What would you do with £16k of tax payer’s money? I suppose pay your tax bill maybe? 🤔
Sir Laurie said she did get legal advice when buying the property, but failed to seek further expert tax advice as recommended.
i know this was all gone over at the time but fuck me. the excuse for dodging stamp duty was that her house was held in a trust fund for her kid who was 17 at the time
five minutes or so on the gov.uk stamp duty website gets you:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential-property
higher rates apply to […] any residential property that […] is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
this counts as expert tax advice apparently
If an employer offered me 16k to leave I’d happily take it. If they then offered me my job back, I’d probably go. If they then asked for the 16k they paid me, they can get fucked.
At this point it’s not even the same employer. Starmer is gone, Burnham is the employer now.
Absolutely no obligation whatsoever. I think those arguing differently either don’t understand or are holding this person to a higher moral standard than they would others or themselves.
Well quite but nobody would be very likely to notice. But if you you lived in Manchester and worked in London and got the sack from your job as housing secretary for avoiding tax on your nice new flat in Brighton, copped the sixteen grand payoff and was reappointed to housing secretary within a year that’s a bit different isn’t it?
Not really, why would it change my decision? If I was sacked, paid, rehired to the exact same job I’m not giving the money back. I don’t think you would, I don’t think you should. Why would it be different?
Surely the failure was in the tax avoidance? Or, the failure is in the golden parachutes politicians seem to get?
edited for clarity: Of course the sticking point exists in both the tax avoidance & reward for failure and of course I wouldn’t turn down the cash if it were me. But she and hypothetical us aren’t in the same position. Rules must apply more strictly to custodians & enforcers of those same rules
So we mostly agree then. Neither of us would have acted any different about the 16k then. The 16k is a complete non-issue.
Rules must apply more strictly to custodians & enforcers of those same rules
What should and what is are rarely the same. To be politically aware is to be constantly confronted between the difference of what should, and what is.
I dunno, in the face of 5+ million (Reform), duck motes (Conservative), and an actual genocide (Labour), this feel like such a strange thing to devote this much energy to.
we mostly agree then
Yeah probably. If I found a score on the pavement I wouldn’t stick up any posters about it. 16k in notes? I might have that as well, no need to trouble the constabulary
should/is difference
This is where we diverge. Enforcers of ‘should’ even if they just recently inherited the responsibility should do as their own rules oblige them to do
strange thing to devote this much energy to
It’s the subject of the post. I’ll comment about other matters on other posts, energy allowing. I can’t always be bothered
This is where we diverge. Enforcers of ‘should’ even if they just recently inherited the responsibility should do as their own rules oblige them to do
Didn’t I say that she should have paid the tax? That’s what their own rules oblige them to do. I think we agree on this point too. Could you expand on why you think we diverge here?
If I found a score on the pavement I wouldn’t stick up any posters about it. 16k in notes? I might have that as well, no need to trouble the constabulary
You don’t think this happened. You don’t think this is analogous to what happend. If you were sacked from a job, given 16k, rehired for the exact same job, I wouldn’t expect you to give the 16k back.
Of course the sticking point exists in both the tax avoidance & reward for failure and of course I wouldn’t turn down the cash if it were me.
Why craft farcical hypotheticals about a point you already conceded?
It’s very possible that it’s late and i’m talking a lot of shit. But I think the point was that if you are appointed housing secretary and you get sacked for fucking up your own housing affairs, then you get paid off to the tune of sixteen grand (still on backbench salary mind you), then less than a year later you’re made housing secretary again, it looks pretty grim to keep the cash and the flat and go i’m alright cunts, how about you?
i am in favour of tax avoidance
Absolutely within her rights, stay mad.
Hahaha 🤣
COVID fraud costs: > £10,000,000,000
You’re mad about: £16,000 she was legitimately paid
Utterly deranged to focus on pennies while ignoring the daylight robbery.
Holy shit left field Batman
Where did you understand I am ok with COVID fraud? No need to make things up, friend. 👍
No matter how large the amount of public funds wasted it is all shameful. The answer was simple the first time this came up: pay your taxes. Surely you’re not defending tax avoidance?
The £16k has nothing to do with tax avoidance.
£16K is also so in the weeds, it’s a bizarre thing to focus on.
If your boss offers you severance pay take it, if they offer you your job back keep it!
The £16k has nothing to do with tax avoidance.
From the link
The Labour MP resigned as deputy prime minister and housing secretary in September 2025 after failing to pay enough tax on her £800,000 flat in Hove, which resulted in the exit payout.
£16K is also so in the weeds, it’s a bizarre thing to focus on.
Fair play to you if you think £16k is “in the weeds”. I don’t live such a lifestyle.
UK budget is >£1,300,000,000,000 and your focused on £16,000 that’s about a 1/3 of the cost of a single cop or 1/2 a binman.
Get some perspective pretending it’s a big deal is daily Mail shit.
Feel free to throw £16k my way then? Or a nurse. Or a junior doctor. Please. It’s not a big deal apparently?
I still can’t believe he put the stamp duty one back in charge of housing 💀
