MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
But it isn't their house. It belongs either all or 3/4 to the trust they set up to give the house to their son.
I would not be surprised if the running costs of the house are quite properly coming out the trust.
And where does that money come from? The trust won't generate any income - it's down to the parents to fund the upkeep of the house.
Trusts are Dick thing to do often by Dicks who moan about social security scroungers but then become social security scroungers themselves because the money they've stuck in trust can't be got at to pay for their end of life care so they end up scrounging off the state. An example being my ex-neighbour in Brum and self-proclaimed money wizzard who has ended up sponging off the state while his money sits in a trust.
Trusts are Dick thing to do
Well, apart from where the trust is supposed to look after the needs of someone who isn't capable of looking after the money themselves. Even a cursory look at where the money came from, and who it is supposed to benefit, suggests a trust was/is needed in this case. Plenty of people use trusts to "hide" assets of course, especially when it comes to land, but there are legitimate cases where trusts are required. This looks like one of those cases to me.
Is the legal framework used to set up the trust only available for the specific purpose of the financial support of "someone who isn't capable of looking after the money themselves" or is it a legal framework to avoid paying tax. If it is only available for the 1st scenario then I don't see any problems and think it is fair enough, if it is the later then the child's disability is just a red herring for the tax arrangements.
I refuse to believe that Rayner isn't fiancially, physically and mentally capable of assuring her child's future without resorting to a tax dodging financial structure. If there wasn't a tax advantage people wouldn't do it. The trust is just one of the many financial strutures used by the rich to avoid paying tax of one kind or another.
Anyhow she's gone, and rightly so.
I refuse to believe that Rayner isn't fiancially, physically and mentally capable of assuring her child's future without resorting to a tax dodging financial structure.
And if she died in a car crash tomorrow?
Trusts are not just for "tax planning", even if they are often used solely for that purpose.
And if she died in a car crash tomorrow?
I'm guessing she's got ample life insurance and a will that takes her son's needs into account.
Is the legal framework used to set up the trust only available for the specific purpose of the financial support of "someone who isn't capable of looking after the money themselves" or is it a legal framework to avoid paying tax.
It can also be a means to ensure that her ex doesn't pass the whole property to a new partner, bypassing their son.
Until we're clear on the detail we won't know, but she needed to be very clear on the implications and obviously wasn't. It didn't help her case that the pre-purchase legal advice wasn't published
Well, apart from where the trust is supposed to look after the needs of someone who isn't capable of looking after the money themselves.
For sure, if only Rayner hadn't wanted to deprive others that are struggling with disability too that weren't lucky enough to have access to a trust.
Rayner refuses to rule out punishing Labour MPs who rebel over welfare cuts
Deputy PM defends government plan predicted to result in 1.2m people with disabilities losing thousands
So much dross being put forward in sympathy of her in this context.
I refuse to believe that Rayner
You can arrogantly proclaim your ignorance as much as you want, it just makes you ignorant.
So much dross being put forward in sympathy of her in this context.
Yep, she was happy to go along with and defend all the horrible crap that Starmer and his government was coming out with which makes her as bad as he is and as we all know he is ****ing awful.
If the disabled son is not capable of fully managing his own financial affairs (which seems quite likely) then a trust is the obvious approach to take, it's nothing to do with tax dodging, it's just the standard mechanism by which assets are routinely held and managed on behalf of someone who's not able to do it themselves.
People commenting who aren't even vaguely aware that this is entirely normal and appropriate practice when dealing with minors and/or mentally impaired people really ought to consider that they are just too ignorant to be able to make any meaningful judgement on the rights and wrongs of the matter.
I am fully aware that it's a normal practice, so normal a neighbour and soon to be ex family member's familily have used them to avoid tax with the pretext of protecting "weak" family members. In one case the person being "protected" (surviving spouse) was completely screwed over by the self-serving trustees who had her living in artificial poverty while assett stripping her. She was unable to sell her valuable unsuitable home for something more appropriate. The main loser in both cases has been the tax man.
