mockingbird_franklin Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) Two Labour Peers suspended for being money grabbing dodgy bastards? They must be closet Tories I suppose, or Ajax et al will be along shortly to condemn Labour for being just as bad as their hated, money grabbing Tories.... No? Well, that's a shock!! Seeing as the idea of choice is just an illusion supported by party politics, it's hardly surprising that members from different political parties behave in the same immoral corrupt way, Next we'll be having someone say we have a democratic representative government, when in fact we have an elected, non representative dictatorship in all but name Edited June 4, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Two Labour Peers suspended for being money grabbing dodgy bastards? They must be closet Tories I suppose, or Ajax et al will be along shortly to condemn Labour for being just as bad as their hated, money grabbing Tories.... No? Well, that's a shock!! Seeing as the idea of choice is just an illusion supported by party politics, it's hardly surprising that members from different political parties behave in the same immoral corrupt way, Next we'll be having someone say we have a democratic representative government, when in fact we have an elected, non representative dictatorship in all but name No argument from me, I think most people with an interest came to that conclusion a very long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Tax avoidance with Labour donations ... Oh myJohn Mills gave the party shares in his shopping channel JML worth £1.56m in January, which meant there was no large tax payout. The ex-Labour councillor said it was more "tax efficient" than paying cash and that it was agreed after discussions with party figures. But the Chancellor called for HM Revenue & Customs to be recompensed by the Opposition. In a letter to Ed Miliband, he said: "Can you confirm that the Labour Party advised Mr Mills on how to avoid tax on his donation? "Most importantly, will you now pass the amount of tax that has been avoided to the Exchequer?" Mr Osborne said the move appeared "directly at odds" with Mr Miliband's public statements about tax paid by large companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 6, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted June 6, 2013 Totally off topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Meh ... Osborne is in the govt isn't he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I found these points rather interesting Mills didn’t give the party a gift from income, he gave the party a gift of part of his wealth - and wealth isn’t taxed like income. Therefore the very premise of the story is a bit flaky. Mills has forgone the rights to any future gain or income arising from those share – an effective disposal of a capital item - shares. The Labour Party has not received £1.65 in unencumbered cash. Until Mills decides to sell the company, or approves a buyer of the shares it will only get a dividend stream of x pence per share like any other shareholder, which as Ed Miliband said today, the party will pay the approriate tax on. It may be true that, provided the Labour Party makes a loss, the dividend will be tax free – but that’s a red herring - all income is tax free if you are making a loss. I don’t think Mills has avoided any tax, as gifts of wealth (cash or shares) are not taxable on the giver for the same reason – he has permanently relinquished all rights to future income from the shares or any proceeds on sale – exactly analogous with giving the party cash – no more interest, no more opportunity to buy something with it. So yes, it may be tax efficient to Mills in the sense that he would indeed have had to earn income of c£3.2m to give £1.65m in cash (or had a capital gain of c£2m) but instead he has permanently foregone his property rights over accrued wealth of £1.65m. And we don’t know today what is the real cost to Mills of that. In this sense efficient and avoidance are not the same thing. The only difference between this gift and cash wealth (post tax) is that he created this wealth by building a company – he is a wealth creator – in Tory terminology. If he had bought the shares and given them to the party there would be no issue. Somewhat ironically, the Tories are attacking Mills because he has donated wealth that he himself has created. From LabourList 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Have to say that I enjoyed tonight's Question Time. First time in a while that the answers were not all about 'you did this and you did that'. A lot of reasonable discussion and decent quality input from the audience (loved the 84p tax underpayment comment ). Edited June 6, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Damn it, a decent Question Time? I take it David *ugh!* Starkey wasn't on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Damn it, a decent Question Time? I take it David *ugh!* Starkey wasn't on? Decent even with AN Wilson. Edited June 6, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 yeah I'd have to say that I saw Wilson on the panel and drifted off to something else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I found these points rather interesting Mills didn’t give the party a gift from income, he gave the party a gift of part of his wealth - and wealth isn’t taxed like income. Therefore the very premise of the story is a bit flaky. Mills has forgone the rights to any future gain or income arising from those share – an effective disposal of a capital item - shares. The Labour Party has not received £1.65 in unencumbered cash. Until Mills decides to sell the company, or approves a buyer of the shares it will only get a dividend stream of x pence per share like any other shareholder, which as Ed Miliband said today, the party will pay the approriate tax on. It may be true that, provided the Labour Party makes a loss, the dividend will be tax free – but that’s a red herring - all income is tax free if you are making a loss. I don’t think Mills has avoided any tax, as gifts of wealth (cash or shares) are not taxable on the giver for the same reason – he has permanently relinquished all rights to future income from the shares or any proceeds on sale – exactly analogous with giving the party cash – no more interest, no more opportunity to buy something with it. So yes, it may be tax efficient to Mills in the sense that he would indeed have had to earn income of c£3.2m to give £1.65m in cash (or had a capital gain of c£2m) but instead he has permanently foregone his property rights over accrued wealth of £1.65m. And we don’t know today what is the real cost to Mills of that. In this sense efficient and avoidance are not the same thing. The only difference between this gift and cash wealth (post tax) is that he created this wealth by building a company – he is a wealth creator – in Tory terminology. If he had bought the shares and given them to the party there would be no issue. Somewhat ironically, the Tories are attacking Mills because he has donated wealth that he himself has created. From LabourList so Google , Starbucks etc legally avoid tax and you want to bleat from the rooftops .. Labour use a suspect scheme and you produce a flawed list defending them ... you defence might stand a chance if the donor himself hadn't already said he did it this way as it was the most tax efficient way of doing and stopped the government taking a huge share of it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I found these points rather interesting Mills didn’t give the party a gift from income, he gave the party a gift of part of his wealth - and wealth isn’t taxed like income. Therefore the very premise of the story is a bit flaky. Mills has forgone the rights to any future gain or income arising from those share – an effective disposal of a capital item - shares. The Labour Party has not received £1.65 in unencumbered cash. Until Mills decides to sell the company, or approves a buyer of the shares it will only get a dividend stream of x pence per share like any other shareholder, which as Ed Miliband said today, the party will pay the approriate tax on. It may be true that, provided the Labour Party makes a loss, the dividend will be tax free – but that’s a red herring - all income is tax free if you are making a loss. I don’t think Mills has avoided any tax, as gifts of wealth (cash or shares) are not taxable on the giver for the same reason – he has permanently relinquished all rights to future income from the shares or any proceeds on sale – exactly analogous with giving the party cash – no more interest, no more opportunity to buy something with it. So yes, it may be tax efficient to Mills in the sense that he would indeed have had to earn income of c£3.2m to give £1.65m in cash (or had a capital gain of c£2m) but instead he has permanently foregone his property rights over accrued wealth of £1.65m. And we don’t know today what is the real cost to Mills of that. In this sense efficient and avoidance are not the same thing. The only difference between this gift and cash wealth (post tax) is that he created this wealth by building a company – he is a wealth creator – in Tory terminology. If he had bought the shares and given them to the party there would be no issue. Somewhat ironically, the Tories are attacking Mills because he has donated wealth that he himself has created. From LabourList so Google , Starbucks etc legally avoid tax and you want to bleat from the rooftops .. Labour use a suspect scheme and you produce a flawed list defending them ... you defence might stand a chance if the donor himself hadn't already said he did it this way as it was the most tax efficient way of doing and stopped the government taking a huge share of it While I'm not defending Labour's hypocrisy here I wouldn't be using Google as an example of legal tax avoidance. They are blatantly lying about the type of work their people undertake in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 While I'm not defending Labour's hypocrisy here I wouldn't be using Google as an example of legal tax avoidance. They are blatantly lying about the type of work their people undertake in this country. 2 user(s) are reading this topic 1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users peterms, Google (1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Take that, Google-bot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Tony - sorry but you are falling for the desperate attempts to throw some of the mud back at Labour that Osborne tried and simply failed to do. The scheme that is being mentioned is like chalk and cheese compared to a lot of the Tax evasion and avoidance that has been reported recently. In fact the scheme - so the guy on the radio just said - is a major way that Charities receive constant donations, and if Osborne in a fit of silliness tried to stop it, would hit charitable organisations hard. It is nothing like Google, Starbucks and the attempts by the Tory party and it's supporters to make it the same are frankly quite pathetic. As you well know the many donations that are how shall we say "questionable" towards the Tory party mean that certainly all donations should be looked at. Again as you know a lot of what the Tory part receives is from "organisations" who seem to have a sole existence just to move monies into the party coffers, or certainly that is how it appears. Tax avoidance and evasion are serious issues, but sorry this way of donating is both legal and ethical. Bottom line - nice try Tories but you failed. And p.s that glass house, maybe a delivery of bricks was not a good idea 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 So giving money to Labour in a way that avoids tax is "efficient" but avoiding tax via other models is immoral according to them. surely you can see the hypocrisy in what they are saying 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 No Tony, as you well know that is not the case at all. You are playing exactly the same (silly IMO) game that Gideon et al are playing. It's as much about deflection as anything else as we all know the Tory donation thing is somewhat "misty". As said, and as many are saying the method used is one that benefits many charities and other organisations. Tax is still paid etc With organisations like Google, Starbucks etc it's a totally different matter - and I think if you were honest you actually know that As said the glass house that Gideon and other Tories are in who are making an issue of this is certainly in the firing line for a few bricks. I like this website - http://www.searchthemoney.com/ :-) - Finance Michael Farmer £4,018,250.00 Self-described "fat cat", and Conservative party treasurer. Finance Michael Spencer,IPGL Ltd £3,783,424.05 Michael Spencer was caught up in the recent “Cash for Cameron” scandal after it was revealed he had dined with the PM at his Downing Street flat and had lunch at Chequers. Finance Michael Hintze £1,327,650.00 Owner of hedge fund company CQS and according to the Forbes Rich List is the 913th richest person in the world Finance Peter A Cruddas £1,022,795.66 Founder of the company CMC Markets. Briefly chairman of the Conservative party before resigning over the "Cash for Access" scandal. Investment George M Magan £811,217.64 Made a life peer in 2011 as Baron of Castletown. Sunday Times rich list estimated his wealth at £60 million. Presently deputy chairman of the Conservative Foundation. Hedge fund Paul Ruddock £600,098.42 Knighted in early 2012 for services to the arts. He is also CEO of the Lansdowne hedge fund which made a profit on the collapse of Northern Rock. Hedge fund Jonathan Wood £585,000.00 Ran the hedge fund SRM Global, which was the biggest shareholder in Northern Rock when it collapsed. Investment Peter J Hall £515,540.00 Founded Hunter Hall an investment company and recently funded Andrew Grayling's private university that will charge £18,000 per year. Hedge fund Hugh Sloane £508,500.00 Hedge Fund manager, one of the founders of the firm Sloane Robinson. Channel 4 highlighted a government U-turn over Cayman Islands - a base for many of Hugh Sloane's companies. Hedge fund James Lyle £500,000.00 Co-founded New York-based hedge fund Millgate Capital in 1997. Previously worked at bankers Morgan Stanley and ran the hedge fund Tiger Management. Additionally, some £942,075 has been donated since 2005 by two clubs alone, the secretive United & Cecil Club and the elite Carlton Club, providing Tory MPs with donations without having to reveal the majority of the donors. Oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 It seems that Cameron is off to the Bilderberg meeting Wasn't Cameron the one who was claim transparent Gvmt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 No Tony, as you well know that is not the case at all. You are playing exactly the same (silly IMO) game that Gideon et al are playing. It's as much about deflection as anything else as we all know the Tory donation thing is somewhat "misty". As said, and as many are saying the method used is one that benefits many charities and other organisations. Tax is still paid etc With organisations like Google, Starbucks etc it's a totally different matter - and I think if you were honest you actually know that As said the glass house that Gideon and other Tories are in who are making an issue of this is certainly in the firing line for a few bricks. I like this website - http://www.searchthemoney.com/ :-) - Finance Michael Farmer £4,018,250.00 Self-described "fat cat", and Conservative party treasurer. Finance Michael Spencer,IPGL Ltd £3,783,424.05 Michael Spencer was caught up in the recent “Cash for Cameron” scandal after it was revealed he had dined with the PM at his Downing Street flat and had lunch at Chequers. Finance Michael Hintze £1,327,650.00 Owner of hedge fund company CQS and according to the Forbes Rich List is the 913th richest person in the world Finance Peter A Cruddas £1,022,795.66 Founder of the company CMC Markets. Briefly chairman of the Conservative party before resigning over the "Cash for Access" scandal. Investment George M Magan £811,217.64 Made a life peer in 2011 as Baron of Castletown. Sunday Times rich list estimated his wealth at £60 million. Presently deputy chairman of the Conservative Foundation. Hedge fund Paul Ruddock £600,098.42 Knighted in early 2012 for services to the arts. He is also CEO of the Lansdowne hedge fund which made a profit on the collapse of Northern Rock. Hedge fund Jonathan Wood £585,000.00 Ran the hedge fund SRM Global, which was the biggest shareholder in Northern Rock when it collapsed. Investment Peter J Hall £515,540.00 Founded Hunter Hall an investment company and recently funded Andrew Grayling's private university that will charge £18,000 per year. Hedge fund Hugh Sloane £508,500.00 Hedge Fund manager, one of the founders of the firm Sloane Robinson. Channel 4 highlighted a government U-turn over Cayman Islands - a base for many of Hugh Sloane's companies. Hedge fund James Lyle £500,000.00 Co-founded New York-based hedge fund Millgate Capital in 1997. Previously worked at bankers Morgan Stanley and ran the hedge fund Tiger Management. Additionally, some £942,075 has been donated since 2005 by two clubs alone, the secretive United & Cecil Club and the elite Carlton Club, providing Tory MPs with donations without having to reveal the majority of the donors. Oops the ones I clicked on ( not all admittedly ,I am a busy man after all ) made donations through cash though ..not through tax " efficient tax avoidance share donations " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 It seems that Cameron is off to the Bilderberg meeting Wasn't Cameron the one who was claim transparent Gvmt? isn't it traditional for the head of the government hosting the meeting to attend ? why else would Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ( as well as Heath & Thatcher ) have attended previously 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts