Poor Ed... even Myleene is attacking him.

DeVlaeminck

Tangled Metal wrote:

What would happen if a home owner set up an offshore holding company and transferred the house to the holding company? I know ppl with places in Portugal who put the house into a couple of holding companies for tax reasons. Relatively easy to sort out and I'm guessing that would mean the mansion tax is avoided. I know it has worked in Portugal. Anyone with a house affected probably has access to accountants, financial advisors or lawyers. You think they'll not find a way around the tax? Take a look at the owners of the truly expensive houses or mansions, how many on paper are owned by an offshore holding company?

I suspect it's relatively straightforward to draft a law that would tax houses over a certain value. Why would it being owned through a holding company make any difference in the case of a mansion tax ?

Stevo_666

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

What would happen if a home owner set up an offshore holding company and transferred the house to the holding company? I know ppl with places in Portugal who put the house into a couple of holding companies for tax reasons. Relatively easy to sort out and I'm guessing that would mean the mansion tax is avoided. I know it has worked in Portugal. Anyone with a house affected probably has access to accountants, financial advisors or lawyers. You think they'll not find a way around the tax? Take a look at the owners of the truly expensive houses or mansions, how many on paper are owned by an offshore holding company?

I suspect it's relatively straightforward to draft a law that would tax houses over a certain value. Why would it being owned through a holding company make any difference in the case of a mansion tax ?

Easy to draft - not necessarily easy to manage and enforce:
1. Properties around the thresholds would need professional valuations if they are not to be challenged in court. Costly and time consuming.
2. How do you collect the tax cost effectively from an overseas holdco which is outside of UK jurisdiction? Not so easy especially if these are countries with no tax treaty with the UK.

Problem with mansion tax in the wider scheme of thisng is that it will raise relatively very little in comparison with what the UK needs to collect or save to sort out the finances, especially if HMRC need to spend on the above to enforce and collect on an individual basis.

DeVlaeminck

I agree with the first point - the valuations would be contested and appealed no doubt but that was also the case with council tax - I appealed my own house at the time and got it moved down a band - it didn't stop them introducing the tax.

On the second would it not be possible to draft the law to the effect that all property must have an identifiable owner - or that if the owner of a property doesn't pay the tax within a certain amount of time the property can be sold, the tax and expenses deducted and the remainder left to be claimed by the legal owner of the property ? Maybe there are reasons why this wouldn't be possible it's not immediately obvious to a layman why.

Stevo_666

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I agree with the first point - the valuations would be contested and appealed no doubt but that was also the case with council tax - I appealed my own house at the time and got it moved down a band - it didn't stop them introducing the tax.

On the second would it not be possible to draft the law to the effect that all property must have an identifiable owner - or that if the owner of a property doesn't pay the tax within a certain amount of time the property can be sold, the tax and expenses deducted and the remainder left to be claimed by the legal owner of the property ? Maybe there are reasons why this wouldn't be possible it's not immediately obvious to a layman why.

Confiscation of property to pay a tax bill is pretty heavy handed - esp if we are talking about confiscation of a £2m+ asset to pay a bill estimated to be somewhere around £12k a year IIRC. I suppose it is possible but out of all proportion with current HMRC powers to enforce payment.

I also suspect that lawyers would have a field day making counter claims for losses incurred.

mm1

Pity the poor tax dodging rich and their inability to find somewhere to rest their heads without the threat of being asked to contribute to the common weal. Presumably they want the streets swept and plod to protect them (easy enough to opt out of all other aspects of public provision), just don't want to pay anything towards it is all.

Stevo_666

mm1 wrote:

Pity the poor tax dodging rich and their inability to find somewhere to rest their heads without the threat of being asked to contribute to the common weal. Presumably they want the streets swept and plod to protect them (easy enough to opt out of all other aspects of public provision), just don't want to pay anything towards it is all.

Thanks for that contribution to the thread. Maybe a bit light on evidence to support for your views?

As mentioned above, the amount that this tax is expected to generate not a lot compared to the £1.4 trillion of national debt. In fact so little that even if it generates the amount Labour forecast, it will take about 1,200 years to repay what we owe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29691283
So while I eagerly look forward to the UK balancing its books due to the mansion tax somewhere around the year 3,314, the ineffectiveness of this tax as a revenue raiser makes me think that the main driver to introduce it is one or both of the following:
1. A political vote winning gesture designed to appeal to the sort of economincally illiterate, chip on shoulder brigade who think that all rich are tax dodgers who contribute nothing. (An incorrect assumption, as the top 1% pay approx 30% of all income tax: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html
2. Driven by the politics of envy.

The longer term worry is that once it is introduced, the temptation for politicians will be to lower the thresholds and widen the scope to other assets. Before you know it, we 'll have a socialist style wealth tax as seen in France, hitting a large number of people who are not rich.

mr_goo

I would just like to throw this idea into to the melting pot of debate, and maybe Stevo can tell me if it is viable.

How about charging a town/city tax for all visitors to the UK. When I was in Berlin earlier this year I had to pay a 'City Tax', I think it came to about 30 Euros for 4 people over 4 days. So thinking about the numbers of visitors to these hallowed shores, the question that should be asked is. Why are we not doing the same?
It would be easy to collect, as it would be an item on hotel billing and there for form part of the returns to the IR. More importantly it would generate a lot more annual revenue than the proposed mansion tax, which will be ineffectual as the people it is designed to target will have creative accountants employed to avoid the payments.

Discuss.

mm1

Stevo 666 wrote:

mm1 wrote:

Pity the poor tax dodging rich and their inability to find somewhere to rest their heads without the threat of being asked to contribute to the common weal. Presumably they want the streets swept and plod to protect them (easy enough to opt out of all other aspects of public provision), just don't want to pay anything towards it is all.

Thanks for that contribution to the thread. Maybe a bit light on evidence to support for your views

The tax avoidance schemes that appear to be popular with the well to do are not generally available to poor saps on PAYE. When I was working I was happy to pay 40% income tax, I suppose that makes me an idiot. Agree that the mansion tax is pointless showboating (Lib Dem, indeed mad Vince's idea originally as I recall).

Stevo_666

Mr Goo wrote:

I would just like to throw this idea into to the melting pot of debate, and maybe Stevo can tell me if it is viable.

How about charging a town/city tax for all visitors to the UK. When I was in Berlin earlier this year I had to pay a 'City Tax', I think it came to about 30 Euros for 4 people over 4 days. So thinking about the numbers of visitors to these hallowed shores, the question that should be asked is. Why are we not doing the same?
It would be easy to collect, as it would be an item on hotel billing and there for form part of the returns to the IR. More importantly it would generate a lot more annual revenue than the proposed mansion tax, which will be ineffectual as the people it is designed to target will have creative accountants employed to avoid the payments.

Discuss.

Goo, it is certainly possible if you want to target tourists - though would need to hink about how you avoid hitting UK domestic tourists without falling foul of EU discrimination rules. Seem to recall that existing hotel taxes in places like France and Spain are taxes on staying in a hotel regardless of where you are from.

One question is how much it will raise - factors like average visitor numbers, length of stay, deterrent factor if this a big charge need to be looked at.

That said, hotel accommodation is already subject to a turnver based tax - VAT which has a full set of rules and collection mechanism up and running. Raising VAT is a big earner as it is so widely applicable but again the impact on spending habits needs to be thought through. The fabled Scandanavian mixed economies that a lot of people on here seem to like get away with 25% VAT and to some extent I have some sympathy for this approach over piecemeal taxes like mansion tax, and also over income tax - as at least with VAT there is some degree of control by people over how much and when they incur the tax, rather than income tax which is deducted at source. Provided that there are sensible exemptions for essentials such as food etc, it is not fundamentally unfair IMO. To put it into perspective, VAT will raise approx £90bn in the UK this year - around 100 times the amount of any proposed mansion tax.

However the danger is we are sidetracked into endless discussions on how to raise more tax when more important is how to save more money/reduce wasteage and stop the state doing unnecessary things. As much as ever increasing pressure to raise taxes keep me in a secure job, raising more taxes is only part of the answer and in many cases can be counter productive. As an example, the 50p income tax rate raised sweet FA - per HMRC's own figures.

Mccaria

Come on Stevo,

Not a fan of the mansion tax but tackling the deficit is a bit of a straw man argument. The intention of the mansion tax is to raise funds to provide extra funding to the NHS. I don't know the current level but earlier this year the NHS was running at a deficit level of £1 Bn, so raising £1.2 bn from the mt would largely cover the shortfall. Raising a tax on high worth property to fund the NHS is populist and likely to be popular (although not to all!)
Also the "politics of envy" could be applied to any tax and certainly any progressive tax. Tax is meant to be redistributive and reducing any support for a tax as the politics of envy is just meaningless.
Setting a property tax at £2m, then with some crude bands doesn't seem the best way of doing it but a property/land based tax system does have some merits in limiting avoidance measures.

DeVlaeminck

Mr Goo wrote:

I would just like to throw this idea into to the melting pot of debate, and maybe Stevo can tell me if it is viable.

How about charging a town/city tax for all visitors to the UK. When I was in Berlin earlier this year I had to pay a 'City Tax', I think it came to about 30 Euros for 4 people over 4 days. So thinking about the numbers of visitors to these hallowed shores, the question that should be asked is. Why are we not doing the same?
It would be easy to collect, as it would be an item on hotel billing and there for form part of the returns to the IR. More importantly it would generate a lot more annual revenue than the proposed mansion tax, which will be ineffectual as the people it is designed to target will have creative accountants employed to avoid the payments.

Discuss.

Can we just clear up how an accountant avoids a mansion tax if non payment results in repossession? Just writing off a policy without explaining why is pretty meaningless. OK Stevo makes a fair point about it not being a huge amount in the scheme of things but in a society with :
a) a huge debt and future financial commitments
b) extreme and growing polarisation of wealth,
at least it is an attempt at tackling a) with a recognition of b).

Stevo_666

mm1 wrote:

The tax avoidance schemes that appear to be popular with the well to do are not generally available to poor saps on PAYE. When I was working I was happy to pay 40% income tax, I suppose that makes me an idiot. Agree that the mansion tax is pointless showboating (Lib Dem, indeed mad Vince's idea originally as I recall).

As another poor SAP on PAYE I can sympathise to a degree, although anyone who pays tax above the basic rate can currently get a tax deduction of 40% or more for paying into their pension, which isn't too bad.

Glad you agree about the mansion tax though. It doesn't solve the problem and as you say, showboating is an appropriate description for it.

Ironically the reduction in UK corporate tax rates is starting to have a benefical impact - from personal experience. I have just put in place an arrangement that increases UK tax revenues by about £7m pa but still saves money for the group concerned. Why? Because the corproate tax rates are so much higher in places like France, Italy, Spain, Germany etc that the charges made by the UK part of the group to overseas part of the group create much larger tax deductions there. All completely legitimate and commercially justified. Real life, first hand evidence that tax rate cuts are often not tax cuts

But I still maintain above that managing state spending is at least as important.

Stevo_666

Mccaria wrote:

Come on Stevo,

Not a fan of the mansion tax but tackling the deficit is a bit of a straw man argument. The intention of the mansion tax is to raise funds to provide extra funding to the NHS. I don't know the current level but earlier this year the NHS was running at a deficit level of £1 Bn, so raising £1.2 bn from the mt would largely cover the shortfall. Raising a tax on high worth property to fund the NHS is populist and likely to be popular (although not to all!)
Also the "politics of envy" could be applied to any tax and certainly any progressive tax. Tax is meant to be redistributive and reducing any support for a tax as the politics of envy is just meaningless.
Setting a property tax at £2m, then with some crude bands doesn't seem the best way of doing it but a property/land based tax system does have some merits in limiting avoidance measures.

IMO 'funding the NHS' is a good way for a politician to get popular support for a tax. You can't just look at the cost of running the NHS without looking at the cost of everything else. Also, having chatted over a beer just this week with a mate who is an NHS consultant who runs a department, the levels of waste and lack of incentive to be efficient with the funding are both staggering and depressing in his eyes. Add to that the vested interests that want this to be maintained means he is powerless to change anything even though it could be done without impacting patient care (from his point of view as a doctor). The last Labour govt showed very well that just chucking more money at unreformed public services doesn't solve the problem.

As I said above - look at what we need to pay/fund overall and decide for yourself how effective this tax will be. The phrase 'p***ing in the wind' springs to mind.

Mccaria

Figures are relatively straight forward
UK Govt tax receipts in the year to 2014 were £489 billion. Of that 54% came from personal tax (IT, CGT and NIC), 21% from VAT and 8% from corporation tax and then smaller amounts from oil etc. The mansion tax is not meant to make a significant contribution to tax receipts but to fund specific requirements which will be politically popular = NHS and also to show that those owning large value properties are seen to be paying, based on the premise that many think that most high value properties are either owned by foreign nationals who do not contribute to the tax system or UK nationals who spend all their free time trying to avoid paying tax.....

Stevo_666

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Can we just clear up how an accountant avoids a mansion tax if non payment results in repossession? Just writing off a policy without explaining why is pretty meaningless. OK Stevo makes a fair point about it not being a huge amount in the scheme of things but in a society with :
a) a huge debt and future financial commitments
b) extreme and growing polarisation of wealth,
at least it is an attempt at tackling a) with a recognition of b).

I don't think an accountant would do that. A lawyer might. The Govt has had enough kickback on powers to raid bank accounts, never mind auction off expansive houses:
http://economia.icaew.com/news/november-2014/chancellor-to-water-down-new-hmrc-powers

Your post above and my point about how much this tax will achieve is part of the point. Why concentrate on enforcing this particular proposed tax with some powers disproportionate to the amount at stake when there are bigger issues of tax and sepnding at stake. Especially when you boil it down to how much of this tax will have to be taken 'by force' from non-resident holdcos. There are already major stamp duty costs to prevent purchases of propoerties by holdcos so it is likely dealing with a legacy issue. IMO just not the priority and more symbolic/showboating in the circumstances. Sledgehammers and nuts?

HMRC have already got certain collection powers which cover the vast majority of cases.

Stevo_666

Mccaria wrote:

Figures are relatively straight forward
UK Govt tax receipts in the year to 2014 were £489 billion. Of that 54% came from personal tax (IT, CGT and NIC), 21% from VAT and 8% from corporation tax and then smaller amounts from oil etc. The mansion tax is not meant to make a significant contribution to tax receipts but to fund specific requirements which will be politically popular = NHS and also to show that those owning large value properties are seen to be paying, based on the premise that many think that most high value properties are either owned by foreign nationals who do not contribute to the tax system or UK nationals who spend all their free time trying to avoid paying tax.....

See my post above about how much the top 1% do pay around 30%. That is a lot. The tiny number earning over £1m per year from memory pay 11% of all income tax. This goes back to the assumption that the well off overall do not pay 'their fair share' (whatever that is), which is an assumption many people either make or try to perpretuate for political reasons.

As you say, the mansion tax is more about giving the perception that certain people are contributing. which takes me back to my reply above about the two main reasons why Labour/Lib Dems are pushing it.

Mccaria

I think that perception is very important to a centre/left party that is going to have limited ability to improve the lot of its core constituency due to the overhang of the deficit. Doesn't make it the politics of envy if you raise taxes at the same time as Implementing stringent welfare spending limits etc

By the way there are at least 2 ways of looking at the top few providing such a high level of income tax receipts. One could see it as a significant contribution, the other is to underline the degree of inequality in the UK.

Stevo_666

Mccaria wrote:

I think that perception is very important to a centre/left party that is going to have limited ability to improve the lot of its core constituency due to the overhang of the deficit. Doesn't make it the politics of envy if you raise taxes at the same time as Implementing stringent welfare spending limits etc

By the way there are at least 2 ways of looking at the top few providing such a high level of income tax receipts. One could see it as a significant contribution, the other is to underline the degree of inequality in the UK.

Agree that any party needs to look at how to raise revenue and cut spending in order to have any chance of solving the problem. However as I said above, the mansion tax is expected to contribute very little compared to other alternatives and as such is pretty ineffective. We are also in danger of having a proliferation of 'niche' taxes like this which over time which become relatively complex and costly to administer, in a country which already has the largest volume of tax law on the planet.

Mansion tax seems to have got a profile above its real significance for reasons other than its ability to fund our needs.

mm1

The niche taxes point is a good one. Some of the more punitive taxes under Labour in the 1970s supposedly cost more to collect and administer than they realised. If there is anyone left in HMT who can count, this surely won't happen again. Having said that, they did have a hand in designing Gordon's ludicrously inefficient tax credit system. That and letting the city get away with criminality for decades.

mamba80

I think the fair share argument comes from that the rich do not pay their fair share of all taxes, in fact proportionately they pay far less of their income in taxes, the poor pay proportionately more in indirect sales taxes and in council tax - I believe 43% to 35% of total income, this includes direct and indirect taxation.

the reform of council tax is long over due and would rid the need of the this stupid mansion tax, with a current upper band of £320k and only 9 bands there is more than enough scope to increase taxes on very expensive properties yet not penalise "middle" England, the wealthy benefit even more with the current system.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

I think the fair share argument comes from that the rich do not pay their fair share of all taxes, in fact proportionately they pay far less of their income in taxes, the poor pay proportionately more in indirect sales taxes and in council tax - I believe 43% to 35% of total income, this includes direct and indirect taxation.

the reform of council tax is long over due and would rid the need of the this stupid mansion tax, with a current upper band of £320k and only 9 bands there is more than enough scope to increase taxes on very expensive properties yet not penalise "middle" England, the wealthy benefit even more with the current system.

Regarding the first paragraph, I read this argument all the time and I simply cannot comprehend it.
If the wealthy are paying 50% income tax, plus N.I., plus indirect taxes, how can this be a lower percentage than 43%?
I agree with the second paragraph.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

I think the fair share argument comes from that the rich do not pay their fair share of all taxes, in fact proportionately they pay far less of their income in taxes, the poor pay proportionately more in indirect sales taxes and in council tax - I believe 43% to 35% of total income, this includes direct and indirect taxation.

I'd like to see the source of this, how 'rich' and 'poor' are defined and the breakdown of the taxes that are included. It will also be interesting to see whether these tax percentages are boosted by borrowing to spend - which will of course boost the indirect tax percentage materially for any given income level.

Like Mr Blakeney, I am struggling to see how this claim stacks up. Evidence and details please. Preferably objective and unbiased

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I think the fair share argument comes from that the rich do not pay their fair share of all taxes, in fact proportionately they pay far less of their income in taxes, the poor pay proportionately more in indirect sales taxes and in council tax - I believe 43% to 35% of total income, this includes direct and indirect taxation.

I'd like to see the source of this, how 'rich' and 'poor' are defined and the breakdown of the taxes that are included. It will also be interesting to see whether these tax percentages are boosted by borrowing to spend - which will of course boost the indirect tax percentage materially for any given income level.

Like Mr Blakeney, I am struggling to see how this claim stacks up. Evidence and details please. Preferably objective and unbiased

there in lies the problem, I could link to the Guardian article and the Equality trust who did the research but you would say "ah but they are biase" and then link me to a Tory think tank, which no doubt would show the opposite

But I think it is obvious that the v wealthy do not pay 50% plus NI (of their total income) few if any are on PAYE and you showed how when the subject was on property tax, they would use various avoidance measures, which are not open to the vast majority of UK employees.
the UK Gov are in a catch 22, they do not wish the v wealthy to up sticks and leave but equally they know that discontent isn't good either, its a fine balancing act, as im sure you would agree?
I am not all for taxing till the pips squeak, that is stupid but the tax system needs to be progressive and I m not sure that it really is.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

the UK Gov are in a catch 22, they do not wish the v wealthy to up sticks and leave but equally they know that discontent isn't good either, its a fine balancing act, as im sure you would agree?
I am not all for taxing till the pips squeak, that is stupid but the tax system needs to be progressive and I m not sure that it really is.

You are right, in that there is a dilemma for the government. Despite what some claim, a good part of business capital is mobile - I know this from direct professional experience including making decision on capital / investment / funding allocation in multinational groups. It's a balancing act between attracting investment and taxing it. Not all of the attractions are tax but it is definitely a factor.

As I see it, if you can attract the investment then with that comes jobs, which then drives income tax, NI, VAT, corp tax revenues etc. A virtuous circle.

Whether you think that is fair or not, that's the way world works to some extent. It is a pragmatic decision to get a reasonable percentage of something rather than a higher percentage of nothing.

But regardless of the figures as a percentage of income, the absolute amounts of tax paid by high earners and corporates are huge. I quoted some income tax figures above for individuals. This week coming I'm going to a seminar that will go through the total UK tax contribution of the top 100 companies. Last year it was £78 billion. 'Fair share' means different things to different people

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I think the fair share argument comes from that the rich do not pay their fair share of all taxes, in fact proportionately they pay far less of their income in taxes, the poor pay proportionately more in indirect sales taxes and in council tax - I believe 43% to 35% of total income, this includes direct and indirect taxation.

I'd like to see the source of this, how 'rich' and 'poor' are defined and the breakdown of the taxes that are included. It will also be interesting to see whether these tax percentages are boosted by borrowing to spend - which will of course boost the indirect tax percentage materially for any given income level.

Like Mr Blakeney, I am struggling to see how this claim stacks up. Evidence and details please. Preferably objective and unbiased

Broadly speaking, the multiplier effect is stronger with those with less income than those with already a lot.

http://www.economist.com/node/14505361

So a tax cut for the poor will go further in boosting output than a tax cut for the rich.

finchy

If you have massive income inequality, then as others have pointed out on here, you're going to have the problem that the people in whose hand the wealth is concentrated will up sticks and leave if taxed highly. Essentially we'll be stuck in a "last days of Rome" situation (for those with no interest in ancient history, one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west was that those with wealth didn't want to pay taxes and managed to dodge them, those who couldn't avoid tax were those with little wealth).

IMO, the key to expanding the middle class and boosting the wages of lower earners should be to make sure that school/university leavers are entering the job market with a good set of marketable skills. In other words, a top-notch vocational education system for those who are more inclined towards manual work, and a rigorous A-level and university system for the academic. At the moment it just feels like we're sitting around waiting for something, or someone, to save us as a nation, as if we are forever treading water.

In the short-term, I really haven't got a clue what the solutions are. In all truth, I don't believe anyone does. We all have our pet theories, with no way to prove them or disprove those that we don't like, but maybe the truth is that we are just in an impossible situation.

izza

johnfinch wrote:

If you have massive income inequality, then as others have pointed out on here, you're going to have the problem that the people in whose hand the wealth is concentrated will up sticks and leave if taxed highly. Essentially we'll be stuck in a "last days of Rome" situation (for those with no interest in ancient history, one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west was that those with wealth didn't want to pay taxes and managed to dodge them, those who couldn't avoid tax were those with little wealth).

IMO, the key to expanding the middle class and boosting the wages of lower earners should be to make sure that school/university leavers are entering the job market with a good set of marketable skills. In other words, a top-notch vocational education system for those who are more inclined towards manual work, and a rigorous A-level and university system for the academic. At the moment it just feels like we're sitting around waiting for something, or someone, to save us as a nation, as if we are forever treading water.

In the short-term, I really haven't got a clue what the solutions are. In all truth, I don't believe anyone does. We all have our pet theories, with no way to prove them or disprove those that we don't like, but maybe the truth is that we are just in an impossible situation.

I agree with the University point and would look to Oxbridge to help other Universities. The problem is that the two "top" Universities are completely arrogant in their attitude to the government. Rather than raise the national educations they would rather buy land to hide the ridiculous cashflow coming into their collegiate system.

Pross

Mr Goo wrote:

I would just like to throw this idea into to the melting pot of debate, and maybe Stevo can tell me if it is viable.

How about charging a town/city tax for all visitors to the UK. When I was in Berlin earlier this year I had to pay a 'City Tax', I think it came to about 30 Euros for 4 people over 4 days. So thinking about the numbers of visitors to these hallowed shores, the question that should be asked is. Why are we not doing the same?
It would be easy to collect, as it would be an item on hotel billing and there for form part of the returns to the IR. More importantly it would generate a lot more annual revenue than the proposed mansion tax, which will be ineffectual as the people it is designed to target will have creative accountants employed to avoid the payments.

Discuss.

Ironically, the talk on the news today is of doing the opposite and reducing VAT on hotels to encourage tourism!

RideOnTime

So poor old Ed gets the end of a tongue rub off Myleene.

What does William get?

RideOnTime

He gets to go all over with Angelina...