no-one posted this yet? Lord Sainsbury

[NotAllThere]

charidee

[Marina]

I won't vote for Labour even if a huge asteroid is about to this this planet to wipe out human kind and the Labour would be the only party that would prevent it

It would probably be Labour who'd caused the asteroid in the first place, by meddling with the asteroid belt.

OK maybe "stinking hypocrite" is a bit strong, as he has spoken out against CGT. But I'm very suspicious of pharisee types, rich or poor, who think that donating to charity (which they're usually careful to publicise BTW) morally justifies their belief that the same "generosity" should be imposed on others by higher taxes.

All we need now is some luvvie like Stephen Fry piping up again, as he did in 1997, about how we should all be willing to pay more tax. I bet he's also let slip at some time or other about charitable donations, to show what a good fellow he is, although I don't recall anything specific.

[HYpno27]

I'm sure the universe has witnessed far worse disasters. No big loss in the grand scheme of things.

The only way Labour could save the planet is by putting John Prescott in the way so it bounced back into space. "This calamity aversion sponsored by Pukka Pies".

:h

[AtW]

Would that also apply if a rich person supports the Tories, and the Tories were in power?

Yes, why not? The difference (I hope) would be that Tories won't be such tax grabbing bastards like the Nu Liebour is.

CGT change won't raise much money anyway - I would not be suprised if they get even less than they projected because the big guys will change their tax affairs and avoid it.

[NotAllThere]

I'm sure the universe has witnessed far worse disasters.

Indeed; the election result of 2nd May 1997 springs irresistably to mind.

[NotAllThere]

If a rich person is supporting the Labour party they should be paying all their taxes without using any loopholes - maybe there should be a law that would basically require just that from MPs, ministers, big donors.

Would that also apply if a rich person supports the Tories, and the Tories were in power?

Anyway, I guess the government are a bit worried now that they've annoyed one of their bigger donors. Which is nice.

[PAH]

if a huge asteroid is about to hit this planet to wipe out human kind

I'm sure the universe has witnessed far worse disasters. No big loss in the grand scheme of things.

The only way Labour could save the planet is by putting John Prescott in the way so it bounced back into space. "This calamity aversion sponsored by Pukka Pies".

[AtW]

It's possible to support the ruling political party, or be a member of the government, or even to have been in the cabinet, and be against a specific government policy. He's no longer a minister.

As the article says "He was previously regarded as one of Labour's most loyal ministers." (my emphasis).

My bad - he got kicked upstairs now, not in the Cabinet anymore.

It's still very hypocritical however - if a rich person is supporting the Labour they should be paying all their taxes without using any loopholes - maybe there should be a law that would basically require just that from MPs, ministers, big donors. This CGT bulltulip really made me angry - I won't vote for Labour even if a huge asteroid is about to this this planet to wipe out human kind and the Labour would be the only party that would prevent it

[NotAllThere]

It's possible to support the ruling political party, or be a member of the government, or even to have been in the cabinet, and be against a specific government policy. He's no longer a minister.

As the article says "He was previously regarded as one of Labour's most loyal ministers." (my emphasis).

[AtW]

And even if he did sell them, he's been against the CGT changes from the start, so it doesn't seem that hypocritical.

The hypocritical part is when he supports Nu Liebour by being a minister in their Govt, as such cabinet responsibility covers him.

Clearly he did not object against CGT tax raise hard enough - why would he, if he has got highly paid accountants who would find a new loophole for him?

[NotAllThere]

The article is unclear. Did he donate the shares, or sell them?

And even if he did sell them, he's been against the CGT changes from the start, so it doesn't seem that hypocritical.

[Marina]

From the article:

His spokesman said last night that the latest tax-saving move was designed to boost his charitable giving.

What a stinking hypocrite!

He has every right to shuffle his money around any way he sees fit in order to avoid (not evade) tax. But donating to charity is *his* choice, of how to spend *his* money, and is a specious and evasive excuse to draw attention away from the obvious comparison with people deprived of their choice by high taxes.

[ratewhore]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...cndonor101.xml

Prudent use of the tax system...