• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "hello pot, this is kettle calling..."

Collapse

  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    What about Lord Swarj Paul, who I believe is another non-dom *and* has trousered £250K in expenses for attending the House of Lords whereas Ashcroft hasn't claimed a penny?
    I refer the honourable gentleman to the post I made some moments ago, r.e. Lord Paul.

    Leave a comment:


  • Addanc
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    The fact that for once Mandelson has the higher moral ground says a lot for the status of Ashcroft.
    I don't think so. See here, here, here and here.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post

    The fact that for once Mandelson has the higher moral ground says a lot for the status of Ashcroft. ...
    What about Lord Swarj Paul, who I believe is another non-dom *and* has trousered £250K in expenses for attending the House of Lords whereas Ashcroft hasn't claimed a penny?

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    Does Lord Paul get the same treatment?

    Labour's bleating on this is pure hypocrisy.
    Lord Paul has never denied being a non-dom. Lord Paul's business, which donates money to the Labour party, actually does some business in the UK, whereas Ashcroft's business is being reviewed by the Electoral Commission to determine whether any of his donations are legal or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    After being rejected for a peerage, Ashcroft gave assurances that he would become resident in this country. The assumption was that he would become tax resident. He then sought government legal advice on whether he had to become a tax payer, and was advised that he didn't.

    Which, to a certain extent, is no different from many of the MPs - Kitty Ussher, Hazel Blears, et al - have done. However, they took a few grand from the taxpayer, whereas Ashcroft is about £300million short on his tax payments.

    If you still believe that he has a higher moral authority than Mandelson, then I question your morality.
    Does Lord Paul get the same treatment?

    Labour's bleating on this is pure hypocrisy.

    Leave a comment:


  • KW17 2LN
    replied
    Originally posted by ratewhore View Post
    It really turns my stomach to see Mandelson in Ermine, so for him to say this makes my sides split...

    I bet he makes Reinaldo's sides split.

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    http://order-order.com/2010/03/02/to...to-be-jobless/

    More from Guido.

    One wonders how much this is costing we taxpayers...

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by ratewhore View Post
    I have to say I don't take that view.
    After being rejected for a peerage, Ashcroft gave assurances that he would become resident in this country. The assumption was that he would become tax resident. He then sought government legal advice on whether he had to become a tax payer, and was advised that he didn't.

    Which, to a certain extent, is no different from many of the MPs - Kitty Ussher, Hazel Blears, et al - have done. However, they took a few grand from the taxpayer, whereas Ashcroft is about £300million short on his tax payments.

    If you still believe that he has a higher moral authority than Mandelson, then I question your morality.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Why should he pay tax in the UK on income earned abroad? Why should any of us?
    Because he is shaping the laws of the land. Plus, his party is saying that it's their "duty" to win the election to do the best for Britain - if you are going to take that approach, then surely it's your "duty" to contribute to the exchequer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by Menelaus View Post
    http://order-order.com/

    As always, Guido's on top of it.
    Originally posted by GUIDO
    A Guido co-conspirator in the comments points out that between 2001 -2008 Lord Ashcroft attended parliament 285 times at a total cost to the taxpayer of £0.00 in expenses, with an average cost of £0.00.

    During the same period Lord Swarj Paul attended parliament 1047 times at a cost to the taxpayer of £281,263 in expenses. The average cost per visit was £268.64 and in 2008/9 this jumped to £405.58 per visit.

    Leave a comment:


  • ratewhore
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    The fact that for once Mandelson has the higher moral ground says a lot for the status of Ashcroft.
    I have to say I don't take that view.

    Why should he pay tax in the UK on income earned abroad? Why should any of us?
    I take that view...

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    http://order-order.com/

    As always, Guido's on top of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Let talk about non-dom contributions since 2001.

    CON Total £5,164,115.15
    LAB Total £6,734,250.00

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...vatives-labour

    The text of the article differs from the data sheet, but what do you expect from the Gruaniad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW
    [post Deleted]
    thank you

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    what did I ******* tell you?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X