Added with no comment
My comment is that she evaded tax and failed to take advice, which she was advised to do.
Sorry is Jeremy Hunt in government?
Current Labour haven't exactly had the hardest time given their dreadful first year.
I mean ... Current state of media reporting.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1964387067171131766?t=Sj5DueUH9tOB2tMCi3UjCA&s=19
Zack Polanski told women that he could make their breasts larger by Hypnotism. If the worst he gets is comments about his teeth, he's up on the deal.
Zack Polanski told women that he could make their breasts larger by Hypnotism. If the worst he gets is comments about his teeth, he's up on the deal.
I thought he was going to use hypnotherapy to make women accepting of their breast size rather than choose surgery?
Zack Polanskitold women that he could make their breasts larger by Hypnotism. If the worst he gets is comments about his teeth, he's up on the deal.
Hmm don't know which is worse - Angela Rayner supporting disability cuts and turning out to be a total political let-down who joined the ranks of the 'what's in it for me' club or a man who is taking the battle to Nigel Farage ...
I thought he was going to use hypnotherapy to make women accepting of their breast size rather than choose surgery?
Yes of course, but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good headline.
I thought he was going to use hypnotherapy to make women accepting of their breast size rather than choose surgery?
which just goes to show I suppose, that if one is desperate, you'll try to convince yourself of anything...Ask yourself, if that's the case, and not as has been reported that he did in fact claim to be able to 'enhance' them, why he felt the need to apologise at the time, and again now when the story resurfaced?
He's already started to stray from his brief, Suggesting that the UK should leave NATO. I suspect that his plan to attract new members from the Labour left may have already been holed beneath the waterline now that Party McPartyFace has been launched. At least he's not your average run of the mill bland politician wannabe though, although given how 'nasty' (by the Greens bland standards) this leadership contest has been, some of the membership of the Greens are less than happy about him. So it'll be interesting at least
or a man who is taking the battle to Nigel Farage
You can say any old shit if the party you lead has no hope of ever being in a position to having to do anything or back your words up.
You can say any old shit if the party you lead has no hope of ever being in a position to having to do anything or back your words up.
Yep, it certainly seems to have caught Starmer out. He dealt with it by simply throwing away all the stuff he said before being in power and it certainly seems to be working out well for him.
Edukator, the fact that some bad people do X doesn't mean that everyone who does X is bad.
There are huge numbers of irresponsible parents who haven't done anything to prepare for the possibility of their untimely demise, not even bothering to write a will (several have admitted as much on this forum) and just expecting random relatives or social services to step in and pick up the pieces, so criticising someone who has actually taken sensible steps to protect their disabled child seems very poorly judged.
which just goes to show I suppose, that if one is desperate, you'll try to convince yourself of anything...Ask yourself, if that's the case, and not as has been reported that he did in fact claim to be able to 'enhance' them, why he felt the need to apologise at the time, and again now when the story resurfaced?
Feel free to post any links to back up your claims.
Bonus points if it's not the Sun article that all this was based on. But then I guess if you are desperate enough you'll go to any 'source' that backs up your point of view.
Edukator, the fact that some bad people do X doesn't mean that everyone who does X is bad.
I don't think I've made any comment on links to X in months and not on the last few pages. I don't use it or click links but haven't slagged of users in a while.
Social services end up picking up the pieces when people have transfered their wealth to a trust to avoid inheritance tax and then end up with care costs that exceed the wealth they left in their own name.
You might think it's poorly judged (but then you think and state prety much everything I write on this form is poorly judged and regularly take a pop at me - you have a problem with me 🙂 ), I think the whole trust system stinks and feel free to criticise people who in this case use it dishonestly. She's gone, I quite liked her but this trust episode shows me she just another dishonest politician with no morals and it's good riddance to bad rubbish.
I think he meant X as "some behaviour" rather that X as twitter.
Well spotted MSP. 🙂
I venture there's more use of trusts for tax avoidance than any other reason, a view supported by trends in trusts being set up:
But she didn't use the trust dishonestly, the trust was fine, it was the purchase of another house where she didn't pay appropriate stamp duty because (according to SDLT rules) she was deemed to still be owning the property that was in the trust.
I don't have a pop at people, I have a pop at their comments. I don't really remember who has said what when but I suppose if you say a lot of silly things you might think I'm picking on you.
TBH while I think it's right that she's gone I'd be surprised if it was deliberate dishonesty, firstly because it's not exactly a huge sum to throw away your career over and secondly because it's really not that implausible that having sold her old house to the trust, she genuinely thought she no longer owned it. In most contexts, she'd be right to think that, it is just the SDLT rules that deem her still to be a beneficial owner due to the use she makes of it.
If she actually wanted to save the tax legitimately she could have sold the house other than to the trust, bought her new property, and then had the trust buy a property for her son. Same loss to the taxpayer, slightly more convoluted process, but probably worth it for £40k.
Putting the house in trust to ensure the future of her disabled son is a responsible act that should be applauded rather than sniped about. Lots of people are not so thoughtful about the futures of their dependents.
Bonus points if it's not the Sun article that all this was based on
You know it was a "sting" right? That Sun journalists interviewed him and filmed him saying it? It's not a quote from Facebook or Twitter or reporting that someone overheard him making the claim. The Sun's a scummy paper without a doubt, but they didn't have to work hard for this story.
But I forget, this Labour Govt are the only panto villains on this thread. Never mind that the Greens appear to have elected Widow T****y
Lots of people are not so thoughtful about the futures of their dependents.
And lots of non-hadicapped rich people will do whatever they can to dodge tax depriving the government of revenue which means less for the disabled that don't have the luxury of being rich.
Did you actually look at that graph which tells you all about about what the vast majority of people using trusts find attractive about them.
You don't need a trust to be thoughtful about the futures of your dependants unless your only idea of being thoughtful is avoiding tax to make them richer and thus the rest of the population poorer.
It would be nice to see the Labour government eliminating the financial advantes of trusts so the only reason for setting one up would be to manage the affairs of those unable to manage them themselves, and that with a compus mentis test to avoid abuses which leave mainly women unable to manage their own affairs on the death of a spouse.
You know it was a "sting" right? That Sun journalists interviewed him and filmed him saying it? It's not a quote from Facebook or Twitter or reporting that someone overheard him making the claim. The Sun's a scummy paper without a doubt, but they didn't have to work hard for this story.
It was a sting operation? Really?
But yes, I'm sure none of the quotes were taken out of context and he absolutely 'sold' a breast enlargement 'service' to as many women as he could. Afterall, we have loads of women claiming he tried to perform this service on them, don't we?
But yes, keeping focus on this burning issue is what you are after so I guess I should say, 'You're welcome' for continuing to discuss it and giving you exactly what you want.
So, you're welcome.
Although I should also thank you. Given the fact we're still discussing it shows that centrists are more than a little worried about Hypnoboobs' abilities to draw even more votes from a sinking Labour party. Which tickles me, at least.
So, thank you.
Anyway, I don't think I'm giving Polanski any more of the benefit of the doubt than I gave Starmer when he became leader.
Starmer then disappointed me time and time again so he can swivel.
Polanski will more than likely disappoint me at which point I will tell him to swivel.
However, is there a particular reason I should skip giving Polanski the benefit of the doubt and just jump straight to regarding him as a Pound Shop Starmer? Other than the fact the few remaining Labour supporters really really seem to be wishing he would just go away?
I voted Green last time and will do again even if I think Polanski is a poor choice of leader.
But it isn't their house. It belongs either all or 3/4 to the trust they set up to give the house to their son.
I would not be surprised if the running costs of the house are quite properly coming out the trust.
And where does that money come from? The trust won't generate any income - it's down to the parents to fund the upkeep of the house.
The money came from the compensation from the NHS. The trust should generate income. We don't know but there is no reason to believe the entire trust funds were used to buy the house. There is presumably part still invested and providing an income.
Then there is the fact her disabled son will be in receipt of benefits which are intendedto support his cost of living part of which is housing costs.
"widow t****y"?, rather pejorative is it not?
I thought hypnoboobs was a perfectly adequate nickname. Centrists clearly feel the need up the ante.
But I'm sure they're not worried...
Sure, 'Rachel from Accounts' is a searing (sneering?) insight that cuts to the heart of the centrists soul, while 'Hypno-boob' demonstrates that they're running scared. The cognitive dissonance is something to behold...
"widow t****y"?
Curious as to what the stars mean?
Sure, 'Rachel from Accounts' is a searing (sneering?)
She's chancellor of the exchequer and comes out with nonsense about the country needing to 'balance the books' and non-existent black holes. If she has a deep understanding of her subject area maybe she could do a more honest and better job of communicating it? As it stands a bloke who hypnotised women to be comfortable with the size of their breasts does a better job than Reeves at explaining how the nation's finances work.
But I forget, this Labour Govt are the only panto villains on this thread.
*Checks thread title*
Sure, 'Rachel from Accounts' is a searing (sneering?) insight that cuts to the heart of the centrists soul, while 'Hypno-boob' demonstrates that they're running scared. The cognitive dissonance is something to behold...
Well, to be fair, only one of those people have actually been given the chance to run the country's finances.
Remember what I was saying about giving people a chance to disappoint you first? So yes, it sounds like you and all the other Starmer apologist centrists are running scared.
Mandleson gone within the week? His creepiness might be useful for the UK over in Trumpland, but his history with Epstein clearly bad for this government... the noise around this isn't going reduce while he's still in his post.
It was long known that he was a friend of Epstein and visitor to peado island, and twice "resigned" from Blair's government for scandals/corruption. He shouldn't have been any where near an official post. It is just another display of Starmers lack of morality that he was given a cushy reward "jobs for the boys" appointment for being part of the right wing cliché currently destroying labour.
I heard the slimy little shite Mandelson on the radio this morning.
He said blah, blah, regret being Epstein's pal, it went on too long, hindsight, nothing untoward that I saw, blah, blah.
But he's also said that he expects further 'embarrassing' stuff to emerge. So he's clearly hoping for some miracle. If he knows more could come out, he knows what it is. So if he actually wanted to be open and honest, he could. But like all his kind, he'll be hoping that as much as possible stays buried.
tarmers lack of morality that he was given a cushy reward "jobs for the boys" appointment for being part of the right wing cliché currently destroying labour.
fact is Mandelson was the best person for the job (which in itself says a lot about mandelson) , Trumps tariffs crippling the economy (and espeically the steel industry) would have been an open door for farage
And the current negotiations are about pharmaceuticals exports- UK exports to USA are worth £8bn, which is almost half of the uk exports and supports over 200,000 jobs- how many of those would you be willing to sacrifice?
I cant see Mandelson staying in post, after these revelations tho.
Trump may like him, in which case hes served his use to the UK and Starmer will have little choice but to ditch him, no matter how effective he is
I know you have to put your morals in the back seat to make a deal with Trump, but their are limits!
fact is Mandelson was the best person for the job
"fact" 🤣 🤣 🤣
Mandelson was never the best person for any job, he is a self serving liar who believes his own "brilliance" and doesn't give a flying **** about the costs to anyone and everyone else, exactly in the same mould as Cummings, he has always been a cancer in British politics.
The Mandelson thing is clearly about to blow-up in Starmer's face and will probably make the Rayner debacle go very quiet. The choices from Starmer are truly extraordinary. Mandelson actually comes with a sign saying 'dangerous goods'.
This is a man who resigned twice from the Labour cabinet for dodgy business scandals.
Blairite worms.
Can Labour get down to single digits in the polls? Are the grown-ups really in charge?
fact is Mandelson was the best person for the job
Only if you wanted him to have 3 strikes in a row.
Mandelson was never the best person for any job, he is a self serving liar who believes his own "brilliance" and doesn't give a flying **** about the costs to anyone and everyone else, exactly in the same mould as Cummings, he has always been a cancer in British politics.
which makes him the perfect person to negotiate with Trump, who else is more in tune with Trump (without going full farage)
It makes him the best person to get a deal that suits him and a small percentage of people and screws over the rest of us, that has always been his deal.
what this guy said...
https://bsky.app/profile/ajs1977.bsky.social/post/3lyi4xtphsk27
ive no doubt mandelson will go and will not be sad to see the back of him
Nope, that still just makes him a person more likely to sell the country out for his own gain than get a good deal for most of us.
1) I am very suspicious of the Rayner transactions but I also just don't understand trusts and how they work, and I don't understand her personal life (which is none of my business). If she really was advised by lawyers to do it this way based on her honestly describing the facts...then I don't see it as a firing offence...yet.
2) The hypnoboobs article in the Sun was not a sting. It was a puff piece that Polanski went along with entirely voluntarily. BruceWee and others have said they refuse to read any Sun article - if that is still the case then they literally don't know what they're talking about. But in any case Polanski is not in the UK government and he has his own perfectly good thread.
3) Mandelson is corrupt, duplicitous and should never be in public office anywhere for any reason. The ambassador doesn't get heavily involved in intergovernmental negotiations at all - that's a misunderstanding of the role. Starmer should never have appointed him, and should fire him today. You may as well get all the bad news out in one week.
Mandelson has to go asap. I’ve got a gut feeling Starmer isn’t far from breaking point either. Labour leadership contest by Christmas?
No way. Things are always rough in the first year of a new government in poor economic times.
What a car crash.
I get that Mandleson is a usefull tool for dealing with Trump - but at what cost? it really doesn't play well if it's looking like he's just as big of a pedophile/ rapist as trump.
It's just occured to me that Ernie hasn't posted for a while so I had a look at his profile and he just stopped three weeks back without a huff or a flounce or owt. A few possibilities sprung to mind:
Arrested at a demo: if so more power to your elbow, Ernie, it was no doubt a just cause.
Decided to get a life: enjoy it, Ernie
Ill: hope you get well soon.
Man down: 🙁
Croydon nuked: I think it would be in the papers
If you're reading this, all the best to you, Ernie.
No way. Things are always rough in the first year of a new government in poor economic times.
Woah ... Hang on it a bit.
It's within his power to try and fix that - and they're not even doing it remotely well. They're collapsing everything they touch.
He and Reeves are incapable of fixing anything economic because the fiscal rules will not allow it. Fiscal rules will box them in. I said well over a year ago it's impossible to grow the economy substantially with the tools they've chosen. Total impossibility. (Because the deficit at this point has to enlarge substantially to grow the economy.)
I get that Mandleson is a usefull tool for dealing with Trump -
He's not that - he's just a tool. Embarrassingly overrated. You would never employ a person with his history, credibility and judgment .Never in a million years.
You're not telling me there wasn't a better CV than his? Lmfao. Given the scope of the roll. It's like getting Hannibal Lecter to pick up your meat from the butchers and deliver it without eating the meat and you.
"Yum, Yum."
How much more shit do we have to endure with Starmer? Starmer is the grand-daddy of terrible judgment too.
They even lost Ian Dunt. This is a massive gift for the hardcore right - again.
https://bsky.app/profile/iandunt.bsky.social/post/3lyikbedepc2x
It's just occured to me that Ernie hasn't posted for a while so I had a look at his profile and he just stopped three weeks back without a huff or a flounce or owt. A few possibilities sprung to mind:
Arrested at a demo: if so more power to your elbow, Ernie, it was no doubt a just cause.
Decided to get a life: enjoy it, Ernie
Ill: hope you get well soon.
Man down: 🙁
Croydon nuked: I think it would be in the papers
If you're reading this, all the best to you, Ernie.
You know what I thought the same today.
For such a prolific poster.
Good post - covering bases.
It's just occured to me that Ernie hasn't posted for a while so I had a look at his profile and he just stopped three weeks back without a huff or a flounce or owt. A few possibilities sprung to mind:
Arrested at a demo: if so more power to your elbow, Ernie, it was no doubt a just cause.
Decided to get a life: enjoy it, Ernie
Ill: hope you get well soon.
Man down: 🙁
Croydon nuked: I think it would be in the papers
If you're reading this, all the best to you, Ernie.
You know what I thought the same today.
For such a prolific poster.
Good post - covering bases.
Yeah... as much as I disagree with him on some stuff, hope he's ok.
Two more options;
Banned
On holiday (a real holiday where you don't look a the internet)
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has told private equity bosses that she plans to shut down more regulators across the UK as she attempts to drive growth across Britain’s subdued economy
Just double sigh.
She really does have the power to drive if she really wants to. But not like this.
Mandleson needs to be more like Rayner - learn to read the room & resign.
He's gone now.
He's gone.
Sacked.
"In light of new information."
Lmfao. He's hardly got a great track record across the board.
I remember someone on here getting excited that "the Mandy was back."
🤪
(Kelvin and I sat over the keyboard waiting.)
See ya Mandy. Starmer next. Lammy new PM
The damage is done. It's grist to the mill for the "they're all the same" mob. Any attempt to discuss Trump in the context of Epstein with prospective Reform voters can be countered easily with Lord Mandelson. I bet he won't lose his peerage.
Nice one, Keir.
👏
The damage is done. It's grist to the mill for the "they're all the same" mob
Labour are experts at handing this stuff out.
Labour's 2024-2025 timeline is going to look astonishing.
The Mandelson thing is all about the media revelling in their success getting rid of Rayner and saying "Right, who next".
Like wringing out a dishcloth. Give it a squeeze and water comes out. Squeeze it again and see if any more comes out. No reason to stop until it's dry.
Mandelson is a creep and needs to go. Should have been in the dustbin of history years ago
Should have been in the dustbin of history years ago
The fact he wasn't speaks volumes about the political establishment.
PS. Anyone else heard these rumours about Starmer and Ukrainian rentboys? Probably bollocks but would explain a lot. 😳
Why Ukrainian? That alone should make you more cynical and avoid spreading such nonsense.
Mandelson also had a go at peddling the line of reasoning that states he couldn't be implicated in anything sexual with regards to Epstein because his homosexuality was a kind of shield.
Yeah, because obviously Epstein would have been doctrinally incapable of procuring underage males as well as females, right?
I'm not saying he did, but his line of 'reasoning' is utterly laughable.
I imagine Trump is going to keep quiet (relatively speaking) on the Mandleson sacking/removal till he is safely on Airforce One on the way back to states after the state visit next week, sacking Mandleson for his ties to Epstein does not look good for Trumps ties to Epstein so expect to see Trump go all out on “Freedom of Speech” issues in this country and we’ll pay the price
Why Ukrainian? That alone should make you more cynical and avoid spreading such nonsense.
It's based on the thing about his house being attacked by Ukrainians. I am cynical, hence the 'it's probably bollocks', doesn't mean we can't ask the question though. As the Mandelson thing proves, there is so much mirky sordid stuff going on under the surface of politics and 'high society' that it wouldn't be a massive surprise if Starmer himself is mixed up in dodgy stuff.
The Mandelson thing is all about the media revelling in their success getting rid of Rayner and saying "Right, who next".
No, the Mandelson thing is all about him being a deeply terrible person with awful judgement and a track record of brokering deals with bad people. He should never have been appointed Ambassador and I'm happy that Starmer fired him instead of allowing him to resign. But I would have been happier if he had never been hired in the first place.
Has anyone heard the rumours about [username] and the Ukrainian rent boys? Probably bollocks but would explain a lot! 🫨🫨🫨
Right, who next?