Ken or Boris?

First topic message reminder :

May 3 is the date set for the London Mayoral election. The three main candidates are Boris Johnson (Tory), who has been Mayor of London since 2008, Ken Livingstone (Labour), who was Mayor from 2000 until 2008, and Brian Paddick (Lib Dem). As Paddick is currently polling around 7%, I think we can discount him.

From 1986 to 2000, London had been the only major city in the Western world without its own elected authority. That was because when Labour regained control of the Greater London Council (GLC) in 1981, Thatcher, an enemy of democracy, decided to abolish it. She also abolished six metropolitan councils which just happened to be Labour-controlled. It's hardly surprising that she was a personal friend of General Pinochet, a man not noted for his democratic credentials.

Ken Livingstone was born in Streatham in London in 1945 and went to Tulse Hill Comprehensive School. He worked as a cancer research laboratory technician at the Royal Marsden Hospital. In 1971, he became a councillor in Lambeth, and he was the leader of the GLC from 1981 until its abolition in 1986. He was the MP for Brent East from 1987 until 2001.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, a descendant of an illegitimate child of George II, was born in 1964 and went to Eton and Oxford, where, as a member of the Bullingdon Club (in the company of Cameron and Osborne) he spent a night in a police cell after trashing a restaurant. He became a journalist and was the Tory MP for Henley from 2001 to 2008. Once elected Mayor of London (on a salary of around £150,000 a year), he resumed work as a ‘Daily Telegraph’ columnist on a further £250,000 a year.

Johnson, who has campaigned vigorously against the 50% top rate of tax and has frequently defended bankers, is a serial adulterer, compulsive liar, racist, and even a thief, once being made to return an article which he looted from the home of Tariq Aziz in Baghdad. He has a reputation for running up exorbitant expenses, and in short, he’s thoroughly unsuitable for holding any office.

blueturando wrote:Thank you Scarecrow.....I will always admire a person who has principles and stick by them...not just when it suits.

We may be on different pages when it comes to our politics, but I will always respect someone who sticks by what they believe and this is why it can get so frustrating on here sometimes with the double standards that seem to be acceptable to some.

I've always liked Dennis Skinner....now there's a man who has integrity, strong beliefs and the courage of his convictions and I repect that.....Ok somethimes much to the annoyance of his own Party, but then again he is old School Labour, when Labour was the Labour party and not a watered down version of the Tories

Blue
your coming over as very bitter...as when it comes to real principles the Tory party has very few indeed...

Not bitter....just can't abide double standards and hypocrisy, both of which flow freely in the Labour Party and on this board

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I see tax avoidance as finding a legal loophole whereby you have your tax free allowance increased, something every person in this Country is or would be involved in if they could, whereas tax evasion is hiding your cash somewhere like the Cayman Islands so the Tax man has no idea how much you have and should be taxed , thereby paying less tax than you are legaly obliged to. you know like what George Osbourne the CHANCELLOR Of the Exchequer and Phillip Hammond Secretary of State for Defence. I think you are supposed to put the Right Honourable before their names, but that would be lying.

bobby wrote:Please correct me if i'm wrong. I see tax avoidance as finding a legal loophole whereby you have your tax free allowance increased, something every person in this Country is or would be involved in if they could, whereas tax evasion is hiding your cash somewhere like the Cayman Islands so the Tax man has no idea how much you have and should be taxed , thereby paying less tax than you are legaly obliged to. you know like what George Osbourne the CHANCELLOR Of the Exchequer and Phillip Hammond Secretary of State for Defence. I think you are supposed to put the Right Honourable before their names, but that would be lying.

Great post bobby what gets me angry is they always go on about the Unions giving money to the Labour party and yet there funding comes from the very people that you mention in your post bobby, but we are not supposed to mention that or we are called biased.

As for the Right Honourable they will be very few of them in the H.O.C.

Bobby....What would you say the difference is in Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion? ......Does the country benefit from one over another?

I think Bojo the Clown has been a great mayor. He certainly has all the right credentials. He went to the right school, has the right friends, went to the right university. He's able to produce Oxbridge witticisms without the slightest forethought. He earns a quarter of a mil by tossing off some thoughts into a Tory propaganda machine over coffee on a Sunday - over two hundred grand more than the vast majority of the citizens he represents - in his part-time job. He's well versed in both Greek and Latin. He's openly Tory which means the real city - by which we mean, of course, mean the bankers and companies - will be well looked after. He gained all the right experience for running a city like London through his time in Henley-on-Thames and, presumably, learned all he needed to about catering for the poor and underprivileged by reading Aristotle in those one-on-one tutorials which weren't interrupted by a session of restaurant-smashing with the Bullingdon boys.

Welcome to England - how could Scotland want to leave this?

Lrts face it Scarecrow.....both Boris or Ken have always been a sandwich short...if you know what I mean

Bluey Well I thought I had allready done that in my post, but for those who have difficulty in reading my pigeon English I will happily expand on what I said.
Tax avoidance is simply not paying more than you need to, using legal means (not always moral, but legal). When my Daughter fills out my tax returns she will claim for every item she can in order to lessen my already very high Tax burden. It is the same I expect for you, when you claim for that packet of paper clips, we are no different, neither of us wants to pay tax we don’t have to, and don’t.

Tax evasion is when you earn money in the UK, but are registered in a tax haven ( as the person who rents the office 2 down from yours may be doing), therefore evading the taxes he/she should be paying to the country where the cash is earned.

Both you and atv have used the term Tax avoidance, so are both saying Ken Livingstone is as bad as you, me and probably atv. When you look at your Tory front bench in the HOC you will regularly see two exponents of the practice of Tax evasion, and they are Gideon and the rat looking Hammond, who admitted on TV he put all his business interests in his wife’s name who in turn uses an overseas business address. That said though, they both had a great teacher when it comes to fiddling vast amounts of cash from the Tax Payer.

You may be a bit too young to remember Ernest Marples. He was the Conservative minister of transport back in the 60’s, and prior to entering Parliament gave his business to his wife Then lo and behold all the major Government contracts like motorway building went to the firm of Marples Ridgeway, a true Tory, and they are all just the same today.

If all you can pick to fight over is Ken Livingstones Tax avoidance, it’s a fight you can not win.

As to if the Country benefits from either, the short answer must be no, so I’ll do a deal with you, if you don’t claim for your paper clips, I wont claim for my staples.

Good Day Red. What you say about Union funding is absolutely correct. They seem to think the unions are one man, like McClusky, whereas in truth it is the voice of thousands of people. Each union vote yearly at their agm, they vote in officers and vote as to whether they will make a political contribution. It is probably the most democratic body in the country, I doubt many of the Tory Contributors do so by consensus, no they do it as individuals for individual gain. This is why the Tory’s fear them, its due to the numbers and with those numbers comes a certain amount of power, and as the Tory’s want all the power, they will do all they can to discredit and destroy the Trades Unions.
What they don’t realise, is that the time to fear the Unions the most, is when you squeeze the national workforce where more people will rather join a Trades Union then not. Why does Herr Cameron think the Unions got started in the first place.

bobby wrote:Good Day Red. What you say about Union funding is absolutely correct. They seem to think the unions are one man, like McClusky, whereas in truth it is the voice of thousands of people. Each union vote yearly at their agm, they vote in officers and vote as to whether they will make a political contribution. It is probably the most democratic body in the country, I doubt many of the Tory Contributors do so by consensus, no they do it as individuals for individual gain. This is why the Tory’s fear them, its due to the numbers and with those numbers comes a certain amount of power, and as the Tory’s want all the power, they will do all they can to discredit and destroy the Trades Unions.
What they don’t realise, is that the time to fear the Unions the most, is when you squeeze the national workforce where more people will rather join a Trades Union then not. Why does Herr Cameron think the Unions got started in the first place.

Hi bobby your right about the Unions standing up for there members and later on down the line I can see this Tory Gov't having a go at getting rid of the minimum wage then the Unions will get on there high horse and what Len McCluskey said will be nothing.

As for the Tory Contributions they make them so they get something in return such as contracts for the NHS typical I will scratch your back and you can scratch mine, as for Scam..er..on wanting all the power and trying to discredit the Unions what does that say about the person IMHO that greed for power will be his downfall.

Returning to the subject of the thread......

When the 7/7 atrocities occurred in London in 2005, Ken Livingstone was Mayor of London. At the time, he was in Singapore lobbying for London to hold the Olympics this year. When he heard news of the bombing, he addressed the assembled media and then boarded the first plane back to Britain, but not before checking he could be contacted mid-air if necessary.

In early August last year, London was burning, with rioting in 29 of the capital city’s 32 boroughs, and the police were being accused of not even trying to contain the unfettered violence, looting and arson that went on. Mayor of London Boris Johnson was on holiday in Canada and refused to return, saying that “he was not going to ‘reward’ the rioters by dancing to their tune and rushing back.” He claimed that he could just as easily direct operations from Canada as from his office in London, yet the lazy and complacent git didn’t even go into a local TV studio in Canada and made an address to the people of London from there.

So there is the stark difference. Ken, the born and bred Londoner whose love for the city is in his DNA, and Johnson, the Eton and Bullingdon Club toff parachuted in from leafy Henley to add the salary of Mayor of London to the £250k “chicken feed” he gets every year from ‘The Daily Telegraph’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109493/Knives-Boris-Now-senior-Tories-plotting-crush-Mayor-launches-bid-No-10-mishandling-riots.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Of course. Boris would rather be Prime Minister.

bobby wrote:[color=black] Ken Livingstone doesn’t need to stack shelves at Tesco’s. He is at present running his own company, yet unlike Doris Johnson, he has said he will give up all other interests should he win the mayoral election, and has challenged Doris to do the same, thereby enabling him to treat being the Mayor of London as a full time job, as Ken did and will do again. It can be nothing other than stealing cash, when you are paid to be the Full Time Mayor of England’s Greatest City, then spend time Londoners are paying for to line his own pockets even further.

There is absolutely no comparison between Ken Livingston and Boris Johnson.

Ken will not please everyone, but what does anyone expect with a city as diverse as London, but what you will get is value for money, unlike the wastage of Johnson with his myriad of assistants, I mean even his assistants have assistants.

Ken Livingstone has come under fire again amid new revelations regarding his financial arrangements.
It has been discovered that between 2000 and 2006, when he was Mayor of London, Mr Livingstone channelled his media earnings into a company named Localaction Ltd.
This is a different company to Silveta, the one he currently uses to receive the money he earns for appearing on media outlets such as the Iranian Government owned Press TV.

Eight of Ken Livingstone's closest "cronies" are to receive pay-offs totalling £1.6 million after he changed the rules before he lost the election.
04 August 2008

As you rightly say, "it's nothing other than stealing cash, when you are paid to be the Full Time Mayor of England’s Greatest City, then spend time Londoners are paying for to line his own pockets even further".

There is absolutely no comparison between Ken Livingston and Boris Johnson.
Would you like to re-phrase that statement.

Boris Johnson refers to £250,000 a year as "chicken-feed, So £1 million for 4 years work is just chicken feed... but then he does not run his own company. so taxpayers money would be chicken feed plus his column would not be a great deal I guess to him

Boris Johnson's salary as Mayor of London takes him into the country's top 1%, but his "chicken feed" element of £250,000 - his fee for writing a column - could be paid as a conventional salary, or not.

Boris Johnson's Deputy's outside interests under scrutiny · Keeping the .... the £232000 was a salary which was disguised as corporate income.

it's nothing other than stealing cash

LOL. I seem to recall on our previous forum that atv defended Ashcroft, who pays his taxes to the Tory Party instead of the Inland Revenue. Strange that.

Ivan wrote:

LOL. I seem to recall on our previous forum that atv defended Ashcroft.

If memory serves me right, I wasn't defending Lord Ashcroft, but pointing out there were Labour peers also avoiding paying UK taxes. One being Lord Paul who is not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. When Lord Ashcroft was pressured into confirming his "non-dom" status, he took the opportunity to point out that the same was true of Lord Paul and another major Labour donor, Sir Ronald Cohen, both convienently forgotten by Labour when attacking Lord Ashcroft.
And in case you may have forgotten, Lord Paul Was the Labour Peer who ripped off his workers pensions, much like Robert Maxwell's raiding of pension funds, Socialism in the true sense, a true Labour bloke, crooked, thieving, lying, corrupt, self-interested and arrogant.
Strange that The Mirror, most read by Labourites and trade unionists remained silent and as far as I know hasn't reported a word of Lord Paul to this day.

Why not get every member of the Lords to put their tax returns for the past 20 years into the public domain

I wonder if any one of the left leaning posters have openly supported Livingstones aviodance/non-payment of taxes?

Where many of the right leaning have supported Ashcroft and Green by saying what they did/are doing is within the law..........

Curious how some people seem to think that every possible human activity needs to be codified as either legal or illegal.

Most of us understand that an action can be "wrong" even though there is no specific law against it.

by bobby on Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:06 pm

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I see tax avoidance as finding a legal loophole whereby you have your tax free allowance increased, something every person in this Country is or would be involved in if they could

Here's your answer Astradt

astradt1 wrote:I wonder if any one of the left leaning posters have openly supported Livingstones aviodance/non-payment of taxes?

Where many of the right leaning have supported Ashcroft and Green by saying what they did/are doing is within the law..........

There is no defence for tax avoidance in my book astradt1. not in my view anyway....Tax will never be liked and that is fine...but if you do not like it get elected and try to change it....if not pay up....however....the Tory party are trying vainly to make Tax avoidance a issue with Ken Livingstone...why...out of fear that he will beat Doris..... if it's shown that Ken Livingstone has broken the TAX law...then HM Taxman will soon be on his case. rightly so...however...Ashcroft and Green spend have the year out side the UK. So they can avoid it...Ken Livingstone has not done this...that says all you need to know about this issue

blueturando wrote:

by bobby on Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:06 pm

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I see tax avoidance as finding a legal loophole whereby you have your tax free allowance increased, something every person in this Country is or would be involved in if they could

Here's your answer Astradt

true...and the TAX man will soon catch up with you if the loophole is found to be not legal...this is how it works... its what is called gambling with your TAX.

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:

by bobby on Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:06 pm

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I see tax avoidance as finding a legal loophole whereby you have your tax free allowance increased, something every person in this Country is or would be involved in if they could

Here's your answer Astradt

true...and the TAX man will soon catch up with you if the loophole is found to be not legal...this is how it works... its what is called gambling with your TAX.

Would that be FRAUD Stox?

blueturando. If you are going to quote me, please have the common decency to quote in full.

I think that's the line Astradt was looking for Bobby...I just pointed it out for him/her

Why is that those who earn the most seem not to be on PAYE?

Surely the companies they work for have a wages dept that signs the cheques?

For those who work in the sports and entertainment field those contracting them must have to file accounts for tax purposes to show their profits and costs, which will include wages/fees.

Can't the tax office work out what each individual earns from these accounts?

As for these individuals who set up 'dummy' companies to have their wages paid to arn't they liable for corporation tax if not why not?

I'm sure that one of our business owners on here will be able to explain how it all works to the rest of us who have our tax taken before we even see any money..........

What sort of things are tax deductable from wages?

Can't the tax office work out what each individual earns from these accounts?

Most of these people use their Business Accounts to pay many of their personal expenses and then use Accountants to cover that up in their year end accounts

Astradt1
Can't the tax office work out what each individual earns from these accounts?


Blue
Most of these people use their Business Accounts to pay many of their personal expenses and then use Accountants to cover that up in their year end accounts

Then this is not tax avoidance but illegal tax evasion....Isn't this what the tax man is supposed to be looking for?.......I wonder if the tax office put as many man hours into looking at these abuses as the benefits agencies put in to catching benefits cheats?

I remember getting a letter from the tax man, a few years back, telling me that I had paid by my employer above the limit on my motor milage allowance.......my car being used to get me to meetings and going to assess patients refered to the unit I managed...and that my next years tax code would be adjusted to claim the extra tax owed back.....

