Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Hazel you should pay back all profits made at the taxpayers expense
Guardian: Hazel Blears attempts to rebuild reputation with £13,332 cheque
Now we know the real reason for property ramping by the government - they couldn't rain in the housing market because of greed
Posted by matt_the_hat @ 09:12 AM (1538 views) Add Comment
34 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. paul said...
Is that an option for other tax cheats now?
Pay back what you've been found out for and all is forgiven?
2. sold out said...
I just had to pay the inland revenue £100 surcharge for being 2 weeks late in paying a 2k tax demand.
This stinks.The Inland Revenue should return Blears cheque and launch a proper investigation into all these matters.
If Blears and others are found to be guilty of this tax avoidance they should be treated like any other member of the public with appropriate fines and surcharges.
This is typical Nu-Labour, offer up Blears as the sacrificial lamb and hope that this storm will all blow over in a few weeks and we will all forget.
As for the property market and Nu-labour policy, i believe a clear link is now established that shows these MP's where playing the property market for their own gain [and using tax payers money to fund it] and therefore had no interest in attempting to cool the market with the appropriate policy during 2002/2003/2004.That is why they continue with their property ramping and recent policy to save the housing market at all costs.
3. techieman said...
aha - what worries me is this . OK chaps from now on you cant make a profit on 2nd homes ... hang on a sec ive made a loss - no probs - of course we will indemnify you against the losses... Profit on house 1 (up until we made the decision) not pay back able - loss on house 2 - (since you have liquidated the loss and its after the new decision )- indemnification of course.
....
Easy asnwer is RENT!! - List of subsistance goods (IKEA list) which are left to the next tennant - contract for tennancy made between landlord and HMG.
Got a joke in this am - sorry but think it is a good barometer of the mood - course you dont have to read it (and im sorry if this occassions an avalanche of 'em): Think it may have been modified from a US based on but....
One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies, “I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.” The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there are a “thank you” card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, “I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.” The cop is happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there is a “thank you” card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The professor is very happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a “thank you” card and a dozen different books, such as “How to Improve Your Business” and “Becoming More Successful.”
Then, a Member of Parliament comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies “I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.” The Member of Parliament is very happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Members of Parliament lined up waiting for a free haircut.
4. str 2007 said...
I wish I could remember the name of the political correspondent on ITV, he's quite good and I think dislikes Brown.
Anyway was interviewing Brown last night about Browns new policy on expenses.
Brown was quite happy with his decision to launch a full independent investigatiion covering the last 4 years.
Firstly that tells me Brown was upto tricks in years 5 and 6.
Secondly he doesn't seem to have any consideration for the expense of the investigation and unfortunately the interviewer failed to pick up on this point.
Pound to a penny the investigation costs the tax payer £1.5m and will reveal £1.25m of expenses to be returned.
IE another £250,000 gone.
If your a sales rep and get caught fiddling mileage or expenses you could loose your job.
If you fiddle HM Revenue and Customs you get a big fine or go to Jail.
Not if you're an MP.
5. mountain goat said...
What's going on? A few months everyone was after bankers, now everyone is after politicians. What's the big picture change of mood? Not sure I can work it out. Is it just media revelations stiring things up, or is there a new sense of outrage that politicians are ripping off the nation?
6. nubbers said...
I was willing to believe that that she had played everything by the rules, and was being picked on by a bunch of plebs who don't know the subtleties of tax law (a bit like the mob who mistook a paediatrician for a pedophile).
But now offering this check just looks so bad. Either she has broken the rules, or she has done nothing wrong and is too willing to bow to pressure. Either way, she should not be in power.
7. crunchy said...
3. techieman, lol
The haircut will be more than they bargained for.
"THE SNIP."
8. mark wadsworth said...
I should point out that MPs have re-written and re-written the principal private residence legislation over the years, and what Hazel B did is exactly what I would have advised any client to do, so was almost certainly legal (from a tax point of view).
But yes, MPs are the ultimate VIs - they all own two or three homes.... so a £30k fall in Haliwide index = a £150,000 loss to yer average MP. There's nothing like Schadenfreude!!
9. Hammered said...
Here's my solution.
Each constituency should have a state-owned vicarage type property, big enough for an MP and a large family, with a standard constituency office bolted on the side. These could be pre-fab structures with an identical model installed somewhere on spare public land in each and every constituency, which would be very cost effective to build, There should be a big bunk-house somewhere in Westminster, with basic sleeping accommodation for MP's to be able to get their 'head down', after a hard days graft in the chambers.
Rent to reside in these places is taken from MPs wages at source, but if they want to stay in a hotel, or buy a flat, then they pay for it with their own cash.
MP's should get a uniform lump sum to run their office, and then a graded salary, depending on how far from London they live, to account for travel costs, rising as they live further away. MP's are expected to be in the commons a certain number of times per month, and if they do not, the rate is reduced accordingly.
10. dbc reed said...
To be fair the politicians in our one-party state ( the keep-up-house-prices all-party alliance) do cut the electorate into their scam.They try to make sure the voters (with houses,the only ones who count in winning elections) get their share of the house price inflation goodies.In that sense all this revulsion is a bit overdone: the MP's are the exact image of the public who have been taught ( by the politicians I suppose) that the way to make money is not by working, but by flipping property.Thank God for the Land Taxers,universally reviled and powerless.They appear to be the only people on the outside of the Matrix.
11. Ulfar said...
Oh so its ok to avoid tax as long as when you get caught you pay the money back.
I didn't realise this was the new policy at HMRC.
12. 51ck-6-51x said...
mountain goat. It was always down to the politicians. People were (and many still are) quite content blindly blaming bankers because bankers seem to make money for nothing by taking risks with other people's money in a business they do not understand. However bankers were doing what they were expected to do; politicians were not - they should have better moral standards since they are supposed to be acting in the interests of their potential voters, not in a self-centred manner, regardless of any moral hazard effect from herding.
13. matt_the_hat said...
10. 51ck-6-51x - I completely agree with you bankers should be greedy its their jobs to make as much money as possible, it was the reward system that was wrong, i.e. the system set up by shareholders, and the shareholders should be the ones who felt the pain, the government however couldn't let the house of cards collapse. Personally, I don't think their should be any rules on MP expenses, just full disclosure to the public then we can decide to re-elect them or not.
14. mountain goat said...
51ck-6-51x - but do we expect better from politicians? We expect them to lie, embellish the truth and such like. I agree that it is normal to hate bankers, but not to hate politicians in the same way. Perhaps the crisis saw politicians bailing out banks at all costs, and this is the political/social consequence. It is not just distrusting politicians as before, there is real fury and hatred about this. Average people don't understand the details of the financial crisis but perhaps they have understood that in the 21st century profits go to the rich/powerful when times are good and losses come to the taxpayer when it goes wrong.
15. crunchy said...
When the "conditions" are set for greed we all become Piranhas biting on the bones of the weak untill we are all fat enough to be prey.
It is from condition and the reaction thereafter, that all things fall into place for the conditioners.
The truely big fish that hide motionless in the depths of darkness.
16. crunchy said...
To be free one has to swim alone and feed on the debris.
17. shipbuilder said...
10. 51ck-6-51x said...
"It was always down to the politicians. People were (and many still are) quite content blindly blaming bankers because bankers seem to make money for nothing by taking risks with other people's money in a business they do not understand. However bankers were doing what they were expected to do; politicians were not - they should have better moral standards since they are supposed to be acting in the interests of their potential voters, not in a self-centred manner, regardless of any moral hazard effect from herding."
Are you advocating a hierarchy of moral standards and self-centredness? If bankers are exempt from duty to the wider world because their job is to make money, why shouldn't all other businesses think the same? And if private business is the model of efficiency, why wouldn't public services then start copying them? Then you end up where we are now.
What's wrong with having responsibility to the wider community and why are private businesses never guilty of the crimes that government and public services are?
18. shipbuilder said...
14. crunchy said...
"To be free one has to swim alone and feed on the debris."
Sounds like a recipe for a very lonely fish.
19. doomwatch said...
Anyone else would be forced to enter into the nightmare world of an HMRC "investigation", facing a "possible criminal conviction" for "tax evasion".
Does the £13,332 include the extortionate rate of interest HMRC now charge on unpaid/avoided tax ?
Our so called democratic government makes Zimbabwe look squeaky clean.
20. doomwatch said...
HMRC go back (at least) 6 years in investigations, so why only 4 years to look at the MP scum ?
21. crunchy said...
16. shipbuilder.. Freedom is a lonely road. It's not for everyone. It was never meant to be, because the big fish would starve!
22. letthemfall said...
I disagree that bankers did what they were supposed to do - rendering their own institutions insolvent is not part of their job description. I'm not even sure it is a question of moral standards of the politicians, even if some are suspect. It is that politicians were unable to see the consequences of the way the economy has been allowed to progress these last 3 decades; they followed the fantasy that the riches of the financial sector were the product of an equivalent wealth creation, rather than a wealth transfer. It is tempting to believe that politicians and the people with money have engineered everything to ensure the product of others' work accrues to them; but I think it is more likely they share the delusion that they are exceptional, that their wealth is a reflection of their skills, their production, rather than the way society and the economy is structured. And of course they will kick and scream if anyone tries to change anything.
23. shipbuilder said...
19. crunchy said...
"16. shipbuilder.. Freedom is a lonely road. It's not for everyone. It was never meant to be, because the big fish would starve!"
Well, exactly. Play by the rules of the big fish and it is. Not sure that's real freedom, though.
24. crunchy said...
21. shipbuilder, You play by the rules of survival, no option. If the big fish were to starve, that would change the condition and we would all go back to eating our natural source instead of each other.
25. matt_the_hat said...
Looking at the bigger picture - when an election is happening each party should put forward a set of constraints which they will work within, i.e. budget deficits, national borrowing, national assets etc then when a constraint is violated an election is automatically called - we can't have the scenario of hundreds of years stockpiling gold to be sold be some incompetent fool or massive accumulation of public debt (over a FEW years) that takes a generation to pay off.
26. crunchy said...
In addition to 22 Ship, if I were to totally play by the rules I would be feeding the big fish. That is the freedom part. Out of the net, looking in!
Unfortunately greater numbers are needed.
27. shipbuilder said...
Crunchy,
Yes, you play by the rules of survival, I agree. But I don't agree with you what the rules of survival are. I do not follow the Randian view of the world. The meaning of 'survival of the fittest' has been distorted to what the big fish want it to mean. Your rules of survival are dictated by them. That is not freedom, it is slavery of the mind. But yes, greater numbers are needed.
28. crunchy said...
25. shipbuilder.. Slavery of the body ship, not of the mind. If it were my mind I would believe in all this crap and would not be writing as above.
My mind is too warped for mass acceptance. It was hard work but I got there in the end! lol.
29. 51ck-6-51x said...
shipbuilder - no I am not, I am pointing out that politicians should not always act as standard economic agents, sometimes they should take the moral high ground in order to maintain their popularity. Private enterprise's should act to maximise their profit whilst keeping to the word of the law (of course many businesses will break the law if they know there will probably be profit even if they are court and 'punished' - this is of course questionable*), politicians and law lords are involved in the process of creating law and should be driven by the potential votes they may receive, and hence any attempt to bend the rules or attempt to profit from the taxpayer goes against the fundamental nature of their business.
* Yes many businesses think the same - look at the case of Ford-Pinto litigation, here is an extract from the Grush-Saunby report:
Benefits and Costs Relating to Fuel Leakage
Associated with the Static Rollover Test Portion of FMVSS 208
Benefits
Savings — 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2100
burned vehicles
Unit Cost -- $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700
per vehicle
Total Benefit — 180 x ($200,000) + 180 x ($67,000) + 2100
x ($700) = $49.5 million.
Costs
Sales — 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks.
Unit Cost -- $11 per car, $11 per truck
Total Cost — 11,000,000 x ($11) + 1,500,000 x ($11) =
$137 million.
In other words, it looked cheaper to pay an average of $200,000 per death in lawsuit costs than to pay $11 per car to prevent fuel tank explosions. Ultimately, the lawsuit losses were much higher.
letthemfall
- Politicians don't just leave everything to their own brains - they listen to countless third parties (or should) and if they missed these effects of policy they should not be in office. However, there is the chance that there was mass disillusion on their behalf.
- On a similar note - a private institution that allows it's employees to bet the farm is not a great business and an industry where this is standard certainly requires attention, and even so I seriously doubt that any chief executive was involved in such sabotage, it would not have even been in their own interests (e.g. the ABN Amro deal).
30. wiltshire said...
The politicans have been operating under an expenses/tax system which did not apply to every member of the British public. Now they feel they can circumvent the penalties system which also applies to every member of the British public. It is absolutely shocking they are allowing this to happen.
31. 51ck-6-51x said...
wiltshire - it is indeed shocking, but who are "they" ("It is absolutely shocking they are allowing this to happen."), doesn't "they" refer to the politicians themselves?
32. crunchy said...
29. 51ck-6-51x
That's the Trillion dollar question.
Who are they?
33. iguana said...
Doomwatch.
I think that six years is the normal max as the vast majority of cases are 'civil' (see limitation act) but I believe that there is no limit to criminal cases.
34. wiltshire said...
Sorry, I was a bit tired this afternoon. I actually meant it is shocking it is being allowed to happen. BBC News just said The Daily Telegraph claim they have the most shocking cases to date being published tomorrow. Just saw this on their website -
"£320,000 profit made by a Conservative MP on a London flat he sold 27 months after buying it with the help of £15,875 in stamp duty and purchase costs, with another £14,462 in mortgage interest repayments claimed on expenses".
WOW! That was one hell of a gravy train.