Reply to: David Gauke - More evidence of duplicity

[AtW]

I reckon it's the guy on the right because Brillo just would know when to shut the hell up ...

[AtW]

da na na na na na na na na na na na na na na... brillo

No, that's him (just not sure which one):

[minestrone]

Sounds like an appropriate punishment for the crime

da na na na na na na na na na na na na na na... brillo

[AtW]

They would cast hot lead into him whereby he would dress in the garb of the animal kind and dance merrily on high places.

Sounds like an appropriate punishment for the crime

[minestrone]

Talking of which - what would happen to Brillo in old times if he tried to use clever offshore to dodge church tax?

They would cast demons into him whereby he would dress in the garb of the animal kind and dance merrily on high places.

Oh, I think they must still do that.

[AtW]

As long as brillo is tithing to the church that is all that matters.

Talking of which - what would happen to Brillo in old times if he tried to use clever offshore to dodge church tax?

[minestrone]

As long as brillo is tithing to the church that is all that matters.

Brillo? You tithing?

[speling bee]

Totally different argument - you are talking about criminal rather than civil acts.

Even talking about criminal acts I am not convinced. There are way too many laws already. Just about everything is illegal. The bigger issue is the way the law is applied.

Let's try again. Was it morally right to pay 3% amd does it matter?

[AtW]

I agree with that. BUT the point BB made in addition was that Gauke has approved retrospective legislation for people who have done similar

Similar?

Using totally artificial offshore scheme that defies common sense and reduces tax liability from 50%+ to 3%? Gauke did not use any schemes - all is very straightforward and so long as he pays capital gains tax if that's his second home then all is fine.

[AtW]

Totally different argument - you are talking about criminal rather than civil acts.

Tax evasion is criminal.

[minestrone]

Like the War Crimes Act 1991 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994?

Looks like someone is doing a law degree.

What other poster is doing a law degree just now? Hmmm.

[centurian]

I agree with that. BUT the point BB made in addition was that Gauke has approved retrospective legislation for people who have done similar.

Sorry, but it aint similar. He has (now in government) said that retrospection should only be used in "exceptional cirumstances".

Now "exceptional" can be hard to pin down and define, but in the case of selling his second home, he hasn't aggressively exploited any loophole and from what I can see, he has complied with both the letter and spirit of all the rules in place.

Let me be clear, Gauke is a snivelling, two-faced [expletive] - but on this event, I don't see he has any case to answer.

[BrilloPad]

Like the War Crimes Act 1991 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994?

I am sure that you deeply disapprove of war crimes. However I now understand that you would not like to see retrospective law changes to catch those who had engaged in reprehensible acts, that were not at that time covered by effective laws.

Totally different argument - you are talking about criminal rather than civil acts.

Even talking about criminal acts I am not convinced. There are way too many laws already. Just about everything is illegal. The bigger issue is the way the law is applied.

[BrilloPad]

Not often I agree with AtW, but I am finding it hard to see the issue here. Gauke paid all the tax that was due - and paid considerably more tax than he benefitted in interest relief.

I agree with that. BUT the point BB made in addition was that Gauke has approved retrospective legislation for people who have done similar. I would like to see the law changed retrospectively to see how he likes it.

Well that is a lie actually (gosh - cuk poster lies - shock horror). I would like to see retrospective legislation banned. Only 5 countries in the world allow it. Not even Zimbabwe allows it. When India tried it the UK was among many to condemn it.

Gauke was against retrospecion in opposition but now approves it. People like that should not be allowed in any position of office. But the sheepish voters will carry on voting in cretins like that. I reckon if sas was to stand as an MP he would get in.

[centurian]

Not often I agree with AtW, but I am finding it hard to see the issue here. Gauke paid all the tax that was due - and paid considerably more tax than he benefitted in interest relief.

Sure, he still made a profit, but there was no rule (explicit or implicit) that said all the profits need to go to the taxpayer. If there was, presumably the taxpayer would then have to underwrite losses as well. William Hague mentioned that he sold his second house for a loss - this was just before the big explosion in house prices 10 years ago.