Discussion
Victor McDade said:
MX7 said:
He was entitled to do what he did. You might question it morally, but no law was broken, and anyone in his position would have done the same.
A bit like what most of the MPs did with their expenses then?Don't really see the issue.
There was no rule against what he did. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it. Doesn't matter what he "morally" should have done, it's his cash.
Was he supposed to say, oh hang on, I'll wait another couple of days so I can be hit for 3 million quid in tax?
There was no rule against what he did. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it. Doesn't matter what he "morally" should have done, it's his cash.
Was he supposed to say, oh hang on, I'll wait another couple of days so I can be hit for 3 million quid in tax?
Victor McDade said:
MX7 said:
He was entitled to do what he did. You might question it morally, but no law was broken, and anyone in his position would have done the same.
A bit like what most of the MPs did with their expenses then?It was Ashcroft's own money that he didn't have to pay tax on.
Victor McDade said:
MX7 said:
He was entitled to do what he did. You might question it morally, but no law was broken, and anyone in his position would have done the same.
A bit like what most of the MPs did with their expenses then?TankRizzo said:
Victor McDade said:
MX7 said:
He was entitled to do what he did. You might question it morally, but no law was broken, and anyone in his position would have done the same.
A bit like what most of the MPs did with their expenses then?It was Ashcroft's own money that he didn't have to pay tax on.
Fittster said:
The comparison is clearly with someone like Dianne Abbot sending her kids to Private Schools while official opposing private education.
Not really. Dianne Abbot didn't agree to send her kids to state school and then get a private tutor in, she avoided state school in its entirety. Your comparison would be closer if Ashcroft hadn't moved to be a UK tax payer at all.I don't see how with your interpretation he can possibly pass the test. Why stop at this tax? Should he buy more things so he pays more VAT? Should he move house more often so he pays more stamp duty? Should he cash in any ISAs he has and move them into tax paying accounts? Should he take up smoking? Yes these are trivial examples, but why don't you define for us just how much unnecessary tax he has to pay for you to be happy?
Phil1 said:
Yes these are trivial examples, but why don't you define for us just how much unnecessary tax he has to pay for you to be happy?
No need for Fittster to define how much. Cameron has already defined that MPs/Lords pay tax on world wide income. Ashcroft disagrees with this and has taken steps to ensure he doesn't have to comply with Cameron's wishes.Edited by BOR on Monday 27th September 14:32
Fittster said:
The comparison is clearly with someone like Dianne Abbot sending her kids to Private Schools while official opposing private education.
I presume that was directed at my comment? The difference is that what Abbott did was complete hypocrisy. She said she opposed public schools, and then chose to use one. Ashcroft hasn't said that we shouldn't be creative with our tax affairs. The Tories might have, but not him directly.BOR said:
Phil1 said:
Yes these are trivial examples, but why don't you define for us just how much unnecessary tax he has to pay for you to be happy?
No need for Fittster to define how much. Cameron has already defined that MPs/Lords pay tax on world wide income. Ashcroft disagrees with this and has taken steps to ensure he doesn't have to comply with Cameron's wishes.Edited by BOR on Monday 27th September 14:32
Of course Fittster has to define where he thinks the tax liability stops. He claims the legal requirement is just not enough. What is enough?
You've missed something. He gave his assets away. To his kid. One day before the law changed.
Why do you think he did that ?
If his government is lecturing the citizens to play by the rules, then members of the government are required to comply with those rules, in spirit, as well as legally. Anything else is hipocrisy.
Why do you think he did that ?
If his government is lecturing the citizens to play by the rules, then members of the government are required to comply with those rules, in spirit, as well as legally. Anything else is hipocrisy.
BOR said:
You've missed something. He gave his assets away. To his kid. One day before the law changed.
Why do you think he did that ?
If his government is lecturing the citizens to play by the rules, then members of the government are required to comply with those rules, in spirit, as well as legally. Anything else is hipocrisy.
So Ashcroft has to adhere to some saintly moral code?! Anyone else would have done what he did. Why do you think he did that ?
If his government is lecturing the citizens to play by the rules, then members of the government are required to comply with those rules, in spirit, as well as legally. Anything else is hipocrisy.
MX7 said:
Fittster said:
The comparison is clearly with someone like Dianne Abbot sending her kids to Private Schools while official opposing private education.
I presume that was directed at my comment? The difference is that what Abbott did was complete hypocrisy. She said she opposed public schools, and then chose to use one. Ashcroft hasn't said that we shouldn't be creative with our tax affairs. The Tories might have, but not him directly.Phil1 said:
Of course Fittster has to define where he thinks the tax liability stops. He claims the legal requirement is just not enough. What is enough?
He as party of the conservative party preaches tax avoidance is wrong, then avoids tax himself. Either stop avoiding UK taxes or come out against the Conservative party policy.This law or rule, was badly implemented. It should have been introduced retrospectively to avoid giving peole like Aschroft the chance to slither through it.
I admit, I would have assumed MPs/Lords would abide by the spirit of the new legislation, so I'm not blaming Cameron for giving his boss the chance to cheat on it.
I admit, I would have assumed MPs/Lords would abide by the spirit of the new legislation, so I'm not blaming Cameron for giving his boss the chance to cheat on it.
MX7 said:
BOR said:
You've missed something. He gave his assets away. To his kid. One day before the law changed.
Why do you think he did that ?
If his government is lecturing the citizens to play by the rules, then members of the government are required to comply with those rules, in spirit, as well as legally. Anything else is hipocrisy.
So Ashcroft has to adhere to some saintly moral code?! Anyone else would have done what he did. Why do you think he did that ?
If his government is lecturing the citizens to play by the rules, then members of the government are required to comply with those rules, in spirit, as well as legally. Anything else is hipocrisy.
Victor McDade said:
If Ashcroft wasn't a politician I'd agree with you. But you can't have a party lecture the rest of us on tax avoidance, a completely legal process, yet one of their own is doing exactly what Dave and Nick are telling us is wrong.
Surely "tax avoidance" is finding loopholes in the law and exploiting them so you don't pay tax.At the time of Ashcroft moving his money, there was no law.
It's a bit like saying on the 1st of January, all TV licences will cost £400. And you buy your licence on 31st Dec to avoid paying the higher price.
Had Ashcroft waited until the law came into effect and then took advantage of a loophole then I would agree with you. But the law is the law.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff