[Closed] This weeks tax avoidance candidate.....

Ernie, stop clutching at straws here. Your beloved Ken has been exposed as the hypocrite that he is. Not to mention his terrorist supprting, hompohbic, anti-semitic ways. Yet you ignore all of this, picking some semantic claptrap argument instead.

Sorry am I missing something here?
In the Telegraph transcript it says.

In terms of the dividends, you haven’t actually taken any dividends out. You’ve got a large cash pile sitting there at the moment. So you haven’t actually paid any income tax on any of that money because you haven’t taken it as dividends.

Sorry - been out...

Ernie:

Whats your point - that the fact that Boris once said something nice about him demonstrates that he's not all of the things I've said he is, in addition to being a hypocritical, wife employing, tax avoiding tosser?

Pretty much the worst Straw Man argument Ever...

Boris seems to know how to be polite and say the positive good thing to the guy who has just lost an election, speaks volumes about him. Manners you could perhaps learn from.

Neither is particularly admirable IMHO
I am sure the Cpt will be off like a flash to publicly vilify the current Tory major for his obvious personal shortcomings he is good with balanced an objectivity like that

Sure Zulu will to
Fairly pointless/standard STW I dont like you or your politics thread with the objectivity we have come to expect

So Flashheart, I take it from your comment that [u]you[/u] don't agree with Boris Johnson's claim that Livingstone was a [i]"a very considerable public servant and a distinguished leader"[/i] who has [i]"courage and the sheer exuberant nerve"[/i] and has [i]"earned the thanks of millions of Londoners"[/i] ?

I think it's a fair question as hypocrisy appears to be the topic here.

And btw some of you Tories appear to be most impolite. So far on this thread you and Z-11 have called Livingstone a hypocrite, homophobic, anti-semitic, and a terrorist supporter. In contrast I have described Boris Johnson only as a clown. Most "unparliamentary" behavour on your part.

You take what you want, I'll stick to the actual point.

No Ernie I'm suggesting that you are getting all defensive about a guy who has let you down with the way he pays his tax. You cannot take it that your hero has been proven to be just like any other politician, taking what they want and crapping on those that support them. Ever felt like you have been used and abused. Hurts I know but thats what we have to put up with as forum warriors. Suck it up, Ken is a profesional politician and using the system for himself and you do not count.

can I have you full and frank view of Boris whilst you are sticking to the point and not just scoring political internet hit points please
ta

[i]yes Liverpool he was nice about them[/i]

And he made an entirely valid point about certain aspects of the Liverpudlian character, as someone born on the Wirral, to a Liverpudlian Father, I'm more than happy to back him on it as well 😀

[i]piccaninnies- he used that lovely phrase[/i]

Boris apologised for any offence caused, He wasn't being racist, it was taken out of context and some people interpreted it maliciously - I think you'll find thats, verbatim, the Diane Abbot defence 😉

Ernie:

"a very considerable public servant and a distinguished leader"
"courage and the sheer exuberant nerve"
"earned the thanks of millions of Londoners"

Erm, does the fact that Boris thinks that make the violent drunkenness, tax avoidance and all the other stuff acceptable then?

ah right so a bigot you like and appreciate....fair enough I suppose

Yes Junky, I do quite like certain aspects of Diane Abbot's character actually.

everyone in direct question avoidance shocka

you are getting all defensive about a guy who has let you down with the way he pays his tax.

I'm not in the least bit bothered how Livingstone pays his tax. Mudslinging by the Tory press at Livingstone has gone on for as long as I can remember. And for that reason the article in the Telegraph is unlikely to very much affect in the level of support which he will receive next election.

It's quite likely that I won't vote for him but that is due to policies, rather that the usual mud-raking by the press. Likewise I suspect the majority of the electorate are a tad more sophisticated than to be taken in by US-style negative politics.

Lefties in diverting point away from unpalatable truth shocka.

Ah, Right wing press conspiracy, I'd forgotten that aspect.

Are you sure you're not a member of the David Icke forums as well Ernie - its all an Illuminati/NWO/Elders of Zion plot innit 😆

The truth is always palatable to me Flashheart. If the truth doesn't fit comfortably with my beliefs then I simply change my beliefs until it does.

dancing on a pin with the Livingstone defence. At least you can take comfort that Boris thinks he's a good public servant, he got it wrong again I presume?

Are you sure you're not a member of the David Icke forums as well Ernie

And there you go again Zulu-Eleven, with your childish and silly comments.

And of course you haven't forgotten to add the laughing emoticon, just to emphasise the point.

Sorry, Yes, I really shouldn't underplay the seriousness of the longstanding right wing plot to undermine Ken Livingstone through a train of long running investigative journalism that reveals his lies, drunkenness and hypocrisy to the sheeple, should I ?

Lefties in diverting point away from unpalatable truth shocka

Is he a hypocrite
Yes
you cannot really go on about how everyone should be their fair share of tax* then actively do something to make sure your "fair share" is the least [ or less than if it was just paid as wages rather than paid via dividends] it can possibly be under the current legislative structure as that is [partly] what he has attacked.
If you object to tax avoidance you cannot then avoid tax and not look hypocritical

Sorry Junky - I thought it was a given that all (Evil) Tories are, by definition, all for tax avoidance for them and their millionaire chums, so its not like you can accuse Boris and his mates of hypocrisy is it ?

Junkyard - Member

you cannot really go on about how everyone should be their fair share of tax* then actively do something to make sure your "fair share" is the least [ or less than if it was just paid as wages rather than paid via dividends] it can possibly be under the current legislative structure as that is [partly] what he has attacked.

I would not agree. If someone was demanding that tax be cut to 20% would you insist they stop paying 40% tax?

To me, it's simple- you call for change but you deal with the rules as they are. It'd be good politics to practice what you preach of course but is it hypocritical to live with the system that we have now while calling for a better one?

Now if he'd called for other people to stop using existing rules to minimise tax, that would be different- has he done that?

Now if he'd called for other people to stop using existing rules to minimise tax, that would be different- has he done that?

[i]"Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super-rich by exploiting every tax fiddle… ” [/i]

its not like you can accuse Boris and his mates of hypocrisy is it

It'd be good politics to practice what you preach of course but is it hypocritical to live with the system that we have now while calling for a better one?

[i]everybody should pay tax at the same rate on earnings and other income[/i]

but as said, if that's the case I want the same 'benefits' too - pension, sick pay, holiday pay, not-earning pay etc

Zulu-Eleven - Member

"Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super-rich by exploiting every tax fiddle… ”

Mmm. I wouldn't say it's the same thing but it's sailing pretty close isn't it.

Junkyard - Member

If someone says it is wrong to do something and then do it i dont really see how they are not a hypocrite.

Has he specifically said- "You should not minimise your tax, even when entitled to?" Being against laws that allow tax minimisation isn't the same thing.

to be literal, rather than political for a moment, to be [i]hypocritical [/i]is to show: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretence."

And it's hard to see just how he's not being hypocritical here.

It is crtical here it is voluntary and you can do it or not do it unlike your tax example

I have given an example where he has called for a higher tax rate on wealthy people, and yet no one is accusing him of being a hypocrite for not paying this higher rate. I am fairly confident that the inland revenue will accept more than someone needs to give them.

As I said previously, I think Livingstone could fairly be called a hypocrite if he was expecting to be personally excluded from any changes which he is calling for. I agree with Northwind.

Junkyard - Member

It is crtical here it is voluntary and you can do it or not do it unlike your tax example

Good point- that was a pretty crappy example.

this is not the stw way 😀
That is meant as a joke it would be better if we could all accept that every now again someone makes a point
i may be laying myself open to a hypocrisy charge here 😳

kens obvious and many failings aside id be inclined to dismiss anything written in the telegraph about ken before the next mayoral election as 100% borris electioneering

(their recent article about the ftl neutrinos was so bad I vowed is stop reading it )

allthepies - Member
Sexed up, well read for yourself and decide.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100139555/ken-livingstone-tax-avoidance-the-transcript/

Ignoring all the petty squabbling above( 😉 ), reading the transcript above I'd say Gilligan did "sex up" the article. He accuses Ken of reducing his tax liabilities by taking dividends and then goes on to say in a later question that Ken hasn't taken any dividends! Also it seems that Ken is taking a salary from his company and that salary has been spread over a few years where not a lot has been earned following a brief burst of activity after he lost the election. Someone find me a well run company that doesn't keep reserves so it can keep staff employed during quiet periods.

He also seems to argue that only Ken has been paid for his speaking engagements and makes no allowance for Ken to need a secretary/personal assistant to arrange all of these (his wife). Find me someone who earns over £150k a year who doesn't employ (or have employed for him) a PA. All the article is is another Gilligan piece trying to drag Livingstone through the mud which is pretty much all Gilligan has tried to do since he was sacked by the beeb.

What Ken's situation isn't comparable to is that of senior civil servants who are clearly employed by a single employer for long periods with support etc provided by the employer.

Find me someone who earns over £150k a year who doesn't employ (or have employed for him) a PA.

Also it seems that Ken is taking a salary from his company and that salary has been spread over a few years where not a lot has been earned following a brief burst of activity after he lost the election.

Tax avoidance then, perfectly legal but tax avoidance none the less. He could have declared that big earnings amount, paid the going rate of income tax on it and shoved the residue in a savings account to live off in the leaner years.

read the rest of my statement - If you think of it as a company rather than an individual. Also he's not taking dividends he's only taking a salary for which he will pay tax on, either now or in the future.

Gilligan is trying to equate this to people who have only one revenue stream who work in a solid job which would normally be full time employment which is what Ken has criticised in the past. they aren't equivalents. In his blog he has also admitted that Ken hasn't taken any dividends out of his company so where is it apparent that Ken has paid less tax?

mefty - Member
Find me someone who earns over £150k a year who doesn't employ (or have employed for him) a PA.

I know of plenty of people who earn considerably more than this and don't.

So they never have any secretarial/administration services done by others? wow.

Nope, plenty of small boutiques in the finance industry who do their own stuff, the effort required to fill in forms is de minimis over and above amount of effort required to find the information to enable to fill in the forms.

He could have declared that big earnings amount, paid the going rate of income tax on it and shoved the residue in a savings account to live off in the leaner years.

The problem is the tax laws. When there are multiple ways to manage the same income you'd be stupid not to select the most tax efficient.

Shame the media criticism always seems to fall on the individuals rather than the tax laws that allow them (or indeed us) to operate in this manner.

Shame Ken's criticism always seems to fall on the individuals rather than the tax laws that allow them (or indeed us) to operate in this manner.

😉

Well I think criticism can also be levelled at politicians who rail about something that is a legal activity, tax avoidance, and they are also responsible for the tax laws so they can't get off the hook. Trying to create a moral obligation separate and in addition to one's legal one is a cop out for people who essentially aspire to be law makers. However, it is easy media friendly stuff so they can't help themselves. But if you do it, you need to comfortable with the risk you run when your own affairs come under scrutiny.

Surely Ken is offering his "appearance services" to various parties so is totally legitimate in setting up a company to do this - what stinks is the likes of various highly paid employees who have one sole employer (& should by rights be on PAYE) being paid through a company to reduce their tax & NI costs. They've clamped down on the bottom rung of people claiming to be self employed now just clamping down on the upper rung, seems fair to me.

what stinks is the likes of various highly paid employees who have one sole employer (& should by rights be on PAYE) being paid through a company to reduce their tax & NI costs.

This could easily be resolved. Instead HMRC come up with the ambiguous mess that is IR35. There are even companies out there making good business by offering IR35 insurance and contract reviews, which illustrates what a mess the clause is.

Dickyboy - Member
Surely Ken is offering his "appearance services" to various parties so is totally legitimate in setting up a company to do this - what stinks is the likes of various highly paid employees who have one sole employer (& should by rights be on PAYE) being paid through a company to reduce their tax & NI costs. They've clamped down on the bottom rung of people claiming to be self employed now just clamping down on the upper rung, seems fair to me.

That's exactly it (imo) and what Ken has been criticising. Andrew Gilligan has picked up on this and looked into Livingstone's tax status and decided that Ken has been doing the same (which imo he hasn't) and then tried to sling mud at him.

and then tried to sling mud at him.

It's all pretty standard stuff. Livingstone has a long record of fighting racism, so they call him a racist. Livingstone has a long record of fighting for gay and lesbian rights, so they call him homophobic. Livingstone long before a Tory government eventually conceded that there could be no peace in NI without talking to Sinn Fein, argued that there could be no military solution to NI, so they called him a friend of terrorists.

So despite for years of being mercilessly ridiculed by sections of the press for his outspoken opposition to racism and his support for gay and lesbian rights, those very same critics now call him a homophobic racist. And of course they ignore his damning denunciation of terrorism after the London bombings which resulted in him receiving huge cross-party support. In fact it still represents one of greatest denunciation of terrorism I have ever heard. It's worth recalling exactly what he said :

[i]I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.[/i]

Livingstone isn't above criticism of course, far from it, but the need of some of his opponents to rely on baseless mudslinging is a measure of just how devoid of any coherent and constructive argument they are. And it's imo a particularly depressing development in British politics.

His speech after the London bombs was superb. Truly superb.

Totally irrelevant to his hypocrisy over his tax arrangements though.

Not irrelevant to the mudslinging allegations though.