Discussion
Fittster said:
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?Are these principles of the same variety that under blair and brown, allowed people to make donations to labour in return for Passports, Titles, exemptions from anti tobacco legislation etc etc etc etc.
BOR said:
What? What are you talking about. This law came into force ONE DAY after he transfered ownership of his company. ONE f
kING DAY.
Correct. On the 6th April 2010. Danny Alexander, however, didn't announce that this government would be clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion until the 19th September. ALMOST SIX MONTHS LATER.kING DAY.Do you really want Lord Ashcroft to justify something he did at a time that actually being in government was merely a wet dream for Danny Alexander? Really?
AndrewW-G said:
Fittster said:
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?Are these principles of the same variety that under blair and brown, allowed people to make donations to labour in return for Passports, Titles, exemptions from anti tobacco legislation etc etc etc etc.
k furiously at the thought of being in government, let alone decide what policies may effect it.In the case of the future aspect to the question are we saying at the time of the transfer, there was no April 6th deadline? That deadline only came into being once the Tories were in power?
If so I would suggest to said party that nominating the date as the day *after* their chief political cash machine did some funky financial juggling, was a bit silly.
Its not the point though. What Fitty and BOR are trying to say in a waffly way is that the law per se isnt just what politicians are judged on. We *expect* those of us whom we elevate above us to rule and guide us to be better than us. We expect them to show better judgement. When they do not, because we ourselves elevated them, then we condomn them because it shows us up for *our* poor judgement. In Ashcrofts case he gets stick because we havent chosen him, he is an imposition upon us and there is something about him that grates us, whether he does legal actions or not.
Politics is the art of perception.
If so I would suggest to said party that nominating the date as the day *after* their chief political cash machine did some funky financial juggling, was a bit silly.
Its not the point though. What Fitty and BOR are trying to say in a waffly way is that the law per se isnt just what politicians are judged on. We *expect* those of us whom we elevate above us to rule and guide us to be better than us. We expect them to show better judgement. When they do not, because we ourselves elevated them, then we condomn them because it shows us up for *our* poor judgement. In Ashcrofts case he gets stick because we havent chosen him, he is an imposition upon us and there is something about him that grates us, whether he does legal actions or not.
Politics is the art of perception.
DJC said:
In the case of the future aspect to the question are we saying at the time of the transfer, there was no April 6th deadline? That deadline only came into being once the Tories were in power?
If so I would suggest to said party that nominating the date as the day *after* their chief political cash machine did some funky financial juggling, was a bit silly.
Its not the point though. What Fitty and BOR are trying to say in a waffly way is that the law per se isnt just what politicians are judged on. We *expect* those of us whom we elevate above us to rule and guide us to be better than us. We expect them to show better judgement. When they do not, because we ourselves elevated them, then we condomn them because it shows us up for *our* poor judgement. In Ashcrofts case he gets stick because we havent chosen him, he is an imposition upon us and there is something about him that grates us, whether he does legal actions or not.
Politics is the art of perception.
Erm, I'm pretty sure Labour were still in power and it was their rule.If so I would suggest to said party that nominating the date as the day *after* their chief political cash machine did some funky financial juggling, was a bit silly.
Its not the point though. What Fitty and BOR are trying to say in a waffly way is that the law per se isnt just what politicians are judged on. We *expect* those of us whom we elevate above us to rule and guide us to be better than us. We expect them to show better judgement. When they do not, because we ourselves elevated them, then we condomn them because it shows us up for *our* poor judgement. In Ashcrofts case he gets stick because we havent chosen him, he is an imposition upon us and there is something about him that grates us, whether he does legal actions or not.
Politics is the art of perception.
However, you can't seriously expect someone to think "Hmm, I'm not going to save myself £3.5million, instead, I will pay more tax than I'm legally obliged to because at some point in the future a party who may or may not be in power will announce, by way of someone who could only dream of actually being in government, that they've decided they're going to crack down on tax evasion and avoidance".
Most of us actually have the very real knowledge of knowing that VAT will rise to 20% in the New Year, however, how many of us are holding off all major purchases until then in order to pay more tax? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone....?
5potTurbo said:
OP: If it was you, would you have acted the same as Lord Ashcroft or simply asked HMRC, "To whom should I make the cheque payable?" 
Good tax advice, IMO!
And you can't trust any politician or party. That's why they do what they do.
Gets off
I merely commented that the Tories might be happy if this news story went largely unnoticed.Good tax advice, IMO!
And you can't trust any politician or party. That's why they do what they do.
Gets off
Edited by colonel c on Monday 27th September 19:13
Why? It isn't even 'news'.
Do you think you'd be hearing about this if the coalition hadn't announced their crackdown on tax evasion / avoidance? No, of course not, because it would be completely irrelevant then. It'd simply be a story that had no bearing on current affairs about someone using completely legal measures to reduce their tax bill before new legislation came into play. No sensationalism in that.
That's the problem with the media, they know most of the braindead masses in this country think news is something that simply happens in chronological order and if they print something that has any slight relevance to current affairs the morons will put two plus three together to come up with eleventy and be frothing into their cornflakes.
Do you think you'd be hearing about this if the coalition hadn't announced their crackdown on tax evasion / avoidance? No, of course not, because it would be completely irrelevant then. It'd simply be a story that had no bearing on current affairs about someone using completely legal measures to reduce their tax bill before new legislation came into play. No sensationalism in that.
That's the problem with the media, they know most of the braindead masses in this country think news is something that simply happens in chronological order and if they print something that has any slight relevance to current affairs the morons will put two plus three together to come up with eleventy and be frothing into their cornflakes.
Well Im confused.
Either he did this one day before the deadline or he didnt because the deadline wasnt imposed until the future.
Sorry you lost me.
As for what I expect, seriously or otherwise is absolutely irrelevent. I was simply telling you WHY his actions will seem to grate with a lot of ppl. It doesnt matter if they were legal, correct, common sense or what.
Ill say it again in case you didnt get it the first time....politics is about the art of perception. Or as the Yanks say...Politics is about defining your opponent before he can define himself. Politics has always been thus. Right and wrong are irrelevent, one has to be SEEN to do ...
Either he did this one day before the deadline or he didnt because the deadline wasnt imposed until the future.
Sorry you lost me.
As for what I expect, seriously or otherwise is absolutely irrelevent. I was simply telling you WHY his actions will seem to grate with a lot of ppl. It doesnt matter if they were legal, correct, common sense or what.
Ill say it again in case you didnt get it the first time....politics is about the art of perception. Or as the Yanks say...Politics is about defining your opponent before he can define himself. Politics has always been thus. Right and wrong are irrelevent, one has to be SEEN to do ...
DJC said:
Well Im confused.
Either he did this one day before the deadline or he didnt because the deadline wasnt imposed until the future.
Sorry you lost me.
As for what I expect, seriously or otherwise is absolutely irrelevent. I was simply telling you WHY his actions will seem to grate with a lot of ppl. It doesnt matter if they were legal, correct, common sense or what.
Ill say it again in case you didnt get it the first time....politics is about the art of perception. Or as the Yanks say...Politics is about defining your opponent before he can define himself. Politics has always been thus. Right and wrong are irrelevent, one has to be SEEN to do ...
Certain people seem to be in an uproar and are accusing the conservatives & co of hypocrisy because of their recent (19th Sep 2010) announcement that they will clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion. Apparently they're hypocrites because of one individuals actions six months prior to said announcement. It would seem that Ashcroft was supposed to know that at some point in the future 'tax avoidance' would be seen as a dirty, immoral concept and that he shouldn't use existing legislation to minimise his tax bill, instead embracing a new found belief that everyone is obliged to pay HRMC as much as humanly possible.Either he did this one day before the deadline or he didnt because the deadline wasnt imposed until the future.
Sorry you lost me.
As for what I expect, seriously or otherwise is absolutely irrelevent. I was simply telling you WHY his actions will seem to grate with a lot of ppl. It doesnt matter if they were legal, correct, common sense or what.
Ill say it again in case you didnt get it the first time....politics is about the art of perception. Or as the Yanks say...Politics is about defining your opponent before he can define himself. Politics has always been thus. Right and wrong are irrelevent, one has to be SEEN to do ...
Er... Ashcrofts tax situation has been political trouble for the last few years.
The sensible thing to have done would have been to take the hit and minimise the political grief.
Fitters is getting his knickers in a twist because it was politically dumb and showed Ashcroft/Tories up as caring more about his own dosh than the Party. I think he has a point to be honest, Id have laid the law down with him and told to pay his taxes absolutely straight down the line. Cant took advantage of some loopholes? Tough, thats the price you pay for playing in the game and no, life isnt fair.
The sensible thing to have done would have been to take the hit and minimise the political grief.
Fitters is getting his knickers in a twist because it was politically dumb and showed Ashcroft/Tories up as caring more about his own dosh than the Party. I think he has a point to be honest, Id have laid the law down with him and told to pay his taxes absolutely straight down the line. Cant took advantage of some loopholes? Tough, thats the price you pay for playing in the game and no, life isnt fair.
Victor McDade said:
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.
Lord Ashcroft is also about to resign his role so I would think he sees it as jokers wild.
MA is a reasonable bloke. He is acting within the law and where he differs from the Tories on this matter, he's right and they're wrong.
Fittster said:
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.
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
Ashcroft's £5/6M over 6 years is therefore an utter irrelevance.
I am still confused as to what Fittster expects these people ( and you and me) to do.
There are tax rules. Very very detailed tax rules. You use the rules that the government make to calculate the amount of tax you owe.
There is no reality in this phrase 'avoiding tax' - the only reality is calculating and paying tax.
Then there is outright fraud to evade taxes that the rules say you must pay.
Are you suggesting that Lord Ashcroft or others are fraudulently evading tax?
There are tax rules. Very very detailed tax rules. You use the rules that the government make to calculate the amount of tax you owe.
There is no reality in this phrase 'avoiding tax' - the only reality is calculating and paying tax.
Then there is outright fraud to evade taxes that the rules say you must pay.
Are you suggesting that Lord Ashcroft or others are fraudulently evading tax?
john_p said:
Tonight's BBC1 Panorama "Lord Ashcroft's Millions" has been switched for a rehashed episode about the Army.. due to "ongoing legal developments"
i.e. Ashcroft's lawyers are better than the BBC's lawyers
I understand the argument pivots on whether Ashcroft's interest in the company was indirect or not? Presumably this means he held his Impellam shares through 1 or more companies rather than directly. In that case, would the holding have been subject to inheritance tax in the first place? Ashcroft's lawyers seem to imply it wouldn't and therefore there was no tax to avoid in the first place?i.e. Ashcroft's lawyers are better than the BBC's lawyers
Phil1 said:
So you think he should smoke then, as by not smoking he is avoiding tax on cigarettes?
I've heard this a few times from the intellectually sub-standard on here. Tax on cigarettes is a consumption tax. By not buying cigarettes (as smoking as an activity is not taxed, only the purchase), he is not liable for any tax. To avoid tax on cigarettes, one would have to exceed the specified dutiable limits on cigarettes bought abroad, or else obtain them without paying UK duty.Phil1 said:
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.
No-one in the UK is liable for 100% tax, so as per the rest of your comments, you are talking bks.Bing o said:
Phil1 said:
So you think he should smoke then, as by not smoking he is avoiding tax on cigarettes?
I've heard this a few times from the intellectually sub-standard on here. Tax on cigarettes is a consumption tax. By not buying cigarettes (as smoking as an activity is not taxed, only the purchase), he is not liable for any tax. To avoid tax on cigarettes, one would have to exceed the specified dutiable limits on cigarettes bought abroad, or else obtain them without paying UK duty.Phil1 said:
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.
No-one in the UK is liable for 100% tax, so as per the rest of your comments, you are talking bks.It doesnt matter whether its avoidance or evasion for Ashcroft or anybody in politics.
It only matters what it looks like/how it gets spinned by whoever spins it first.
As it is the OP is probably right in it is an issue that will sneak by under the current political radar thanks to the new BBC primetime political drama "The Brothers"...
It only matters what it looks like/how it gets spinned by whoever spins it first.
As it is the OP is probably right in it is an issue that will sneak by under the current political radar thanks to the new BBC primetime political drama "The Brothers"...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff