egg

Mate, please take any "tax ain't fair" complaint to the lounge or the ballot box. The issue re these footballers goes way beyond the merits or otherwise of paying tax.

You weren't calling for lower taxes, you said it's theft and a scam. Completely different. Anyways, this is a thread about a specific issue, not your opinion about the merits of paying tax.

Ok mate. If you believe tax is theft and a scam, the discussion is pointless. I spose the government should just spend away, with minimal tax, and the world would be lovely. Bizarre.

Swing

It's nuts, nothing good can come from it. Just keep your head down when you've invited a pile on.

I can't agree with any of that, and it's irrelevant to the issue of these footballers. Tax isn't theft. It's necessary. Some people seek to avoid paying it, and others seek to evade it. The latter is closer to theft than tax itself. How the government spend the money is a separate issue.

Ywp. The local authorities haven't got the cash, so play the system to cause delay. Firstly, the LA refuse to assess for an EHCP. Parents appeal. The bar is a low one, so most parents win on appeal. The LA then refuse to issue an EHCP after assessment. Appeal number 2, mostly successful. After the resultant EHCP, the LA recommends a state school. The parents disagree, appeal, and often persuade the tribunal that the LA school is unsuitable to meet the need as per the EHCP, so the tribunal awards the parents choice of school with transport to go with it. The LA often don't put up a fight at appeal, but by the time all 3 appeals and the assessments have been dealt with, the thick end of 4 years or so has passed, so 4 years of expensive special educational provision has been avoided. Moreover, the kids have been locked out of needed education, with many not getting any education at all. It's a sad system, and I'm not sure what the answer is. SEND kids need the help that they need, but the LA haven't got the budget to supply it.

The scale of that destruction is mind blowing. As the reel says, Hamas must have been hiding in lots of buildings. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNKpO7yIfUE/?igsh=MWZocTN2aXpqbHBvMw==

It's not quite as straightforward as the guidance. Para 12 sch 4ZA Finance Act 2003 is the law that applies. A trust in favour of a child can deem the parents as still owning it. It's fact dependant, and we don't know the details here. That all said, nobody shoves assets into a Trust because they want to pay as much tax as would be payable if the assets were held outside of a trust. I'm more interested in how a £100k ISH salary stretches so far.

I dunno, I'll be upset if they beat us.

Negotiations

That's your interpretation. In your mind her question to her advisor (she says her conveyancers, not her ifa) was something like "how do I pay minimum sdlt on the purchase". Her question may have been "how much sdlt do I have to pay "? She could have even followed up the answer with "are you sure" and been told yes. In short, you're making up your own narrative, and we don't know the facts. Fwiw, I think it looks bloody awful, and am surprised that a conveyancer would dare give sdlt advice around a trust arrangement. That's accountant territory every day of the week.

Good stuff! Congratulations to her on qualifying.

I'd tell her to avoid residential conveyancing completely. No real law involved, full of admin, they're the front line of money laundering, etc. All for shit fees.

Our posts crossed mate.

Stepping back for a moment, and playing devil's advocate, what's unclear is: What she told the conveyancer. What the conveyancer actually advised. Whether the conveyancer suggested that she seek external tax advice (I don't know any conveyancers who don't). What her intentions were re tax, ie to seek to minimise her obligations. She's thrown the conveyancer under the bus. I think much depends on what they have to say, although lawyer/client privilege means we won't hear their side of the story.

Why should anyone have to doubt the professional advice that they are given, and seek a second opinion? The suggestion that she should so because of her job is ridiculous. She took advice, as she should, and relied on it as much as anyone else. The second opinion came after it was suggested that she took a misstep. The only hypocrisy I'm reading today is that sportspeople shouldn't pay tax based on poor advice whereas politicians should, and also get the sack.

That makes zero sense in this context. We all have to pay tax. As someone who claims to mix with high rollers, you ought to know that professional advice is taken and relied upon. SDLT is complex. I'd hazard a guess that the lawyer may not have had full information about the Trust, especially if she had to obtain court approval to provide the information. She's as entitled to rely on professional advice as the sports people who people have sympathy for, and anyone else. It's neither incompetent nor dishonest to rely on advice from a professional who ought to have given the correct advice.

On the main thread, we have a thread about footballers and other professional sports people taking and relying on professional advice, then coming a cropper and being exposed to tax after the event. Here we have a politician who's followed legal advice which has been wrong. I appreciate that she needs to maintain the highest standards given her public office, but, it's interesting to read support for footballers being given duff advice (but may have been aware that they were trying to avoid tax) and mass criticism of a politician who claims that she was negligently advised and sought specialist Counsel when a potential issue came to light.

I'm largely with him, although I'm 5/10. I don't compare to where we were last time we were in the championship as I don't see that as a necessary comparison. Looking at the spine of the team compared to last season's fiasco, GK is weaker, CB is the same, CM is minus a big Les (and maybe Aribo) and up a Jander who may improve us, AM is minus a Fernandes and up and Azaz so no better, and CF is no stronger. Then there's the outside areas. RB is different and very good but probably not better, LB is similar. LW and RW are arguably down but I'll take Fellows and Scienza over a reluctant Dibling and variable Kamaldeen. The wage bill is massively down, but we still have players we don't want or need. My 5 may be a bit harsh, but the spine of a team is vital, and it's no better despite all the ins and outs, and arguably we're no better elsewhere either. What's pleasing though is we've recruited players who'll be really good at this level.

The 2 situations are not remotely comparable.

I haven't watched it yet, but have read about it. For me this highlights a few issues. I've worked with top flight players, and have met with them and their agents. These guys put a ridiculous amount of trust and faith in their agents, and any other outside advisors, most all but working on a "just tell me what to do and I'll do it" basis. Sadly, there's a lot of naivety, generally. There's also a bit of a herd mentality, and if one player who is seen as savvy does something that sounds like a good idea, others follow. If anyone, or firm, gets a decent name in the game, the good word spreads and they'll clean up. I've even known it with the brokers that source high end cars for players, get one player at a club and sort them out, you'll get the rest, then when that lad moves and has an influence in the changing room, then you get players from his next club. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of tax avoidance schemes ( but, 1. if you play with fire you get burnt, 2. if it sounds too good to be true, it is), I can imagine these guys were told this was the best thing to do, saw other people doing it, and followed the herd. At the end of the day, the lives of people who've followed advice from people who owed them a duty of care have been massively affected. Very sad carry on.

You criticise tax rises, whilst singling out our increasing debt, and increased borrowing costs. There's a disconnect there. The markets want to see financial prudence If we accept that more borrowing isn't the answer, and you've ruled out tax rises, what's the solution to reducing the fiscal black hole to the satisfaction of the markets?

I'm baffled why you think that labour MPs would vote themselves out of a job, and open the doors for a reform government.

In more important news, government borrowing costs have soared, which isn't great when coupled with increased borrowing. Essentially, we're a bit fucked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy989njnq2wo