Legal avoidance so the issue should be about limiting it by law.
The PM issue for me is about how the attempt to provide a limited response to spin it away backfired. Can we have a law against political spin? At least a fine surely....
@ Jambalaya , that french minister , Cahuzac , had to quit and is facing court in september .
Cameron and co have been telling us for years that there is no money left in the coffers , and have cut services and payments to a lot of people . And at the same time they are doing all they can to pay less tax on their personal affairs .
And at the same time they are doing all they can to pay less tax on their personal affairs .
Too many facts spoil the wrath...
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154110468338000&id=547512999
I see that Cameron still hasn't released his tax return.
😆 Keep digging that dry well why don't you - the more shrill and ridiculous the attempts to find some sort of impropriety that isn't there and create mountains out of molehills, the more it turns the public off as clear posturing.
As Thatcher said: "If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn't swim."
Keep digging that dry well why don't you - the more shrill and ridiculous the attempts to find some sort of impropriety that isn't and create mountains out of molehills
I think you completely misunderstand what's going on. What you dismiss as molehills goes to the very heart of the issue, which is that the rich live by a completely different set of rules to the rest of society. It's not about 30k here, or 100k there, it's about naked hypocrisy, which is quite a simple concept that everyone understands, everyone except Cameron and his apologists that is.
Andrew Marr show had a good discussion. Poly Toynbee openly said it is not a story about illegality or tax avoidance but about "being that rich" she also said "Ireland is effectively a tax haven"
which is that the rich live by a completely different set of rules to the rest of society. It's not about 30k here, or 100k there, it's about naked hypocrisy, which is quite a simple concept that everyone understands,
Shock, Horror, Tories in 'looking after the rich' controversy!
Stop the presses, hold the front page - everyones going to be aghast at this revelation, and if people only known before the election that David Cameron turned out to have been quite well off and probably had some shares and savings then they would [b]never[/b] have voted for him
😆
Stop the presses, hold the front page - everyones going to be aghast at this revelation
Don't be ridiculous. Is your argument in his defence that the public shouldn't be concerned or angry about their PM exercising double standards because they should have always known that because he's a tory that he would be like that and they shouldn't have been so naive?
Cameron turned out to have been quite well off and probably had some shares and savings
As you well know, the story is not about Cameron being rich and having some shares and savings, and you look quite silly suggesting it is.
see Corbyn is releasing his tax returns, interesting as absolutely no one is interested or has asked - shows this is all politics.
If Cameron released his tax returns and Corbyn didn't, you would be complaining about it.
As you well know, the story is not about Cameron being rich and having some shares and savings, and you look quite silly suggesting it is.
The truth is that since there has been no illegality or even anything that would fall into the bracket of aggressive tax avoidance, it is about precisely that - even if others are trying to make something else out of it for political gain.
Is there actually anything stopping us ordinary mortals doing exactly the same thing to reduce our tax liabilities if we wanted to?
Other than the knowledge and presumably the costs and fees making it uneconomic on the average wage?
the more it turns the public off as clear posturing.
Yes good point its been an unbelievably good week for the PM as he himself noted this week
Its been nothing but win and he might reveal some more stuff next week its been that good - one of your worst scribble.
Its really tiresome seeing the usual right wing suspects deny /refusing to accept what the actual issue- he probably did nothing wrong legally. Many find it questionable morally to have made his money in this way, to preach to us all about tax transparency and to claim we are all in it together.
Its really not complicated to grasp though it seems beyond the grasp of the right wing on here even with ad nauseum repetition
That is what Dave did initially and why he had such a bad week - except in the eyes of Ninfan
Is there actually anything stopping us ordinary mortals doing exactly the same thing to reduce our tax liabilities if we wanted to?
We already do. All of our pensions will invest in hedge funds and almost all hedge funds are based abroad - not for tax reasons.
This is a total non-story. Cameron's investment wasn't dubious by any standard at all.
The only reason the poor sod can't deny tax avoidance is because tax avoidance is such a broad term yhat everything you do avoids tax somewhere.
He's done literally nothing wrong at all by investing in this hedge fund and nothing that anyone with a pension doesn't have done by their pension fund as a matter of course.
Many find it questionable morally to have made his money in this way, to preach to us all about tax transparency
What exactly is not transparent?
It was a regulated fund, he declared it on his tax return.
OK its not morally questionable for the richest in our society to actively avoid taxation and their responsibility to society
Its admirable to think only of yourself and that is why Dave has been so highly praised this week and why Starbucks, Google Apple etc are held in such high regard for their tax affairs
MY bad
You can reject the argument but not seeing it takes effort.
nothing that anyone with a pension doesn't have done by their pension fund as a matter of course.
I can assure you my pension "fund" has no investments whatsoever.
These aren't hedge funds in that they rarely if ever "short" the markets. They are simply offshore accounts and trusts (money held by a trustee for a beneficiary).
There is no will to stop tax avoidance as those making the laws are avoiding tax. It requires one line on the income tax form to seriously discourage the use of off-shore secret accounts: "Money and property held overseas". With non declaration leading to automatic taxing at the highest rate plus a penalty and the possibility of a jail term. That's why Cahuzac is in court, simply for not declaring the foreign accounts.
You can reject the argument
I haven't rejected the argument because you haven't made the argument.
Which bit of this hedge fund wasn't transparent?
Which bit of this tax fund are you claiming avoided taxation?
When you explain that people can decide whether to reject it or not.
Please highlight where you think i said it was not transparent
I discussed morality.
As i said avoiding the issue takes effort and you seem determined to put the hard graft in
These aren't hedge funds in that they rarely if ever "short" the markets. They are simply offshore accounts and trusts (money held by a trustee for a beneficiary).
All the evidence I've seen says that this was not a trust. Cite your source, I've cited mine above.
I quoted your words about transparency.
But if you're denying saying either it seems you agree this fund was transparent and did not involve tax avoidance by any reasonable definition.
So which bit of the investment was immoral, and why?
"We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000’,
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/07/david-cameron-had-30000-in-offshore-accounts-5802624/#ixzz45QJflpOn
David Cameron
It's a question of intent.
When Cameron realised he'd win the election he sold up and paid tax. Now what he would have done had he not become prime minister (with a post term earnings capacity of millions a year), do you think he would have sold?
That's doesn't back up what you said, Edukator.
Ed lost the election as he had no Charisma, looked weak under attack from Sturgeon and most of all as Labour had zero economic credibilty
The press, with help from CMD and his chums ruthlessly character assassinated Miliband without mercy. How many times did the bacon sandwich picture get dragged up? To claim these tactics did not affect the result is wrong. I'm not saying he would have won or even been any use as PM but actual policies were put aside to concentrate on playground bullying.
They're going after CMD now so it'll be interesting to see if they call off the dogs at any point.
As you well know, the story is not about Cameron being rich and having some shares and savings
Hmmm, actually that looks exactly what the story is about (minus the shares currently, so it seems)
There is little if any thing exceptional in the tax details other than his "liquidity management" is ultra conservative - still staggered at anyone keeping £300k in a bank. Otherwise remarkably dull.
Of course, there is plenty of inflammatory language and subterfuge but little damning evidence at all. Lots of unsubstantiated BS about morals, hypocrisy etc and yet little substance behind it. A right tease.......
Hence I come back to the original question of why Dave's subterfuge. There's little here to damn any one, so what is really being hidden that justifies the nonsense earlier in the week?
Other than the knowledge and presumably the costs and fees making it uneconomic on the average wage?
I think that's close to the point - just how far from the lives of the ordinary electorate our Masters live, no matter how many times they appear in public in a hard hat or how many times they tell us "we're all in this together".
@chris yes as what he did was illegal - he's a (cosmetic?) surgeon - cash in hand then into swiss account ?
What Cameron's mum did is no different to Ronnie Corbert - cash gift hopefully more than 7yrs before dearh
Corbyn suggested bbc journalists should release tax returns - that would be very interesting lots of swerves available there
just how far from the lives of the ordinary electorate our Masters live
Quite a lot - as always - next?
But jambas - it was a big gift (two of them if I recall correctly) and THATS the point.
I have been out in S Downs since this morning and really hoped to come home to some meat on this story. Unless there is a real nugget waiting to be dug up, we have a rather desperate attempt to create something out of some pretty bland details.
Cmon you investigative journalists - live up to your name. It has to better than this......
Jambs, your Corbett obsession is staying to concern us all.
😆
It's only a pint-sized obsession though kimbers 😉
Just had a BBC news flash that dear Nicola has published her tax return. I hope it's more interesting and shows better financial nous. Their canny with their pounds in Scotland.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2016 ]The real reason Jezza + co are putting the boot in[/url]
I had no idea that Corbyn had so much power over Cameron !
All it took was a Skype interview with Tom Watson and a typically dry statement from Corbs and the PM has prostrated himself before the public....
It was a regulated fund, he declared it on his tax return.
we don't know, we haven't seen his tax return.
And there in lies most of Cameron problems. Whoever's advising him needs a hoof in the slats. How does the old spin line go. "say the truth, say it quickly and say it yourself"
he's still managing not to do that, 5 days of the press dragging the unremarkable details out like reluctant wisdom tooth, all the while looking increasing like he has something to hide, and he's still doing it!
