Tony Blair and the £8million tax mystery
Discussion
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
obob said:
Hmmm if it was any other rich bloke PH would be back slapping him all the way to the bank.
Any other person successful and wealthy through legitimate means, involving skill/hard work/own risk, why not?DonkeyApple said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Believe it or not that isn't the news Flash. Please note the highlighted (and capitalised for a reason...) word in DA's first response and have a little think.
Is he alive?
OzzyR1 said:
There's a fair bit of whoosh going on in the last 10 or so posts but I can't be bothered to get the parrot out.
Please note the highlighted (and capitalised for a reason...) word in DA's first response and have a little think.
Is he alive?
Indeed. Some people are very lucky to have forgotten so quickly. Please note the highlighted (and capitalised for a reason...) word in DA's first response and have a little think.
Is he alive?
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
obob said:
Hmmm if it was any other rich bloke PH would be back slapping him all the way to the bank.
Any other person successful and wealthy through legitimate means, involving skill/hard work/own risk, why not?sadoksevoli said:
Can't decide who's worse - this lying, thieving, conniving, slimey charlatan of an ex-Prime Minister or the credulous, easily-fooled, myopic electorate that voted in the party he led not once, not twice but three times...
They were all visionaries supporting a luminary
DonkeyApple said:
But I would go so far as to say that he is untouchable. Completely untouchable.
I'm finding this untouchable thing intriguing. Are all ex PMs untouchable or just TB? I couldn't imagine the other one who is under investigation having his life and career Flash in front of him, but take it with good grace and not want to drag TB into the Brown stuff as well.turbobloke said:
For sure, being a long-stay PM and cultivating personal interests while PM - rather than focusing solely and entirely on the good of the country - for the period when no longer PM never ever happens. Bliar is a saint. Not that I was referring earlier to the grinning jackanape, but to business owners and hardworking employees.
To be fair, its only what the majority of other politicians have done. Networking is something that most people will do in their working career and most people will be thinking about the next step career-wise. Admittedly he's done it better than most, but singling him out when plenty of Tories have done it seems hypocritical to me.turbobloke said:
sadoksevoli said:
Can't decide who's worse - this lying, thieving, conniving, slimey charlatan of an ex-Prime Minister or the credulous, easily-fooled, myopic electorate that voted in the party he led not once, not twice but three times...
They were all visionaries supporting a luminary
Pretty clear to me that the only way you could explain 8 million of administrative expenses would be either through massive charity giving ( I'm sure we'd know about that) or the cost or running Blair and Cherie. Whether that's tax deductible is anyone's guess... Not. Sure seems like he's found a way around iR35!
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
For sure, being a long-stay PM and cultivating personal interests while PM - rather than focusing solely and entirely on the good of the country - for the period when no longer PM never ever happens. Bliar is a saint. Not that I was referring earlier to the grinning jackanape, but to business owners and hardworking employees.
To be fair, its only what the majority of other politicians have done. Networking is something that most people will do in their working career and most people will be thinking about the next step career-wise. Admittedly he's done it better than most, but singling him out when plenty of Tories have done it seems hypocritical to me.Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
sadoksevoli said:
Can't decide who's worse - this lying, thieving, conniving, slimey charlatan of an ex-Prime Minister or the credulous, easily-fooled, myopic electorate that voted in the party he led not once, not twice but three times...
They were all visionaries supporting a luminary
Far more likely a sad reflection on the gullibility of sheeple unable to discern the inevitable rank incompetence of deluded Liarbore politicians - above and beyond relatively meaningless and superficial aspects of the far better alternatives available at the time.
It always amazes me how socialist 'man of the people' types like Bliar, nuLabour through and through, manage to be far more capitalism, ruthless, greedy and grasping than even the most 'hard right' Tory.
The real nasty party is truly nuLabour, shame their supporters are too thick and blind to see it.
The real nasty party is truly nuLabour, shame their supporters are too thick and blind to see it.
turbobloke said:
Far more likely a sad reflection on the gullibility of sheeple unable to discern the inevitable rank incompetence of deluded Liarbore politicians - above and beyond relatively meaningless and superficial aspects of the far better alternatives available at the time.
Yes of course.How stupid of them.
s
te journalism really. It is an '£8m tax mystery' is it. Unless we think his company should be paying £8m tax on £12m revenue.
It is an £8m unexplained revenue mystery - which is a bit different.
No doubt his company is exercising the same strategies to lawfully minimise the tax burden as many other companies and individuals.
Doesn't mean he is not a hypocrite, but this looks like a premature, ill-informed witch hunt.
te journalism really. It is an '£8m tax mystery' is it. Unless we think his company should be paying £8m tax on £12m revenue.It is an £8m unexplained revenue mystery - which is a bit different.
No doubt his company is exercising the same strategies to lawfully minimise the tax burden as many other companies and individuals.
Doesn't mean he is not a hypocrite, but this looks like a premature, ill-informed witch hunt.
johnfm said:
ste journalism really. It is an '£8m tax mystery' is it. Unless we think his company should be paying £8m tax on £12m revenue.
It is an £8m unexplained revenue mystery - which is a bit different.
No doubt his company is exercising the same strategies to lawfully minimise the tax burden as many other companies and individuals.
Doesn't mean he is not a hypocrite, but this looks like a premature, ill-informed witch hunt.
Or the opening salvo that sets the scene and steers the audience into the correct mindset. te journalism really. It is an '£8m tax mystery' is it. Unless we think his company should be paying £8m tax on £12m revenue.It is an £8m unexplained revenue mystery - which is a bit different.
No doubt his company is exercising the same strategies to lawfully minimise the tax burden as many other companies and individuals.
Doesn't mean he is not a hypocrite, but this looks like a premature, ill-informed witch hunt.
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.
Countdown said:
turbobloke said:
Far more likely a sad reflection on the gullibility of sheeple unable to discern the inevitable rank incompetence of deluded Liarbore politicians - above and beyond relatively meaningless and superficial aspects of the far better alternatives available at the time.
Yes of course.How stupid of them.
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.
Watch out though, deluded sheeple are still out there. Some even think Bliar was OK and deserves his squillions.
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.
Edited by Countdown on Sunday 8th January 11:27
johnfm said:
It is an £8m unexplained revenue mystery - which is a bit different.
It is an £8m unexplained potentially taxable revenue mystery that relates to the amount of tax that company will pay.Or a mystery of £8m that influences the tax.
So not a huge leap to call it an £8million tax mystery. It is a tax issue relating to a mystery £8million. Or a tax mystery relating to £8m of revenue.
Edited by JonRB on Sunday 8th January 11:26
Countdown said:
How do you know what would have been "better" for the vast majority of the population? Do you have any empirical evidence for this ?
With regards to "bankrupting" the country - this is an issue facing most western governments, not solely restricted to the UK.
Very valid but there is a core difference though. With regards to "bankrupting" the country - this is an issue facing most western governments, not solely restricted to the UK.
Whereas in many Western economies the Govts may be bust the people are cash rich. Europeans have far more money than the British people.
We are personally broke having been on an orgy of debt and spending and you can pin that directly on NuLabour right from the start their policy was to make everyone think the good times were real and not artificial.
Our personal debt levels and the reaulting asset inflations can be laid firmly on their doorstep.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff