Panama Papers

[trebor]

Conservative or Labour doesn't make a lot of difference to this argument in my opinion, as both governments have let the people down during their time in power, they don't want to upset the people with power and influence who support their parties and give them jobs after their terms of office come to an end, we have finally found the true meaning of " we are all in it together " its just not what we first thought it was

HMRC have suffered staff cuts in all recent years yet each investigator can bring in far far more than the salary they take from the taxpayer so why don't we have more, surely it's a no brainer ?

The Panama Papers seem to be huge so where is the HMRC resource coming from to look at them quickly and efficiently, the government will wait for it all to blow over and carry on as normal

Ok we have a register in this country now to show who the ultimate beneficiaries are of theses schemes, but that's no use when talking offshore as its not enforced, in fact that tax havens have as good as told the government to take a running jump

On Question Time last night Anna Soubery said that 1% of the population pay 18% of the tax take, so they obviously think that's enough and take some of their wealth elsewhere.

We should stop distinguishing between tax avoidance ( legal ) and tax evasion ( illegal ) as both are as bad

[topman]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

Yet (Mr & Mrs) Cameron make a £19,000 gain - does not pay any CGT because the then CGT allowance is just over £10,000 each - and this is a big story?

Yes - Cameron and his minions should have handled it MUCH better!!! - but it really is a non-event that the BBC and the Guardian have wet their knickers over.

Oh deary deary me.............

I would think that he's the PM, he's high profile and well known. Some stories, as they say, have got legs this is one of them. It'd be the same whatever flavour of PM was in office.

[topman]

Originally Posted by trebor

We should stop distinguishing between tax avoidance ( legal ) and tax evasion ( illegal ) as both are as bad

I think that's a bit unfair, plenty of avoidance schemes going like an ISA. I don't think they are bad

[wraymond]

Oh dear! The usual derogatory onslaught in the press (lefties in the main) and keyboard drivel from armchair heroes enslaved by their resentment of anybody who has ‘more’ than they do!

I suppose nobody understands Cameron’s reluctance to explain his deceased father’s affairs, which were and are entirely a private matter, and his feeling for the effect on his surviving mother? An explanation for his alleged duplicity in giving answers to rather rude and insolent questioners? Well, they have it right there!

Its family business, and an entirely honest and open-to-all and legal in every respect investment vehicle! All tax that was due was paid, none was secretly or deliberately hidden. Cameron quite rightly relinquished all attachments to the fund and ceased to have any entitlement to benefits from it upon his expectancy of becoming PM – exactly as he should have done. I wonder just how many of his critics have expectations of inheriting property or possessions from a beloved parent ? And how many will reject those legacies as being immorally derived?

He has behaved admirably throughout, so the objections and contrived criticisms come with a warning – whatever you do, don’t have the cheek to own more than me, don’t have the audacity to earn more than me, and divorce your crooked parents who obviously have earned more than mine. The politics of envy are our worst trait, and usually possessed by those least qualified to be listened to! By the way, I have never voted Conservative!

Now, where’s my hat?

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by wraymond

Oh dear! The usual derogatory onslaught in the press (lefties in the main) and keyboard drivel from armchair heroes enslaved by their resentment of anybody who has ‘more’ than they do!

I suppose nobody understands Cameron’s reluctance to explain his deceased father’s affairs, which were and are entirely a private matter, and his feeling for the effect on his surviving mother? An explanation for his alleged duplicity in giving answers to rather rude and insolent questioners? Well, they have it right there!

Its family business, and an entirely honest and open-to-all and legal in every respect investment vehicle! All tax that was due was paid, none was secretly or deliberately hidden. Cameron quite rightly relinquished all attachments to the fund and ceased to have any entitlement to benefits from it upon his expectancy of becoming PM – exactly as he should have done. I wonder just how many of his critics have expectations of inheriting property or possessions from a beloved parent ? And how many will reject those legacies as being immorally derived?

He has behaved admirably throughout, so the objections and contrived criticisms come with a warning – whatever you do, don’t have the cheek to own more than me, don’t have the audacity to earn more than me, and divorce your crooked parents who obviously have earned more than mine. The politics of envy are our worst trait, and usually possessed by those least qualified to be listened to! By the way, I have never voted Conservative!

Now, where’s my hat?

Well said that man! - As someone who has long since given up trying to discern a real difference from politicians of whatever colour I gain enormous amusement from the ravings of the Right Wing Daily Wail to The Guardianista and all MSM in-between

But the BBC and the Guardian do really scrape the barrel at times - Breakfast Time this morning was a classic when the interviewer Charlie Stayt refused to accept that Cameron had NOT avoided tax nor had he himself set up the offshore account.

Then Stayt a ridiculous comment and was told by Nick Boles that "Clearly the hight of Journalistic practice is to put words in peoples mouths".

The total put-down of the idiotic Stayt by Nick Boles is worth a watch.

The same cannot be said of the Guardian's reporting whose articles are a classic example of lies and misinformation.

Which - as I pointed out earlier - give the very real and documented tax avoidance by Labour Ministers and MP's that the Guardian ignores means that the Guardian has lost whatever moral compass it had.

A real shame for those of us who remember the Manchester Guardian and what a truly excellent Newspaper that was.

[trebor]

If he was so concerned about the effect on his family, he could surely have saved himself some pain then if he had given his last answer first so to speak, he must be very naive if he thought it would go away

And just what tax has been paid, none as far as i can see, the shares were subject to CGT but the profit on them was below the yearly allowance which is fair enough, but cant see that any tax has been paid under any different duties as it wouldnt be due.

Its not a question of who has the most its a question of fairness and i dont consider this government to be fair, they can talk about clamping down but what they actually do is not enough, look at how the Chancellor was ecstatic about his settlement with Google of £130m, yet the PAC criticised the settlement and said it was not enough considering the size of their business in the UK, and meanwhile the French ask Google for £1.3bn.

This is not a party thing it comes down to greed by a number of already wealthy individuals whoever they represent

[James.uk]

In my book the Cameron's have avoided paying tax in the past, and benefited from it for many many years.

For me, that should debar them from ever holding any sort of public office...
...

[Darcydog]

OK - so I hold a few quid in an ISA to avoid tax and that bars me from holding Public Office?

Ridiculous!!!

An Off-Shore account is as legal as an ISA and simply allows the gross role up of the funds whilst they are off-shore. Bring them back on-shore and a tax liability is due.

That is EXACTLY what Cameron did as he paid the full tax liability on the Dividends received here in the UK from the shares held offshore. The Investment was small and the gain over the years that the investment was held was below their combined (Mr & Mrs) CGT allowance.

This is all fast becoming an unedifying Witch-hunt by the ignorant and envious.

Nothing indicates this more to anyone with a modicum of common sense than the fatuous bollox issued by the opposition politicians. NEVER have I seen such a demonstration of exactly why Corbyn and his team of Trolls should never - ever be given power.

Lord help us all if they ever get it........

[KWIL]

One has to remember that Corbyn and his pals were let in by a silly "pay £3 and have a vote, let in an extremist left wing" by no less a person than "Ed", no wonder his brother went "offshore"

[wraymond]

One of the more hilarious anomalies in all this is most of his detractors enjoy occupational index linked pensions. Where do they think the £billions those employer's pension companies salt away their funds to provide a comfortable retirement for their (often trade union members) workers?

I'll tell those who don't know: Unit trusts, Investment trusts, hedge funds, emerging companies and new start-up businesses as well as the big multi-conglomerates - many of them tax-efficient or tax-neutral. It's called risk spreading by profile and is the bedrock of all major investment. It may be disappointing for some but the lawyers and investment managers have a fiduciary duty (by law) to get the very best return on their funds (subject to the schemes' stated objectives).

Now, let's start a queue for all those who want to give up 15% of their pension entitlement.....!


Just had to do an 'edit' on this, had a naughty thought after submitting it. A line by Saint Margaret at the Despatch Box: "I'm enjoying this!"