the teams of accountants and have enough money to do more with it than just pay their bills rarely lose out, no matter who does the clamping down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. . I don't think that many voters are that bothered . He has published his tax return which clearly illustrates that he pays more than his fair share of tax . Only a fool would pay more tax than they are required to.. So you're calling him a fool as you say he pays "more than his fair share".
There isn't any paying "more of a fair share" it is paying what is required.
". Anyone with an interest in their family and future would take all steps possible to utilise all the tax reliefs available . He pays more than his fair share when compared to what other tax payers pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. . I don't think that many voters are that bothered . He has published his tax return which clearly illustrates that he pays more than his fair share of tax . Only a fool would pay more tax than they are required to.. So you're calling him a fool as you say he pays "more than his fair share".
There isn't any paying "more of a fair share" it is paying what is required.
. Anyone with an interest in their family and future would take all steps possible to utilise all the tax reliefs available .
He pays more than his fair share when compared to what other tax payers pay."I'll say it again - he is paying what's required. He is not paying more than he is required to pay. The fairness of the shares are determined on income amounts. He has more income than others so he pays more. He is not paying more than his fair share. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone know why Labour didn't clamp down on tax avoidance schemes or tax loopholes while in power?
It's the same answer regardless of party politics: every bit of tax "fixes" in the budgets adds more words to tax law. This in turn creates more loopholes. Tax law has grown exponentially in the last 25 years.
Both parties have had their moments of trying to clamp down on something. It rarely helps the average tax payer but those who can afford the teams of accountants and have enough money to do more with it than just pay their bills rarely lose out, no matter who does the clamping down.
"I see thanks Thought it might have been cuz some Labour MP's set up shell companies to channel their earnings through but you live and learn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. . I don't think that many voters are that bothered . He has published his tax return which clearly illustrates that he pays more than his fair share of tax . Only a fool would pay more tax than they are required to.. So you're calling him a fool as you say he pays "more than his fair share".
There isn't any paying "more of a fair share" it is paying what is required.
. Anyone with an interest in their family and future would take all steps possible to utilise all the tax reliefs available .
He pays more than his fair share when compared to what other tax payers pay."how much more..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the argument is anti-wealth but an expression of outrage that a prime minister who preaches that 'we're all in it together', clearly isn't. That's the hypocrisy that grates in my craw. Additionally, the fact that he benefited from tax avoidance whilst preaching about 'morals' with regard to tax avoidance also makes me think he's in this game for personal benefit not the benefit of all. Let me make it clear to you, I don't think that is a right or proper thing to do. What has he done wrong that any other person in this country can't or won't do? Not a single tax expert has said that he has done anything wrong and so what is the right and proper thing to do other than act appropriately and within the law? It's not a case of doing anything wrong, it's a case of being seen to be doing the right thing and as Cameron has said that tax avoidance is immoral, then he should not benefit from it himself. Yes, it's lawful but when he's preaching to others not to do it, it's hypocritical. It's not appropriate for the prime minister to avoid paying tax even if it's legal and everyone else does it. He should be an exemplar for paying full taxes not a tax avoider. It sends the wrong message. . I don't think that many voters are that bothered . He has published his tax return which clearly illustrates that he pays more than his fair share of tax . Only a fool would pay more tax than they are required to.. So you're calling him a fool as you say he pays "more than his fair share".
There isn't any paying "more of a fair share" it is paying what is required.
. Anyone with an interest in their family and future would take all steps possible to utilise all the tax reliefs available .
He pays more than his fair share when compared to what other tax payers pay.
how much more..?". When compared to the amounts paid by the average tax payer .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the interest of balance and for those on here that seem to think it's only Tory MP's that take advantage of tax avoidance planning, maybe you should google how Ed and David Miliband rewrote their father's will after his death ( perfectly legally) to potentially reduce IHT and also how the stalwart of the left and critic of anti tax avoidance measures, Tony Benn, also used tax planning to reduce IHT. " Yes but we're not indignant about an ex-leader and his brother or a a dead stalwart of the Labour Party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the interest of balance and for those on here that seem to think it's only Tory MP's that take advantage of tax avoidance planning, maybe you should google how Ed and David Miliband rewrote their father's will after his death ( perfectly legally) to potentially reduce IHT and also how the stalwart of the left and critic of anti tax avoidance measures, Tony Benn, also used tax planning to reduce IHT. Yes but we're not indignant about an ex-leader and his brother or a a dead stalwart of the Labour Party. "The point I'm really making is that all wealthy people, regardless of political persuasion, will use legitimate tax planning to reduce tax bills. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the interest of balance and for those on here that seem to think it's only Tory MP's that take advantage of tax avoidance planning, maybe you should google how Ed and David Miliband rewrote their father's will after his death ( perfectly legally) to potentially reduce IHT and also how the stalwart of the left and critic of anti tax avoidance measures, Tony Benn, also used tax planning to reduce IHT. Yes but we're not indignant about an ex-leader and his brother or a a dead stalwart of the Labour Party.
The point I'm really making is that all wealthy people, regardless of political persuasion, will use legitimate tax planning to reduce tax bills. "I know, I got the point. It has been made on the thread elsewhere. This thread, like many others that have any hint of politics, just got into the point scoring, let's slate one side or another game. I tried to make the point that every government has tinkered with the taxation and it all creates loopholes. None of them will set out the close everything as it would require scrapping everything and starting from scratch, which is never going to happen. It's also not good for your mates who fund your party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They shouldn't have to, any of them" with the present government being so pro-active in demanding total scrutiny of the populations private communications, finances, associations etc then maybe what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander to be fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They shouldn't have to, any of them with the present government being so pro-active in demanding total scrutiny of the populations private communications, finances, associations etc then maybe what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander to be fair." But we as the public don't have to show everyone our tax returns etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another thought, does anyone really think if they were doing anything dodgy that they would declare it anyway?" think the devil is in the detail, bit like the break in with the Hatton garden safety deposit boxes the clients of Mossach fonseca or whatever its called and other similar companies doing the same things for clientele of different backgrounds and with their own reasons for wanting secrecy.. some will be well dodgy, some will be about privacy from whomever and for whatever reasons.. but once its in the public domain its a bit late to say i was using this firm for whatever as most people will use their instinct and judge with the inclusion of their politics, morality.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They shouldn't have to, any of them with the present government being so pro-active in demanding total scrutiny of the populations private communications, finances, associations etc then maybe what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander to be fair. But we as the public don't have to show everyone our tax returns etc" irrelevant really ..... why shouldn't those who seek to impose control over our lives by scrutinising our personal details including our financial history be subject to scrutiny by those they seek to control. wether you like it or not the era of transparancy has begun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
.
.
.
The problem is we can't trust them to do the decent thing, we couldn't trust them to sell off the national utilities to improve them, we couldn't trust them not to invade countries for no fucking reason, we couldn't trust them to not claim for duck houses, we couldn't trust them to not kick disabled people for the sake of giving tax breaks to the wealth off, we couldn't trust them to pay there fair share of tax's....
In fact I couldn't trust them about anything they ever fucking said or did.... And yet there you have it.... There still better than most of the general public.
Now that's fucking depressing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dunno people keep saying all are politicans are shit and bent as a nine Bob note, but in fairness... They say you get the politicans you deserve. I think we actually get better politicans than we deserve because frankly... Most people are fucking clueless and yet we've got politicans who have at least an inkling!!. .
.
.
The problem is we can't trust them to do the decent thing, we couldn't trust them to sell off the national utilities to improve them, we couldn't trust them not to invade countries for no fucking reason, we couldn't trust them to not claim for duck houses, we couldn't trust them to not kick disabled people for the sake of giving tax breaks to the wealth off, we couldn't trust them to pay there fair share of tax's....
In fact I couldn't trust them about anything they ever fucking said or did.... And yet there you have it.... There still better than most of the general public.
Now that's fucking depressing"Not where we live | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know Crewe well!. It's main Street consists of pub, take away, pub, pizza hut, pub, burger bar, pub, Indian, off licence, chippy, pub... Bookies. . . It is frankly, the most depressing place I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of changing platforms at." agreed but have to say the chippy was excellent ..... not been for a while though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They shouldn't have to, any of them with the present government being so pro-active in demanding total scrutiny of the populations private communications, finances, associations etc then maybe what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander to be fair. But we as the public don't have to show everyone our tax returns etc irrelevant really ..... why shouldn't those who seek to impose control over our lives by scrutinising our personal details including our financial history be subject to scrutiny by those they seek to control. wether you like it or not the era of transparancy has begun." It isn't irrelevant. They may scrutinise what we all do, but we don't have to make it public so every person can see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They shouldn't have to, any of them with the present government being so pro-active in demanding total scrutiny of the populations private communications, finances, associations etc then maybe what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander to be fair. But we as the public don't have to show everyone our tax returns etc irrelevant really ..... why shouldn't those who seek to impose control over our lives by scrutinising our personal details including our financial history be subject to scrutiny by those they seek to control. wether you like it or not the era of transparancy has begun. It isn't irrelevant. They may scrutinise what we all do, but we don't have to make it public so every person can see it." "every person" doesn't make financial laws to be governed by though. that's the privelage of 650 people and personally i think it's fair enough that those 650 who are in that position set an example and prove themselves to be squeaky clean in regard to those laws they make for the millions of others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know Crewe well!. It's main Street consists of pub, take away, pub, pizza hut, pub, burger bar, pub, Indian, off licence, chippy, pub... Bookies. . . It is frankly, the most depressing place I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of changing platforms at." Couldn't agree more, luckily we are just outside. I was talking about the general public though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know Crewe well!. It's main Street consists of pub, take away, pub, pizza hut, pub, burger bar, pub, Indian, off licence, chippy, pub... Bookies. . . It is frankly, the most depressing place I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of changing platforms at. Couldn't agree more, luckily we are just outside. I was talking about the general public though ". Don't take it personally it's just one of many towns the same but what does that say about the general population, all they need in life is alcohol, gambling and stuffing fast food in their face!!. Most of them don't watch the news and they read tabloids, the only time they'll protest is when the Chippy runs out of fat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know Crewe well!. It's main Street consists of pub, take away, pub, pizza hut, pub, burger bar, pub, Indian, off licence, chippy, pub... Bookies. . . It is frankly, the most depressing place I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of changing platforms at. Couldn't agree more, luckily we are just outside. I was talking about the general public though .
