bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
latest UK figure is 4.7% - damn you Labour for having a low unemployment rate
latest UK figure is 4.7% - damn you Labour for having a low unemployment rate
So we can all defraud HMRC and have it dealt with behind closed doors then yeah because the country is in a bit of a mess?
Maybe it’s in a mess because of tax dodging fuckers like Raynor who get to decide what the rest of us have to do whilst she ignores it?
Even if her tax avoidance was intentional, how does it compare to the tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta etc?So we can all defraud HMRC and have it dealt with behind closed doors then yeah because the country is in a bit of a mess?
Maybe it’s in a mess because of tax dodging fuckers like Raynor who get to decide what the rest of us have to do whilst she ignores it?
What she’s accused of is not tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is legal. She’s not paid tax she HAD to pay.Even if her tax avoidance was intentional, how does it compare to the tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta etc?
Even if her tax avoidance was intentional, how does it compare to the tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta etc?
I'll hold my hands up about Rayner's "advice". I really couldn't see any problem if she had divested herself of her share in the Ashton house (even if she still resided there part of the time). You don't pay the higher rate if you only own one residence - except it seems for this small print in the rules: you still have another residence if it " - is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)".
Perhaps it’s the threat of Labour losing the Ashton seat to Reform and Raynor has (had) eyes on a seat with a 20k majority that guarantees continuation of her £150k meal ticket. Or perhaps she just likes swimming.Please correct me if I’m wrong, but why is the mp for Ashton under Lyne buying an £800,000 flat in Sussex? Does she even live in Ashton anymore?
Also how does the housing secretary seemingly not understand her own rules?
a measured response
I assume that you posted this to ensure that we all saw the opinions of the many comments made?
Such as:
"Question is would a normal person with a disabled child be allowed to get away with this? Or would the book be thrown at them? There has to be parity for all."
Which is typical of them
Indeed - but I think that the vast majority of opinion have good reason to believe that it is scenario 2The context of that legal advice is key.
If legal advice was in response to a direction from Rayner saying “please move forward with this transaction and ensure I pay the correct amount of tax and fees” then I think disclosing that would be very powerful.
She’s isn’t a solicitor / legal expert and those of us who aren’t do have to defer to professionals who give paid advice for that very reason.
However, if the legal advice was in response to a direction from Rayner of “please reduce my tax and fees in this transaction as much as possible and use any legal mechanism to do so”, it would be a very different story.
Unless she publishes documents that confirm scenario 1, the public will rightly assume it’s scenario 2 and she’s fucked.
Indeed - but I think that the vast majority of opinion have good reason to believe that it is scenario 2
I'm just wondering what has happened in recent years that has led to the UK having a lower unemployment rate than the UK......??If having a 4.7% unemployment rate is a cause of celebration, and a success story for Labour, then presumably you must give the previous government major credit given that it was 4.1% when they left office.
Although I agree that there is a need for a clampdown on such companies - this is pure deflectionEven if her tax avoidance was intentional, how does it compare to the tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta etc?
Indeed - but I think that the vast majority of opinion have good reason to believe that it is scenario 2
Cuts both ways though.That makes no sense to be fair. A “normal” person would probably be better off, given it’s likely they wouldn’t lose their job over it.