Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

Moe_Zambeek

I don't agree with that assessment. The SNP is (up until the present) also a very (small c) conservative party in deed if not rhetoric, because it has to be middle of the road to achieve its electoral ambition, and it gets many votes from the anybody-but-labour mood of recent years. I believe people abandoned labour in Scotland not because they were too right wing, but because they were completely demonstrably useless.

Moe_Zambeek

Having said that the SNP are showing signs of adopting worrying levels of left wing control freakery with the 'named person' thing

ICBM

Moe_Zambeek said:

I don't agree with that assessment. The SNP is (up until the present) also a very (small c) conservative party in deed if not rhetoric, because it has to be middle of the road to achieve its electoral ambition, and it gets many votes from the anybody-but-labour mood of recent years. I believe people abandoned labour in Scotland not because they were too right wing, but because they were completely demonstrably useless.

The SNP may not be left-wing, any more than Blair's Labour was - as you say, they are middle-of-the-road in deed - but their rhetoric works and they are *seen* to be left-of-centre. I think the SNP has very deliberately painted itself as more socialist than Labour in order to capture that vote.

Labour are certainly useless though, especially in Scotland. It's also slightly bizarre that we now have a London Labour leadership who are well to the left of the Scottish Labour Party.

Moe_Zambeek said:

Having said that the SNP are showing signs of adopting worrying levels of left wing control freakery with the 'named person' thing

And have gone worryingly - and unexpectedly, even for politicians - fast down the road of power-corrupts and hypocrisy now they are a significant force in Westminster.

God help us if the Scottish parliament was elected under FPTP.

I'm not sure how far I'm willing to take refusal to comply with the 'named person' thing yet.

Snap

lloyd said:

Why are people insisting on making this a political divide? It's crazy, it's a rich/poor/self employed divide, it doesn't matter what your politics are the VAST majority of people-myself included and I'm probably a left leaning socialist if I had to class myself as anything-will try to minimise legally what they pay out in taxes, no one phones HRMC up at the end of the month and says they've got a bit left over if they fancy some more do they? No one dances a jig when they fork over a hefty sum in inheritance tax and gets a warm glow as they're boosting the nations coffers and helping pay nurses wages.

I agree.

IMO, behind all this posturing is an inherent dislike of people with money. It seems to be an overarching colour to the whole thing. Labour seem to have an issue with wealth, as if it is something to despise. There is nothing wrong with wealth. What is of importance is how you conduct yourself and how competent you are (in politics if not in life).

So Corbyn has a pension pot of a million. So what? He's provided well for his retirement. Nothing to do with his politics.

I don't give a toss what MPs earn, how much they are worth etc etc. What I want is for them to have no bias, no vested interests that may affect their job, and to pay taxes that are due.

They can be as rich or as poor as they like.

digitalscream

Snap said:

I don't give a toss what MPs earn, how much they are worth etc etc. What I want is for them to have no bias, no vested interests that may affect their job, and to pay taxes that are due.

They can be as rich or as poor as they like.

I still like the idea that when somebody is elected, all of their significant assets and cash are turned over to the state for the duration of their term, and their living costs are then provided by the state; how much they get back at the end of their term depends on how well the country (or their constituency) has done in that time, measured in terms of the economy/quality of life/employment levels/etc.

I want them to have a vested interest in the country itself, and - if set up right - it'd mean that people are only attracted to politics if they genuinely believe they can have a positive impact. That's the central problem: the wrong people are interested in being politicians.

ICBM

Agreed, and I am also quite left-wing as you will know.

The difficulty is that the ones who are rich have often got to be like that, or then use it afterwards, by doing things that does definitely involve vested interests and will lead to bias. If it didn't it wouldn't be a problem at all.

Corbyn having a pension worth a million doesn't surprise me or worry me. He's such a tight-fisted skinflint by all accounts that the money hasn't had much opportunity to go anywhere else.

Fretwired

But many Labour MPs are funded by Trade Unions - isn't that bias? And all the political parties have to raise funds - donors will want something in return. The only alternative is state funded political parties.

Troy

Can someone explain what this "named person" is, please?

Fretwired

Snap said:

I agree.

IMO, behind all this posturing is an inherent dislike of people with money. It seems to be an overarching colour to the whole thing. Labour seem to have an issue with Tory wealth, as if it is something to despise. There is nothing wrong with wealth. What is of importance is how you conduct yourself and how competent you are (in politics if not in life).

So Corbyn has a pension pot of a million. So what? He's provided well for his retirement. Nothing to do with his politics.

I don't give a toss what MPs earn, how much they are worth etc etc. What I want is for them to have no bias, no vested interests that may affect their job, and to pay taxes that are due.

They can be as rich or as poor as they like.

Fixed that for you .. plenty of wealthy Labourites ....

digitalscream

Troy said:

Can someone explain what this "named person" is, please?

Every child under 18 essentially gets an assigned social worker. Proponents say that it's to provide assistance, detractors say it's basically intrusive and is no different to allowing social workers to investigate people without any justification or reports required.

ICBM

Troy said:

Can someone explain what this "named person" is, please?

snp named person policy

Troy

Thanks @ICBM & @digitalscream. I must have missed that from the news. Does seem like the state interfering again...

quarky

So despite the insinuation that in the press that Blairmore was some secret tax evasion scam, it is a legitimate investment fund, just like any other (except perhaps not so well performing).

So DC gets pilloried for making money from an investment, and some of the same people consider Corbyn whiter-than-white despite failing to disclose his pension (and apparently not getting a penny in interest despite earning £70k+ a year).

Imagine if DC was the Labour leader and Corbyn was the Tory PM....

Jalapeno

quarky said:

So despite the insinuation that in the press that Blairmore was some secret tax evasion scam, it is a legitimate investment fund, just like any other (except perhaps not so well performing).

So DC gets pilloried for making money from an investment, and some of the same people consider Corbyn whiter-than-white despite failing to disclose his pension (and apparently not getting a penny in interest despite earning £70k+ a year).

Imagine if DC was the Labour leader and Corbyn was the Tory PM....

Precisely !

digitalscream

So, in summary...

- David Cameron is Satan, despite not actually doing anything wrong

- Jeremy Corbyn is either dishonest or incompetent

- SNP got voted in because nobody in Scotland likes Labour any more, and are pushing through the most invasive legislation in recent memory

- People without money are, generally, somewhat jealous of people who have it

- "One rule for them, another for us" is actually OK as long as it's more punitive for "them"

Have I got that right?

Moe_Zambeek

Dead on

Skipped

quarky said:

So despite the insinuation that in the press that Blairmore was some secret tax evasion scam, it is a legitimate investment fund, just like any other (except perhaps not so well performing).

So DC gets pilloried for making money from an investment, and some of the same people consider Corbyn whiter-than-white despite failing to disclose his pension (and apparently not getting a penny in interest despite earning £70k+ a year).

Imagine if DC was the Labour leader and Corbyn was the Tory PM....

The insinuation from hundreds of journalists is that Blairmore is dodgy. Dodgy. (Fact)

Ian Cameron jumped out of bed every day feeling excited at the prospect of handing envelopes full of cash to bemused Carribeans in exchange for them pretending that they were running his company and that Ian Cameron was not running the company.
This was a Sham.
This was Bogus
This was Deception.
This was Misleading.
This was Dodgy. (Fact)

We now need to work out if Dave benefitted from Dodgy Money.........or.........If he did in fact work 7 paper rounds to put himself through Eton.
>:D<

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-cameron-wont-benefit-from-his-fathers-offshore-trust-perhaps-he-got-through-eton-on-a-paper-round-a6973161.html

quarky

What has DC done that was dodgy? Blairmore looks like just another fund:

http://www.trustnetoffshore.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=NWBH&univ=DC

So is it OK for anyone else to invest in it? Or is anyone who invests in it also dodgy? What about other funds? Why is Blairmore so bad, but other funds OK? Or is just that all investment is bad? Or all DC's investment in bad?

digitalscream

Skipped said:

The insinuation from hundreds of journalists is that Blairmore is dodgy. Dodgy. (Fact)

Ian Cameron jumped out of bed every day feeling excited at the prospect of handing envelopes full of cash to bemused Carribeans in exchange for them pretending that they were running his company and that Ian Cameron was not running the company.
This was a Sham.
This was Bogus
This was Deception.
This was Misleading.
This was Dodgy. (Fact)

We now need to work out if Dave benefitted from Dodgy Money.........or.........If he did in fact work 7 paper rounds to put himself through Eton.
>:D<

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-cameron-wont-benefit-from-his-fathers-offshore-trust-perhaps-he-got-through-eton-on-a-paper-round-a6973161.html

Not even close. Offshore companies have many more uses than hiding money, including cross-currency trading (which is what this one was for).

Even if you assume that Blairmore was a criminal enterprise, that Independent article is also total rubbish unless you're actually advocating a "sins of the father"-style approach to taxation and lawmaking, whereby children are to be held accountable for the actions of their parents.

I look forward to thousands of people being asked to pay their parents' taxes long after they're dead, because of incorrect HMRC calculations.

BigMonka

Does anyone else find it mighty suspicious that the company DC is being associated with is called Blairmore?  Like Tony Blair, but more!

Time to get out my tinfoil hat!