Don't take it personally it's just one of many towns the same but what does that say about the general population, all they need in life is alcohol, gambling and stuffing fast food in their face!!.
Most of them don't watch the news and they read tabloids, the only time they'll protest is when the Chippy runs out of fat"And sex | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know Crewe well!. It's main Street consists of pub, take away, pub, pizza hut, pub, burger bar, pub, Indian, off licence, chippy, pub... Bookies. . . It is frankly, the most depressing place I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of changing platforms at. Couldn't agree more, luckily we are just outside. I was talking about the general public though .
Don't take it personally it's just one of many towns the same but what does that say about the general population, all they need in life is alcohol, gambling and stuffing fast food in their face!!.
Most of them don't watch the news and they read tabloids, the only time they'll protest is when the Chippy runs out of fat"I've got a good idea. Maybe we should pass a law so that only good people like yourself can vote? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another thought, does anyone really think if they were doing anything dodgy that they would declare it anyway?" hell no they wouldn't declare it, half off them get up to all kinda off dodgy dealings or business in their spare time be it from off shore accounts to where they pay zero tax or anything else....these lot get off easy always have and always will as they will have some higher up cover for them one way or the other... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know Crewe well!. It's main Street consists of pub, take away, pub, pizza hut, pub, burger bar, pub, Indian, off licence, chippy, pub... Bookies. . . It is frankly, the most depressing place I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of changing platforms at. Couldn't agree more, luckily we are just outside. I was talking about the general public though .
Don't take it personally it's just one of many towns the same but what does that say about the general population, all they need in life is alcohol, gambling and stuffing fast food in their face!!.
Most of them don't watch the news and they read tabloids, the only time they'll protest is when the Chippy runs out of fat
I've got a good idea. Maybe we should pass a law so that only good people like yourself can vote?". Well the world would be a better place that's for sure!. However we live in a democracy, dems de rules. I'm just not surprised by it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know Crewe well!. It's main Street consists of pub, take away, pub, pizza hut, pub, burger bar, pub, Indian, off licence, chippy, pub... Bookies. . . It is frankly, the most depressing place I've ever had the unfortunate pleasure of changing platforms at. Couldn't agree more, luckily we are just outside. I was talking about the general public though .
Don't take it personally it's just one of many towns the same but what does that say about the general population, all they need in life is alcohol, gambling and stuffing fast food in their face!!.
Most of them don't watch the news and they read tabloids, the only time they'll protest is when the Chippy runs out of fat
I've got a good idea. Maybe we should pass a law so that only good people like yourself can vote?.
Well the world would be a better place that's for sure!.
However we live in a democracy, dems de rules.
I'm just not surprised by it"There's a guy in North Korea thinks like that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another thought, does anyone really think if they were doing anything dodgy that they would declare it anyway? hell no they wouldn't declare it, half off them get up to all kinda off dodgy dealings or business in their spare time be it from off shore accounts to where they pay zero tax or anything else....these lot get off easy always have and always will as they will have some higher up cover for them one way or the other..." I would of thought by now that people would have listened to the facts. THEY have not escaped ANY tax. The companies they invest in are based in these off shore countries because THEY pay less tax and can trade with less restrictions, ALL funds brought back into the UK are subject to tax whether its income or capital gains. The individuals receive more income because of the higher profits of these companies, therefore it could be said the individuals actually pay more tax because they receive a slightly higher income because of the higher company profits. If you or I invest in a ISA instead of an ordinary savings account are we avoiding tax? Yes but totally legally just like anyone using these off shore investments | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another thought, does anyone really think if they were doing anything dodgy that they would declare it anyway? hell no they wouldn't declare it, half off them get up to all kinda off dodgy dealings or business in their spare time be it from off shore accounts to where they pay zero tax or anything else....these lot get off easy always have and always will as they will have some higher up cover for them one way or the other... I would of thought by now that people would have listened to the facts. THEY have not escaped ANY tax. The companies they invest in are based in these off shore countries because THEY pay less tax and can trade with less restrictions, ALL funds brought back into the UK are subject to tax whether its income or capital gains. The individuals receive more income because of the higher profits of these companies, therefore it could be said the individuals actually pay more tax because they receive a slightly higher income because of the higher company profits. If you or I invest in a ISA instead of an ordinary savings account are we avoiding tax? Yes but totally legally just like anyone using these off shore investments" Absolutely correct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another thought, does anyone really think if they were doing anything dodgy that they would declare it anyway? hell no they wouldn't declare it, half off them get up to all kinda off dodgy dealings or business in their spare time be it from off shore accounts to where they pay zero tax or anything else....these lot get off easy always have and always will as they will have some higher up cover for them one way or the other... I would of thought by now that people would have listened to the facts. THEY have not escaped ANY tax. The companies they invest in are based in these off shore countries because THEY pay less tax and can trade with less restrictions, ALL funds brought back into the UK are subject to tax whether its income or capital gains. The individuals receive more income because of the higher profits of these companies, therefore it could be said the individuals actually pay more tax because they receive a slightly higher income because of the higher company profits. If you or I invest in a ISA instead of an ordinary savings account are we avoiding tax? Yes but totally legally just like anyone using these off shore investments" . Except if your smart? And they are , they don't repatriate the money!. Hence why millions of homes are now owned by "off shore" holding companies!. In fact you can get your "off shore" company to buy your car as well if you want and pay for meals out, theatre tickets | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another thought, does anyone really think if they were doing anything dodgy that they would declare it anyway? hell no they wouldn't declare it, half off them get up to all kinda off dodgy dealings or business in their spare time be it from off shore accounts to where they pay zero tax or anything else....these lot get off easy always have and always will as they will have some higher up cover for them one way or the other... I would of thought by now that people would have listened to the facts. THEY have not escaped ANY tax. The companies they invest in are based in these off shore countries because THEY pay less tax and can trade with less restrictions, ALL funds brought back into the UK are subject to tax whether its income or capital gains. The individuals receive more income because of the higher profits of these companies, therefore it could be said the individuals actually pay more tax because they receive a slightly higher income because of the higher company profits. If you or I invest in a ISA instead of an ordinary savings account are we avoiding tax? Yes but totally legally just like anyone using these off shore investments. Except if your smart? And they are , they don't repatriate the money!. Hence why millions of homes are now owned by "off shore" holding companies!. In fact you can get your "off shore" company to buy your car as well if you want and pay for meals out, theatre tickets" You are talking about large scale money laundering and criminal activity which is EXACTLY what people should be focusing on. The purpose of the panama papers was to expose this industrial scale illegal activity and yet here in the UK we are completely missing the point and getting all exorcised over home grown politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I cant wait for labours golden boy chuka to publish seeing as his london home was paid for from a bank on anther famous island. ex amount of millions ! " Chukka is far from Labour's "Golden Boy". Indeed, he is now on the fringes of the party for precisely these kind of reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I cant wait for labours golden boy chuka to publish seeing as his london home was paid for from a bank on anther famous island. ex amount of millions ! " It's not really tit for tat politics though because they're nearly all doing it one way or another. There's nothing wrong in trying to minimise the amount of tax you have to pay, but doing it in an unscrupulous fashion is just not morally correct. Especially when you have millions of pounds stashed away. I have no problem with wealthy people, but I do have a problem with greedy people, and if you defend their actions, maybe you should question your morals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another thought, does anyone really think if they were doing anything dodgy that they would declare it anyway? hell no they wouldn't declare it, half off them get up to all kinda off dodgy dealings or business in their spare time be it from off shore accounts to where they pay zero tax or anything else....these lot get off easy always have and always will as they will have some higher up cover for them one way or the other... I would of thought by now that people would have listened to the facts. THEY have not escaped ANY tax. The companies they invest in are based in these off shore countries because THEY pay less tax and can trade with less restrictions, ALL funds brought back into the UK are subject to tax whether its income or capital gains. The individuals receive more income because of the higher profits of these companies, therefore it could be said the individuals actually pay more tax because they receive a slightly higher income because of the higher company profits. If you or I invest in a ISA instead of an ordinary savings account are we avoiding tax? Yes but totally legally just like anyone using these off shore investments. Except if your smart? And they are , they don't repatriate the money!. Hence why millions of homes are now owned by "off shore" holding companies!. In fact you can get your "off shore" company to buy your car as well if you want and pay for meals out, theatre tickets You are talking about large scale money laundering and criminal activity which is EXACTLY what people should be focusing on. The purpose of the panama papers was to expose this industrial scale illegal activity and yet here in the UK we are completely missing the point and getting all exorcised over home grown politics." . Actually I've been banging on about it from the beginning
I posted only a few days ago that trillions of dollars a year are laundered from anything from tax evasion money to gun running money to heroin dealers to sex traffickers.
These schemes are essential when you need to launder the trillions involved.
.
.
Dirty filthy look at me bad guy money in!
Clean oooh look at me the honest businessman money out!.
.
It's disgraceful and the UK collude as much if not more than any other country in the world!.
Jersey, guernsey, isle of Mann, British virgin islands, Bahamas... The list is endless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I would of thought by now that people would have listened to the facts. THEY have not escaped ANY tax. The companies they invest in are based in these off shore countries because THEY pay less tax and can trade with less restrictions, ALL funds brought back into the UK are subject to tax whether its income or capital gains. The individuals receive more income because of the higher profits of these companies, therefore it could be said the individuals actually pay more tax because they receive a slightly higher income because of the higher company profits. If you or I invest in a ISA instead of an ordinary savings account are we avoiding tax? Yes but totally legally just like anyone using these off shore investments" ever heard off a loop hole or I don't know secret accounts? don't get me wrong there are legal ways to screw the system or get out off paying tax, most off the MPs probably do have legitimate investments which are public knowledge and properly taxed. can't speak for the others now can we after all they do have their tricks and hidden none taxed accounts here and there which they don't want people to know about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn! "{snorts} Bet he wishes he hadn't bothered now, after yesterday's story that he couldn't manage to file it on time, today's is that JC is the only one to have lied about his income, thereby committing an offence.
(That said, it's only been picked up in the Mail so far, so could be a load of baloney)
Mr ddc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I would of thought by now that people would have listened to the facts. THEY have not escaped ANY tax. The companies they invest in are based in these off shore countries because THEY pay less tax and can trade with less restrictions, ALL funds brought back into the UK are subject to tax whether its income or capital gains. The individuals receive more income because of the higher profits of these companies, therefore it could be said the individuals actually pay more tax because they receive a slightly higher income because of the higher company profits. If you or I invest in a ISA instead of an ordinary savings account are we avoiding tax? Yes but totally legally just like anyone using these off shore investments ever heard off a loop hole or I don't know secret accounts? don't get me wrong there are legal ways to screw the system or get out off paying tax, most off the MPs probably do have legitimate investments which are public knowledge and properly taxed. can't speak for the others now can we after all they do have their tricks and hidden none taxed accounts here and there which they don't want people to know about." Anything they havent declared that should have been is tax fraud and therefore illegal and I doubt that any politician would be stupid enough to try it, there are far too many people looking for such things for them to get away with it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Anything they havent declared that should have been is tax fraud and therefore illegal and I doubt that any politician would be stupid enough to try it, there are far too many people looking for such things for them to get away with it" I suppose we agree to disagree then, yes most off them would probably stay away from stuff like that.. however it is not completely ruled out for all we know there are definitely some who could have a hidden account or plan on having off shore accounts in places like the following: cayman islands, aruba, switzerland and maybe even some had one in panama who knows? I'm not going full on conspiracy mode etc and saying their all in on it but to rule it out completely is well.....silly right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This government is corrupt to the core. Rob the disabled to allow the wealthy to pay less tax. Don't even get me started on MPs second jobs. They deserve to be swept away like the rubbish in the streets and hopefully that will happen after the electorate have voted to leave the EU." And get replaced by who? The Labour Party that is in favour of the U.K. Staying in Europe? Stand by for referendum 2 then later in 2016, early 2017. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone would be better than this bunch of c***s." Apart from Labour eh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This government is corrupt to the core. Rob the disabled to allow the wealthy to pay less tax. Don't even get me started on MPs second jobs. They deserve to be swept away like the rubbish in the streets and hopefully that will happen after the electorate have voted to leave the EU." . I think you will find that the money paid to the disabled has been increased in real terms . The wealthy already pay more than their fair share of taxes . In any event more voters voted for the current government than any other party so their policies must be good for most people . MPs having second jobs gives them experience of the real world .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
{snorts}
Bet he wishes he hadn't bothered now, after yesterday's story that he couldn't manage to file it on time, today's is that JC is the only one to have lied about his income, thereby committing an offence.
(That said, it's only been picked up in the Mail so far, so could be a load of baloney)
Mr ddc"The party seem pretty certain that JC has actually OVERPAID his taxes, so we can be pretty confident that even if there is a mistake, it's a simple error. Of course, the only reason we know he may have made an error is because he is the only one who has published his ACTUAL TAX RETURN. That's compared to Cameron, Osborne and Johnson who have only given us the carefully selected highlights. You would think the press would be pretty interested in reporting that all three Tories are hiding the truth from the public...but they seem suspiciously unconcerned. As Andre Malraux said: “Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
{snorts}
Bet he wishes he hadn't bothered now, after yesterday's story that he couldn't manage to file it on time, today's is that JC is the only one to have lied about his income, thereby committing an offence.
(That said, it's only been picked up in the Mail so far, so could be a load of baloney)
Mr ddc
The party seem pretty certain that JC has actually OVERPAID his taxes, so we can be pretty confident that even if there is a mistake, it's a simple error.
Of course, the only reason we know he may have made an error is because he is the only one who has published his ACTUAL TAX RETURN.
That's compared to Cameron, Osborne and Johnson who have only given us the carefully selected highlights.
You would think the press would be pretty interested in reporting that all three Tories are hiding the truth from the public...but they seem suspiciously unconcerned.
As Andre Malraux said: “Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides.” "There does seem to be a discrepancy between the figures he gave to hmrc and the Parliamentary register of members interests for sure, but the point is he failed to declare his pension as taxable income on his tax return, which may mean he has actually evaded, rather than simply avoided tax. You've got to see the irony in that at least!
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax avoidance and evasion involve much bigger losses to the people of this country than a lot of crimes. But the police etc - despite being heavily cut back - are higher profile than tax office staff. You are paying more tax than needed because some are not paying $millions. And you have no choice but to pay. The Conservatives have little interest in reforms whilst the masses are willingly obliging with their taxes and their party is funded by the likes of people who dislike paying full taxes, as the rest of us do." If someone said to me that the tax inspectors were more important because tax avoidance has more "victims" and I was someone who has been raped, or assaulted, or burgled - because that only affected me not the wider population - I think I might tell that person to fuck right off. Equating tax avoidance with serious crimes as investigated by the police is disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
{snorts}
Bet he wishes he hadn't bothered now, after yesterday's story that he couldn't manage to file it on time, today's is that JC is the only one to have lied about his income, thereby committing an offence.
(That said, it's only been picked up in the Mail so far, so could be a load of baloney)
Mr ddc
The party seem pretty certain that JC has actually OVERPAID his taxes, so we can be pretty confident that even if there is a mistake, it's a simple error.
Of course, the only reason we know he may have made an error is because he is the only one who has published his ACTUAL TAX RETURN.
That's compared to Cameron, Osborne and Johnson who have only given us the carefully selected highlights.
You would think the press would be pretty interested in reporting that all three Tories are hiding the truth from the public...but they seem suspiciously unconcerned.
As Andre Malraux said: “Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides.”
There does seem to be a discrepancy between the figures he gave to hmrc and the Parliamentary register of members interests for sure, but the point is he failed to declare his pension as taxable income on his tax return, which may mean he has actually evaded, rather than simply avoided tax.
You've got to see the irony in that at least!
"Oh dear that would be a shame if he hasnt declared his pension, he who without sin cast the first stone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are overly fond of justifying things that are definitely immoral by claiming quite correctly they are definitely not illegal, in my experience. Of course, it's no coincidence that the people benefitting most from such immorality are often also the same people controlling it's legality, but there you go." Is it any more imoral than the thousands who claim disability when they are perfectly capable of doing a job or those who claim they cant get work yet we have hundreds of thousand of people pouring into this country who seem to be able to get a job in days? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
{snorts}
Bet he wishes he hadn't bothered now, after yesterday's story that he couldn't manage to file it on time, today's is that JC is the only one to have lied about his income, thereby committing an offence.
(That said, it's only been picked up in the Mail so far, so could be a load of baloney)
Mr ddc
The party seem pretty certain that JC has actually OVERPAID his taxes, so we can be pretty confident that even if there is a mistake, it's a simple error.
Of course, the only reason we know he may have made an error is because he is the only one who has published his ACTUAL TAX RETURN.
That's compared to Cameron, Osborne and Johnson who have only given us the carefully selected highlights.
You would think the press would be pretty interested in reporting that all three Tories are hiding the truth from the public...but they seem suspiciously unconcerned.
As Andre Malraux said: “Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides.”
There does seem to be a discrepancy between the figures he gave to hmrc and the Parliamentary register of members interests for sure, but the point is he failed to declare his pension as taxable income on his tax return, which may mean he has actually evaded, rather than simply avoided tax.
You've got to see the irony in that at least!
". I've just googled it, can't find that story anywhere?. I'm just getting that he was late returning it, was fined a hundred quid and actually overstated his income and paid to much tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are overly fond of justifying things that are definitely immoral by claiming quite correctly they are definitely not illegal, in my experience. Of course, it's no coincidence that the people benefitting most from such immorality are often also the same people controlling it's legality, but there you go. Is it any more imoral than the thousands who claim disability when they are perfectly capable of doing a job or those who claim they cant get work yet we have hundreds of thousand of people pouring into this country who seem to be able to get a job in days?" . Your stating your opinion as factual again... David Cameron himself lectured Jimmy carr about following the letter of the but said he should be using the spirt of it instead!. Let he who have no sin lecture comedians  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are overly fond of justifying things that are definitely immoral by claiming quite correctly they are definitely not illegal, in my experience. Of course, it's no coincidence that the people benefitting most from such immorality are often also the same people controlling it's legality, but there you go. Is it any more imoral than the thousands who claim disability when they are perfectly capable of doing a job or those who claim they cant get work yet we have hundreds of thousand of people pouring into this country who seem to be able to get a job in days?" Yes, it is more immoral. People who you describe are always on the lowest rung of society, financially. Whether they exist in their thousands is debatable, but let's say they are, you have to ask why are they there? Lack of opportunity, lack of ambition, lack of education? And the effect their actions have fall on themselves, and possibly their immediate families. You can't argue that for Cameron and Osborne. Whatever the reasons, none of them could not be improved and reduced by better provision from the state. And that costs money. So if the highest and richest in society can't act in a fair way to help fund and support those far worse off than themselves, you shouldn't be surprised if the lowest and poorest follow their example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are overly fond of justifying things that are definitely immoral by claiming quite correctly they are definitely not illegal, in my experience. Of course, it's no coincidence that the people benefitting most from such immorality are often also the same people controlling it's legality, but there you go." I take it you also condemn the Guardian newspaper for investing in offshore trusts and tax havens then? Yes it's legal but going by what you just said the Guardian newspaper is acting in an immoral way by doing what they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are overly fond of justifying things that are definitely immoral by claiming quite correctly they are definitely not illegal, in my experience. Of course, it's no coincidence that the people benefitting most from such immorality are often also the same people controlling it's legality, but there you go. I take it you also condemn the Guardian newspaper for investing in offshore trusts and tax havens then? Yes it's legal but going by what you just said the Guardian newspaper is acting in an immoral way by doing what they do. " Of course I do, why wouldn't I? Don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are overly fond of justifying things that are definitely immoral by claiming quite correctly they are definitely not illegal, in my experience. Of course, it's no coincidence that the people benefitting most from such immorality are often also the same people controlling it's legality, but there you go. I take it you also condemn the Guardian newspaper for investing in offshore trusts and tax havens then? Yes it's legal but going by what you just said the Guardian newspaper is acting in an immoral way by doing what they do. Of course I do, why wouldn't I? Don't you?" It's a lefty, socialist newspaper. The tory bashing continues but I've not seen many condemning the Guardian for doing what Cameron did. I'm not a tory supporter and I don't read the Guardian so personally speaking I couldn't really care less either way. I was just interested at the apparent double standards being