Red Ken is Hypocrite, Shocker!

[Apache]

Blue62 said:

that's the problem with this country, too many greedy socialists politicians.

[turbobloke]

Apache said:

Blue62 said:

that's the problem with this country, too many greedy socialists politicians.

You both got Ken either way.

Having seen Marr had the newt fancier on, the BBC was not visited this morning. What a combination

[Walter Sobchak]

Can't stand him, really hope he loses the upcoming election, gets depressed and kills himself aterwards, sadly London might not be that lucky.

[Countdown]

By calling for the "rich" to be taxed more heavily, will he himself not end up paying more tax?

[Globs]

Countdown said:

By calling for the "rich" to be taxed more heavily, will he himself not end up paying more tax?

No, he is a socialist, so he only ever talks about other people's money - no his.

[Du1point8]

Countdown said:

By calling for the "rich" to be taxed more heavily, will he himself not end up paying more tax?

Well him and all is supporters will suddenly state that what the Ken does with optimisation of tax is a perfectly fine way to limiting the amount of tax paid.

But if you are rich... its not allowed as you shouldn't optimise your tax, because you a rich bd, or they will try and make it so that only Labour supporters are allowed to do it....

[Countdown]

Du1point8 said:

Countdown said:

By calling for the "rich" to be taxed more heavily, will he himself not end up paying more tax?

Well him and all is supporters will suddenly state that what the Ken does with optimisation of tax is a perfectly fine way to limiting the amount of tax paid.

But if you are rich... its not allowed as you shouldn't optimise your tax, because you a rich bd, or they will try and make it so that only Labour supporters are allowed to do it....

So Labour supporters will pay less tax...surely then all rich people will become labour supporters?

[DonkeyApple]

But the rich haters only hate a certain type of rich.

They don't actually hate the rich per se. Just the ones who are different from them by a particular way.

[LHRFlightman]

I watched him on Marr this morning, he claimed he earned £55k last year. Anyway of checking that out?

[essexplumber]

Countdown said:

So Labour supporters will pay less tax...surely then all rich people will become labour supporters?

Aha thats their game. Well thats the only reason they opened the immigration floodgates.

[RYH64E]

LHRFlightman said:

I watched him on Marr this morning, he claimed he earned £55k last year. Anyway of checking that out?

According to Companies House his Company had £320k in the bank in June 2010, and the latest accounts apparently show earnings of £238,646 (I haven't seen this years accounts and am not sure how the earnings have been calculated from abbreviated accounts, but am quoting this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-ma... ).

If the man was true to his 'principles' he would pay the full years earnings as salary to himself (so £250k ish salary), with deductions for income tax, national insurance and employers national insurance. If he's paid corporation tax on the profit and then took dividends for him and his wife up to the amount covered by the corporation tax credit leavibg the balance in the company then he will have legitimately avoided a whole lot of tax and more importantly, National Insurance. Perfectly legal, but legal tax avoidance is something he is very critical of when practised by others.

[Du1point8]

RYH64E said:

LHRFlightman said:

I watched him on Marr this morning, he claimed he earned £55k last year. Anyway of checking that out?

According to Companies House his Company had £320k in the bank in June 2010, and the latest accounts apparently show earnings of £238,646 (I haven't seen this years accounts and am not sure how the earnings have been calculated from abbreviated accounts, but am quoting this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-ma... ).

If the man was true to his 'principles' he would pay the full years earnings as salary to himself (so £250k ish salary), with deductions for income tax, national insurance and employers national insurance. If he's paid corporation tax on the profit and then took dividends for him and his wife up to the amount covered by the corporation tax credit leavibg the balance in the company then he will have legitimately avoided a whole lot of tax and more importantly, National Insurance. Perfectly legal, but legal tax avoidance is something he is very critical of when practised by others.

So the way he should have done it is this:

1. unless wife is part of the company (actually works) do not list her as employee.
2. pay Corp tax on the company earnings.
3. pay himself what is left after corp tax as salary, paying NI and PAYE taxes.

That is what he is complaining about that rich and business owners not doing.

Instead they follow all the guidelines given to them by HMRC, so are advised what they need to pay and when, however that is never good enough for some people. Strange how I bet all Labour MPs will being doing something similar, yet all state that the wealthy should pay more.

[RYH64E]

Du1point8 said:

So the way he should have done it is this:

1. unless wife is part of the company (actually works) do not list her as employee.
2. pay Corp tax on the company earnings.
3. pay himself what is left after corp tax as salary, paying NI and PAYE taxes.

That is what he is complaining about that rich and business owners not doing.

Instead they follow all the guidelines given to them by HMRC, so are advised what they need to pay and when, however that is never good enough for some people. Strange how I bet all Labour MPs will being doing something similar, yet all state that the wealthy should pay more.

To avoid the charge of hypocrisy he should pay all of the company income (less expenses) to himself as salary, with the consequent employers ni (13.8%). That way there would be no profit and hence no corporation tax, no dividends, and a lot more tax (income tax at up to 50%, national insurance, and employers ni) to the exchequer. Anything else is tax avoidance, which only rich bds do apparently...

[RYH64E]

A bit more information in the Telegraph and from Guido, it looks like Ken has been confusing company and personal expenditure by employing consultants for his mayoral campaign through his company, naughty.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/1...

http://order-order.com/2012/03/11/breaking-ken-tel...

[s3fella]

johnfm said:

Yes, we all do try to minimise tax. But we don't then make the claims he does about the rich avoiding taxes. That is why he is being a hypocrite.

Actually, i reckon most of us have no choice in the matter and it is paid on are behalf by our employers.

[DonkeyApple]

s3fella said:

Actually, i reckon most of us have no choice in the matter and it is paid on are behalf by our employers.

Doesn't stop anyone from minimising their tax though. Most people earn via PAYE and most tax schemes are aimed at the majority.

You can be on PAYE and have a very low effective tax rate. In some cases, extremely low.

[roachcoach]

s3fella said:

johnfm said:

Yes, we all do try to minimise tax. But we don't then make the claims he does about the rich avoiding taxes. That is why he is being a hypocrite.

Actually, i reckon most of us have no choice in the matter and it is paid on are behalf by our employers.

ISAs? Pension contributions? Salary sacrifice schemes? There's a lot out there. People may not even be conscious of most of it mind....but they still do it

[DonkeyApple]

RYH64E said:

A bit more information in the Telegraph and from Guido, it looks like Ken has been confusing company and personal expenditure by employing consultants for his mayoral campaign through his company, naughty.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/1...

http://order-order.com/2012/03/11/breaking-ken-tel...

I like his angle: Millionaire's election campaign funded by Iranian state.



Everyone knows Ken is a liar and a hypocrite but the election boils down to people voting for who will give them the most money and power which is why Ken will probably win this upcoming election.

[wolves_wanderer]

Ken recently asked for a change in the law so that the mayor could not hold other employment whilst in power. He received an interesting reply.

Grant Shapps said:

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your letter of 27 February 2012 to the Prime Minister; he has asked me to reply on his behalf as the Greater London Authority Act is the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

I have considered your request carefully, but my department has no plans to amend legislation in this way.

I believe the electorate are best placed to make judgments on whether elected representatives are able to pursue other interests in their spare time. Indeed, it would be quite illiberal to pass laws restricting and regulating what individuals can do in their evenings and on weekends.

Indeed, the effect of your proposed regulations would have meant you were unable to serve as Mayor of London when you were first elected in 2000, since you were a Member of Parliament, had paid columns in The Independent and the Evening Standard, had a book contract with Victor Gollancz, and received five-figure sums from after-dinner speaking agencies. Subsequently, during the period you were Mayor, you had a continuing commercial interest in Localaction Ltd, receiving payments for television, radio and writing.

In this context, I view your new-found interest in this issue to be wholly inconsistent and a further argument against ill-thought-out regulation. Calling for regulation on ‘full-time mayors’ whilst running a part-time company is as consistent as calling for a clampdown on tax dodging whilst using a company to avoid paying income tax.

Obviously, outside interests must open and transparent – and the Coalition Government has taken steps through the Localism Act 2011 and the new local government Transparency Code to entrench such transparency in law. I would note that the Greater London Authority has been at the forefront of promoting the transparency agenda in the last four years, such as being the first local government body to start publishing its spending online.

Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP
Minister of State for Housing and Local Government

[mrmr96]

Inkyfingers said:

johnfm said:

Do you understand the basis of hypocrisy?

Yes I do, thanks. I can't stand the hypocritical little toad, my point is that we all do our best to avoid tax and there is a very fuzzy line between what is legally and morally acceptable.

That article was also not strictly accurate as it makes out that he has avoided income tax buy leaving cash in his business when in fact he has just put off paying the tax till a later date.

Because of the way income tax and corporation tax work the % rates have a lower % for the first £x per year and then increase the % over a certain £x value. So by deferring the drawings into future years he is avoiding tax.

E.g. take £0.5m out now and you'll pay 0% on the first £10k, 20% on the next £30k, 40% on the next £20k and 50% on the rest. Whereas if you take £0.5m out at a rate of £10k per year for 50years then you'll pay no tax at all. (My figures are done in the round, but that's the principal.)