PDA

View Full Version : This Cameron non-story



sasguru
11th April 2016, 09:21
So there seem to be quite a few very loud cretinous socialists and losers making a big hoo-ha about legitimate tax planning - stuff we would all do, in fact.
Some on here are making an equivalence between the very dodgy schemes they subscribed to, which meant they paid virtually no tax on earnings and comparing that with the gifts parents make their children assuming they last 7 years (aka Ronnie Corbett, Cameron) and investment trusts which anyone can legitimately create.
Seriously is the future of the UK to become a backwater, insular, socialist loser state as the Brexiteers and socialists (who increasingly seem to be in the same camp) want?

DimPrawn
11th April 2016, 09:30
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Haven't you got childcare duties to attend to, or some hoovering?

sasguru
11th April 2016, 09:54
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Haven't you got childcare duties to attend to, or some hoovering?

No we have an au pair and a cleaner.
HTH, BIDI.

SimonMac
11th April 2016, 09:59
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9125175/2015-02-15%2000.20.18.jpg

See above

DimPrawn
11th April 2016, 10:00
The idle rich. :laugh

Unix
11th April 2016, 10:01
So there seem to be quite a few very loud cretinous socialists and losers making a big hoo-ha about legitimate tax planning - stuff we would all do, in fact.
Some on here are making an equivalence between the very dodgy schemes they subscribed to, which meant they paid virtually no tax on earnings and comparing that with the gifts parents make their children assuming they last 7 years (aka Ronnie Corbett, Cameron) and investment trusts which anyone can legitimately create.
Seriously is the future of the UK to become a backwater, insular, socialist loser state as the Brexiteers and socialists (who increasingly seem to be in the same camp) want?

Front page of every newspaper left and right, What is more likely, that hundreds of professional experienced journalists are wrong and you are right? Or you are spouting crap as per :laugh

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:09
Front page of every newspaper left and right, What is more likely, that hundreds of professional experienced journalists are wrong and you are right? Or you are spouting crap as per :laugh

So if journalists are baying for blood, you suspend your analytical judgement and assume they're right?
Were you dropped on your head as a baby?
What law has Cameron broken exactly?

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:10
The average job creating two-people working family.

FTFY.

Unix
11th April 2016, 10:12
So if journalists are baying for blood, you suspend your analytical judgement and assume they're right?
Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

It's still a story though due to the way it was handled, you framed your question wrong, did he do anything illegal or immoral? No he just looks a bit of a hypocrite.

BlasterBates
11th April 2016, 10:16
David Cameron's taxes: What the Panama Papers really reveal about David Cameron | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/04/david-camerons-taxes)


The Panama Papers leak revealed that the prime minister’s late father, Ian, had something called a “unit trust” fund, whereby a group of people pool their money (by buying shares, or units, of the total kitty) and use it to invest in a variety of securities, spreading the risk. Its incorporation offshore, initially in Panama, was seemingly motivated by administrative convenience rather than tax-dodging: the Camerons paid British taxes on their income from it. Millions of Britons use similar arrangements, albeit indirectly, through pension funds which invest in hedge funds prone to such practices. Nothing that has emerged suggests that the prime minister’s family broke any rules.

Probably hard to get the message through some very thick journalistic skulls though,

How did British journalism sink to these depths. Basically they're now publishing complete sh**te on a daily basis.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:20
It's still a story though due to the way it was handled, you framed your question wrong, did he do anything illegal or immoral? No he just looks a bit of a hypocrite.

If we all got done for hypocrisy, probably 90% of people in the world would qualify.
That's why it's a non-story.

TBH the press should be having a go at Corbyn, for being a feckless waste of space, who in spite of his privileged upbringing, has done nothing of note but suckle at the public teat all his life.:laugh:laugh

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:21
David Cameron's taxes: What the Panama Papers really reveal about David Cameron | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/04/david-camerons-taxes)



Probably hard to get the message through some very thick journalistic skulls though,

How did British journalism sink to these depths. Basically they're now publishing complete sh**te on a daily basis.

Journalists usually have non-analytical degrees. They're not usually the brightest.

DimPrawn
11th April 2016, 10:25
David Cameron's taxes: What the Panama Papers really reveal about David Cameron | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/04/david-camerons-taxes)



Probably hard to get the message through some very thick journalistic skulls though,

How did British journalism sink to these depths. Basically they're now publishing complete sh**te on a daily basis.

Are these the wittiest Snapchats EVER? | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3529929/Are-wittiest-Snapchats-Hilarious-photos-jokey-one-liners-painful-puns-leave-internet-stitches.html)

Daily Fail is still quality though. :suicide:

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 10:27
So we all in it together?

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:29
There is a lot of bitterness among the journalistic fraternity - in the 70s/80s it was all boozy lunches and expense accounts and a nice easy life - now their thunder has been stolen by bloggers and social media sites, printed press is in decline as it all goes online and they can't make a nice easy living like they used to.
Hence they're all suddenly becoming anti-money and bashing bankers, landlords, IT entrepreneurs etc :laugh:laugh:laugh

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:30
So we all in it together?

