More Tory lies

[Ulysses]

Y'all know the expression about playing the man rather than playing the ball?  Time to start playing the man rather than playing the missus - before we all get played ourselves. 

 

She's willing to give up an 8-figure sum in tax to keep him in a job that pays £150-ish thousand a year.  What are they hiding?

 

Everyone's been talking about her tax and not his.  How many tax haven trust arrangements does he benefit from?

[Footballfirst]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Y'all know the expression about playing the man rather than playing the ball?  Time to start playing the man rather than playing the missus - before we all get played ourselves. 

 

She's willing to give up an 8-figure sum in tax to keep him in a job that pays £150-ish thousand a year.  What are they hiding?

 

Everyone's been talking about her tax and not his.  How many tax haven trust arrangements does he benefit from?

Her statement was explicit that all her income would be subject to UK tax. It's possible (perhaps likely) that she has assigned her shareholdings/dividend into trusts, meaning that the income becomes that of the trustees.

 

Will the trustees pay the UK Treasury the tax that she would have paid if the income was in her name, or are the  trusts based in tax havens, thus avoiding UK taxes? 

[Ulysses]

8 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Her statement was explicit that all her income would be subject to UK tax. It's possible (perhaps likely) that she has assigned her shareholdings/dividend into trusts, meaning that the income becomes that of the trustees.

 

Will the trustees pay the UK Treasury the tax that she would have paid if the income was in her name, or are the  trusts based in tax havens, thus avoiding UK taxes? 

 

 

That's still keeping the focus on her, rather than him.  I think that's what they want people to do.

[Ulysses]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

 

That's still keeping the focus on her, rather than him.  I think that's what they want people to do.

 

Sorry, I get the point you're making, by the way.  I just think the media and public are being played here.

[dobmisterdobster]

 

[dobmisterdobster]

10 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

They are filth, and should go.

Emblematic of the reasons the UK cannot feed its poorest 

 

An Indian businesswoman is responsible for feeding the UK's poorest?

[Footballfirst]

42 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Please feel free to share how Britain benefits from all this foreign investment by non doms.

 

The Tory party - yes

Tax revenues - no

Property prices rocketing in London and elsewhere - no

Several MSM titles owned and operated from tax havens - no

Football clubs loaded with debt and low income fans priced out of attending games - no

 

etc. etc. ....

 

 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

An Indian businesswoman is responsible for feeding the UK's poorest?

 

Now I know you're at it, there's no way you don't understand the word emblematic.

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Not less attractive to international investors, less attractive for international investors to live in.

 

And I'm OK with that.

[Ulysses]

17 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Not less attractive to international investors, less attractive for international investors to live in.

 

And I'm OK with that.

 

Exactly.  You want inward capital investment, not inward flows of people - and certainly not the wrong sort of people (Russian oligarchs, Saudi oil barons, you know the drill).

[The Mighty Thor]

Sajid Javid also looks to have suffered from a bit of confusion in the past as to where he lives....

 

 

Maybe the Tory party could release a list of who is domiciled where and which of their ministers & MPs actually pay their taxes?

[The Mighty Thor]

17 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

That's still keeping the focus on her, rather than him.  I think that's what they want people to do.

As I saw on twitter earlier; 

'Why is she agreeing to pay tens of millions to keep him in a £150k a year job?'

[Roxy Hearts]

We need a written constitution as UK doesn't have one! That's why politicians are not held to account and why the establishment doesn't want one! Independence would give us that.

[The Real Maroonblood]

36 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

We need a written constitution as UK doesn't have one! That's why politicians are not held to account and why the establishment doesn't want one! Independence would give us that.

Fair comment. 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Roxy Hearts said:

We need a written constitution as UK doesn't have one! That's why politicians are not held to account and why the establishment doesn't want one! Independence would give us that.

 

I don't agree, I don't like written constitutions.

The problem is that they can become rigid and the point forgotten. Look at the US and the right to bear arms - that was because they had to defend themselves on the frontiers, often with no neighbors or police for many many miles.

 

Now look what that rule being so specific has done to America.

