New planning rules

[skier-hughes]

I was going to go and fetch some fuel in a can for my mower, but was too embarrased, so have elft it for a week to calm down!!

 

[Flyfisher]

Shallow or deep, people only ever donate to a political party - any political party - because they have some vested interest that they believe the party concerned can influence.

Cash for access, cash for honours, cash for wind turbines, cash for whatever . . . . it's all an attempt to buy influence.

Nope - as a relatively modest donor I do it because I believe in the aims of the party and want to support its electoral success; in the general sense or for a specific candidate. This is the case I think for most donors - there is no specific quid pro quo.

I think we're saying the same thing. All donors are seeking to influence things by supporting a party with aims they agree with. Small donors are happy to join with lots of other small donors for collective influence. Large donors will naturally expect to have more influence. It's just the way the world works and applies to any organisation not just political parties.

 

[Flyfisher]

I was going to go and fetch some fuel in a can for my mower, but was too embarrased, so have elft it for a week to calm down!!

I know what you mean. I buy diesel for my tractor using 20 litre jerry cans and it won't look good when I turn up to fill three of them and it'll look even worse when I jump the queue to fill up from the red diesel pump. :lol:

 

[LadyArowana]

I think we're saying the same thing. All donors are seeking to influence things by supporting a party with aims they agree with. Small donors are happy to join with lots of other small donors for collective influence. Large donors will naturally expect to have more influence. It's just the way the world works and applies to any organisation not just political parties.

There is a parallel with the commercial world too, places that you support with your custom often offer incentives.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Well well well. Labour have dinners for donors too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17564779

And they're with Union bossess at the equivalent of £630k per dinner invite and property tycoons.

Tsk tsk tsk.

 

[philpjuk100]

Shallow or deep, people only ever donate to a political party - any political party - because they have some vested interest that they believe the party concerned can influence.

Cash for access, cash for honours, cash for wind turbines, cash for whatever . . . . it's all an attempt to buy influence.

At 21 I had to join the union and I had to pay political levy.

 

[Penners]

At 21 I had to join the union and I had to pay political levy.

That was a disgraceful state of affairs. Thank goodness those days are past.

 

[philpjuk100]

At 21 I had to join the union and I had to pay political levy.

That was a disgraceful state of affairs. Thank goodness those days are past.

"now brother you pay the levy or you dont join the union and you find another job!"(1966!)

 

[Feltwell]

What we need is high-quality political campaigning like they have in the USA



A friend sent this to Mrs F - as she said, that's what I call pneumatically proportioned!

 

[Feltwell]

Who says that Osborne is stupid......the last time he was this startled was when he discovered that bears do indeed defacate in the woods :roll:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661011

Hardly much of a revelation, that those with the most money employ professional accountants whose aim is to enable them to keep most of that money through whatever legal means they can find. I wonder if donations to political parties (of whatever persuasion) are tax deductible......

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Who says that Osborne is stupid......the last time he was this startled was when he discovered that bears do indeed defacate in the woods :roll:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661011

Hardly much of a revelation, that those with the most money employ professional accountants whose aim is to enable them to keep most of that money through whatever legal means they can find. I wonder if donations to political parties (of whatever persuasion) are tax deductible......

They're not - which is one of the things Ken is in hot water for; channelling donations to Labour (and also paying for salaries) through his front company and thus deducting these against tax. Something he couldn't do if all his earnings were paid like Boris' and subject to full income tax. Who would've thunk posh toff Boris would pay all his tax, and socialist Ken would use a tax-scam company? Maybe Boris is smarter than we think?

As for Osborne's latest epiphany - it is a continuation of a theme in the budget; serving notice on those rich folk who avoid paying their full share of tax, that if they try to find new ways around it, he will legislate retrospectively to close the loopholes and get the tax back. It could be portrayed, as the BBC have, as a "shocker" (cor, blimey gov :roll: ) or as a continuation of the recent mood music calling time on this (and the new rich taxes will apparently raise 5x as much as the 50p rate cut.)

If the economy/defict has come right by May 2015 and the burden of tax has shifted significantly from the poor (many already not paying any income tax) to the rich (including pensioners who have much of the wealth in the country) then I think folk will forget "shockers" like this.

If he ballses it all up (and already it is costing me £1000's extra) then I'll be voting Loony!

 

[Flyfisher]

Retrospective legislation - about anything - sounds very ominous to me.

As for tax avoidance, it seems to me that everyone avoids paying more tax than absolutely necessary but that 'the rich' have more scope for such things - not because they can afford accountants but because the legislation allows it. And whose fault is it that these 'loopholes' exist? Yes, government - all governments. So all this recent hand-wringing about 'rich people' not paying their 'fair share' is really just a way of deflecting their lamentable record in closing down such loopholes and courting public support for their new found soak-the-rich policy.

Last I heard was that 1% of taxpayers were paying nearly 40% of all income tax revenue, so it could be considered just a little reckless to upset these people who are very clearly paying their 'fair share'.

 

[Feltwell]

Who would've thunk posh toff Boris would pay all his tax, and socialist Ken would use a tax-scam company?

From what he's said his own earnings were taxed as normal, and the company paid staff wages. Why would you pay yourself everything and attract full income tax, then pay your company staff from your net salary? Hardly a tax-scam FW - the company pays the staff wages which are then taxed as normal. He seems to have been quite transparent about it and it appears to be a perfectly normal setup for a small company.

Maybe Boris is smarter than we think?

Well, admittedly he wouldn't have to be very bright at all to be smarter than most people think he is! I'll be interested to see who gets in next time - was Boris purely a novelty vote after his Have I Got News For You appearances? If he gets back in, is it because people believe in Boris or just they despise Ken to such an extent that they will vote for the only other candidate with a realistic chance? Let's wait and see.......

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Um...no, Ken has been anything but transparent.

His income is not "taxed normally and the company pays staff wages". His income from media appearances (pretty much all he does these days) are all paid to the company. There are two "shareholders/employees" - Ken and Mrs Ken (to increase tax allowances). They do nothing with the company, except take out dividends (effectively the income from the media appearances). As a result they only pay corporation tax and not income tax. It is difficult to assess in detail but analysts suggest Ken is paying between 10and 20% in total tax on his income, whilst Boris is paying the standard 30-40% as it is all income taxed.

Not sure about you, but I call that a tax-scam. It is the same scam that caused uproar when we learned that some senior civil servants were being paid gross into a similar kind of company and only paying corporation tax. Whatever you think of Boris, he was right to call Ken on this one.

Ken has only released his own version of his figures. Boris, Paddick and the green lady have release accountant-supplied and verified figures. I call that transparent, and not Ken's own version.

Interestingly there is some recent polling showing that Boris is more popular than his party and Ken is much more unpopular than his party - and the tax things has harmed him even more. I'd be very happy to take any bet that Boris is going to win again.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/04/10/was-re-selecting-ken-a-monumental-blunder/

 

[Feltwell]

Hmm - not sure the tax affair is as clear-cut as you say FW, there is a lot of spin being put on this by all parties concerned. It would be nice if they all actually stuck to promoting their policies but hey, where would be the sense in that? :roll:

I can well believe the "Boris is more popular than his party and Ken is much more unpopular than his party". I agree Boris is more likely to win, but I certainly wouldn't put money on it - I suspect the margin will be narrow.

Still, as was on "Mock the Week" a while back, if he doesn't get re-elected at least Boris has a job to go back to - those "Honey Monster" Sugar Puffs adverts must be quite lucrative :lol:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[biffvernon]

Ask for change:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18996

Caroline Lucas MP Green Party

 

[skier-hughes]

Who would've thunk posh toff Boris would pay all his tax, and socialist Ken would use a tax-scam company?

From what he's said his own earnings were taxed as normal, and the company paid staff wages. Why would you pay yourself everything and attract full income tax, then pay your company staff from your net salary? Hardly a tax-scam FW - the company pays the staff wages which are then taxed as normal. He seems to have been quite transparent about it and it appears to be a perfectly normal setup for a small company.

You can still have a small company pay wages and pay proper income tax on what is left as profits. You can reduce the amount of tax by being a limited company and taking dividends.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Indeed, or as a number of accountants have pointed out, Ken could easily have achieved the same by created a limited liability partnership which would also have resulted in him paying the "proper" rate of income tax on his media earnings. But I don't htink that was his intention... :wink: Besides, as we keep pointing out Silveta Ltd didn't have any employees to pay as it simply was a channel for Ken's earnings. I think I'd better stop now, as I'velong past the point where this bores the pants off everyone! :roll:

Biff's link looks interesting... just need to think it through fully before signing. There is a balance to be struck between over-regulation and creating a dynamic low-tax economy which actually generates larger revenues for the Treasury despite it being counter-intuitive.

 

[Flyfisher]

I find this whole 'fair tax' debate astonishing (and not just this PPUK corner of it). There's no suggestion that Ken or Boris have broken the law, they've simply chosen different ways to (legally) order their affairs. If we don't agree with allowing certain options then surely we should lobby government to change the law, not pressurise individuals to change their perfectly legal behaviour.