Twickenham MP Cable clear on cost of tax dodgers

9:00am Friday 21st September 2012 in News By Paul Teed

Anger: The tax justice bus came to town Anger: The tax justice bus came to town

Vince Cable made his feelings about tax dodgers clear when he joined a campaign bus that rolled into town.

The Business Secretary posed for photographs with members of Christian Aid and Church Action on Poverty in front of the red double-decker outside Teddington Methodist Church.

The campaigners invited the public on to the bus on Friday, September 14, to learn how tax dodgers are harming the poor in the UK and abroad.

Dr Cable, MP for Twickenham, said: “Tax is a key issue of our time, with implications for the poor both in this country and overseas, not least because tax havens are sunny places for shady people.”

Comments(49)

Twickenham Bob says...
12:53pm Fri 21 Sep 12

There are no fewer than 30 tax havens that are either crown dependencies, British overseas territories or Commonwealth countries. Something that the Government, Vince is a leading member of, refuses to address.

Rather than offering rich tea and sympathy to the campaigners the Lib Dems ought to be doing something more substantial to end this outrageous practice.

This is something we need to hold him to account to - as sadly too many politicians say one thing to the public and do another in office.

Report this post »

Culverin says...
6:36pm Fri 21 Sep 12

@Twickenham Bob

Yes, I entirely agree with what you say as sadly Vince Cable is a politician and what he says and does away from Westminster tends to be far removed from the man as politician.

If you wish to get to know Vince Cable as a politician, simply read the numerous pamphlets that he's written or contributed to. These are what he actually thinks, ignore what he says.

Back to tax evasion and, yes, I think we're far from tackling the problem. It's a disgrace that our remote political class have the audacity to criticise tax evasion in Greece when in all probability we have as big a problem here anything from £40-£120bn pounds a year.

Report this post »

metis says...
8:01pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Some clarification needed I think: Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, taz evasion isnt. If you put savings into an ISA, buy dutyfree booze or pay a workman cash - that is technically tax avoidance.

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
9:21am Sat 22 Sep 12

well if it is legal - it ought to be made illegal. Most people believe the law must change - but the road block to much wanted reform is the current Government.

Why should a plumber be able to earn a tax free salary whilst I pay income tax? Why should I accept this free-loading?

Why should small companies be shut down because they face unfair competition from the likes of Amazon and Google who pay virtually no corporation tax?

Why should UK households be facing Austerity so that international corporations can use artificial devises to avoid paying corporation tax?

Who do the Government really represent? UK interests or foreign billionaires?

What is the moral state of the Conservative Party when their supporters and members believe its OK for them to free-load, but the poor should starve?

Report this post »

jeremyhm says...
9:31am Sat 22 Sep 12

Bob - it is up to the plumber you mention to declare his income; it is illegal if he does not.
I did not notice the previous Government doing anything about "tax havens". Did I miss something?

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
9:34am Sat 22 Sep 12

As for ISAs being tax avoidance Lord Nolan said in the House of Lords in 1997:

"Tax avoidance …. is a course of action designed to conflict with or defeat the evident intention of Parliament"

As a result, beyond a shadow of a doubt, paying into an ISA or a pension is not tax avoidance.

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
9:43am Sat 22 Sep 12

There were a host of new rules and regulations introduced to try and stop artificial arrangements, which much reform of trust law too. Though cleaver lawyers have been able to get around some of these laws.

However, the current Government has stepped back from the fight, and many of its members actually encourage tax avoidance. With some more hard line Tories believing tax to be 'evil' and wanting to see state benefits like pensions to be cut back by 30%.

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
9:51am Sat 22 Sep 12

Paying people cash in hand - to obtain a discount - knowing that tax isn't going paid is exactly the same as being a benefit cheat.

Actually it worse, as a benefit cheat only implicates himself, whilst they are recruiting a second party to the wrongful act.

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
4:43pm Sun 23 Sep 12

I'm with Culverin - I think.

He writes: "Yes, I entirely agree with what you say as sadly Vince Cable is a politician and what he says and does away from Westminster tends to be far removed from the man as politician.
If you wish to get to know Vince Cable as a politician, simply read the numerous pamphlets that he's written or contributed to. These are what he actually thinks, ignore what he says."

I have long doubted Vince Cable's committment to his constituency. It always seems to have been a means to an end which he finally achieved via a long and tortuous route from Old Labour to SDP to LibDem. I often wonder whether the voters of Twickenham realise who they are voting for without being aware of his true political motivation. He is an Old Labour hard left redistributive politician and I think it's high time he came out or countered my argument. Does anyone else agree?

On a point of principle, I am sorry to see Vince going for pre-conference publicity about his beloved "mansion" tax. Is it on homes worth £1M or £2M? - there are plenty of both in our borough, many of which were bought long ago with horrendously expensive mortgages - perhaps Vince and Twickenham Bob would like to tax the elderly owners for their prudence rather than fecklessness? (but then, of course, you can't tax fecklessness can you?) What if they are asset rich and cash poor - would Vince like to force them out of their homes because they can't afford his tax?

Whatever, it's tacky publicity for a party in total disarray and I hope other readers will think long and hard before voting for Vince Cable and his local party again.
Alex

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
7:37pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Part of the reason all property prices have increased is that property has been taxed less heavily since the abolishion of the old rating system - where what you paid was directly related to the market rent of the house.

A return to this much fairer system of property taxation would reduce house prices across the board, enabling many young people across the board to buy a property and help the UK become competative in world markets. As high rents feed though to higher labour costs. High house prices has certainly done much to destroy this nations manufacturing base.

The government ought to be concentrating on the generation of people under 40 who are locked out of he ownership rather than protecting wealthy people living in luxery housing. Much of it brought with government subsidies though MIRAS - where mortgage interest was offset against income tax. A nice big fat subsidy that only buy to let landlords still receive.


Artificially high housing costs has huge social implications - as young families often have to move every six months and lots of the stock is damp and delapidated. Even for double income couples on national average incomes.

Again we see the Torys protecting the rich at the expense of 90% of the UK population.

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
9:33pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Twickenham Bob's comments are often quite amusing, not because of the content which is usually a bit banal but because of the way he or she pops in deliberate spelling and grammatical mistakes when rattled.
Come on Bib - who do you think you are kidding?
Alex

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
9:34pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Twickenham Bob says " I have long doubted Vince Cable's committment to his constituency. It always seems to have been a means to an end which he finally achieved via a long and tortuous route from Old Labour to SDP to LibDem. I often wonder whether the voters of Twickenham realise who they are voting for without being aware of his true political motivation. He is an Old Labour hard left redistributive politician and I think it's high time he came out or countered my argument. Does anyone else agree?"

Totally agree with Twickenham Bob that Vince portrays he is an Economic guru. What they don't really get is that most people equate his knowledge with business sense but his position was one of World Macro advisor for one of the International's largest petrochemical companiest, this does none translate into making our country's balance of payments or corporate income taxation growth stand up when in reality he is an academic, and with his attack on banking where it isn't wanted rather than getting the regulation rebalanced with the Bank of England rather than the FSA.

Further trouble is that his piece in the Orange book which talks of more Capitalist growth than it does Left wing wealth redistribution, well let him try his Mansion Tax on the local populace,his retreat from £1m to £2m threshold was a total climbdown because he knows the people who will get hit most will be on the Richmond side of the river, but again we hit bricks and mortar rich but often cash poor when these people are already paying the highest rate of Council Tax and large overheads to maintain and heat these properties. Death duty is the possible place to go at this end, not whilst these people are living.

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
9:34pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Twickenham Bob says " I have long doubted Vince Cable's committment to his constituency. It always seems to have been a means to an end which he finally achieved via a long and tortuous route from Old Labour to SDP to LibDem. I often wonder whether the voters of Twickenham realise who they are voting for without being aware of his true political motivation. He is an Old Labour hard left redistributive politician and I think it's high time he came out or countered my argument. Does anyone else agree?"

Totally agree with Twickenham Bob that Vince portrays he is an Economic guru. What they don't really get is that most people equate his knowledge with business sense but his position was one of World Macro advisor for one of the International's largest petrochemical companiest, this does none translate into making our country's balance of payments or corporate income taxation growth stand up when in reality he is an academic, and with his attack on banking where it isn't wanted rather than getting the regulation rebalanced with the Bank of England rather than the FSA.

Further trouble is that his piece in the Orange book which talks of more Capitalist growth than it does Left wing wealth redistribution, well let him try his Mansion Tax on the local populace,his retreat from £1m to £2m threshold was a total climbdown because he knows the people who will get hit most will be on the Richmond side of the river, but again we hit bricks and mortar rich but often cash poor when these people are already paying the highest rate of Council Tax and large overheads to maintain and heat these properties. Death duty is the possible place to go at this end, not whilst these people are living.

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
9:35pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Twickenham Bob says " I have long doubted Vince Cable's committment to his constituency. It always seems to have been a means to an end which he finally achieved via a long and tortuous route from Old Labour to SDP to LibDem. I often wonder whether the voters of Twickenham realise who they are voting for without being aware of his true political motivation. He is an Old Labour hard left redistributive politician and I think it's high time he came out or countered my argument. Does anyone else agree?"

Totally agree with Twickenham Bob that Vince portrays he is an Economic guru. What they don't really get is that most people equate his knowledge with business sense but his position was one of World Macro advisor for one of the International's largest petrochemical companiest, this does none translate into making our country's balance of payments or corporate income taxation growth stand up when in reality he is an academic, and with his attack on banking where it isn't wanted rather than getting the regulation rebalanced with the Bank of England rather than the FSA.

Further trouble is that his piece in the Orange book which talks of more Capitalist growth than it does Left wing wealth redistribution, well let him try his Mansion Tax on the local populace,his retreat from £1m to £2m threshold was a total climbdown because he knows the people who will get hit most will be on the Richmond side of the river, but again we hit bricks and mortar rich but often cash poor when these people are already paying the highest rate of Council Tax and large overheads to maintain and heat these properties. Death duty is the possible place to go at this end, not whilst these people are living.

Report this post »

Stephen Pennells says...
9:36pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Well, if he's said it, people should get behind him and see if he does it. (By "behind" I mean look over his shoulder, see who he shakes hands with, what he signs and give him a pat if you think he does right, or dig in the back when he goes wrong. Remember that in a couple of years you will have a vote and nobody owns their seat.

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
11:04pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Apologies should say Alex not Twickenham Bob! Usual typos.

Report this post »

lucullus says...
11:44am Mon 24 Sep 12

Being asset rich but cash poor doesn't make you poor, Alex. And if they are, as you suggest, paying horrendous mortgages on these properties, then perhaps they aren't as cash poor as you think.

I'm sure a lot of the people genuinely suffering in the current slump would love to have to worry about what to do with hundreds of thousands of pounds 'locked in' to their property - I think Scott's right to suggest that inheritance tax *is* the right way to go. It's not that original a view to say that if you want to leave something to your children, why wait until you die? Give it to them when they can use it ...

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
1:22pm Mon 24 Sep 12

There's something rather smug about Lucullus. Unfortunately he can't help descending into rather unpleasant descriptions of those who dare to have an opposing point of view. Sometime ago my words were described as "like dog excrement on the pavement" for which he has never apologised. On the thread about Heathrow he refers to Philip Taylor thus: "And well done Mr Taylor for another excellent piece of brown-nosing, masquerading as useful comment!". Does he have some sort of unsavoury obsession?

As to his comment; it's a bit disingenuous. Being asset rich and cash poor is indeed a state very many elderly people find themeselves in having been prudent all their lives - who says they are still paying mortgages? - I didn't, Lucullus did - he's pretty liberal with his assumptions and assertions. Why should they have to leave their homes because they can't afford to pay Vince Cable's "mansion tax" out of a pension which, in most cases is not index linked. It's very worrying for people in their later years to be treated so callously by a party which pretends to be liberal and democratic. How curious that this story hit the headlines shortly before the LibDem conference which promised to be a lacklustre affair - how cynical and self serving is that?

Could there be a touch of envy from Lucullus's generation who seem to regard conspicuous consumption as a right rather than a luxury? Perhaps they should learn from their forebears who were, by and large, extremely prudent and have earnt their good fortune the hard way. Yet another easy target for the "tax em till they squeak" politicos.
Alex

PS: Thanks for the tip about giving something to our children, Lucullus - I and very many others did so long ago, that's why I won't be able to pay Vince's mansion tax if my home ever reaches the dreaded £1m value - something I made no allowance for.
I hope you fare better in your dotage.

Report this post »

lucullus says...
2:16pm Mon 24 Sep 12

I think I said that it was dog excrement *smeared* on the pavement actually, Alex. A view I'm still happy to hold.

Your lame generalisations about how one generation was so good at saving, whereas another is so good at consumption is par for the course: when your generation were setting up the welfare state and all that entailed, quite enough of you forget to think about the future demographics, and are now happily spending money that was all 'earned and deserved', and yet that's being paid by current tax receipts, rather than some handy cash pot put away years ago. I doubt many in 'my' generation will enjoy cosy defined benefits pension schemes, as Alex's have - pity that supposedly extreme prudence seems to require so much state support now, eh?

On the mansion tax: taxation should be based on one's ability to pay - having a substantial amount of money sat in property assets sounds suspiciously like an ability to pay: if the Government can find some fair way to recognise this, I don't think that's unreasonable.

Report this post »

Gareth_Roberts says...
3:18pm Mon 24 Sep 12

My understanding of the impact of the Mansion Tax on pensioners is that the tax liability could be offset against the estate for payment when the house is either sold or inherited.

I don't recall ever reading any suggestion that people would be forced to sell their homes.

As it is we already have a system of taxation based on the value of a property would this system be all that different from simply adding a new band on the council tax?

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
4:12pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Thank you for correcting me Lucullus and for confirming your odorous little bit of nastiness - nice one Tim!

Lame generalisations? Whatever makes you happy - I hope you will do better. On present form I'm far from optimistic especially given Lucullus's somewhat arrogant denigration of those who did so much to create the national wealth which he sneers at - what a very sad young man he must be. One ray of sunshine is that he has changed his Twitter mugshot from a bug eyed monster to a yummy daddy shot with daughter on his back, curiously that's exactly the same as Gareth Roberts's chosen mugshot. Perhaps it's a LibDem requirement?

I wondered whether Gareth Roberts had been muzzled by little Stevie since he has kept a low profile - thankfully it would appear not, although his current post is a lot more reasoned than those which have preceded this one. It's good of Gareth to share his "understanding" of the proposed mansion tax with us. Perhaps it would have been better if Vince Cable, Simon Hughes, Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg had clarified the way the tax would be imposed prior to it's headline grabbing re-launch - what a cynical bit of grubby politicking without a thought for those in their sights who can't pay and will be scared witless. To most, it's their lifetime home, not just a financial asset as Lucullus describes it. Shocking.

These people deserve to be hammered at the next election and, if so, only have themselves to blame
Alex

Report this post »

RiverLover says...
4:29pm Mon 24 Sep 12

As the rise in property prices was due to the rather uncontrolled lending that took place and as property prices are an inexact science anyway, the mansion tax to me seemed unfair at the 1 million threshold. There are many people who bought a house many moons ago and due to property inflation find themselves subjected to this tax.

Whilst not fully in agreement a land tax would perhaps be a better way forward when the tax is actually based on a scientific measurement.

Report this post »

metis says...
8:30pm Mon 24 Sep 12

There seems to be a general assumption here that the State is far wiser about how to spend your money than you do. Income tax was originally introduced as a temporary measure to pay for war. Now it has become so complex that Tolleys tax handbook now runs to 11,500 pages. Taxed on income,tax on savings, tax on purchases, tax on assets, etc etc. Is it any wonder that people go to great effort to minimise it. Perhaps it would be far better to keep more of that hard earned dosh for youself and then you might be able to afford that first house rather than Gov splashing it around on useless windmills and aid to countries that can afford a space programme. BTW House price inflation (as well as other asset inflation) was largely caused by increasing the money supply - cheap and easy credit - everyone found so cheap to borrow that created this bubble.

Report this post »

lucullus says...
11:25pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Glad to see you're on Twitter, Alex. Getting with the young people, there?

Your people who did 'so much to create the national wealth' did a lot to create the national wealth. Still, good to see you walk away from another argument. Or do you think future generations will be able to enjoy the same retirement benefits as today? How would you imagine that being funded?

(Do go on with the snide personal remarks, by the way: it's most entertaining to read your whining about being insulted when you then spend so long obsessing about the appearance of others!)

Report this post »

metis says...
11:54pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Luculus"your people did so much to create the national wealth did a lot to create the national wealth"
What on earth are you talking about!!

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
9:12am Tue 25 Sep 12

I'm a bit puzzled too.
Perhaps a bit too much of the Lambrusco?
Whatever, Lucullus would make a jolly good Chief Whip.
Alex

Report this post »

lucullus says...
9:33am Tue 25 Sep 12

It's in reference to Alex's comment above about "those who did so much to create the national wealth which he sneers at..."

My point was that if Alex is talking about the post war generations, national debt has gone up just as much as national wealth, so you don't get to imply that what we're paying out now has already been budgeted for, because it hasn't.

Besides Alex, one drinks Lambrini nowadays, did you not get the tweet?

Report this post »

aspicer says...
10:41am Tue 25 Sep 12

The gov’t (i.e. Vince) needs to realise that the World is a very small place nowadays and it’s simply too easy to move individuals or companies cross border. They need to realise they are competing on a global stage to attract investment, jobs, to the UK.
Other countries choose to have a more flexible approach to the rules - giving tax holidays, or reduced corporation/payroll taxes to companies which bring in new jobs. We should be aiming for lower taxes to attract business, in exchange for fuller employment.
Until the UK, HMRC & all its depts are seen as business friendly, businesses will continue to go/be attracted elsewhere. UK Plc and its Gov’t must present itself to the World as the most attractive place to do business, not as a tax-seeking, confrontational monsters, which are out to screw individuals/companie
s for every last penny. They need to think of businesses as ‘customers’ they should look after, not as ‘revenue streams’. An attitude change is required.
Amazon, Google are the typical examples of companies thought not to be paying suitable taxes – they pay taxes somewhere, but why are their head offices not in the UK? Why are their service centres not here? If only for Europe not the World. What are Vince and his mates doing so wrong that these businesses shun the UK as a base. The Govt make us uncompetitive, and a more aggressive approach from them will not help.

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
11:46am Tue 25 Sep 12

Thanks for the clarification Lucullus. It always reads better in the morning doesn't it?
I think I have made my point clearly enough about the LibDem's proposed Mansion Tax so I don't propose to engage in a pointless debate with Lucullus however much he taunts me - I can hack it (it comes with age and experience) Something he might learn to respect - one day.

As to Lambrini? - at least he's not into Babycham or Cherry Brandy still!
Alex

PS: I check up on people like Lucullus who are usually publicity hungry and easy to find - it's called "know thy enemy". I don't engage with any of the social networks so I hope Lucullus's undoubtedly unpleasant tweet hasn't landed in someone else's nest.

PPS: I don't think changing the Council Tax bands is a bad thing but I am extremely concerned about Council's potential for profligacy with our money - look at the magic roundabout which has led to a vast increase in senior officers packages and pensions - what do you think about that Lucullus?

Report this post »

lucullus says...
2:49pm Tue 25 Sep 12

"Publicity hungry and easy to find". Really, Alex? Really? You wouldn't know something that was publicity hungry if I put it on a bicycle festooned with streamers and flashing lights. (And, of course, it's hard to see how you spotted the Twitter account without 'engaging with social networks.')

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
3:34pm Tue 25 Sep 12

What a thoroughly unpleasant young man is Lucullus - I'm only grateful that my grandchildren do not attend the primary school where he is or was a governor. I hope that the Headteacher or other governors become aware of his alter ego.

As to social networking, all you have to do is google "Lucullus" and all will become clear together with his name - doh! As I think I have said before, this young man needs to work on his interpersonal skills - they are woefully lacking.
Alex.
PS: He's also a bit of a bike nut, so next time you get thumped on your car roof in a traffic jam - it might be him. Be very afraid!

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
3:35pm Tue 25 Sep 12

What a thoroughly unpleasant young man is Lucullus - I'm only grateful that my grandchildren do not attend the primary school where he is or was a governor. I hope that the Headteacher or other governors become aware of his alter ego.

As to social networking, all you have to do is google "Lucullus" and all will become clear together with his name - doh! As I think I have said before, this young man needs to work on his interpersonal skills - they are woefully lacking.
Alex.
PS: He's also a bit of a bike nut, so next time you get thumped on your car roof in a traffic jam - it might be him. Be very afraid!