What does that question mean in this context?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/george-osborne-has-squeezed-more-from-the-rich-than-any-uk-chancellor-ever/

DodgyAgent
11th April 2016, 10:35
So if journalists are baying for blood, you suspend your analytical judgement and assume they're right?
Were you dropped on your head as a baby?
What law has Cameron broken exactly?

It is the hypocrisy of a man trying to be seen as a man of the people

Jimmy Carr, once pilloried by David Cameron over his tax affairs, hits back | UK Politics | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-offshore-fund-jimmy-carr-says-it-would-be-morally-wrong-to-comment-on-tax-another-a6975601.html)

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 10:37
There is a lot of bitterness among the journalistic fraternity - in the 70s/80s it was all boozy lunches and expense accounts and a nice easy life - now their thunder has been stolen by bloggers and social media sites, printed press is in decline as it all goes online and they can't make a nice easy living like they used to.
Hence they're all suddenly becoming anti-money and bashing bankers, landlords, IT entrepreneurs etc :laugh:laugh:laugh

Of course you are not bitter at all.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:39
It is the hypocrisy of a man trying to be seen as a man of the people

Jimmy Carr, once pilloried by David Cameron over his tax affairs, hits back | UK Politics | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-offshore-fund-jimmy-carr-says-it-would-be-morally-wrong-to-comment-on-tax-another-a6975601.html)

From that link:

"That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong." - Cameron 2012.

Which is fine. Carr was using a blatantly dodgy tax-evasion scheme as used by some on this forum.
Very different from planning to give your children your inheritance 7 years before you die or using investment trusts that everyone with a pension indirectly uses anyway.

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 10:39
What does that question mean in this context?

George Osborne has squeezed more from the rich than any UK Chancellor, ever | Coffee House (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/george-osborne-has-squeezed-more-from-the-rich-than-any-uk-chancellor-ever/)

A very balanced article. Not in the least bit right wing.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:39
Of course you are not bitter at all.

Not at all. Unlike you. You come across as consumed with bitterness.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:40
A very balanced article. Not in the least bit right wing.

The graph comes from HMRC. You got anything at all that suggests those figures are wrong?

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 10:41
Not at all. Unlike you. You come across as consumed with bitterness.

Only towards leeches like you. Most on here I get along very well with.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 10:41
Only towards leeches like you. Most on here I get along very well with.

In which way am I a leech, that causes you so much bitterness?

DodgyAgent
11th April 2016, 10:52
From that link:

"That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong." - Cameron 2012.

Which is fine. Carr was using a blatantly dodgy tax-evasion scheme as used by some on this forum.
Very different from planning to give your children your inheritance 7 years before you die or using investment trusts that everyone with a pension indirectly uses anyway.

There is nothing wrong in "organising" your tax affairs to minimise the amount you pay whether you are Jimmy carr, david Cameron, a contractor avoiding NI payments or a recruitment agent not paying tax for being allowed to breathe. What I detest are people like margaret Hodge and David Cameron who think it is morally wrong for other people to avoid tax while doing exactly the same themselves.

As Cameron said in 2012

"I just think this is completely wrong. People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of [Carr's] shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.

"That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong."

On Friday afternoon, Carr finally waded into the Cameron tax scandal with a simple tweet:

“I'm going to keep it classy," he posted on his Twitter account. "It would be ‘morally wrong’ and ‘hypocritical’ to comment on another individual’s tax affairs."


Sometimes the high road can be the most lethally devastating option of all.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 11:03
There is nothing wrong in "organising" your tax affairs to minimise the amount you pay whether you are Jimmy carr, david Cameron, a contractor avoiding NI payments or a recruitment agent not paying tax for being allowed to breathe. What I detest are people like margaret Hodge and David Cameron who think it is morally wrong for other people to avoid tax while doing exactly the same themselves.

As Cameron said in 2012

"I just think this is completely wrong. People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of [Carr's] shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.

"That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong."

On Friday afternoon, Carr finally waded into the Cameron tax scandal with a simple tweet:

“I'm going to keep it classy," he posted on his Twitter account. "It would be ‘morally wrong’ and ‘hypocritical’ to comment on another individual’s tax affairs."


Sometimes the high road can be the most lethally devastating option of all.

Whoosh! You've missed the point as usual.

Although your post has some merit as you've pointed out Margaret Hodge. Who benefited to the tune of 1.5 million from a similar instrument (which makes Cameron's puny 30K look like chump change) and is still grilling companies about non-payment of tax. No that's hypocrisy.

http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/politics/margaret_hodge_accused_of_hypocrisy_over_alleged_1 _5million_tax_haven_shares_1_4054160

sasguru
11th April 2016, 11:10
So, to sum up, the approved process these days is to set up your affairs so that Hector gets as much as possible.

How very odd.

It seems such a long time since

Quite. I was under the impression that everyone minimised their tax in accordance with the law, keeping in mind, as all sensible people do, that schemes that promise you 80-90% of your gross income as take home are obviously dodgy.

PS where did that quote from, ZG?

DodgyAgent
11th April 2016, 11:10
Whoosh! You've missed the point as usual.

Although your post has some merit as you've pointed out Margaret Hodge. Who benefited to the tune of 1.5 million from a similar instrument (which makes Cameron's puny 30K look like chump change) and is still grilling companies about non-payment of tax. No that's hypocrisy.

Margaret Hodge accused of hypocrisy over alleged £1.5million tax haven shares - Politics - Barking and Dagenham Post (http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/politics/margaret_hodge_accused_of_hypocrisy_over_alleged_1 _5million_tax_haven_shares_1_4054160)

Which is the point I was making dickhead

NotAllThere
11th April 2016, 11:30
Which is the point I was making dickhead

He just can't bring himself to agree with an agent. It's morally wrong.

FatLazyContractor
11th April 2016, 11:31
Which is the point I was making dickhead sas

sas would suffice.

:popcorn:

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 11:35
If it was anyone other than DC, HMRC would have issued an APN then argued it out later.

flamel
11th April 2016, 11:38
Quite. I was under the impression that everyone minimised their tax in accordance with the law, keeping in mind, as all sensible people do, that schemes that promise you 80-90% of your gross income as take home are obviously dodgy.


80-90% is obviously dodgy and HMRC have made laws to screw those people over.

Whereas paying no tax at all is easy for tory grandees - just put it into a trust in Paname.

Not dodgy at all - HMRC will never be able to legislate against that, especially when the people that make the laws have time to move their funds before making any new legislation.

BlasterBates
11th April 2016, 11:39
There's tax avoidance, i.e. setting up an office in the Isle of Man with 5 developers, subcontracted to your UK company and "tax avoidance" i.e. setting up an office in the Isle of Man with 5 plastic dolls, who you refer to as (wink wink nudge nudge) developers subcontracted to your UK company

flamel
11th April 2016, 11:42
So, to sum up, the approved process these days is to set up your affairs so that Hector gets as much as possible.

How very odd.

It seems such a long time since



As found on the site of this scrote:

Tax Research UK » The argument that tax avoidance is legal is now dead and gone, for good. The world of tax abuse changed today, for the better. (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/04/15/the-argument-that-tax-avoidance-is-legal-is-now-dead-and-gone-for-good-the-world-of-tax-abuse-changed-today-for-the-better/)

Seems very pleased with himself.

"Smug" is the word you're looking for

BlasterBates
11th April 2016, 11:45
80-90% is obviously dodgy and HMRC have made laws to screw those people over.

Whereas paying no tax at all is easy for tory grandees - just put it into a trust in Paname.



That's incorrect. Cameron did pay tax.

Cameron didn't take a salary not tax it and put it in a fund in Panama, he paid full tax on his salary, then put some of the remains of his after tax income in a fund in Panama and then every year paid full tax on the dividend and then declared the Capital Gains in the UK.

He avoided no tax at all. He paid exactly the same amount of tax as anyone investing in a UK fund, because he declared it and it was taxed.

flamel
11th April 2016, 11:50
That's incorrect. Cameron did pay tax.

Cameron didn't take a salary not tax it and put it in a fund in Panama, he paid full tax on his salary, then put some of the remains of his after tax income in a fund in Panama and then every year paid full tax on the dividend and then declared the Capital Gains in the UK.

He avoided no tax at all. He paid exactly the same amount of tax as anyone investing in a UK fund, because he declared it and it was taxed.

Obviously people keep their cash in Panama because of it's reputation for integrity and security (compared to, say, the Lloyds Branch in Clacton High Street)

barrydidit
11th April 2016, 11:50
PS where did that quote from, ZG?

Lord Clyde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Avon_Clyde,_Lord_Clyde)said it.

Interestingly, there was some MP type on Radio 4 this morning saying quotes like this from Judges were very unhelpful. Presumably because most people would agree with it. :laugh

barrydidit
11th April 2016, 11:57
That's incorrect. Cameron did pay tax.

Cameron didn't take a salary not tax it and put it in a fund in Panama, he paid full tax on his salary, then put some of the remains of his after tax income in a fund in Panama and then every year paid full tax on the dividend and then declared the Capital Gains in the UK.

He avoided no tax at all. He paid exactly the same amount of tax as anyone investing in a UK fund, because he declared it and it was taxed.

True. It's funny though isn't it. He started conflating tax evasion and avoidance and making a special case against 'aggressive tax avoidance' on purely moral grounds and what is arbiterilly determined to be 'fair', only to get caught in his own trap. He hasn't done anything wrong investment-wise, but it's a major political f* up and means all politicians for the rest of time will have to publish their tax affairs or else be viewed as inherently dodgy.

flamel
11th April 2016, 11:59
True. It's funny though isn't it. He started conflating tax evasion and avoidance and making a special case against 'aggressive tax avoidance' on purely moral grounds and what is arbiterilly determined to be 'fair', only to get caught in his own trap. He hasn't done anything wrong investment-wise, but it's a major political f* up and means all politicians for the rest of time will have to publish their tax affairs or else be viewed as inherently dodgy.

Tax returns or no tax returns - they're still all inherently dodgy.

MrMarkyMark
11th April 2016, 12:01
As JB said in here Camerons if little interest in monetary terms, Osborne on the other hand....

sasguru
11th April 2016, 12:05
Obviously people keep their cash in Panama because of it's reputation for integrity and security (compared to, say, the Lloyds Branch in Clacton High Street)

Do you have a pension at all?
If you do there's a high chance some of your money is invested in an investment trust in Panama.
Financial and management companies set up there for all sorts of reasons including low taxes on profits on their investments - that means you get to keep more of the money your pension makes.

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 12:08
Do you have a pension at all?
If you do there's a high chance some of your money is invested in an investment trust in Panama.
Financial and management companies set up there for all sorts of reasons including low taxes on profits on their investments - that means you get to keep more of the money your pension makes.

Maybe all UK pensions should be invested in UK investment trusts so the UK government gets all the tax.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 12:08
In taxation terms there is something very morally wrong if your AFTER-TAX income is subject to further tax e.g. if you give it your kids and die within 7 years.
The state has some call on your GROSS income since it protects you and benefits society.
But once you have paid your fair share, be that what it is, there should be no further call on that money.

BlasterBates
11th April 2016, 12:10
Obviously people keep their cash in Panama because of it's reputation for integrity and security (compared to, say, the Lloyds Branch in Clacton High Street)

The fund wasn't in Panama it was managed in the Cayman Islands or somewhere similar. One company I invest in is also based there. I don't invest to avoid tax I invest because it happens to be the holding company of a Hong Kong based furniture manufacturer. I pay tax on dividends and pay CGT: I avoid no tax, that's not why I do it.

Cameron invested in a Unit Trust that invested internationally.

The fund or the company you invest in might avoid tax but not you the investor, because you declare all your dividends.

You will find most people with a private pension will be invested in similar funds because the entire hedge fund industry is run like that.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 12:11
Maybe all UK pensions should be invested in UK investment trusts so the UK government gets all the tax.

There'd be some very poor pensioners then ....which the govt. would have bail out ....which would lead to further debt etc etc.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 12:12
The fund or the company you invest in might avoid tax but not you the investor do not, because you declare all your dividends.

Quite. That's the point I was making.

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 12:12
In taxation terms there is something very morally wrong if your AFTER-TAX income is subject to further tax e.g. if you give it your kids and die within 7 years.
The state has some call on your GROSS income since it protects you and benefits society.
But once you have paid your fair share, be that what it is, there should be no further call on that money.

I would like a legal definition of that.

Large overseas companies pay the correct legal amount. And the amount they pay should be moved to being in line with UK companies.

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 12:13
Ken Livingstone breaks expensive new hypocrisy-o-meter (http://newsthump.com/2016/04/11/ken-livingstone-breaks-expensive-new-hypocrisy-o-meter/)

:laugh

BlasterBates
11th April 2016, 12:15
True. It's funny though isn't it. He started conflating tax evasion and avoidance and making a special case against 'aggressive tax avoidance' on purely moral grounds and what is arbiterilly determined to be 'fair', only to get caught in his own trap. He hasn't done anything wrong investment-wise, but it's a major political f* up and means all politicians for the rest of time will have to publish their tax affairs or else be viewed as inherently dodgy.

I disagree here because Cameron didn't avoid any tax and no-one has suggested he has.

You can invest your money wherever you want as long as you declare it, and he did. I see no hypocrisy.

There is no a single country where you can't do that. I see no comparison to tax evasion or dodgy schemes, none whatsoever.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 12:15
I would like a legal definition of that.

Large overseas companies pay the correct legal amount. And the amount they pay should be moved to being in line with UK companies.

Companies are a whole other issue. I'm talking about individuals.

barrydidit
11th April 2016, 12:18
In taxation terms there is something very morally wrong if your AFTER-TAX income is subject to further tax e.g. if you give it your kids and die within 7 years.
The state has some call on your GROSS income since it protects you and benefits society.
But once you have paid your fair share, be that what it is, there should be no further call on that money.

The guy on R4 this morning said that was nonsense. He said the nature of money changes over time and that in the same was as you wouldn't take taxed money to the pub, buy a pint and expect the landlord to pay no further tax on it, then the same applies to inheritance.

He annoyed me somewhat.

BlasterBates
11th April 2016, 12:18
Companies are a whole other issue. I'm talking about individuals.

Absolutely and it's far more complicated than people think.

Google and Starbucks are US companies that have set up companies in tax havens with marketing assets that are not from the UK. These are US assets.

It will be very difficult to legislate against Starbucks and Google without US retaliation.

barrydidit
11th April 2016, 12:21
I disagree here because Cameron didn't avoid any tax and no-one has suggested he has.

You can invest your money wherever you want as long as you declare it, and he did. I see no hypocrisy.

There is no a single country where you can't do that. I see no comparison to tax evasion or dodgy schemes, none whatsoever.

I said he hadn't done anything wrong investment-wise. He's fluffed it politically by looking as though he's been up to something wrong. Your average Joe might have picked up something about leaks, Cameron and offshore funds, that'll be about it.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 12:23
I said he hadn't done anything wrong investment-wise. He's fluffed it politically by looking as though he's been up to something wrong. Your average Joe might have picked up something about leaks, Cameron and offshore funds, that'll be about it.

It seems to have taken in quite a few on CUK :laugh

BlasterBates
11th April 2016, 12:26
I said he hadn't done anything wrong investment-wise. He's fluffed it politically by looking as though he's been up to something wrong. Your average Joe might have picked up something about leaks, Cameron and offshore funds, that'll be about it.

