Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I think on balance, the right wing media would have been better off sitting on this news story and waiting until closer to the election.
0 -
I love how low octane British politics can be sometimes.
Trump is scrounging around trying to find $375m for a fine and here we have Angela Raynor, who might have paid £3k less than she ought to have.
0 -
That's a very long way of answering 'no'.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So the only lines of defence tried so far are basically 'we don't think it's important'. Cracking argument.
The lack of willingness to address the facts above is quite amusing - and rather telling 🙂
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'll bite, there's two things wrong with your "facts".
1) the cgt payable would be reduced based on improvements made to the property and also by buying and selling costs.
2) The couple actually living in one house doesn't mean that has to be the one that is nominated as their main residence. Only without nominating one or the other would that fact be relevant. If they made no nomination then the time she moved into the other place would also affect the amount.
All in all, there are unknowns that bring the likely amount down to under a couple of grand and possibly nothing at all. Not worth the time posting this reply to be honest. Enjoy yourself trying to make this a big deal. I'm out again.
0 -
I suspect the issue is that it is very hard to get excited about something so trivial when the people making the accusations have done stuff the public thinks are far dodgier (and whatever the legalities, perception is key). It isn't abuse of power, it could be completely innocent, at worst case it's an offence that in people's minds is at the level of a speeding fine.
You could look at Carol Vorderman's twitter feed and find hundreds of examples of far more egregious actions than what she's being accused of that the same papers have studiously ignored.
If anything it may endear her to a section of the public. It highlights the fact she hasn't come from privilege, and has gone through similar challenges they have, living in social housing, the struggle to get on the property ladder & what to do after that struggle when forming a family.
0 -
I did ask you about whether principles mattered and you dodged the question. I'll take it from your lack of reply that either they don't, or else you're giving Rayner a free leftie pass.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Point 1 - the amount of CGT due may well be reduced by things like improvements but as mentioned above, it is not about the amount.
Point 2 - you cannot simply nominate whichever property you want to be your PPR: it is based on the facts. From the HMRC manual: see first bullet point below.
"Private Residence Relief
You do not pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply:
- you have one home and you’ve lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it
- you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger
- you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use)
- the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total
- you did not buy it just to make a gain
If all these apply you will automatically get a tax relief called Private Residence Relief and will have no tax to pay. If any of them apply, you may have some tax to pay."
In addition, her husband clearly lived at another address as his main residence (which Rayner does not dispute) and the rules also state that a married couple only have one PPR.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well if dodging your taxes is trivial, I'm not sure what all the fuss has been about over the years on this issue in Cake Stop. As mentioned above, the amounts may not be large but the principle is important - especially for someone who may become the second most powerful person in the country (and indeed could end up running it if something happens to Starmer).
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It does say "you may have some tax to pay", I guess that also means "you may not have some tax to pay"? Isn't the point people have been making that no-one knows the actual facts but that if she does have some tax to pay then HMRC will doubtless be in touch?
0 -
It says that mainly because if you don't make a gain on the sale, you don't pay any tax. However we do know that Rayner made a £48k profit on her sale.
As Kingston Graham says, that gain can be reduced by certain types of expenditure on the house during the time of ownership, but it doesn't exactly look like the type of house that has had 48 grand spent on doing it up. Also as the argument is centring around whether it was her PPR, it would appear that she did make a gain on sale after any relevant expenditure.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Maybe I'm being overly generous here, but quite a few people haven't backed her up here, and have said they'd be happy to criticize her if she's found to have acted in the wrong... But good to see Stevo fighting against an imaginary enemy here.
1 -
You can choose which one. Doesn't make sense, and unlikely she did here but you don't know.
Also, it wouldn't need 48k of improvements. She did live there some of the time, so that reduces the cgt exposure, and also gets an annual allowance. So could be nothing owing.
0 -
Do come back to us when you've actually found some evidence (i.e. more than a DM graphic) 👍🏻
Will continue to watch your efforts with interest 🙂
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I suspect that at Stevo's hourly rate, the time he's spent on this 'point of principle' would come to close to £3k. Still, the entertainment value is worth every penny.
0 -
- you did not buy it just to make a gain
If all these apply you will automatically get a tax relief called Private Residence Relief and will have no tax to pay. If any of them apply, you may have some tax to pay."
Interesting. I bet the majority of house owners in this country will be fabricating stories to cover up their real intentions.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I don't have an hourly rate...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It was simply an easy to digest summary. Do tell me which facts in that graphic are incorrect.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You have to live there as your main home - the words above are from the HMRC manual. So you can't in reality choose - its a question of fact.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What enemy?
Simply pointing out likely wrong doing by a Labour MP, which seems to have spurred quite a few people who claim not to be Labour supporters to defend her. Or to have a little pop at me because they have no valid counter arguments, a bit like you're doing here 🙂
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Interesting as you said a very similar thing on the thread about water companies, CBA looking into it whilst also posting lots.
I'm enjoying this preview into your posting over the next few years Stevo.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Have already answered this. The DM graphic offers a handful of observations + hearsay of which one possible explanation is that she has underpaid CGT, but apportioning likelihood is just wish fulfillment. Still sitting at 'no' for that extra evidence. Let me know.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If you are interested, Stevo, there is a discussion of various scenarios on X. A lot depends on which property was nominated as primary private residence as you've noted. This doesn't appear to have to be the one you spend most time at or the one at which you are registered to vote. There's also a calculation that given the timescales improvement works of >£5k would be enough to cancel out any CGT liability. In the scenario where a PPR hadn't been nominated the sum needed to cancel out a CGT liability was £12k. Both pretty modest. Some new windows would cover it.
Another scenario is that they were hoping to dodge it but there's no information to lean it either way.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If any of those are correct then it will be in the advice she received and all she has to do is make the advice publish to shut everyone up. Why do you think she is reluctant to do that?
But I don't bother with X.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No counter argument, no surprise 😉
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why does she need to shut people up? Seems like she's enjoying ragging all the usual suspects.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Funny thing is that the only place I hear about the story is on here.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Obvious really. To put to bed the speculation that she is a tax dodger and possibly someone who has supplied incorrect info re the electoral roll. Possibly reputational issues for someone who may end up in a major position of power?
Did you really need to ask?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people have become de-sensitised about reputational issues of people in major positions of power. This one is a bit of a ‘so what’.
0 -
😁 And spoil all the fun? What else would you and Dan Hodges talk about?
BTW, you may want to review the definition of residence for electoral registration.
Residence has a particular meaning in electoral law and is not equivalent to residence for other purposes such as income tax or council tax.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