Report this post »

lucullus says...
4:29pm Tue 25 Sep 12

If you're lucky Alex, I'll send my children to the same school, and let my alter-ego run riot there, too!

Off-topic, by the way: a handy guide for your usual style - it's bike specific, but I'm sure you can see how it'll help you along with your normal 'propose an unclear argument then drop it when offered useful facts' style: http://aseasyasridin
gabike.wordpress.com
/2012/09/25/the-terr
ible-journalists-gui
de-to-writing-an-art
icle-about-bicycles/

Report this post »

metis says...
7:01pm Tue 25 Sep 12

Actually Lucullus, I think I concur with your suggestion that the Welfare State is a Ponzi scheme. It could never work indefinitely (demographics aside) unless the Government debase the currency which of course they have been doing - inevitably that makes us all poorer through inflation. The less the state interferes the better. Did anyone catch the beeb programme on Hayak the other night? Hayak's 'Road to serfdom' is a scary read if we keep on this present path.

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
7:01pm Tue 25 Sep 12

Is that a threat Lucullus?
I do hope not but have kept a record of these exchanges just in case
Alex
PS: Thanks for your gratuitous insults and the bike stuff - If you don't mind, I'd rather go and listen to the Archers, I think it will be an awful lot more enervating and that, I'm afraid, isn't saying a lot.

Report this post »

aspicer says...
10:01am Wed 26 Sep 12

Please be fair, courteous and respectful to the views of others so we can build a vibrant community in a safe online environment. You are personal liable for your comments and action will be taken against anyone who offends, ridicules or posts malicious and damaging views.

Report this post »

Gareth_Roberts says...
1:25pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Or at the very least have the good taste to be open about a personal identity. I think there's something rather tasteless and cowardly to hide behind a faceless persona and yet 'out' other people.

As I've said before, the level playing field of the old Online Communities VoxPops where anonymity was banned and false names were tracked down and thrown off is a far more preferable way of doing things.

Report this post »

lucullus says...
2:35pm Wed 26 Sep 12

"Is that a threat?" Oh yes, indeed Alex, write that one in your book and rush down to see police: "Officer, officer! This man threatened to exercise his choice over where to send his children to school! Help me, please!"

"And who are you, sir?" "I'm Alex". "What, like in the cartoon strip?" "Oh no, I'm, infinitely funnier than that!"

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
4:13pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Aaaargh! The LibDem attack dogs have been unleashed and are baying at my heels. Don't mess with us we are rabid seems to be their motto.

Interesting to note that their dear leader seems to be offering his undying love to Ed Miliband and Labour. Do these ghastly people have no shame or, more importantly, pride? What an utter shower - they really do match the weather.
Alex
PS: Sorry about this aspicer - I have tried to be civil whilst a little bit cutting, unfortunately Lucullus and LibDem Councillor Gareth Roberts seem to struggle with civility.

Report this post »

Gareth_Roberts says...
4:30pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Reading back through these posts, Alex, I would suggest that civility on your part has been as rare as hens' teeth.

However if it gives you a sense of superiority to cling to your interpretation of the moral high ground (as was your wont when you were forced to use your real name on Voxpops) then feel free.

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
6:27pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Let's get a few things straight.
Gareth Roberts used to be a rabid LibDem activist and is now a Councillor for Hampton where I'm sure he does a jolly good job even though to quote him: it's "the second safest ward in the borough" Hardly a slog was it - eh, Gareth? Perhaps he would like to confirm whether he has or has not ever used an alias on a local forum himself?

Lucullus seems to be another rabid LibDem activist and perhaps wannabee Councillor although he seems to throw his bricks out of the pram far too often to be taken seriously.

I am just a pensioner, paying my Council tax and all my dues on the nail with no political affiliations other than my membership of RUG. Hardly a secret since I chaired one of their public meetings. Gareth says that I was forced to use my real name on Voxpops. Not true at all, I chose to join the forum of my own volition and was quite happy to use my name since everyone else was required to do so. There have been a number of whackos on this forum which is why I and most others have chosen to stay anonymous. Lucullus has been a bit foolish which is why he will forever be known as "the dog poo man" and I would never have known his real name and the fact that he is a primary school governor.