I agree he messed up, should have been straight up when asked the question, as he had nothing to hide.

GB9
11th April 2016, 12:32
One of the posters on the BBC website used the term 'that toff Cameron' and that's what it really comes down to. The socialists don't like him because he's a toff.

As others have said, that odious woman Hodge is far richer.

flamel
11th April 2016, 12:37
Do you have a pension at all?
If you do there's a high chance some of your money is invested in an investment trust in Panama.
Financial and management companies set up there for all sorts of reasons including low taxes on profits on their investments - that means you get to keep more of the money your pension makes.

Yes agreed - I have no influence over the investment strategy of my pension fund, nor if I bought into Unit Trusts. I do believe that Cameron's Dad had control over his own fund though which is quite different. So although I believe DC has done nothing wrong other than benefit from funds accumulated under a dodgy tax avoiding overseas investment trust. Which means he's quite rich because of inherited wealth. From Panama.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 12:43
Yes agreed - I have no influence over the investment strategy of my pension fund, nor if I bought into Unit Trusts. I do believe that Cameron's Dad had control over his own fund though which is quite different. So although I believe DC has done nothing wrong other than benefit from funds accumulated under a dodgy tax avoiding overseas investment trust. Which means he's quite rich because of inherited wealth. From Panama.

"Dodgy" in what way? Were any laws broken? If so you'd have to arrest all the directors of investment vehicles that currently are incorporated offshore.
And if you put enough in your pension, eventually you'll be quite rich from money invested in Panama.
Now you know how it works, to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, you'd better move your money into a pension that invests only in the UK based companies. Good luck with your dotage, in that case.

Unix
11th April 2016, 12:51
Based on the information released so far he has done nothing wrong. However he made it look worse by drip releasing the info. He won't be resigning and this will blow over in a week. What may happen though from all this is some other MP's may become collateral damage when they reveal their dodgy accounts. (i.e. Gideon)

sasguru
11th April 2016, 12:54
Based on the information released so far he has done nothing wrong. However he made it look worse by drip releasing the info. He won't be resigning and this will blow over in a week. What may happen though from all this is some other MP's may become collateral damage when they reveal their dodgy accounts.

So some good will come of it.
Quite a few of the dodgy ones are not Conservative "toffs"

flamel
11th April 2016, 12:58
"Dodgy" in what way? Were any laws broken? If so you'd have to arrest all the directors of investment vehicles that currently are incorporated offshore.
And if you put enough in your pension, eventually you'll be quite rich from money invested in Panama.
Now you know how it works, to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, you'd better move your money into a pension that invests only in the UK based companies. Good luck with your dotage, in that case.

No! I'm quite happy to have my pension fund invested in Panama and I intend to emigrate and live off the proceeds!

I didn't get funded to go to Eton via a family trust in Panama and I don't lead a government bent on propping up the rich at the expense of the dispossessed whilst they bend all the rules for their own self gratification and enrichment. Gauke and his expenses fiddling, Dave and Gidiot with their offshore family companies, Hodge with her "teeny investment" of millions in her family company etc all avoiding tax yet making laws as if they were angels of purity.

I hate all of them, they are scum.

Unix
11th April 2016, 12:58
So some good will come of it.
Quite a few of the dodgy ones are not Conservative "toffs"

True, remember the expenses scandal? I remember a quote from Hitchens, who said it was ironic that scandals in the Labour party, who purport to be working for the poorer were usually around money and the tories who are seen to uphold conservative values, were around sex,

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 13:20
He won't be resigning and this will blow over in a week.

We knew that from the beginning.

darmstadt
11th April 2016, 13:25
You can tell that people don't really understand what is going on by the amount of 'invest in Panama' quotes. The people and companies names were not primarily investing in Panama but were using a Panama based law company to incorporate firms in offshore tax havens, primarily British colonies. The following might give some people fun as its pictorial: https://panamapapers.icij.org/graphs/

DodgyAgent
11th April 2016, 13:52
No! I'm quite happy to have my pension fund invested in Panama and I intend to emigrate and live off the proceeds!

I didn't get funded to go to Eton via a family trust in Panama and I don't lead a government bent on propping up the rich at the expense of the dispossessed whilst they bend all the rules for their own self gratification and enrichment. Gauke and his expenses fiddling, Dave and Gidiot with their offshore family companies, Hodge with her "teeny investment" of millions in her family company etc all avoiding tax yet making laws as if they were angels of purity.

I hate all of them, they are scum.

Here we have an idiot that believes in the money tree :winker:

sasguru
11th April 2016, 14:00
No! I'm quite happy to have my pension fund invested in Panama and I intend to emigrate and live off the proceeds!

I didn't get funded to go to Eton via a family trust in Panama and I don't lead a government bent on propping up the rich at the expense of the dispossessed whilst they bend all the rules for their own self gratification and enrichment. Gauke and his expenses fiddling, Dave and Gidiot with their offshore family companies, Hodge with her "teeny investment" of millions in her family company etc all avoiding tax yet making laws as if they were angels of purity.

I hate all of them, they are scum.

Your powers of analysis are poor and you're muddled.

Here are some facts:

1. Hodge is Labour, not part of the govt.
2. This Tory government has taxed the 1% much more than ever Labour did.
See post with graph at start of thread.
3. The country is deeply in debt and spending needs to be curtailed to avoid problems in the future. Not everything that people want funded can be funded. Money does not grow on trees. It comes from people creating wealth by starting or growing businesses.
4. Finally, everywhere socialism has been tried it has resulted in the masses suffering shortages of housing, basic goods and opportunities. Apart from the 1%.

DodgyAgent
11th April 2016, 14:05
Your powers of analysis are poor and you're muddled.

Here are some facts:

1. Hodge is Labour, not part of the govt.
2. This Tory government has taxed the 1% much more than ever Labour did.
See post with graph at start of thread.
3. The country is deeply in debt and spending needs to be curtailed to avoid problems in the future. Not everything that people want funded can be funded. Money does not grow on trees. It comes from people creating wealth by starting or growing businesses.
4. Finally, everywhere socialism has been tried it has resulted in the masses suffering shortages of housing, basic goods and opportunities. Apart from the 1%.

You are beginning to sound like me :o

Unix
11th April 2016, 14:50
Corbyn still not published his, would be funny if he had some dodgy stuff :laugh

tomtomagain
11th April 2016, 15:01
Corbyn still not published his, would be funny if he had some dodgy stuff :laugh

wouldn't it just.

But there again if he only has a few quid to his name I'm not going to be impressed either.

BrilloPad
11th April 2016, 15:04
Jeremy Corbyn releases tax return carved into 9ft block of stone (http://newsthump.com/2016/04/11/jeremy-corbyn-releases-tax-return-carved-into-9ft-block-of-stone/)

:laugh

vetran
11th April 2016, 15:13
Jeremy Corbyn releases tax return carved into 9ft block of stone (http://newsthump.com/2016/04/11/jeremy-corbyn-releases-tax-return-carved-into-9ft-block-of-stone/)

:laugh

the Jizz stone?

vetran
11th April 2016, 15:16
You are beginning to sound like me :o

Indeed I'm starting to agree with more of SAS's posts, do you think the drugs have started working on him?

vetran
11th April 2016, 15:20
is there no place that lying cheating scumbag's name isn't attached to :


But Labour has said Mr Cameron needed to publish his full tax returns dating back to before he became prime minister in 2010, when he sold off shares in Blairmore for a £19,000 profit

sasguru
11th April 2016, 15:23
Indeed I'm starting to agree with more of SAS's posts, do you think the drugs have started working on him?

You're confused.
You think uneducated and unskilled people should be paid 35K a year because it's "fair".
Which is equivalent to saying you believe money should grow on trees.

flamel
11th April 2016, 15:28
Your powers of analysis are poor and you're muddled.

Here are some facts:

1. Hodge is Labour, not part of the govt.
2. This Tory government has taxed the 1% much more than ever Labour did.
See post with graph at start of thread.
3. The country is deeply in debt and spending needs to be curtailed to avoid problems in the future. Not everything that people want funded can be funded. Money does not grow on trees. It comes from people creating wealth by starting or growing businesses.
4. Finally, everywhere socialism has been tried it has resulted in the masses suffering shortages of housing, basic goods and opportunities. Apart from the 1%.

1. I am well aware of that - she's still a politician.
2. Agree in terms of tax yield.
3. Read John Maynard Keynes. Treating an economy like a household budget is a mistake; as the average person suffers economically in a downturn, they are usually subjugated excessively driving growth downwards and the 1% benefit disproportionately.
4. Following Keynesian economics is not socialist as such, but the current UK situation is that there are a large minority living off food banks with no permanent place to live and limited opportunities (I don't count Amazon's zero hours contracts as opportunities).

There's got to be another way.

vetran
11th April 2016, 15:28
You're confused.
You think uneducated and unskilled people should be paid 35K a year because it's "fair".
Which is equivalent to saying you believe money should grow on trees.

No I think people should be able to achieve a reasonable standard of living by working hard. Reasonable being a roof over their head, decent food to eat and the knowledge they don't need to go to the foodbank etc anymore.
I believe the gap between the rich & poor is now too wide and our government has a moral obligation to fix that.

If you don't, then sorry you aren't much of a person.

AtW
11th April 2016, 15:43
Cameron didn't take a salary not tax it and put it in a fund in Panama, he paid full tax on his salary, then put some of the remains of his after tax income in a fund in Panama and then every year paid full tax on the dividend and then declared the Capital Gains in the UK.

He avoided no tax at all. He paid exactly the same amount of tax as anyone investing in a UK fund, because he declared it and it was taxed.

You don't know that - he did not pay CGT because amount of gains after sale was small... but was the sale price MARKET PRICE or did he shift asset to relative at low price to avoid paying CGT???

We can only know that if we know amount of dividends he was normally receiving on those shares, conviniently he is not publishing that info! He lied about publishing tax returns too - he only published SUMMARY OF TAXABLE income and amount of tax, we don't know amount of dividends from offshore that he got on those shares, which IS the critical info require to understand if he screwed over the taxpayer.

tomtomagain
11th April 2016, 15:50
Here's Corbyn's return :

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307917248/Jeremy-Corbyn-Tax-Return-2014-15

Pretty pitiful for a man of 67. No savings or investments.

