The Labour Government

bluethrunthru said:
where was this feeding frenzy when Hunt bought 7 flats because bulk purchases of 6 or more meant you were able to avoid £95k in stamp duty and then when asked about it he claimed to have "forgotten" the purchase of 7 flats at £450k each

Or when Zahawi avoided £3m tax and when the journalist Dan Niedle began investigating the case he got his lawyer to threaten him ( actions that got the lawyers firm fined £50k with £300k costs and him being struck off ) and when it all came out Zahawi denied all knowledge of it all and agreed to pay HMRC the tax he had avoided, no sanction, no court case nothing.

Click to expand...


It’s an interesting one for the telegraph to report on tbh as it’s a story where they’ll be completely split which angle to go for.
 
heslops barnet said:
I remember a chancellor who was in conflict with tax office over £5 million bill… another one who didn’t declare his 7 properties…this woman persecuted by media for possible 40k…divorce, disabled kid…all looks very complicated
Click to expand...
Whataboutery. They're all wrong. She's in a position of power, minister of housing no less.

If we can't have faith in our politicians to follow the rules then who can we?
 
Chippy_boy said:
I'm hearing this morning that last year the NHS paid a significant sum into her son's trust, and that Ange has just sold her remaining share in the house to the trust, effectively using the NHS compensation money, to buy her Brighton flat.

Really not a good look at all if true.
Click to expand...
Surely that can't be true??

Shocking if it is
 
Bluesince1979 said:
Whats that got to do with it? They were crooks too?
Do we let rayner get away with a very serious error of judgement without question because hunt and zahawi did similar? Specially as rayner was as vocal as any body about it?

Greed has bit her on her arse big time.

Just goes to show, whatever side they are on, politicians are in it for what they can snatch for themselves

twats
Click to expand...

Firstly, not all politicians (irrespective of party) are in it for themselves if only because there is a lot easier ways to make money. A lot of good people avoid politics precisely because of the scrutiny.

Secondly, there is a sliding scale of offences and degree. Funnelling money to your mates who have just set up a dodgy company solely to get those funds is different to claiming a hotel room on expenses by claiming it was for ‘Parliamentary business’ when you were in fact banging your piece on the side.

Thirdly, no Rayner shouldn’t ‘get away with it’. Rayner should be investigated fairly and properly, and judged on the facts. I think on balance she should resign if only for not appreciating when you are a target you need to ensure you are squeaky clean and if you are selling a property or whatever, you need to get a second, third and fourth opinion and then treat it like a worse case scenario and pay the full tax. You’re in politics, everything you do is a political decision, so make a virtue of paying the full whack.
 
Lankers said:
Whataboutery. They're all wrong. She's in a position of power, minister of housing no less.

If we can't have faith in our politicians to follow the rules then who can we?
Click to expand...


She has breached an old arcane tax rule relating to trust properties according to the Telegraph . Not stuff which is general knowledge,

When I bought my last property the stamp duty was paid out of the proceeds of the previous sale. All done by the conveyancing solicitor... Ive got absolutely no idea wether the correct amount was paid or not.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
When I bought my last property the stamp duty was paid out of the proceeds of the previous sale. All done by the conveyancing solicitor... Ive got absolutely no idea wether the correct amount was paid or not.
Click to expand...
Well you're a bit daft then because it is YOU who is legally responsible if the figures are wrong, not your solicitor. Did they not say you should check the documents? I am sure they did.

Am I suprised that you of all people, are trying to justify Ange's gaff? Not a bit.
 
heslops barnet said:
Badenoch demanding resignation in week when she’s been exposed about lying re: Stanford offers she “received” at 16…also hacked a Labour MP’s website a few years back too
Click to expand...

Come on we should all know the majority of all mp’s are snakes in it for them selves and all they can get!

Read animal farm book when I was around 14 its pretty much the way of world..
 
bluethrunthru said:
where was this feeding frenzy when Hunt bought 7 flats because bulk purchases of 6 or more meant you were able to avoid £95k in stamp duty and then when asked about it he claimed to have "forgotten" the purchase of 7 flats at £450k each

Or when Zahawi avoided £3m tax and when the journalist Dan Niedle began investigating the case he got his lawyer to threaten him ( actions that got the lawyers firm fined £50k with £300k costs and him being struck off ) and when it all came out Zahawi denied all knowledge of it all and agreed to pay HMRC the tax he had avoided, no sanction, no court case nothing.

Click to expand...

The reality is, there was plenty of "feeding frenzy".
 
Chippy_boy said:
How do you know this?

EDIT: Never mind. I agree it likely that the solicitor will have requested to see a formal valuation. Whether that - assuming it exists - is fair and accurate is another matter.
Click to expand...

Because it’s in the land registry title for the house. Shoosmiths trust corporation, Raynor and her ex husband are all trustees.
 
There's IMO a pretty good summary here from Lord Snooty, if people would care to watch it. (I appreciate that might be difficult for the left leaning members here.) He's very balanced and unemotional - as he always is - but along the way mentions a very significant point:

There was no legal requirement for Rayner to not be open and honest about the tax situation from the outset. The idea that she was prevented from doing so because of a court order is nonsense - I would even venture so far as to say a lie. She will know full well that she is totally protected under parliamentary privilege to divulge anything she chose to, and she chose not to.

 
Chippy_boy said:
There's IMO a pretty good summary here from Lord Snooty, if people would care to watch it. (I appreciate that might be difficult for the left leaning members here.) He's very balanced and unemotional - as he always is - but along the way mentions a very significant point:

There was no legal requirement for Rayner to not be open and honest about the tax situation from the outset. The idea that she was prevented from doing so because of a court order is nonsense - I would even venture so far as to say a lie. She will know full well that she is totally protected under parliamentary privilege to divulge anything she chose to, and she chose not to.

Click to expand...


It obviously wouldn’t be a lie to be fair. NHS compensation claims often have court orders, her sons absolutely would have done.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
Sought advice about what?
If three different parties said its fine to do what she did to avoid paying the stamp duty, she was still actively trying to save the stamp duty. Which is fine , we would all do it i guess.
But shes playing dumb on the fact that she just followed advice , when she knew full well that the result of the advice would be to save £40k.

Its an horrific error of judgement on her part. As i said, we would all do it, but as raynor is very vocal on what is seemingly right or wrong , she should (like all MPs) , be whiter than white.

Its a shame. I guess when it comes down to it, they just cant help themselves.

One more thing; i thought MPs had to have a home in their constituency? If the ashton home was no longer in her name then hows that work? And how do her constituents feel about it?
Click to expand...
But higher stamp duty is for those who already own a home and she didn't. I'm not sure if any commentators actually twigged about the bit that a house held in trust for a child means the parent still retains an interest.

And more MPs are choosing not to have a home in the constituency - for safety's sake.
 
Vic said:
But higher stamp duty is for those who already own a home and she didn't. I'm not sure if any commentators actually twigged about the bit that a house held in trust for a child means the parent still retains an interest.

And more MPs are choosing not to have a home in the constituency - for safety's sake.
Click to expand...
But you see that its all stinks yeah?

Too many saying she is disliked because shes a gobby northerner.
Ti me its the fact she leans on being a gobby northerner and different to the rest thats bit on her bum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top