scroungers redux

[cpw_cpw]

good read... - view external link (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/maria-miller-white-dee-more-3392250)

[Markovitch]

Tax and expenses can be very complicated, I believe

[just_joe]

good read...

Joseph de Maistre once said that every nation gets the government it deserves.

In this case, the scofflaws in government who display such a lack of honesty, integrity, and conscience are a sad reflection of the people of Britain in this day in age.

And going by the attitudes of most of the posters on this forum, I can see that that is exactly the case.

You ****s have got a government that mirrors the attitudes, values and empty moral characters of the peoples of Britain.

[cpw_cpw]

"The Daily Telegraph said that redesignating the house she shared with her parents in Wimbledon, south London, as her main home would mean that no capital gains tax was payable when it was sold at a reported profit of A?1 million earlier this year. The tax is levied at 28% on profits made on the sale of second homes."

so that's 280k plus the 40+k on interest payments. over 300k taken from the public purse.

how many tazzy away days is that, moorlad.

of course moorlad would say she did nowt wrong. just pay as much as you need. not a penny moooor not a penny less.

the philosophy of a charlatan and swindler.

utter filth.

[kel_]

good read...

Joseph de Maistre once said that every nation gets the government it deserves.

In this case, the scofflaws in government who display such a lack of honesty, integrity, and conscience are a sad reflection of the people of Britain in this day in age.

And going by the attitudes of most of the posters on this forum, I can see that that is exactly the case.

You ****s have got a government that mirrors the attitudes, values and empty moral characters of the peoples of Britain.[/quote]

Ace. I divvent really vote personally but I'll make sure to make the effort to cross the box next to the current lot next time.

[just_joe]

good read...

Joseph de Maistre once said that every nation gets the government it deserves.

In this case, the scofflaws in government who display such a lack of honesty, integrity, and conscience are a sad reflection of the people of Britain in this day in age.

And going by the attitudes of most of the posters on this forum, I can see that that is exactly the case.

You ****s have got a government that mirrors the attitudes, values and empty moral characters of the peoples of Britain.[/quote]

Ace. I divvent really vote personally but I'll make sure to make the effort to cross the box next to the current lot next time.[/quote]

Sorry, I have zero confidence in your ability to be successful in that endeavor.

[moorlad]

[quote="cpw_cpw"

so that's 280k plus the 40+k on interest payments. over 300k taken from the public purse.

how many tazzy away days is that, moorlad.

of course moorlad would say she did nowt wrong. just pay as much as you need. not a penny moooor not a penny less.

the philosophy of a charlatan and swindler.

utter filth.[/quote]

So you presume to know my view on this even though I've never actually told anybody it. You've also presumed to remove her capital gains allowance and other expenses as well as indexing and other allowances. Well done.

For the record she (along with loads of others of them) should be in jail. What she did

[kel_]

good read...

Joseph de Maistre once said that every nation gets the government it deserves.

In this case, the scofflaws in government who display such a lack of honesty, integrity, and conscience are a sad reflection of the people of Britain in this day in age.

And going by the attitudes of most of the posters on this forum, I can see that that is exactly the case.

You ****s have got a government that mirrors the attitudes, values and empty moral characters of the peoples of Britain.[/quote]

Ace. I divvent really vote personally but I'll make sure to make the effort to cross the box next to the current lot next time.[/quote]

Sorry, I have zero confidence in your ability to be successful in that endeavor.[/quote]

Why not?

I can pocket you in an mere sentence so a cross can't be th

[Markovitch]

Joseph de Maistre was a fascinating guy, spent many years in St Petersburg writing about executioners.
Bob de Maistre on the other hand is Bob the Builder in German. Not so welcome in St P

[Nevermore666]

Any of youse ****s played GTA5? Doesn't "white Dee" look like the bail-bond-bint Maude?

[moorlad]

[quote="moorlad"

so that's 280k plus the 40+k on interest payments. over 300k taken from the public purse.

how many tazzy away days is that, moorlad.

of course moorlad would say she did nowt wrong. just pay as much as you need. not a penny moooor not a penny less.

the philosophy of a charlatan and swindler.

utter filth.[/quote]

So you presume to know my view on this even though I've never actually told anybody it. You've also presumed to remove her capital gains allowance and other expenses as well as indexing and other allowances. Well done.

For the record she (along with loads of othe

[BigBadBen]

cpw-cpw is obviously very high up with Jo-Jo who in turn is considerably higher up with Jilted Jock*

god ye get some w@nkers on here...

* edit - for "high up" read botter

[cpw_cpw]

"Just another thought, is Miller married? Is the property jointly owned? How do youse know what she paid?

yep married, but not sure if the house is in boths.

she paid A?234,000 in 1995 for the house and sold it in Feb 2014 for A?1.47m.

you're right. she has a whopping 11k allowance to take off the 1.2 she made on it. or 22k if it's both theirs. fair play.

Where did youse find out her solicitor's and agent's fees?

not sure. are these tax deductible? in comparison to the size of the profit, they'll be piddling.

anything else?

[cpw_cpw]

cpw-cpw is obviously very high up with Jo-Jo who in turn is considerably higher up with Jilted Jock.

god ye get some w@nkers on here...

you certainly do.

[BigBadBen]

cpw-cpw is obviously very high up with Jo-Jo who in turn is considerably higher up with Jilted Jock.

god ye get some w@nkers on here...

you certainly do.[/quote]

feck off know nowt

[cpw_cpw]

well, you've contributed nowt to this thread so far save for a couple of personal insults.

anything substantial to say?

[moorlad]

[quote="cpw_cpw"Just another thought, is Miller married? Is the property jointly owned? How do youse know what she paid?

yep married, but not sure if the house is in boths.

she paid A?234,000 in 1995 for the house and sold it in Feb 2014 for A?1.47m.

you're right. she has a whopping 11k allowance to take off the 1.2 she made on it. or 22k if it's both theirs. fair play.

Where did youse find out her solicitor's and agent's fees?

not sure. are these tax deductible? in comparison to the size of the profit, they'll be piddling.

anything else?[/quote]

Yes the fees are deductible, as are any repairs and improvements to the property (do you know if they did any in 20 years) and there is a further allowance relating to the length of time she had the property due to the inflation rate for the 19 years she had it. Then there's stamp duty, also allowable, as is advertising. Also, I assume you know what capital losses she made in the year.

[moorlad]

Oh and by the way, being an expert on her tax affairs, you'll know excally what capital losses she's carrying forward from previous years as well, don't youse?

[moorlad]

Having said all of that though, I am forgetting that using legitimate allowances and expenses, as well as being assessed as individuals is avoiding tax, and of course, as some have pointed out on here is morally repugnant. So in fairness Miller should be paying the amount cpw says is due.

Of course that means that for thousands of small businesses turnover is now assessed profit so tax is payable on sales. Perhaps though that only applies to the wealthy, above an certain turnover eh?

Ah well, that'll certainly create entrepreneurs, and enable them to create jobs. Excellent system I reckon.

[cpw_cpw]

i like how you ask me to be specific and then pluck 75k out of the air without any explanation.

i say again, the deductions she might apply are inconsiderable in comparison to the profit. even the advertising we can't be sure she paid - osborne recently sold a house that wasn't on the market. if you're well connected you perhaps don;t need an agent.

you're right that the tax will be considerably reduced if both own.

regardless of the final figure, she won't be paying it anway because she flipped it when the expenses scandal hit. so it'a all moot.

[moorlad]

Can't see it being more than 75,000 is what I wrote. You've missed stamp duty, an considerable deduction which I mentioned (and you either never noticed or ignored) as well as the inflation allowance, also considerable over almost 20 years.

Flipping is wrong, and should be punished in my view.

If it weren't moot, would she be allowed the allowable deductions then? Or do you still think she'd be avoiding tax by doing that?

[moorlad]

And by the way I never asked you to be specific. I just challenged your inflated assessment off of her taxable gain. 75,000 would be much closer to what she'd be likely to owe than 280,000.

[cpw_cpw]

Can't see it being more than 75,000 is what I wrote. You've missed stamp duty, an considerable deduction which I mentioned (and you either never noticed or ignored) as well as the inflation allowance, also considerable over almost 20 years.

Flipping is wrong, and should be punished in my view.

If it weren't moot, would she be allowed the allowable deductions then? Or do you still think she'd be avoiding tax by doing that?

what, is the stamp duty inflation linked too? SD on the original price is inconsiderable.

no idea what the inflation allowance is. you'll have to enlighten me.

i take exception to someone who has had their mortgage and repairs paid by the tax payer using them to offset tax, but the other deductions are fair enough.

[Markovitch]

Do you still get indexation allowance? Back to March 82 as I remember. Thought it was abolished

[moorlad]

It was replaced by taper relief, then that was abolished, she may qualify for part of those (not done a CGT for many years).

Also transfers between spouses aren't liable to CGT. As well as that I have seen spouses with 2 separate homes living one in each as their main home and haven't paid any CGT. If she lived in a house 5 days of the week and he in another house all the time she'd have nowt to pay at all. No idea where their respective houses were.

I can't stand the idea of flipping to save tax, it is wrong (although within the law) and is one of the things I see as evasion and not avoidance.

[Floppy_funbags]

****ing hell it gets more like reading Deloitte and Touche's year end reports on here every day.

[cpw_cpw]

still waiting for a breakdown of how you arrived at that 75k figure, moor.

tick tock.

[just_joe]

still waiting for a breakdown of how you arrived at that 75k figure, moor.

tick tock.

Don't hold your breath.

As soon as the heat goes up, moorgirl vanishes.

Anyway, he likes to get into the weeds rather than dealing with the big picture.

I mean, the point is not exactly how much was deducted here and there. The point is that it's one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

More than that, sad lower-middle class ****s like moorgirl don't even realize they've been brainwashed into hating the poor while tongue-reaming the brown rings of those cheaters, liars and frauds who're better off than him.

The saddest example of the stereotypical middle-england chump!

[moorlad]

still waiting for a breakdown of how you arrived at that 75k figure, moor.

tick tock.

I know it takes an few efforts to get stuff through that thick skull off of yours, but I explained twice that I didert arrive at any figure. I said I couldert see it being more than 75,000 or weren't youse reading what I wrote again?

As you are most likely aware, because I explained in detail last night, without knowing the full details off of all the transactions relating to the particular property from purchase to sale date an accurate taxable gain is impossible to arrive at (even then without knowing their CGT history you wouldn't be able to tell what tax they'd of to pay, either individually or as an couple).

Suffice to say that your ridiculously sensationalist proclamation about 280,000 was massively wide off of the mark.

[moorlad]

still waiting for a breakdown of how you arrived at that 75k figure, moor.

tick tock.

Don't hold your breath.

As soon as the heat goes up, moorgirl vanishes.

Anyway, he likes to get into the weeds rather than dealing with the big picture.

I mean, the point is not exactly how much was deducted here and there. The point is that it's one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

More than that, sad lower-middle class ****s like moorgirl don't even realize they've been brainwashed into hating the poor while tongue-reaming the brown rings of those cheaters, liars and frauds who're better off than him.

The saddest example of the stereotypical middle-england chump![/quote]

CGT is chargeable on all gains, made by anybody in the UK Jojo. The law is, I'm afraid, the same for all UK taxpayers. Why don't you read what was posted, before just throwing your toys out and flo

[Markovitch]

Not done a cgt for years? Really. I would have thought you had loads of clients who had pages and pages of dividend income to report. Is there still roll over relief and retirement relief?

[just_joe]

still waiting for a breakdown of how you arrived at that 75k figure, moor.

tick tock.

Don't hold your breath.

As soon as the heat goes up, moorgirl vanishes.

Anyway, he likes to get into the weeds rather than dealing with the big picture.

I mean, the point is not exactly how much was deducted here and there. The point is that it's one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

More than that, sad lower-middle class ****s like moorgirl don't even realize they've been brainwashed into hating the poor while tongue-reaming the brown rings of those cheaters, liars and frauds who're better off than him.

The saddest example of the stereotypical middle-england chump![/quote]

CGT is chargeable on all gains, made by anybody in the UK Jojo. The law is, I'm afraid, the same for all UK taxpayers. Why don't you read what was poste

[moorlad]

Jojo, read the fred. Exact figures come from your mate. I qualify what I write. Nowhere have I said what she's done is right, in fact I've said flipping is out off of order, and I've also said she should be jailed (along with other MPs). So where do you come up with the ****ing stupid nonsense you're spouting?

Women.

[cpw_cpw]

still waiting for a breakdown of how you arrived at that 75k figure, moor.

tick tock.

I know it takes an few efforts to get stuff through that thick skull off of yours, but I explained twice that I didert arrive at any figure. I said I couldert see it being more than 75,000 or weren't youse reading what I wrote again?

As you are most likely aware, because I explained in detail last night, without knowing the full details off of all the transactions relating to the particular property from purchase to sale date an accurate taxable gain is impossible to arrive at (even then without knowing their CGT history you wouldn't be able to tell what tax they'd of to pay, either individually or as an couple).

Suffice to say that your ridiculously sensationalist proclamation about 280,000 was massively wide off of the mark.[/quote]

so then tell me where the big deduction would come from that migh

[moorlad]

Not done a cgt for years? Really. I would have thought you had loads of clients who had pages and pages of dividend income to report. Is there still roll over relief and retirement relief?

Yep.

Not many clients make more than 11K profits on the sales of their investments per year. Most clients are married and jointly own shares, and most choose when they sell their holdings, if they sell them. Not many off of our clients have sold a great many shares in recent years to be frank.

[cpw_cpw]

Jojo, read the fred. Exact figures come from your mate. I qualify what I write. Nowhere have I said what she's done is right, in fact I've said flipping is out off of order, and I've also said she should be jailed (along with other MPs). So where do you come up with the ****ing stupid nonsense you're spouting?

Women.

it's odd that you say she should be in jail. she hasn't broken the law. in fact she's done exactly what you've suggested in other freds - she's reduced her tax liability to a minimum. she over claimed on her mortgage, true, but that isn't illegal either. it was just 'remiss' of her to have done so.

'why pay more than you have to' is your mantra. she thinks the same way.

[moorlad]

Why 10K cpw, that's maybe an bathroom.

I haven't any idea what the rate off of Stamp duty was then (1995) either. Anyeay the biggest deduction would be have off of the profit being her husbad's I imagine. However, the property was an second home between 2005 and 2009, whether she told HMRC or not I don't know, but it has been her primary residence since then. So the CGT deduction might be where the deduction lies.

If you carry on reading the article I believe you might of referred to, close to the bottom it does say "some accountants estimate that CGT for the years in question might be as much as 73,000". That is the first time I've seen that article, so my estimate being fairly close to "some accountants doesert seem too bad eh? However that would be between the two (2) off of them, so have it to get her share and even my number was an wild overestimate.

Happy?

Thought not.






Edit different article linked. - [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/con

[moorlad]

Honestly though that's just the CGT outline.

If she's told the HMRC it was always her primary residence, but told Parliament it were an second home she should be jailed. That is tax evasion, it is surely against the law.

[moorlad]

Anyway cpw, as I asked last night, and you've yet to answer, how do you know what she plans to do on her tax return which is due to be filed in January 2015? There is no CGT due yet, regardless of what The Mirror said, the return doesert of to be filed yet either. Are youse an mind reader?

[just_joe]

At a minimum, she should be jailed for being a right ugly cow.