Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

I didnt know any then, nor do I now, so no. :)

[ Depends on your definition of 'Rich' of course ].

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Plenty of people rich in the soul on CF.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

I imagine you need to be worth several million pounds with a lot of passive income complementing that for it to be worthwhile to uproot your life to avoid some of the tax on that income.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Nope. You can hide your dosh easily.


Digital Banks: Three bad examples

Plum: Owned by two Aussies (do not correct me on that). They have an account with Citybank (you may correct me on this) and they put your money anonymously there. Very fishy bank.

MoneyBox: They put your money in their account with HSBC.

Moneyfarm: Owned by an Italian guy. I have no more to say on this.

All three are recommended by the money saving compare sites

Fintech/Worldpay, the same two Aussie Plum guys.

But Jersey has plenty of banks that have subsidiary digital banks. Very reliable. The corrupt Anglo-Irish bank (jersey) never leaked ANY info, even after bankruptcy.

No need to uproot.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Don't forget the system is structured to allow the ultra wealthy to quietly minimise their tax liability. One reason why the Tories have been in power for such a large percentage of the time. We, as a society, are conditioned to obsess over Income and ignore Wealth.

I am constantly amazed why so many get angry about the millions spent on small boats, etc. and yet are content to allow the billions sail away without any protest.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Interesting: Conservative Party withdraws support from two candidates over election betting scandal

If they get elected as MP's, would they be effectively independents?

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

There's a lot of nuance in the word "wealth".

Income, in pounds shillings and pence is easy to understand and tangible.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Looking at the ones you mention, the digital banks, they're all registered here and are regulated by the FSA. This wouldn't get you out of paying tax. It's not hiding your money. What matters is not where the owners are from or which banks they use themselves, what matters is if they have a UK Banking Licence. If they do then they can operate here but in turn have to submit returns to the government.

I am not really sure what you're getting at there?

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/n...n-seemed-good/

To paraphrase "Yes, Minister", it seems brave and courageous that whilst giving an election hustings speech in Salisbury, you praise someone who ordered their Intelligence Service to use a chemical agent which killed one person, put three more into intensive care for several weeks, and caused eight sites to be closed for several months whilst they were being decontaminated in that Constituency.

Not sure they thought that response through…

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Ah, I see you conform to the required thinking. When people hear Income, most think of PAYE and it is this this section of society, those whose tax is deducted at source, that bare the brunt of the tax rises. They literally have no choice.

It is the other Income sources e.g. Dividends plus the net increase in asset values that is not taxed at the same levels. People complain about being taxed too much since they have no ability to escape it however, those with net worth in the tens of millions, are laughing all the way to the (offshore) bank. Net increase in wealth is quantifiable if the system is structured to assess it.

The irony is that those who can afford to pay the most, would not notice the loss are those would pay the least in effective tax rate terms. Here's the kicker: most people don't have a problem with it but, in the same breath, will be angry about helping those who have so little.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Pretty dumb...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cqqqqx25rz0t

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Indeed as what was he thinking.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Hedging his bets. I like it.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

I’m unclear as to the law around political betting. I didn’t think it was illegal per se, but only if you’re relying on insider information. Anyone connected to Rishi Sunak is obviously under suspicion if they bet on a July election, that not being by any means the most likely outcome, but an opposition MP betting on the outcome in his seat seems much less likely to be based on privileged info. I have to say I suspect the Gambling Commission has gone looking for a sacrificial lamb here, to try to lessen the damage their existing investigations are doing to one particular party by evening things out a bit.

Re: The traditional CF voting intentions thread, week 5
 

Probably the Labour Party trying to appear “whiter than white” too. In theory betting on an event you deliberately then go on to lose would on paper be no different to spot-fixing or match-fixing.

However who would sacrifice 5 years at 80k+ and expenses for a minor bet.

He’s probably been unlucky that the bet has appeared unusual (high amount) in the context of single constituency markets and fell within the timeframe for further scrutiny.