Angela Rayner Dodges £40,000 Stamp Duty
Angela Rayner saved £40,000 in stamp duty on her new seaside flat after telling tax authorities it was her main home, despite telling the local council in Manchester that her house there is her primary residence. The Telegraph has more.
The Deputy Prime Minister is understood to have removed her name from the deeds of her house in Greater Manchester a few weeks before buying an £800,000 seaside flat in Hove, East Sussex.
The changes enabled Ms Rayner to avoid paying £70,000 in stamp duty, which would have been applicable if Hove was her second home. Instead, she is thought to have paid £30,000 in stamp duty, saving her £40,000 in the process.
But she has also told Tameside council in Manchester that her constituency house remains her primary residence and informed Brighton and Hove council that her apartment there was a second home for council tax purposes.
Although the changes are entirely legal, the arrangements will raise questions over whether she has deliberately conducted her property affairs to pay less stamp duty and council tax.
On Friday, a Government Minister insisted Ms Rayner’s actions were “not an issue” but some in Labour warned that her actions would only add to growing distrust in the party.
One Labour MP said that the revelations about Ms Rayner “really don’t look good” and would add to public anger with the party at a difficult time for the Government.
They told the Telegraph: “For ordinary people who are struggling, it doesn’t correspond to how people live their lives. She’s got a house in Ashton, a flat in London and now she’s got a house in Brighton.
“These options aren’t available to ordinary people and I don’t think MPs or Ministers or even the Deputy Prime Minister should live a life that is so far away from the lives of ordinary people.
“It breeds resentment, and understandably. I think there is a serious danger it will become a further distraction. We all have to think about every single action we take to make sure that it doesn’t deepen the sense of distrust that already exists in the country.”
The issue over Rayner’s three homes is not, of course, that she has two properties and a grace-and-favour apartment – she’s allowed to spend and invest her money how she wants. It’s that her department is currently cracking down on second home ownership, meaning it reeks of hypocrisy, particularly in light of the latest revelations that suggest she is playing the system. Plus she claims to be a socialist. Plus: where is the money coming from?
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Rayner is now facing an ethics investigation after the Tories on Friday night referred her to Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, saying her behaviour had been “unethical” and accusing her of “hypocritical tax avoidance by a minister who supports higher taxes on family homes, high-value homes and second homes”. According to the Telegraph, Magnus will decide in the coming days whether to launch an investigation.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
That picture: Rayner attempts to cross the Channel in a small boat to claim asylum in France. Turned back by French border control.
It seems a good way to deter the rubber boats
Following the ‘champagne socialist’ playbook to a tee… “these rules don’t apply to US, they are for the ordinary people!”
Where did she get the money? Who owns her? She is an ugly streetwalker. A cheap whore I would guess.
Christian humility should stop me from using derogatory terms about my fellow human beings… but I have to say that your description of Rayner as “a cheap whore” is not something that I necessarily disagree with.
Hey, whoever downvoted me… don’t take it personally, it’s just that… she is not my type. It’s OK, you can still like her. There is no accounting for taste.
No accounting for poor taste!
I am normally very attracted to gingers, three of my six girlfriends have been just that, however, I find this one deeply unattractive.
I wholeheartedly agree that gingers can be astonishingly, breathtakingly beautiful.
I married the last one; temperament like a lit firecracker. Love her still.
‘Christian hypocrisy’ would be more apt. After all, it’s the self-proclaimed ‘good Christians’ on here that consistently demonstrate they’re anything but, whilst having the nerve to pass judgement and think themselves superior to anybody who thinks ( also acts or looks ) differently to them.
The ‘good Christian’ you’re engaging with once wished I’d get myocarditis, for example, due to a difference of opinion. I’ve observed you lot do have problems with integrity and practicing what you preach. Lots of unnecessary nastiness in people’s posts. Is that what your ‘good book’ teaches?
But behold, my comment will disappear into the ether, and your’s will remain…3, 2, 1… 🎆
Hey, Mogwai, No hard feelings. I totally understand your argument and your criticism is, unfortunately, valid about a large number of people. Just for the record: I don’t wish anything bad to Angela Rayner and likewise, I wish you a very happy and long life. You are a great contributor to the debate going on here; sometimes our opinions differ and sometimes they are very similar but that’s the nature of a debating forum. We don’t want to turn this place into an echo chamber. Christian hypocrisy is real and I have no doubt that I possess a large element of it. This, coupled with a certain feeling of superiority can make Christians look positively nauseating and I am fully aware of this side of our personality. To our excuse: we are only human. Having faith in Christ unfortunately does not make us better, certainly not automatically. At the same time, I have to be honest, I personally think Angela Rayner does look rather vulgar. So it would be hypocritical of me to pretend otherwise. Maybe I should have kept this opinion to myself, but hey-ho, here we are. Again, I repeat: I do not have any ill wishes towards… Read more »
Thanks for your response. As an aside, if there’s anybody responsible for turning this place into an echo chamber it’s the mods ( is there even more than one? 🤔 )
Speaking from personal experience, when you have your posts heavily edited or outright deleted, you’re immediately denying that person their right of reply or to bring a counter-argument to the table, which obviously results in debate being stifled and comes across like an agenda is being pushed, and the fact it flies in the face of what’s supposed to be a pro-free speech site seems even more ludicrous to me. There’s all manner of posts been allowed to stay up ( and I’m not for censoring anybody else ) yet I’ve been censored multiple times. I get the impression dissenters who don’t go along with the majority are doomed.😕
I think the mods just can’t handle a maverick poster, such as myself, and are probably like: “How do we solve a problem like Mogwai…?”🎶🪗🤭
Well, I don’t know what they censored you for, but then again, if we can’t read the comment then how do we know what they considered unacceptable?
My only idea is that perhaps there are some legal concerns about some posts, like prejudicing ongoing legal cases. But this is just a guess.
With regard to maverick posters, well, I thought that was the purpose of the Daily Sceptic. After all, it’s not like we are perfectly aligned with the mainstream narrative, are we?
Angela Rayner is vulgar. She behaves in a vulgar manner and speaks like an uneducated tramp… well obviously I suppose. She is a tax dodger. I cannot think of one single redeeming accolade that might befit her. To make matters worse this rough as a bear’s arse creature is Deputy Prime Minister. I suppose she really does epitomise the state of Britain today, to our eternal shame.
“I suppose she really does epitomise the state of Britain today, to our eternal shame.”
Yes, I often wonder how we got here. From Winston Churchill to Starmer and Rayner. Depressing thought.
Thanks 👍
I think it’s safe to say the entire Labour front bench come across as decidedly underwhelming, sub-par amateurs who have complete disregard ( even contempt ) for the concerns and predicament of the British public. And I’m not judging them on their looks, but on their actions. Some have been nothing short of embarrassing, such as Lammy, and who can forget Reeves having a very public mental breakdown in Parliament?
If I were to pass comment at all on Rayner’s aesthetics, I’d say her fashion sense is absolutely dire, but if she were any good at all at her job and demonstrated real integrity as a person then I could overlook something so superficial.
If we want to criticise people in the looks department I’d say Boris Johnson went his entire time as PM without a decent haircut and an obvious aversion to a hairbrush. He may have had a posh voice and went to a poncy school but he came across as a complete clownish buffoon who undeniably took a wrecking ball to the UK and its populace on multiple levels during his stint at number 10.
Dressing badly on not just MP’s wages but Deputy PM wages is a direct and intended two fingers to the electorate. Ranting really sums up Britain.
The shame felt for her lack of morals would mantle the cheeks of a thrupenny trull. Probably wouldn’t get paid such an exorbitant sum though.
What a turn of phrase!
So, the delightful and amazing Angela Rayner told one tax authority that one home was her main home, and another tax authority than a different home was her main home. Therefore she’s lying about one of these. Therefore she’s an utterly contemptible little cheat.
Apparently it’s ‘entirely legal’ to do this!
Jeff, the miraculous transformation between two distinct “main homes” is nothing.
Apparently a man can become a woman too!
The magic of the madleft, eh?
“Therefore she’s an utterly contemptible little cheat.”
And therefore will soon be in court to answer appropriate charges of wilful tax avoidance. Oh, err, hang on…
Two tier Britain.
Two tier journalism too. Angela Rayner (Labour) does something apparently legal and possibly hypocritical and the media rush to excuse her. A Conservative or Reform major character does something apparently legal but is fiercely criticised by the media for the ‘look of the thing’.
Labour – for the many, not the few!
You mean “for the money, not the few”?
For money for the few ?
Yes Ms Rayner, where did the money come from?
Poor people pay taxes, rich people pay tax advisors isn’t exactly an exciting, new discovery. If Rayner didn’t break any laws, the laws are the problem here and not her exploiting them for her own benefit as good as she can.
A professional accountant might call it ‘tax efficiency’. Might have been economical with the truth with different local authorities, though.
Is she going to vote in all three constituencies in the same way she commited election fraud with her earlier two homes?
I’ll say no more
I do not see how someone can simultaneously claim to one Authority that a property is your main home whilst claiming to another Authority that it is your second one …. avoid paying £tens of thousands in tax …. and get away with it.
But we’re talking about Westminster and a Prize Pig of the Labour Party Variety, so I expect we’ll be told that “all the rules were followed” and nothing will happen.
Surely if she lied, she should be treated like any other citizen in this country.
Where exactly has she found the money for all of this? And surely should be classed as tax evasion?.