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 heâs underpaying tax. He certainly isnât giving the Inland Revenue the information he is supposed to give them.
Which pensions are these? There is his state pension (ÂŁ6,000) and a parliamentary pension that hasnât 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 donât know anything about this, but I found this Telegraph article
Is that a typo? I thought that news source is actually called the Torygraph.
Iâm just trying to understand the allegation that the previous poster made. The Huffington Post UK said,
âMr Corbynâs copy of his tax return also failed to include his pension income â from his job before being an MP and believed to amount to the low hundreds of pounds â 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.â
Incontrovertible proof that heâs 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 youâve ever filled in a self assessment form youâd know that.
But it isnât on his form, is it? Weâve 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 âsloppyâ and a âtechnicalâ 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 Cameronâs hidden financial shenanigans are?
Perhaps not what you meant, but yes. I wouldnât 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! Heâd 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? Heâd probably nuke them by mistake.
Canât trust that man to do anything right! Heâs a menace and an embarrassment to politics!
You realize the PM has other people assisting them, right? They donât 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 canât trust a man that tries to make everyone thing heâs good by providing for the public. Shameful!
Cameron has done nothing wrong - broken no laws, hasnât done anything in a way that parliament didnât intend. Corbyn has. He hasnât filled in his return completely. This shouldnât be hard to understand.
I think you mean âwrongâ (or âwrongâ, depending on what youâre country youâre from).
If, thatâs IF, Cameron has broken no laws, the laws he didnât break were set up by the super-rich, for the super-rich, so that they could evade taxes and generally shield from the publicâs justifiable outrage and disgust just how much money theyâre hoarding. That isnât hard for me to understand.
