This (Cameron protest)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stuk  Top half 12 Apr 16 7.15pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by -TUX-
I doubt any of them are looking to run the country anytime soon. So it's fine for everyone to do except the PM? Edited by Stuk (12 Apr 2016 7.19pm)
Optimistic as ever |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stuk Top half 12 Apr 16 7.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Isn't it 20% of the above? The same principle a self employed person deducts amounts for tools to do the job, only the amount above is taken at PAYE source. More than a few million though isn't it? And it's not the same as deducting for tools if you're self employed as the company offsets those purchases against it's tax bill. Union membership is optional not a necessity, which tools have to be to be claimed for.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
-TUX-  Alphabettispaghetti 12 Apr 16 7.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
So it's fine for everyone to do except the PM? Edited by Stuk (12 Apr 2016 7.19pm) In the context of sending money OUT of the country you wish to govern, for personal gain, then yes. How can that ever be right?
Time to move forward together. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 12 Apr 16 7.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by -TUX-
In the context of sending money OUT of the country you wish to govern, for personal gain, then yes. How can that ever be right? The country hasn't lost the money. It made a profit and was returned here, to the Cameron's bank account. Think of it as an investment that went on holiday. Every single council, pension fund, charity/church and even us individuals put UK money into overseas funds, banks or investments. Edited by Stuk (12 Apr 2016 7.49pm)
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 12 Apr 16 7.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
More than a few million though isn't it? And it's not the same as deducting for tools if you're self employed as the company offsets those purchases against it's tax bill. Union membership is optional not a necessity, which tools have to be to be claimed for. £108,000,00 is very small in the scheme of things and I bet hardly anyone claims back around £20 if that's what it is, unless it's the full £60. If employees were paid gross and then filed their accounts then it would be the same, wouldn't it? You get your £15,000 gross and then deduct your £60 union subs just as someone self employed would do the same for deducting the cost of a saw from their gross company earnings. So at the end you are not paying the tax to HMRC on the union fees or the saw. Same end result. And with regards to it being optional, yes you are technically right, but I get the impression that union membership in some industries where you're treated as merely a number or are in very vulnerable employment it is highly essential and you're a fool to save £2 a week not being a member.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 12 Apr 16 8.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
£108,000,00 is very small in the scheme of things and I bet hardly anyone claims back around £20 if that's what it is, unless it's the full £60. If employees were paid gross and then filed their accounts then it would be the same, wouldn't it? You get your £15,000 gross and then deduct your £60 union subs just as someone self employed would do the same for deducting the cost of a saw from their gross company earnings. So at the end you are not paying the tax to HMRC on the union fees or the saw. Same end result. And with regards to it being optional, yes you are technically right, but I get the impression that union membership in some industries where you're treated as merely a number or are in very vulnerable employment it is highly essential and you're a fool to save £2 a week not being a member. I'm not saying it's a big deal nor calling for it to be taxed or non-deductible. I'm using it to illustrate a point. and £108m, if that's what it amounted to, is a lot more than the tax on 30K that people are wetting their knickers about.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Apr 16 8.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
What has reclaiming a few quid back on union dues got to do with the Tories using donor money from their benefactors which has been channeled through off shore tax avoidance.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 12 Apr 16 8.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Who's talking about tory donors other than you? I'm talking about using legitimate tax allowances or schemes whether it's the Camerons or union members.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| -TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 12 Apr 16 8.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
The country hasn't lost the money. It made a profit and was returned here, to the Cameron's bank account. Think of it as an investment that went on holiday. Every single council, pension fund, charity/church and even us individuals put UK money into overseas funds, banks or investments. Edited by Stuk (12 Apr 2016 7.49pm) And the far longer 'holidays' that don't always have a return ticket?
Time to move forward together. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 12 Apr 16 8.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
McDonnell's pension is administered in Guernsey:
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 12 Apr 16 9.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by -TUX-
And the far longer 'holidays' that don't always have a return ticket? That could either be tax evasion or perfectly legal. Like buying a home abroad. Everyone in parliament, bar none, will have some of their money invested abroad. I dare say the MP pension scheme is for starters.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 16 9.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
The focus shouldn't be on Cameron, who arguably hasn't really done anything wrong. It should be on how the schemes revealed in the Panama papers are actually fraudulent. They rely on being legitimate through the capacity to conceal evidence of wrong doing. I don't get the fixation with Cameron, yes he did benefit from his fathers actions, but his response seems to have been to convert his gain legally in the UK. They seem to be legal in the same way sufficient concealment of the evidence makes murder legal.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.