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 Your scaremongering language is about a year and a half out of date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 permanent residence 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 permanent home.”

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 actually says

Broadly speaking, 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 – http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cnr/hmrc6.pdf 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;

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

"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?

As a former tax adviser, I did try and educate on these points. TJ's newspaper is not alone in talking rubbish on this subject I am afraid, the Telegraph produces some poor journalism

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 Grauniad never moans about Apax Partners…).

The VC thing (and the accompanying PR waffle) still makes me uncomfortable – the grasping need to own medals struck from (comparatively) worthless gunmetal.