Will we ever get to the truth about Ashcroft's tax status - Page 5

frogstamper · 02-03-2010, 02:40

Oh well it has only taken him ten years to begrudgingly come clean, as regards he's claim that he's seat in the Lords wasn't dependent on him being resident in the UK for tax purposes, why didn't William Haugue make that clear to Paxman, if indeed that was true?
As regards other parties having non-doms as donors the big difference is none of them tried to hide their status as Ashcroft has for the last ten years.
Also I'm not aware that any other party has made such a big donor deputy chairman of their party, with such a big part in writing cheques for key marginals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/8080379.stm

TheDaddy · 02-03-2010, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Oh well it has only taken him ten years to begrudgingly come clean, as regards he's claim that he's seat in the Lords wasn't dependent on him being resident in the UK for tax purposes, why didn't William Haugue make that clear to Paxman, if indeed that was true?
As regards other parties having non-doms as donors the big difference is none of them tried to hide their status as Ashcroft has for the last ten years.
Also I'm not aware that any other party has made such a big donor deputy chairman of their party, with such a big part in writing cheques for key marginals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/8080379.stm

Or the others having as much influence on policy as Ashcroft, he is happy enough to assist with that and make decisions effecting all of us but not happy enough to pay for it like the rest of us, kinda makes Dave's patriotic speech seem a little hollow now to, if ever there was a time for a brand new party to come to the fore it is now.

**Hugh** · 02-03-2010, 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Oh well it has only taken him ten years to begrudgingly come clean, as regards he's claim that he's seat in the Lords wasn't dependent on him being resident in the UK for tax purposes, why didn't William Haugue make that clear to Paxman, if indeed that was true?
As regards other parties having non-doms as donors the big difference is none of them tried to hide their status as Ashcroft has for the last ten years.
Also I'm not aware that any other party has made such a big donor deputy chairman of their party, with such a big part in writing cheques for key marginals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/8080379.stm

You appear to have overlooked non-dom Lord Paul, who was Labour Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords (until he had to stand down whilst his expenses were being investigated)....

btw, I believe that if you are in either House, you should be resident and domiciled, for tax purposes.

Jimmy-J · 02-03-2010, 09:33

Obviously Ashcrofts millions wouldn't influence the party in any way, shape or form, right?

**Hugh** · 02-03-2010, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Product 13

Obviously Ashcrofts millions wouldn't influence the party in any way, shape or form, right?

You may find this of interest, then...

Flyboy · 02-03-2010, 21:55

I don't see why the unions' donations are relevant here. It is not the unions who are donating the money, it is the members.

**Derek** · 02-03-2010, 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I don't see why the unions' donations are relevant here. It is not the unions who are donating the money, it is the members.

Yep, every single member of the union decides the best use of their money is to be given to Labour.

Flyboy · 02-03-2010, 21:59

Excuse me?

**Hugh** · 02-03-2010, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I don't see why the unions' donations are relevant here. It is not the unions who are donating the money, it is the members.

Amazing how people read what they want to read.....

The post was in rebuttal to a previous post, highlighting large donations in Q3 2009, two of which were private individuals donating £1 million each.

rogerdraig · 02-03-2010, 22:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Yep, every single member of the union decides the best use of their money is to be given to Labour.

nothing stopping them starting a union that supports the another party if they so wish

martyh · 02-03-2010, 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I don't see why the unions' donations are relevant here. It is not the unions who are donating the money, it is the members.

whether they want to or not

nomadking · 02-03-2010, 22:08

Of course the ban on fox hunting had nothing to do with over £1 million in donations to the Labour Party from the organisation, Political Animal Lobby.

As if Labour would do something corrupt for money, you know, like planning to ease the ban on smoking sponsorship just for Formula 1, never mind Trade Union donations and other donations below £1million.

Why should he pay UK tax on non-UK earnings? If you owned a company based abroad and paid any taxes in that country, why should you be expected to pay taxes in this country as well?

Flyboy · 02-03-2010, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

whether they want to or not

Excuse me?

---------- Post added at 21:11 ---------- Previous post was at 21:08 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

Of course the ban on fox hunting had nothing to do with over £1 million in donations to the Labour Party from the organisation, Political Animal Lobby.

As if Labour would do something corrupt for money, you know, like planning to ease the ban on smoking sponsorship just for Formula 1, never mind Trade Union donations and other donations below £1million.

Why should he pay UK tax on non-UK earnings? If you owned a company based abroad and paid any taxes in that country, why should you be expected to pay taxes in this country as well?

The fact that he is a foreign citizen worries me a little as well. Isn't there something in the rules about accepting donations from foreigners?

martyh · 02-03-2010, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Excuse me?

just me disagreeing with unions donating to the labour party ,should be illegal ,something i feel very strong about

individuals can no problem it's their choice ,but when some militant numpty with a power complex decides what members money should be spent on for them i get a tad irate

nomadking · 02-03-2010, 22:20

Indian billionaire Lakshmi Mittal

Quote:

The 1997 donation was revealed last week after a "cash for favours" row blew up over another donation of £125,000 that Mr Mittal gave to the party last year.
Mr Mittal gave the bigger gift two months before Tony Blair wrote to the Romanian Prime Minister to back the billionaire's £300m purchase of the country's Sidex steel plant.

Quote:

The European bank which lent Mr Mittal £70m to part fund LNM's purchase of Sidex says it was put under no pressure by the British government.

With, of course no 'help' from the Labour Party.

Bernie Ecclestone was not a UK resident at the time and now would not be allowed to donate because of that.