Raising all income tax rates by 1-2% would be the most sensible by far along with reversing the NI changes, but of course party politics wont allow this.Fair enough. It was just the way you worded it, saying it should go "anyway". I misinterpreted that as you meaning we should get rid of it even if there were no difficult choices.
FWIW I think the least worst option at this point would be to increase all rates of income tax. It's approaching 100% collectable and raises significant amounts of money.
Whatever the mechanism, she’s got to go.I might well be wrong but isn’t it down to the Labour Party NEC to decide the outcome as Starmer didn’t appoint her deputy leader? He can remove her portfolio on Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Whatever the mechanism, she’s got to go.
Agreed mate just think people need to appreciate there is a process and it’s probably out of Starmer’s hands.
It would be disingenuous of me to not say I hope you're right.Disagree. Think this will do for her before the month is out.
I honestly think her choice of sunglasses yesterday was ' a fuck you media' statementI agree that her position is untenable, but doubt she will jump nor be pushed. She must have known the optics of this latest transaction would look terrible even if she thought it legal. And yet she did it anyway. I think that means she doesn't really give a toss about public opinion so unless Starmer sacks her - which I doubt he will after his latest comments - I think she will just stay put.
I wonder if she is going to publish the initial tax advice that she received, and which led her to paying the wrong amount of tax?
One would think that this would be the easiest, simplest and most effective way of supporting her argument and proving that her avoiding an additional 40 grand in tax was a honest and unwitting mistake.
If it existed, you would think that she’d be keen to prove it.
Interesting point. I’m not sure if she’s made it clear if it was financial or legal advice. Or whether it was written or oral. Plenty of people act on oral advice, but even so it could still be corroborated by the source I guess.I wonder if she is going to publish the initial tax advice that she received, and which led her to paying the wrong amount of tax?
One would think that this would be the easiest, simplest and most effective way of supporting her argument and proving that her avoiding an additional 40 grand in tax was a honest and unwitting mistake.
If it existed, you would think that she’d be keen to prove it.
If she did, does that mean you think she wouldn’t need to resign?I wonder if she is going to publish the initial tax advice that she received, and which led her to paying the wrong amount of tax?
One would think that this would be the easiest, simplest and most effective way of supporting her argument and proving that her avoiding an additional 40 grand in tax was a honest and unwitting mistake.
If it existed, you would think that she’d be keen to prove it.
I think she’s lied about the matter is still doing so.You also not buying the “I instructed expert advice to ensure I don’t break the law but it turns out they wasn’t all that expert”?
She has said that she received legal advice on the purchase, rather than advice in general. If it was provided in a meeting and not documented, you would think that the meeting itself could be corroborated.Interesting point. I’m not sure if she’s made it clear if it was financial or legal advice. Or whether it was written or oral. Plenty of people act on oral advice, but even so it could still be corroborated by the source I guess.
I think if it was written advice from a reputable source then she could disclose it, although it could contain other matters which (for perfectly legitimate reasons) she doesn’t want in the public domain.
If accepted it’s a sustainable defence against dishonesty, but not liability. It could impact on any surcharge too, if the advice was corroborated and accepted.The idea of her property in Hove being her primary residence was always a tall story and being the recipient of poor advice isn’t a defence in the eyes of the HMRC. For a minister in charge of housing policy that isn’t something you can come back from.
She has said that she received legal advice on the purchase, rather than advice in general. If it was provided in a meeting and not documented, you would think that the meeting itself could be corroborated.
I wouldn’t expect her to disclose unnecessary personal details if written advice was provided, but I would be surprised if even a redacted document couldn’t provide evidence of the critical part of the judgement.
To answer your question on whether she would need to resign if the incorrect advice could be proven, I think it would make it a more finely balanced decision than it is currently. But ultimately I think she should still resign.
The idea of her property in Hove being her primary residence was always a tall story and being the recipient of poor advice isn’t a defence in the eyes of the HMRC. For a minister in charge of housing policy that isn’t something you can come back from.
I think if she can’t, having unequivocally claimed she was in receipt of that advice then it arguably stretches beyond carelessness, although HMRC don’t generally go straight to dishonestly because of the costs involved in a prosecution unless it’s a more sustained course of conduct.On your last paragraph, if she can show she obtained appropriate legal advice then she’ll owe back tax and interest. If she can’t then HMRC classes it as carelessness, which has a penalty to it too.
Small adjustment.People in second houses PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER shouldn't throw stones.
Which will not arrive. The fiscal position is worsening by the day.Praying for some whiffs of fiscal improvement by then I suspect.