London mayoral candidates publish tax records

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

Ken Livingstone is also claiming that he earned £33 in interest in 2010/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_04_12income_tax.pdf

I'm with vivatifosi here: this is a pretty crass thing for Ken to have done. He said that people that pay themselves in this way should not have the vote.

Ken's company is called Silveta Ltd. A quick Google shows that Silveta had £250,635 in cash in the bank at the end of financial year 2010/11. That money will presumably have had Corporation Tax paid on it at 20% but no income tax or national insurance paid on it.

If that money is paid out as a dividend, income tax will become payable (with a credit to reflect that Corporation Tax has already been paid) but no employers or employees NI.

It is also worth noting that dividends are taxed at about 8% less depending on the band than salaries. So there is also clearly an advantage to paying oneself in this way.

And I agree with Generali & Vivatifosi - Ken is scum and I hope the lying scumbag has destroyed his career.

Generali

Wookster wrote: »

It is also worth noting that dividends are taxed at about 8% less depending on the band than salaries. So there is also clearly an advantage to paying oneself in this way.

And also that if the cash remains in the company and is invested, any interest is paid on a higher sum so he can compound his gains faster.

I have no problem with people following the tax laws and in doing so paying less tax. I do have a problem with being criticized for doing something (I used to use a Limited Company) by somebody that does the same thing himself!

IronWolf

I dont think there is anything unethical about what hes doing.

But given his (ridiculous) stance on this subject before, he deserves everything he gets.

Anyone that thinks this isnt a big deal will vote for Boris anyway, and all the lefties will be foaming at the mouth at the thought of anyone ever minimising their tax bill while they all top up their ISAs.

vivatifosi

Wookster wrote: »

And I agree with Generali & Vivatifosi - Ken is scum and I hope the lying scumbag has destroyed his career.

And then of course there's this story...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100148474/ken-livingstones-city-hall-paid-mother-of-his-secret-child-from-public-funds/

I don't live in London, but if I did I'd be furious with Labour for not putting a better candidate up against Boris. Whoever you support, the biggest city in our country and our shop window to the world deserves a robust election between good candidates who can represent the city well on the world stage.

Wookster

IronWolf wrote: »

I dont think there is anything unethical about what hes doing.

But given his (ridiculous) stance on this subject before, he deserves everything he gets.

There is nothing unethical or dubious about his actions. They are entirely within the law.

However...

1. You don't criticize tax avoidance then do exactly the same thing.
2. Lie about your opponents tax arrangements
3. Ask everyone to publish their financial affairs and then only publish half of yours.

It is frankly disgusting behaviour.

And there is Ed Milliband saying he's paid all the taxes that are due. Another shocking performance.

For anyone interested, dividend tax rates are here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnSavingsAndInvestments/DG_4016453

This is an epic fail on labour's part but hey, guess 'we're all in this together'

vivatifosi

It is unethical though Wookie. I didn't have time to pull out details in the article I've linked to above earlier but basically it says:

City Hall’s code of conduct requires the mayor to disclose whenever he makes a decision “which affects a matter in which he has a personal interest.” A personal interest includes any decision which involves “a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association.” Mr Livingstone’s register of interest entries for the eight years of his mayoralty make no mention of Rootball or his relationship with Ms Woolf.

So essentially he's had a child with a woman and then commissioned her work and allowed her to use council space without declaring it.

julieq

Meanwhile the BBC have spun this into a story about ministerial publication of tax returns and not said anything about the specific issues Ken has come across.

In other words, they have taken on the Labour party damage limitation line directly, the strategy appears to be to go back to the idea that the cabinet is full of milionaires who voted themselves a tax cut. And the little tag at the bottom of the web page about Milliband thinking Cameron has something to hide is still there, despite this being old and rather discredited news.

Two years ago I'd have told anyone who asks that the BBC political bias is imaginary, but I have to say this is an absolutely disgraceful performance at a time when the hypocrisy of parts of the Labour party is on full view and should be exposed. At the very least someone at the BBC is parroting through a briefing from the Labour party. It's pretty obvious that the BBC is composed essentially of London media liberals with left leaning sympathies, but hitherto their personal bias hadn't been quite so clear to see.

There was a piece on the news about teachers pay and pensions yesterday too. Same sort of thing: the NASUWT line was fully reported with a "dedicated" (but militant) teacher talking about their passion for teaching and how "enough was enough". No serious attempt to put the counter arguments that actually education standards in this country are poor, it isn't unreasonable to be able to dismiss poor teachers, and most of the private sector would cut off their right arms to get the pension deal on offer to them, but is in fact being asked to take real terms pay cuts so that the NASUWT members can benefit.

I think this another side effect of the News International furore. The left leaning journalists now believe that it's time to strike back and take some ground from what they perceive as the evil right, and standards of objectivity which you'd expect from the BBC (if not necessarily the Guardian) are being jettisoned.

Wookster

vivatifosi wrote: »

It is unethical though Wookie. I didn't have time to pull out details in the article I've linked to above earlier but basically it says:

City Hall’s code of conduct requires the mayor to disclose whenever he makes a decision “which affects a matter in which he has a personal interest.” A personal interest includes any decision which involves “a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association.” Mr Livingstone’s register of interest entries for the eight years of his mayoralty make no mention of Rootball or his relationship with Ms Woolf.

So essentially he's had a child with a woman and then commissioned her work and allowed her to use council space without declaring it.

Just to clarify, I was referring to his tax arrangements, not to payments to interested parties. That is clearly unethical and a breach of the City Hall COC I would imagine.

I wander if anyone can make a complaint to the police to trigger an investigation.

The man is scum.

Premier_2

So where are the tax records of the other candidates? :huh:

Namely:
Siobhan BENITA (Independent)
Carlos CORTIGLIA (British National Party)
Lawrence James WEBB (Fresh Choice for London)

Where are their records? What are they hiding?

vivatifosi

Wookster wrote: »

Just to clarify, I was referring to his tax arrangements, not to payments to interested parties. That is clearly unethical and a breach of the City Hall COC I would imagine.

I wander if anyone can make a complaint to the police to trigger an investigation.

The man is scum.

I know that you were referring to his tax arrangements Wookie. It's just that he tries it on, on so many levels. You dig so far on one level and there's another one. I'm sure in a couple of days something else will turn up.