displayed by some of those on the left with the 2 examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are overly fond of justifying things that are definitely immoral by claiming quite correctly they are definitely not illegal, in my experience. Of course, it's no coincidence that the people benefitting most from such immorality are often also the same people controlling it's legality, but there you go. Is it any more imoral than the thousands who claim disability when they are perfectly capable of doing a job or those who claim they cant get work yet we have hundreds of thousand of people pouring into this country who seem to be able to get a job in days? Yes, it is more immoral. People who you describe are always on the lowest rung of society, financially. Whether they exist in their thousands is debatable, but let's say they are, you have to ask why are they there? Lack of opportunity, lack of ambition, lack of education? And the effect their actions have fall on themselves, and possibly their immediate families. You can't argue that for Cameron and Osborne. Whatever the reasons, none of them could not be improved and reduced by better provision from the state. And that costs money. So if the highest and richest in society can't act in a fair way to help fund and support those far worse off than themselves, you shouldn't be surprised if the lowest and poorest follow their example." So its ok for those who can work not to because they lacked opportunity? Or because they find it a struggle, I have a good friend who is in a wheel chair but does 60 hrs a week working for himself doing an outside job, he makes me feel guilty when I am moaning about being knackered, if he can do that sort of job there is no excuse for the vast majority not to contribute to society, that the state should help them help themselves I agree with but sitting at home complaining they want more cash without any effort on their behalf is just as bad as any tax minimisation scheme that rich people do, at least they pay some or in most cases far more tax then you or I do and will have to pay for their own care when old too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are overly fond of justifying things that are definitely immoral by claiming quite correctly they are definitely not illegal, in my experience. Of course, it's no coincidence that the people benefitting most from such immorality are often also the same people controlling it's legality, but there you go. I take it you also condemn the Guardian newspaper for investing in offshore trusts and tax havens then? Yes it's legal but going by what you just said the Guardian newspaper is acting in an immoral way by doing what they do. Of course I do, why wouldn't I? Don't you? It's a lefty, socialist newspaper. The tory bashing continues but I've not seen many condemning the Guardian for doing what Cameron did. I'm not a tory supporter and I don't read the Guardian so personally speaking I couldn't really care less either way. I was just interested at the apparent double standards being displayed by some of those on the left with the 2 examples. " You may find yourself pretty much alone in regarding The Guardian as either 'lefty' or 'socialist', but if you don't read it I guess you wouldn't know. There has been plenty of coverage and condemnation of The Guardian in the press...not sure how you would have known about it, otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reality is, were in a hole and somebody has to dig deep and bail it out. And fair or not it's going to have to be wealthy people" I struggle to see any evidence of economic problems . Just look at the number of new cars sold or the number of people eating in restaurants . The who take risks and work hard should not be expected to subsidise others in any event . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reality is, were in a hole and somebody has to dig deep and bail it out. And fair or not it's going to have to be wealthy people I struggle to see any evidence of economic problems . Just look at the number of new cars sold or the number of people eating in restaurants . The who take risks and work hard should not be expected to subsidise others in any event ." The Queen lives in a really fancy house. No economic problems for anyone to worry about! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The reality is, were in a hole and somebody has to dig deep and bail it out. And fair or not it's going to have to be wealthy people I struggle to see any evidence of economic problems . Just look at the number of new cars sold or the number of people eating in restaurants . The who take risks and work hard should not be expected to subsidise others in any event ." . No disrespect pat, but there's too much you just don't see or get!. Let me point you towards the last 6 years of IMF reports, bank of England, federal reserve etc etc. . Or the fact that nearly every western economy is below 1% inflation with 0 or negative interest rates | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've just googled it, can't find that story anywhere?. I'm just getting that he was late returning it, was fined a hundred quid and actually overstated his income and paid to much tax." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/jeremy-corbyn-admits-failing-to-include-state-pension-income-on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So how much money do you need to be "rich" ? We have a very good friend who is a good old fashioned socialist, so hot infact he wont give any money to charity because he believes the state should supply enough for all, he is anti the rich and believes they should be taxed much more, yet and this is the amusing part, both he and his wife worked for the MOD and retired at 53 on VERY generous terms they spend 7/8 months a year abroad including some time in a foreign home they own, they spend money like its going out of fashion, now he thinks that they "Earned" their pension and deserve every penny yet if someone had 5,000 a year more they would be considered rich and overpaid, it seems that rich starts just above what "you" own or have " True. I wouldn't mind comrade Corbyn's salary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn! "Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council. In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined."If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I. We know this because he published his real tax return. Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined.
If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I.
We know this because he published his real tax return.
Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights?"Well they paid a lot more tax than that pretentious prick so obviously of greater benefit to society | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined.
If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I.
We know this because he published his real tax return.
Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights?
Well they paid a lot more tax than that pretentious prick so obviously of greater benefit to society "You are calling Corbyn a 'pretentious prick' now? Do you know what pretentious actually means? It makes sense if you intended any of the other three, but Corbyn?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined.