Why is "sorry" the hardest word to say? No wonder so many tears are shed and column inches written.
These sort of people do us a favour by demonstrating the real face of the LibDems - not very civil are they?
Alex

Report this post »

PhillipTaylor says...
7:06pm Wed 26 Sep 12

I believe Cllr Roberts was once known as 'Interested Reader' at one point (amongst other names) as he wished to use an alias. We had the same thing when I was a councillor in Oxford only the interested readers called themselves 'village concern' ie anything bu the Tories.

It is time that all who correspond use their own names in future and I am surprised that Newsquest has not required that with its change of use on this newly modernised comments site.

Phillip Taylor

Report this post »

lucullus says...
8:40am Thu 27 Sep 12

"I am just a pensioner, paying my Council tax and all my dues on the nail with no political affiliations..."

Sure, Alex. And we respect your right to whine at anyone and everyone about anything at all. As well as your right never to have a productive idea in your body, or a single constructive suggestion.

You can forever call me just what you like: it's how I described your waffle a long time ago, and it's a description I stand by. Your odious personal slights, unwillingness to engage, patronising tone, and self-righteous indignation are everything that's worse about the anonymous internet user.

I've disagreed with Phillip Taylor before, and indeed been rude to him, but I'm big enough to say that I agree with him on this one, as I've occasionally agreed with him before. I don't think I've ever been able to say the same about you.

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
9:15am Thu 27 Sep 12

Big corporates and vested interests spend tens of millions lobbying our elected representatives with the aim of upsurping democracy to protect their own economic interests.

Take Amazon, they have driven out of buisness thousands of UK companies yet have manage to avoid corporation tax

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2125790/Amazon-faces
-probes-paying-penny
-company-tax-UK-2-ye
ars.html

Another form of abuse is the likes of NEXT who arrange there shifts so the workers just qualify for tax benefits and housing benefits - ie grabbing a massive state subsidy- whilst insisting the workers are available at short notice the rest of the time so they can't take on a second job. These totally unacceptable practices could be stopped, but our politicians refuse to act.

Letting foreign companies treat the UK like a doormat will result in the UK become like Greace. For our society to prosper everyone needs to actively partake

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
9:17am Thu 27 Sep 12

Hi Tim, just a friendly point, why don't you call yourself Tim Lennon, your name connection it is all over the internet anyhow if you agree with Phillip Taylor?

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
9:17am Thu 27 Sep 12

Hi Tim, just a friendly point, why don't you call yourself Tim Lennon, your name connection it is all over the internet anyhow if you agree with Phillip Taylor?

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
12:21pm Thu 27 Sep 12

What a thoroughly unpleasant and petulant post from Lucullus, nevertheless I'm quite amused that he joins good old Gareth in slamming me for remaining anonymous whilst he does the same himself - how bizarre is that? Intriguingly Gareth has not responded to my challenge about his past form or Philip Taylor's suggestion that he used to post as "Interested Reader" If he was that poster - what a hypocrite!

As to Lucullus's words: I've saved them so that I can have a good chuckle when I feel low and remind myself that there are sadder people than me lurking out there.

Let's hope that that torrent of vitriol heralds the end of his political aspirations and he will forever be remembered as "the dog poo man" who might have been
Alex
PS: Sorry aspicer - he really did deserve a response, didn't he?

Report this post »

gcrozier says...
2:01pm Thu 27 Sep 12

On the original topic, the government of which Vince Cable is a minister is actually doing a great deal to tackle tax dodging - both illegal evasion and attempts to get round the law artificially (avoidance). Eg. There was major legislation last year to close down loopholes on 'disguised remuneration' and a new 'general anti-abuse rule' is going to be introduced in 2013. The latter was something particularly pushed by Vince Cable before the election.

To be fair, the previous government were also active in this area, and a number of the current government's initiatives build on their predecessors (ie investing more and expending schemes).

Report this post »

jeremyhm says...
2:09pm Thu 27 Sep 12

OK, gcrozier, lets accept that something has been done. But - has it had any affect? Have these measures resulted in more tax being collected?
I am old enough to remember when Geoffrey Howe as Chancellor actually reduced the excise duty on whisky: what result? More duty was collected, as people bought more. Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned ? I also remember when Denis Healey promised to tax the rich until the pips squeaked (I think those were his actual words) - the marginal tax rate was then in excess of 90%. Do we want to return to that sort of thing (ie Socialism)?

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree