this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
13 points (88.2% liked)

UK Politics

4259 readers
340 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't know what people are so upset about. She only failed to pay a little bit of tax. Hundreds of bankers and multinationals so the same and nobody says anything.

Oh wait... ๐Ÿ˜…

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Would you be happy then if the next Tory politician found avoiding tax said:

This is fiendishly complex law that can easily be missed, the trust was set up to try and give my family stuff.

I agree this is probably been elevated as a story because of who she is, but I think it's right that she gets called out for this type of thing. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to tax evasion not matter how small. People need to pay their fair share of tax!

[โ€“] FarceOfWill 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Right but they're usually doing something complicated to pay less tax.

Getting that wrong and underpaying is much worse than doing something complicated to deal with a complicated family issue, and the advisors missing an incredibly tough point combining multiple specialities.

[โ€“] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If it was a Tory they probably would have refused to resign and they would have kept their job.

Very true that people should pay their taxes, I agree with that. So maybe Rayner should have been allowed to pay the correct tax, and any penalties for late payment, and then she could have kept her job.

[โ€“] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

Probably a fair outcome if I'm honest.

However politically speaking Labour know they can bang on about "rich people not paying tax" as an election slogan. This, apparently, is such a powerful weapon in their arsenal that any insinuating that the Labour top brass are also tax evaders cannot be tolerated. If she was allowed to simply pay back the tax plus penalties then this blunts future use of the "rich people pay your taxes" weapon. It's a shame really but that's politics.

[โ€“] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Setting up trusts is entirely legal, and there are some good reasons for it to continue to be so. Tax evasion is not one of those reasons, though.

But, having had long dealings with our good friends at HMRC, I can agree that even with expert tax advice, some of the regulations are extremely Byzantime and often irrational.

In this case, Rayner's sacking had nothing to do with criminal intent, but more to do with Starmer's fear of the fascist press (which he should have done a Leveson on as soon as Labour got into office).