Ed Miliband poses as a man of the people, someone who empathises with the struggles of the poor and who would do anything to alleviate them. Wouldn’t you think then that tax loopholes would be beneath high minded leftie Ed, and that he would die rather than deprive the state of a penny of any tax owed? Especially since his dad Ralph, was a Marxist and don’t they believe that property is theft?
Not bloody likely! Before the death of life long Marxist Ralph Miliband, the family arranged a deed of variation, legally exploiting a tax loophole, whereby 40% of Ralph’s valuable Primrose Hill property was transferred to his sons, who each received a 20% share. This great reduced inheritance tax when dad Ralph finally passed away.
Property developers would applaud them, but eyebrows were raised sky high in the Labour party, because this was seen as betraying the family’s deeply entrenched socialist background. The Daily Mail reported: “The death duty loophole was named by Gordon Brown as one of 25 “tax abuses”. The Chancellor has complained that the wealthy regard inheritance tax as “voluntary”. There have been repeated reports that the Treasury was poised to ban such deeds of variation, but they remain an entirely legal device.”
So now we know! Ed might pretend to have Socialist beliefs, but when push comes to shove, and it comes down to making a fast buck, as far as the Miliband brothers are concerned, it’s no contest and the state can go hang, rather than they miss out. Like Ken Livingstone, Ed has his mouth full with criticisms of the banking sector, while himself taking advantage of tax loopholes. At heart, Ed is a true blue capitalist, just like Tony Blair and his brother.
Update 9th Feb., 2015: The Spectator points out that Labour has only paid £14,000 in tax last year (versus the Tories’ £187,000) on total income of £33.3m (versus the Tories’ £25.4m and the Lib Dems’ £7.3m – the Lib Dems paid just £14 tax). Read the shocking facts here!
Correction: “Karl Marx, although initially favourable to Proudhon’s work, later criticised, among other things, the expression “property is theft” as self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that “… ‘theft’ as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property…” and condemning Proudhon for entangling himself in “all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about true bourgeois property.”