Jump to content

dylanisabaddog

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    9,610

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Posts posted by dylanisabaddog

  1. Posted

    23 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    Your

    Lack of belief is agnosticism; atheism is a rejection of an idea, but goes beyond reflection of simply monotheism, but also polytheism and also non-theistic metaphysical ideas like Buddhism.

    Nonsense. We'll all club together and buy you a dictionary for Christmas. 

    Screenshot_20240418_105554_Chrome.thumb.jpg.322bdf294622358cb9bbe6b01415890f.jpgScreenshot_20240418_105842_Chrome.thumb.jpg.55641148d62c215824a39a0f89bd7529.jpg

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    It's not complicated. Atheism definitively rules out anything if we can't comprehend it.

     

    Atheism is a lack of belief in God (or God's as there have been around 300 so far). It simply rules out God, nothing else. You can try and make it mean something else but you'd be wrong.

    You are entitled to your opinion but you are trying to change the simple meaning of a word to support your own views. 

     

  3. Posted

    12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    That particular article was posted on April 1st, and the 'confirmed' was the April fools joke, but the thinking is genuine; the scientific community genuinely believes it's about a 50/50 chance that what we experience actually is a simulation.

    This from Scientific American on the subject, but not on April 1st. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

    One small group of people in the scientific community believe there is a 50/50 chance we are living in a simulation. That is very different from 50% of the scientific community believing it. 

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    11 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

    Presumably the Global Disinformation Index is yet another group of self-righteous activists who see it as their right to try to stifle any voices and opinions they don’t agree with, not unlike Stop Funding Hate and the Mayor(s) of Brussels.  

    If you're not sure, perhaps you could just read it? 

    • Like 1

  6. Posted · Edited by dylanisabaddog

    12 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

    I'd be interested in your take on this. I'm not tax lawyer but the statute and advice you linked to suggested that she would have been entitled to the CGT impcaton of the sale if two things applied:

    1) the couple used both properties as a 'home' and that they nominated this one as their single main residence. They could not nominate as their home an empty property or one rented out to a third party

    2) both positively assented to that status.  

    Does this seem right?

    S222(6) TCGA92 sets out that spouses or civil partners who are living together can only have one main residence between them for the purpose of private residence relief. If when they marry or register as civil partners they each own a residence and they continue to use both as residences, they can jointly nominate which is to be treated as the main residence. The two year period for making the nomination commences on the date of marriage or the date of registration.

    1. The word 'home' isn't used in the legislation or HMRC guidance. In the widest sense of the legislation the only requirement is that one of them spends a night in the 2nd home. 

    2. A nomination needs to be made within 2 years of the marriage. I don't know for sure but HMRC may accept the address used on a Tax Return as a nomination. She claims to have taken advice so it seems reasonable to assume it was done properly. 

    In general HMRC is relaxed about this legislation. As long as they get CGT on one of the 2 properties they won't be particularly interested.

    Someone has said that Rayner has now been accused of incorrectly claiming single person reduction on her council tax. I've no idea if that accusation has been made or if it's true. Quite frankly I wouldn't believe anything I read about her at the moment but I'm surprised that the Conservatives are still throwing mud around. She was an electoral liability before this all started and Starmer would be quietly pleased if she is forced to resign. 

    I was astonished to hear Sunak bring the matter up at PMQ'S yesterday. Bearing in mind his personal circumstances he would be better advised to shut up. 

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

    I was wondering when the first cuckoo of spring would sound out. I shouldn't be surprised it was Liz Truss.

    Lovely line from Starmer at PMQ's. 

    Have you read your predecessor's book? I have the only unsigned copy... 

    • Like 3

  9. Posted

    41 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

    Thanks for that.

    I apologise for continuing further, but it is getting interesting and opens my eyes to the situation my wife and I were in when we sold our hotel twenty odd years ago.

    (I rarely read the Daily Mail, and ignore the political hubbub.)

    When you say Independent Taxation doesn't apply to the 'Raynor' couple, are you assuming that they didn't apply for this with form CG11S?

    I reference the HMRC website.

    "If, before 6 July in the year following the year of assessment, a husband or wife applied on form CG11S for separate assessment, the chargeable gains of each spouse were to be dealt with for Capital Gains Tax purposes as if the person concerned was not married."

    The reason I ask is that we must have signed this (along with others many years ago) at the advice of our accountant, who himself needed further advice.

    We both had subsequent and separate interests.

    I remember it being a minefield of intricate legislation, and being out of one's depth was an understatement.

    As for Raynor, she may have been as well and it perhaps explains her silence.

     

     

    Separate Assessment was a form of independent taxation before the introduction around 1990 of what is now called Independent Taxation. I hope that makes sense. It was horrendously complicated but the CG form you refer to became redundant over 30 years ago. There was also something called a Wife's Earnings Election and from memory it was possible to do both. If a client decided on both their accountant would sob quietly in the toilet for half an hour before throwing themselves off the roof. 

    Although Independent Taxation started 30 years ago there were certain exceptions. One of those was the CGT main residence exemption. If husband and wife had been able to elect different residences every married couple with 2 homes (North Norfolk springs to mind) would have avoided CGT on the second home. That would have been expensive. 

    As regards Rayner, I suspect she worried about the rules on selling a council house she'd purchased at a reduced price and the CGT problem. She took advice but a tax planner can't and won't advise on non tax matters other than to encourage people to consider other implications. No one would have thought about the electoral roll. 

    We've no idea what she is alleged to have done. If she used the wrong address on electoral forms she's been silly but if I was her I'd use security as the reason. She and her children are permanently under threat and it would be difficult to argue with.

    About a year ago I thought I had found the perfect Labour candidate for South Norfolk it's not in my gift by the way but she would have been perfect). She thought about it and did some research and eventually said no because she was worried about the safety of her children. That was nothing to do with Labour, she would have taken the same view if she was Conservative. That's awful isn't it? We need more women in the Labour Party and the one I know would have made an excellent MP. 

  10. Posted · Edited by dylanisabaddog

    Who was it in the Labour Party who persuaded Liz Truss to write a book and say she hasn't ruled out coming back as Leader? Probably the greatest political masterstroke this century. 

    Screenshot_20240417_114357_Facebook.jpg.9bd774d5cfb39ff9114c7203bd961167.jpg

    • Haha 3

  11. Posted

    14 minutes ago, MooreMarriot said:

    The costs to the economy of smoking far outweigh any taxes raised.

    https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes

    @Fen Canaryis right in that the fact that smokers don't live as long isn't taken into account in studies. That saving is huge both in terms of pension savings and in reducing pressure on the NHS who won't have to deal with those people who would inevitably fill beds with non smoking related issues. 

  12. Posted · Edited by dylanisabaddog

    Having been a smoker I wish this law had existed when I was young. 

    The difference between smoking and drinking alcohol is that it's possible to drink occasionally or moderately without becoming addicted. Nicotine is almost as addictive as heroin.

    From the point of view of the NHS, a doctor at the N&N told me recently that their admissions are now caused mainly by obesity and diabetes. Alcohol comes next followed by smoking. Smokers will claim (probably rightly) that the tax they pay and pension they don't get covers their treatment but unfortunately successive governments haven't ringfenced the tobacco tax. 

    I'm in favour of the ban simply because smoking is very bad for you and nicotine is extremely addictive. We don't legalise heroin for the same reasons. 

    Like @Fen CanaryI'm a bit concerned about alcohol being targeted but that's because I'm capable of drinking in moderation(apart from when we beat Ipswich). I don't like the idea of it being taxed more but at the same time I'm a bit baffled that Tesco are allowed to regularly encourage their customers to buy 6 bottles of wine for the price of 4.

    At the centre of this is the question, what are Governments for? Should they be meddling with people's lives because they know better? When it comes to health that question is more pertinent here because we have the NHS. If we had a private health service based on insurance I suspect it would solve a lot of unhealthy habits. We do unhealthy things at the moment because we have a safety net. 

    But in general I think they should. They meddle with our lives in many different ways to keep us safe. We aren't allowed to drive fast because it kills us and other people. Health and safety in workplaces is another one of thousands of things that are designed with us in mind. If they don't meddle is there any point in having them? 

  16. Posted

    14 hours ago, makham said:

    There is another reason to be interested in what Cov. and Hull do from here on. They both still have to entertain the binners, and potentially scupper their automatic promotion dreams.

    The problem is that by the time both of them play Ipswich it is extremely likely that 5th and 6th will be sewn up and they'll have nothing to play for 

  17. Posted

    15 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    No it doesn't. They're basically operating an atheistic school according to your preference, which is a form of faith in its own right.

    All that has happened is that it's established that an atheistic faith school is also permissible.

    Atheism is not a form of faith. 

    • Like 1

  18. Posted · Edited by dylanisabaddog

    14 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

    Then why do you bring her husband into the matter when nobody else has?

    How is it known that he claimed the ex-council house as his/their main residence as his spouse did, when as far as is known he has never resided there?

    At what property would he then be registered to vote?

    What has the Daily Mail got to do with it?

    I will ignore your veiled insult, as such things seem commonplace on here.

    I won't enquire as to how you have made your money, but if you are an accountant or tax inspector dealing in these matters I will give way. But please explain in more detail why I should, perhaps by clarifying the above, and I have genuinely read your latest reference and tried to unravel it in relation to this matter.

     

     

     

    Sorry, but because of the law her husband (or is it ex husband?) is involved whether he likes it or not. For the purpose of CGT and main residence I'm afraid Independent Taxation doesn't apply. The media have chosen to ignore his unwitting but important involvement, perhaps because it doesn't fit their agenda of portraying Rayner as a tax cheat. 

    I mention the Daily Mail in particular because they have been consistently running with this as a front page story. One headline read "Proof that Angela Rayner lied!" I read that story and it wasn't proof of anything. Unfortunately other news outlets have picked up the story and run with it, ignoring the fact that the Mail has such a poor record with facts that Wikipedia won't  allow them to be used as a source. Even this week they have been forced to apologise to the C of E over a story about the man involved in an acid attack who went on to kill himself. 

    I'm afraid I can't help with registering to vote. The tax legislation refers only to CGT and the rules don't necessarily apply across the board.

    It may be that the electoral address is a problem for Rayner. If I had to guess I'd say that she delayed selling the house to avoid problems with the discount she received when she bought it, although it is equally possible she simply kept it in case the marriage didn't work. Someone gave her tax advice at the time but whoever that was provided tax advice, not legal advice on property ownership in general. That's not the advisers problem though is it? It's Rayner's problem and it may come back to bite her. 

    In general, I'm surprised this story has attracted so much attention but the right wing media hate Rayner in much the same way as The Guardian hates Braverman. Starmer uses her to keep the left wing of his party happy in much the same way as Sunak uses Braverman. In both cases it's coming back to bite them. 

    I'm partly guilty because I must admit I found it highly amusing that the public school educated Rabb and Johnson were absolutely terrified of a teenage single mother from a northern council estate when they had to face her at the dispatch box. Perhaps the right wing media disliked her because it seemed she enjoyed their discomfort. But bearing in mind what has happened in this country in the last 6 years this shouldn't be front page news. The fact that it is sums up just how bad things are for the Conservative Party. 

  19. Posted

    33 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

    This is like walking through mud.

    Raynor nominated her ex-council house as her main residence. Her husband did not. Why should he if he presumably never lived there? He had his own house.

    It is nothing to do with her husband's tax affairs. You have highlighted a completely different matter which is concerned with joint ownership of another property or properties as a business concern and therefore for joint income which each must declare separately (not possible) or as a jointly run, registered business in its own right (most likely.) ie. a property business in their joint name(s.)

    For this particular married couple this was obviously not the case as he/she did not benefit from any income such as rental, and this was clearly never their intention. Raynor never rented out her ex-council house to my knowledge.

    (The voting register matter is also another issue.)

    I note that you completely by-pass the Independent taxation law, which I will repeat in greater depth, using Google for convenience:-

    "The Finance Act 1988 introduced radical changes to the taxation of husbands and wives including, in particular, the separate taxation of their income and chargeable gains. The new regime is known as Independent Taxation and applies for 1990-91 and subsequent years."

    I'll repeat, Raynor's ex-council house was never treated as a business, neither by her nor by them as a couple. She may have been subject to CGT on the profit from the sale, but she claims that the advice she received suggested otherwise.

    Sorry you feel like you're walking through mud. I've given you the HMRC guidance but if you don't like that have a look at S222(6)TGA1992.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/12/section/222/enacted

    A married couple can only have one property for the purpose of main residence and CGT. 

    This is how I made my living for 42 years. Please stop arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about. You are completely out of your depth as is the Daily Mail. 

     

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

    I really don't get how her husband can possibly be involved in this matter with regards HMCE if his name was not on the deeds of his wife's council house.

    Besides:

    "Independent taxation means that spouses and civil partners are taxed separately on their income and capital gains. The effect is that both have their own allowances, savings and basic rate tax bands for income tax, annual exemption for capital gains tax purposes and are responsible for their own tax affairs."

    Now I know that to be a fact, despite needing to Google to state as such.

    I'm afraid you're wrong. A married couple can only nominate one property as their main residence for CGT purposes. This is from the official HMRC manual. I assume this part of the legislation is to stop the avoidance of GGT on 2nd homes by married couples, but that is only my assumption. 

    https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg64525#:~:text=If when they marry or,or the date of registration

     

  22. Posted

    13 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

     

     

     

     

     

    I thought I read that they had, perhaps it was the police enquiry which has been re-opened.

    In any case, because it was a while ago and beyond the limits of investigation and because it was not a big sum of tax, a review might not be appropriate.

    "Once an enquiry has been opened into your tax affairs, the HMRC have 4 years from the end of the tax year concerned to issue a discovery assessment.

    If they can show that a loss of tax has been brought about carelessly or deliberately (i.e. dishonestly) by the taxpayer or his agent, then they can issue a “discovery assessment” for the missing tax. 

    The rules about discovery assessments are complicated, but basically, the normal four year period is extended to six years where the taxpayer has been dishonest."

    The rules are different for big business fraud.

    I had thought it seven for individuals and dumped my books after this time-lapse, but rules change, and it is a complicated affair as stated above.

    Also:  

    "Homeowners have to pay capital gains tax after they have sold a home that has increased in value – but they are exempt if it is their main full-time residence. Substantial improvement costs can also be deducted from a homeowner’s CGT bill.

    Married couples who both have individual properties can only have one main residence between them under tax law."

    Google.

    Yer do yer Googling and yer takes yer pick.

    Also:

    The fact that it is a small amount pales into insignificance when pensioners are reportedly threatened with prison or other penalties when they fail to pay their television licence.

    No one has suggested an HMRC enquiry. Other than perhaps the Daily Mail but HMRC won't listen to them. Even Wikipedia has banned them as a source. 

    Yes, married couples can only select one property for CGT purposes but crucially they don't actually have to live in it. That means that there is little or no possibility of Rayner having to pay CGT although her husband (ex?) may now have to when he sells his house. 

    Discovery assessments can be issued up to 20 years after the relevant year end if the behaviour that led to the alleged offence was deliberate. If the offence was careless the time limit is 6 years. Proving that someone's behaviour was deliberate is extremely difficult. In this case HMRC would need to have documentary evidence that she knew that she was committing an offence. 

    It should also be considered that she probably didn't submit a Tax Return in that year. That would mean any offence would be failure to notify chargeability as opposed to making an incorrect Return. 

    Perhaps most importantly, if HMRC spent time on enquiries into £1,500 the country would go broke. 

  23. Posted

    21 hours ago, Grumpy said:

    Off the top of my head apart from Murphy,Maddison and Buendia I cant think of anyone we have sold recently who has enhanced their reputation.Their bank balance maybe
    Even Skipp is struggling to make the team (I know we didnt sell him but he illustrates my point).

    Skipp doesn't even get on the bench at Spurs when everyone is fit. 

    If we don't go up we may well struggle to keep Rowe, Sargent, Sara, Sainz and possibly Nunez. Sainz and Nunez may attract Spanish interest. 

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, Well b back said:

    Saw some of her interview with Mason. The woman needs to be admitted somewhere, mind I think with the following she has she may totally destroy the party I once supported.

    Stating it should have been the governor of the BOE sacked, not her as it was his fault. Bring in Farage ! lol, I guess she meant as leader ? I would be prepared to take to the streets if that happened. A secure world under Trump lol. She even said the problems she caused, happened all over the world.

    Smoking ? As an ex smoker I really think everybody gets that one Liz, clearly you don’t.

    I found it difficult to believe that the woman I was listening to was once Prime Minister. The interviewer deserves credit for not laughing. 

    The smoking thing is shocking. Is there a smoker out there who doesn't wish they'd never started? Actually there was a lady on the radio today who said she'd happily buy cigarettes for her children if they wanted them! I would like to have asked her if she'd buy them heroin. 

    Truss likened cigarettes to alcohol and ignored the point that millions of people like a drink at the weekend and do so in moderation. I know full well that nicotine just isn't like that. 

    It would appear she's unlikely to lose her seat although I think an ex Conservative local chairman is standing against her. 

  25. Posted · Edited by dylanisabaddog

    @littleyellowbirdie

    Flatly deny stuff that's blatantly true. Wow! 

    Johnson's problem was that he lied to Parliament about Covid parties and Pincher. He resigned because his own party forced him to. Those are the extremely major facts that you have ignored (actually you've gone one step further and changed the facts). 

    Sorry, I should have made it clear that I haven't commented on the Robinson case because I have no knowledge of it whatsoever. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...