Discussion
Phil1 said:
You're hard of thinking aren't you. You've just described tax evasion not avoidance. Another idiot who doesn't know the difference.
Avoiding tax is using legal excemptions to lower your tax liability. Offsetting permissable items against legitimate business expenses is tax avoidance.
Not declaring 50,000 smokes from France to HMRC is tax evasion.
Choosing not to smoke and therefore not pay tax on cigarettes is neither - you have not made yourself liable for any tax in the first place.
Bing o said:
Phil1 said:
You're hard of thinking aren't you. You've just described tax evasion not avoidance. Another idiot who doesn't know the difference.
Avoiding tax is using legal excemptions to lower your tax liability. Offsetting permissable items against legitimate business expenses is tax avoidance.
Not declaring 50,000 smokes from France to HMRC is tax evasion.
Choosing not to smoke and therefore not pay tax on cigarettes is neither - you have not made yourself liable for any tax in the first place.
Phil1 said:
Great you support Ashcroft then. Gifting assets did not make himself liable for any tax in the first place.
As long as he was in receipt of the same knowledge as anyone else (ie the tax change had been announced to the street) then I don't see the issue.If he did it in the knowledge that this would be announced to beat the system, then my opinion changes somewhat (not that I'll ever be rich enough for him to give a s
t...)MikeyT 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.
Where did you stand on the MPs expenses - as that's exactly what they did isn't it?Myself yesterday said:
No, not really. Many MPs acted completely outside of the guidelines set out in the Green Book, and three are actually going to court over it. There's no comparison.
There is absolutely zero chance of Ashcroft being forced to pay anything back, or being prosecuted. He was perfectly entitled to do what he did on April 5th.Edit:
Do these links work for anyone else?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11415870
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315536/To...
Edited by MX7 on Tuesday 28th September 11:49
MikeyT 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.
Where did you stand on the MPs expenses - as that's exactly what they did isn't it?Do you not recall MPs fraudulently claiming for costs that were not incurred in the course of executing their duties as MPs - as per the Green Book? That is FRAUD.
See my earlier post about how tax works. As a brief precis, the government makes the tax rules. You pay what the rules say you should pay. That isn't fraud - that is 'paying tax'.
If I had his money, I would do all that I could to minimise my tax liability, and I don't doubt for a moment that all of you would do the same (even those who are lambasting him now). Heck, I wish I could reduce my tax liability on what (relatively) little income I have now!
Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
Jonathan27 said:
If I had his money, I would do all that I could to minimise my tax liability, and I don't doubt for a moment that all of you would do the same (even those who are lambasting him now). Heck, I wish I could reduce my tax liability on what (relatively) little income I have now!
Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
He is entitled to manage his finances as he sees fit.Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
colonel c said:
Jonathan27 said:
If I had his money, I would do all that I could to minimise my tax liability, and I don't doubt for a moment that all of you would do the same (even those who are lambasting him now). Heck, I wish I could reduce my tax liability on what (relatively) little income I have now!
Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
He is entitled to manage his finances as he sees fit.Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
colonel c said:
Jonathan27 said:
If I had his money, I would do all that I could to minimise my tax liability, and I don't doubt for a moment that all of you would do the same (even those who are lambasting him now). Heck, I wish I could reduce my tax liability on what (relatively) little income I have now!
Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
He is entitled to manage his finances as he sees fit.Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
Oakey said:
colonel c said:
Jonathan27 said:
If I had his money, I would do all that I could to minimise my tax liability, and I don't doubt for a moment that all of you would do the same (even those who are lambasting him now). Heck, I wish I could reduce my tax liability on what (relatively) little income I have now!
Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
He is entitled to manage his finances as he sees fit.Someone will inevitably reply to state that they would pay UK tax in his position, so to save me having to post again, 'you're lying'.
I pay around £1,500 per month in (Direct) tax and I hate it, yes I know that I get services in return (not many that I use), but I still see this as my money being taken away.
However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
colonel c said:
He is entitled to manage his finances as he sees fit.
However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
You were doing OK till you got to the usual rubbish about how he financed "a large part" of the Tories campaign. He didn't, look the figures up, from memory Ashcroft's money accounts for significantly less than 5% of Tory party funding over the last 10 years.However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
Iain328 said:
colonel c said:
He is entitled to manage his finances as he sees fit.
However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
You were doing OK till you got to the usual rubbish about how he financed "a large part" of the Tories campaign. He didn't, look the figures up, from memory Ashcroft's money accounts for significantly less than 5% of Tory party funding over the last 10 years.However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
But then the slur falls on the Tories that they are happy to accept dodgy cash, hence my OP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
colonel c said:
Iain328 said:
colonel c said:
He is entitled to manage his finances as he sees fit.
However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
You were doing OK till you got to the usual rubbish about how he financed "a large part" of the Tories campaign. He didn't, look the figures up, from memory Ashcroft's money accounts for significantly less than 5% of Tory party funding over the last 10 years.However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
But then the slur falls on the Tories that they are happy to accept dodgy cash, hence my OP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
As to whether Ashcroft avoided tax on money he then subsequently gave to the Tory party, that is a completely seperate matter and one between him and the tax man.The key word is avoid, not evade. He is quite entitled to legally avoid paying as much tax as he can.
There is no reason for the Tories to be in any way concerned about having taken Ashcroft's money if it was legally given - and given the scrutiny they have come under it would seem that its almost certain that it was.
If you want to look at Donations that are somewhat tainted, look at the Lib Dems and the £2m quid they took from the bloke who ended up in jail (and ghave refused to give back) & then explain why it is that the Unions are able to give money to Labour regardless of what their members want whilst also receiving astonishingly similar amounts of money from the government's union development/modernisation fund.
Aside from all that , the accusation that Ashcroft has somehow bought himself a seat at the table in the heart of government is clearly nonsense too. He has little or no influence over anyone or anything.
Iain328 said:
colonel c said:
Iain328 said:
colonel c said:
He is entitled to manage his finances as he sees fit.
However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
You were doing OK till you got to the usual rubbish about how he financed "a large part" of the Tories campaign. He didn't, look the figures up, from memory Ashcroft's money accounts for significantly less than 5% of Tory party funding over the last 10 years.However he has also used his wealth to buy power, influence and a seat in the House of Lords. Do you not see the hypocrisy. George Osborne says "we're all in this together". Yet the Man whom financed a large part of the Tories election campaign don't want to play his part of of the country's recovery.
But then the slur falls on the Tories that they are happy to accept dodgy cash, hence my OP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
As to whether Ashcroft avoided tax on money he then subsequently gave to the Tory party, that is a completely seperate matter and one between him and the tax man.The key word is avoid, not evade. He is quite entitled to legally avoid paying as much tax as he can.
There is no reason for the Tories to be in any way concerned about having taken Ashcroft's money if it was legally given - and given the scrutiny they have come under it would seem that its almost certain that it was.
If you want to look at Donations that are somewhat tainted, look at the Lib Dems and the £2m quid they took from the bloke who ended up in jail (and ghave refused to give back) & then explain why it is that the Unions are able to give money to Labour regardless of what their members want whilst also receiving astonishingly similar amounts of money from the government's union development/modernisation fund.
Aside from all that , the accusation that Ashcroft has somehow bought himself a seat at the table in the heart of government is clearly nonsense too. He has little or no influence over anyone or anything.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff