|
|
Post by MJB on Jul 7, 2024 18:29:08 GMT
Looking like Farage won't be getting an ally in the French parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Jul 7, 2024 18:40:18 GMT
He's already had that, from when he was an MEP. Do you mean the moment that he got his pension rights from the EP? Within about 3 years he will receive £73,000 per annum presumably adjusted for inflation since Brexit. Its about three times what I get as a works pension after 22 years in my longest period of employment with one employer. He's done pretty well out of the EUP. We Brits are paying it as part of the Brexit divorce settlement.
Finally realising what a self-serving mis-spelt Danish king of England you were gumming the plums of all that time? |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jul 10, 2024 18:38:58 GMT
Maybe wrong thread.
Who is paying for Mrs Starmer to be in Washington? If it's us, I hope that HMRC are alive!
When I was doing dozens of business trips, my wife was banned from travelling with me unless I paid. She was allowed, for very special reasons, to come on one trip and the taxman chased me for ages.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Jul 10, 2024 18:59:15 GMT
Maybe wrong thread. Who is paying for Mrs Starmer to be in Washington? If it's us, I hope that HMRC are alive! When I was doing dozens of business trips, my wife was banned from travelling with me unless I paid. She was allowed, for very special reasons, to come on one trip and the taxman chased me for ages. Mick Starmer and his Missus are special. We are all equal of course but some are more equal than others. That's socialism for you. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jul 10, 2024 19:19:33 GMT
Maybe wrong thread. Who is paying for Mrs Starmer to be in Washington? If it's us, I hope that HMRC are alive! When I was doing dozens of business trips, my wife was banned from travelling with me unless I paid. She was allowed, for very special reasons, to come on one trip and the taxman chased me for ages. Mick Starmer and his Missus are special. We are all equal of course but some are more equal than others. That's socialism for you. Finished the bottle huh?  |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jul 10, 2024 19:20:40 GMT
Anyone following the story of the possibly non-existent Reform candidates? Would be terrible if Farage got done for electoral fraud eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Jul 10, 2024 20:12:43 GMT
It is normal for Prime Ministerial WAGs or at least Ws to go along on big official visits. It is only a payment issue if said W(AG) uses the opportunity to some paid work while over there - as Cherie Booth did but probably did not pay for part of her trip.
If one or other elected to stay on for, say, a week's holiday then they should pay part of the airfares but I am not aware of that happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jul 11, 2024 6:46:07 GMT
It is normal for Prime Ministerial WAGs or at least Ws to go along on big official visits. It is only a payment issue if said W(AG) uses the opportunity to some paid work while over there - as Cherie Booth did but probably did not pay for part of her trip. If one or other elected to stay on for, say, a week's holiday then they should pay part of the airfares but I am not aware of that happening. I don't believe that's true. The inclusion of a spouse in a business trip is only tax free if the spouse's presence is wholly, necessarily etc.
I'm speaking from memory when the tax people were chasing me. It's not straightforward so I'd be pretty sure that Starmer will be wriggling out of it. As a little man I couldn't and had to pay.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Jul 11, 2024 7:33:11 GMT
Titan Airways Airbus A321-200 NEO registered G-XATW. In November 2020, the Cabinet Office signed a contract with Corporate Travel Management (North) Ltd for the exclusive lease of a VIP configured aircraft for the use of the prime minister, other ministers and VIPs.
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Jul 11, 2024 11:56:50 GMT
It is normal for Prime Ministerial WAGs or at least Ws to go along on big official visits. It is only a payment issue if said W(AG) uses the opportunity to some paid work while over there - as Cherie Booth did but probably did not pay for part of her trip. If one or other elected to stay on for, say, a week's holiday then they should pay part of the airfares but I am not aware of that happening. I don't believe that's true. The inclusion of a spouse in a business trip is only tax free if the spouse's presence is wholly, necessarily etc.
I'm speaking from memory when the tax people were chasing me. It's not straightforward so I'd be pretty sure that Starmer will be wriggling out of it. As a little man I couldn't and had to pay.
Mick
As usual Mick, we can agree to differ on this. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jul 12, 2024 7:09:51 GMT
I don't believe that's true. The inclusion of a spouse in a business trip is only tax free if the spouse's presence is wholly, necessarily etc.
I'm speaking from memory when the tax people were chasing me. It's not straightforward so I'd be pretty sure that Starmer will be wriggling out of it. As a little man I couldn't and had to pay.
Mick
As usual Mick, we can agree to differ on this. As it's a matter of tax law and not opinion, I tried googling. I could find nothing at all to support what you say. Having said that, I admit that it's complex and also that my Googleskills are not the best.
May I ask you for some evidence, any evidence, to support what you say.
On the other hand, if the spouse did do paid work then it's proof positive that their presence was NOT wholly, necessarily and exclusively in support of their partner and therefore it would make their expenses taxable. Maybe that's it.
I'm asking, not just to be stubborn, but because my son is planning to take his wife on such a trip soon, and we would very much like to understand the rules.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Jul 12, 2024 11:22:05 GMT
As usual Mick, we can agree to differ on this. As it's a matter of tax law and not opinion, I tried googling. I could find nothing at all to support what you say. Having said that, I admit that it's complex and also that my Googleskills are not the best.
May I ask you for some evidence, any evidence, to support what you say.
On the other hand, if the spouse did do paid work then it's proof positive that their presence was NOT wholly, necessarily and exclusively in support of their partner and therefore it would make their expenses taxable. Maybe that's it.
I'm asking, not just to be stubborn, but because my son is planning to take his wife on such a trip soon, and we would very much like to understand the rules.
Mick
I do not to legal advice free or otherwise. As you are aware of the rules for "ordinary people" your question and stated reason for asking it appear to be entirely spurious. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jul 12, 2024 12:28:37 GMT
As it's a matter of tax law and not opinion, I tried googling. I could find nothing at all to support what you say. Having said that, I admit that it's complex and also that my Googleskills are not the best.
May I ask you for some evidence, any evidence, to support what you say.
On the other hand, if the spouse did do paid work then it's proof positive that their presence was NOT wholly, necessarily and exclusively in support of their partner and therefore it would make their expenses taxable. Maybe that's it.
I'm asking, not just to be stubborn, but because my son is planning to take his wife on such a trip soon, and we would very much like to understand the rules.
Mick
I do not to legal advice free or otherwise. As you are aware of the rules for "ordinary people" your question and stated reason for asking it appear to be entirely spurious. The rules are complex and I don't pretend to be fully aware of them. I do know (or should I say I did know - the rules might have changed) those rules that applied to me and my circumstances.
If you don't want to help then so be it. Not an attitude I've ever before expeirenced on this forum or its predecessor. I'll bother you no longer.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Jul 12, 2024 12:33:13 GMT
I do not to legal advice free or otherwise. As you are aware of the rules for "ordinary people" your question and stated reason for asking it appear to be entirely spurious. The rules are complex and I don't pretend to be fully aware of them. I do know (or should I say I did know - the rules might have changed) those rules that applied to me and my circumstances.
If you don't want to help then so be it. Not an attitude I've ever before expeirenced on this forum or its predecessor. I'll bother you no longer.
Mick
Good |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Jul 12, 2024 12:47:10 GMT
As I quoted above - the plane is leased for exclusive use of for the use of the prime minister, other ministers and VIPs.
I repeat, it is leased for the above use. It isn't a scheduled flight. I think you could argue that the PM's wife is a VIP?
I'm guessing HMRC are well aware of the lease of the aircraft and its purpose.
So why the query?
|
|
