Gideons trust fund

[newwave]

How many find it nauseating and hypocritical that Gideon "we are all in it together" Osborne has his 4 million pound trust fund placed offshore to avoid paying 1.5 million in tax.

I would question his morals and those who think it's ok to do this. Bad enough if Green and his wife avoid tax but what example is or Chancellor giving

I'm just saying it does not matter, what party it is, they are all up to it. That is why I'm so disappointed, and others dissafected with politics, they always want the public to behave in a way that they don't.

P.S. Sounds like you married well, nearly as well as me!

I don't think paying tax is a fundamentally a question of morality. Choosing a tax-free ISA over a taxed-at-source savings account isn't an immoral decision. We pay what's legally due and lying about income or refusing to pay is an illegal act.

I don't see too many people queueing up at the tax office demanding to donate more money because the exchequer hasn't had enough....at either end of the payscale. If we want our money to be redistributed to do some good in the community there are any number of charities we can voluntarily donate to.

The bit I think is immoral is that as the law-makers, you should not benefit yourselves.

Gideon for example has been quoted as saying that the 'VAT rise is permanent, but the 50% rate of tax should be removed as soon as possible'. His interest is in helping the wealthy people like him.

I've never liked my job, got stuck there during the recession (and as I keep trying to convince myself I'm lucky to have one at all) but I like it even less since discovering that it involves me, however peripherally, in the promotion of Gideon/George's fortune :( :( :(

Gideon vs George? There is something slightly comical about Gideon I suppose but I prefer calling him George after his smarmy namesake from Vanity Fair.

Did he really have to say "we're all in this together"?

It is such a crap argument to say "ooo if you had £4m then I bet you would have it in an offshore account"

The assumption that is made when you justify these actions of Gidoen is that we are all amoral and it is only the law that gives us guidance on what we may or may not do.

What a bizarre logic. How utterly wrong.

It not only goes against all the Tory ethos that we shouldn't need laws for everything, but it is against the 'Big Society' ethos (which I always knew really just meant everyone else but me has to do it for free).

It is just morally bankrupt.

And it isn't illegal to shit on my best mate's new carpet, but I still don't do it.

George Osborne changed his name from Gideon - why ever did he do that? Gideon is such a nice name and every second male child is called George these days. The things you discover.

LadyBB 100% correct.

The Tories have always been morally bankrupt

A tory chancellor promising to cut taxes is entirely consistent. And I don't see anything 'morally bankrupt' about a working person preferring to keep more of their income and choose what to do with it than offer it up to the treasury so that a government can patronisingly hand a little of it back to them in the form of tax credits. When the basic rate of income tax went from 33% to 25% at the end of the seventies, not many basic-rate taxpayers objected. That is not 'amoral'... it is simply objecting to paying over the odds.

Chil, what this government is doing though is not cutting taxes (except perhaps potentially for the very rich). It is actually creating marginal tax rates of 75-83%, by its ill-thought-out economic policies.

They keep banging on about reducing the deficit. They still haven't twigged that they need people to have some spending power, because otherwise, we go back into recession, and the DEFICIT GETS BIGGER.

Although I really don;t like Gideon I don;t think this vperly bothers me- a bit [jhmm] but.

I was more pissed off tbh to find that DC was claiming DLA; we also get DLA and because we felt bd about claiming benefits decided not to claim council tax credit and struggle thorugh: eligibility for that is not overly generoud either. Thought it was for the good of the country but clearly it was only for the morally gullible.

LilyB entirely agree.

Anew shop closed here yesterday;hundred of cicil service jobs confirnmed gone..... so the businesses running the sandwich bars, cleaning contractors, childcare etc also going to struggle or go under.

All taking benefits and puting little back at least for a while.

How the hell will that help recovery? Many pof the lowest paid admin assistants will get not much less fropm benefits that they actually earned anyhow but will put less back in.

Makes zero sense to me. If (and it's an ideological if) the state has to shrink then gradually at a rate the local econmoy can absorb; not hundreds in one shot in a city with notoriously high unemployment anyway.

I'm still gullibble enough to beleive most people in polictics actually think they are helping just screwing it up, but even I can raise an eyebrow that the results seem to be a distinct class divide between have nots and haves- very old-style aristo.

One of the lines Gideon is fond of coming out with, when questioned about exactly HOW the child benefit cut will work (it is unfair and unworkable, and therefore cannot be defended) is that he hopes most people will 'do the right thing' and not claim it.

He has forgotten about the pension side to it - the protection of NI credits - not claiming is not an option unless you want to miss out on your pension later on.

He hopes people will forget it Lily.

Same with DLA; the carers who lose out becuase their cared for people lose DLA will also lose right to HRP. The official gvernment stance atm is 'we don;t know what to do about carer's allowance'. fat lot of good that is!

based on reports from charities about ESA, the people ahrdest hit won;t be the malingerers it's sold to hit, but those whoc annot prove a physical ailment- esp, those who arent savvy enough to 'put it on'. So Mr A who likes his telly abit too much puts on a limp all day, Mr B who ahs ASD and doesn;t have sufficient self awareness to comprehend that sits talking about how he wants to be an astronaut, gets signed off, his carer loses benefit, carer cannot attend work training as he still has Mr B, carer's housing and income is cut off....

There's a left foot artivcle about the new criteria about; acknwledging their left wing writers, it's till pretty scary that there appear to be cut off that would foerce my severelya sd child with a five minute concentration span off disability yet he cannot work in any way, would ahve to have 1-1 on any training, can speak but only in stereotypical ways, cannot go out alone.....

Some days I just want to shout can nobody see what is happening- those are the good days!

((()))) peachy.

I think the Government's mantra should not be "We're all in this together" - rather "You're on your own, mate".

I read an article that ended "If you're not very very rich, be very very healthy" and that kind of sums it up for me, although is obviously based on the health reforms. But the same goes for all sorts of sectors of society.

Newwave.

As I posted. Both Miliband brothers avoided scammed paying inheritance tax on their father's house.

The house was worth 1.6 milllion. The scam avoidance was carried out by basically both brothers buying part shares in the house. The Standard carries the full story.

Did these two lovely socialist, elitist, twerps think of the working class voters, when they did this? No, they just wanted all the money from the sale of the house.

Was this the right course of action for a Marxist Socialist? That is up to the individual to decide.

Certainly the Labour party does not hold any moral ground, anyone who accuses the Tory party of not having morals, must be of the opinion that the Labour parties shite doesn't
stink!

P.S. Gideon is a far superior name than the name of the Miliband's father! Which was Adolph until he changed it Ralph!

to Ralph!

The government is not cutting taxes at the moment but every Tory voter would firmly expect that to happen in the future.... and be disappointed if it didn't.

The original subject was that of not paying more tax than was necessary. I'm curious... do the people that would gladly pay more tax than necessary (and think that millionaires should do the same) see the payment of tax as a privilege? An honour? To me it's just a bill.

Chil1234. Totally agree!

Yes. Chil1234. It's a badge of honour!

He changed his name because he didn't think it was the kind of name that would get him elected to PM. As it's a posh toff name. He was about 14 at the time. Gives a flavour of the man. As does his Bullingdon Club membership of course.

A certain Anthony Wedgewood-Benn massaged his name to 'Tony Benn' for roughly the same reasons of better PR. I bet Ed Balls and Jeremy Hunt wished they had a second string to their nomenclature bows. :)

Sorry... Anthony Neil Wedgewood-Benn 2nd Viscount Stansgate to give him his original moniker.

Anthony Neil Wedgwood-Been who renounced his title, and has worked as a leading member of a progressive party, implementing socialist policies, to help the underprivileged.

or Gideon. Who thinks it is a good idea to keep VAT at 20% but wants to get rid of the 50% tax bracket to give people on 150k + a tax break. Hmm...