nicko31
Well-known member
When I say spot I mean "spot", ie one fixed spot. Average speed stuff I think will continue to be rolled out. Some of the new cameras don't even need a van, just a panda car and put up a mobile tripod
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
'Panda car'! Surely you mean 'Jam Sandwich'....
nicko31
Well-known member
On 200 back in return, net zero commitment!!
Is this real?
The date above is 2023 Sonos 200 they had capacity for in 2023, which is what the chart is actually saying, whether it means to or not or does it mean it’s capacity now is 200?
Just thought I'd look up Angie's diabolical tax fraud debacle....
f*** me. The most she owes is £3,500, but the most likely amount she owes is faaaaark all. Nothing.
And does this mean that Labour are hypocrites, unfit to govern, and that the conservatives should continue their rightful role of running the country and massively enriching themselves and their friends? Yes. Yes it does. Of course it does.
f*** me. The most she owes is £3,500, but the most likely amount she owes is faaaaark all. Nothing.
And does this mean that Labour are hypocrites, unfit to govern, and that the conservatives should continue their rightful role of running the country and massively enriching themselves and their friends? Yes. Yes it does. Of course it does.
A simple guide to the Angela Rayner house row
Labour's deputy leader has been dogged by questions over her living arrangements before she was an MP.
www.bbc.co.uk
Pevenseagull
Anti-greed coalition
- Jul 20, 2003
- 19,664
Just thought I'd look up Angie's diabolical tax fraud debacle....
f*** me. The most she owes is £3,500, but the most likely amount she owes is faaaaark all. Nothing.
And does this mean that Labour are hypocrites, unfit to govern, and that the conservatives should continue their rightful role of running the country and massively enriching themselves and their friends? Yes. Yes it does. Of course it does.
A simple guide to the Angela Rayner house row
Labour's deputy leader has been dogged by questions over her living arrangements before she was an MP.www.bbc.co.uk
It's like the curry story. That got 11 (eleven) consecutive front pages in The Mail on the lead up to local elections.
The Police don't even seem to know what it is they are actually investigating. CGT avoidance is an HMRC issue - so it can only be electoral fraud or council-tax evasion.Just thought I'd look up Angie's diabolical tax fraud debacle....
f*** me. The most she owes is £3,500, but the most likely amount she owes is faaaaark all. Nothing.
And does this mean that Labour are hypocrites, unfit to govern, and that the conservatives should continue their rightful role of running the country and massively enriching themselves and their friends? Yes. Yes it does. Of course it does.
A simple guide to the Angela Rayner house row
Labour's deputy leader has been dogged by questions over her living arrangements before she was an MP.www.bbc.co.uk
In this instance, the police are simply a tool being used by the Tory government (again) to pursue a minor misdemeanor (at best). The police don't need to know WHAT they're investigating, the Tories just need people to believe that they ARE investigating.
Over the next 6 months, there will be more and more red herrings thrown to the masses in the hope that'll be enough for some to draw the necessary false equivalences to vote blue in the next GE.
I don't even know what the curry story is!
That's because I probably exist an a realm far far away from the reaches of the Hitler Apologists and their wives-of-bankers* readership
*Including euphemistic ones.
Pevenseagull
Anti-greed coalition
- Jul 20, 2003
- 19,664
That was the one were Starmer and some colleagues took half an hour off work to eat a curry. James Dellingpole's son just happened to be out for an evening stroll in the area and got a picture of Starmer drinking a bottle of beer.
This as THE biggest story in the Daily Mail when the details of the endemic Bacchanelean excess at number 10 started to filter through.
But it isn't as straightforward as you imply.Just thought I'd look up Angie's diabolical tax fraud debacle....
f*** me. The most she owes is £3,500, but the most likely amount she owes is faaaaark all. Nothing.
And does this mean that Labour are hypocrites, unfit to govern, and that the conservatives should continue their rightful role of running the country and massively enriching themselves and their friends? Yes. Yes it does. Of course it does.
A simple guide to the Angela Rayner house row
Labour's deputy leader has been dogged by questions over her living arrangements before she was an MP.www.bbc.co.uk
A married couple (and you are deemed to be a married couple unless you have formally separated) can only have one property which qualifies for "main residence relief" ie qualifies for CGT exemption.
If, upon marriage, both spouses own a property they have 2 years to elect which of those properties qualifies for relief. If no election is made during that two year period HMRC will decide "on the facts" which property is the main residence.
There is no doubt that Ms Rayner's Stockport property will have qualified as her main residence up until she married. That period would be exempt on a time-apportioned basis (as would the last 9 months of ownership).
Ms Rayner says she has "legal advice" that there is no tax to pay. Fair enough then she and her husband have either elected on marriage (or within 2 years of marriage) for the Stockport property to be their main residence. This would expose the London property to CGT from the date the election became effective. (The alternative where hmrc has determined that the Stockport property was their main residence seems unlikely).
So there you have it! If there is nothing to hide, then I don't understand why she is so reluctant to publish her "legal advice". Even more so if, as you assert, she owes "faaaark all". If it is at the other end and she has fiddled £3,500 then where do you draw the line with tax evasion? £3.5K? £350K? £3.5m?
I do not understand why she is putting herself, and the Labour Party, through all this grief and aggro for want of publishing Counsel's Opinion that she has properly complied with tax law.
TL-DRBut it isn't as straightforward as you imply.
A married couple (and you are deemed to be a married couple unless you have formally separated) can only have one property which qualifies for "main residence relief" ie qualifies for CGT exemption.
If, upon marriage, both spouses own a property they have 2 years to elect which of those properties qualifies for relief. If no election is made during that two year period HMRC will decide "on the facts" which property is the main residence.
There is no doubt that Ms Rayner's Stockport property will have qualified as her main residence up until she married. That period would be exempt on a time-apportioned basis (as would the last 9 months of ownership).
Ms Rayner says she has "legal advice" that there is no tax to pay. Fair enough then she and her husband have either elected on marriage (or within 2 years of marriage) for the Stockport property to be their main residence. This would expose the London property to CGT from the date the election became effective. (The alternative where hmrc has determined that the Stockport property was their main residence seems unlikely).
So there you have it! If there is nothing to hide, then I don't understand why she is so reluctant to publish her "legal advice". Even more so if, as you assert, she owes "faaaark all". If it is at the other end and she has fiddled £3,500 then where do you draw the line with tax evasion? £3.5K? £350K? £3.5m?
I do not understand why she is putting herself, and the Labour Party, through all this grief and aggro for want of publishing Counsel's Opinion that she has properly complied with tax law.
Her husband's house was about a mile away in Stockport - not in London.But it isn't as straightforward as you imply.
A married couple (and you are deemed to be a married couple unless you have formally separated) can only have one property which qualifies for "main residence relief" ie qualifies for CGT exemption.
If, upon marriage, both spouses own a property they have 2 years to elect which of those properties qualifies for relief. If no election is made during that two year period HMRC will decide "on the facts" which property is the main residence.
There is no doubt that Ms Rayner's Stockport property will have qualified as her main residence up until she married. That period would be exempt on a time-apportioned basis (as would the last 9 months of ownership).
Ms Rayner says she has "legal advice" that there is no tax to pay. Fair enough then she and her husband have either elected on marriage (or within 2 years of marriage) for the Stockport property to be their main residence. This would expose the London property to CGT from the date the election became effective. (The alternative where hmrc has determined that the Stockport property was their main residence seems unlikely).
So there you have it! If there is nothing to hide, then I don't understand why she is so reluctant to publish her "legal advice". Even more so if, as you assert, she owes "faaaark all". If it is at the other end and she has fiddled £3,500 then where do you draw the line with tax evasion? £3.5K? £350K? £3.5m?
I do not understand why she is putting herself, and the Labour Party, through all this grief and aggro for want of publishing Counsel's Opinion that she has properly complied with tax law.
Also - CGT is reduced if refurbishments are done, which seems to have happened. So, it would be unlikely to be £3.5k anyway.
She has quite openly said that she did not know of the tax rules re main residences when she sold her house - which is fair enough. I didn't know about them either. So, she didn't make any 'residency declarations' at the time, and wasn't seemingly deliberately 'fiddling the tax man' (and yes, I know ignorance of the law is no defence). And her tax advice is not from then, when she wasn't even an MP - but from now.
That is - she didn't take tax advice then 'fiddle' the system - she is basically saying she didn't know at the time, and has only since found out when the row broke out - so she sought advice to see if she needed to do anything or was in the wrong - and that the advice she has had said she didn't/hadn't. I'm sure it will be published at some time.
But not in the Daily Fail, though
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 14,915
All that, plus the fact he's right-handed!
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Under UK tax law, married couples can only have one primary residence for tax purposes, and are liable for capital gains tax on the profit from the sale of any other homes. Dan Neidle, founder of the Tax Policy Associates think tank, has estimated Rayner could have been liable to pay £1,500 ($1,871) of capital gains tax on the sale of her home, assuming she made a profit of £48,500. But that could be reduced to zero if she spent £15,000 on home improvements.But it isn't as straightforward as you imply.
A married couple (and you are deemed to be a married couple unless you have formally separated) can only have one property which qualifies for "main residence relief" ie qualifies for CGT exemption.
If, upon marriage, both spouses own a property they have 2 years to elect which of those properties qualifies for relief. If no election is made during that two year period HMRC will decide "on the facts" which property is the main residence.
There is no doubt that Ms Rayner's Stockport property will have qualified as her main residence up until she married. That period would be exempt on a time-apportioned basis (as would the last 9 months of ownership).
Ms Rayner says she has "legal advice" that there is no tax to pay. Fair enough then she and her husband have either elected on marriage (or within 2 years of marriage) for the Stockport property to be their main residence. This would expose the London property to CGT from the date the election became effective. (The alternative where hmrc has determined that the Stockport property was their main residence seems unlikely).
So there you have it! If there is nothing to hide, then I don't understand why she is so reluctant to publish her "legal advice". Even more so if, as you assert, she owes "faaaark all". If it is at the other end and she has fiddled £3,500 then where do you draw the line with tax evasion? £3.5K? £350K? £3.5m?
I do not understand why she is putting herself, and the Labour Party, through all this grief and aggro for want of publishing Counsel's Opinion that she has properly complied with tax law.
(From Bloomberg)
Presumably the increase in value before she married wouldn't be counted?
That is - if the house increased in value whilst she was living there full-time by, say £20k, and then after she married and seems to have lived in both houses, it went up by another £28k, the CGT would only be liable on the £28k? Otherwise, you would basically be penalised for getting married / moving?