I don’t know what people are so upset about. She only failed to pay a little bit of tax. Hundreds of bankers and multinationals so the same and nobody says anything.
Oh wait… 😅
I don’t know what people are so upset about. She only failed to pay a little bit of tax. Hundreds of bankers and multinationals so the same and nobody says anything.
Oh wait… 😅
Would you be happy then if the next Tory politician found avoiding tax said:
I agree this is probably been elevated as a story because of who she is, but I think it’s right that she gets called out for this type of thing. We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to tax evasion not matter how small. People need to pay their fair share of tax!
Right but they’re usually doing something complicated to pay less tax.
Getting that wrong and underpaying is much worse than doing something complicated to deal with a complicated family issue, and the advisors missing an incredibly tough point combining multiple specialities.
If it was a Tory they probably would have refused to resign and they would have kept their job.
Very true that people should pay their taxes, I agree with that. So maybe Rayner should have been allowed to pay the correct tax, and any penalties for late payment, and then she could have kept her job.
Probably a fair outcome if I’m honest.
However politically speaking Labour know they can bang on about “rich people not paying tax” as an election slogan. This, apparently, is such a powerful weapon in their arsenal that any insinuating that the Labour top brass are also tax evaders cannot be tolerated. If she was allowed to simply pay back the tax plus penalties then this blunts future use of the “rich people pay your taxes” weapon. It’s a shame really but that’s politics.
Setting up trusts is entirely legal, and there are some good reasons for it to continue to be so. Tax evasion is not one of those reasons, though.
But, having had long dealings with our good friends at HMRC, I can agree that even with expert tax advice, some of the regulations are extremely Byzantime and often irrational.
In this case, Rayner’s sacking had nothing to do with criminal intent, but more to do with Starmer’s fear of the fascist press (which he should have done a Leveson on as soon as Labour got into office).