How many more are lurking out there in secret, in the tropical waters, like a giant great white shark waiting to surface and take down Offshore Dave?
Not sure if any of it adds additional credibility to this aspect, but hey, all good for bumping purposes yo
The Carroll Foundation Trust files are held within a complete lockdown at the FBI Washington DC field office and the Metropolitan Police Scotland Yard London under the supervision of the Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe who has an intimate knowledge of this case which stretches the globe.
The BAE, HSBC and Al Yamamah aspects are certainly worth pursuing though, on many levels.
So much of the 'rich person' tax avoidance (the kind the papers care about) boils down to 'living somewhere else', or 'having your company somewhere else'.
This is a wrong-headed comment. Firstly, there's practically bugger all "living somewhere else" going on. Living somewhere else is basically a fair deal: if you don't want to contribute to society through the medium of taxes, then you should go and live in a society that shares your values. However, practically the opposite occurs: we have a boatload of non-doms who live in this society but are not required to make the same financial contributions the rest of us make.
Second, again, there is nothing wrong with people doing business abroad. Go west, young man - sell fridges to Eskimos or sand to Arabs if you're good at it. The thing that pisses everyone off is people doing business here and then sending the resulting revenue to spurious companies that do nothing substantive in jurisdictions where the business does nothing, purely for the purpose of dodging tax, avoiding disclosure or laundering the funds.
Yes @kona thats my point but its companies like Apple/Amazon/Google/Facebook who are doing that to the tune of many many billions - it makes the Cameron IHT planning or even Phillip Green/TopShop look absolutely miniscule. Focus on the big stuff, the stuff we can see in plain view
Yes but do we trust Dave to sort it?
Cameron to publish 6 years of tax returns - from when he was PM. Personally I think thats a mistake and a bad precident as its a private matter and in this country we have a problem with financially successful people, we'll just emd up with even more mediocrity than we have now
This article is oretty balanced, it also notes the substantial difference between Cameron paying full tax on £19k pa income and Jimmy Carr who paid 1% tax on £3.3m pa
[url= http://news.vice.com/article/did-david-cameron-do-anything-wrong-by-having-shares-in-an-offshore-fund ]Link[/url]
More mediocre than Dave?!?!
It is a good link, but iirc Carr backed out so ended up paying full tax?
Either way on the scale of tax avoidance Offshore Daves wasn't that much, its the double standards that's the problem and the way it had to be dragged out of him that makes you wonder what else he's not admitted.
Much more @kimbers - the cabinet and shadow cabinet are the stars below that it gets quite scary and local government is a shocker
@mefty I am only trying to point oit there are many people happy to be based in different locations for all sorts of reasons. I bet you Andy Murray is not tax resident in the UK, why would he chose to be "morals" or not
the real problem is that some of us measure success simply by wealthin this country we have a problem with financially successful people, we'll just emd up with even more mediocrity than we have now
Furthermore we have a problem - and lets be honest you keep listing examples so you know this - with wealthy folk/companies who avoid tax. Where we disagree is you blame the EU,attack everyone else from carr to corbyn to been to whomever and only defend Dave.
Looking at Daves his wealth comes from his dad and his wife- none of his jobs really paid that well though he is not poor.
Either way the real issue is the say one thing - talks tough about tax transparency and stamping out tax havens - and doing another - using them, benefitting from them and stopping the EU regulating them. The issue is not really whether he paid tax- thats why he avoiding answering the question initially and prevaricated.
This may be unfair on him but at least get what the problem is as a number of folk have told you now.
Personally I think thats a mistake and a bad precident as its a private matter and in this country we have a problem with financially successful people, we'll just emd up with even more mediocrity than we have now
Is mediocrity a nurse that has to wipe arses and dress leg sores to keep someone alive, with no access to Panama accounts for their meagre pay?
People of privilage seem to have one rule, whilst everyone else has another. I keep hearing that Cameron has done mothing illegal. Neither has Google. It does not wash with me.
in this country we have a problem with financially successful people,
[i]what[/i]ever
So sixteen pages in and lots of accusations made. But have we clarified if there has been any tax avoidance? Mefty provided a link that concluded NO very clearly. But the STW massive has not come up with evidence to suggest that this is wrong....c'mon lets get our acts together, this is serious.
Otherwise we still are in a situation where nothing dodgy happened and yet Dave behaved in a manner the suggests otherwise. Will the Sunday papers tell us more, or will people have to withdraw their accusations?
Problem with financiall successful people? Look around the country today - many thousands of people will willingly gather together spending their hard earned dosh to support a bunch of very financial successfully people who actively engage in "active management" of their financial affairs and play in a sport the is riddled with dodgy dealings - look at its most celebrated star of today. We seem very happy with their success and the means employed to achieve the ends.
So like Dave their seems to be a lot of guilt by association.
I bet you Andy Murray is not tax resident in the UK, why would he chose to be "morals" or not
He is - he lives in Cobham next to a friend of mine.
teamhurtmore - MemberThere is no tax avoidance caus football
People of privilage seem to have one rule, whilst everyone else has another. I keep hearing that Cameron has done mothing illegal. Neither has Google. It does not wash with me.
Otherwise we still are in a situation where nothing dodgy happened and yet Dave behaved in a manner the suggests otherwise.
Regardless of the common knowledge that offshore accounts are often used to hide criminal and morally questionable activity, who makes the tax rules in the 1st place?
And how is it that the number of billionaires has increased since the financial crash, yet austerity continues as 'we're all in it together'?
@thm - I suggest 16 pages in and it demonstrates that some people are discussing the subject by reducing it to laws and numbers and others are discussing the subject by looking at the bigger picture and how it relates to overall societal values...neither side will ever agree.
@mefty owns a house yes but is he tax resident ? I don't know for certain but I am making a guess based on the ofher tennis players. I very much doubt he spends more than 90 days in UK so why be tax resident ?
Re above a nurse is doing a very valuable job, my reference was to those in Parliament. Our MPs are paid materially less than those in other countries (Merkel and Hollande are on double money Cameron is ?) we get what we pay for.
There are many ways to judge success but demonising people for having money or being financially successful is a Brttish disease imo
Shared values/tax - so Switzerland doesn't share our values, or Portugal where you can retire tax free for 10 years, or Luxembourg or Ireland (in the past writers and musicians where largely tax free) or even the US ?
@eden if I may say so I am doing both. The bigger picture is tax avoidance by companies incliding in relation to the internet business models.
Our MPs are paid materially less than those in other countries (Merkel and Hollande are on double money Cameron is ?) we get what we pay for.
🙁
Do you reckon if Tony Blair was paid better, he wouldn't have gone on the rampage once his time as PM was up?
Would John Major not have joined the very dodgy indeed Carlyle Group if the wages were better?
Or is the military industrial complex which is sold as democracy a bit long in the tooth on a planet with finite resources and delicate ecosystems...
Rampage or Middle East Peace Envoy as appointed by the UN ? Blair is perfectly entitled to earn a living as is Major. By paying more we would attract better quality people. The heads of many local authrorities are paid more than double an MP
Nurses don't generally have extensive links to the arms trade, fracking or indeed secretive offshore finance...
They [i]just[/i] make people feel better and save lives
By paying more we would attract better quality people
Or greedier...
By not allowing other jobs/ incomes we would get better people. FACT!
@ctk - yes agreed I would make being an MP a full time job, no others allowed. None of this nonsense about being a dentist at fhe same time for example
@mefty I think we all know really that Murray's sponsorship deals, endorsement revenues even probably prize money will be paid to a "management company" incorporated outside the UK. Andy needs money to live on so may declare that as dividends or I bet a chunk as loans, who financed his house ?
demonising people for having money or being financially successful is a Brttish disease imo
You sure its not making up straw men when folk are just saying that the most successful ought to pay a fair rate of tax? Granted its much easier to just shout politics of envy than defend what they , some of them anyway, do to avoid their moral responsibility. Thats why you attack the motives of the people making the points [ with a false and made up argument] rather than the point they are making
Perhaps we would just attract the very greedy who are more interested in serving their own narrow self interest that the good of the country/ all?By paying more we would attract better quality people
If you want to get into politics or being the PM for your own personal betterment and financial well being then - tbh- I am perfectly happy to discourage these people from becoming MP's even if you think this attribute makes them "better" suited to the job in hand. It does not as the constant array of scandals and payments demonstrates. We never applaud them for their financial astuteness when it comes out in the wash do we.
I think we all know really that Murray's sponsorship deals, endorsement revenues even probably prize money will be paid to a "management company" incorporated outside the UK.
I don't know for certain but I am making a guess based on the ofher tennis players.
Right so you dont know for sure but we all know really.
Whatever.
I guess he pays all his tax, helps old ladies cross the road, is kind to cats and likes smoothies for supper. I have just as much evidence to support this wild speculation as you have - NONE at all.
Either he has suddenly become totally incompetent at PR or there is a little bit more behind this story. On balance, I am siding with the latter as there is not alternative reason why this has been blown up to this extent.
As I said a few pages back, this has the potential to be bigger than the expenses scandal. It may well have begun with a 'non-story' about 30k invested before he was PM, but now the Pandoras box is open, I expect there will be a steady drip feed of new revelations about Cameron, and also the likes of Osborne and other senior tories. They are up to the neck in it, and I can only imagine the panic behind the scenes while they scramble to cover up their financial affairs. Nice to also see the Labour party finally on the ball. I was surprised not to hear hysterical calls for Cameron's resignation but their call for complete transparency and disclosure along with urgent action on tax avoidance is far more effective.
Interesting this argument. From what I can see DC is finished cause he was economical with the actual situation (he may have more to be open about), he was doing something he felt was not quite right so he tried to keep quiet. That's a tad questionable. However he has not broken the law but he is now the target for all things dodgy around tax fiddling because of who he is. The hysterical anti tories will bang on about him but not have the balls to accuse him unless they have proof of something. I wonder what else is out there to get at him with? I suspect there is more to come about others but Cameroon is the easy meat at the moment. Some in the Labour Party are being a little more measured at present until they can really prove something or perhaps until a little personal cleaning has been done. I suspect there are any number of people having a little look into there personal wealth holding. Hope what happens next does not effect pension funds.
My prediction is.............he'll be stabbed in the back by his own team with in less than a year.
Edit, wrong word
Anyway, the public debate about what's in these papers has moved on from corruption and money laundering to the entirely legal tax affairs of David Cameron. Seems like a result.
Despots and real criminals will have breathed a collective sigh of relief.
Despots and real criminals will have breathed a collective sigh of relief.
+1
“I know I should have handled this better,” he said. “I could have handled this better. I know there are lessons to learn and I will learn them. And don’t blame number 10 Downing Street, or nameless advisers, blame me. And I will learn the lessons.”Cameron said he was “very angry about what people were saying about my dad”.
“I love my dad. I miss him every day,” he said. “He was a wonderful father and I’m very proud of everything he did.”
I think he had shot himself in the foot there. Much of what his dad did was tax evasion for the uber rich - possibly involving dodgy but "legal" actions.
He cannot get tough on tax avoidance if he is "proud " of someone who does this.
I actually feel sorry for him in a sense- what is he meant to do - yes my Dad was a tax avoid shit and i want to come down hard on people like him [ and me] who benefitted from behaving like this.
He loves his dad, this may cost him , as some of what his dad did was morally dubious and it is politically suicidal to defend this - he does not seem to have learnt this lesson yet.
Whenever Cameron is in trouble he drags out a dead family member.
All this 'politics of envy' stuff - do you ever hear anyone slagging off James Dyson or JK Rowling for being rich and successful?
So so far we have not established that Dave did anything wrong - yet
Despite the wild accusations made ^ we havent established that Dave's old man has done anything wrong yet
Can someone in the investment trust/bit trust industry help me out here - because I think that I have investments in mainstream funds run by household names that are/were also domiciled x-UK and I need to know if I am about to go to jail (or get abuse in social media) too! Don't want to get too hypocritical here....
Its bad enough wearing the shame of using google, amazon and buying coffee from Starbucks but if the likes of the mighty global investment houses are as bad, I am doomed.
So so far we have not established that Dave did anything wrong - yet
For an appropriate definition of "wrong".
well c'mon Dr - help me out
the mirror in an otherwise sensational article, concluded that no one had done anything wrong
the guardian makes the difference between Blairmore and the type of funds I invest in as being (1) minimum subscription and (2) original place of domicile Panama v Luxembourg and/or Ireland - but again cant pin anything down on being wrong - but (phew) their moral judgements against my low subscription, mainstream funds domiciled in Ireland are light, so I am not a wicked man like the Camerons or so it seems....
so why the angst and why is Dave being shifty? so far, hyperbole and froth aside, there is no reason that has been clearly articulated...and yet we have abuse and calls for resignation etc.
all very odd
Help you out?C'mon
Are you not reading the thread?
Is what he did[ or his dad] morally correct?
Its that simple a question
I am amazed you need this clarifying tbh and I wonder how many people need to say it for you to grasp this point.
Woody Allen did nothing wrong [legally] but I think many would be asking questions about his moral judgement - especially , were he PM,if he was espousing family values as dave is in tax transparency.
Its really not complicated.
Dave has apologised for the way 'he's handled the situation'.
Dave, we're not pissed off with you because we think you've handled this badly, we're pissed off with you because it looks a lot like you've been taking the piss out of tax loopholes that YOU'VE helped maintain/establish. All of this while telling us that we need to tighten our belts, and we're all in this together.
**nt.
(Of course no-one's done anything 'wrong', that's the point of a loophole)
I've been trying to explain to my South African partner what the difference is between breaking the law and "bad form" but I'm getting nowhere! 😉
a dead family member.
I think Cameron is a complete bellend and morally corrupt person, but I think what you said is very unfair and actually quite awful.
By paying more we would attract better quality people.
By replacing elections with an auction process, we would get the best quality people.
ahwiles - so why are the experts unable to highlight where Dave has done anything different to any other investor in a unit trust at the time and now - I am not sure on the now bit tbf and have been trying to find an explanantion, the experts cant give me one, the guardian ditto and the mirror said "nothing"
so still think there must be something else or alternatively a non-story other than Dave is rich and his father was even richer.
There has been an specific tax regime in place for offshore funds since, if I recall correctly, 1984. The method of charging is different to that of an onshore fund. This is not an avoidance code, it exists because a fair system of taxation was required for what was happening for a variety of reasons - abolition of exchange controls, etc. No loophole, no avoidance etc.
EDIT: Here is a link to the HMRC manual on the subject and it was 1984.
[url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ofmanual/ ]HMRC Manual[/url]