 

Times change, so should the rules.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Smithee

[A Boy Named Crow]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

I don't agree, I don't like written constitutions.

The problem is that they can become rigid and the point forgotten. Look at the US and the right to bear arms - that was because they had to defend themselves on the frontiers, often with no neighbors or police for many many miles.

 

Now look what that rule being so specific has done to America.

 

Times change, so should the rules.

I get your point. What I'd like though is an acceptable behaviour framework. A document that sets out how to live in society, without being an arsehole. A person's right to vote should be forfeited if they don't sign up to the framework, likewise the right to vote could be removed when wanton acts of arseholery are committed. 

 

I know this would run into the same problems as defining a written constitution, but it'd be fun being on the committee defining the framework!

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by A Boy Named Crow

[Cade]

The UK does have a written constitution.

It's called The Law.

It's evolved over about a thousand years.

The Supreme Court makes the final decision if called upon to do so in any case put to it and is the de facto constitutional court of the UK.

 

Having a single page of A4 paper with a few wee rules written on it won't change anything or improve the situation in the UK at all.

What we need is a sitting Government willing to change the law in a meaningful way to close all loopholes, establish proper frameworks and abolish or update ancient laws.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Itchy referring his declarations to the 'independent' adviser on ministerial standards. 

The guy that said nothing to see here with Patel's bullying and Spaffer's scrounging over £100k for wallpaper. 

[Unknown user]

5 hours ago, Cade said:

The UK does have a written constitution.

It's called The Law.

It's evolved over about a thousand years.

The Supreme Court makes the final decision if called upon to do so in any case put to it and is the de facto constitutional court of the UK.

 

Having a single page of A4 paper with a few wee rules written on it won't change anything or improve the situation in the UK at all.

What we need is a sitting Government willing to change the law in a meaningful way to close all loopholes, establish proper frameworks and abolish or update ancient laws.

 

 

Yeah exactly, we have centuries of precedent in deciding exactly what the laws mean too.

 

Having said that, I'd be right behind a genuine parliamentary constitution that strictly dictates how ministers can act, what interests they can have, what their obligations are, and have the power to enforce it given to a non political, independent body.

[Unknown user]

6 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I get your point. What I'd like though is an acceptable behaviour framework. A document that sets out how to live in society, without being an arsehole. A person's right to vote should be forfeited if they don't sign up to the framework, likewise the right to vote could be removed when wanton acts of arseholery are committed. 

 

I know this would run into the same problems as defining a written constitution, but it'd be fun being on the committee defining the framework!

 

 

I could be wrong but I think we already take the vote off convicted arseholes, or prisoners as we call them!

[A Boy Named Crow]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

I could be wrong but I think we already take the vote off convicted arseholes, or prisoners as we call them!

Being an arsehole isn't a crime though, plenty of arseholes at but in prison and get to vote, benefit from society etc. My framework wouldn't criminalise arseholes, just make them second class citizens! 

 

😁

[sadj]

On 09/04/2022 at 09:59, superjack said:

The thing is, what they've done is what tories do, so other tories will still vote them in.

Indeed , similar to the cokehead Tory councillor up for re-election suspended for grabbing an eighteen year old by the throat and threatening to put him in a grave because the kid wanted his gf to leave the party she was at (shes 17). The local councillor wanted her to stay sniffing lines with him and drinking so he could get in about her. There is also other reasons he normally attends that house. For balance the eighteen year old was kicking off and is an utter ***** but still the Tory lad is a grown man. However the point is he will no doubt be cleared of any wrongdoing and still get re-elected as people don’t see the person just the politics and excuses are already being made for him. The video shared on social media was only part of what he did and was removed within minutes of being posted on the local keep the town safe page. 
 

Politicians 🙈

[Cade]

It is a nonsense that the Ministerial Code isn't encoded in law and the Prime Minister is the final judge of any wrongdoings.

 

That should be taken out of the hand of politicians. Marking your own homework is just an open door to corruption.

 

Introduce a "Parliamentary Responsibilities and Disqualification Bill" that closes all the wee loopholes, puts down in plain language what is expected from MPs and enshrines it in law.

Anyone being investigated for breaching any clauses in this new act is automatically suspended from Parliament and cannot vote during the investigation.

If found to have breached the new law, they are dismissed as an MP and barred from holding any future public office in the UK.

This will immediately trigger a by-election.

Of course, the suspension of the MP will allow the local constituents to then launch a recall vote under the "Recall of MPs Act 2015", which can also result in an expulsion and by-election.

 

No more "honest mistakes" in "forgetting" to register things as a financial interest or potential conflict of interest.

No more PM covering up for his own MPs.

 

[Unknown user]

10 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Being an arsehole isn't a crime though, plenty of arseholes at but in prison and get to vote, benefit from society etc. My framework wouldn't criminalise arseholes, just make them second class citizens! 

 

😁

 

JKB arseholes, second class citizens.

 

Still better than hibs

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, Cade said:

It is a nonsense that the Ministerial Code isn't encoded in law and the Prime Minister is the final judge of any wrongdoings.

 

That should be taken out of the hand of politicians. Marking your own homework is just an open door to corruption.

 

Introduce a "Parliamentary Responsibilities and Disqualification Bill" that closes all the wee loopholes, puts down in plain language what is expected from MPs and enshrines it in law.

Anyone being investigated for breaching any clauses in this new act is automatically suspended from Parliament and cannot vote during the investigation.

If found to have breached the new law, they are dismissed as an MP and barred from holding any future public office in the UK.

This will immediately trigger a by-election.

Of course, the suspension of the MP will allow the local constituents to then launch a recall vote under the "Recall of MPs Act 2015", which can also result in an expulsion and by-election.

 

No more "honest mistakes" in "forgetting" to register things as a financial interest or potential conflict of interest.

No more PM covering up for his own MPs.

 

 

Agreed

[dobmisterdobster]

10 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Being an arsehole isn't a crime though, plenty of arseholes at but in prison and get to vote, benefit from society etc. My framework wouldn't criminalise arseholes, just make them second class citizens! 

 

😁

 

Sounds a lot like the Chinese social credit system.

[Unknown user]

14 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Sounds a lot like the Chinese social credit system.

 

Right, no vote for you.

 

Hey I like this system!

[Taffin]

On 07/04/2022 at 12:09, Mikey1874 said:

 

So how do ordinary people reduce their tax liabilities? 

 

People whose tax and national insurance is taken at source before they get their pay in the bank? 

 

Most people. 

 

Salary sacrifice schemes is probably the biggest/most common.

 

Or the self employed fiddling the books.

 

Edit: apologies, just realised how far behind I was on the thread.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Taffin

[sadj]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

It is a nonsense that the Ministerial Code isn't encoded in law and the Prime Minister is the final judge of any wrongdoings.

 

That should be taken out of the hand of politicians. Marking your own homework is just an open door to corruption.

 

Introduce a "Parliamentary Responsibilities and Disqualification Bill" that closes all the wee loopholes, puts down in plain language what is expected from MPs and enshrines it in law.

Anyone being investigated for breaching any clauses in this new act is automatically suspended from Parliament and cannot vote during the investigation.

If found to have breached the new law, they are dismissed as an MP and barred from holding any future public office in the UK.

This will immediately trigger a by-election.

Of course, the suspension of the MP will allow the local constituents to then launch a recall vote under the "Recall of MPs Act 2015", which can also result in an expulsion and by-election.

 

No more "honest mistakes" in "forgetting" to register things as a financial interest or potential conflict of interest.

No more PM covering up for his own MPs.

 

👌🏻

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

It is a nonsense that the Ministerial Code isn't encoded in law and the Prime Minister is the final judge of any wrongdoings.

 

That should be taken out of the hand of politicians. Marking your own homework is just an open door to corruption.

 

Introduce a "Parliamentary Responsibilities and Disqualification Bill" that closes all the wee loopholes, puts down in plain language what is expected from MPs and enshrines it in law.

Anyone being investigated for breaching any clauses in this new act is automatically suspended from Parliament and cannot vote during the investigation.

If found to have breached the new law, they are dismissed as an MP and barred from holding any future public office in the UK.

This will immediately trigger a by-election.

Of course, the suspension of the MP will allow the local constituents to then launch a recall vote under the "Recall of MPs Act 2015", which can also result in an expulsion and by-election.

 

No more "honest mistakes" in "forgetting" to register things as a financial interest or potential conflict of interest.

No more PM covering up for his own MPs.

 

 

Closing legal loopholes is way easier said than done.

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Closing legal loopholes is way easier said than done.

 

So don't bother trying?

[sadj]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

So don't bother trying?

Indeed , lets just leave the loopholes , saves people having to behave correctly. As I said earlier about the arsehole Tory councillor. Protect those it suits. We wouldn’t be afforded that privilege hence the young lad being lifted despite the adults behaviour and threats to kill him. 

[Roxy Hearts]

21 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

I don't agree, I don't like written constitutions.

The problem is that they can become rigid and the point forgotten. Look at the US and the right to bear arms - that was because they had to defend themselves on the frontiers, often with no neighbors or police for many many miles.

 

Now look what that rule being so specific has done to America.

 

Times change, so should the rules.

There needs to be something in place that is stronger and which holds politicians to account. My point is that we could have a document with independence. It doesn't have to be rigid as any changes could be put on a party's manifesto for people to vote on.

[Cade]

Loopholes are closed at the stroke of a pen, don't try and pretend it's a difficult thing to do.

[Unknown user]

22 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

There needs to be something in place that is stronger and which holds politicians to account. My point is that we could have a document with independence. It doesn't have to be rigid as any changes could be put on a party's manifesto for people to vote on.

I have no problem with holding public representatives to high standards, I can't argue with that.

[Unknown user]

[A Boy Named Crow]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Right, no vote for you.

 

Hey I like this system!

Told you it'd be fun! 

[dobmisterdobster]

35 minutes ago, Cade said:

Loopholes are closed at the stroke of a pen, don't try and pretend it's a difficult thing to do.

 

The complexity and nuance of the tax code and financial law in the UK and elsewhere ensures there will be nothing easy about it.

 

Financial regulation is a valve. See the Laffer curve.

[Unknown user]

17 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

The complexity and nuance of the tax code and financial law in the UK and elsewhere ensures there will be nothing easy about it.

 

Financial regulation is a valve. See the Laffer curve.

 

So change them.

If our tax and financial laws are so complicated and open to abuse by the rich, get changing them now, there's a lot of work to do.

 

Simplistic? In basic terms, yes, but not as a strategic direction we need to go in.

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

So change them.

If our tax and financial laws are so complicated and open to abuse by the rich, get changing them now, there's a lot of work to do.

 

Simplistic? In basic terms, yes, but not as a strategic direction we need to go in.

The biggest impediment to implementing new tax legislation is the lack of desire and intent to make change happen from the current Tory government.

 

The reason is simple enough. Those with wealth have either a personal interest or vested interest in maintaining the loopholes and complexity of the current tax laws. 

[sadj]

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The biggest impediment to implementing new tax legislation is the lack of desire and intent to make change happen from the current Tory government.

 

The reason is simple enough. Those with wealth have either a personal interest or vested interest in maintaining the loopholes and complexity of the current tax laws. 

Indeed

[Cade]

The UK has one of the world's most complicated tax systems.

This is by design, so those with wealth can hide it.

[Japan Jambo]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

So change them.

If our tax and financial laws are so complicated and open to abuse by the rich, get changing them now, there's a lot of work to do.

 

Simplistic? In basic terms, yes, but not as a strategic direction we need to go in.

 

All for a simplification of the tax laws but we do need to be careful and thoughtful with regard to how we go about this. Non-doms don't need to come here, they are mobile and have choices - there is a very big cost to getting aggressive in this area and good reasons why governments of ALL stripes have trodden lightly. 

 

'Non-doms make a positive contribution'

And more than merely being lawful, James Quarmby of law firm Stephenson Harwood has taken to LinkedIn to argue the status of the chancellor’s wife actually benefits the UK.

“It turns out that [Ms Murty], like 75,000 other foreigners here, is claiming non-dom status on her tax returns.

“Yet the non-dom regime has been in place since 1799…[and] the truth is that the regime actually makes a positive contribution to our public finances.”

Mr Quarmby continued: “The government’s own report in 2021 found that non-doms brought in just under £8billion of additional revenue per annum. To put that in perspective, the controversial NIC rise will only bring in £6m per annum. So, non-doms are extremely useful -- even those married to the chancellor.”

[Footballfirst]

36 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

All for a simplification of the tax laws but we do need to be careful and thoughtful with regard to how we go about this. Non-doms don't need to come here, they are mobile and have choices - there is a very big cost to getting aggressive in this area and good reasons why governments of ALL stripes have trodden lightly. 

 

'Non-doms make a positive contribution'

And more than merely being lawful, James Quarmby of law firm Stephenson Harwood has taken to LinkedIn to argue the status of the chancellor’s wife actually benefits the UK.

“It turns out that [Ms Murty], like 75,000 other foreigners here, is claiming non-dom status on her tax returns.

“Yet the non-dom regime has been in place since 1799…[and] the truth is that the regime actually makes a positive contribution to our public finances.”

Mr Quarmby continued: “The government’s own report in 2021 found that non-doms brought in just under £8billion of additional revenue per annum. To put that in perspective, the controversial NIC rise will only bring in £6m per annum. So, non-doms are extremely useful -- even those married to the chancellor.”

How much would those 75,000  be contributing to public finances if they were not granted "non-dom" status?

 

There is enough information in the public domain to suggest that Murthy would be paying over £2m more in tax to the treasury instead of the £30,000 cost of being designated a "non dom"

Edited April 11, 2022 by Footballfirst

[dobmisterdobster]

Complaining about a policy which has been in place since 1799. Bloody Tories eh? 😂

[The Mighty Thor]

50 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

All for a simplification of the tax laws but we do need to be careful and thoughtful with regard to how we go about this. Non-doms don't need to come here, they are mobile and have choices - there is a very big cost to getting aggressive in this area and good reasons why governments of ALL stripes have trodden lightly. 

 

'Non-doms make a positive contribution'

And more than merely being lawful, James Quarmby of law firm Stephenson Harwood has taken to LinkedIn to argue the status of the chancellor’s wife actually benefits the UK.

“It turns out that [Ms Murty], like 75,000 other foreigners here, is claiming non-dom status on her tax returns.

“Yet the non-dom regime has been in place since 1799…[and] the truth is that the regime actually makes a positive contribution to our public finances.”

Mr Quarmby continued: “The government’s own report in 2021 found that non-doms brought in just under £8billion of additional revenue per annum. To put that in perspective, the controversial NIC rise will only bring in £6m per annum. So, non-doms are extremely useful -- even those married to the chancellor.”

To put it simplistically; Pay your taxes in full and on time or GTF back to whence you came or whence you claim to be resident. 

 

Same goes for the likes of Amazon, Vodafone, BP and all the other chancing ****s who rip the pish.

 

No pay in the UK? No play in the UK.

 

You'd find the the tax system would be reformed tout de suite. 

 

[sadj]

13 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Complaining about a policy which has been in place since 1799. Bloody Tories eh? 😂

Ach well lets just not bother changing it. Take back womens votes at the same time too. Why not. Hark ya back to ye olde times or else….

[SectionDJambo]

The trouble with some of the old rules of Parliament is that they haven’t been updated to deal with new realities.

Tax havens, off shore accounts, modern communication and technology.

Not to mention the number of people in Parliament who think that paying tax is for the minions and who have “people” who can use outdated rules to avoid paying their fair share. It’s human nature to not want to pay tax, but they could lead by honour and example. Not much chance?

 

[Footballfirst]

Another dodgy Tory MP

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

36 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Another dodgy Tory MP

 

 

Oh my.

 

He wasn't even in the list of Tory nonces I posted last week.