Angela Rayner - 3 homes now

I agree regarding links Allira, on more complex topics they send you into things you hadn’t heard of, or knew little about, and are often instrumental in moving your thinking forward. On threads like this though, I don’t think anybody changes their opinion, whatever anybody else says. It is partly because a lot of us have been on similar threads before, so we know what to expect people to say.

I have actually changed my views after carefully reading other posts. I have learned a lot since being on Gransnet and I will admit I was wrong if I feel I was.

Casdon

What I meant was that I don’t believe any of us change our views as a result of what other people on Gransnet say Allira. Our views change for other reasons, we just go round and round.

I'm not so sure, Casdon.

Sometimes I've posts on here, by reasonable posters, or some links which have certainly made me have a rethink.

Of course, the opposite can be true if someone is convinced they are Always Right and anyone else who dares to express an opinion is then belittled, it makes me question their views even more.

Begs the question - why express an opinion on GNet ? What is the point if any?

What I meant was that I don’t believe any of us change our views as a result of what other people on Gransnet say Allira. Our views change for other reasons, we just go round and round.

Casdon

There isn’t even one room TerriBull, never mind one logical way of thinking. It’s yet another topic on which everybody is stuck in their own opinion and can’t hear other people however hard they shout.

I don't think that's true, Casdon.

Many of us are fed up with the way our politicians in general behave. We were sick of hearing about "Tory sleaze" and voted for something better, or so we hoped. Now we feel let down because we realise, as *RosieandherMaw" said, they all seem to be in it for what they can personally line their pockets with. It's not just one in particular, but one after another is being found to be no better than the Tories they replaced.

Pot kettle black eazybee. You missed my point though, which is that on Gransnet we argue through the same points again and again, and nobody changes their mind, do they? It’s all a bit pointless really when you think about it.

RosieandherMaw

I am sick, sick, sick of the “great and the good” - , people in positions of power, who set themselves up to make decisions which affect ALL our lives and are found out to have their noses in the trough- think duck houses, off shore funds, camper vans, free designer clothes even specs, dodgy deals with Arabs/Chinese, fiddled expenses (often to family members bets to “keep it in the family”) now second /third homes.Who do they think they are?
I don’t care what their political persuasion, they all seem to be in it for what they can personally line their pockets with.

Well said, RosieandherMaw

Are there any politicians who leave Parliament poorer than when they entered? Many seem to become millionaires in a very short time indeed.

By the time they receive their salary (not huge admittedly) and the not inconsiderable expenses, subsidised food, housing, etc etc they should be able to manage very well indeed. Therefore, do they really need to spend much of their time on "other interests", "flipping" and "advising" when they should be spending their time serving their constituents and running the affairs of State?

There seems to be little or no altruism amongst politicians of any party any more.

You have described yourself perfectly, Casdon.

You cannot defend Rayner's behaviour by saying what she has done is legal. It may be so, but it is also immoral, and against all her party's professed precepts. This is the second time that she, Deputy Prime Minister, has been investigated for financial irregularities concerning the sale, ownership and tax on her properties.
Using the defence that the mounting objections against her conduct are because she is northern working class is insulting to the real working class.

There isn’t even one room TerriBull, never mind one logical way of thinking. It’s yet another topic on which everybody is stuck in their own opinion and can’t hear other people however hard they shout.

For goodness sake read the room, it's not about her as an individual buying a second home, which may or may not be her main residence, that has yet to be established. It's the ambiguity surrounding all of that and whether she has evaded the higher amount of Stamp Duty which she would be liable for, if in fact it is a 2nd home. As far as 2nd homes are concerned Labour are generally disapproving as they see themselves as the party of high ideals and on the side of the people who are struggling to secure even one home, with a tacit disapproval of those who want to acquire more than one or multiple properties to rent out, which isn't something unknown to Labour MPs, so maybe we expect something better from them.

Of course many of us appreciate that Angela Rayner had a very difficult start in life and has had a mountain to climb to get to where she has today. However, we don't live in India where if one is born into a lower caste system that's where they stay. Here in Britain, as difficult as it may be when the odds are stacked against someone from her background, it is conceivable as her ingenuity has proved, an individual can move out of that social bracket. Nevertheless as a Labour Government Minister she will not be perceived in a good light if she has done a deal which may be legal but not necessarily moral to pay a lesser amount of tax than she should be liable for, especially as her government is looking at every which way to raise them in way that will cripple both individuals and businesses. To me it's all about the optics and not about "people like her shouldn't have more than one home". Using wealth protection firms for tax avoidance, and I'm sure supporters for the opposition will baulk at this, but if we didn't know the person in question was AR, we could be maybe forgiven for thinking they were an ardent Tory capitalist, but she isn't! Thus far the Labour party's association with the freebies, the dodgy landlords, one with multiple mouldy properties, one a former Homelessness Minister, the free designer clothes, specs, concert/sporting event tickets etc. I'm not seeing a lot of difference between them and the last lot.

Thought Ed Milliband was the preferred replacement? Heaven help us.

A different take on this story this morning. A political commentator is of the opinion that some in the Labour party are leaking information about her because they want to get rid of her so she is no threat to Starmer.

If Labour hadn’t leaked some ideas of totally demolishing the middle classes, targeting private education, then there might be less anger at this story. Inheritance taxes, an annual property tax, loss of pensions …. Just waiting for the Autumn Budget.

There’s a whiff of ‘people like her shouldn’t have more than one home’. ‘Not one of us’, Outrage that she can afford it. Look at the photo of her vaping while in a dinghy - message is she’s low class.
Loads of MPs will have the same.
Just because she has more than one home doesn’t mean she isn’t working hard to help families have a home.
In fact, to me, she will want families to have the same opportunities. She has done so well in life and should be applauded for it.

On the basis of do what I do and not what I say, it seems Shoosmiths were used by AR for tax planning purposes. So some useful information.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Angela Rayner is not anyone. She is a law maker.

What has it got to do with anyone what she spends her money on ?

In homes tax row

Labour MP Graham Stringer has condemned Angela Rayner.

ronib

foxie48 Zahawi lost his job!!

And so he should!

Had Rayner had any liabilty to CGT on the sale of her former council house, it might have been around £1,500. That is not the same as saying she should have paid £1,500 as if she deliberately evaded or avoided tax. HMRC subsequently confirmed that she had no capital gains tax liability and that no further action would be taken,

taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/

Zahawi was a whole other matter. When Zahawi established YouGov in 2000, he arranged for the founder shares to go to offshore company Balshore. It paid nothing for the shares. The only plausible reason for that was tax avoidance.

taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/01/19/zahawi_story/

He settled with HMRC paying around £5 million in tax, interest and penalties.

There is a world of diference between an ordinary member of the public (which Rayner was at the time) not knowing they needed to make a time constrained application for Principle Private Residence Relief (PPPR) and a government minister with substantial outside business interests putting business assets offshore.

peak sick to death of the lot of them

Oh yes TerriBull that is so true as far as I am concerned.

foxie48 Zahawi lost his job!!