Tony Blair and the £8million tax mystery
Discussion
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
Quite so.
Hague and IDS were bald and Michael Howard, as Widdecomb put it, had 'something of the night' - but all would have been infintely better for the vast majority of the population than Bliar or Clown (who gave a helping hand only to the top 1% of earners, result!) and would not have nearly bankrupted the country for no overall gain.
How do you know what would have been "better" for the vast majority of the population? Do you have any empirical evidence for this ?Hague and IDS were bald and Michael Howard, as Widdecomb put it, had 'something of the night' - but all would have been infintely better for the vast majority of the population than Bliar or Clown (who gave a helping hand only to the top 1% of earners, result!) and would not have nearly bankrupted the country for no overall gain.
With regards to "bankrupting" the country - this is an issue facing most western governments, not solely restricted to the UK.
Just to clarify, I voted for both Hague and IDS (and Cameron) because their policies appealed to me. That doesn't mean that their policies were right for the majority of people and it would be pretty arrogant for me to dismiss their choices as wrong. The proof of the pudding is that there isn't a great deal of difference between Cameron and Blair.
However, the country as run under Blair and Clown was a continuous national trainwreck from the moment they deviated from Conservative plans in place at the time Bliar
In terms of balance of probabilities, it's not even a difficult judgement to make. Unless the person making the judgement is tribally committed to Labour incompetence and the various delusions that go with it.
Personally, if having Labour in power would be good for the country, I'd vote Labour. I've never voted Labour once and being realistic (about Labour) it's not likely I ever will.
As for Bliar, during and afterwards...words fail.
DonkeyApple said:
Or the opening salvo that sets the scene and steers the audience into the correct mindset.
As you allude to the chances of PWC doing anything that is not lawful or correct are minuscule. Especially when handling a toxic client when your reputation is more at risk.
This story will either lead to a journalistic examination of top level accountancy and how no high earners are actually paying the kind of tax that the people think they are. Or it may transpire to be an opening salvo to a situation where much more has come to light and more 'revelations' are to follow.
[Tinfoil] now it struck me as kind of odd that newsnight, one night this week, devoted considerable time to discussing tax reform, and changing the law about tax avoidance, not evasion (Simon Hughes & some Tory backbencher) were on, talking changing the tax regime, something to do with a "presumption" that tax will be paid in full and not avoided, I thought it the usual rhetoric about closing loop holes, that every government tries to sell, but manages to leave as labyrinthine as the last, leaving a new layer of complication as they exit. But could this be more of the same groundwork being prepared the drip, drip of information [tinfoil/]As you allude to the chances of PWC doing anything that is not lawful or correct are minuscule. Especially when handling a toxic client when your reputation is more at risk.
This story will either lead to a journalistic examination of top level accountancy and how no high earners are actually paying the kind of tax that the people think they are. Or it may transpire to be an opening salvo to a situation where much more has come to light and more 'revelations' are to follow.
I find it odd that TB makes so much, is such demand, he ought to be a pariah, given his part in taking us to war on false pretences, in the West, labour are out of power in the UK, no reason he should have access in Downing St, the crooks in the Bush administration are currently odd of power, would he be chummy with Obama? The wars in Iraq-Afghanistan have been a poison pill to what he wanted to do, I can't see why TB would be popular there? Although it's always troubled me why TB got a peace envoy job... Something fishy...
The newsnight went into some detail about vodaphone, etc. And the same myriad of companies and moving profits between them, to different tax regimes to hide profits and how HMRC are badly staffed with little expertise to tackle complicated case, and have to negotiate with these companies/individuals, reminded me of Icelandic bank regulators visiting their banks to be met by 20-30 lawyers. Puzzled how HRMC could be so weak, when they have legal powers way in excess of the Police, or so I thought. You can see why HMRC go after the little guy so much!
You only vote Labour if you are at the bottom of the tree as you will be given more money or at the top of the tree as you can take more money.
It doesn't favour those in the middle as the asset inflation will always wipe out the wage inflation but on the surface people think they are richer as they ignore the increases debt requirement.
Many in the middle vote Labour because their parents did but forget that their parents were on a much lower rung of the ladder.
I have no qualms over the 97 election. The conservatives had to go but the later elections were born from stupidity and greed.
Back on message: if you had a PM who when in power would openly accept 'gifts' from third world leaders and dubious billionaires then there is not an enormous leap to wondering what 'gifts' were not made public and whether there were any deferred payments involved?
It doesn't favour those in the middle as the asset inflation will always wipe out the wage inflation but on the surface people think they are richer as they ignore the increases debt requirement.
Many in the middle vote Labour because their parents did but forget that their parents were on a much lower rung of the ladder.
I have no qualms over the 97 election. The conservatives had to go but the later elections were born from stupidity and greed.
Back on message: if you had a PM who when in power would openly accept 'gifts' from third world leaders and dubious billionaires then there is not an enormous leap to wondering what 'gifts' were not made public and whether there were any deferred payments involved?
DonkeyApple said:
I have no qualms over the 97 election. The conservatives had to go but the later elections were born from stupidity and greed.
On that point I would respectfully disagree, there are some qualms out there to be had. Punishing almost the entire country to punish a political party or individual is short-sighted in the extreme.
turbobloke said:
On that point I would respectfully disagree, there are some qualms out there to be had. Punishing almost the entire country to punish a political party or individual is short-sighted in the extreme.
I think the Conservatives had got a little complacent in 1997 and also the country was ready for change, on the assumption that "new has to be better than old". There were all sorts of "scandals" about sleaze and the like, the irony being it would be nothing compared to the scandals that followed with the new lot. I guess that the old adage of "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in" holds to some extent. But people were sick of the Conservatives in 1997 and Tony Blair leapt on that with "Things can only get better" and "the end of Boom and Bust" (ok, that was Brown as Chancellor) and the sad thing is that people believed it and it was a pack of lies.
Then a combination of gerrymandering, moving into the same political ground as the traditional Tory area, and paying the benefit class to breed and vote to retain their cushy lifestyle, all conspired to keep them in there for 13 years.
The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.
The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.
turbobloke said:
However, the country as run under Blair and Clown was a continuous national trainwreck from the moment they deviated from Conservative plans in place at the time Bliar conned his way into power was elected.
Blair "conned" his way into power? You're kidding? Unlike all those other politicians who state their principles and then stick to them come hell or high water? 
turbobloke said:
With every form of poverty known to Toynbee increasing as a result of their 13 disastrous years,
I've only had a quick google but stats from the followng links suggest that poverty rose sharply after 1979, peaked in 97/98 and the overall trend post 1997 was downwards?http://www.cpag.org.uk/povertyfacts/
http://www.crsp.ac.uk/downloads/publications/sues_...
turbobloke said:
while public sector efficiency decreased in spite of massive expansion,
Increase in funding from 1997-2007 was in the region of 40%, productivity over the same period increased by 37% (ONS figures) so a net annual decrease in efficiency of 0.3%. The law of diminishing marginal returns applies I would suggest. Looking at specific examples waiting lists now are ridiculously shorter than they were in 1994/95 when I had the pleasure of working in the NHS.turbobloke said:
and all this while spunking the benefits of 100+ stealh tax increases and the income from purely fortuitous boom years up the wall,
As noted above there was a 37% increase in public sector outputs, hardly "spunking money up the wall" I would suggest. turbobloke said:
Labour's years were a monumental failure and the country emerged nearly bankrupt.
And that's why the Tories have roared back with a massive majority.....oh wait, they haven't 
Here's another take on thingsUnder TB Labour offered (and delivered) what most of the electorate wanted. However under GB there was an increasing drift to the "Left". Combined with other factors (banking crisis, recession) there was a move in votes from Labour to Conservative. To suggest that Conservatives are so much better than Labor is complete b
ks. Equally to suggest that Labour were the spawn of Beelzebub is also bks. Both parties have their strong points and weak points.turbobloke said:
Personally, if having Labour in power would be good for the country, I'd vote Labour. I've never voted Labour once and being realistic (about Labour) it's not likely I ever will.
It may well be that the electorate doesn't want what you want. That doesn't make you any more or less "right" than them.Sorry if this has been mentioned - opportunistic timing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16422437
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16422437
JonRB said:
I think the Conservatives had got a little complacent in 1997 and also the country was ready for change, on the assumption that "new has to be better than old". There were all sorts of "scandals" about sleaze and the like, the irony being it would be nothing compared to the scandals that followed with the new lot. I guess that the old adage of "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in" holds to some extent.
But people were sick of the Conservatives in 1997 and Tony Blair leapt on that with "Things can only get better" and "the end of Boom and Bust" (ok, that was Brown as Chancellor) and the sad thing is that people believed it and it was a pack of lies.
