London mayoral candidates publish tax records

A._Badger

julieq wrote: »

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.
.

To which I can only respond that two years ago you'd have been wrong. The BBC likes to adopt the stance that it criticises whichever party is in government - and it certainly did Blair's. Unfortunately, it does so consistently from the Left. This is not new but it's done in such a way that - like some deft conjuring trick - you only really notice what's going on when you look closely. Most of the time, the poison in the well goes undetected.

The Biased BBC website is full of people who have had the same experience: they've toddled along happily, convinced the BBC is impartial, only for the scales to start falling from their eyes once they spot a particularly glaring proof that it is not.

On your point about News Int., I hold no brief for Murdoch and some of the vermin he employs but a sense of fair play alone makes me yearn for the day he strikes back (and you know he will). The gleeful axe-grinding of the BBC, the Guardian and a cabal of dodgy Labour MPs has been disgraceful. .

.

misskool

i know i know it's the dailyfail but it's not a bad article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2126040/BBC-bias-Is-Corporation-representing-British-nation.html

wymondham

I'd be happy just earning the amount they pay in tax!

BobQ

I agree that Ken's legal behaviour does nothing for faith in politicians, especially one who claims to be on the side of the ordinary workers who pay income tax and NI on all their income. In some respects its amusing that Ken is demonstrating how self employed people in general can use companies to avoid paying tax. Partial disclosure does not help either and the income paid to others through his company should be revealed.

What I am puzzled about is that on BJs statement he states that he had no income "In company", what does this mean? Does it mean he does not have a company that pays him a dividend? Or do other earnings get paid through a company that does not pay him any income?

heathcote123

BobQ wrote: »

What I am puzzled about is that on BJs statement he states that he had no income "In company", what does this mean? Does it mean he does not have a company that pays him a dividend? Or do other earnings get paid through a company that does not pay him any income?

I believe he means he has no ltd company structure - he just trades as himself - ie self employed.

This means all his earnings are immediately taxable at standard rates s/e rates.

cotleigh

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.

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.

But it IS unethical!

It may well be perfectly legal, but this is not the same thing.

If someone stands for public office, AND also makes frequent loud statements about how he despises well-off people who deliberately arrange their affairs to avoid paying taxes at the "normal" rates, AND then is found to be doing exactly the things that he has criticised others for doing, I think it is very unethical indeed.

Generali

heathcote123 wrote: »

I believe he means he has no ltd company structure - he just trades as himself - ie self employed.

This means all his earnings are immediately taxable at standard rates s/e rates.

You believe incorrectly. He uses a Ltd company.

The Guardian's rather good (and rather surprising) take on the affair:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/06/politicians-tax-arrangements-window-soul

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

You believe incorrectly. He uses a Ltd company.

The Guardian's rather good (and rather surprising) take on the affair:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/06/politicians-tax-arrangements-window-soul

I don't think he does use a company, and I think he has specifically denied doing so. At the same time operating as an unincorporated sole trader doesn't result in his full income becoming immediately taxable as other poster suggested as a sole trader can offset relevant expenses against their taxable income.

chewmylegoff

P.s. you can tell he is not operating as a company as he is paying class 4 national insurance.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I don't think he does use a company, and I think he has specifically denied doing so. At the same time operating as an unincorporated sole trader doesn't result in his full income becoming immediately taxable as other poster suggested as a sole trader can offset relevant expenses against their taxable income.

He does have a company and it's called Silveta Ltd. It's in the BBC article I linked to. If you Google Silveta Ltd then you will find loads of results.

Here's what the BBC says:

The clash followed weeks of claims Mr Livingstone was paid via a company, Silveta Ltd,

Telegraph:

In the year after losing the mayoralty, Livingstone claimed on Thursday, he earned just £21,645. In fact, the accounts of his now famous personal company, Silveta Ltd show he invoiced a total of £232,550 for his services that year.

Guardian:

But figures eventually released by Livingstone – after an initial refusal to do so – showed that over four years the Labour mayoral candidate paid himself dividends worth £125,555 from Silveta Ltd, the company he owns with his wife, on which he paid just £23,730 in corporation tax – which at 20% is significantly lower than the income tax he would have paid.

Daily Mirror:

Mr Livingstone has been accused of using a company, Silveta Ltd, to pay his staff, including his wife Emma.

Data from Companies House:

http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/903296560

Director Summary

Mr Kenneth Robert Livingstone has 2 company director or secretary appointments.
Short name - Kenneth Livingstone
Director ID : 903296560
Month/Year of Birth: 06/1945

It could be a different Kenneth Robert Livingstone born in June 1945 I suppose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone