You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,592
More likely that she is a politician and we want politicians to act with integrity.
I dont think it helps anyone to misrepresent why people are happy that a politician has been held accountable.
And for her, it's the best thing for her to do if she wants a political future. If she just ignored it and tried to hang on to power she would never be trusted again.
Worth saying, the ethics report did find that she acted with integrity. She hasn’t lost her job for being found to be dishonest.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
Amorim.
Let’s hope not!
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
If you sell your house to a third party, then it's clear who owns it and no ambiguity nor confusion arises.I’m confused here, what technicality are you talking about there?
But if you put it into trust for another party, whilst still treating it as your main home, it's a different situation isn't it. You're exploiting a technicality to reduce your stamp duty on a second home by claiming it's the only one you own, when in fact you have another home that you are treating as your own.
The fact her son was under 18 meant that technical opportunity ceased to exist.
But as I say, even if he was over 18, she may still have been in trouble. The HMRC can challenge arrangements when they suspect they feel they are contrived to avoid tax.
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
Whats the point in whataboutery ?Kwasi Kwarteng likes this post.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,592
If you sell your house to a third party, then it's clear who owns it and no ambiguity nor confusion arises.
But if you put it into trust for another party, whilst still treating it as your main home, it's a different situation isn't it. You're exploiting a technicality to reduce your stamp duty on a second home by claiming it's the only one you own, when in fact you have another home that you are treating as your own.
The fact her son was under 18 meant that technical opportunity ceased to exist.
But as I say, even if he was over 18, she may still have been in trouble. The HMRC can challenge arrangements when they suspect they feel they are contrived to avoid tax.
That’s not a technicality though, that’s just reality. It’s got nothing to do with where your main residence is. Stamp duty is all about ownership of homes as it’s the ownership that makes up the estate (obviously).
If he was over 18 she categorically would not have been in any trouble.
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 19,177
- Team supported
- Manchester City
So she did lie then……
Next up for the axe is?
Kemi Badenoch most likely - another grifter
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
Every thing rayner has in life is down to the tax payer.
Crass that she tried to fiddle the tax payer for a measly 40k
Greed
Crass that she tried to fiddle the tax payer for a measly 40k
Greed
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Not true.That’s not a technicality though, that’s just reality. It’s got nothing to do with where your main residence is. Stamp duty is all about ownership of homes as it’s the ownership that makes up the estate (obviously).
If he was over 18 she categorically would not have been in any trouble.
From Ashton Legal:
"To avoid paying the higher SDLT on your next home, you must not own or be treated as owning any other residence at the time of purchase.
Therefore, simply holding your existing home in a trust while living there usually does not mean your next home will qualify as a main residence for SDLT purposes, and you will pay the additional property rate on your new house."
As a reminder, she's described Ashton as continuing to be her main home, and confirmed that she will continue to be living there.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
measly?Every thing rayner has in life is down to the tax payer.
Crass that she tried to fiddle the tax payer for a measly 40k
Greed
Ashton Moss Messi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 738
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I suspect that the angle not being said is that Angela sold it to her son's trust, maybe using the cash for her Hove apartment, and then rented the AUL house from the trust, paying with MP allowance.If you sell your house to a third party, then it's clear who owns it and no ambiguity nor confusion arises.
But if you put it into trust for another party, whilst still treating it as your main home, it's a different situation isn't it. You're exploiting a technicality to reduce your stamp duty on a second home by claiming it's the only one you own, when in fact you have another home that you are treating as your own.
The fact her son was under 18 meant that technical opportunity ceased to exist.
But as I say, even if he was over 18, she may still have been in trouble. The HMRC can challenge arrangements when they suspect they feel they are contrived to avoid tax.
In effect, giving her son's trust the housing allowance.
If that's the case, then while not breaking the rules, it's breaking the spirit of the rules.
No doubt many other MPs have a similar fiddle.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
While it's a pity that all Tory MPs don't resign none of the above actually breached the ministerial code while in office.Fair play to her for resigning.
It’s a pity Johnson, Truss, Kwarteng, Jenrick, Raab et al didn’t show the same level of integrity.
bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 27,148
- Team supported
- City
A shame but the right decision
Winchester
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2020
- Messages
- 3,307
- Team supported
- Mcfc
Bye Bye Rayner
Then Starmer
Lol
Then Starmer
Lol
Kemi Badenoch most likely - another grifter
No one will shed any tears that’s for sure
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
If she was to be paying rent when staying in Ashton, you'd probably be right that she could get away with it. But I agree it would be a fiddle and getting away with it on a technicality.I suspect that the angle not being said is that Angela sold it to her son's trust, maybe using the cash for her Hove apartment, and then rented the AUL house from the trust, paying with MP allowance.
In effect, giving her son's trust the housing allowance.
If that's the case, then while not breaking the rules, it's breaking the spirit of the rules.
No doubt many other MPs have a similar fiddle.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Just mentioning someone who didn’t resign over a massive unpaid tax bill but was a man who spoke proper is compare and contrast not whataboutery.Whats the point in whataboutery ?
rag bitch
Simply no need for a remark like that.
heslops barnet
Well-Known Member
So it’s basically a shit hole?It wouldn't surprise me if they did.
I lived in Ashton from birth until i was mid 20's and a little later worked in the town too for 4/5 years probably upto around 1995 or so.
Since then I've been into the town centre only a handful of times and it's just awful & run down...last time I was there I couldn't find a pub doing food apart from spoons at lunchtime.
It's exactly the sort of area that Reform will take unless everyone wakes up.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,592
Not true.
From Ashton Legal:
"To avoid paying the higher SDLT on your next home, you must not own or be treated as owning any other residence at the time of purchase.
Therefore, simply holding your existing home in a trust while living there usually does not mean your next home will qualify as a main residence for SDLT purposes, and you will pay the additional property rate on your new house."
As a reminder, she's described Ashton as continuing to be her main home, and confirmed that she will continue to be living there.
Yes it is true. If he was 18 then she wouldn’t be treated as owning it.