Tony Blair and the £8million tax mystery

[johnfm]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Please, please, please, please, please will someone find some genuine dirt on the Blair/Brown axis of self-service and incompetence!

Please define 'genuine dirt'.

Evidence of criminal acts?

Evidence of fraud?

Evidence of incompetence?

Evidence of hypocrisy?

[DonkeyApple]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Please, please, please, please, please will someone find some genuine dirt on the Blair/Brown axis of self-service and incompetence!

It's not finding the dirt that is the problem. It is finding the balls to stand up and do something with it.

As like with Murdoch and NI. People always knew what the dirt was etc but not one person had the balls to stand and become a focal point for a massing of an assault.

In fact, it took the Giardian telling a lie about Millie Dowler for enough people to step forward to create the critical mass needed to achieve anything other than having your career destroyed by NI.

Well, the New Labour triumvirate is the same. People know what was done and some people know where the proof is but until something like the Telegraph opens up a few holes and a few people stand up to the plate then they remain untouchable.

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

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?

Quite so, it's now at least a £12m-income-and-£315k-tax mystery.

The £12million turnover was posted by Windrush Ventures, one of at least 12 companies and partnerships controlled by Mr Blair, already thought to have channelled tens of millions of pounds through his various firms since leaving Downing Street in June 2007. But the company posted an administrative cost of nearly £10.2million to another company owned by Mr Blair, leaving him with a profit of just over £1million.

[Asterix]

From experience of booking speakers and other business 'event' people - you do all the expensing! You (the organiser) usually pays for everything.

[Mermaid]

"I am Tony Blair" is what thousands across the country need to do and submit similar claims - that will focus the HMRC a bit.

[Victor McDade]

'Tax avoidence is good and tax evasion is bad'. Isn't that the usual PH mantra? So what's changed here. He may have been a scumbag of a politician but what exactly has he done here which warrants action?

[JonRB]

Victor McDade said:

'Tax avoidence is good and tax evasion is bad'. Isn't that the usual PH mantra? So what's changed here. He may have been a scumbag of a politician but what exactly has he done here which warrants action?

Not sure what axe you have to grind here, but you honestly think that expenses of £10million on a £12million turnover doesn't smell a tiny bit fishier than the contents of Baldrick's Plum Duff?

[RYH64E]

Victor McDade said:

'Tax avoidence is good and tax evasion is bad'. Isn't that the usual PH mantra? So what's changed here. He may have been a scumbag of a politician but what exactly has he done here which warrants action?

Some of us are just wondering how on earth he managed to persuade his accountants to sign off nearly £11m of operating expenses on a £12m turnover consultancy business!

[Mermaid]

RYH64E said:

Some of us are just wondering how on earth he managed to persuade his accountants to sign off nearly £11m of operating expenses on a £12m turnover consultancy business!

Because he paid his accountant a lot money?

[DonkeyApple]

RYH64E said:

Some of us are just wondering how on earth he managed to persuade his accountants to sign off nearly £11m of operating expenses on a £12m turnover consultancy business!

What if it were the expenses of all 12 companies and was £8m from a collective income of more than £100m?

The key is that there will be nowt wrong with PWCs calculations and actions.

The article seems to make a possible allusion to this vehicle carrying the charges of another, maybe more than one of the known 12 others?

If this first story sticks and gains traction then we will see a more formal explanation of how the expenses were arrived at and this is what this first article is setting the scene for.

Don't think for one moment that his income last year was just £12m or anywhere near that figure.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Sunday 8th January 18:18

[AndrewW-G]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I asked that question a year or so ago, not only to blair directly, but also the labour party, they all claimed he was still not a none dom for tax purposes . . . . but that makes the assumption, that he is the primary beneficiary of the profits from this company

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

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.

Pardon?

turbobloke said:

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

I think you'll find most of those stats are deliberately presented in a negative way to reflect badly on Labour. As I already referred to above, Public Sector productivity between 1997 and 2007 fell by 3% during which period inputs increased by over 40% and outputs by 37%. Indeed for the duration of TB's premiership Public Sector productivity was above what it was in 1997. Unfortunately Gordon went too far which explains why he is no longer with us.

Its a bit like the Torygraph saying that my income has fallen 100% since 31st December, ignoring the fact that I get paid monthly. Wonder why they would do that ?

turbobloke said:

1997/1998 then 2006/2007:

Income Tax
£77 billion up to £125 billion

As you know if people earn more they pay more. However the basic rate of tax under Nuliabourblahblah was actually lower than during the last 10 years of the Tories. Rates for other bands remained substantially unchanged.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/table-a...

turbobloke said:

National Insurance
£45 billion up to £80 billion

See above. As earnings grow the tax take grows. Again its the rates that are important, not the actual amount. You will note from the attached link that there wasn't a massive change in NI rates between the latter years of the Tories and for much of Labour's rule.

http://www.taxhistory.co.uk/National%20Insurance%2...

I won't bother repeating myself ad infinitum.

turbobloke said:

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

Can we agree that repeating the same tax each time it's changed isn't actually a "new" tax. As you know that is what Governments do, year on year. Its called the Budget. Secondly its highly debatable whether closing a tax loophole is a bad thing. Those two points aside, most of the above will affect a minority of people. We've not ALL been stung with 100 new taxes, or anywhere near. Some of the above will have affected some people (to varying degrees). It would make more sense to look at how much tax we pay in relation to other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/the-t...

So maybe not as "Shock Horror" as the right wing press would have us believe

Turbobloke said:

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.

You need to ask yourself why the Conservatives were so loathed that the electorate wanted to give them a kick in the nuts. it wasn't just an irrational desire to punish a political party. It was because the Tories weren't what people wanted. To be honest they were lucky to hang on until 1997, they were pretty much despised throughout the 90's. cameron has done a lot to resolve that by moving them away from Thatcherite/Tebbit policies and closer to the centre.

Turbobloke said:

It's not my fault if sheeple breed faster or lack judgement that operates for the greater good of the greater number.

Continually suggesting that people who voted Labour are "sheeple" is as accurate as dismissing Conservative voters as Hooray Henrys with an "I'm alright Jack so fk the rest" attitude who spend their spare time masturbating over pictures of Margaret Thatcher.

[RYH64E]

DonkeyApple said:

What if it were the expenses of all 12 companies and was £8m from a collective income of more than £100m?

The key is that there will be nowt wrong with PWCs calculations and actions.

The article seems to make a possible allusion to this vehicle carrying the charges of another, maybe more than one of the known 12 others?

If that is the case then the expenses should show up as income for the other companies, and as TB has stated that all of his companies are UK registered for tax purposes then they will pay Corporation Tax on their profits?

I'm sure that PWC will have worked it out properly, sadly, but I've had plenty of conversations with my accountant when he's told me that any operating expenses have to be incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the business. It's difficult to see how £11m of costs are necessary for a consultancy and public speaking business, even if the business is divided into 12 or more sub companies.

[JonRB]

DonkeyApple said:

Don't think for one moment that his income last year was just £12m or anywhere near that figure.

I agree. Significantly more I would imagine, although I doubt it is an order of magnitude more.

[JonRB]

Countdown said:

It was because the Tories weren't what people wanted. To be honest they were lucky to hang on until 1997, they were pretty much despised throughout the 90's. cameron has done a lot to resolve that by moving them away from Thatcherite/Tebbit policies and closer to the centre.

A position sadly usurped by Nu Labour under Blair, which is another reason it was so hard to get the Champagne Socialists out of power. Quite apart from the aforementioned gerrymandering they had usurped the politics too. Instead of Left vs Right we had "Centre with a hint of left" vs "Centre with a hint of right". It's Dulux Politics.

[DonkeyApple]

Countdown said:

You need to ask yourself why the Conservatives were so loathed that the electorate wanted to give them a kick in the nuts. it wasn't just an irrational desire to punish a political party. It was because the Tories weren't what people wanted. To be honest they were lucky to hang on until 1997, they were pretty much despised throughout the 90's. cameron has done a lot to resolve that by moving them away from Thatcherite/Tebbit policies and closer to the centre.

I would hazard that the answer to that conundrum is Kinnock.

He was the reason the conservatives stayed in power through the 90s.

[JonRB]

DonkeyApple said:

I would hazard that the answer to that conundrum is Kinnock.

Neither Foot nor Kinnock helped Labour be electable. Blair was just the greasy snake oil charlatan showman they needed to slime their way back into power.

Mind you, the Conservatives were virtually unelectable by then so it was kind of a Perfect Storm.

[DonkeyApple]

JonRB said:

Neither Foot nor Kinnock helped Labour be electable. Blair was just the greasy snake oil charlatan showman they needed to slime their way back into power.

Mind you, the Conservatives were virtually unelectable by then so it was kind of a Perfect Storm.

Blair was a lovely man with charm and honesty back in 97 when standing next to the likes of Archer and chums.

It's all too easy to forget the likes of Mellor etc.

[NoNeed]

JonRB said:

DonkeyApple said:

I would hazard that the answer to that conundrum is Kinnock.

Neither Foot nor Kinnock helped Labour be electable. Blair was just the greasy snake oil charlatan showman they needed to slime their way back into power.

Mind you, the Conservatives were virtually unelectable by then so it was kind of a Perfect Storm.

I think it was Smith that made Labour electable and Blairs job easy, Much of the party reforms such as an end to union block voting by replacing it with one member one vote.


Ironically the vote elected one big member to run the party after smith had gone.

[JonRB]

NoNeed said:

I think it was Smith that made Labour electable and Blairs job easy

True, a succession of hopeless acts given a poison chalice for a divided party rife with in-fighting. An indication of a complacent incumbent party who don't feel they need to make the effort in order to stay in.

As an aside, I think it's a big shame Hague was leader when he was. I think his time is now and not then. But few get a second bite of the cherry.