Further to the Dispatches Programme which Cynical Highlander highlighted last week on this blog, I came across this petition.
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/osborne-pay-your-taxes#petition
It is a ridiculous state of affairs that the people at the top of government, and in particular those who are responsible for, for whatever reasons good or bad, showering utter misery on large numbers of the population, to be taking advantage of tax loopholes to save themselves millions in taxes. Taxes which would otherwise be helping to pay down the massive deficit left to the government by the previous administration.
The petition text is as follows:
George Osborne, pay your fair share of taxes!
Stop using loopholes to avoid millions in tax. Start closing tax loopholes and make a real effort to get everyone to pay their fair share.
George Osborne likes to say "we're all in this together." But last week, Channel 4 revealed that he's avoiding paying tax. He pays accountants to help him find loopholes which Channel 4 reckons will help him dodge £1.6million. These kind of "legal tax dodges" cost the rest of us billions.
How can we trust George Osborne to do all he can to close tax loopholes when he uses the loopholes himself?
The government doesn't want to tackle tax dodging, but together we can embarrass them into action. Let's build a huge petition against George Osborne's tax dodges. We can prove that as long as he's not paying his fair share of tax, the public won't buy his claims that "we're all in this together".
I’m seriously incredulous that there are members of the Cabinet who are engaged in this kind of thing...just as the last lot were, except in the last parliament they put their tax accountants on expenses.
Tax loopholes are legal. I’m not suggesting that Osborne, Hammond and Mitchell are doing anything illegal, just immoral, and decidedly two faced when they spout that “we’re all in this together”
Until they plug the tax loopholes they should really be saying “YOU’RE all in this together”.
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/osborne-pay-your-taxes#petition
It is a ridiculous state of affairs that the people at the top of government, and in particular those who are responsible for, for whatever reasons good or bad, showering utter misery on large numbers of the population, to be taking advantage of tax loopholes to save themselves millions in taxes. Taxes which would otherwise be helping to pay down the massive deficit left to the government by the previous administration.
The petition text is as follows:
George Osborne, pay your fair share of taxes!
Stop using loopholes to avoid millions in tax. Start closing tax loopholes and make a real effort to get everyone to pay their fair share.
George Osborne likes to say "we're all in this together." But last week, Channel 4 revealed that he's avoiding paying tax. He pays accountants to help him find loopholes which Channel 4 reckons will help him dodge £1.6million. These kind of "legal tax dodges" cost the rest of us billions.
How can we trust George Osborne to do all he can to close tax loopholes when he uses the loopholes himself?
The government doesn't want to tackle tax dodging, but together we can embarrass them into action. Let's build a huge petition against George Osborne's tax dodges. We can prove that as long as he's not paying his fair share of tax, the public won't buy his claims that "we're all in this together".
I’m seriously incredulous that there are members of the Cabinet who are engaged in this kind of thing...just as the last lot were, except in the last parliament they put their tax accountants on expenses.
Tax loopholes are legal. I’m not suggesting that Osborne, Hammond and Mitchell are doing anything illegal, just immoral, and decidedly two faced when they spout that “we’re all in this together”
Until they plug the tax loopholes they should really be saying “YOU’RE all in this together”.
Right W*****'s mair like.
ReplyDeleteI wish they'd get rid of this stupid title Conan. It makes a mockery of the people who are honourable. Same with the thieving gits in the "other place" who are "noble"... including all the ones that got away with it quite honestly becasue of who they are.
ReplyDeleteThen, for an even bigger one there are the "Rt Hon and Noble" ones. For heaven's sake!
Your description is more accurate.
Hammond had to transfer his shares to his wife, not to save any tax - it wasnt avoidance or evasion [one being legal the other not] - but because as a minister it would have been a conflict of interest.
ReplyDeleteDamned if he does, damned if he doesnt!
In October 2010, whilst appearing on BBC TV's Question Time, he was asked if he had avoided paying tax and moving his shares into his wife's name. He admitted this, but denied any tax evasion or wrongdoing.
ReplyDeleteHe did it before he was a minister, when he and his party weren't even in government. And he paid himself in dividends.
I'm not sure why he thinks that "in public life" he can't respond to the allegations of a programme like Dispatches. He hasn't become the Queen or anything, just a bloke paid by us to look after England's transport; easily removeable and sent to the Jobcentre. He really should avoid being so far up his own backside.
There is absolutley NOTHING to stop him answering any allegations. He didn't though.
Dean said..
ReplyDelete" Hammond had to transfer his shares to his wife, not to save any tax - it wasnt avoidance or evasion [one being legal the other not] - but because as a minister it would have been a conflict of interest."
So how does that work ? I put my shares in my wife's name and hey presto I no longer know about the shares or tell the missus to sell them before they fall in value or buy more when they're going up in value ( or after a wee nod from someone in the know). Maybe when you sign the transfer forms they blast your brain with their death ray machine and you forget all about them. Yes that must be it.
Deano
ReplyDeletedoes an intellectual somersault and makes himself look ridiculous................whatever version of fairness you choose this is not it
So you all would wish him to keep all of his shares and have a conflict of interest?
ReplyDeleteDots, try joining them up .. or are you all just desperate to find some kind of dirt, any kind of dirt on the coalition leaders?
Anti-Tory opportunism. Pathetic.
Dean said..
ReplyDelete" So you all would wish him to keep all of his shares and have a conflict of interest?"
Keep up Dean. He's kept his shares and has a conflict of interest. When you grow up you will find out that all monies in a family unit are shared in the family unit. Their value to the family unit is continually monitored and decisions are taken at the dinner table as how to procede with each investment.
Do we really have to drag up examples from the past for you ? Mysterious share dealings by spouses ?
The tax system operates on an individual basis - which is why it is okay for his wife to hold the shares ... and btw, his wife and family unit aren't UK ministers of state - there is no conflict of interest!
ReplyDeleteDean...
ReplyDeleteWhen you grow up you will find out that all monies in a family unit are shared in the family unit. Their value to the family unit is continually monitored and decisions are taken at the dinner table as how to procede with each investment.
Dean..
ReplyDeleteOh by the way. A family unit also includes the father. Thought I should point that out to you.
Oh Dean, come on. Be fair. If Mr Hammond's wife suddenly has his shares in her name (note, he didn't give them to her, he put them in her name), do you think for a second that he will no longer have any influence over what happens to them?
ReplyDeleteIf there is some decision that might involve these shares, do you think that he won't still care about them?
"No dear, don't tell me what you're going to do with my, er I mean your £5 million of shares. Hum hum hum .... oh you're going to cash them all in and going on a clothes buying spree that would put Princess Diana to shame.... Lovely dear. Nothing to do with me. Now I must get off to work... England's transport will come to a standstill without me. By dear" (not BUY dear).
I appreciate that it is true that shares must not be owned by ministers, but putting them in one's wife's name doesn't take them out of the control of the minister.
There's really no way that that can happen.
It's like Dick Cheney giving up the directorship of his company while he was Vice President. Tell me he had no influence on what happened to the company. Tell me he had no influence on all the government war contracts that went to his company.
Tris,
ReplyDeleteIf he no longer owns any shares in private firms -- what more do you want?
Who needs to be reasonable now?
Do you want the man's first born while your at it?
You can't trust Osborne he's as incompetant as his predesessor except when it involves his rich friends.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/10/28/child-benefit-cut-unenforceable-treasury-in-a-flap/?mod=rss_WSJBlog
Could you checked on Kezia's blog tris please as I get. 'This Account Has Been Suspended'
Dean said..
ReplyDelete" Do you want the man's first born while your at it? "
Heck. He can even conceive kids. Cool.
To be fair at least Hammond has created wealth with his chemical and construction companies or whatever it was he used to run.
Not like Vichi 'cast iron' Call me Dave who has bottled it again at the EUSSR. Handing over more of our hard earned to the fat slags in Brussels.
And now talk of an annual increase which will avoid the troublesome publicity of having to put their grubby hands out every year for more.
It should of course require a treaty change but Von Rumpey will find a way around that problem and so save cast iron having to bottle out of a referendum again.
I get the same Cynical. Interesting huh?
ReplyDeleteDean. His shares are in his wife's name. They are still his shares. It's a completely silly requirement and it means absolutely nothing.
ReplyDeleteLOL Kipper.
ReplyDeleteApparently he has two kids. Luke Benedict and Liberty Kate (at least it wasn't Belle).
And the Tories are every bit as committed to brussles as Labour. Both parties have a few right wingers who need to be placated by their boss coming out with nasty remarks about the EU, but they won't ever do anything that might involve us coming out.
As for Hammond, he souds a particularly unpleasant character. I quote from Wikipedia:
Following the same TV debate, Hammond was widely chastised for "callous flippancy" in having commented that people committed suicide on the railtracks at Wimbledon with "monotonous regularity", thus causing inconvenience by affecting the reliability of the service. Words which led Dr Peter Byrne, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to reflect, "There was very little mention of mental health in the Government spending review and it is a pity to hear these kinds of views come through in such ill-considered remarks."
Cynical: Thanks for that link.
ReplyDeleteFrom the moment that this policy was announced it had the air of something that was hatched on the back of an envelope (a really expensive one of course, brought to one on a silver tray by a liveried footman), and after a couple of bottles of Krug and a good cigar or two.
The nonsense of a family on £43,000 not being entitled to any help while a family on £85,000 was, was so preposterous as to be considered the memories of last night's silly dream.
You had to pinch yourself to make sure you were awake.
When the reason for doing it was announced by Cameron as "people wouldn't like to be means tested", you though that you...or Cameron was really in La La Land.
The fact that a quick check with a senior Civil Servant would have told them that they were making fools of themsleves, holds them up to even more ridicule.
I image that it will be ditched. It seems we are NOT all in this together.
Dugdale is back on line CYnical....
ReplyDelete