If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I.
We know this because he published his real tax return.
Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights?
Well they paid a lot more tax than that pretentious prick so obviously of greater benefit to society
You are calling Corbyn a 'pretentious prick' now?
Do you know what pretentious actually means? It makes sense if you intended any of the other three, but Corbyn?! "Yep Corbyn. Do you not think the way he dresses and acts is not something he has cultivated to appear to be down with the working man/poor? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined.
If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I.
We know this because he published his real tax return.
Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights?
Well they paid a lot more tax than that pretentious prick so obviously of greater benefit to society
You are calling Corbyn a 'pretentious prick' now?
Do you know what pretentious actually means? It makes sense if you intended any of the other three, but Corbyn?!
Yep Corbyn. Do you not think the way he dresses and acts is not something he has cultivated to appear to be down with the working man/poor?"You'll have to define the way he dresses and acts in your view before I can begin to answer your question. Because to me, it looks like he dresses in normal clothes for a man, and acts like a normal man with admirable political convictions and the job of a politician. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yep Corbyn. Do you not think the way he dresses and acts is not something he has cultivated to appear to be down with the working man/poor?" It's not cultivated, he just doesn't feel the need to dress to please the cameras. though he rally should try a bit harder if he has to visit other leaders. he is almost as shabby looking as the German Chancellor | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined.
If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I.
We know this because he published his real tax return.
Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights?
Well they paid a lot more tax than that pretentious prick so obviously of greater benefit to society
You are calling Corbyn a 'pretentious prick' now?
Do you know what pretentious actually means? It makes sense if you intended any of the other three, but Corbyn?!
Yep Corbyn. Do you not think the way he dresses and acts is not something he has cultivated to appear to be down with the working man/poor?
You'll have to define the way he dresses and acts in your view before I can begin to answer your question.
Because to me, it looks like he dresses in normal clothes for a man, and acts like a normal man with admirable political convictions and the job of a politician. "Except for when it comes to his 'convictions' over Europe eh They have gone out the window to appease his party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/trolls-trampling-political-discourse-abuse I read this today and thought of this and other political threads on Fab. " You should try a decent paper | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined.
If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I.
We know this because he published his real tax return.
Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights?
Well they paid a lot more tax than that pretentious prick so obviously of greater benefit to society
You are calling Corbyn a 'pretentious prick' now?
Do you know what pretentious actually means? It makes sense if you intended any of the other three, but Corbyn?!
Yep Corbyn. Do you not think the way he dresses and acts is not something he has cultivated to appear to be down with the working man/poor?
You'll have to define the way he dresses and acts in your view before I can begin to answer your question.
Because to me, it looks like he dresses in normal clothes for a man, and acts like a normal man with admirable political convictions and the job of a politician.
Except for when it comes to his 'convictions' over Europe eh
They have gone out the window to appease his party"This is your weakest anti-Corbyn gripe so far. I don't think you actually even mean it. I think you're really a secret Corbynite! We've converted another! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/trolls-trampling-political-discourse-abuse I read this today and thought of this and other political threads on Fab. You should try a decent paper "A different name but the same shtick as before I see. Have a read and see if you recognise yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined.
If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I.
We know this because he published his real tax return.
Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights?". However if addition to failing to submit his return on time , he also failed to declare his pension income . Assuming that he is a higher rate taxpayer , additional tax is due on this income even if 20 % was deducted at source . By failing to declare this income he has in essence submitted a false return. It is hardly confidence inspiring if he makes mistakes such as these .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/trolls-trampling-political-discourse-abuse I read this today and thought of this and other political threads on Fab. You should try a decent paper
A different name but the same shtick as before I see. Have a read and see if you recognise yourself.
"No thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, of course he hasn't really, his accountants have written a letter with the bits in that are important. So like Dave, he's said one thing and done another. I think the only one to actually publish his genuine tax return so far is... ...wait for it... Jeremy Corbyn!
Except he did not include his pension and he did not include the pension he gets from his past job in local council.
In other words he has failed to complete his tax return and if that was you or I we would be fined.
If he has made an error that is fineable, he will be fined. Corbyn is one of the few politicians who can be said to be treated like you or I.
We know this because he published his real tax return.
Has Dodgy Dave, Dodgy Johnson or Dodgy Osborne published their real ones yet, or are they just waiting for people to forget they only published the selected highlights?
Well they paid a lot more tax than that pretentious prick so obviously of greater benefit to society
You are calling Corbyn a 'pretentious prick' now?
Do you know what pretentious actually means? It makes sense if you intended any of the other three, but Corbyn?!
Yep Corbyn. Do you not think the way he dresses and acts is not something he has cultivated to appear to be down with the working man/poor?
You'll have to define the way he dresses and acts in your view before I can begin to answer your question.
Because to me, it looks like he dresses in normal clothes for a man, and acts like a normal man with admirable political convictions and the job of a politician.
Except for when it comes to his 'convictions' over Europe eh
They have gone out the window to appease his party
This is your weakest anti-Corbyn gripe so far. I don't think you actually even mean it.
I think you're really a secret Corbynite! We've converted another! "So he's never been a eurosceptic then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
