David Gauke - More evidence of duplicity

[AtW]

But the law is not to be changed retrospectively to attack Gauke.

Why should it be changed to attack Gauke? He paid most of money back anyway, and got some left - it's not a loophole that threatens revenues of HMRC because very few people can become MP in the first place.

This is merely a political problem of having MP benefit from their job, it's something for voters to decide on, not HMRC.

[BrilloPad]

it's not a loophole that threatens revenues of HMRC because very few people can become MP in the first place.

So its okay for the rich to pay not tax as there are so few of them then.

These people are supposed to be setting an example to the rest of us.

But I suppose being Russian it makes sense to you. How is your new sofa?

[AtW]

So its okay for the rich to pay not tax as there are so few of them then.

He will pay capital gains tax on it since it's his second home (unless he "flipped" in which case my reasoning does not apply). So that's 28% on £27k, gives around £20k net for him and taxpayer got £47k net gain.

The rules certainly should be changed to return ALL capital gains if the hope was financed by taxpayer, but I fail to see big problem in this instance - amounts are fairly slow for a place in London.

Now if he used offshore trust to avoid paying any tax, or flipped home claiming it's primary resident then yes, that would be a big problem.

I am pretty sure Mr BB cost taxpayer FAR more than Gauke.

[AtW]

From the article -

"Mr Gauke bought his Kennington flat in 2007 for £285,000. Between March 2010 and June 2012 he claimed more than £13,000 in mortgage interest, with the typical monthly repayment being just over £500. "

So he lived in a very modest flat in center of London, and he only claimed £13k interest - he more than paid it back with a profit capital gains made, ultimately it was him who bought the flat - very reasonably mortgage and good deal for taxpayer given that hotel stay can cost £200 per day.

Should he returned all capital gains? I am not entirely sure really, if the flat was bought by taxpayers in the first place then maybe.

[AtW]

It's Kennington actuall - flats

1-2 bedroom flats, hardly a mansion for one of the most important ministers of the crown to live in.

A much better question would be to ask where Mandelson got money to buy £8 mln (!) house -

Moneybags Lord Mandelson to buy £8million new home | Mail Online

[speling bee]

BB did pay his share. However so did Gauke.

The difference is that Gauke has allowed the law to be changed retrospectively to attacked BB. But the law is not to be changed retrospectively to attack Gauke.

Really? What % did BB pay? Maybe I owe him an apology.

[AtW]

Really? What % did BB pay? Maybe I owe him an apology.

I believe the High Court Judge who ruled against them said something like if it was legit then everybody would only pay 3% income tax, yet BB insists that 10% or so paid in fees should be added up to truly evaluate real savings

[speling bee]

I believe the High Court Judge who ruled against them said something like if it was legit then everybody would only pay 3% income tax, yet BB insists that 10% or so paid in fees should be added up to truly evaluate real savings

I like retrospective law.

[AtW]

I like retrospective law.

I like justice to be done.

How many years would Judge Dredd give to BB?



I reckon the size of crime would warrant summary execution.

[BrilloPad]

Really? What % did BB pay? Maybe I owe him an apology.

He payed everything he was supposed to pay. You owe him an apology. But then I think BB is used to general and that to post here to have to be a thick skinned rude c**t and people spouting bollux.

There are certainly way too many cretins here who think that retrospectively changing the law is a good thing. FFS.