Redflag wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:

by bobby on Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:06 pm

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I see tax avoidance as finding a legal loophole whereby you have your tax free allowance increased, something every person in this Country is or would be involved in if they could

Here's your answer Astradt

true...and the TAX man will soon catch up with you if the loophole is found to be not legal...this is how it works... its what is called gambling with your TAX.

Would that be FRAUD Stox?

Well Red lets say its a very fine line...in some cases it can be judged as trying to defraud the Tax man...in other cases they ask or think they have found a new loophole and ask if wise for the Tax man for a ruling on there loophole..just like Portsmouth football club did..The Tax man ruled it was not a loophole so pay up...in that case its not fraud.....The bottom line is the whole Tax loopholes need to be stopped...as its clearly favors major company and its directors..this cannot be either right morally to me.. as its walking away from the obligations we all should have to the country we live and work in. it also gives off the wrong message to all the people who have to pay there Taxes...The truth is we all dislike paying Tax..but should at least understand that things like the NHS need funding... if its to be free for all....so for me on the 50P rate its quite fair overall...as i just have no great wish to live in a country that does not care for all its people..maybe this makes me odd in some way...but not in my thinking

blueturando wrote:

Can't the tax office work out what each individual earns from these accounts?

Most of these people use their Business Accounts to pay many of their personal expenses and then use Accountants to cover that up in their year end accounts

This is very true Blue..as accountants will do this for you...but then they know its not the accountant who will go to jail in most cases...its you as the Tax payer..

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:

Can't the tax office work out what each individual earns from these accounts?

Most of these people use their Business Accounts to pay many of their personal expenses and then use Accountants to cover that up in their year end accounts

This is very true Blue..as accountants will do this for you...but then they know its not the accountant who will go to jail in most cases...its you as the Tax payer..

Is not our laws an ASS because the accountants are aiding and abetting in fraud that is a criminal offense or am I wrong?

"As for these individuals who set up 'dummy' companies to have their wages paid to arn't they liable for corporation tax if not why not?"

The Company is liable to pay Corporation Tax on its profits, but if the Company's entire income goes on paying the staff and meeting Administrative Expenses ..............

tlttf wrote:Very short memory Stox, have you forgotten the sheer waste and self exploitism that Ken caused?

tittf
you should of seen Cuts Cuttler before Ken...he was the last Tory leader of the GLC...now here is a guy that makes even Doris look less mad...I am sure Bobby will remember Cuts Cuttler...he even turned his own mother down for a bus pass...you have to go a very long way to be Doris but Cuts Cutter just about did it... bobby may remember but Londoners openly used to laugh at him on the pub TV. now that takes some doing in a London pub

Bit of History for you tittf
The Tory leader of the council was known as Horace "Cuts" Cutler. Cutler and his County Hall hatchet men slashed 5,000 jobs, cut the education budget by £17 million and diverted funding from London's poor inner city areas to rich neighbourhoods.

In the GLC elections of May 1981 nearly a million Londoners voted Labour. The Tories were booted out. The GLC under the leadership of Ken Livingstone set about introducing a number of reforms.

The first was the Fares Fair campaign. The GLC cut bus and tube fares by 25 percent. It was a brilliant success. After 30 years of steady decline, passenger traffic increased by 11 percent on the buses and 7 percent on London Underground. More buses were put on the roads, more trains on the track and London Transport took on 600 extra staff.

Redflag wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:

Can't the tax office work out what each individual earns from these accounts?

Most of these people use their Business Accounts to pay many of their personal expenses and then use Accountants to cover that up in their year end accounts

This is very true Blue..as accountants will do this for you...but then they know its not the accountant who will go to jail in most cases...its you as the Tax payer..

Is not our laws an ASS because the accountants are aiding and abetting in fraud that is a criminal offense or am I wrong?

Aiding and abetting in fraud that is a criminal offense or am I wrong? No your not wrong Red...but as far as I know no Accountant has been sent to jail over Tax avoidance...as there get out of Jail card is they get the Company to sign off the accounts before sending them...so in other words they come from you. not the accountant...all they are doing is submitting them on your companies behalf...The bottom line is Red they are under funded and under staff. the accountant head hunt the best Tax men..we as a state are left with what is left...The trouble is its all too easy to get talked into some so-called loophole Red..me I stay away from them...to try and save lets say £20k could well cost you a great deal more in fees if you have to fight them..

