The Panama Papers.

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.

Probably has a (little) Corbett Shrine…

@jive why don’t you watch The Big Short

Britons spending typical Sunday giving £200,000 to their children

The real reason Jezza + co are putting the boot in

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…

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.

[/quote]

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.

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)

A good article by Marina Hyde on trickle down tax dodging

This sums up a lot of Daves problem…

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.

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, and 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

I quoted your words about transparency.

YOU neither quoted me nor can you porve your claim becaus eoi never said it

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.

what he did was legal.

So which bit of the investment was immoral, and why?

I really dont think explaining it for 10 th time will help but i have answered that.

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.

will we find out what the fuss was about finally?

If you have not worked it out so far you will still be [ deliberately ] confused tomorrow.

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:

also:

Panama Papers. This is the govt official who will lead UK inquiry. You couldn’t make it up.

I agree with the spirit of most of the questions on the first one but on the second one – it’s a big law firm and he quite easily might not have had the slightest clue it was acting for Blairmore. Neither does it necessarily means he GAS about Blairmore’s interests. It does illustrate how incestuous that world is, true. Is there a suggestion he knew about the Blairmore advice? I can’t read the text on the screenshot

Is there a suggestion he knew about the Blairmore advice?

No, the article is a hatchet job, full of implication without any back up, the guy was seconded to the Treasury in the 90s, can’t remember the exact date, then returned to practice before transferring back to the government permanently in 2004. He is a policy guy.

50% of all UK households have less than 1.5k in savings, in fact over a third have £0

Indeed and they have access to the same education, healthcare and welfare support system as those with £100k in the bank and the right to apply for social housing too.

@kimbers I keep mentioning Ronnie C as its the most recent relatively high ( 😉 ) profile example of avoiding IHT.

@Edukator – hedge funds not uncommon in UK pension funds, the BT company scheme is pretty active and other pension companies tend to have allocations often branded as “actively managed”. For example the very large Californian Teachers scheme was a massive investor until recently but pulled out due to low returns – nothing to do with tax. Pension funds look for tax free investments (inc offshore funds) as they (generally) pay no tax

they have access to the same education, healthcare and welfare support system as those with £100k

Not in reality they don’t.