The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

[Colemans Left Hook]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65037136

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2588/introduction/made

[SydneyRover]

from the link .....

''The legislation means Sir Keir is exempt from paying tax on pensions savings over £1m. It is not clear whether the Labour leader has saved enough to have benefited from the scheme''

[drfchound]

Ah well, that’s ok then.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

He probably has though given his earnings. Labour should just say whether they'd reverse this of course shouldn't they? Hugely hypocritical if they don't.

[Filo]

Ah right, so Starmer abides by the rules of legislation brought in by the Tories, and doesn’t have enough in the scheme to pay tax anyway, what exactly has he done wrong?

[SydneyRover]

apparently he has to be a saint

[Glyn_Wigley]

Madin Zahawi can give him some advice about how to not pay tax without needing an arrangement.

[Bentley Bullet]

So, Starmer is opposed to tax-exempt pension deals but having one himself doesn't make him a hypocrite............ I see!

[SydneyRover]

being a hypocrite is like criticising someone before you know the full facts on the one hand but not criticising someone like zahawi when you do.

[Filo]

So, Starmer is opposed to tax-exempt pension deals but having one himself doesn't make him a hypocrite............ I see!

It’s not tax exempt, he doesn’t meet the threshold, legislated by a Tory Government, you can twist it all you like, but they are the facts

[Bentley Bullet]

What do you mean he doesn't meet the threshold? How do you know? And even if he doesn't, how do you know he won't reach the threshold in future? What would be the point in him having a tax-exempt pension if he isn't going to exploit it? If he was so opposed to tax-exempt pensions why would he support one by contributing to one?

[Filo]

What do you mean he doesn't meet the threshold? How do you know? And even if he doesn't, how do you know he won't reach the threshold in future? What would be the point in him having a tax-exempt pension if he isn't going to exploit it? If he was so opposed to tax-exempt pensions why would he support one by contributing to one?

Are you advocating him breaking the law?

It is legeslation, i.e. Law, made by a Tory Government!

[Bentley Bullet]

What on earth are you talking about? And you accuse ME of twisting it!

My point is, people like you are defending Starmer, who is opposed to tax-exempt pension deals. Doesn't having one himself make him a hypocrite?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

He probably has though given his earnings. Labour should just say whether they'd reverse this of course shouldn't they? Hugely hypocritical if they don't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65052706

And they have said they would, that's fair and consistent as they'd said they'd reverse it back to where it currently is.  Worth remembering it was actually 75% higher under the labour government than it is now, the Tories have cut the allowance numerous times, hence why the removal was such a big surprise.

[Filo]

What on earth are you talking about? And you accuse ME of twisting it!

My point is, people like you are defending Starmer, who is opposed to tax-exempt pension deals. Doesn't having one himself make him a hypocrite?

My last word on it, because as per usual you run around in circles, IT IS LAW! Created by a Tory Government, and now the Tories, and Tory fanboys like you don’t like it, but seeing as it is Law, until he wins the next election he can’t do anything about it, even if he wanted to!

End of discussion, you are not dragging me down a rabbit hole

[Bentley Bullet]

Ha Ha! Apologies for the laughter, it's nothing personal, I'm used to bullshit on here!

[Colemans Left Hook]

What on earth are you talking about? And you accuse ME of twisting it!

My point is, people like you are defending Starmer, who is opposed to tax-exempt pension deals. Doesn't having one himself make him a hypocrite?

   
My last word on it, because as per usual you run around in circles, IT IS LAW! Created by a Tory Government, and now the Tories, and Tory fanboys like you don’t like it, but seeing as it is Law, until he wins the next election he can’t do anything about it, even if he wanted to!

End of discussion, you are not dragging me down a rabbit hole

Cameron never expected a Game-keeper to turn "Political Poacher" -   They gave him a knighthood to get rid off him.
but "enough wasn't enough"

Starmer certainly pulled a Rabbit out of the hat when he decided to stand as an M.P. for "Old Holborn "  - let's see if his future goes up in smoke.

Thornberry was a bit deluded about him when she said this about him when he quit.


"    The shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry, said Starmer would be greatly missed. "His values shone through with his emphasis on fighting violence against women and girls. He fulfilled a difficult role in a progressive and compassionate way … he has done his utmost to transform the CPS's record on rape and domestic violence, delivering improved conviction rates for both. There is, however, still further to go in making sure the criminal justice system gives vulnerable victims the support they need. With budget cuts of over 25% being inflicted on the CPS, this task will only get harder. That is why it is essential that a successor is appointed who is committed to building on Keir's approach and values."



"   But the Tory MP Dominic Raab, a former government lawyer and member of parliament's joint committee on human rights, said: "We need a grizzled, criminal prosecutor rather than a defence, human rights lawyer. Leadership of the CPS is important  "

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/apr/24/keir-starmer-director-public-prosecutions

so who was Prime Minister when Starmer got the gig ???   


"Cyclops of course   "Gordon Brown   2007 – 2010   Labour

[glosterred]

apparently he has to be a saint

Don’t they all?

[drfchound]

Ah right, so Starmer abides by the rules of legislation brought in by the Tories, and doesn’t have enough in the scheme to pay tax anyway, what exactly has he done wrong?

Filo, how do you know that Starmer hasn't got enough in the scheme to pay tax on it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

He probably has though given his earnings. Labour should just say whether they'd reverse this of course shouldn't they? Hugely hypocritical if they don't.

And Starmer has said he will reverse it.

So hugely not hypocritical. Not that that will convince some folk in here...

[BillyStubbsTears]

While we are talking about tax, Starmer paid £67k tax last year on a total income and capital gains of £212k. That's 32% tax.

Sunak paid £432k out of a total income of £1.9m. That's 23%.

Take the party politics out of this and look at it as an issue of basic morality.

In what world is it acceptable for someone to pay a much smaller proportion of their income in tax the richer they are.

Frankly, it's an absolute outrage.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

You can't call it income for one and capital gains for another.  Sunak has more capital gains, we shouldn't hate him for being wealthy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You can't call it income for one and capital gains for another.  Sunak has more capital gains, we shouldn't hate him for being wealthy.

See me. I'm old fashioned like this.

If I see money coming into my pocket, I call it "income".

I don't hate him for being wealthy.

I very much dislike a system that encourages the wealthy not to pay their fair share to the rest of society.