Big business and the wealthy manipulate loopholes in the system to avoid and evade paying an estimated £120 billion a year in tax. The PCS union's alternative to the cuts demands investment in jobs and services to pay the UK's debt and aid economic recovery, rather than allowing parasitic tax dodgers to avoid paying their fair share.

Despite this, the government is ploughing ahead with up to 10,000 job cuts in the revenue and customs department (HMRC) by 2015, including closing a number of offices across the UK and bringing the private sector into its call centre network.

oftenwrong wrote:Ken or Boris?

Hanging or Electrocution, Gentlemen?

We could start off first with Hang Drawn and Quartering or B,B. Qing or just go to the Tower and see what our ancestors have left behind in torture equipment

Unfortunately it's going to be another Boris or Ken party. Ken has spent most days (when not looking for further tax reliefs) sitting in City Hall, he is a lost soul that fervently believes he knows best about; well, everything. He'smaking promises that can't be kept without rises in council tax, he's once again sucking up to the immigrants in East London promising to pay kids to stay on at school. He's heartbroken that his Bendybus (freebee to most) has been removed, and he can't wait to bring the congestion charge back to the western extention. The man holds no morals and the City slickers that pay 90% of London's taxes don't trust him.
In a million years the mans obsession control should prevent him from standing for any form of government.

Tittf

You seem to well versed in what Ken has been and is going to do but you don't seem to big up Boris and his 'plans' to improve the lot of Londers......

Or does he have no ideas other than building an airport surronded by birds?

Stox 16 wrote:

astradt1 wrote:I wonder if any one of the left leaning posters have openly supported Livingstones aviodance/non-payment of taxes?

Where many of the right leaning have supported Ashcroft and Green by saying what they did/are doing is within the law..........

There is no defence for tax avoidance in my book astradt1. not in my view anyway....Tax will never be liked and that is fine...but if you do not like it get elected and try to change it....if not pay up....however....the Tory party are trying vainly to make Tax avoidance a issue with Ken Livingstone...why...out of fear that he will beat Doris..... if it's shown that Ken Livingstone has broken the TAX law...then HM Taxman will soon be on his case. rightly so...however...Ashcroft and Green spend have the year out side the UK. So they can avoid it...Ken Livingstone has not done this...that says all you need to know about this issue

Its the start of a smear campaign Stox to help Doris get re-elected as Mayor, but the people of London have had a belly full of Doris with the increase in there travel to work cost gone up by 13% and with what the Tories and the L/Ds are doing in the H.O.C. especially the family tax credits and the family allowance discrepancies (family A getting £44.000 one person working will not get F.A. and next door where man earns £40.000 and wife £32,000 but this family will) that just goes to prove who these Tories are looking after FAT CATS as per-usual.

Unamused Labour voters installed Ken Livingstone as a poke-in-the-eye for Prime Minister Blair at the time.

Lets hope that London's Tories won't behave in the same manner, just to let Cameron know what they REALLY think of him.

Having lived and worked in London under both Mayors, I can assure you that Boris is a better bet for working Londoners than Ken. Take away the promises of both and it boils down to who can generate the most cash from private businesses (this gives jobs and builds homes), who can scrounge the biggest cut of grants from the government to carry out works (more jobs) that benefit the majority and on all fronts B/Doris outguns Ken the Lizzard everytime.

tlttf wrote:Having lived and worked in London under both Mayors, I can assure you that Boris is a better bet for working Londoners than Ken. Take away the promises of both and it boils down to who can generate the most cash from private businesses (this gives jobs and builds homes), who can scrounge the biggest cut of grants from the government to carry out works (more jobs) that benefit the majority and on all fronts B/Doris outguns Ken the Lizzard everytime.

Maybe you have a point tittf, but Doris has put up traveling costs so did Ken or is it you know if Ken gets the job of Mayor that Scam..er..on will make it hard for Ken to get the money to make life easier for Londoners? or is it that Boris has more contacts in the business world because thats his circle of friends Tory party donors.