Just what I'd expect from someone who expects the state to fund him for his entire life.

vetran
11th April 2016, 15:53
Here's Corbyn's return :

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307917248/Jeremy-Corbyn-Tax-Return-2014-15

Pretty pitiful for a man of 67. No savings or investments.

Just what I'd expect from someone who expects the state to fund him for his entire life.

indeed, even my current account earns interest....

AtW
11th April 2016, 15:58
Here's Corbyn's return :

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307917248/Jeremy-Corbyn-Tax-Return-2014-15

Pretty pitiful for a man of 67. No savings or investments.

Just what I'd expect from someone who expects the state to fund him for his entire life.

What did you expect to see in Labour Leaders tax return, millions of pounds???

According to Camoron's tax return he is much poorer than me, when in reality it certainly isn't the case (yet).

sasguru
11th April 2016, 16:01
1. I am well aware of that - she's still a politician.
2. Agree in terms of tax yield.
3. Read John Maynard Keynes. Treating an economy like a household budget is a mistake; as the average person suffers economically in a downturn, they are usually subjugated excessively driving growth downwards and the 1% benefit disproportionately.
4. Following Keynesian economics is not socialist as such, but the current UK situation is that there are a large minority living off food banks with no permanent place to live and limited opportunities (I don't count Amazon's zero hours contracts as opportunities).

There's got to be another way.

That's not the current UK situation, it's the current European situation.
There are plenty of food banks and people who rely on them in Germany, a country much more powerful and richer than us. And Germany is meant to be more social-democratic and more equal.
What do you expect if the Western world has just gone through its worst economic crisis since the 30s?
It's not ideal that people need to go to food banks, but there are no easy answers.
I would bet that even the poorest in this country have levels of nutrition higher than much of the developing world and probably higher than the average person under communism.

vetran
11th April 2016, 16:08
What did you expect to see in Labour Leaders tax return, millions of pounds???

According to Camoron's tax return he is much poorer than me, when in reality it certainly isn't the case (yet).

why not Millipede wasn't Broke and DemonEyes is loaded.

AtW
11th April 2016, 16:15
why not Millipede wasn't Broke and DemonEyes is loaded.

I am pretty convinced by now that under Millipede I'd pay lower taxes. :mad

tomtomagain
11th April 2016, 16:15
What did you expect to see in Labour Leaders tax return, millions of pounds???

According to Camoron's tax return he is much poorer than me, when in reality it certainly isn't the case (yet).

No. Not millions of pounds.

But a man who has been employed as a higher rate tax payer for 40 years should have something.

It's not very prudent to have no savings at all.

Of course he could well have used his maximum ISA allowance each year. That doesn't show on a tax return.

And he could have given it to his partner to invest on his behalf.

Having zero? Seriously? This is the person you want to run the economy? I'd rather have someone in charge who knew about money.

sasguru
11th April 2016, 16:17
No. Not millions of pounds.

But a man who has been employed as a higher rate tax payer for 40 years should have something.

It's not very prudent to have no savings at all.

Of course he could well have used his maximum ISA allowance each year. That doesn't show on a tax return.

And he could have given it to his partner to invest on his behalf.

Having zero? Seriously? This is the person you want to run the economy? I'd rather have someone in charge who knew about money.

WHS. The leader of the feckless.

vetran
11th April 2016, 16:21
I am pretty convinced by now that under Millipede I'd pay lower taxes. :mad

You probably would we would just pay more interest on the loan.

AtW
11th April 2016, 16:22
But a man who has been employed as a higher rate tax payer for 40 years should have something.

He was MP since 1983, the fact that he does not earn much is a + to his reputation not a -.


It's not very prudent to have no savings at all.
Of course he could well have used his maximum ISA allowance each year. That doesn't show on a tax return.

Or his banks pays him 0% interest rate, or 0.05%.

How many savings average person in UK got, enough to last 1 month without a pay cheque?


Having zero? Seriously? This is the person you want to run the economy? I'd rather have someone in charge who knew about money.

Yes that's not great, but I am not sure your assertion that he totally got no savings is true, most unlikely.

AtW
11th April 2016, 16:23
You probably would we would just pay more interest on the loan.

QE makes sure interest payments don't increase, most of those payments made on already issued debt which is very long term.

vetran
11th April 2016, 16:29
He was MP since 1983, the fact that he does not earn much is a + to his reputation not a -.




How many savings average person in UK got, enough to last 1 month without a pay cheque?



Higher rate since 1983 he should be minted if he had any sense. I have plenty of savings despite being 20+ years younger and many years less than him at higher rate.


How many savings does an average higher rate person have would be a better question.

darmstadt
11th April 2016, 16:35
Having zero? Seriously? This is the person you want to run the economy? I'd rather have someone in charge who knew about money.

This guy presumably:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOGMCRDOEB8

AtW
11th April 2016, 16:47
Higher rate since 1983 he should be minted if he had any sense. I have plenty of savings despite being 20+ years younger and many years less than him at higher rate.
How many savings does an average higher rate person have would be a better question.

Living in London???

It's his choice anyway, I am certain he got savings, perhaps not £100k, but rather £15-20k, but how many people in UK got liquid savings (not pension) over £100k???

sasguru
11th April 2016, 16:52
Living in London???

It's his choice anyway, I am certain he got savings, perhaps not £100k, but rather £15-20k, but how many people in UK got liquid savings (not pension) over £100k???

FFS AtW, you're being biased now.
Can you not see that Corbyn is a talentless, lazy, twat worse than any apparatichik of the Soviet system?
And if you think the current admin is bad, Corbyn will make you leave the country.
Read some 70s history of Britain FFS and reflect that the mess then was when the Labour party leadership actually had some talent.

AtW
11th April 2016, 16:53
FFS AtW, you're being biased now.
Can you not see that Corbyn is a talentless, lazy, twat worse than any apparatichik of the Soviet system?
And if you think the current admin is bad, Corbyn will make you leave the country.
Read some 70s history of Britain FFS and reflect that the mess then was when the Labour party leadership actually had some talent.

I might leave the country with the current lot, thank you very much :laugh

sasguru
11th April 2016, 16:55
I might leave the country with the current lot, thank you very much :laugh

Aye, it hasn't got too bad yet but approaching it.
Actively looking at options myself.
The Conservatives have shafted their natural supporters - it's bad politics.

AtW
11th April 2016, 16:59
Aye, it hasn't got too bad yet but approaching it.
Actively looking at options myself.
The Conservatives have shafted their natural supporters - it's bad politics.

I ain't leaving, but the current lot are putting me off seriously :mad

vetran
11th April 2016, 17:09
Living in London???

It's his choice anyway, I am certain he got savings, perhaps not £100k, but rather £15-20k, but how many people in UK got liquid savings (not pension) over £100k???

Starting in 83 he should own half of Wandsworth.

SueEllen
11th April 2016, 17:11
Korbyn has too many ex-wives to be loaded.

tomtomagain
11th April 2016, 17:12
He was MP since 1983, the fact that he does not earn much is a + to his reputation not a -.



Well if that's the criteria for success then Labour should look for a minimum-wage slave for their next leader.

OwlHoot
11th April 2016, 17:13
No. Not millions of pounds.

But a man who has been employed as a higher rate tax payer for 40 years should have something.

It's not very prudent to have no savings at all.

Of course he could well have used his maximum ISA allowance each year. That doesn't show on a tax return.

And he could have given it to his partner to invest on his behalf.

Having zero? Seriously? This is the person you want to run the economy? I'd rather have someone in charge who knew about money.

What a prim, plebby attitude.

William Pitt the Younger was the best and most inventive sovereign money manager this country ever had, and deserves much of the credit for defeating Napoleon by his financial astuteness, not to mention putting the East India company on a sound basis that paved the way for making India a successful part of the British Empire.

But his personal finances, for one reason or another, were completely chaotic, and he was usually in serious debt. I suspect some of this mismanagement was a cover for paying a small army of below-stairs informers to keep him posted on other MPs and influential people. But it was probably mainly because he was so frantically busy with state affairs that he could spare no time for his own. After his untimely death, it took 20 years to sort out his finances!

Also, Julius Caesar, Winston Churchill, and many of the best leaders (or the most successful anyway) had to contend with chronic personal debt and financial mismanagement for much of their lives. Would you rather someone like them running the country, or some non-entity with personal finances in apple pie order.

(Actually, I think on balance I'd prefer the latter, unless we were living in very "interesting" times! :rolleyes: )

AtW
11th April 2016, 17:15
Well if that's the criteria for success then Labour should look for a minimum-wage slave for their next leader.

If the criteria for election was money then we'd have Trump running the country, how do you like that?

People who want to get loaded should stay out of Parliament and Govt in general.

Old Greg
11th April 2016, 17:15
What a prim, plebby attitude.

William Pitt the Younger was the best and most inventive sovereign money manager this country ever had, and deserves much of the credit for defeating Napoleon by his financial astuteness, not to mention putting the East India company on a sound basis that paved the way for making India a successful part of the British Empire.

But his personal finances, for one reason or another, were completely chaotic, and he was usually in serious debt. I suspect some of this mismanagement was a cover for paying a small army of below-stairs informers to keep him posted on other MPs and influential people. But it was probably mainly because he was so frantically busy with state affairs that he could spare no time for his own. After his untimely death, it took 20 years to sort out his finances!

Also, Julius Caesar, Winston Churchill, and many of the best leaders (or the most successful anyway) had to contend with chronic personal debt and financial mismanagement for much of their lives. Would you rather someone like them running the country, or some non-entity with personal finances in apple pie order.

(Actually, I think on balance I'd prefer the latter, unless we were living in very "interesting" times! :rolleyes: )

As long as a chap can knob a dead pig with panache, he gets my vote.

barrydidit
11th April 2016, 17:40
As long as a chap can knob a dead pig with panache, he gets my vote.

The pig was dead? ******* pervert.

AtW
11th April 2016, 17:42
The pig was dead? ******* pervert.

Would it be ok if the pig was alive? :eek

barrydidit
11th April 2016, 17:45
Would it be ok if the pig was alive? :eek

Better. Even savile didn't ..oh erm, hang on a minute..

Old Greg
11th April 2016, 17:45
Would it be ok if the pig was alive? :eek

Only if he takes it up the Panama Canal.