Yup. I think if we went back in time to 96 we would remember just what a hideous mess the cons were. But people were sick of the Conservatives in 1997 and Tony Blair leapt on that with "Things can only get better" and "the end of Boom and Bust" (ok, that was Brown as Chancellor) and the sad thing is that people believed it and it was a pack of lies.
TB is spot on that the economics were brilliant and if they had been maintained then we would now be the wealthiest state in Europe and dictating terms from great strength but who is to say the cons would have stuck to it themselves. Although I can't believe it would have been the binary switch of Labour that saw saving stop instantly and spending and borrowing and deliberate asset inflation ratchet up almost overnight.
You now realise that Tony being a privately educated, middle class Thatcherite used our wealth in the first term to buy off the real Labour men but after the first term just bought into the tax and spend and extreme short term wealth pyramid and went for it.
JonRB said:
Then a combination of gerrymandering, moving into the same political ground as the traditional Tory area, and paying the benefit class to breed and vote to retain their cushy lifestyle, all conspired to keep them in there for 13 years.
The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.
Don't forget the buying of tribal leaders and then the mass importation of their subjects and their strategic placing to ensure victory. The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.
Surely it's the hypocrisy of Labour that is the main story here. Blair and Mandelson were at the top of a party who never stop criticising businessmen and bankers for avoiding tax but as soon as they are in a position of earning pots of money they become as bad as, if not worse than, those they have been criticising. I don't mind people legally paying the minimum tax they can get away with but doing it whilst slagging off others for doing the same is just shameless.
DonkeyApple said:
JonRB said:
Then a combination of gerrymandering, moving into the same political ground as the traditional Tory area, and paying the benefit class to breed and vote to retain their cushy lifestyle, all conspired to keep them in there for 13 years.
The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.
Don't forget the buying of tribal leaders and then the mass importation of their subjects and their strategic placing to ensure victory. The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.
Countdown said:
Blair "conned" his way into power? You're kidding? Unlike all those other politicians who state their principles and then stick to them come hell or high water?
Third Way = no way.Countdown said:
I've only had a quick google but stats from the followng links suggest that poverty rose sharply after 1979, peaked in 97/98 and the overall trend post 1997 was downwards?
I was thinking more of this...and I'm sure you will realise that the data is mostly ONS or HMG and not made up by newspapers:Social mobility in England lags behind other countries under Labour
Gap between rich and poor has widened under Labour
More of the same
Child and Pensioner poverty up under Labour
Gulf in health between rich and poor widens under Labour government
Inequality worse under Labour than under Thatcher
NHS productivity falls under Labour
Public sector productivity falls under Labour
Youth reoffending increase since 2000
Education productivity falls under Labour
Britain nosedives in education league tables under Labour
All taking place the light of this (have a strong drink ready):
1997/1998 then 2006/2007:
Income Tax
£77 billion up to £125 billion
National Insurance
£45 billion up to £80 billion
Stamp Duty
£3.5 billion up to £10 billion
Inheritance Tax
£1.7 billion up to £3.0 billion
Capital Gains Tax
£1.4 billion up to £2.5 billion
Motoring Taxes
£33 billion up to £45 billion
Environmental Taxes
£25 billion up to £39 billion
1997
1. Mortgage interest relief cut
2. Pensions tax (payable tax credits abolished)
3. Health insurance taxed (income tax relief abolished)
4. Health insurance taxed again (IPT)
5. Fuel tax escalator up
6. Vehicle Excise Duty up
7. Tobacco duty escalator up
8. Stamp duty up for properties over £250,000
9. Limit carry back of trading losses to one year
10. Dividends on trading assets
11. Taxation of finance leasing
12. New Windfall Tax on utilities
13. Futures and options
14. VAT: cash accounting scheme
1998
15. Married couple's allowance cut
16. Tax on travel insurance up
17. Tax on casinos and gaming machines up
18. Fuel tax escalator brought forward
19. Tax on company cars up
20. Tax relief for foreign earnings abolished
21. Tax concession for certain professions abolished
22. Capital Gains Tax imposed on certain non-residents
23. Reinvestment relief restricted
24. Corporation Tax payments brought forward and ACT abolished
25. Higher stamp duty rates up
26. Some hydrocarbon duties up
27. Additional diesel duties
28. Landfill Tax up
29. Exceptional increase in tobacco and alcohol duties
30. Amendments to offshore trusts
31. VAT: fuel scale charges
1999
32. NIC earnings limit raised
33. NICs for self-employed up
34. Married Couple's Allowance abolished
35. Mortgage tax relief abolished
36. IR35: Taxation of personal services companies
37. Company car business mileage allowances restricted
38. Tobacco duty escalator brought forward
39. Insurance Premium Tax up
40. Vocational Training Relief abolished
41. Employer NICs extended to all benefits in kind
42. VAT on some banking services up
43. Premiums paid to tenants by landlords taxed
44. Duty on minor oils up
45. Vehicle Excise Duties for lorries up
46. Landfill tax escalator introduced
47. Higher rates of stamp duty up again
48. Capital gains on sale of companies
49. Controlled Foreign Companies: taxation of dividends
2000
50. Tobacco duties up
51. Higher rates of stamp duty up again
52. Extra taxation of life assurance companies
53. Rules on Controlled Foreign Companies extended
54. Aggregates levy increased
55. Changes to double taxation relief
56. Rent factoring
57. Capital gains tax: use of trusts and offshore companies
58. VAT: capital asset disposals
2001
59. Controlled foreign companies regime
2002
60. Personal allowances frozen
61. National Insurance threshold frozen
62. NICs for employers up
63. NICs for employees up
64. NICs for self-employed up
65. North Sea taxation up
66. Tax on some alcoholic drinks up
67. New stamp duty regime
68. New rules on loan relationships
69. Taxation of foreign company UK branches
2003
70. VAT on electronically supplied services
71. IR35 applied to domestic workers
72. Betting duty change
73. Tax on red diesel and fuel oil up
74. Controlled Foreign Companies measures on Ireland
75. Vehicle excise duty up
76. VAT: on continuous supplies
77. VAT: on privately operated tolls
78. Treatment of options for the purposes of tax on chargeable gains
79. Landfill tax increased
2004
80. Minimum 19% tax rate on distributed profits
81. Transfer pricing and thin capitalisation
82. Increase in rate of tax on trusts
83. Increase in tax on red diesel fuel
84. Increase in tax on other road fuels (including LPG)
85. VAT: transfers of going concern
86. Insurance premium tax: Changes to GAP insurance
87. Taxation of life companies
88. Foreign earnings deduction for seafarers
89. Construction industry scheme
2005
90. Stamp duty land tax: ending commercial disadvantaged areas relief
91. Increase in North Sea corporation tax
92. Further increase in tax on red diesel
93. Increase in taxation of leasing
94. Company car tax up
2006
95. Further changes to oil valuation for tax purposes
96. Stamp duty land tax: ending relief for initial transfers into unit trusts
97. Removal of income tax exemption for loaned computers
98. North Sea Oil tax increased
99. Air Passenger Duty doubled
One I have on file since then, for 2010, there are likely to be more
2010
100. Air passenger duty
101. Non-stealth 50p rate
Countdown said:
And that's why the Tories have roared back with a massive majority.....oh wait, they haven't
They might have done but for Labour's skewed boundary fixes. Countdown said:
Here's another take on things
Under TB Labour offered (and delivered) what most of the electorate wanted.
Yes, a kick in the nuts for the Conservatives. Punishing almost the entire country to punish a Party.Under TB Labour offered (and delivered) what most of the electorate wanted.
Countdown said:
It may well be that the electorate doesn't want what you want. That doesn't make you any more or less "right" than them.
Nor does it make it less right, but the disastrous outcomes of 13 years of Liarbore incompetence speak for themselves. It's not my fault if sheeple breed faster or lack judgement that operates for the greater good of the greater number.Back to Bliar?
DonkeyApple said:
JonRB said:
Then a combination of gerrymandering, moving into the same political ground as the traditional Tory area, and paying the benefit class to breed and vote to retain their cushy lifestyle, all conspired to keep them in there for 13 years.
The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.
Don't forget the buying of tribal leaders and then the mass importation of their subjects and their strategic placing to ensure victory. The irony is that if Labour had gained as many votes as the Conservatives did in the last election, they would have had a majority.
I am constantly amazed at the amount of women who support/vote for them (although this is gleamed for listening to a lot of R4 so could be down to 'the agenda').
That said, I'm sure that the comments above are true for the ghetto-ised areas that have sprung up.
