[Closed] More Ashcroft...

Won't they just up and go, leaving us with even less revenue?

Why on earth should he pay taxes here on foreign earnings?

Because he lives here, and aims to hold a position in the next Government?

It's common knowledge that the super-rich pay less tax than the rest of us. I think that is wrong regardless. However, someone who is trying to claim the moral authority to govern the rest of us needs to be seen to be "whiter than white".

He's a billionaire! He can actually afford to pay a decent amount of tax on his earnings and still never want for any material thing. But he doesn't. He prefers to play the power game of getting one over on the rest of us.

Won't they just up and go, leaving us with even less revenue

You mean if we ask them for the money they currently don't pay, they might go somewhere else and not pay it?

Not sure how that makes life here any worse for the rest of us?

I was under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that they pay tax on all UK earnings and that they spend a fair amount of money in these isles thus contributing to our economy?
I agree that it sucks big time but maybe a little is better than nothing?

I don't think so. But then I think we need to move to a no growth economy.

Personally I'd be happy to see the back of all of these parasites (c.f) because any money they may put into the economy does very little to mitigate the vast amount of bad feeling they create.

The thing is, given the right political will, we can and do shut down funds, find the money trails, and persuade even the most recalcitrant tax haven countries like Monaco, and Switzerland to give up secrets. Remember the post 9/11 money laundering rules? That shut down any shadowy links to Al-Qa-ida within A WEEK.

We know where the money is, we know who has it, all we lack its the political will to do anything about it, and we are the poorer for it, not them...

Where was that quote from Michael Foot?

Tax Justice Network estimate that rich individuals "avoid" 13bn a year. (The top third of Britain's top 700 industries have paid no tax at all) Thats enough to pay off the deficit in 7 years.

i think that alone is enough to make one very angry

Then blame James Grdon Brown, the man responsible for it.

Stevie, you're very boring.

TJ - I see you're still saying the same things, but not responding to any of the reasonable challenges made to you - so, once again:

who did he negotiate this change in the agreement with? The cabinet office

i) So, since they were complicit in the deal throughout, do you think its fair and reasonable for Labour ministers to call foul now?

ii) Why are you not accusing the cabinet office of misleading people/parliament?

iii) can you please back up your [u]repeated allegations of lying.[/u]...

He's a big fat liar, and despite all that money, is as thick as mince.

All he had to do was tell the truth, but he tried to be clever, charging the costs of opinion polls to avoid paying VAT, for one.

Dimwitted rich man who thinks he can buy influence...

Zulu - yawwwwnnnnnnnn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/04/lord-ashcroft-who-knew-truth

This was the exchange at which it was settled that "permanent resident" could mean "long-term resident". However, Phillips insists he was just "crossing the Ts and dotting the Is", and says he was not aware of the implication of the conditions.

That puts James Arbuthnot, pictured, at the heart of the process that ended with Phillips downgrading Ashcroft's undertaking to become a "permanent resident" to "long-term resident". This conversation, before Phillips signed the peerage off, is the "subsequent dialogue" Ashcroft refers to in his statement declaring his non-dom status, and allowed him to continue to keep the majority of his financial affairs in the Caribbean.

Lord Turnbull was cabinet secretary between 2002 and 2005. His appointment postdates the awarding of Ashcroft's peerage, but that hasn't stopped him expressing views. Yesterday he was reported as saying that it was incumbent on Hague as Ashcroft's sponsor for a peerage to ensure his pledge was fulfilled. He said: "We had been assured by Hague that this was the real deal.[b] It turns out that Ashcroft is being economical with the truth, and that Hague fell for it."[/b]

Stevie, you're very boring

Aaaah, the Zanulabour method of dealing with a FACT you don't like. Mud sling. Pathetic. James Gordon Brown IS 100% responsible for his rich friends paying no tax, FACT. Shame it doesn't fit in with your left-whinge agenda, hey?

Stevie - you prejudice and hatred is showing. By saying Zanulabour you lose 98 credibility points and this

method of dealing with a FACT you don't like. Mud sling. Pathetic

As I have told you before Jerry, Labour lost my respect when they lied and betrayed the country over the EU Constitution.

Leftys whining about rich folk not paying tax-and then refusing to blame the man responsible-James Gordon Brown is hypocritical and nonsenical-and I am glad to point that out no matter what tantrum you throw.

So - xenophobe or racist?

No lies over the EU constitution as it was never adopted so no need for a referendum . In the UKs best interests so no betrayal.

I'd love to know why you think ashcrofts tax avoidance in Browns fault? Nice piece of doublethink there

Stevie, you are boring because you never expand one post beyond name calling. adding the word "FACT" in capitals doesn't actually help a great deal.

Come on, develop your point. How is Gordon Brown (I think we all know who I'm talking about even leaving off the James bit) 100% responsible for [i]his[/i] rich friends (and by adding the word "his" I guess you mean current arrangements only apply to labour supporters?) paying no tax?

Is it just because he is the PM and therefore *everything* is his fault?

So - xenophobe or racist?

Sorry Jerry but if you are going to stoop that low you can just bore off.

No lies over the EU constitution as it was never adopted so no need for a referendum . In the UKs best interests so no betrayal

Rubbish, huge swathes of our sovereignty were signed away. The Constitution was there in all but name, Brown broke a manifesto pledge and betrayed the nation.

I'd love to know why you think ashcrofts tax avoidance in Browns fault?

And you won't get away with your silly lies either, I never said Ashcrofts tax avoidance was Browns fault, I said he was responsible for the tax regime that allows the rich-including his cronies-to pay little or no tax. Being as he has been in charge of Britains finances for 13 years who else is bloody responsible?

And you, PRPT are boring with your dull, left-whinge diatribe. But, to answer your point-

Come on, develop your point. How is Gordon Brown (I think we all know who I'm talking about even leaving off the James bit) 100% responsible for his rich friends (and by adding the word "his" I guess you mean current arrangements only apply to labour supporters?) paying no tax?

Brown has been in charge of Britains finances for 13 years. He has served in a government with a large, workable majority. He could have closed those loop-holes, raised the tax levels on the rich (including his chums like Eric Daniels, Fred Goodwin, Lord Paul, Lord Sainsbury etc etc) any time he had wanted to. So why didn't he? Because Labour are now the party of the rich-as admitted so famously by Mandelson.

I notice you often get sleepy when your facts get shaky TJ...

So, TJ you [b]still[/b] cannot demonstrate a single solitary [u]lie[/i] told by Ashcroft despite repeatedly making that allegation, the closest you have so far come to is an editorial commenting "economical with the truth"

No lies over the EU constitution as it was never adopted

Hahahaha - nice double standards TJ

Regards the Cabinet office, all decisions made by the cabinet office are the responsibility of a minister, a Labour government minister - which member of the cabinet signed off on the decision to change the rules?

Fellas, there is a decent debate in there among the handbags..

The Constitution was there in all but name

Same as Ashcrofts pledge to be domiciled in the Uk and pay Uk tax?

Zulu - the lie is clear to anyone with half a brain. Edit - as I have demostrated a dozen times on this thread.

Even Hague was fooled by his lie and so was Cameron

Show me, show me just one quote where there is a [b]lie[/b] told by Ashcroft TJ

Just one quote that you can prove to be not true - not an impression, not someone else's interpretation of the facts, not a supposition or presumption - one single solitary lie told by Ashcroft!

I have no problem with you accusing him of misleading, I have no problem with you accusing him of dissembling the facts - however you've specifically accused him of lying, and you know damn well you cannot back that up!

Zulu - no matter how you wish it away its a matter of public record.

His "solemn undertaking bla hblah blah"

Clear and obvious lie

i'm wading in here having not read page 2 so may have missed something but Stevie, if Dave gets in do you think he is gonna start taxing all Gordon's friends? I doubt it. I doubt Nick Clegg would either although Vince might have something to say about that. The politicians can't do anything, the super rich have them over a barrel. Us gullible lot down here look up to these politicians expecting them to look after us all and I am sure many of them want to, but really what can they do.

Zulu - finding a lie which is a fact is very difficult as generally only two people will ever know. Someone else's interpretation is generally how the political world works unfortunately (that and who shouts the loudest).

In that case Whippershapper, TJ should withdraw the allegation!

you're wriggling TJ - where is the single solitary lie that backs up your claim, show me!

whippersnapper-I don't know what the Torys would do. But there's one thing fer sure-we're all going to feel the pinch whoever gets in. The Tories will cut spending to try and evert disaster. Alternatively, Labour will carry on spending until we lose our AAA Rating and the country will go bust in a blaze of soaring interest rates and hyper inflation. I reckon it's called being betwixt a rock and a hard place. And Brown led us there.

Stevie said:

And you, PRPT are boring with your dull, left-whinge diatribe.

Like when I said this?

The whole thing would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. The only reason any of this stuff is important is because both the main parties are so useless, and I suspect that the party we will end up with making decisions that hugely effect our lives will be the one who didn't screw up last.

It's a bit like pass the parcel, where you know that inside the final layer of wrapping paper is a turd.

You prove my point. You are boring because you don't get beyond name calling AND maybe the reason is that you don't even bother to read what other people read.

You're like one of Pavlov's dogs. You see a key word and off you go.

And before anyone else says it, yes I know Pavlov's dogs couldn't read.

Or could they?

Are you in Egypt Zulu?

In his 2000 statement he said "permanent resident" which means full UK taxpayer not "non Dom"

That is the lie as he never became a permanent Uk resident.

It was a metaphor.

The Tories will cut spending to try and [s]evert[/s]cause disaster

#fixed it for you. this is what they did to cause the last depression - cutting spending deepens and lengthens recessions - see load of examples over the years from 30s usa to 80s Uk

lose our AAA Rating

regardless of what the agencies say it's long gone already Im afraid.

the Uk pays 90bps more for it's debt than other AAA rated countries like Germany. Ratings follow the market, not lead it.

Currently it costs about £90k to insure £1m of UK government debt. That's about the same as Chile which is only A+ and twice as much as the USA and Germany which are true AAA.

In his 2000 statement he said "permanent resident" which means full UK taxpayer not "non Dom"

Still wriggling - Mefty's already covered that one - He stated that was his [u][i]intention[/i][/u] and he later negotiated a change to that, agreed by the cabinet office, to an agreement that he would become a '"long term resident" - all above board, all agreed by the cabinet office.

Quite specifically he has never said that he [b]is[/b] a permanent resident or a UK Domicile - quite categorically no lies - Next please...

You are in Egypt aren't you?

Thats as clear a piece of deceit as one can see. Of course as blinkered and stupid as you are you will never admit this but when torie grandees, tory papers, the cabinet secretary all say this was deceit.............?

So clear attempt to obfuscate and mislead deliberately which is a lie in my book. Of course in your alice in wonderland world a lie becomes the truth - newspeak I believe its known as

You prove my point. You are boring because you don't get beyond name calling AND maybe the reason is that you don't even bother to read what other people read

More dull hypocrisy. You started with the name calling, or had you forgotten that? You are a fool, you don't know me from Adam yet carry on with the assumptions.

The worst thing about all of this for me, is that Ashcroft hasn't even broken the Law.

He's altered the shape of British politics, with money hoarded away in a tax haven, (where he pays no tax at all) but obviously finds the idea of helping to fund this country's schools hospitals, and defence completely beneath him. The Conservative party then engaged in a 10 year cover up, that tells you all you need to know about how they'd run the country. By taking Ashcroft's money callmedave tells us he'd rather protect private interests over the public good. Made to choose between the public purse and the tiny minority interests of the super-rich, he chose that latter. I think it's safe to assume that if he gets to no 10, he'd carry on.

This revolting behaviour that both Labour and the Conservatives indulge in, is perfectly legal...The rest of us pay our taxes in full on time, and these parasites (some-one who enjoys the benefits of something without paying their share) who can shout louder than us with donations get away with paying nothing.

Tax Justice Network estimate that rich individuals "avoid" 13bn a year. (The top third of Britain's top 700 industries have paid no tax at all) Thats enough to pay off the deficit in 7 years.

This sums the situation up more than anything, a rich elite few hijacking the political system for their own gain, its been going on a bloody longtime. Micheal foot, lefty though he was, had the right idea:

and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do."

The Tories will cut spending to try and evert disaster.

But create a disaster by making more unemployed. Its not just the public sector jobs that will be affected by this.

Alternatively, Labour will carry on spending until we lose our AAA Rating and the country will go bust in a blaze of soaring interest rates and hyper inflation.

The AAA rating is just politically motivated economists scare mongering. As for soaring interest rates and hyper inflation, we are not Zimbabwe. Your scaremongering language is about a year and a half out of date.

#fixed it for you. this is what they did to cause the last depression - cutting spending deepens and lengthens recessions - see load of examples over the years from 30s usa to 80s Uk

LOL Jerry, very good. I guess you are a Keynesian like Brown-truly economics from the playing fields of Eton. How long do you think theUK can carry on borrowing £1,500,000,000 per day as we did in January? We are currently borrowing £1 out of every £4 we spend. That, my friend, is insane.

I wasn't name calling, I was putting forward my opinion.

What assumptions did i make?

clear attempt to obfuscate and mislead deliberately which is a lie [u]in my book[/u]

Here's the problem, unfortunately 'your book' is not the dictionary - you did not accuse him of obfustucating, you did not accuse him of misleading - you specificallly accused him of [i]lying[/i]

to speak untruthfully with the intention of deceiving... an untrue statement deliberately used to mislead,

You [b]cannot[/b] demonstrate to me a single [u]untrue[/u] statement made by Ashcroft!

Yup - it has to be dealt with but slashing spending tomorrow( is that current tory policy ? it keeps changing) is not the way to do it. Gradual reduction in borrowing along with tax rises is the way to do it.

And what did I say that was hypocritical?

I don't need to make any assumptions Stevie, because it is there for everyone to see that you just throw out words at random without understanding their meaning.

The AAA rating is just politically motivated economists scare mongering. As for soaring interest rates and hyper inflation, we are not Zimbabwe. Your scaremongering language is about a year and a half out of date

See- 'Greece' for where we're headed under Brown.

Its on public record Zulu and fits that definition perfectly.

And what did I say that was hypocritical?

You called me out for 'name calling' and at the same time threw insults. There you go, it's called hypocrisy. And as for throwing out words without knowing their meaning, pot, kettle, black. You are just a plonker that can't handle being disagreed with. You forgot to argue this point-

Come on, develop your point. How is Gordon Brown (I think we all know who I'm talking about even leaving off the James bit) 100% responsible for his rich friends (and by adding the word "his" I guess you mean current arrangements only apply to labour supporters?) paying no tax?

Brown has been in charge of Britains finances for 13 years. He has served in a government with a large, workable majority. He could have closed those loop-holes, raised the tax levels on the rich (including his chums like Eric Daniels, Fred Goodwin, Lord Paul, Lord Sainsbury etc etc) any time he had wanted to. So why didn't he? Because Labour are now the party of the rich-as admitted so famously by Mandelson.

-or are you incapable?

This is the lie and this is an analysis of it

I hereby give you my clear and unequivocal assurance that I have decided to take up [b]permanent residence[/b] in the UK again before the end of this calendar year. I have given my advisors instructions to make arrangement to give effect to this decision and I will instruct them forthwith to do so within this calendar year.

I hereby firmly agree that I will not seek to be introduced to the House of Lords until I have taken up residency in the United Kingdom within the timescale above mentioned.

At the heart of the issue is whether, in 2000, the tax authorities were misled if they were never shown Ashcroft’s “solemn and binding” declaration to his party leader that Britain was henceforth to be his permanent home.

According to HM Revenue & Customs published guidelines, current in 2000, this signed and witnessed document alone might have ruled out non-dom status.

HMRC’s code says plainly: “You are domiciled in the country where you have your [b]permanent home[/b].”

To successfully change his domicile from the UK, where he was born and brought up, to that of Belize, where he had business interests, Ashcroft would have needed “strong evidence you intend to live there [abroad] permanently or indefinitely”.

http://www.businessgaze.com/was-ashcrofts-binding-pledge-to-hague-shown-to-inland-revenue

edited to reflect your latest:

permanent residence has a specific meaning in Tax law

Domicile also has a specific meaning in tax law.

Wait out and I'll give you chapter and verse

Jerry-he's got you mate. Just let it go 😆 .

See- 'Greece' for where we're headed under Brown.

What, has he booked us all a holiday?

TJ - HMRC Says -

Residence is a complex subject. The terms residence and ordinary residence are not defined in the Taxes Acts. HMRC guidelines about their meanings are largely based on rulings of the courts.

The quote from your article is wrong -

HMRC’s code says plainly: “You are domiciled in the country where you have your permanent home.”

HMRC [i]actually[/i] says

[u]Broadly speaking[/u], you are domiciled in the country where you have your permanent home.

Broadly speaking - thats a very big uncertainty there that your chosen article chooses to gloss over...

Thats clearly one for the tax lawyers - I'm not one, IIRC you aren't one - what I can guarantee to you is that Ashcrofts got the best ones available... so TJ - is he lying, or is your newspaper article full of sh@t?

Here you are - HMRC Guide -

Make your own judgement TJ, but with 81 pages the guide still says:

Domicile is a general law concept. It is not defined in tax law. It can be a
complex subject, so the charts can give you no more than a likely indication of your domicile. In the UK, only a court may make a formal ruling on your domicile.

So, it looks like the newspaper article you choose to use to 'prove' that Ashcroft lied really is full of sh@t!

Lord ashcrofts pants earlier today;

[center][img] [/img][/center]

[url] http://wikimapia.org/1594837/San-Pedro-Fire-Station [/url]

"I'm sorry, the Belize Fire Service is busy putting out Lord Ashcrofts Pants, please call again..."

Thats clearly one for the tax lawyers - I'm not one, IIRC you aren't one - what I can guarantee to you is that Ashcrofts got the best ones available... so TJ - is he lying, or is your newspaper article full of sh@t?

A senior accountant said last night: “If Lord Ashcroft had simply moved money from Belize back to this country and given it to the Tories he would have been taxed on it. The Revenue would see it as a remittance for tax purposes and he would pay 40 per cent of the value.”

The first bit of tax planning I learnt within the first few months of starting was that all non dom should have two banks accounts, one for income and one for capital, then they should remit from the capital account, which can be done on a tax free basis. I have met alot of non doms over the years and I have never met one who has paid a single penny of tax on a remittance. That quote is from cloud cuckoo land.

An argument about whether the non dom issue as a whole is good for the country or not is for another day. Obviously it was addressed slightly by the government becuase they felt the need to respond to the Tory proposals for a non dom tax. Unfortunately, like much of the legislation introduced by this government it was ill thought out and many are avoiding paying it.

That is my real gripe, so much bad legislation has been introduced in recent years that has no chance of achieving its announced objective. Look at yesterday, I explained on here how poor the political donations legislation is, so when a decision goes against the Labour viewpoint, what happens, Labour MPs responsible for putting the legislation (the culprit) in place attack the poor b4arstards that have to administrate their pile of junk.

Then we have the draconian terror laws, we used an anti terrorism law to confiscate Iceland's assets! The Government hasn't done its job and the House of Commons hasn't been capable to doing its either. That is a proper scandal.

Ashcroft has a magpie eye for status and political influence. Regardless of the finer points of tax law - the bloke is clearly giving UK voters the creeps. As for the reductive games of primary colour politics so beloved of STW... the same is true of many in NuLab circles (funny how the [i]Grauniad[/i] never moans about Apax Partners...).

The VC thing (and the [url= http://www.victoriacrossheroes.com/collection.html ]accompanying PR waffle[/url]) still makes me uncomfortable - the grasping need to own medals struck from (comparatively) worthless gunmetal.