This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Len McCluskey's London flat
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
| Hoof Hearted 09 Sep 16 11.00am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
Sort of, but not really (luckily I'm not sitting on the fence). The union, unless I'm mis-reading the article (entirely possible), retains ownership of a portion of the property, and the property will be sold when McCluskey leaves office, so effectively it's a pretty cost-efficient way of putting your leader up (if that's what you choose to do). They pay 400K up front, in x years, they get (probably) 500K back, and in the meantime the leader has accommodation in London. I do wonder if it's a taxable benefit for McCluskey though (effectively subsidised housing) The union has effectively mortgaged McCluskey's property. Unlike a Mortgage provider, they are not charging him any fees, interest or solicitor's costs. .... and you "wonder" if it's a taxable benefit?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 09 Sep 16 11.00am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
Sort of, but not really (luckily I'm not sitting on the fence). The union, unless I'm mis-reading the article (entirely possible), retains ownership of a portion of the property, and the property will be sold when McCluskey leaves office, so effectively it's a pretty cost-efficient way of putting your leader up (if that's what you choose to do). They pay 400K up front, in x years, they get (probably) 500K back, and in the meantime the leader has accommodation in London. I do wonder if it's a taxable benefit for McCluskey though (effectively subsidised housing) It is allowing McCluckey the opportunity to make money by speculating on the London Property Market. He will have to pay tax on a beneficial loan which will probably be minimal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
npn  Crowborough 09 Sep 16 11.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
The union has effectively mortgaged McCluskey's property. Unlike a Mortgage provider, they are not charging him any fees, interest or solicitor's costs. .... and you "wonder" if it's a taxable benefit? "Wonder" meaning legally - I'm no tax expert, and I'm pretty sure Unite has some decent tax lawyers. I also wonder if there will be a CGT liability for McCluskey - Unite will have CGT to pay, certainly, but if it's McCluskey's main residence it's normally CGT exempt
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 09 Sep 16 11.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
I'd consider myself "right-of-centre" minded, and I'm struggling to see the issue. I see it as an issue for the union and, by extension, the membership. Perhaps it's not the fundamental - more the order of magnitude.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 09 Sep 16 11.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
It is allowing McCluckey the opportunity to make money by speculating on the London Property Market. He will have to pay tax on a beneficial loan which will probably be minimal. Now this may be where I've misunderstood - I thought they were talking about shared ownership, i.e. the flat is 600, McCluskey pays 300 and owns 50%, Unite pay 300 and own 50%, rather than Unite lending McCluskey the money to buy the flat. If that is NOT the case, then I have misunderstood, and take back everything I've said. I'll go back and re-read the article...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 09 Sep 16 11.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
OK, I've re-read, and I admit I'm none the wiser. The Union says "the purchase agreement was not a loan but an equity share arrangement", which I have no problem with, in principle, provide the Union maintains a legally binding interest in the property. Effectively, I see it as the same as the shared ownership agreements certain low paid key employees can get, but with the Union, rather than the government, putting up the cash.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Sep 16 11.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
And Len indemnifying Unite against any losses in the event of the London market cooling off. Unlikely to be the case. That's true of any investment - Unions also provide mortages and loans to members, along with insurance - on which they make profits based on market risk. Property portfolios are a good investment. Its a shame thinking about it that the Unions didn't buy up a lot of London properties in the 80s and 90s, we might actually have affordable housing and rents.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 24 Sep 16 12.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Even old Arthur's at it!!!!
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sportyteacher London 24 Sep 16 8.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Great spot there, Jimenez! Greedy opportunism and hypocrisy indeed from McCluskey and Scargill. Watch out for the ultimate crime of Ed Balls on Strictly as a vain bid to remind the general public that his autobiography has just been published. (I hope that his sequins fall off...)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 24 Sep 16 10.22am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Sportyteacher
Great spot there, Jimenez! Greedy opportunism and hypocrisy indeed from McCluskey and Scargill. Watch out for the ultimate crime of Ed Balls on Strictly as a vain bid to remind the general public that his autobiography has just been published. (I hope that his sequins fall off...) It's Rhinestones these days.... which is very fitting for Ed Balls who was a bit of a Cowboy as shadow chancellor.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sportyteacher London 24 Sep 16 3.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
It's Rhinestones these days.... which is very fitting for Ed Balls who was a bit of a Cowboy as shadow chancellor. Nice one, Hoof! Funny and in agreement with you. He was rubbish as Education Secretary as well.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| orpingtoneagle Orpington 24 Sep 16 3.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
So is this any worse than banks providing subsidised mortgages for staff. A pal of mine has an interest free mortgage from his employer and guess his house must be going up in value... How many on here have used a nice juicy annual bonus to put down a deposit?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.