The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[egg]

3 minutes ago, iansums said:

Thankfully she won't be doing that.

Good stuff! Congratulations to her on qualifying. 

[AlexLaw76]

If it is all documented that a legal entity has formally advised her to this point, then there is nothing in this surely and it will be put to bed quick smart.

Then again, she is now one of the rich ones and what ever the outcome is, she will be viewed as another rich snob/elite avoiding their fair share of tax

One point though, which I know people slate members of other parties for, she was buying a (£800k) flat in Brighton as he main residence, but not in her constituency. 

Will all blow over as per, but then she has hounded other politicians to resign for not meeting the rules or whatever....

Edited September 3 by AlexLaw76

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Politically, it's a big stick to repeatedly hit Labour with. Not only on housing or tax matters. They will use it on integrity and double standards too. Your Housing Minister caught avoiding property related tax is a rubbish look.

Behind this, she did receive legal advise. Due to unusual circumstances, trusts weren't correctly factored in. I've no idea if she went to get the advice cackling about her avoidance plan, or simply trusted her legal advisor to sort it out for her. The benefit of the doubt indicates the latter, unless there's evidence to the contrary.

Sadly, her party have done little to impress on integrity after preaching about it in opposition. Not to mention having common decency to represent without troughing. So, it's a mark regardless of the circumstances.

She received financial advice to avoid paying tax.... The rules are the rules and she wants to get around them and dodge tax... be it having one primary residence to avoid paying double council tax, and one to avoid double stamp duty... Whether her financial adviser fucked up or not - she still went t them for advice to avoid tax. She has still consciously dicked about with her addresses to dodge tax. And she's now gone and got a primary residence thats not in her constituency (when it suits for tax purposes) to avoid paying tax whilst not knowing that she was doing that. Old saggy chops would be proud.

Its utterly irrelevant whether the advice she then got is incorrect - she still actively sought financial advise to avoid paying taxes after zealously attacking better off people for avoiding taxes. She's also got a party leader / PM who is on record saying tax evasion is fraud, and should be prosecuted as such, and she's in a party that has campaigned to clamp down on tax avoidance whilst also hiking council taxes and supporting 100% increases on council tax for 2nd homes(which she's loop holed her way out of) etc.

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

She received financial advice to avoid paying tax.... The rules are the rules and she wants to get around them and dodge tax... be it having one primary residence to avoid paying double council tax, and one to avoid double stamp duty... Whether her financial adviser fucked up or not - she still went t them for advice to avoid tax. She has still consciously dicked about with her addresses to dodge tax. And she's now gone and got a primary residence thats not in her constituency (when it suits for tax purposes) to avoid paying tax whilst not knowing that she was doing that. Old saggy chops would be proud.

Its utterly irrelevant whether the advice she then got is incorrect - she still actively sought financial advise to avoid paying taxes after zealously attacking better off people for avoiding taxes. She's also got a party leader / PM who is on record saying tax evasion is fraud, and should be prosecuted as such, and she's in a party that has campaigned to clamp down on tax avoidance whilst also hiking council taxes and supporting 100% increases on council tax for 2nd homes(which she's loop holed her way out of) etc.

 

[badgerx16]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[egg]

26 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

She received financial advice to avoid paying tax.... The rules are the rules and she wants to get around them and dodge tax... be it having one primary residence to avoid paying double council tax, and one to avoid double stamp duty... Whether her financial adviser fucked up or not - she still went t them for advice to avoid tax. She has still consciously dicked about with her addresses to dodge tax. And she's now gone and got a primary residence thats not in her constituency (when it suits for tax purposes) to avoid paying tax whilst not knowing that she was doing that. Old saggy chops would be proud.

Its utterly irrelevant whether the advice she then got is incorrect - she still actively sought financial advise to avoid paying taxes after zealously attacking better off people for avoiding taxes. She's also got a party leader / PM who is on record saying tax evasion is fraud, and should be prosecuted as such, and she's in a party that has campaigned to clamp down on tax avoidance whilst also hiking council taxes and supporting 100% increases on council tax for 2nd homes(which she's loop holed her way out of) etc.

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. 

[sadoldgit]

Did the same people who are calling for her resignation make the same amount of noise during the years of Tory corruption, especially during the PPE free for all? I suspect not.

If the investigation concludes that it was a genuine mistake then I don’t see why she would have to resign. Nevertheless,  honourable people who have gone through a similar process have resigned even though they were innocent.  I wouldn’t  be surprised if she did go before the conclusion of the investigation as the media will whip up a storm whilst it is going on. It’s a shame, she has the Tories for breakfast and would be handy against Farage as the next election approaches.

Zahawi’s situation was different.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/01/19/zahawi_story/

 

Edited September 3 by sadoldgit

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Did the same people who are calling for her resignation make the same amount of noise during the years of Tory corruption, especially during the PPE free for all? I suspect not.

 

I don't think anyone is calling for her resignation for such a heinous crime. More so holding her to the riduclous standards she howled at everyone else when on the other side of the House.

Remember, the adults are in power now, and they won't make and break the rules....

I believe it would be insanely ridiculous if she is forced out for this, but I would say the same for any of them for such a non-event (from what we know today), unsure you would be as charitable though

 

Edited September 3 by AlexLaw76

[Lord Duckhunter]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

Seems unbelievable that any advisor would get this wrong. This is the Government guidance.

 

 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Seems unbelievable that any advisor would get this wrong. This is the Government guidance.

 

 

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. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

29 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

Yes, this was crossing my mind as all the various properties and constituency jumping stuff was been dragged out.

Also interested to find out why Starmer said she was from a working class family in his statement. Did he get muddled trying to say she worked hard for her family? Is he telling us he thinks the working class are too thick to understand stamp duty?

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

She received financial advice to avoid paying tax.... The rules are the rules and she wants to get around them and dodge tax... be it having one primary residence to avoid paying double council tax, and one to avoid double stamp duty... Whether her financial adviser fucked up or not - she still went t them for advice to avoid tax. She has still consciously dicked about with her addresses to dodge tax. And she's now gone and got a primary residence thats not in her constituency (when it suits for tax purposes) to avoid paying tax whilst not knowing that she was doing that. Old saggy chops would be proud.

Its utterly irrelevant whether the advice she then got is incorrect - she still actively sought financial advise to avoid paying taxes after zealously attacking better off people for avoiding taxes. She's also got a party leader / PM who is on record saying tax evasion is fraud, and should be prosecuted as such, and she's in a party that has campaigned to clamp down on tax avoidance whilst also hiking council taxes and supporting 100% increases on council tax for 2nd homes(which she's loop holed her way out of) etc.

We have no idea if she asked for advice on anything other than "Here's the situation. What are the steps please?" There's nothing to suggest there was any tax evasion. And the narrative provided doesn't even show any willfulness to avoid tax. Although, as egg said, it's odd on the source of the advice on trust matters. But we don't know all the details of that really either. We also don't have the timeline on when she knew, when she sought further advice or the details of and source of initial advice.

She's referred herself for an independent investigation. Whatever that outcome, people will just remember housing secretary avoided property tax. The opposition will remind her often enough. Just as she would have done in opposition, while she demanded a resignation.

While it's not something, where it was a genuine error, someone should lose their job over, it's a bit different when you're overseeing housing. Hasn't Starmer just done some reshuffling?

 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Snouts in the trough.

'twas ever thus.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

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. 

It's closer to £175k isn't it for a minister?

Besides she made a mint when she sold her right to buy. Levelling up innit.

[mack rill]

And the front bench went Ahh Bisto as Angie walked by.

[rallyboy]

Let's not pretend it's like Zahawi, who by 2017 had bought £25m of London property using money from tax havens, while his wife had an unsecured loan of £30m from unknown sources.

A man who previously crashed a company with business partner Jeffrey Archer, owing millions, he was appointed chancellor by the PM even though he was under investigation by HMRC, having arranged his affairs through complex tax avoidance schemes.

He lied about being under investigation, he then lied to the house, he even threatened legal action on several occasions saying there was NO outstanding amount, even though he was secretly negotiating a £5m settlement with HMRC.

He then lied about the libel threats, and his advice encouraged the PM to lie at the despatch box in his defence.

So NO comparison, Rayner hasn't even charged taxpayers for heating her stables.

And those Boris fans on here, don't forget that your corrupt mate who did more damage to the UK than the fucking Luftwaffe, was sacked for shielding his sex offender mate - even Zahawi attacked Johnson's integrity for that.

Lots of glass houses getting smashed up right now.

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

Let's not pretend it's like Zahawi, who by 2017 had bought £25m of London property using money from tax havens, while his wife had an unsecured loan of £30m from unknown sources.

A man who previously crashed a company with business partner Jeffrey Archer, owing millions, he was appointed chancellor by the PM even though he was under investigation by HMRC, having arranged his affairs through complex tax avoidance schemes.

He lied about being under investigation, he then lied to the house, he even threatened legal action on several occasions saying there was NO outstanding amount, even though he was secretly negotiating a £5m settlement with HMRC.

He then lied about the libel threats, and his advice encouraged the PM to lie at the despatch box in his defence.

So NO comparison, Rayner hasn't even charged taxpayers for heating her stables.

And those Boris fans on here, don't forget that your corrupt mate who did more damage to the UK than the fucking Luftwaffe, was sacked for shielding his sex offender mate - even Zahawi attacked Johnson's integrity for that.

Lots of glass houses getting smashed up right now.

So wait, Rayners blatant tax avoidance is okay because she's not as bad as the Tories. They're just as slimy as the last lot 😆

I guess by the end of this, she'll at least know where she lives (even if its not her own constituency) and pay the right tax 🙄

Edited Wednesday at 22:00 by Saint86

[skintsaint]

 

[whelk]

Don’t know why the government persist with these morning media rounds. The jumped up Naga questioning Phillipson about Rayner. Fatuous tv at its finest.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Don’t know why the government persist with these morning media rounds. The jumped up Naga questioning Phillipson about Rayner. Fatuous tv at its finest.

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

[rallyboy]

9 hours ago, Saint86 said:

So wait, Rayners blatant tax avoidance is okay because she's not as bad as the Tories. They're just as slimy as the last lot 😆

 

Where did I say her tax avoidance is okay?  I called for her to be sacked.

And no, they're not as slimy as the last lot yet - Labour still have a way to go before having a charge sheet as long as the last government. Anyone can see that. 

 

[whelk]

The ‘they are all the same’ line is fucking stupid and undermines public service. Ignorant idiots playing into to hands of misinformation mob. Lots of MPs on both sides want to improve the country and do the right thing. This bollocks that they are all useless and corrupt and some cunt on TikTok, or a mad twat in Thailand, could sort it easily just demonstrates the depressing spiral of ignorance we are on. 

[whelk]

15 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I expect a higher level of insight from you

[Saint86]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

The ‘they are all the same’ line is fucking stupid and undermines public service. Ignorant idiots playing into to hands of misinformation mob. Lots of MPs on both sides want to improve the country and do the right thing. This bollocks that they are all useless and corrupt and some cunt on TikTok, or a mad twat in Thailand, could sort it easily just demonstrates the depressing spiral of ignorance we are on. 

Yeah, plenty of good MPs in it for the right reason - that's true enough. But Rayner is very clearly just another corrupt hypocritical pig with no integrity and her snout in the trough.

Edited Thursday at 08:11 by Saint86

[badgerx16]

59 minutes ago, whelk said:

I expect a higher level of insight from you

All politicians are corrupt, it's just a matter of how relatively corrupt they are, both at national and local levels. For some it's using their 'profile' for a minor advantage or "Do you know who I am ?", for others it's millions of pounds in fake PPE contracts.

FWIW I don't think this current Government are anywhere near as bad as the last lot, but I think they get progressively more greedy the longer they are in power - hence Boris' Tories.

Edited Thursday at 09:00 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Where did I say her tax avoidance is okay?  I called for her to be sacked.

And no, they're not as slimy as the last lot yet - Labour still have a way to go before having a charge sheet as long as the last government. Anyone can see that. 

 

The question we need to ask is why are two different parties expected to be held to different levels of accountability? Surely it should be the same for all but the bar for Labour seems to be a lot higher than that for the Tories in recent years. Integrity went out of the window when Johnson got rid of any hint of propriety from his party. Remember the “form a square around the Pritster” comment?

There are still people in opposition who have gotten away with worse, many know having been elevated to the Lords, but guilty of deliberately not paying the proper amount or not, as housing minister her position is now untenable. If she does resign it will not change anything though. Labour will still be expected to be held to a higher level of behaviour and accountability than the Tories (or Reform).

Edited Thursday at 10:06 by sadoldgit

[iansums]

Slightly off topic but not impressed by the new leader of the Green Party. He has gaps in his teeth in both the upper and lower rows, when watching him on TV I find myself trying to see if the two gaps will line up neatly.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

All politicians are corrupt, it's just a matter of how relatively corrupt they are, both at national and local levels. For some it's using their 'profile' for a minor advantage or "Do you know who I am ?", for others it's millions of pounds in fake PPE contracts.

FWIW I don't think this current Government are anywhere near as bad as the last lot, but I think they get progressively more greedy the longer they are in power - hence Boris' Tories.

All politicians are corrupt? Behave.

[iansums]

39 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The question we need to ask is why are two different parties expected to be held to different levels of accountability? Surely it should be the same for all but the bar for Labour seems to be a lot higher than that for the Tories in recent years. Integrity went out of the window when Johnson got rid of any hint of propriety from his party. Remember the “form a square around the Pritster” comment?

There are still people in opposition who have gotten away with worse, many know having been elevated to the Lords, but guilty of deliberately not paying the proper amount or not, as housing minister her position is now untenable. If she does resign it will not change anything though. Labour will still be expected to be held to a higher level of behaviour and accountability than the Tories (or Reform).

The likes of you and Guardian readers would target a Tory more, the likes of Nic and Telegraph readers would target a Labour MP more, I think you know that.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

The question we need to ask is why are two different parties expected to be held to different levels of accountability? 

Practice what you preach?

[tdmickey3]

47 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

All politicians are corrupt? Behave.

Indeed, all of them are not

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

Slightly off topic but not impressed by the new leader of the Green Party. He has gaps in his teeth in both the upper and lower rows, when watching him on TV I find myself trying to see if the two gaps will line up neatly.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/
 

This is genuinely him from 2013. Maybe he can use hypnotherapy to get the economy going

Edited Thursday at 11:28 by Sir Ralph

[iansums]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/
 

This is genuinely him from 2013 - interesting fellow.

I tried that with my knob, didn't work 😞

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

All politicians are corrupt? Behave.

Indeed. Ours are the best that money can buy. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Where did I say her tax avoidance is okay?  I called for her to be sacked.

What on earth is wrong with tax avoidance? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

59 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/
 

This is genuinely him from 2013.

Obviously didn’t work for Caroline Lucas. 
 

The new deputy leader has a hot Mrs though, fit as fuck…

 

[AlexLaw76]

Pretty accurate….

All Rayner has done was ask her cabinet colleagues for advice. She started with the ex transport minister but then realised she was a fraudster, she tried the chancellor for economic advice, however she lied on her CV, so she turned to the Business secretary who after all was a solicitor, but it turns out he also liar and was never a solicitor

Perhaps the minister for corruption could help, but no, she was ousted for corruption. Her last hope was the minister for homelessness, who herself resigned due to making people homeless

So Ange the housing minister, who could afford the best information available, thought, let's try and get away with a few quid, £40k to be precise!!

This government is rotten to the core, and it starts with Lord Alli's mate, Starmer

[rallyboy]

People who loudly supported and defended corrupt cunts suddenly develop incredibly short and selective memories.

We see you.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Whereas you’ve been entirely consistent 😂😂😂

 

[trousers]

People with different viewpoints disagreeing with eachother. Whoda thought it? Always good entertainment for us born again fence-sitters though... 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/
 

This is genuinely him from 2013. Maybe he can use hypnotherapy to get the economy going

 

4 hours ago, iansums said:

I tried that with my knob, didn't work 😞

May I compliment you, on your fine set of moobs though, Sir?

[Saint86]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What on earth is wrong with tax avoidance? 

Starmer would have you know that tax evasion should be considered as fraud and punishable as such (unless ofc its Rayner, in which case its fine as she holds his labour party leadership balls in a vice).

Edit - the legal/conveyancing firm have now come out denied entirely that they gave her (or any other clients) tax or trust advice, have accused her of trying to scapegoat them, and have therefore now added a pretty serious accusation of lying at Rayner. Wonder if they'll also pursue her for reputational damages.

Edited Thursday at 17:11 by Saint86

[egg]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

Starmer would have you know that tax evasion should be considered as fraud and punishable as such (unless ofc its Rayner, in which case its fine as she holds his labour party leadership balls in a vice).

You're confusing illegal evasion with legal avoidance. 

[Saint86]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

You're confusing illegal evasion with legal avoidance. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/13/tax-authorities-should-prosecute-evaders-keir-starmer

Based on the fact that Rayner has clearly lied and can't decide which property she lives in... Starmer is going to have fun with this one 😄

Edited Thursday at 17:00 by Saint86

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

Starmer would have you know that tax evasion should be considered as fraud and punishable as such (unless ofc its Rayner, in which case its fine as she holds his labour party leadership balls in a vice).

Edit - the legal/conveyancing firm have now come out denied entirely that they gave her (or any other clients) tax or trust advice) and have therefore now added a pretty serious accusation of lying at Rayner. Wonder if they'll also pursue her for reputational damages.

Evasion IS illegal.

Avoidance IS NOT illegal.

The two things are different.

[Saint86]

4 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Evasion IS illegal.

Avoidance IS NOT illegal.

The two things are different.

Is it not fraudulent tax evasion where you lie about you living arrangements/finances etc to get out of paying tax... or is lying in fact a legal form of tax avoidance?

Edited Thursday at 17:10 by Saint86

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Is it not fraudulent tax evasion where you lie about you living arrangements/finances etc to get out of paying tax... or is lying in fact a legal form of tax avoidance?

No, it's fraud.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

Starmer would have you know that tax evasion should be considered as fraud and punishable as such (unless ofc its Rayner, in which case its fine as she holds his labour party leadership balls in a vice).

Edit - the legal/conveyancing firm have now come out denied entirely that they gave her (or any other clients) tax or trust advice, have accused her of trying to scapegoat them, and have therefore now added a pretty serious accusation of lying at Rayner. Wonder if they'll also pursue her for reputational damages.

Based on the article in the Telegraph, it appears they are denying ever given her the advice and the records show they dont have the relevant advice in-house. She did say she got advice from 3 sources though.

Joanna Verrico, the managing director, told The Telegraph: “We acted for Ms Rayner when she purchased the flat in Hove. We did not and never have given tax or trust advice. It’s something we always refer our clients to an accountant or tax expert for.

 

“The stamp duty for the Hove flat was calculated using HMRC’s own online calculator, based on the figures and the information provided by Ms Rayner. That’s what we used, and it told us we had to pay £30,000 based on the information provided to us. We believe that we did everything correctly and in good faith. Everything was exactly as it should be.

“We probably are being made scapegoats for all this, and I have got the arrows stuck in my back to show it. We are not an inexperienced firm, but we’re not qualified to give advice on trust and tax matters and we advise clients to seek expert advice on these.”

Edited Thursday at 17:25 by Sir Ralph

[Saint86]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, it's fraud.

And to come back to my point and the linked article...

Edited Thursday at 17:25 by Saint86

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Saint86 said:

And to come back to my point and the linked article...

But this isn't tax evasion. It's tax avoidance.

[Weston Super Saint]

17 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, it's fraud.

 

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But this isn't tax evasion. It's tax avoidance.

Or (potentially) fraud - depending on what the paperwork reveals.

Edited Thursday at 17:35 by Weston Super Saint