The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5

Originally Posted by Hugh

Remember when tens of thousand of rich people left when Blair was elected in ‘97?

I didnt know any then, nor do I now, so no.

[ Depends on your definition of 'Rich' of course ].

[jfman]

Plenty of people rich in the soul on CF.

I imagine you need to be worth several million pounds with a lot of passive income complementing that for it to be worthwhile to uproot your life to avoid some of the tax on that income.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Damien

I imagine you need to be worth several million pounds with a lot of passive income complementing that for it to be worthwhile to uproot your life to avoid some of the tax on that income.

Nope. You can hide your dosh easily.


Digital Banks: Three bad examples

Plum: Owned by two Aussies (do not correct me on that). They have an account with Citybank (you may correct me on this) and they put your money anonymously there. Very fishy bank.

MoneyBox: They put your money in their account with HSBC.

Moneyfarm: Owned by an Italian guy. I have no more to say on this.

All three are recommended by the money saving compare sites

Fintech/Worldpay, the same two Aussie Plum guys.

But Jersey has plenty of banks that have subsidiary digital banks. Very reliable. The corrupt Anglo-Irish bank (jersey) never leaked ANY info, even after bankruptcy.

No need to uproot.

[ianch99]

Don't forget the system is structured to allow the ultra wealthy to quietly minimise their tax liability. One reason why the Tories have been in power for such a large percentage of the time. We, as a society, are conditioned to obsess over Income and ignore Wealth.

I am constantly amazed why so many get angry about the millions spent on small boats, etc. and yet are content to allow the billions sail away without any protest.

[ianch99]

Interesting: Conservative Party withdraws support from two candidates over election betting scandal

If they get elected as MP's, would they be effectively independents?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

We, as a society, are conditioned to obsess over Income and ignore Wealth.

There's a lot of nuance in the word "wealth".

Income, in pounds shillings and pence is easy to understand and tangible.

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

Nope. You can hide your dosh easily.


Digital Banks: Three bad examples

Plum: Owned by two Aussies (do not correct me on that). They have an account with Citybank (you may correct me on this) and they put your money anonymously there. Very fishy bank.

MoneyBox: They put your money in their account with HSBC.

Moneyfarm: Owned by an Italian guy. I have no more to say on this.

All three are recommended by the money saving compare sites

Fintech/Worldpay, the same two Aussie Plum guys.

But Jersey has plenty of banks that have subsidiary digital banks. Very reliable. The corrupt Anglo-Irish bank (jersey) never leaked ANY info, even after bankruptcy.

No need to uproot.

Looking at the ones you mention, the digital banks, they're all registered here and are regulated by the FSA. This wouldn't get you out of paying tax. It's not hiding your money. What matters is not where the owners are from or which banks they use themselves, what matters is if they have a UK Banking Licence. If they do then they can operate here but in turn have to submit returns to the government.

I am not really sure what you're getting at there?

https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/n...n-seemed-good/

THE man standing for Reform UK in Salisbury has come under fire after he said Vladimir Putin "seemed very good".

…"I have actually met Putin and had a 10-minute chat with him and he seemed very good. He is not the Austrian gentleman with a moustache come alive again."

Boos and looks of disgust were directed towards Mr Malins, who does not live in Salisbury, after he made this statement.

To paraphrase "Yes, Minister", it seems brave and courageous that whilst giving an election hustings speech in Salisbury, you praise someone who ordered their Intelligence Service to use a chemical agent which killed one person, put three more into intensive care for several weeks, and caused eight sites to be closed for several months whilst they were being decontaminated in that Constituency.

Not sure they thought that response through…

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

There's a lot of nuance in the word "wealth".

Income, in pounds shillings and pence is easy to understand and tangible.

Ah, I see you conform to the required thinking. When people hear Income, most think of PAYE and it is this this section of society, those whose tax is deducted at source, that bare the brunt of the tax rises. They literally have no choice.

It is the other Income sources e.g. Dividends plus the net increase in asset values that is not taxed at the same levels. People complain about being taxed too much since they have no ability to escape it however, those with net worth in the tens of millions, are laughing all the way to the (offshore) bank. Net increase in wealth is quantifiable if the system is structured to assess it.

The irony is that those who can afford to pay the most, would not notice the loss are those would pay the least in effective tax rate terms. Here's the kicker: most people don't have a problem with it but, in the same breath, will be angry about helping those who have so little.

Pretty dumb...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cqqqqx25rz0t

The alleged betting scandal took a new twist this afternoon, after it emerged the Gambling Commission is investigating another candidate - this time from the Labour Party.

Who is it? Kevin Craig is the Labour candidate for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (a full list of candidates is here).

What happened? On Tuesday afternoon, Labour announced it had suspended Craig after learning the Gambling Commission had launched an investigation into him.

What did Craig allegedly do? In a statement, Craig admitted that he put a bet that the Tories would win in his seat. He says he would have given any winnings to local charities. He acknowledges it was a "huge mistake" and is "deeply sorry" - but says he placed the bet with no prior knowledge of the outcome.

What has Labour said? The party said it acted "immediately" as it "upholds the highest standards" of candidates.

[denphone]

Indeed as what was he thinking.

[jfman]

Hedging his bets. I like it.

I’m unclear as to the law around political betting. I didn’t think it was illegal per se, but only if you’re relying on insider information. Anyone connected to Rishi Sunak is obviously under suspicion if they bet on a July election, that not being by any means the most likely outcome, but an opposition MP betting on the outcome in his seat seems much less likely to be based on privileged info. I have to say I suspect the Gambling Commission has gone looking for a sacrificial lamb here, to try to lessen the damage their existing investigations are doing to one particular party by evening things out a bit.

[jfman]

Probably the Labour Party trying to appear “whiter than white” too. In theory betting on an event you deliberately then go on to lose would on paper be no different to spot-fixing or match-fixing.

However who would sacrifice 5 years at 80k+ and expenses for a minor bet.

He’s probably been unlucky that the bet has appeared unusual (high amount) in the context of single constituency markets and fell within the timeframe for further scrutiny.