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
Quite so.
Hague and IDS were bald and Michael Howard, as Widdecomb put it, had 'something of the night' - but all would have been infintely better for the vast majority of the population than Bliar or Clown (who gave a helping hand only to the top 1% of earners, result!) and would not have nearly bankrupted the country for no overall gain.
How do you know what would have been "better" for the vast majority of the population? Do you have any empirical evidence for this ?Hague and IDS were bald and Michael Howard, as Widdecomb put it, had 'something of the night' - but all would have been infintely better for the vast majority of the population than Bliar or Clown (who gave a helping hand only to the top 1% of earners, result!) and would not have nearly bankrupted the country for no overall gain.
With regards to "bankrupting" the country - this is an issue facing most western governments, not solely restricted to the UK.
Just to clarify, I voted for both Hague and IDS (and Cameron) because their policies appealed to me. That doesn't mean that their policies were right for the majority of people and it would be pretty arrogant for me to dismiss their choices as wrong. The proof of the pudding is that there isn't a great deal of difference between Cameron and Blair.
However, the country as run under Blair and Clown was a continuous national trainwreck from the moment they deviated from Conservative plans in place at the time Bliar
In terms of balance of probabilities, it's not even a difficult judgement to make. Unless the person making the judgement is tribally committed to Labour incompetence and the various delusions that go with it.
Personally, if having Labour in power would be good for the country, I'd vote Labour. I've never voted Labour once and being realistic (about Labour) it's not likely I ever will.
As for Bliar, during and afterwards...words fail.
In reality, I expect there are - but they are not anywhere near good enough to come close to modelling global economic activity. If there was, there would be less polarity among Keynesian and non -Keynesian economists.
Sim City should work, no....
Countdown said:
Sorry, I must have missed that. What "strategic placing to ensure victory"?
Social re engineering of demographics to consolidate your political hold. Thatcher did it by making people more asperational and getting them to buy property thus putting them in debt and also culturally separating them from their traditional peers.
Labour couldn't really use property in quite the same way as it has the risk of changing political leanings so the mechanism they will tend to use is to increase benefits etc to keep people geographically stationary, remove social mobility, and at the same time politically depended on that political party.
They also utilised the immigrant element and understood that certain communities gave their vote to their community elder. Therefor by ensuring the elder will instruct his people to vote for you and then to assist by increasing the size of his tribe you can structurally alter the local political landscape.
Ken was quite efficient at this tactic, funnelling financial support to local community groups where the fiscal beneficiaries were the elders.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Please, please, please, please, please will someone find some genuine dirt on the Blair/Brown axis of self-service and incompetence!
Look at Turboblokes post above.This is new taxes bought in by Labour on the working class.
Meanwhile they ran HMRC to let big corporations off tax and became themselves part of the super rich.
Tell me Ozzie, which of these two actions made you vote for them?
Ozzie Osmond said:
Please, please, please, please, please will someone find some genuine dirt on the Blair/Brown axis of self-service and incompetence!
Was destroying the country not enough?Unfortunately until people are bright enough to realise it then you can dig up all the dirt you like and they'll still vote for the next charlatan who comes along promising them something for nothing.
Just looking at the accounts for Windrush Ventures Ltd.
P&L
Turnover £12,005,000
Total expenses £10,919,000
Operating profit £1,086,000
BS
Current assets £4,002,000 (including cash £1,151,000 & debtors £2,851,000)
Current liabilities £2,090,000 (including trade creditors £864,000 and accruals £1,054,000)
Long term liabilities £217,000
Net worth £1,284,000
Love to know a bit more about those expenses! Must be a hell of a subsistence claim! I wonder how much of it goes on his P11D...
I thought that his business was mainly public speaking and consultancy? Neither of which, in my (limited) experience, have high costs attached for what is basically a service?
P&L
Turnover £12,005,000
Total expenses £10,919,000
Operating profit £1,086,000
BS
Current assets £4,002,000 (including cash £1,151,000 & debtors £2,851,000)
Current liabilities £2,090,000 (including trade creditors £864,000 and accruals £1,054,000)
Long term liabilities £217,000
Net worth £1,284,000
Love to know a bit more about those expenses! Must be a hell of a subsistence claim! I wonder how much of it goes on his P11D...
I thought that his business was mainly public speaking and consultancy? Neither of which, in my (limited) experience, have high costs attached for what is basically a service?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff