This Lord Ashcroft thing.

[Guy Fawkes]

I have heard that the tax lost to the Inland Revenue is somewhere in the region of £100m.

There was a report recently about the impact of the taxc increase by Labour recently on high earners, I think that it was following the top rate change from 40% to 50%.

The report was carried out a year after the new rate was introduced and concluded that the new rate hadn't actually increased the income to the treasury as a result of this tax increase, the main reason was that these individuals were happy to pay 40% but the increase meant that a large number of these earners chose to move their affairs abroad, either basing their businesses in tax havens or becoming non-dom.

The Government in this report admitted that they didn't expect to gain any extra revenue from the tax increase for this reason and that the whole thing had been a PR exercise designed to look like they were acting tough and making lower earners more willing to pay the new higher basic rate that they were left with.

So the question is why do Inland revenue feel that he should be a special case when any other donator or high earner could easily change his circumstances to dodge tax? and should people whose business and income is made abroad and could well be paying tax on this there, get taxed in this country too? - how do you calculate what they owe, or why would they even bother returning to the UK to invest / spend some of their wealth?

It is just envy that creates these kneejerk reactions and feelings of injustice.

This is a similar article to the one i was thinking of Gordon Brown was warned from the start over 50p top tax rate - Times Online

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So Labour think it is wrong,well what about the unions?

What about the Unions?

The Labour Party was founded by the Trade Union movement as a way of getting members of Trade Unions elected into a parliament that previously had NO representatives of the working class sitting in it.

It worked. What's wrong with that? Would people rather the Trade Union movement had used non-parliamentary means to achieve power?

I don't have an issue with Lord Ashcroft (or any other rich businessman) funding a political party in the hope that it will better represent the interests of him and his chums. The stupidity is that people are expected to fall for the story that the Tories have EVERYBODY's interests equally at heart. They never have. And they don't now.

 

[GNF on Tour]

Neither are dumb, are they? They just don't conform to your ideals or beliefs.

In the context of pretending to be leading politicians in what is meant to be a strong opposition party then based on history and their counterparts over the years (in all parties) I believe they are both pretty dumb. Is that ok with you?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Fair point L/B. However after watching Q/Time yet 'we have done nothing wrong' 'it is within the rules' ok. Then be honest and tell us. Don't try to squirm your way out of it.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

It's very simple, I don't give a toss which party someone belongs too, but if you are donating money to a political party then you should pay tax. End of.

I pay it, you pay, then they should pay it. The only difference between Paul and Ashcroft is that Paul is open about his nom dom status, Ashcroft obviously isn't, he LIED to the party leader. What is worse is that these people are peers of the realm, a realm that they decide not to pay tax too. That more than anything hacks me of.
It's just like the expences row, ohh it's within the rules, it must be alright. Politicians ... don't you just luv 'em

 

[drew]

wakey, wakey, the company exists as a vehicle for him to be able to donate. yes, its dodgy, but its not some secret noone didnt know. i read about this years ago. It seems that the "deal" that was agreed was rather loosly worded and no one has follwoed up much until now (it comes up every few or 5 years...).

I agree that it is just a vehicle for his donations but the electoral commission in their perceived wisdom have accepted that it is a UK company. I would refer you to the fact I said it probably got through on a technicality. As for no one following up, of course the likes of Cameron and Hague wouldn't follow it up. If they had, they would have known the true status of Ashcroft and then not be in a position to deny it, as they have done, without lying.



methinks the £100m is plucked out of the air, its suspciously round and about 10% of his estimated wealth. And if he has influence on the Tories, what should we make of the potential influence has Lord Paul had on the machinery of govenment and parliament as deputy speaker?

I did say I heard that figure and admit that I haven't seen any facts to back it up.



so... it doesnt matter that they are non-domiciled? its only a problem that Ashcroft wasnt completely honest about his status. i see. as for 70k, just suggests Labour is cheaper to win positions with

Thanks for completely ignoring my final comment. In my view no party should benefit from non-doms.

 

[Simster]

All major political parties are taking donations from non-doms. Personally I think it stinks that people who choose not to pay taxes in this country, nevertheles get to massively influence the way our people vote -but that's the way it is.

What marks the Tories/Ashcroft out differently from the others is that they tried to conceal his status for the best part of a decade, while he was being made a peer in the Lords. What were they doing making him a peer when he has contributed f*** all to the tax coffers? It looks like a bribe for all that money Ashcroft handed to the Tories. And given the fact the Tories concealed his tax status for so long knowing that the public would object to a non-dom being made a lord, it's hard to arrive at any other conclusion really isn't it.

 

[Dandyman]

Why should he pay taxes to the UK when he doesnt live here the required number of days. 1 of my old bosses lived 4 months in the UK, 4 months in Gozo and 4 months in Thurles in Eire and didnt pay tax to any country.

Parliament have just decreed that he hasnt broken any laws and everything is legal and above board.

He sits in the House of Lords, is a major Tory party funder but dodges paying tax in UK. What right does he have to influence things if he refuses to make anmy contribution to the country?

 

[strings]

I think all Lords must be UK residents (as MPs do) and he could have sorted out an arrangment to pay some tax and it would avoid the issue.

That is bang on the issue for me.

I don't mind that he supports the Tory party, we all make mistakes (joke). What I don't like is that he sits in the house of Lords and therefore has a say in how the country is run, yet he lives abroad to avoid tax.

 

[warsaw]

Quick question, pardon my ignorance. If Ashcroft and others are not paying tax in this country because their earnings are from abroad, then are they paying taxes in the countries in which they earn their money?

If by any chance the answer is no and they are not paying tax to anybody, anywhere, then I really will kick off

 

[drew]

That is bang on the issue for me.

I don't mind that he supports the Tory party, we all make mistakes (joke). What I don't like is that he sits in the house of Lords and therefore has a say in how the country is run, yet he lives abroad to avoid tax.

The point is that he doesn't live abroad. He is a UK resident. Non Dom is just a tax status where you can avoid tax on your overseas earnings.

Quick question, pardon my ignorance. If Ashcroft and others are not paying tax in this country because their earnings are from abroad, then are they paying taxes in the countries in which they earn their money?

If by any chance the answer is no and they are not paying tax to anybody, anywhere, then I really will kick off

I don't by a long way profess to being an expert but I think the idea is that you set up your companies in tax havens where the rates are considerably lower.

 

[Clapham Old Mug]

You may not wish to be stuck on a desert island with him, but his achievements here, in Belize and in the USA show him to be a pretty exceptional and entrepreneurial guy - as well as being a philanthropic one (Crimestoppers, Anglia Ruskin Uni etc). I imagine he pays tax here on his relevant UK income and the government in Belize gets money from him too, whether via taxes or other donations. I'd rather have him on our side than working against us. Making Lord Paul a privy councillor (a position where you really do have an inside track to the heart of the country) however, is a totally different scale of favouratism.

 

[strings]

The point is that he doesn't live abroad. He is a UK resident. Non Dom is just a tax status where you can avoid tax on your overseas earnings.

Thanks, I think I get that.

Just to keep the debate going, from Duncan Bannatyne on twitter:

DuncanBannatyne I interviewed Lord Ashcroft three years ago & worked out he was a non-dom Is Cameron a bit thick?

 

[sten_super]

Thanks, I think I get that.

Just to keep the debate going, from Duncan Bannatyne on twitter:

DuncanBannatyne I interviewed Lord Ashcroft three years ago & worked out he was a non-dom Is Cameron a bit thick?

Ah but Duncan Bannatyne is a complete

 

[Peteinblack]

"This Lord Ashcroft" thing is no different to the "Labour taking a lot of cash from Non Doms too" thing, is it?

• Lakshmi Mittal - £4.125 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Ronald Cohen - £2.55 million in donations to Labour. Cohen was appointed chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, which was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown.
• Sir Christopher Ondaatje - £1.7 million in donations to Labour.
• Lord Paul – £69,250 in donations to Labour, including £45,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. A close friend of Gordon Brown and appointed to the Privy Council last summer, he has admitted to being ‘non-dom’.
• Sir Gulam Noon - £532,826 in donations to Labour.
• William Bollinger - £510,725 in donations to Labour.
• Mahmoud Khayami - £985,000 in donations to Labour including £5,000 to Hazel Blears’ deputy leadership campaign. He has helped bankroll two flagship schools, one of which Gordon Brown opened, and was personally thanked for a donation by Tony Blair.
• Dr David Potter - £90,000 in a donation to Labour. He has previously delivered a lecture at Downing Street.

Which just goes to show that New Labour AND the Tories are in the pockets of big business and wealthy individuals, and will be obliged to place their interests above the wishes of us ordinary people.

Britain is a plutocracy, not a democracy.

 

[strings]

• Lord Paul – £69,250 in donations to Labour, including £45,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. A close friend of Gordon Brown and appointed to the Privy Council last summer, he has admitted to being ‘non-dom’.

He's a nice bloke - I have met him a couple of times through my employer. Didn't know he was a non-dom.

 

[glasfryn]

So Labour think it is wrong,well what about the unions. In fact the whole lot of them stink,if they have not got their 'hand in the till' they are to something else.

got it in one mate they are all at it left right and centre and the few that are'nt
are either young and dim or old and very stupid