[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......

[Right Brain Ronnie]

If your hyper focus was driving your post it would have been easy not hard, probably longer and absolutely the only thing that your adhd brain would want, or let you do.

The challenges of Adhd come when we are expected to do things outside our hyper focus (pretty much everything). Riding the hyper focus train is easy, getting off and doing boring shit is where the difficulty lies.

I have worked with neurodiverse kids and families for years, including my own. I recognise the neurodiverse on here through their quirks and posting style.

I am quite prepared to be wrong about you but something doesn't quite ring true with your posts.

My suggestion would be to stop playing the nejrodiverse card everytime to are getting panned in a discussion. You are weakening all our positions in a neurotypical world. This is either, if you are neurodiverse, irritating and unhelpful or, if you are not neuro diverse, disgusting and unforgivable.

Happy to continue this over on the neufodiversity thread. Perhaps read it first though and understand some of the challenges people have been through/are going through.

Sorry again my dyslexia may have come in the way of what I was saying.

My ADHD was driving the post because I was passionate about what was being said, and in the moment of typing there was less effort apparent to me, but with ADHD and dyslexia it's very different, I would describe it as running the 400m I came out all guns blazing and in the third and fourth phases I was suffering.
Break needed on completion as could not sustain the pace without a rest.

I find it odd that you challenge me on this statement as my dyslexia can cause me to write things wrong or not clearly, especially if fatigued. My writing style may seem aggressive at time but mainly due to trying and get clarity so people can understand, so I would prefer to be very direct, when I make more effort of detail, people don't always get my message so well.

I am not playing any card at all, it's like saying asking a blind man for a race and turning around saying what took you!

I had some one accuse me not answering there post, it wasn't because I choose to, it was because I was overwhelmed with post and my poor sequencings skills missed it.
So I tried to explain to this forum this is why.

How would you feel if I said your autism doesn't ring true?

I hope you have never suggested that when working with the neourodiverse.

Why would you think it doesn't ring true and perhaps I can allay your fears.

Sorry politics fans this had to be answered.

 

[highflyer]

Tax avoidance isn’t illegal.

It may be. Or it may not be.

'Tax evasion' is when the activity has been examined and found to be definitely unawful.

My understanding is that there is no one, agreed definition of 'tax avoidance' but the general consenus seems to be that it is where the activity is clearly not within the 'spirit of the law' (eg using the law as the legislators intended). But it may, or may not, be unlawful (fraudulent) once examined.

With government tax departments (deliberately?) under-resourced, and outgunned, by corporation tax departments, that examination just never happens in many 'grey area' cases. Thus it is incorrect to say that 'tax avoidance is legal'. It simply hasn't been found to be defnitely 'not legal'. Exploring the limits of that grey area (how far you can push before you start risking attention from the tax inspector, and what is that risk worth to your client) seems to be making a lot of money for a lot of people.

Deliberately conflating the idea of 'tax avoidance' with the process of reducing your tax in ways that the law intended such as using an ISA (see post #1052) is a classic right wing tactic to make people think that corporations and the super wealthy are just doing 'what everybody else' does. It's bollocks. A middle-earner using an ISA (eg doing exactly what the law was designed to encourage) is NOT the same as a major corporation using complex structures to shift their global profits into a tax haven. Or the various tricks available to the ultra wealthy to reduce their tax payments close to zero.

 

[rippleman]

Any change will be too late now; stable, horses and bolting spring to mind.

This is true.

I read somewhere that the parents of private school educated kids who wouldn't be able to pay the 20% VAT on the fees are making pre-payments of the fees in the millions to avoid paying the VAT. Bit odd that one minute "we can't afford to pay the VAT boo hoo" and the next minute "we have enough wonga to pay the fees years ahead of time".

Probably not a smart move to announce the change in advance rather than announcing it in the budget and imposing it the next day UNLESS the legislation is going to be retrospective. That would be most unusual but not unheard of.

 

[rippleman]

It may be. Or it may not be.

'Tax evasion' is when the activity has been examined and found to be definitely unawful.

My understanding is that there is no one, agreed definition of 'tax avoidance' but the general consenus seems to be that it is where the activity is clearly not within the 'spirit of the law' (eg using the law as the legislators intended). But it may, or may not, be unlawful (fraudulent) once examined.

With government tax departments (deliberately?) under-resourced, and outgunned, by corporation tax departments, that examination just never happens in many 'grey area' cases. Thus it is incorrect to say that 'tax avoidance is legal'. It simply hasn't been found to be defnitely 'not legal'. Exploring the limits of that grey area (how far you can push before you start risking attention from the tax inspector, and what is that risk worth to your client) seems to be making a lot of money for a lot of people.

Deliberately conflating the idea of 'tax avoidance' with the process of reducing your tax in ways that the law intended such as using an ISA (see post #1052) is a classic right wing tactic to make people think that corporations and the super wealthy are just doing 'what everybody else' does. It's bollocks. A middle-earner using an ISA (eg doing exactly what the law was designed to encourage) is NOT the same as a major corporation using complex structures to shift their global profits into a tax haven. Or the various tricks available to the ultra wealthy to reduce their tax payments close to zero.

“No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores.”

Lord Clyde - Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services & Ritchie vs CIR ([1929] 14 TC 754).

This effectively legitimised tax avoidance.

 

[rippleman]

Sorry again my dyslexia may have come in the way of what I was saying.

My ADHD was driving the post because I was passionate about what was being said, and in the moment of typing there was less effort apparent to me, but with ADHD and dyslexia it's very different, I would describe it as running the 400m I came out all guns blazing and in the third and fourth phases I was suffering.
Break needed on completion as could not sustain the pace without a rest.

I find it odd that you challenge me on this statement as my dyslexia can cause me to write things wrong or not clearly, especially if fatigued. My writing style may seem aggressive at time but mainly due to trying and get clarity so people can understand, so I would prefer to be very direct, when I make more effort of detail, people don't always get my message so well.

I am not playing any card at all, it's like saying asking a blind man for a race and turning around saying what took you!

I had some one accuse me not answering there post, it wasn't because I choose to, it was because I was overwhelmed with post and my poor sequencings skills missed it.
So I tried to explain to this forum this is why.

How would you feel if I said your autism doesn't ring true?

I hope you have never suggested that when working with the neourodiverse.

Why would you think it doesn't ring true and perhaps I can allay your fears.

Sorry politics fans this had to be answered.

Really? Are you intent on derailing EVERY thread with your ADHD?

We get it. Now knock it on the head mate please.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Any change will be too late now; stable, horses and bolting spring to mind.

Not too late for all future transactions of this nature. Unless you think the Blairs are the only people who exploited this loophole?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Rules need to change - in that transaction there was no mechanism to pay the stamp duty even if they wanted to. Has to be the motivation from law makers to change the laws accordingly. Hopefully that will start to happen now.

Haha. If they wanted to.... they didn't.

They could have made a donation to a charity/tax office of the amount they didn't pay if they felt that badly over it

They may well have done and kept it hidden!

There will always be a loop hole.

This is true.

I read somewhere that the parents of private school educated kids who wouldn't be able to pay the 20% VAT on the fees are making pre-payments of the fees in the millions to avoid paying the VAT. Bit odd that one minute "we can't afford to pay the VAT boo hoo" and the next minute "we have enough wonga to pay the fees years ahead of time".

Probably not a smart move to announce the change in advance rather than announcing it in the budget and imposing it the next day UNLESS the legislation is going to be retrospective. That would be most unusual but not unheard of.

You have to give parents some heads up for those that need to move their children to new schools.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Not too late for all future transactions of this nature. Unless you think the Blairs are the only people who exploited this loophole?

Of course not. It will be the greedy, avaricious Right in general rather than the ‘for the people, in it together’ Left.

 

[Right Brain Ronnie]

Really? Are you intent on derailing EVERY thread with your ADHD?

We get it. Now knock it on the head mate please.

My integrity was questioned on this thread, what was I supposed to do say nothing?
Btw you could have just skipped that post.

Back you the meltdown then,

Are you happy about the iron fist of Starmer with withdrawing the whip from the mischievous 7 ?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Of course not. It will be the greedy, avaricious Right in general rather than the ‘for the people, in it together’ Left.

Do you have a pint of bitter with your chips?

 

[Weststander]

It may be. Or it may not be.

'Tax evasion' is when the activity has been examined and found to be definitely unawful.

My understanding is that there is no one, agreed definition of 'tax avoidance' but the general consenus seems to be that it is where the activity is clearly not within the 'spirit of the law' (eg using the law as the legislators intended). But it may, or may not, be unlawful (fraudulent) once examined.

With government tax departments (deliberately?) under-resourced, and outgunned, by corporation tax departments, that examination just never happens in many 'grey area' cases. Thus it is incorrect to say that 'tax avoidance is legal'. It simply hasn't been found to be defnitely 'not legal'. Exploring the limits of that grey area (how far you can push before you start risking attention from the tax inspector, and what is that risk worth to your client) seems to be making a lot of money for a lot of people.

Deliberately conflating the idea of 'tax avoidance' with the process of reducing your tax in ways that the law intended such as using an ISA (see post #1052) is a classic right wing tactic to make people think that corporations and the super wealthy are just doing 'what everybody else' does. It's bollocks. A middle-earner using an ISA (eg doing exactly what the law was designed to encourage) is NOT the same as a major corporation using complex structures to shift their global profits into a tax haven. Or the various tricks available to the ultra wealthy to reduce their tax payments close to zero.

Two other aspects.

Tax avoidance scheme promoters/enablers/tax lawyers/accountants must declare their schemes under DOTAS to HMRC. Not doing so is criminal offence.

“Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law”.

Individuals and companies using any tax avoidance scheme must declare it on their tax returns, there’s a place to do this.

Effectively the tax saved is nil, then penalties are paid giving an overall loss. This isn’t an obscure area eg loads of celebs and wealthy signed up to deprive the public purse, they were caught, a few whinged to the media (who cares), privately they have to pay every penny back and some.

Where promoters and taxpayers won’t play ball, fighting it through tax tribunals, HMRC take the tax first to protect the public position.

Separately, regarding multinationals such as Dell, Apple, Starbucks and MS ‘cheating’ the UK of corporation tax. This cannot be solved by more HMRC staff, it has nothing to do with that. The might of the EU hasn’t got anywhere either in well documented cases. Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands enable this to go on, they won’t cooperate. We need every western nation to sign up.

 

[nevergoagain]

22% over 2 years! There is a magic money tree.

Junior doctor offered new pay deal in England

It is thought the new pay deal being offered is worth 22%, on average, over two years.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[nevergoagain]

No winter fuel payments for pensioners unless you are on benefits ?, I suppose someone has got to pay for bowing to the Unions, might as well be the old people eh

 

[CheeseRolls]

22% over 2 years! There is a magic money tree.

Junior doctor offered new pay deal in England

It is thought the new pay deal being offered is worth 22%, on average, over two years.

www.bbc.co.uk

What do you think it costs for prolonged industrial action and no pay settlement?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No winter fuel payments for pensioners unless you are on benefits ?, I suppose someone has got to pay for bowing to the Unions, might as well be the old people eh

I don’t need it, and many pensioners I know don’t need it either. The poorest pensioners on pension credit will continue to receive it.
Just as it should be.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

22% over 2 years! There is a magic money tree.

Junior doctor offered new pay deal in England

It is thought the new pay deal being offered is worth 22%, on average, over two years.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Government will save money on not paying senior consultants £4k to £5k per shift during IA.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

• NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise

• Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase
• Prison service worker will see a rise of 5%
• The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%

In total it will cost £9.4bn. Two thirds of this will be funded by central government, while the rest will be found from within departments from savings.

 

[Peteinblack]

No winter fuel payments for pensioners unless you are on benefits ?, I suppose someone has got to pay for bowing to the Unions, might as well be the old people eh

I thought you Tories believed in means-testing and 'targeting' support on those most in need; are you saying that all pensioners should receive the winter fuel payments, even if they have 'gold-plated' occupational pensions?

 

[nevergoagain]

The Government will save money on not paying senior consultants £4k to £5k per shift during IA.

So what will stop all the other unions looking at that and rub their hands with glee? Effectively what you are saying is that it's better to cave into a strike and pay rather than risk industrial action expenses.

 

[nevergoagain]

• NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise
• Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase
• Prison service worker will see a rise of 5%
• The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%

In total it will cost £9.4bn. Two thirds of this will be funded by central government, while the rest will be found from within departments from savings.

So more austerity in OGD's ?, I thought that's exactly what you all hated the Tories for ?