| Very good on Angela Rayner on 00:49 - Sep 2 with 2250 views | reusersfreekicks |
Mail and the Sun are shameful racist rags |  | |  |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 07:04 - Sep 2 with 2146 views | GlasgowBlue |
They are terrified of her because she is an authentic person who can reconnect Labour with the working class. They also look down on her for her lack of formal education and her upbringing.
Edit. Actually, I’ve just remembered a story told to us by friends who we were out with last month. They were at a wedding where Angela Rayner was also a guest. They were appalled that Angela Rayner was drinking Pimm’s straight out of the jug. The utter disgust and snobbery in their voices when telling us.
I mean who really gives a toss about these sort if things? [Post edited 2 Sep 7:19]
|  |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 11:51 - Sep 3 with 1767 views | HairBearBunch |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 07:04 - Sep 2 by GlasgowBlue |
They are terrified of her because she is an authentic person who can reconnect Labour with the working class. They also look down on her for her lack of formal education and her upbringing.
Edit. Actually, I’ve just remembered a story told to us by friends who we were out with last month. They were at a wedding where Angela Rayner was also a guest. They were appalled that Angela Rayner was drinking Pimm’s straight out of the jug. The utter disgust and snobbery in their voices when telling us.
I mean who really gives a toss about these sort if things? [Post edited 2 Sep 7:19]
|
I do. It's unhygienic. |  | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:05 - Sep 3 with 1710 views | giant_stow |
A bit harsh! Your link suggests she was badly advised in a complex situation (if you're inclined to believe her I spose). |  |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:11 - Sep 3 with 1682 views | nodge_blue |
already posted [Post edited 3 Sep 12:11]
|  |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:17 - Sep 3 with 1634 views | chicoazul |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 07:04 - Sep 2 by GlasgowBlue |
They are terrified of her because she is an authentic person who can reconnect Labour with the working class. They also look down on her for her lack of formal education and her upbringing.
Edit. Actually, I’ve just remembered a story told to us by friends who we were out with last month. They were at a wedding where Angela Rayner was also a guest. They were appalled that Angela Rayner was drinking Pimm’s straight out of the jug. The utter disgust and snobbery in their voices when telling us.
I mean who really gives a toss about these sort if things? [Post edited 2 Sep 7:19]
|
STRAIGHT OUT OF THE JUG??? |  |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:19 - Sep 3 with 1623 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:05 - Sep 3 by giant_stow |
A bit harsh! Your link suggests she was badly advised in a complex situation (if you're inclined to believe her I spose). |
Is it harsh? If a socialist politician is inclined to buy multiple properties whilst mortgages and rents are at historic levels, it’s very difficult to find sympathy if they fall afoul of their own tax rules - not an issue for 99pc of us.
All the ‘tax companies and wealthy more’ and hey a perfect example of legal tax avoidance by the wealthy (whether intentional or not)…. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:38 - Sep 3 with 1566 views | BLUEGOLD |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:19 - Sep 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Is it harsh? If a socialist politician is inclined to buy multiple properties whilst mortgages and rents are at historic levels, it’s very difficult to find sympathy if they fall afoul of their own tax rules - not an issue for 99pc of us.
All the ‘tax companies and wealthy more’ and hey a perfect example of legal tax avoidance by the wealthy (whether intentional or not)…. |
Having listened to the 7 minute Sky interview this is clearly more nuanced than your summary.
It’s not a second home as her child with life changing and life long issues has a trust fund set up to manage things. She co parents with her ex husband in the former family home which in effect is there for her child and has been specially adapted for them.
This to me is totally different to people setting up companies to own a house and avoid tax. | | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 13:48 - Sep 3 with 1413 views | OldFart71 |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 00:49 - Sep 2 by reusersfreekicks |
Mail and the Sun are shameful racist rags |
Funny, I always thought the Sun was a working class tabloid newspaper. Where you had a page three for the lads and plenty of scandal from it's sister paper Screws news on a Sunday.
No one is saying Rayner did anything that most people wouldn't do, but when your Housing Minister calling Tories Scum and bleating on about Johnson getting some wallpaper it's all about what goes around comes around. | | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 14:12 - Sep 3 with 1342 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:19 - Sep 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Is it harsh? If a socialist politician is inclined to buy multiple properties whilst mortgages and rents are at historic levels, it’s very difficult to find sympathy if they fall afoul of their own tax rules - not an issue for 99pc of us.
All the ‘tax companies and wealthy more’ and hey a perfect example of legal tax avoidance by the wealthy (whether intentional or not)…. |
TBH I still find her purchasing a council home under RTB a more distasteful act for a Labour politician. That fact that she's in charge of housing policy after having done her own bit to deplete the social housing stock is not good. |  | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 14:16 - Sep 3 with 1307 views | Vaughan8 |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:38 - Sep 3 by BLUEGOLD |
Having listened to the 7 minute Sky interview this is clearly more nuanced than your summary.
It’s not a second home as her child with life changing and life long issues has a trust fund set up to manage things. She co parents with her ex husband in the former family home which in effect is there for her child and has been specially adapted for them.
This to me is totally different to people setting up companies to own a house and avoid tax. |
I'm sure there are schemes around but putting a property in a company is only avoiding tax if a) you have a mortgage on it, and b) if you don't withdraw anything out the company.
Sorry if I'm being thick but what has her son having life changing and life long issues got to do with her underpaying tax.
Whether she's had bad advice or not, she's responsible for hiring these people and going along with it. Its down to her. | | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 14:20 - Sep 3 with 1261 views | lowhouseblue |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 12:05 - Sep 3 by giant_stow |
A bit harsh! Your link suggests she was badly advised in a complex situation (if you're inclined to believe her I spose). |
given the complexity of the trusts etc involved i'm inclined to agree with you. but the 'badly advised' line is not absolute - you still have a duty to seek advice form the right person (in this case someone with knowledge of trusts and tax law) and to ask them the right questions. so that's what the standards investigation will need to decide. she's not in the clear yet. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 14:57 - Sep 3 with 1162 views | BLUEGOLD |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 14:16 - Sep 3 by Vaughan8 |
I'm sure there are schemes around but putting a property in a company is only avoiding tax if a) you have a mortgage on it, and b) if you don't withdraw anything out the company.
Sorry if I'm being thick but what has her son having life changing and life long issues got to do with her underpaying tax.
Whether she's had bad advice or not, she's responsible for hiring these people and going along with it. Its down to her. |
Listen to the interview first, then try to find an iota of compassion, give your head a wobble and repost | | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 15:13 - Sep 3 with 1095 views | reusersfreekicks |
If you really think it's like that I feel sorry for you | | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 17:18 - Sep 3 with 918 views | Vaughan8 |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 14:57 - Sep 3 by BLUEGOLD |
Listen to the interview first, then try to find an iota of compassion, give your head a wobble and repost |
I'm not sure that's an answer to the question.
In intrusion on her life is a completely different thing.
Her son has no bearing on not paying the right tax does it? Using her son as an excuse is a bit weird. She's not even doing that. She's admitted it wrong. | | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 17:28 - Sep 3 with 871 views | lowhouseblue |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 17:18 - Sep 3 by Vaughan8 |
I'm not sure that's an answer to the question.
In intrusion on her life is a completely different thing.
Her son has no bearing on not paying the right tax does it? Using her son as an excuse is a bit weird. She's not even doing that. She's admitted it wrong. |
the question is whether the legal arrangement that was put in place to provide for her son meant that her recently purchased flat wasn't an 'additional property' for the purposes of stamp duty calculation. she says that she had taken advice which said that it wasn't, but now it turns out that it was. the question is whether she is responsible for that error - ie whether she indeed took expert advice and whether she is responsible if expert advice turns out to be faulty. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 17:35 - Sep 3 with 837 views | lowhouseblue |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 17:28 - Sep 3 by lowhouseblue |
the question is whether the legal arrangement that was put in place to provide for her son meant that her recently purchased flat wasn't an 'additional property' for the purposes of stamp duty calculation. she says that she had taken advice which said that it wasn't, but now it turns out that it was. the question is whether she is responsible for that error - ie whether she indeed took expert advice and whether she is responsible if expert advice turns out to be faulty. |
though it is now suggested that the hmrc publishes very simple to read advice on the very issue - whether a property held for the benefit of a child is an additional property for these purposes - so whatever bad advice she listened to will need to be considered in the context of it being reasonable to expect her to actually read what the hmrc publishes. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 17:59 - Sep 3 with 768 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 17:35 - Sep 3 by lowhouseblue |
though it is now suggested that the hmrc publishes very simple to read advice on the very issue - whether a property held for the benefit of a child is an additional property for these purposes - so whatever bad advice she listened to will need to be considered in the context of it being reasonable to expect her to actually read what the hmrc publishes. |
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential
This does not look very simple to me..... |  |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:04 - Sep 3 with 742 views | DJR |
This passage early on is pretty simple..
"If any of you will own or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).
Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)".
It's very difficult to believe that any conveyancing solicitor would not know this, assuming they were aware of the trust.
EDIT: she apparently said she only knew the position when she went to a KC but it doesn't need a KC to read clear and plain HMRC advice. [Post edited 3 Sep 18:16]
|  | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:15 - Sep 3 with 696 views | lowhouseblue |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:04 - Sep 3 by DJR |
This passage early on is pretty simple..
"If any of you will own or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).
Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)".
It's very difficult to believe that any conveyancing solicitor would not know this, assuming they were aware of the trust.
EDIT: she apparently said she only knew the position when she went to a KC but it doesn't need a KC to read clear and plain HMRC advice. [Post edited 3 Sep 18:16]
|
that last bit does seem simple and clear to me. can you rely on the bad advice argument if the answer to the question is published by the hmrc in plain and simple language? and given that degree of clarity what sort of expert adviser would have got the answer wrong? i don't think it all looks good for her. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:16 - Sep 3 with 686 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:04 - Sep 3 by DJR |
This passage early on is pretty simple..
"If any of you will own or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).
Include any residential property that:
is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)".
It's very difficult to believe that any conveyancing solicitor would not know this, assuming they were aware of the trust.
EDIT: she apparently said she only knew the position when she went to a KC but it doesn't need a KC to read clear and plain HMRC advice. [Post edited 3 Sep 18:16]
|
So what you're saying is that it could be the solicitor's fault?
My point to lowers being that it would not necessarily be that easy for Rayner to parse all that info (including any caveats) herself, other than to say to any advisors, "Make sure all the rules are followed please and I pay what I'm supposed to", otherwise she might as well do everything herself... | |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:20 - Sep 3 with 655 views | lowhouseblue |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:16 - Sep 3 by Ewan_Oozami |
So what you're saying is that it could be the solicitor's fault?
My point to lowers being that it would not necessarily be that easy for Rayner to parse all that info (including any caveats) herself, other than to say to any advisors, "Make sure all the rules are followed please and I pay what I'm supposed to", otherwise she might as well do everything herself... |
i think it is reasonable to expect someone to do some basic scrutiny themselves - even if only to clarify what question to ask their expert. i think that's particularly so of someone in public office who is highly used to dealing with complex material and needs to set an example to others. the other issue is who did she take advice from - were they really well qualified? it does look on the basis of the hmrc guide to be a very avoidable error. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:27 - Sep 3 with 622 views | BLUEGOLD |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 17:18 - Sep 3 by Vaughan8 |
I'm not sure that's an answer to the question.
In intrusion on her life is a completely different thing.
Her son has no bearing on not paying the right tax does it? Using her son as an excuse is a bit weird. She's not even doing that. She's admitted it wrong. |
You clearly haven’t seen the interview or read the statement
If she has misled people about the advice she should go btw [Post edited 3 Sep 18:28]
| | | |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:48 - Sep 3 with 520 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Very good on Angela Rayner on 18:20 - Sep 3 by lowhouseblue |
i think it is reasonable to expect someone to do some basic scrutiny themselves - even if only to clarify what question to ask their expert. i think that's particularly so of someone in public office who is highly used to dealing with complex material and needs to set an example to others. the other issue is who did she take advice from - were they really well qualified? it does look on the basis of the hmrc guide to be a very avoidable error. |
I think sorting this out would have required more than just "basic scrutiny" - but it is good to know that that senior female Labour politicians are being held to such high standards.... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
