Lord Ashcroft

[Phil1]

Fittster said:

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.

So you think he should smoke then, as by not smoking he is avoiding tax on cigarettes?

[AndrewW-G]

Ashcroft isn’t a publicly elected figure and as such, as long as he is not operating outside the law as set by our publicly elected government, I can’t see there being much of an issue.

I really couldn’t see anybody in his position not doing the same, its not as though he’s trying to avoid paying taxation on his earnings, simply mitigating future liabilities based on the law as it stood at the time the transaction took place.

The other obvious point that has been missed so far, is that as per the articles in many of the grown up papers over the past few weeks, he has already announced his decision to resign as deputy chairman of the Conservative party . . . . . . . . . . . . . would that change anybody’s opinion of the moral issues that seem to be vexing certain members of PH?

[Phil1]

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 why did you raise something about Cameron and world wide income of MPs/Lords?

I think he did it because he's not stupid and perhaps prioritises his children over the Tory party.

We all avoid tax each and every day, yet neither you nor Fittster can say how much extra tax he should pay to pass your test. If they follow your rule they would all have to give up every single penny they earn as tax, in order to even be allowed to talk about tax avoidance.

[Fittster]

Phil1 said:

Fittster said:

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.

So you think he should smoke then, as by not smoking he is avoiding tax on cigarettes?

If he is telling the rest of the country to smoke.

[Fittster]

AndrewW-G said:

Ashcroft isn’t a publicly elected figure and as such, as long as he is not operating outside the law as set by our publicly elected government, I can’t see there being much of an issue.

He funds the conservative party and has a seat in the House of Lords. He's a public figure.

[Oakey]

Fittster said:

AndrewW-G said:

Ashcroft isn’t a publicly elected figure and as such, as long as he is not operating outside the law as set by our publicly elected government, I can’t see there being much of an issue.

He funds the conservative party and has a seat in the House of Lords. He's a public figure.

You appear to have completely ignored the last part of that post. Is this because it doesn't fit your agenda?

[MX7]

Fittster said:

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.

That code is Conservative party policy, why shouldn't he follow party policy?

On the 5th. April, before Labour lost the election?

I understand that the morally superior will enjoy this, but the fact is that he was entitled to do what he did.

[BOR]

Naturally he's completely entitled to have resigned his seat in the house of lords and then won't be required to comply with this law. Can't have it both ways.

[Phil1]

Fittster said:

Phil1 said:

Fittster said:

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.

So you think he should smoke then, as by not smoking he is avoiding tax on cigarettes?

If he is telling the rest of the country to smoke.

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Tax avoidance includes every single penny he has left over, after the tax he currently pays. If he behaved differently every single of those pennies could go in tax. You are the one stating that he should pay more tax. How much more tax? Is it just this particular tax you are so upset about, or is it the principle. If it's the principle then please define the principle. How much unrequired tax do you want this man to pay to satisfy yourself?

[Fittster]

Phil1 said:

I think he did it because he's not stupid and perhaps prioritises his children over the Tory party.

We all avoid tax each and every day, yet neither you nor Fittster can say how much extra tax he should pay to pass your test. If they follow your rule they would all have to give up every single penny they earn as tax, in order to even be allowed to talk about tax avoidance.

So a man who puts personal priorities above the of the rest of county should be part of the Government? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If you are going to be part of an organisation that sets the UK tax rules those rules should apply to your income.

[MX7]

Fittster said:

AndrewW-G said:

Ashcroft isn’t a publicly elected figure and as such, as long as he is not operating outside the law as set by our publicly elected government, I can’t see there being much of an issue.

He funds the conservative party and has a seat in the House of Lords. He's a public figure.

You keep saying this. He's a donor, nothing more.

[Oakey]

MX7 said:

Fittster said:

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.

That code is Conservative party policy, why shouldn't he follow party policy?

On the 5th. April, before Labour lost the election?

I understand that the morally superior will enjoy this, but the fact is that he was entitled to do what he did.

Wait... hold on a minute, are you saying that he did this back in April 2010, a month before the election, then nearly 6 months later the new ConLib government say "we are cracking down on tax avoiders" and people are criticising him for something he did six months ago over a policy that wouldn't be announced until six months into the future?

Edited by Oakey on Monday 27th September 15:24

[Fittster]

MX7 said:

Fittster said:

AndrewW-G said:

Ashcroft isn’t a publicly elected figure and as such, as long as he is not operating outside the law as set by our publicly elected government, I can’t see there being much of an issue.

He funds the conservative party and has a seat in the House of Lords. He's a public figure.

You keep saying this. He's a donor, nothing more.

Bearwood Corporate Services is one of the Conservatives’ biggest benefactors and has donated £5.137 million over the past six years. All the companies are thought to be connected to Lord Ashcroft and the donations were described by Tory officials as “Ashcroft” donations.
Under electoral laws, only British companies or British-based voters can donate money to political parties.

source

Edited by Fittster on Monday 27th September 15:26

[Phil1]

Fittster said:

Phil1 said:

I think he did it because he's not stupid and perhaps prioritises his children over the Tory party.

We all avoid tax each and every day, yet neither you nor Fittster can say how much extra tax he should pay to pass your test. If they follow your rule they would all have to give up every single penny they earn as tax, in order to even be allowed to talk about tax avoidance.

So a man who puts personal priorities above the of the rest of county should be part of the Government? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If you are going to be part of an organisation that sets the UK tax rules those rules should apply to your income.

Side stepped the question again.

What rules? They're talking about tax avoidance, so you want to apply the idiotically simple rule of "Don't avoid tax". You don't seem that thick and yet the end result of your stance is that MPs must pay all their salary in tax, and be left with nothing in order to be able to even discuss tax avoidance. You won't define a cut-off, so it seems you think there is no cut-off.

One last try. In order for the Tory/Lib government to discuss tax avoidance, how much extra tax do you think must each MP voluntarily pay?

[Fittster]

Phil1 said:

Fittster said:

Phil1 said:

I think he did it because he's not stupid and perhaps prioritises his children over the Tory party.

We all avoid tax each and every day, yet neither you nor Fittster can say how much extra tax he should pay to pass your test. If they follow your rule they would all have to give up every single penny they earn as tax, in order to even be allowed to talk about tax avoidance.

So a man who puts personal priorities above the of the rest of county should be part of the Government? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If you are going to be part of an organisation that sets the UK tax rules those rules should apply to your income.

Side stepped the question again.

What rules? They're talking about tax avoidance, so you want to apply the idiotically simple rule of "Don't avoid tax". You don't seem that thick and yet the end result of your stance is that MPs must pay all their salary in tax, and be left with nothing in order to be able to even discuss tax avoidance. You won't define a cut-off, so it seems you think there is no cut-off.

One last try. In order for the Tory/Lib government to discuss tax avoidance, how much extra tax do you think must each MP voluntarily pay?

FFS, I'll make this as simple as possible for you. They should pay the level of tax they believe other citizens should pay. If you are part of an organisation that is in power and saying people shouldn't use tax avoidance measures you are a hypocrite if you use them yourself.

What part of that are you finding hard to understand??

[AndrewW-G]

Phil1 said:

One last try. In order for the Tory/Lib government to discuss tax avoidance, how much extra tax do you think must each MP voluntarily pay?

Could I also add . . . . . . . and do you think that every person involved with the UK government, should automaticaly be investigated / ousted from their party etc, if it is discovered that they have been given and acted upon advice relating to the mitigation of inheritance taxation, that is 100% legal at the time of implementation?

[MX7]

Oakey said:

MX7 said:

Fittster said:

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.

That code is Conservative party policy, why shouldn't he follow party policy?

On the 5th. April, before Labour lost the election?

I understand that the morally superior will enjoy this, but the fact is that he was entitled to do what he did.

Wait... hold on a minute, are you saying that he did this back in April 2010, a month before the election, then nearly 6 months later the new ConLib government say "we are cracking down on tax avoiders" and people are criticising him for something he did six months ago over a policy that wouldn't be announced until six months into the future?

