Angela Rayner tax fail

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

But it’s ok because she was just badly advised.
I’ll remember that excuse next time I fill in my tax return.

But still confused about one can have 2 main homes?

I also dislike that she is weaponising her disable child.
just resign already!

It is a weird phenomenon alright.

A lot of people haven't cottoned on to the fact that those that judge and criticise others for their 'bad values' are usually the ones with the absolute worst.values and behaviours e.g. Angela Rayner. She is vile, always has been - if you listen to how she attacks others, it is so vile - not an ounce of understanding or empathy.

I am not normally one to cheer on a downfall, but this one is a delight. She is a nasty piece of work.

I don't 'blame' the advisors - mistakes happen. What's important is that they are corrected when they come to light (no matter what colour rosette is worn).

It is a conveyancing solicitors job to advise how much stamp duty is owed. It appears, until any evidence is presented to the contrary, that she was advised by her conveyancing solicitor that she owed less than she did.

Perhaps she chose her solicitors poorly and maybe she was naive not to seek a second opinion given the complexity of her situation - but none of those things are resignable offences.

It could be that her solicitor colluded with her to minimise the tax owed, it could be that the solicitor advised her correctly but she chose to ignore it (which is unlikely given the solicitor completes the HMRC forms as part of the sale).

The facts as they stand are that her solicitor, an expert in property purchase, incorrectly informed her how much she owed. Unless and until further evidence comes to light that there was collusion, then it can't be anything other than a mistake on the solicitors part.

Acknowledging that is not 'blame'.

MPs and the professionals whose services they use whether they are solicitors, accountants, builders etc are just as likely to make mistakes as any of us.

Yes - MPs should be held to a higher moral standard and if any 'mistakes' are found to be intentional on their part OR those mistakes cause irreparable harm to someone, then they should absolutely resign or be fired.

But expecting MPs to never make mistakes, or expecting them to only use infallible advisors is unrealistic and cruel.

Public witch hunts of our MPs, celebrities or anyone else in the public eye for unintentional mistakes which haven't hurt anyone and which they then correct is both a cause and symptom of how polarised society has become.

I do not want my children to grow up in a world where the only acceptable conduct is perfection!

Exactly. It's a story as old as time. I wonder who will be next!

‘Mistakes happen’ where are you getting the advisors made any mistakes? Where’s the evidence for this?

Did you agree with Partygate then?

Yet Angela Rayner is the absolute worst for this.

Her hypocrisy is why so many people are happy about this - her years of judging and attacking and trying to bring people down for minor incidents. What goes around comes around.

God you must live a lonely life.

I used to work for a very large corporate. The MP's had a special hotline to call when they had any issues for themselves or their constituency. Sky have the same. So do the Passport Office. An MP wont be queuing to be answered like the rest of us.There is NO way some 18 year old intern was given this property transaction to deal with.

As I have said before - I think she gave out the wrong info about what properties she owed. Did she mention a trust - who knows but that is a key piece of info. I suspect she didnt. Maybe she didnt understand the question.

Or maybe she just got greedy and saw a way to 'save' herself £40k and hoped no one would notice. After all there are politicans and celeberties who do all sorts and I often wonder why they didnt ever consider they would be found out?

Maybe they live in a bubble whereby they think they are untouchable?

I don’t see any reason why ‘nested care’ (parents moving in and out) rules out living a long way away. Surely the whole point is that parents are 100% present and focused when they’re in situ, and free to do what they want when the other parent is in situ. I don’t think she deserves any side-eye for that.

You could be right, FullOfLemons; she was the unions' choice anyway and they'll no doubt look after their own

I don't imagine she expected she'd be risking her career though - IME such people either don't expect to be caught out, think they can blag their way out of it if they are, and if that fails too they'll blame those who did the catching

Typo

I wonder who will replace her. With Reeves on a tightrope too I’d imagine Starmer is spitting feathers…

I wish we could just get rid of the lot of them
Never has there been such incompetence

In the eyes of those on the left, 'their' party can do no wrong.
Even if they admit that something is wrong, it's always someone else's fault
If it wasn't someone else's fault they thought they were doing the right thing.

So just leave me alone. You don't understand. You are being mean 😩

Never trust a politician. End of.

Still there will always be those so blinkered that they will rush to her defence that "she hasn't done anything wrong " when even she has admitted it herself.

True, but equally there will be others who are so blinkered they have always seen her as a wrong’un regardless of any other factors.

Well she's either avoided tax or she hasn't. And she says she has?

For those stating she took legal advice and it isn’t her fault, that is fictitious. Raynor is not claiming she had legal advice, she has stated only that she took ”advice”. Advice that is clearly flawed and unsurprisingly. For someone who has been so principled in opposition re tax evasion, this is a farce for her

She’s admitted she owes the £40k

I agree, £40k shouldn't pose much of a problem for her to find. But, even though that's the case I am pretty sure if she could dodge, I mean avoid, I mean accidentally forget to pay, it she would We are talking about someone who tapped up Lord Ali for £3.5k of clothes which she could well afford, along with the use of a flat in New York instead of a hotel or Airbnb that she could have paid for.

Er - no because that wasn't a mistake no matter what was said in any apologetic tearful press conference.

Intention and harm are the two key factors.

Party gate was both an intentional breaking of the rules and had the potential for harm given it could have (and may have) transmitted the virus to someone vulnerable. Therefore there needed to be consequences

Similarly the cosequences for the SNP MP (Farrier?) who caught a train knowing she had covid and was subsequently suspended from the commons and had the whip removed, were wholly appropriate given the intention and potential harm.

In the Raynor case, in respect of harm, no one, other than Raynor herself, has been harmed by her initially paying £30,000 less than she owed. It wouldn't even feature as a rounding error in the public accounts so can't be said to have impacted public services in any way and no individual has been harmed.

As to intent - If it is proven that she intentionally colluded with her solicitor to pay less tax or intentionally paid less than she owed then she should resign.

However, if it is as she has said, and her solicitor gave her incorrect advice because they have somehow misinterpreted the rules, then it is simply a mistake, which she is correcting at her own cost by paying for further advice, paying what she owes to HMRC and reporting herself to the standards committee.

And yet, on the relationship threads, people are always told to trust their gut feelings when it comes to people's behaviour LTB is frequently bandied about!

You have evidence that she completed the conveyancing of her property without using a conveyancing solicitor?

It’s interesting you take Rayner’s word re the ’bad advice’ with no evidence, particularly when it’s highly unlikely.

Yes, I agree, I was just saying there are blinkered views on both ‘sides’, i.e that some people will rush to a conclusion one way or the other before finding out all the facts and then deciding.