Given that he failed to declare two substantial pensions he receives, and also failed to declare ANY savings or investments at all, I doubt very much that heās underpaying tax. He certainly isnāt giving the Inland Revenue the information he is supposed to give them.
Which pensions are these? There is his state pension (Ā£6,000) and a parliamentary pension that hasnāt matured yet, so which other pensions are there?
Gosh, so many newbies these days.
Welcome to boingboing, may your commentary here be read far and wide, and receive all the sober consideration and respect it deserves!
I donāt know anything about this, but I found this Telegraph article
Is that a typo? I thought that news source is actually called the Torygraph.
Iām just trying to understand the allegation that the previous poster made. The Huffington Post UK said,
āMr Corbynās copy of his tax return also failed to include his pension income ā from his job before being an MP and believed to amount to the low hundreds of pounds ā but HuffPost UK has been told that the taxman already had a full account of his pension income and it was included on his official return.ā
Incontrovertible proof that heās a terrible politician!
There is apparently one from Islington council. Regardless of whether these are taxable - and most income is, so it would surprise me if they were not - they need to be declared on the form. if youāve ever filled in a self assessment form youād know that.
But it isnāt on his form, is it? Weāve seen a photocopy of his form that SHOULD have all income declared, and the pensions are not there. Neither is any investment or savings income which I find suspicious.
Storm in a tea cup, information declared on a separate sheet, described as āsloppyā and a ātechnicalā violation, compared in the article to hiding money offshore whilst campaigning against such practices. Obviously filling out a form incorrectly whilst still including the required information and filing it a week late undermine your ability to comment on a conspiracy of tax evasion amongst the criminally corrupt.
Even if what you suspect is proven true, so what?
I mean really, would that be indicative of a systemic pattern of massive financial malfeasance, the way say, David Cameronās hidden financial shenanigans are?
Perhaps not what you meant, but yes. I wouldnāt want a Prime Minister who carelessly overpays for things any more than I want one who plays the system for personal advantage.
Now that is a truly bizarre false equivalence.
I know right! Heād probably over-budget the NHS forcing them to spend unnecessary money on sponging yobs. Can you imagine what would happen to the dole, gold bars and diamonds in the pockets of thieving immigrants. Debating policy with foreign leaders? Heād probably nuke them by mistake.
Canāt trust that man to do anything right! Heās a menace and an embarrassment to politics!
You realize the PM has other people assisting them, right? They donāt fill out the national budget by hand.
Imagine if the UK had to rely on Churchill to personally do all their finances in WW2.
Only real human beings try and psychopathically destroy the state for their own gain. You canāt trust a man that tries to make everyone thing heās good by providing for the public. Shameful!
Cameron has done nothing wrong - broken no laws, hasnāt done anything in a way that parliament didnāt intend. Corbyn has. He hasnāt filled in his return completely. This shouldnāt be hard to understand.
I think you mean āwrongā (or āwrongā, depending on what youāre country youāre from).
If, thatās IF, Cameron has broken no laws, the laws he didnāt break were set up by the super-rich, for the super-rich, so that they could evade taxes and generally shield from the publicās justifiable outrage and disgust just how much money theyāre hoarding. That isnāt hard for me to understand.
