This is what the Tories are really like

carolt

I agree that's important - but don't forget Tony Blair is no longer in govt - he is no longer charged with needing to set the nation an example; and to be fair, he never proposed massive cuts either.

What he does now is irrelevant - he's a private citizen.

What top Tories do - especially when they've made a loud song-and-dance that they're going to do the opposite - matters a lot.

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

No, I know I absolutely wouldn't.

Many poor people give money to charities, because they can.
It's a pity many wealthier individuals don't have the same mentality with regard to taxes.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Pete111 wrote: »

Nonsense riposte full of...well nothing at all really.

A little like your post.

Full of waffle & fundamentally flawed across the board.


For example:

There is only net gain if there are substantial exports to offset tax avoidance bringing in wealth. If you profit from UK sales there is no net gain or wealth generation.

You also assume that people will not spend money should one person or company not exist. Factually incorrect as we all know that if Sainsburys or Vodafone went bust tomorrow people would spend their money on another supplier.

Also your benefit worthless scum comment is interesting keeping in mind that every single penny that scum bag is given in benefits is spent in the country & stays in the economy, unlike the instant export of billions in tax dodging.

Enough? Or do you want me to continue?

Heyman_2

carolt wrote: »

I can understand people who are hard-up and need every penny trying to use every (legal) loophole to save tax. I cannot even begin to understand why someone who is already a multi-millionaire and who doesn't need a penny of this money can do this with a clear conscience - especially after publicly stating he would do the opposite.

More than that, it really sticks in my gullet that just at the time when we are all facing cuts everywhere, are being told that we must all accept higher taxes/worse public services in order to pay for the country's deficit, that someone is denying the public purse a massive 3.4 million quid. That would save a lot of public sector jobs, pay for a lot of schools' buildings, keep libraries/hospitals open etc etc.

Totally agree with everything you say here and it echoes what I've been thinking this afternoon about it, morally it stinks but then again it seems you've got to be a disingenious greedy pr**k to have 'Lord' in front of your name.

A._Badger

Heyman wrote: »

Totally agree with everything you say here and it echoes what I've been thinking this afternoon about it, morally it stinks but then again it seems you've got to be a disingenious greedy pr**k to have 'Lord' in front of your name.

As in Prescott or the trough-grubbing Kinnock, perhaps?

Or are we back in the yah-boo world of tribal party politics, as so often here?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

A._Badger wrote: »

As in Prescott or the trough-grubbing Kinnock, perhaps?

Or are we back in the yah-boo world of tribal party politics, as so often here?

John I robbed the taxpayer of thousands of pounds & then used the weak excuse of an eating disorder Prescott?

lostinrates

[QUOTE=carolt;36991028
What he does now is irrelevant - he's a private citizen.
.[/QUOTE]

unless some of that private wealth was prepped for during time in office?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

lostinrates wrote: »

unless some of that private wealth was prepped for during time in office?

Precisely.

Or even worse... That he is financially benefiting from decisions he made in office.

Which he is......

PhylPho

Fair enough to comment on an individual who landed a seat in The Lords on the basis of making a promise to pay taxes which he didn't then keep, but it's plain silly to attempt to make an anti-Tory party political point out of it: any MSEr can come back with the equivalent of "oh aye, so what were Labour MPs doing in the last Government, 'flipping' their properties for tax purposes and cashing in afterwards at our expense"?

I dislike Ashcroft because he said one thing and did another. But I can't get het up about his financial affairs considering that the money he made was from his own resources, whereas MPs of all parties -- including Labour (sorry OP) -- made money from the public purse. . . and then didn't want the public to know about it.

Ashcroft is a pretty repugnant individual for the way he evaded the truth, not the way he evaded tax. But an individual is all he is: not an entire political party. As for the tax situation, where lawful means exist to help an individual minimise what the State takes from her / his purse, then they should take it -- unless, perhaps, the OP views the opening of an ISA as a right-wing political act?

Degenerate

Generali wrote: »

You'd all do it if you could.

True, but it's not the tax avoidance that bothers me so much as the fact that on two occasions, this year and back in 2000 when he got his honour, he has avoided tax whilst presenting himself to the public as "doing the right thing".