|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 31, 2023 6:56:24 GMT
New Tories, the party of tax evasion. Is that appealing enough for you? Who is guilty of tax evasion (which is a criminal act)? - or is this just something you have invented whilst drunk? I was suggesting it for their next manifesto. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 31, 2023 7:40:39 GMT
Who is guilty of tax evasion (which is a criminal act)? - or is this just something you have invented whilst drunk? I was suggesting it for their next manifesto. Their next manifesto will be the same as Labours - higher taxes, higher public spending, more public sector workers, high cost of living, high levels of legal and illegal immigration and low growth. They gave up being conservatives years ago.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 31, 2023 7:52:13 GMT
I was suggesting it for their next manifesto. Their next manifesto will be the same as Labours - higher taxes, higher public spending, more public sector workers, high cost of living, high levels of legal and illegal immigration and low growth. They gave up being conservatives years ago.. Yeah but you have to remember the rules for the public don't apply to the Party members. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 31, 2023 8:02:51 GMT
Their next manifesto will be the same as Labours - higher taxes, higher public spending, more public sector workers, high cost of living, high levels of legal and illegal immigration and low growth. They gave up being conservatives years ago.. Yeah but you have to remember the rules for the public don't apply to the Party members. Well that is the same for all politicians - they are all the same. how many times have we seen Labour MP's ranting about private education whilst sending their own sprogs to a private school or enthusing over the NHS whilst using private healthcare - hypocrisy knows no party borders. |
|
|
|
Post by nonnie2 on Jan 31, 2023 14:40:07 GMT
Exactly I agree 100% , even with all the media coverage some still cannot see the wood for the trees, they assume that Zahawi did his own accounting and submitted his own tax returns he is not an accountant or an expert on taxation matters, even HMRC stated he was issued with a Penalty Charge, and did consider that he had not knowingly intentional basically fiddled his taxes going back a number of years Even government ministers are allowed to be in dispute with HMRC; sometimes they will be in the right, sometimes not.
The issue with Zahawi is that he did not disclose there was an issue with HMRC. He also claims he was unaware his tax affairs were being investigated until July last year. I, like Laurie Magnus, find this very hard to believe. It's not really an issue of whether or not he 'fiddled' his taxes.
The PM didn't go straight to sacking, he instigated an investigation, and it highlighted Zahawi had broke ministerial code, so he was sacked over that. That was the correct and formal approach to take. If it was a tax error with a paid fine, and all disclosed with no breach in ministerial code, then he would have remained in his job, much to the disgust of Starmer who want's PM's to break the law. |
|
|
|
Post by nonnie2 on Jan 31, 2023 14:47:11 GMT
So Sunak now sacks the only member of the Government who believes in lower taxation.. The Conservatives will be renaming themselves 'New Labour' at this rate - they already have all the same policies so may as well go the whole hog.. The setting of taxation is used in Fiscal and Monetary policies to steer the economy and shouldn't be lowered or increaseed based on personal preference. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 31, 2023 16:36:35 GMT
So Sunak now sacks the only member of the Government who believes in lower taxation.. The Conservatives will be renaming themselves 'New Labour' at this rate - they already have all the same policies so may as well go the whole hog.. The setting of taxation is used in Fiscal and Monetary policies to steer the economy and shouldn't be lowered or increaseed based on personal preference. Thats a novel idea - however it flys in the face of decades of taxation policy. All governments use tax levels to drive their specific policy aims - whether those aims are good or bad for the economy is neither here nor there. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 31, 2023 17:08:12 GMT
Yeah but you have to remember the rules for the public don't apply to the Party members. Well that is the same for all politicians - they are all the same. how many times have we seen Labour MP's ranting about private education whilst sending their own sprogs to a private school or enthusing over the NHS whilst using private healthcare - hypocrisy knows no party borders. No they're not! I don't think I've ever seen a party as sleazy as this one at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 31, 2023 18:45:57 GMT
Even government ministers are allowed to be in dispute with HMRC; sometimes they will be in the right, sometimes not.
The issue with Zahawi is that he did not disclose there was an issue with HMRC. He also claims he was unaware his tax affairs were being investigated until July last year. I, like Laurie Magnus, find this very hard to believe. It's not really an issue of whether or not he 'fiddled' his taxes.
The PM didn't go straight to sacking, he instigated an investigation, and it highlighted Zahawi had broke ministerial code, so he was sacked over that. That was the correct and formal approach to take. If it was a tax error with a paid fine, and all disclosed with no breach in ministerial code, then he would have remained in his job, much to the disgust of Starmer who want's PM's to break the law. HMRC investigated him which resulted in him having to pay what he owed in back taxes, and included a financial penalty on time which is par for the course if your returns are not 100% correct , you get a financial penalty if your return is not submitted on time and you miss their set deadline Sunak took the correct course of action find out the facts first , once that was done he sacked him |
|
|
|
Post by nonnie2 on Jan 31, 2023 18:49:56 GMT
The setting of taxation is used in Fiscal and Monetary policies to steer the economy and shouldn't be lowered or increaseed based on personal preference. Thats a novel idea - however it flys in the face of decades of taxation policy. All governments use tax levels to drive their specific policy aims - whether those aims are good or bad for the economy is neither here nor there. They often claim they're gonna do bla bla with taxation, but never do when they get into office, but the gullible believe what their election manifesto's say |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 31, 2023 19:00:44 GMT
The PM didn't go straight to sacking, he instigated an investigation, and it highlighted Zahawi had broke ministerial code, so he was sacked over that. That was the correct and formal approach to take. If it was a tax error with a paid fine, and all disclosed with no breach in ministerial code, then he would have remained in his job, much to the disgust of Starmer who want's PM's to break the law. HMRC investigated him which resulted in him having to pay what he owed in back taxes, and included a financial penalty on time which is par for the course if your returns are not 100% correct , you get a financial penalty if your return is not submitted on time and you miss their set deadline Sunak took the correct course of action find out the facts first , once that was done he sacked him Its not par for the course. If you miscalculate your taxes they do not fine you. If they feel you were very negligent or wilfully miscalculated your taxes, then you get a fine. But if he is so innocent and its all very normal then why did he lie to colleagues about it? And why not explain what it was about to repair his reputation. Naah, rumour is he "Forgot" to declare receiving £27,000,000 from share sales. How could someone with so little knowledge of tax law get to be a minister in government let alone Chancellor. |
|
|
|
Post by nonnie2 on Jan 31, 2023 19:30:44 GMT
Taxation is one of those areas that a particular personality type has has its claws in for a very long time. One would have thought the people would have mounted a defence against its machinations many years ago. Something along the lines of this - It is the government's responsibility to tell a citizen how much tax he owes them. After any challenges / appeals and the amount being paid in full, the matter is closed for eternity.This would also force the tax system to change and simplify. The more thick someone is of the tax system/rules, the more they pay in tax, the taxman is never ever gonna advise people how to save tax. Here's a real life example. I'm self employed Limited company, for tax reasons paying around £50 per year in corporation tax. My friend is self employed as a sole trader. He paid class D national insurance, and had to work the whole of January to pay half of his tax upfront for the next year. His tax bill varied between £3,000 to £5,000 per year. He has 3 kids. I made him go Limited Company. He now posts a low wage. No class D NI, no upfront tax to pay. Plus, the government pays him £1,000 per month in Child Tax Credit and working tax credit. He pays £0 to £500 per year in corporation tax. How much does this cost him? He buys me an Indian takeaway meal each month whilst we do his RTI wages, I supply his cider, and he pays Companies House £13 per year for his annual return. I sit in the largest room of my house to do my books, my garage stores my work gear, this floor space is a % of my house. I take my yearly mortgage interest, heat and power cost, water bill, and house insurance cost. I take out of the business, tax free, that % of those costs. I claim 45p per mile, Upton 10,000 miles for using my car, which I'm obviously going to do. I also cycle the 20p per mile Upton the 10,000 miles. My mileage records shows that. I went from paying thousands a year in NI and Income tax in my last job, to bugger all self employed Limited Company. Like I said, the thicker you are, the more tax you pay. Like I said, the thicker you are, the more employment tax you pay. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 31, 2023 19:36:33 GMT
HMRC investigated him which resulted in him having to pay what he owed in back taxes, and included a financial penalty on time which is par for the course if your returns are not 100% correct , you get a financial penalty if your return is not submitted on time and you miss their set deadline Sunak took the correct course of action find out the facts first , once that was done he sacked him Its not par for the course. If you miscalculate your taxes they do not fine you. If they feel you were very negligent or wilfully miscalculated your taxes, then you get a fine. But if he is so innocent and its all very normal then why did he lie to colleagues about it? And why not explain what it was about to repair his reputation. Naah, rumour is he "Forgot" to declare receiving £27,000,000 from share sales. How could someone with so little knowledge of tax law get to be a minister in government let alone Chancellor. Well if having so little knowledge is a means to becoming Chancellor, you would certainly get the Job |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 31, 2023 19:38:41 GMT
Its not par for the course. If you miscalculate your taxes they do not fine you. If they feel you were very negligent or wilfully miscalculated your taxes, then you get a fine. But if he is so innocent and its all very normal then why did he lie to colleagues about it? And why not explain what it was about to repair his reputation. Naah, rumour is he "Forgot" to declare receiving £27,000,000 from share sales. How could someone with so little knowledge of tax law get to be a minister in government let alone Chancellor. Well if having so little knowledge is a means to becoming Chancellor, you would certainly get the Job He ticks all the boxes mate.... |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 31, 2023 20:19:08 GMT
Its not par for the course. If you miscalculate your taxes they do not fine you. If they feel you were very negligent or wilfully miscalculated your taxes, then you get a fine. But if he is so innocent and its all very normal then why did he lie to colleagues about it? And why not explain what it was about to repair his reputation. Naah, rumour is he "Forgot" to declare receiving £27,000,000 from share sales. How could someone with so little knowledge of tax law get to be a minister in government let alone Chancellor. Well if having so little knowledge is a means to becoming Chancellor, you would certainly get the Job Domain knowledge has hardly been a requirement for the top job for a long time, one hires spads. And with that mentality and mindset, the rest follow suit. Hardly surprising given the requirement to be a politician is a degree in political science which isn’t a science at all. |
|
