|
Post by yattongas on Mar 29, 2024 10:07:04 GMT
There is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion ... one is perfectly legal the other isn't. So Lord Ashcroft had non dom status between 2000 and 2010 under..oh yes a Labour Government who had "10" years to scrap the non dom rules ensuring the tax was paid but failed to do so. Suggest you read the Jolyon Maugham thread on X
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 29, 2024 10:08:40 GMT
Everything is fine if it’s a Tory , wrong if it’s labour. Thems France’s rules . Keep up ! 😂
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Mar 29, 2024 10:24:39 GMT
Everything is fine if it’s a Tory , wrong if it’s labour. Thems France’s rules . Keep up ! 😂 Reading the article where does it state Jeremy Hunt committed tax evasion. It even admits he did not gain financially. Talk about scraping the barrel trying to find articles to justify Rayners actions we have an article from 6 years ago and someone who dropped his non dom status 14 years ago... 🙄
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Mar 29, 2024 10:28:19 GMT
Everything is fine if it’s a Tory , wrong if it’s labour. Thems France’s rules . Keep up ! 😂 Or on the flip side . fine if it's Labour , wrong if it's a Tory. Thems Yattons rules eh.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 29, 2024 13:25:38 GMT
...the difference is Rayner knowingly declared one thing and then either did another - or benefitted from doing another. Maybe worth listing all the claims in one place (and apologies if I have missed any...): She benefited from a 25% market-rate discount on buying her council house in Vicarage Road (a policy she is incidentally against and will do her best to reverse when she is in government), but that discount requires the buyer to live in the house for a set period of time (I think 5 years) - if they sell early, move out and/or lease it to someone else there are penalty charges which effectively reclaim some or all of that discount. She listed the Vicarage Road property as her electoral address - giving misleading information about where you are living and/or who is actually living in a property on the electoral register is a criminal offence with large fines and potentially a custodial sentence. When you sell your primary residence you do not pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) under Private Residence Relief (a tax where she wants to remove many reliefs and increase the percentage payable to HMRC). If she was not living there and leasing it to someone else she would not get the relief and be liable for the tax. *If* she was living in Vicarage Road (away from her husband who was living in his Lowndes Lane address) they can't both claim Private Residence Relief from Capital Gains Tax when both houses are sold (which they now have been). Married couples regardless of their actual living arrangements only get tax relief on one property. *If* she was renting the Vicarage Road house to her brother, did she inform her mortgage lender and/or HMRC and/or the local council as she would have been required to do? A buy-to-let mortgage normally has very different requirements and costs vs a mortgage for a house you are living in yourself - and was council tax being correctly charged at both properties? She was on the electoral role at one, her husband at the other. Did they both claim single-person discounts? Where was her brother living for council tax purposes...? Why were the births of her children re-registered to the Lowndes Lane address if she was living with and caring for them at Vicarage Road? There are neighbours in Vicarage Road telling the media she didn't live there after getting married, her brother did. There are neighbours in Lowndes Lane telling the media she definitely lived there from before her wedding day: "...if she is saying she didn’t live there she is a *ing liar. She definitely lived at that house. She can’t say she didn’t live there. I would swear on the Bible to that..." (Sylvia Hampson, 83). There are obviously different issues here for her. Legally everyone can make mistakes and can then correct them - sometimes with a penalty/fine and/or other fallout from the 'mistakes'. But she's a politician and the political issues are more challenging. She is a politician who is in favour of fewer people being able to buy their council house at a discount. A politician who is in favour of more people having to pay more capital gains tax. A politician who has attacked Nadhim Zahawi over his tax affairs ( "...come clean or go..."). A politician who four years ago demanded that that Jill Mortimer (a Tory by-election candidate) "...publish in full her tax returns..." over claims she was avoiding tax... Mistakes shouldn't crop up in the (Newsnight) interview you try to use to clear everything up. But she mixed up the job she had when she sold the house (she was no longer a care worker, she was a trade-union rep and political candidate) and she sold the house nine not fifteen years ago - a claim she got wrong at least twice. As a politician she has also released carefully worded statements about her recent tax advice. But that's nearly 8 years after the sale - that will tell her what she should have done, not what she actually did at the time...she has released carefully worded statements about the police not investigating her tax affairs - but they don't, HMRC has it's own investigative powers... ...it's not mistakes that will bring her down, it's her attempts to cover them up that will become the political problem for both her and Starmer....
