Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"Tony Blair pays just £315,000 tax on an income of £12 million. Robert Powell explains how he does it and looks at ways you can reduce your tax bill by following the former PM's levy-restricting methods..."
http://www.lovemoney.com/news/family-finance/tax/14165/tax-lessons-from-tony-blair?source=1000557Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Nothing particularly startling here. Rather wrong to describe his £12m as 'income' because most people would relate that to a salary which clearly is not the case. Out of that there are clearly valid business expenses, including staff salaries. What we do not know, of course, is whether all those expenses are wholly legitimate and 'for the purposes of trade' - as accounts are published and professional accountants prepare them we must assume that this is the case.
The tax bill is only calculated on the businesses Corporation tax and therefore may not reflect the total amount of tax paid. What did Blair himself draw from his business? How he drew that personal money, dividends or salary, perhaps as director loan repayments would all impact of his personal tax bill.
Clearly he has complex business arrangements but that does not necessarily mean they are not legitimate.
Now why on earth am I defending Blair, a man I frankly detest and who allowed Brown to wreck our economy? That is the big question here.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Ha ha - thought that would put you between a rock and hard place
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW
The fact that you did defend him, speaks volumes.
At last we can agree on something, he is a very detestable man who made many mistakes.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i don't have a problem with tony blair i thought he was one of our better prime ministers, not perfect but who is?
it made a nice change that he always seemed positive compared to many of the doom and gloom merchants that we have had.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
im no great fan of blair as iv said many times
but he had a vision of getting to number 10 and making a difference
he certainly would not allow anything to get in the way
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Blair must be the perfect model of a new-Labour socialist, the reason one would vote for Labour!
Let's face it, he threw away the ideals of a socialist and became a big-time capitalist.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
earning good money does not make blair a capitalist alex, he is in demand for being our most successful politician ever.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Howard - did you say that with a straight face?
Success, blimey if he was a success then so was Ratner and Fred the Shred....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
as iv said so many times i dont like the bloke but he did what was required to remain in office for 3 long terms
tories unable to remove him
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
barry
it is about winning and not upsetting too many people along the line, in my memory the two biggest winners have been thatcher and blair.
thatcher was divisive, people either loved her or hated her - no middle ground.
with blair people either liked him or were irritated by him. life went on with no venom.
i much prefer the latter course.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
On the contrary Howard, success should be measured by real achievements not just getting into a top position and keeping it for a while. How you use it is what counts (as the actress said to the Bishop...)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
yes and like howard says in his last post
both those leaders achieved
shouldn't look at the issue through rose tinted glasses
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Which is what you are doing Keith.
What did Blair achieve apart from winning three elections?
He inherited a booming economic golden legacy and what did he leave us with, a bust - the biggest we have ever had? Then of course because of him we then had Gordon Brown, a man he well knew was not up to the job and who he knew he should have sacked before the end of his first term. What else was there, the Human Rights Act... the worse most ill-considered legislation ever. Then of course he opened the floodgates to immigration, refusing to implement the transitionary arrangements other EU countries used when Eastern Europe countries joined. So what exactly did Blair achieve? He even wanted Brown to take us into the Euro.... Brown at least saved us from that.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
He did achieve one thing....he helped his missus to line her pockets with that Human Rights Act....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,nice pay day if you can get the work.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
thing is brian
maggie was no better, nor many mp's from all sides
it's unfair to pick one geezer out
but there you go
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,i was talking about his misses not blair.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I see a new story on the news today, this time about American politics. Mitt Romney, frontrunner for the Republican nomination has been found out! Yes found to pay only 15% of his considerable wealth in taxes. This guy is very rich as I understand it. Most Americans who arent very rich pay 35% in taxes. Ah...fairness..there's nothing like it!
Clearly another case I would suspect of tying up revenue, income, and investments with fast lawyers/ brokers so that you pay miserly tax. Okay...it may be legal just about, and in some cases it may not...but it is hardly the spirit of political leaders to go about avoiding their moral responsibility. What they do after they leave public office is a matter for them and the taxman.