Soo.. what proportion of Boots retail staff claim benefits and use the NHS?

[vinegarandbrownpaper]

Sick of 'business leaders' with businesses propped up by tax breaks, working tax credits and people propping up contracts with benefits when there is no work.. making sure those workers can still come back despite zero hours. Pay your staff properly before you complain about a supportive society you dolt.

Oh, not this rubbish AGAIN that the Tories are brilliant with the economy and Labour are rubbish!

At least 2 major recessions during the second half of the last Tory government, only 1 of which was global. Only 1 major recession at the end of the Labour government, which was global, NOT (worth repeating) NOT caused by Labour in any way, shape or form.

Sky high unemployment and under-employment as usual during a Tory government. Demonisation of those reliant on benefits due to low wages, illness, disability and mass unemployment. Almost non-existent social mobility.

Wages, living standards etc falling in real terms and use of food banks soaring again under a Tory government.

Claiming that the economy is improving when it has short term rises, purely down to the knock-on effect of desperate, temporary measures - for example selling off assets such as Royal Mail and Eurostar.

But, you know, promising lower taxes makes everything okay . As opposed to causing the problems.

Back to the original question though, I'm slightly disappointed that no one's mentioned Boots' disgraceful use of MWA staff yet, i.e. people working for them full time for their 72 a week JSA.

Come to think of it, this government's spent most of its term bouncing along the bottom of triple/quadruple/quintuple dip recessions. Guess a 2nd in history plus failing at towel-folding and the embarrassment of not being able to buy a job as a journalist doesn't help when you're a chancellor, hey Gidiot?

AllThePrettySeahorses ….. first of all, remembering the ‘good old Labour folk law 1970’s and the ‘Winter of Discontent’ economy they passed over in 1979, which UK recession under the Conservatives was just in the UK? Secondly, I’d love to show you more proof the financial crash in the UK was made worse by Brown’s relaxation of banking regulation AND the economic crash made worse by increased government spending BUILT of the tax receipts of financial market excesses, so just ask.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

metro.co.uk/2011/04/11/gordon-brown-i-made-big-mistake-on-banks-before-financial-crisis-650630/

www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse

Next, after the Labour great recession starting 2008 and the worse in over 80-years, when mainly private sector jobs & output (GDP) FELL around 7%, TELL US when was the next UK recession was under the Coalition, trying to rebalance the UK economy after Labour’s UNSUSTAINABLE public sector job ‘creation’ smoke and mirrors = much of ‘reflected’ in a £157 annual budget deficit in 2010?

Do you understand that within the GDP measurement, government spending and a new army of government employees consumption/spending, can CREATE socialist ‘growf’ Ball-sian style, as practiced by France (still GDP flat lining and record unemployment of 11% 8-years after the crash) and Greece (nuff said)?
www.trendingcentral.com/francois-hollande-changed-ed-miliband-stayed/

So looking at the FORTH CHART on the link below where government employment from the early 2000’s rose more than the private sector (even compensating when business job losses look as if they fell off a cliff), how can Labour brag about their last 13-years of GDP, employment, worker prosperity, average UK salaries, when under such a government FIX, inequality under them ROSE.
www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-22/uks-holiday-cheer-in-four-charts

And salaries, this link tells us, not only fell in 'real' terms the most between 2009 and 2011, due to the conditions Labour passed on to the Coalition, but those that have suffered most, are workers in the private sector.
www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/30/british-wage-slump-post-financial-crisis-uk

“British workers are taking home less in real terms than when Tony Blair won his second general election victory in 2001, with men and young people hit hardest by the wage squeeze that followed the financial crisis, according to new research.”

”During the 2009-11 period, when wage declines were most pronounced....

“Private sector workers have so far experienced larger earnings falls than public sector workers, largely because of the period between the onset of recession and the beginning of the current period of public sector pay restraint in 2011.”

Cont’d

Cont’d

Labour style regional employment ‘growf’, was in effect to ‘create’ a few million government and local authority jobs, many in highly paid quangos and ‘non jobs’ - and spray them around the UK – how was this employment growf called by Brown ‘the end of boom and bust’ EVER sustainable, and not likely to fall apart at the first recession, never mind the worst one in 80-years?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

Miliband wants to talk about party donors, how can a Labour government EVER be trusted not to grow 100% taxpayer funded State employment full of quango-crats and non jobs (‘the few’), more than the rest of the economy (‘the many’) that 100% supports those salaries through ever higher Labour taxes e.g. Council Tax?

Especially when the public sector (and other) trade unions both ‘sponsor’ Labour MP’s and need to fund most of their general election campaign e.g. Unite just handed over £2.5 million and no doubt requested a 1970’s style no-policies-us-and-them-class election campaign??

Clearly Labour CAN brag about benefits, it was the one ‘world beating’ policy they have, especially when bringing in millions of new workers, and condemning a generation of our indigenous population, to the unemployment scrape heap – needing to be sorted out by the Coalition, as the graph above shows.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html

But as for lower taxes on citizens and companies, it is still clear listening to PMQT, that Labour would rather have NO tax than SOME tax - and still have not grasped that LOWER TAXES overall, bring in more jobs and taxes, than Labour’s penal taxes of 1979, when the UK was known as ‘the sick man of Europe’ – rather than in 2014, the UK providing the highest (rebalancing) GDP of the main industrial countries and EU countries still following socialist policies 8-years after the crash, the ‘sick’ ones.

“EY: ”Cutting UK tax draws in more multinationals”
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10472446/EY-Cutting-UK-tax-draws-in-more-multinationals.html

“The accountancy firm highlights that the UK's competitive tax regime has led to a rise in overseas companies interested in domiciling in the UK”

IsItMeBut - it was Margaret Thatcher's relaxation of banking laws was the problem and the early 90s recession was UK based ;)

AllThePrettySeahorses …. Show me you argument why banks caused the early 1990 recession,…… and “Bloody Thatcher” is your excuse, what, 35-years AFTER the financial ‘Big Bang’, with Labour in power for a consecutive 13-years, with parliamentary majorities of 66 to over 166 seats to do EXACTLY what they wanted??

I’m reminded of the bear in the woods advert, comparing two types of toilet paper, what does he say, “you people”. Lol

• It was Brown (not Thatcher) allowed Mortgage Lending to rise from £21 billion in 1997, to £115 billion by the end 2007 financial crash.

• It was Brown (not Thatcher) allowing Household Debt as a percentage of income, to rise from 97% in 1997, to 168% early in 2008.

• It was Brown (not Thatcher) allowing the Average Home Price to rise from £73,000 in 1997, to £232,000 early in 2008 – through that extras lending/debt and only building half the homes they were advised to, by the Brown commissioned (pre main EU immigration) Barker Report of 2004.

That in essence was the 1997 to 2010 economy, government spending rising (and often wasted) financed by the proceeds of debt and speculation, that when those tax receipts fell away into the crash, left in 2010 a National Debt of £1,073 trillion (versus £403 billion in 1997), and a £157 billion annual budget deficit/overspend that Mr Brown (not Thatcher) is STILL in denial about.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2766413/Gordon-Brown-gave-Chuka-Umunna-hairdryer-treatment-blistering-phone-call-interview-criticising-former-PM-s-record.html

Mr Brown however has already OWNED UP to allowing the banks to grow their balance sheets too much (see my link), why are ‘you people’ looking for 35-year old blame/excuses?

If I was you I’d worry that just as we have the banks better regulated and capitalized, Mr Miliband is citing the banking sector as one of the industries/markets he wants to ‘control’, saying “they need to lend more”.

No 1997 to 2010 government financial expansionist intervention learned there then?

P.S. On Royal Mail who was ‘the workers’ villain(s) there, Brown and the ‘Dark Lord’ Mandelson, or ‘Saint’ George, do you need to do your homework? lol

Labour's NEW 'war' of legal tax avoidance, starting from a dodgy dossier of facts?

Mr Miliband has said “I am writing to put you on notice that “Labour will act on tax avoidance where the Tories will not,” he added - ending protection from international scrutiny and requesting OECD blacklisting.”

A Labour government will not allow this situation of delay and secrecy to continue,” it said.

The Labour leader’s letter is being sent to Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

But like a rise in the Minimum Wage, the groundwork has already been done, if you look at the list of countries in agreement listed within the following links.

“Noose tightens around global tax evasion as OECD countries sign new agreement”
www.cityam.com/1414597567/noose-tightens-around-global-tax-evasion-oecd-countries-sign-new-agreement

"The OECD just took a step closer to fighting tax evasion on a global scale, with 51 territories agreeing to create “information exchanges” that will help track culprits down."

"The first signatories to the dull-sounding "multilateral competent authority agreement" – which include the UK and Ireland – will launch their information exchanges by September 2017. Others will follow in 2018."

The time lag ensures legality of new demands of all companies that have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to limit their tax liabilities and will always gravitate to the lowest tax areas, wherever they are i.e Dubai or Dublin - so Miliband ensuring all the citizens of those British Overseas Dependencies will also be on BENEFITS, will never mean the UK gets all the taxes he wants._

Maybe if they paid the staff what they call a living wage nobody would be able to afford to buy anything in Boots. It's expensive enough already.

cont'd

May 2014: “HMRC crackdown yields record £23.9bn in additional tax”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27576626

”The government has raised a record £23.9bn in additional tax for the year to the end of March as a result of a crackdown on tax avoidance.”

”HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) said it had secured the money - the highest amount since records began - as a result of its investigations.”

”The figure is almost £1bn higher than the target set by Chancellor George Osborne in the Autumn Statement.”

”The extra money raised is in addition to regular tax receipts.”

”HMRC credited "increased activity" on unpaid tax for the figure.”

"HMRC will pursue those seeking to avoid their responsibilities and will collect the taxes that are due," said Treasury minister David Gauke.”

"The government is determined to tackle the minority that seek to avoid paying the taxes they owe," he added.”

Basing an economic policy for prosperity and growth over the next 5-years on raises taxes is sooo 1970's and cracking down on legal tax avoidance/tax evasion, is already being done - without scaring every business in the land shitless on what is to follow in May.

Viviennemany ... how many high street shops closed in the UK from Labour's 2008 recession onwards, is it 20,000, 40,000, more? How many MORE would have closed paying the Living Wage?

Boots ceased to be UK Boots before then, not because it was doing so well, it merged with another company based in Switzerland, doing business in several countries.

Labour, as in the 1970's, would rather put 70,000 Boots jobs/investments at risk, just because a Boots CEO dared say what every business used to Labour's ever higher taxes combined with Miliband's unspecified Minimum Wage promises - what political signal does that send to every employer to the new pressures under Labour NOT to invest in the UK?

Very interesting posts Isitmebut

Wow, IsItMeBut - you worked hard to get all those links.

But ...

In 1997, Labour inherited a debt of 42% and a deficit of 2.9%. In 2008, they were respectively down to 35% and 2.1%. Wasn't all rosy under the Tories, was it? Plus, if Labour were so profligate, how come these figures drifted painlessly down?

There was widespread anti-Labour feeling before the 2010 election, but the Conservatives still couldn't manage to get a majority to get into government. After 5 years of broken promises on the economy made by your incompetent "Saint" Gidiot, which have gone from fixing this mess within 2 years to a long-tem plan when he realised he didn't have a clue, is it any wonder that Labour have a decisive lead in the polls?

AllThePrettySeahorses ….. re your ”you worked hard to get all those links”; the sad thing is that I didn’t have to ‘work hard’ to find links on the Coalitions tax crackdowns since 2010.

The sad thing is that if the Leader of Her Majesties Opposition Party didn’t spend all his time opposing EVERYTHING in parliament the Coalition had proposed, all he’d need is decent memory on what happens in LONDON. lol

Here is another link for you that show what a real Leader does in London, to be economically pro-active to both close down international tax avoidance schemes and promote sustainable growth.

G8 ‘Open for Growth’ Event hosted by UK Prime Minister
tax.thomsonreuters.com/media-resources/g8-open-for-growth-event/

”London: June 17, 2013 – Thomson Reuters participated in an event hosted by Prime Minister David Cameron on transparency, tax, and trade – the three topics central to this year’s G8 Summit.”

”The event, themed ‘Open for Growth’, was held Saturday (June 15) in London as a lead-up to the G8 Summit beginning in Northern Ireland today.”

”Over 150 leaders were invited to the event, including government ministers and senior representatives from the private sector and international organisations. The objective of the June 15 event was to create political momentum and stimulate public interest and debate around trade, tax, transparency and related topics.”

The problem with tackling company tax avoidance (and worse, evasion) is that it is like a UK government trying to control/penalise/stop all arms sales in the world by just stopping UK arms sales, making a few hundred thousand British skilled workers (and their families) jobless – it is both politically naïve and gesture politics at its worse.

So instead of a Miliband desperate for populist measures, to pad out their 2015 manifesto flaying into British Overseas Dependencies threatening “blacklists” - for measures they have already agreed under the Coalition via the more relevant OECD global initiatives – why not spend more time finding POSITIVE business policies to promote growth and jobs?

The fact a UK government cannot “blacklist” our Dependencies on his own, and the plonker would have been an international laughing stock for trying to do so via organisations with the full knowledge of what they have already agreed, is here nor there for those clowns running the Miliband/Balls circus.

Cont’d

AllThePrettySeahorses …. regarding the rest of your economic points, let me take them one by one, some I have already given you the answers on other threads, but hey ho.

In 1997, those percentage figures you gave in comparison mean very little to me, for reasons I’ll explain, but Labour inherited a balanced economy that Brown, in adopting Conservative budgets to pay off our 1990’s recession budget deficit in the early 2000’s, which it did, before going on his non infamous government spending splurge.

I’ll admit that it probably helped paying down our debt when a (then) Balls advised Brown - without telling the electorate before in 1997 - also immediately sold nearly half our gold reserves, raided private pensions and raised Home Stamp Tax up from a Flat 1% rate, but as Labour were only going to ‘create’ a top heavy fat inefficient State, I think we’d rather have our gold and pensions back.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613609/Revealed-Labours-stealth-raid-took-118BILLION-pensions-paving-way-end-final-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html

This is why your figures and those below within the link on percentages of GDP, mean comparative little, as if government’s DOUBLE or more their spending, add millions of new Public Sector workers including huge quanocracies and non jobs, also boosting Consumption – that ‘creates’ a GDP monster that both relies on a much larger Private Sector to fund it, so is inherently unsustainable, when much of the tax receipts funding government spending was Private Sector bank balance sheet growth, funding loans/speculation.

But don’t take my word for it, read this whole link which I believe is quite fair, and the summaries, including the one below.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

”A great failure of spending decisions of the 2000s, was to allow budget deficits during rapid economic expansion. A budget deficit of 3% of GDP may have sounded relatively low. But, in hindsight, this exaggerated the underlying deficit because tax revenues were boosted by tax revenues which evaporated during the credit crunch.”

Conservative 2010 failure to get a majority; now that IS a sad tale and I’d suggest it is for several reasons.

• Dodgy English boundaries needing Conservatives to be around 8% ahead in the polls to get the SAME number of seats as Labour e.g. in 2005 a 35% share of the votes gave Labour a 66-seat majority. In 2010 the Tories won 36% of votes but were 20 seats short of a majority.

• Labour not content with that ‘fix’, were found guilty of vote rigging in several places (including via postal votes), hence ALL PARTIES agreed every person now needs to register, rather than automatically qualify for elections rather than trust the cheats in the red team.

• Finally the most cynical and socially destructive reason, when the ultra pro EU Labour Party looking to open our doors to a potential 500 million EU citizens in 2004, for some reason decided to use that as cover to make us “multicultural” and sent out for citizens OUTSIDE of the EU. The fact that 2/3rds of our net 4 million immigration from 1997 to 2010 were NON EU citizens who unlike EU citizens, CAN vote in UK General Elections and tend to vote for socialist parties, as Mr Brown was warned about in the second link below, was probably a coincidence. Hmmm.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html

Cont’d

Conservative Osborne’s 2010 plans & ‘broken promises’; Unlike the cowards running Labour in 2010, who after 13-years in government NEVER HAD firm cuts, tax and spend policy plans to limit their General Election damage, Osborne did when in office but had both underestimated the damage done to our economy/Exporters by Labour, and that the EU (our largest trading partner by far with around 50% of our trade), would still be economically flat lining several years after.

As per the Labour £157 billion Budget Deficit not being eradicated by Osborne by 2015, the biggest political joke other than Miliband I see, is that a Labour Party having opposed every cut the Coalition made from 2010 to 2015, is now pathetically bitching that Osborne hasn’t flattened their £157 billion overspend when a major part of the reason was the tax cuts to millions, to help ‘the cost of living crisis’ Labour created in the first place.

”Labour’s poll lead” in 2015; apart from not really having a big lead, Labour similar to 2010, is in 2015 refusing to tell the electorate in any detail what their tax a spend policies are, which as from 1997 was to hit the UK citizens and businesses with penal taxes AFTER General Elections to fund their fat State spending plans, so NO WONDER Labour are where they are, offering giveaways BEFORE elections, taxing AFTER the votes are in.

In 1997 as the 5th largest economy we had the approx the 18th largest gold reserves before Labour got hold of them, maybe Balls will finish our holding off, having never told us where all that gold sold at a sub $300 an ounce 20-year low, went. Balls/Brown missed the gold price high later on during their administration (over $1,900 an ounce), but if Balls rushes, he still might get $1,200 an ounce.

What IS the big story with the HSBC tax evasion 'news', that apparently our tax authorities was offered the 'whistleblower' details in 2008/9, at a time the UK had relaxed banking regulation, and only came to light in early 2010 when the French released the 'gloop' of accounts to HMRS?

Having a Swiss bank Account is not illegal, the fact HSBC in Switzerland was offering aggressive tax evasion schemes, probably was, but with several thousand accounts with activity going back several years - each one would need to be investigated by HMRC, before the extent and charges could be brought.

Names are being bandied about, but are all these guilty of tax evasion, or legal avoidance - but seriously worth 10-questions plus at PMQT????

See, I wouldn't cut taxes at all. I'd even tax JSA by 2p or similar nominal amount to ensure that everyone contributed to society. I'd also restore universal benefits as well so that everyone would benefit from the welfare state. No good disenfranchising people - unless your plan was to destabilise the welfare state, hence "scroungers" and "hard-working taxpayers" rhetoric.

As for the HSBC scandal, it's a huge problem which will probably ensure that the Tories lose the next election and Cameron knows it, but only one woman properly demanded answers at PMQs (didn't catch her name). Cameron can't talk his way out of this one. He has to admit either ignorance and therefore extreme incompetence or corruption. Is there a separate thread about this because I couldn't find one, or do we have to start our own?

From PMQT, it appears Labour were closer to Green, even up to 2013, who previously ran a huge Hong Kong based HSBC banking empire and was somehow meant to know what every branch office was (wrong) doing personally.

The question was did Cameron ask Green what he knew about the tax scandal in early 2010 before Green came into government, when HMRC didn't even know what the real problem was, and even if did, was not meant to discuss it outside, until anything was proven.

Furthermore Cameron told parliament about all the parliamentary checks that WERE done on Green.

Maybe if under Labour in 2008, they would have acted, by 2010 all the facts might have been known.

But back then Labour thought that even Vicars and other numpties without experience could run large banks e.g the Co-op, ooooooooooops, so why would they bother looking?

Nah, desperate policy-less Miliband, looking to smear, what a statesman.

Am I right in thinking Lords can chose their own name, if so, why this one?

Anyhoo, after Miliband's latest PMQT attempt to chose an ideological attack on the wealthy and make up reasons to launch it, let us see if Miliband who smeared this Tory donor today, is MAN ENOUGH to repeat it outside of parliamentary priviliege.

"Lord Fink tells Ed Miliband: repeat tax avoidance claims and I will sue you"

"Lord Fink directly challenges the Labour leader to repeat claims that had avoided tax using a Swiss bank account outside the House of Commons"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11406278/Lord-Fink-tells-Ed-Miliband-Repeat-tax-avoidance-claims-and-I-will-sue-you.html

Cameron's father avoided UK tax and left a sizeable sum for his children to dabble in PR and politics.

And Samantha Cameron works for a company that avoids paying UK tax by registering itself abroad.

Even if he were to provide an answer over the HSBC tax dodgers, I wouldn't believe a single word he says.

HugoBear … The hypocrisy goes on; I wonder if they’ll ever be a day in the UK when similar to America, everyone wakes up each day thinking they live in the land of opportunity, not some destructive ‘us and them’ class struggle dating back to the Industrial revolution?

When funny old world, if you WANT to scratch the surface, they are often sooooo similar – despite negative gobby rhetoric, designed to stir up ‘stuff’ for votes, instead of thinking positively how you build a sustainable economy and touring the country with REAL investment solutions as Cameron and Osborne currently are.

But let me reiterate for all those to be mentioned from here on, tax AVOIDENCE if legal, is not a criminal act, tax EVASION,

Re Samantha Cameron’s employer; are they not an international company, currently trading at a loss in the UK, currently looking for international investors to help them? I’m sure the Labour Party will rejoice when ‘the wrong sort of jobs’, from ‘the wrong sort of company’ no longer exists, its kinda how they roll.

Re David Cameron’s father; are you saying Cameron’s father EVADED taxes to help his children, or used legal tax avoidance, as Ralph Miliband did, to help his anti tax avoidance crusader son Ed, and politically screwed over brother David?

I used the fairest version of this on the young Miliband snipperwhappers I could find.

“The Milibands’ impressive property portfolio is fascinating. But what does it really tell us?”
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/09/ed-miliband-journalists-in-glass-houses

”Marxist academic Ralph Miliband owned a house in Edis Street, Primrose Hill. At some point after he died in 1994, his widow and two sons signed a "deed of variation" to his will that gave Ed and David each a 20% share in the house, which meant that on their mother's death they would pay inheritance tax only on the remaining 60%. Mrs Miliband also gave David a ground-floor flat around the corner in Chalcot Square that she'd bought for her mother in 1981. David moved in, then he and Ed bought leaseholds on the two floors above for about £100,000 a floor. David lived on the first two floors, and Ed on the third. Then jointly they bought the freehold on the whole Chalcot Square house.”

”In 2004, when he was married and about to adopt the first of his two children, David decided he needed more room. The solution lay in Edis Street. He bought out the 80% owned by his mother and brother for £800,000 and his mother switched homes to David's Chalcot Square flat. Ed's share of the deal is thought to be at least £160,000, on which he paid capital gains tax. In 2005, he sold his Chalcot Square flat for £342,000, and the next year bought another flat in the same area for £650,000, which he sold soon after for £740,000 to move into a house a mile or so away in Dartmouth Park that had been bought by his partner, lawyer Justine Thornton.”

How lucky Ed was, benefiting from his families tax avoidance and being in the heart a Labour Party engineering a housing boom, and bringing down the Capital Gains Tax over 13-years ‘for millionaires’.

Not quite the Blair's TEN(?) homes, but you get the card carrying socialist hypocrisy point?

Well, now Fink's admitted it. Another nail in the Tory coffin.

If there was anything wrong with Miliband's housing deals you can be sure that Cameron would have been all over it before now. However, your quote says that he paid CGT so nothing to see here. He just got lucky with the rise in house prices as did hundreds of thousands of others.

As for the statesman comment re Miliband - like Cameron's a statesman? Merkel rightly snubbed him by leaving him out of the Ukraine peace talks. Cameron has an appalling record in international relations, eg making the UK the laughing stock of the EU and alienating himself from other world leaders.

AllThePrettySeahorses ...... ha ha ha Lord Fink has admitted that he had a Swiss Bank account mainly because he lived in Switzerland, but did have some 'plain vanilla' type legal tax avoidance plans in place JUST LIKE THE MILIBAND family, no doubt worried about the Death Taxes a Labour government will ultimately bring in.

Miliband could not repeat the "dodgy" claim as he would be open to slander law suits, especially as HE has similar tax planning in place, as many other families will/should, shitting themselves the next Labour economy will be build on 'Attacks & Tax' on businesses and wealth anyone manages to put away DESPITE a Labour government tax and spend agendas.

As for Miliband/Balls private wealth "luck" whilst in the UK Treasury, are you blaming the Conservatives (and their donors) for Labour's lowering of the Capital Gains Tax I outline on the Hedge Fund thread, and via the FSA Labour formed, encouraged lighter bank regulation - rather than accept the difference between Fink and Miliband through the 2000's, was that ONE of them was responsible for UK policies as in government.

As for Miliband 'The Statesman', this Oxbridge Student Debating Society 'stuff' is Miliband's forte, the policies on envy and class devision, not having the visions and ability to ensure the next labour 5-years, don't end up like the last Labour 13-years, a UK economic and financial debt-ladened crash.

....and Miliband's defense of why his family, with heavy Marxist roots, has adopted future tax avoidance plans, possibly similar to many names in the HSBC list is .... my mummy did it. Guffaw.

For heavens sake Miliband, grow some, your family had an intent to avoid tax, both you and David would be capable enough to have told mummy not to OR try and unwind mummies plan after, if you really wished to, but like Fink says, 'everyone does it' (that can), even you you plonker.

There is NOTHING WRONG with legal plans to limit tax liability, if Brown hadn't increased the pages on the UK accountants tax handbook by a rain forest, many wouldn't have to - but for many under Labour taxed higher on income, taxed again on savings, taxed higher for permission to move home, their Private Pensions having tax relief withdrawn - all to fund a fat Labour quango State, they NEED to take tax shelters where they can.

Why is everything we can expect under Labour so negative, a perpetual fight against wealth/job creators, rather than any plans to GROW a sustainable economy - your country model pan-holed the similar French economy and IS NOT WORKING for 'the people' there 7-years after the crash, why would it here?