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 29, 2024 14:47:09 GMT
Love the way our two Tories on here are getting their knickers in a twist over this. Great entertainment 😂😂
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,595
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 29, 2024 14:56:49 GMT
Everything is fine if it’s a Tory , wrong if it’s labour. Thems France’s rules . Keep up ! 😂 Reading the article where does it state Jeremy Hunt committed tax evasion. It even admits he did not gain financially. Talk about scraping the barrel trying to find articles to justify Rayners actions we have an article from 6 years ago and someone who dropped his non dom status 14 years ago... 🙄 Not trying to justify Rayner at all, in fact I've mentioned several times that she has to answer. Nor did I mention tax evasion, just pointing out that she isn't alone in either incompetence or dishonesty. It's one of the few areas Labour need to answer and it's interesting how it took a Tory Peer with a book to publish for this to come out. I suspect the Conservatives are keen for this to carry on as a deflection from their own woes. I also suspect Starmer having to 'reluctantly' accept her resignation, if it came to it, wouldn't lose too much sleep. The final defeat of the left within Labour (until next time). Now, how are those political honours going?
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 30, 2024 9:41:51 GMT
Love the way our two Tories on here are getting their knickers in a twist over this. Great entertainment 😂😂 It's good fun watching her twist and turn. To be honest whilst I disagree with her actual politics, politically I quite like her. She's come in as a disruptor, not afraid to make mistakes/apologise/move on (politically speaking) and from humble beginnings she has certainly risen through the ranks quickly and made a big impact. But she then has to be held to the same standard as everyone else. As I stated before, she would survive if it was a genuine mistake. It's the cover-up that will take her down...
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 30, 2024 10:07:02 GMT
Love the way our two Tories on here are getting their knickers in a twist over this. Great entertainment 😂😂 It's good fun watching her twist and turn. To be honest whilst I disagree with her actual politics, politically I quite like her. She's come in as a disruptor, not afraid to make mistakes/apologise/move on (politically speaking) and from humble beginnings she has certainly risen through the ranks quickly and made a big impact. But she then has to be held to the same standard as everyone else. As I stated before, she would survive if it was a genuine mistake. It's the cover-up that will take her down... So you’re another that is convinced she’s guilty…. As in a cover up that will bring her down ? It’ll be interesting to see if you’re right !
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 30, 2024 11:04:23 GMT
It's good fun watching her twist and turn. To be honest whilst I disagree with her actual politics, politically I quite like her. She's come in as a disruptor, not afraid to make mistakes/apologise/move on (politically speaking) and from humble beginnings she has certainly risen through the ranks quickly and made a big impact. But she then has to be held to the same standard as everyone else. As I stated before, she would survive if it was a genuine mistake. It's the cover-up that will take her down... So you’re another that is convinced she’s guilty…. As in a cover up that will bring her down ? It’ll be interesting to see if you’re right ! She has claimed (at least) two things that can't be true at the same time - re-read my previous list. If her neighbours at both addresses are telling the truth (and no reason to think they are lying) then multiple things she has claimed are true. Then we get to the interviews where she tried to clear things up, where she either forgot all her personal history *or* told porkies to make things look better. Did I judge her on the claims in the book/Daily Mail? No. Do I judge her after 40 days of media silence and then three interviews where none of the major claims against her were even close to being cleared up? Yes.... All we are waiting for now is to find out what actually happened and which rules/laws were broken.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Mar 30, 2024 11:32:24 GMT
So you’re another that is convinced she’s guilty…. As in a cover up that will bring her down ? It’ll be interesting to see if you’re right ! She has claimed (at least) two things that can't be true at the same time - re-read my previous list. If her neighbours at both addresses are telling the truth (and no reason to think they are lying) then multiple things she has claimed are true. Then we get to the interviews where she tried to clear things up, where she either forgot all her personal history *or* told porkies to make things look better. Did I judge her on the claims in the book/Daily Mail? No. Do I judge her after 40 days of media silence and then three interviews where none of the major claims against her were even close to being cleared up? Yes.... All we are waiting for now is to find out what actually happened and which rules/laws were broken. Which is what the relevant authorities are doing as I understand it. Everything else is made up of social media tit bits.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 30, 2024 11:37:52 GMT
She has claimed (at least) two things that can't be true at the same time - re-read my previous list. If her neighbours at both addresses are telling the truth (and no reason to think they are lying) then multiple things she has claimed are true. Then we get to the interviews where she tried to clear things up, where she either forgot all her personal history *or* told porkies to make things look better. Did I judge her on the claims in the book/Daily Mail? No. Do I judge her after 40 days of media silence and then three interviews where none of the major claims against her were even close to being cleared up? Yes.... All we are waiting for now is to find out what actually happened and which rules/laws were broken. Which is what the relevant authorities are doing as I understand it. Everything else is made up of social media tit bits. ...true, but you are glossing over the bit where she could find a microphone and tell us where she was living (and when), where her husband/kids/brother were living (and when) and so shut all her detractors up... ...what we got was a Newsnight interview where she got the date of when she sold her house wrong at least twice and a lie/mis-speak about the job she was doing when she sold it....
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Mar 30, 2024 11:52:34 GMT
Which is what the relevant authorities are doing as I understand it. Everything else is made up of social media tit bits. ...true, but you are glossing over the bit where she could find a microphone and tell us where she was living (and when), where her husband/kids/brother were living (and when) and so shut all her detractors up... ...what we got was a Newsnight interview where she got the date of when she sold her house wrong at least twice and a lie/mis-speak about the job she was doing when she sold it.... I didn't watch any of that. To be honest I am so disinterested I could not articulate what this is about? I did hear her interviewed on R4, Today Programme, I think this is about capital gains tax? Liability due because she sold a non primary home? Riveting stuff. It's got to be more than that surely if the Police had a look. Either way the Tories appear to be after her which is laughable given the number that have had to resign over the last few years. What was the latest, the MP from Blackpool? Taking money for lobbying? But I guess any story in the headlines that keeps out stories of their abject incompetence is a good one to them, truth being a side issue. Johnson's legacy indeed.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 30, 2024 12:42:16 GMT
...true, but you are glossing over the bit where she could find a microphone and tell us where she was living (and when), where her husband/kids/brother were living (and when) and so shut all her detractors up... ...what we got was a Newsnight interview where she got the date of when she sold her house wrong at least twice and a lie/mis-speak about the job she was doing when she sold it.... I didn't watch any of that. To be honest I am so disinterested I could not articulate what this is about? I did hear her interviewed on R4, Today Programme, I think this is about capital gains tax? Liability due because she sold a non primary home? Riveting stuff. It's got to be more than that surely if the Police had a look. Either way the Tories appear to be after her which is laughable given the number that have had to resign over the last few years. What was the latest, the MP from Blackpool? Taking money for lobbying? But I guess any story in the headlines that keeps out stories of their abject incompetence is a good one to them, truth being a side issue. Johnson's legacy indeed. Precisely ! 🙄
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 31, 2024 6:15:07 GMT
...true, but you are glossing over the bit where she could find a microphone and tell us where she was living (and when), where her husband/kids/brother were living (and when) and so shut all her detractors up... ...what we got was a Newsnight interview where she got the date of when she sold her house wrong at least twice and a lie/mis-speak about the job she was doing when she sold it.... I didn't watch any of that. To be honest I am so disinterested I could not articulate what this is about? I did hear her interviewed on R4, Today Programme, I think this is about capital gains tax? Liability due because she sold a non primary home? Riveting stuff. It's got to be more than that surely if the Police had a look. Either way the Tories appear to be after her which is laughable given the number that have had to resign over the last few years. What was the latest, the MP from Blackpool? Taking money for lobbying? But I guess any story in the headlines that keeps out stories of their abject incompetence is a good one to them, truth being a side issue. Johnson's legacy indeed. Electoral fraud, tax fraud and potentially lying to various authorities to cover things up - I listed all the issues above if you want to catch up... Why is it important? She is Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. When Labour win the General Election she will be a key member of government so whether you want to read up on this or not, it is an important issue...
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,595
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 31, 2024 7:38:54 GMT
Sunday Times won't make good reading over breakfast, citing a poll of 15,000 with the Conservatives possibly holding fewer than 100 seats (albeit with 15% undecided).
Braverman, Jenrick and Mordaunt losing their seats, Sunak and Hunt probable. Only Tugendhat and Badenoch of previous leadership contenders being re-elected.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 31, 2024 8:05:35 GMT
Sunday Times won't make good reading over breakfast, citing a poll of 15,000 with the Conservatives possibly holding fewer than 100 seats (albeit with 15% undecided). Braverman, Jenrick and Mordaunt losing their seats, Sunak and Hunt probable. Only Tugendhat and Badenoch of previous leadership contenders being re-elected. Although I've spent the last six months thinking "...who would want to take over from him?" I suspect the list gets longer by the day as no positive changes are made. Polling is always a bit suspect until the actual date is set in stone but I suspect the inbox of the 1922 committee will be busy over the Easter recess...
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 31, 2024 8:57:20 GMT
Sunday Times won't make good reading over breakfast, citing a poll of 15,000 with the Conservatives possibly holding fewer than 100 seats (albeit with 15% undecided). Braverman, Jenrick and Mordaunt losing their seats, Sunak and Hunt probable. Only Tugendhat and Badenoch of previous leadership contenders being re-elected. Vorderman is probably on the money when she said with tactical voting the Tories could be limited to just 70 seats. With that sort of majority it gives Starmer the leeway to be a bit more radical in office. Id start of by chucking every single Tory MP of the last 10 yrs in prison . 😃👍
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 31, 2024 10:29:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 31, 2024 19:17:32 GMT
Hope your all having a great Easter. In London Sadiq Khan will only be wishing you all happy Ramadan. You’re * Happy Easter you right wing loon ! 😜
|
|