The Panama Papers.

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 just 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

By paying more we would attract better quality people

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?

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?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-billionaires-who-do-pay-their-bills-including-james-dyson-and-jk-rowling-7873607.html

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.

HMRC Manual[/url]

The something has been said by many, both before and after you asked it, to you but you just willfully choose to ignore it and make up the ludicrous straw man that its just because he is rich 🙄

Why are you on a chat forum if you are going to ignore the answers and just plow your lone furrow of fallacious arguing that defeat points no one made?

it looks a lot like you’ve been taking the piss out of tax loopholes that YOU’VE helped maintain/establish.

I can’t see anything in the news reports to support this. He’s paid income tax at his marginal rate (40% modulo normal dividend tax rates) on the income, and the capital gains were below the threshold. Which all sounds like the same as if the shares had been in a UK investment trust held outside an ISA. Is there something else?

EDIT: @JY, what’s the something? Thanks.

Yes there is something else it has been mentioned on this page numerous times if you are struggling to work out the issue is- Again its not hard to see what the issue is even if you disagree with the reasoning.

Why are folk pretending they dont know what the issue is?
Odd “debating technique”.

Perhap syou and THM can get together and wallow in your willful ennui ?

Let’s just pretend for the moment that I just haven’t read every post on this thread – what’s the something that I’m supposed to know about?

Ta.

Lol, he wasn’t even avoiding tax:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154110468338000&id=547512999

Lol, he wasn’t even avoiding tax:

Whilst the conclusion is right, that bloke’s reasoning isn’t great.

Thanks mefty – I will have a read over coffee – I was hoping that you would be able to help

If I recall correctly the unit trusts that I have invested in are registred in places like Ireland and Luxembourg. I am hazy on the reasons but can only assume that this is also for tax reasons – the Guardian seemed to be suggesting that they are in EU therefore kosher but that seems to be a bit vague to me.

Like CMD I have invested in unit trusts (Fido, Blackrock, Schroders etc) and paid tax on the proceeds. What is the difference between this and what Dave has done – or should I also be hung out to dry too?

google is not your friend here – at least not so far

thx again mefty, need to wash up first, then will read over coffee

Let’s just pretend for the moment that I just haven’t read every post on this thread – what’s the something that I’m supposed to know about?

Ta.

Its ok just read this page as THM asked the same question
All this page – not meant to appear shitty as it may well read that way
mt

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.

ahwiles

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.
ME
Is what he did[ or his dad] morally correct?

Its that simple a question

What is the difference between this and what Dave has done – or should I also be hung out to dry too?

Are you the PM?
Are you presiding over a Campaign to remove the scourge of tax havens that blight us ?
Do you think the PM will be held to higher standard than you – he does why do you think he sold his shares?

Surely even you can see a difference between you as a private individual and our elected PM? though of course you dine with MPs more often than dave 😉

Its tragic watching you pretend you dont get it. At least defeat the argument being made – hell at least even try

Is what he did morally justifiable?

Its that complicated.

Radio 4 was a cracker:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qdlwc

😀

Are you the PM?

No.

Are you presiding over a Campaign to remove the scourge of tax havens that blight us ?

No.

Surely even you can see a difference between you as a private individual and our elected PM?

No. We both have to pay tax.

So far, it looks like he’s been doing that. And I’m not seeing any evidence that Cameron has tried to use elaborate schemes to avoid paying tax.

If I recall correctly the unit trusts that I have invested in are registred in places like Ireland and Luxembourg.

They are in the Ireland/Luxembourg so they can be marketed to retail investors in the EU, so it is partly a distribution reason, but they also don’t pay any tax, however, you are unlikely to pay any tax in the UK on these sorts of funds – see here for government summary. However, you have to manage it in the UK whereas in Ireland and Luxembourg it is much easier (and cheaper) because you know you wont have a liaibilty.

So far, it looks like he’s been doing that. And I’m not seeing any evidence that Cameron has tried to use elaborate schemes to avoid paying tax.

Because there isn’t one, he really has done nothing remotely wrong.

The fund is so dodgy that it can be included in an ISA.

Just don’t look too closely into Honeywell’s dealings.

(Or the extensive involvement of SG Hambros and their global offshore network)