"I'll release my tax return" says Dave...well, you haven't you've employed a firm of accountants to do a letter for you.
Cameron is uniquely worried about appearing to be a Eton Tory Toff, and you know, he's not done anything to help himself at all the last 7 days, what a chump.
Beyond just the tax element, back to other questions on the morality of offshore investments:
On top of nuclear weapons and massive toxic waste...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Honeywell is in the consortium that runs the Pantex Plant that assembles all of the nuclear bombs in the United States arsenal. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, successor to the defense products of AlliedSignal, operates the Kansas City Plant which produces and assembles 85 percent of the non-nuclear components of the bombs
Although declining in influence, Honeywell maintains a presence in emerging industries, such as Northern Alberta's oil sands. Honeywell's Plant integrator is currently deployed in some of the most important plant-sites in the Oil Sands (Syncrude, Suncor, and others).
The United States Environmental Protection Agency states that no corporation has been linked to a greater number of Superfund toxic waste sites than has Honeywell.
[img] 
[/img]
There's also the small matter of some of Honeywell's other defence interests.
During and after the Vietnam Era, Honeywell's defense division produced a number of products, including cluster bombs, missile guidance systems, napalm, and land mines.
[img] 
[/img]
What other enterprises does Blairmore Holdings support?
All of a sudden MPs are falling over themselves to publish their tax returns,
Well those, that don't employ standard rich person tax minimising techniques,
Poor Osborne's not even gonna get the chance to do a Gordon Brown
Bojos gotta be hoping that all this tax curiosity spotlight can be kept off him untill after the referendum and his leadership challenge
While MacDonald is suddenly getting a bit of public recognition as the voice of the average man (let's hope he keeps the Mao quotes to a minimum)
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/david-cameron-tax-dodging-cover-up-labour ]A good article by Marina Hyde on trickle down tax dodging[/url]
This sums up a lot of Daves problem...
[i]Explaining to Peston that “my dad was a man I love and miss every day”, Cameron admitted that he and his wife had in fact invested in Ian Cameron’s offshore firm Blairmore in 1997, then sold their stake in 2010 for “something like £30,000”. That Cameron’s shifty cover-up has been more damaging than his non-crime is almost too insultingly obvious to state. He will not be assisted by the subconscious dismissiveness in that styling – “something like £30,000”. There is a fine line between fastidious precision and sounding like something north of the average British salary is rather forgettable, and the PM fell on the wrong side of it.[/i]
At least her penultimate paragraph was worth cutting down a tree for. As for the rest...
So Dave statement tomorrow - will we find out what the fuss was about finally?
Of course we won't. There will be further evasion and vague platitudes. At the most basic fundamental level, he just doesn't get it. And he's clearly very, very, very annoyed, as he always is, when anyone has the audacity to question him. Do they not know who he is?
That a shame then, as the accusation are baseless so far.
Frankly you would expect better from a broadsheet that "prat" - your lady friend doesn't seem to realise 😉
On the contrary Thm it's Camerons bs,and waffle that has caused all the deforestation edit
It'll be another angry statement about how he's done nothing bad, and hes gonna be really strict on tax dodgers, [u]and[/u] he's published his tax returns (sort of), oh and labour were really bad and it's all their fault, obvs
but will once again fail to understand that to most of the electorate aggressive avoidance vs evasion vs avoidance......are all the same thing.
Ultimately I think he just doesn't understand that the majority of people in this country will never see the funds that offshore Dave seems to so casually dismiss.
50% of all UK households have less than 1.5k in savings, in fact over a third have £0.
Politics of envy I hear you cry! living with no spare money or especially in debt is tough enough without our uber privileged PM getting all puffy faced and angry because he did 'nothing wrong and has broken no laws'
That he just cannot grasp this is the only reason that this has been such a PR balls up
YOU neither quoted me nor can you porve your claim becaus eoi never said itI quoted your words about transparency.
what he did was legal.But if you're denying saying either it seems you agree this fund was transparent and did not involve tax avoidance by any reasonable definition.
I really dont think explaining it for 10 th time will help but i have answered that.So which bit of the investment was immoral, and why?
Even Dave kbow why - that is why he sold them before becoming PM and why he was so evasive in his 5 days of non answers. Ask him if the multiple of answers on here have not led you to understand.
If you have not worked it out so far you will still be [ deliberately ] confused tomorrow.
will we find out what the fuss was about finally?
Just seen this on twitter:
Tomorrow Cameron will face MPs for the 1st time since the tax scandal broke. Here are 10 questions needing an answer:[img]
[/img]
also:
Panama Papers. This is the govt official who will lead UK inquiry. You couldn't make it up.[img]
[/img]
