Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[C R]

Starmer taking gifts from donors was perfectly legal but you had a major problem with it and suggested he needed to resign.

I think there's a name for that, did it start with an h, perchance?

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I think there's a name for that, did it start with an h, perchance?

In Stevoland only 'Leftie' hypocrisy exists, he tells us about it frequently 😂

 

[Rusty Nails]

I think there's a name for that, did it start with an h, perchance?

In Stevoland only 'Leftie' hypocrisy exists, he tells us about it frequently 😂

His real issue is Starmer's and Rayner's lack of ambition.

Real greedy bastards like Tice go large.

 

[BoldonLad]

I was thinking the same thing.
The average Clacton-on-Sea resident has an income of £30k. They are expected to vote for Farage and Tice, both of whom are avoiding taxes well in excess of anything they will ever earn.
It’s bonkers. Rich people should pay their fair percentage of tax, not the legal minimum.

Shouldn't those two figures be the same?

 

[Beebo]

Shouldn't those two figures be the same?

No not really.
Take Sunak as an example. His percentage tax is far lower than mine, yet he earns far more than me.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ective-tax-rate-of-23-on-22m-income-last-year

 

[BoldonLad]

No not really.
Take Sunak as an example. His percentage tax is far lower than mine, yet he earns far more than me.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ective-tax-rate-of-23-on-22m-income-last-year

doesn't that just mean that the tax system is not fair and equitable?, which I think is generally agreed here (with possibly one exception)

Plus, to make things worse, despite pre-election promises, Labour have done little or nothing to redress this situation.

 

[Psamathe]

It’s bonkers. Rich people should pay their fair percentage of tax, not the legal minimum.

I'd qualify that to be that our laws should require rich people to pay their fair percentage. Our Government should not be providing endless loopholes applicable to those with higher wealth (ie I don't regard ISAs as loopholes for the wealthy).

 

[icowden]

I'd qualify that to be that our laws should require rich people to pay their fair percentage. Our Government should not be providing endless loopholes applicable to those with higher wealth (ie I don't regard ISAs as loopholes for the wealthy).

Hear hear. I have a decent income which means I pay a fair whack in the 40% bracket. I don't begrudge that on first glance. But I do begrudge the fact that once you earn more than around £200k a year, that money can somehow go on holiday to the Caymans and the earner then pays less tax than me.

Same goes for corporation tax dodges.

 

[Stevo 666]

Starmer taking gifts from donors was perfectly legal but you had a major problem with it and suggested he needed to resign.

Nice attempt to divert. I notice you're not countering the point I made above.

 

[Stevo 666]

Nothing. I'm happy with my perception.

It's the avoidance of tax by a multimillionaire "patriot" claiming to have the nation's best interests at heart that I'm not happy with and no amount of carping about how it's "legal" will change that.

Will you be having a go at people who have enough money to put into ISAs next? As that is legal tax avoidance.

And complaining that he's rich just makes you sound a bit chippy about the whole thing.

 

[Stevo 666]

Mea culpa. I was in a hurry and looked at an AI summary and it neglected to mention that despite HMRC have not asked for the cash yet, so she doesn't have to pay it.

And you are right, she did not legally minimise the tax she had to pay. She made a genuine error based on legal advice she received at the time, but the financial arrangements around her son's Trust are complex and involve deeming provisions.


Hence HMRC are investigating and determining whether she needs to pay the additional £40k or not.

Tice on the other hand deliberately avoided paying £600k in tax. Because he's a true patriot.

Does that make people who put money into ISA's the same sort of 'true patriot'? Because they are reducing their tax bill deliberatley and have the money to do so.

 

[Pross]

Does that make people who put money into ISA's the same sort of 'true patriot'? Because they are reducing their tax bill deliberatley and have the money to do so.

ISAs were a deliberate Government policy to encourage saving. They want people to reduce their tax to get more saved up.

For me the transition is when it goes from something simple anyone can understand and access (ISAs, salary sacrifice, pension contributions etc.) into complicated systems where you need a lawyer to negotiate your way around the loopholes in the law I.e. deliberate policy offered by the government to encourage a certain behaviour (investment in a sector, savings, switching to green travel) is fine, finding loopholes to get around paying or sorting out complicated schemes to use tax breaks in a way they weren’t intended not OK.

 

[Beebo]

Does that make people who put money into ISA's the same sort of 'true patriot'? Because they are reducing their tax bill deliberatley and have the money to do so.

Such a pointless argument. Most ISA accounts are saving less than £500 per annum.
You would need about £30 million in an ISA to avoid £600k in tax.

 

[BoldonLad]

Such a pointless argument. Most ISA accounts are saving less than £500 per annum.
You would need about £30 million in an ISA to avoid £600k in tax.

Interesting, do you have a link to that "fact"?

 

[Pblakeney]

Lots of data here - https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...-for-annual-savings-statistics-september-2025