Edited by Oakey on Monday 27th September 15:24

Yes.

Lord Ashcroft, who is set to resign as deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, transferred his £17m stake in Impellam on 5 April. The next day, on 6 April, a new law forced people sitting in the House of Lords to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets.

[Fittster]

AndrewW-G said:

Phil1 said:

One last try. In order for the Tory/Lib government to discuss tax avoidance, how much extra tax do you think must each MP voluntarily pay?

Could I also add . . . . . . . and do you think that every person involved with the UK government, should automaticaly be investigated / ousted from their party etc, if it is discovered that they have been given and acted upon advice relating to the mitigation of inheritance taxation, that is 100% legal at the time of implementation?

Do you think it's principled to be involved in something while you are heavily involved in a party that is trying to scrape it?

[Phil1]

Fittster said:

Phil1 said:

Fittster said:

Phil1 said:

I think he did it because he's not stupid and perhaps prioritises his children over the Tory party.

We all avoid tax each and every day, yet neither you nor Fittster can say how much extra tax he should pay to pass your test. If they follow your rule they would all have to give up every single penny they earn as tax, in order to even be allowed to talk about tax avoidance.

So a man who puts personal priorities above the of the rest of county should be part of the Government? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If you are going to be part of an organisation that sets the UK tax rules those rules should apply to your income.

Side stepped the question again.

What rules? They're talking about tax avoidance, so you want to apply the idiotically simple rule of "Don't avoid tax". You don't seem that thick and yet the end result of your stance is that MPs must pay all their salary in tax, and be left with nothing in order to be able to even discuss tax avoidance. You won't define a cut-off, so it seems you think there is no cut-off.

One last try. In order for the Tory/Lib government to discuss tax avoidance, how much extra tax do you think must each MP voluntarily pay?

FFS, I'll make this as simple as possible for you. They should pay the level of tax they believe other citizens should pay. If you are part of an organisation that is in power and saying people shouldn't use tax avoidance measures you are a hypocrite if you use them yourself.

What part of that are you finding hard to understand??

So the extra taxes to be raised have already been published have they? That is a surprise. Or are you insisting he does something undefined, to an undefined level that you insist on but don't know and can't define.

No wonder he falls short of your standards.

[Oakey]

Fittster said:

Phil1 said:

Fittster said:

Phil1 said:

I think he did it because he's not stupid and perhaps prioritises his children over the Tory party.

We all avoid tax each and every day, yet neither you nor Fittster can say how much extra tax he should pay to pass your test. If they follow your rule they would all have to give up every single penny they earn as tax, in order to even be allowed to talk about tax avoidance.

So a man who puts personal priorities above the of the rest of county should be part of the Government? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

If you are going to be part of an organisation that sets the UK tax rules those rules should apply to your income.

Side stepped the question again.

What rules? They're talking about tax avoidance, so you want to apply the idiotically simple rule of "Don't avoid tax". You don't seem that thick and yet the end result of your stance is that MPs must pay all their salary in tax, and be left with nothing in order to be able to even discuss tax avoidance. You won't define a cut-off, so it seems you think there is no cut-off.

One last try. In order for the Tory/Lib government to discuss tax avoidance, how much extra tax do you think must each MP voluntarily pay?

FFS, I'll make this as simple as possible for you. They should pay the level of tax they believe other citizens should pay. If you are part of an organisation that is in power and saying people shouldn't use tax avoidance measures you are a hypocrite if you use them yourself.

What part of that are you finding hard to understand??

I'm going to assume you believe Lord Ashcroft is so rich he was able to buy himself a time machine? Do you seriously expect someone to justify their actions for a policy that WASN'T EVEN ANNOUNCED FOR ANOTHER SIX MONTHS INTO THE FUTURE?

Here's a suggestion, you're clearly so insightful perhaps you can inform the rest of us here on what we shouldn't do just in case that at some point in the future it becomes an issue of contempt.