Cameron in the kacky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

But surely the story SHOULD be about the mega rich avoiding tax NOW, not someone dad who died 5 years ago. You are all being subject to the press avoiding the real story, and you are all falling for it. The focus should be on these schemes and the people using them now.

Its the press playing the public for suckers and avoiding the real story. The important story of getting these people to actually pay their tax in a fair way. Dont get distracted by the press, the ones who are part of this problem. Focus on the problem now.

---

The story has more than one element - I'm fully aware of that. The discussion point on this board is of Cameron's involvement and the effect on his political life. There are many other points for discussion that haven't been brought up here yet.

It's a story not because he had the shares-it's a story because it appears he tried to hide the fact.Why he tried to hide it I fail to see-I would be prepared to bet there are quite a few in Parliament from all sides who have money in these funds.Perhaps a few who are pointing the finger now.

Has Cameron actually avoided paying tax as a result of this or is the media storm just about owning shares in an offshore tax haven?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TISS

Has Cameron actually avoided paying tax as a result of this or is the media storm just about owning shares in an offshore tax haven?

---

As far I can can extract from whats out there. He held shares in a scheme his father setup. He paid tax on the dividends he received from the company, and when he disposed of the shares the capital gain (split between the 2 of them) was below the capital gains tax threshold so no tax was payable. So he has not directly avoided any tax.

Its as good as a non story. Especially compared to the levels of dodgy tax avoidance uncovered. Its purely an anti tory rhetoric. Completely avoiding the real story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

As far I can can extract from whats out there. He held shares in a scheme his father setup. He paid tax on the dividends he received from the company, and when he disposed of the shares the capital gain (split between the 2 of them) was below the capital gains tax threshold so no tax was payable. So he has not directly avoided any tax.

Its as good as a non story. Especially compared to the levels of dodgy tax avoidance uncovered. Its purely an anti tory rhetoric. Completely avoiding the real story.

---

Your right-unfortunately by avoiding the issue initially he laid himself wide open for the press attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

As far I can can extract from whats out there. He held shares in a scheme his father setup. He paid tax on the dividends he received from the company, and when he disposed of the shares the capital gain (split between the 2 of them) was below the capital gains tax threshold so no tax was payable. So he has not directly avoided any tax.

Its as good as a non story. Especially compared to the levels of dodgy tax avoidance uncovered. Its purely an anti tory rhetoric. Completely avoiding the real story.

---

It is a non story (or want it to be ) if you are a Tory apologist who wants to avoid the PM being shown up as a liar and hypocrite.

The problem for Cameron is that it is he who has been rattling on about both tax avoidance and tax evasion ......in fact all forms of tax issues and thow his party was going to sort it out and he's been part of the problem , legal schemes including his dead old man's , for years

He has weaseled himself into a hole with his actions this week and I hope he's crapping himself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN

Your right-unfortunately by avoiding the issue initially he laid himself wide open for the press attack.

---

In your opinion he's right , in my opinion he's wrong and loads of people on radio stations this morning think he's wrong too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

As far I can can extract from whats out there. He held shares in a tax-avoiding scheme his father setup. He paid tax on the dividends he received from the company, and when he disposed of the shares the capital gain (split between the 2 of them) was below the capital gains tax threshold so no tax was payable. So he has not directly avoided any tax.

Its as good as a non story. Especially compared to the levels of dodgy tax avoidance uncovered. Its purely an anti tory rhetoric. Completely avoiding the real story.

---

FYP as you glossed over a fairly important part of the situation but anyway. Let's take Cameron out of it and just talk about the British PM and the rest of the Cabinet as figures rather than people or their party.

Do you think, because of the position of influence they're in, that their own finances should be open to some scrutiny? My view is that the UK is lucky that the press is allowed to investigate and publish potential conflicts of interest. If they turn a blind eye in this case and others, then what incentive is there for the government to govern in the best interests of the country and not just themselves?

And does the amount matter? If it's only about 30 grand, peanuts for the big corporations, then does that make it ok? To me, I don't think it does.


EDIT: In short, there are some very corrupt governments out there and I don't think the UK is one of them. This type of press investigation is what keeps it (relatively) clean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Blue

It is a non story (or want it to be ) if you are a Tory apologist who wants to avoid the PM being shown up as a liar and hypocrite.

---

I agree with this , others opinions may differ

Firstly let me say that I'm not defending anyone or any principle here.

I'm an ex-resident of the Isle of Man, my wife is Manx as are 2 of my 4 sons. My background in Motor-cycle racing led to me living & working there.

The population of the Island has increased by 30% in the last 25 years and the number of "come-overs" now exceeds the number of hereditary Manx people. Tax avoidance is seen as a "rich mans" domain. Yes there are actors, bankers and sports stars taking advantage of the Manx tax system, but they are far outnumbered by the "worker class" seamen, rig workers, airline staff, chefs, engineers etc. who take advantage of being in Britain for less than 6 months of the year and get paid into a Manx bank account.

There are a lot of righteous people, who point the finger at others but if the opportunity presented itself would do the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Blue

It is a non story (or want it to be ) if you are a Tory apologist who wants to avoid the PM being shown up as a liar and hypocrite.

---

For me there is a bigger story, one being covered up by this story. Thousands of rich , much richer than cameron, using these schemes themselves. That is what needs covering. Yes cameron has dug himself a whole with his response, but the problem is much bigger much more important than him holding some shares. Would he get the same attention if he held shares in google, tesco, or apple?

Its a distraction technique played out by the people guilty of far worse. Focus on the real problem, not something that flatters your hatred of the tories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

In your opinion he's right , in my opinion he's wrong and loads of people on radio stations this morning think he's wrong too

---

I don't speak for others so of course it's my opinion.That's what a message board is about surely.Do you want me to right 'in my opinion' on each post!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

For me there is a bigger story, one being covered up by this story. Thousands of rich , much richer than cameron, using these schemes themselves. That is what needs covering. Yes cameron has dug himself a whole with his response, but the problem is much bigger much more important than him holding some shares. Would he get the same attention if he held shares in google, tesco, or apple?

Its a distraction technique played out by the people guilty of far worse. Focus on the real problem, not something that flatters your hatred of the tories.

---

To satisfy Sludge-in my opinion you have summed it up perfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Cent ?

Euro surely ?

Have you been on the glue

You bloody immigrant , taking Spanish jobs

---

OMG there are even more morons than I anticipated. If you had half a brain you would know a Euro comprises 100 centimos, popularly known as cents. And further more, I have taken no jobs from locals as I am 100% retired!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dénia Bluebird

OMG there are even more morons than I anticipated. If you had half a brain you would know a Euro comprises 100 centimos, popularly known as cents. And further more, I have taken no jobs from locals as I am 100% retired!

---

Poor old Sludge has had a mare on the Cent issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN

I don't speak for others so of course it's my opinion.That's what a message board is about surely.Do you want me to right 'in my opinion' on each post!!!!

---

It would help although your opinion is always to the right of centre with a wooden stake stuck up your backside by sitting on the right side of the fence , if that's possible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dénia Bluebird

OMG there are even more morons than I anticipated. If you had half a brain you would know a Euro comprises 100 centimos, popularly known as cents. And further more, I have taken no jobs from locals as I am 100% retired!

---

I am fully aware of that I was taking the piss out of you

Is it nice and sunny over there ?

Got your feet up on the sun lounger or have the Germans got there first

Bloody immigrants eh !!

Don't hurry back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN

To satisfy Sludge-in my opinion you have summed it up perfectly.

---

Spoken as a true I am middle of the road but as I get older I am turning into a Tory but can't hide it perfectly, in my opinion

It's sunny today but a bit cold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Des Parrot

Firstly let me say that I'm not defending anyone or any principle here.

I'm an ex-resident of the Isle of Man, my wife is Manx as are 2 of my 4 sons. My background in Motor-cycle racing led to me living & working there.

The population of the Island has increased by 30% in the last 25 years and the number of "come-overs" now exceeds the number of hereditary Manx people. Tax avoidance is seen as a "rich mans" domain. Yes there are actors, bankers and sports stars taking advantage of the Manx tax system, but they are far outnumbered by the "worker class" seamen, rig workers, airline staff, chefs, engineers etc. who take advantage of being in Britain for less than 6 months of the year and get paid into a Manx bank account.

There are a lot of righteous people, who point the finger at others but if the opportunity presented itself would do the same thing.

---

I wouldn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I wouldn't

---

I was reading about several people who were not rich and said this, but found as they got rich, they did partake in such activities. Because thats the way it tends to work. Easy to say you wouldn't when not well-off. Come back and say it if you make loads of money.

I am a big critic of tax avoidance, but where is the moral line to be drawn. Is using the marriage allowance okay? Is using a limited company and taking the tax benefits that come over being self employed okay. Where is the moral line, is there a line. It certainly moves depending on your wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

It would help although your opinion is always to the right of centre with a wooden stake stuck up your backside by sitting on the right side of the fence , if that's possible

---

Bless you -predictable in your own sweet way as you say I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

I was reading about several people who were not rich and said this, but found as they got rich, they did partake in such activities. Because thats the way it tends to work. Easy to say you wouldn't when not well-off. Come back and say it if you make loads of money.

I am a big critic of tax avoidance, but where is the moral line to be drawn. Is using the marriage allowance okay? Is using a limited company and taking the tax benefits that come over being self employed okay. Where is the moral line, is there a line. It certainly moves depending on your wealth.

---

From your earlier post, you suggest that as long as it's not as bad as the big corporations then it's ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Des Parrot

Firstly let me say that I'm not defending anyone or any principle here.

I'm an ex-resident of the Isle of Man, my wife is Manx as are 2 of my 4 sons. My background in Motor-cycle racing led to me living & working there.

The population of the Island has increased by 30% in the last 25 years and the number of "come-overs" now exceeds the number of hereditary Manx people. Tax avoidance is seen as a "rich mans" domain. Yes there are actors, bankers and sports stars taking advantage of the Manx tax system, but they are far outnumbered by the "worker class" seamen, rig workers, airline staff, chefs, engineers etc. who take advantage of being in Britain for less than 6 months of the year and get paid into a Manx bank account.

There are a lot of righteous people, who point the finger at others but if the opportunity presented itself would do the same thing.

---

There are probably plenty who say they wouldn't for the sake of being seen as on the moral high ground!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

As far I can can extract from whats out there. He held shares in a scheme his father setup. He paid tax on the dividends he received from the company, and when he disposed of the shares the capital gain (split between the 2 of them) was below the capital gains tax threshold so no tax was payable. So he has not directly avoided any tax.

Its as good as a non story. Especially compared to the levels of dodgy tax avoidance uncovered. Its purely an anti tory rhetoric. Completely avoiding the real story.

---

A tax avoidance scheme us illegal.

It is perfectly fine to have offshore investments, but anyone who is a UK resident/domicile MUST declare income and gains to HMRC. Tha aim of many of these companies is to hide ownership etc of assets, and they do not have to declare to UK HMRC any details if individuals. The same used to happen in Jersey but about 10 years ago the rules changed and Jersey based companies had declare interest etc to the UK. Cameron said that investing in the Panama based trust allowed investment in overseas investments and investments in other currencies. That can be done FA the UK Stick Market quite legally with full reporting structures to the tax authorities. So why invest in these trust then? Simple....tax avoidance.

One question not yet asked us how much if wealth accumulated in his dad's trust grew tax free with no tax reporting?That would mean anyone who inherited this wealth has benefited from something that didn't pay tax and therefore was worth much more because of not paying tax.

These people can give whatever excuse they want, and a large number of people will believe them as their explanations are perfectly plausible, but others know the real reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cardiff55

A tax avoidance scheme us illegal.

It is perfectly fine to have offshore investments, but anyone who is a UK resident/domicile MUST declare income and gains to HMRC. Tha aim of many of these companies is to hide ownership etc of assets, and they do not have to declare to UK HMRC any details if individuals. The same used to happen in Jersey but about 10 years ago the rules changed and Jersey based companies had declare interest etc to the UK. Cameron said that investing in the Panama based trust allowed investment in overseas investments and investments in other currencies. That can be done FA the UK Stick Market quite legally with full reporting structures to the tax authorities. So why invest in these trust then? Simple....tax avoidance.

One question not yet asked us how much if wealth accumulated in his dad's trust grew tax free with no tax reporting?That would mean anyone who inherited this wealth has benefited from something that didn't pay tax and therefore was worth much more because of not paying tax.

These people can give whatever excuse they want, and a large number of people will believe them as their explanations are perfectly plausible, but others know the real reasons.

---

Tax evasion is illegal-tax avoidance is not apparently.

Ooops, its not going away ... Cameron really under the cosh now.

I'm sure the lines of 'right and wrong' are a little blurred, but nevertheless the guy has found himself in a situation where he now reeks of hypocrisy, and also appears to have been avoiding telling the full truth. Not good for a PM...

I bet he wishes everyone just went back to talking about him with his todger that pigs head again ..

Will be interesting to see how/if he gets out of this one.
And terrifying as to what might follow if he doesn't. Frying pan .. fire.
Lucky ol' Britain ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN

Bless you -predictable in your own sweet way as you say I am.

---

And bless you dame Maggie of Thatcher , bless you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN

Tax evasion is illegal-tax avoidance is not apparently.

---

He's a sharp cookie this one , watch out hmrc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN

There are probably plenty who say they wouldn't for the sake of being seen as on the moral high ground!!!!!!

---

Not me Norman tebbits, not me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

And bless you dame Maggie of Thatcher , bless you

---

You talk about sharp cookies lol I suppose the analogy is tool and box!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

I was reading about several people who were not rich and said this, but found as they got rich, they did partake in such activities. Because thats the way it tends to work. Easy to say you wouldn't when not well-off. Come back and say it if you make loads of money.

I am a big critic of tax avoidance, but where is the moral line to be drawn. Is using the marriage allowance okay? Is using a limited company and taking the tax benefits that come over being self employed okay. Where is the moral line, is there a line. It certainly moves depending on your wealth.

---

You clearly speak for yourself mate , if I became rich most of it would go to charity for the homeless and mentally ill

Not everyone is greedy once they get some dosh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Not me Norman tebbits, not me

---

I'll take your word for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN

You talk about sharp cookies lol I suppose the analogy is tool and box!!

---

No sharp cookie mr Rees mogg, sharp cookie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cardiff55

A tax avoidance scheme us illegal.

It is perfectly fine to have offshore investments, but anyone who is a UK resident/domicile MUST declare income and gains to HMRC. Tha aim of many of these companies is to hide ownership etc of assets, and they do not have to declare to UK HMRC any details if individuals. The same used to happen in Jersey but about 10 years ago the rules changed and Jersey based companies had declare interest etc to the UK. Cameron said that investing in the Panama based trust allowed investment in overseas investments and investments in other currencies. That can be done FA the UK Stick Market quite legally with full reporting structures to the tax authorities. So why invest in these trust then? Simple....tax avoidance.

One question not yet asked us how much if wealth accumulated in his dad's trust grew tax free with no tax reporting?That would mean anyone who inherited this wealth has benefited from something that didn't pay tax and therefore was worth much more because of not paying tax.

These people can give whatever excuse they want, and a large number of people will believe them as their explanations are perfectly plausible, but others know the real reasons.

---

Your mixing it up. Tax avoidance is LEGAL, tax evasion is illegal. Where is the line separating the 2, well that depends on how clever your accountant is. You have mixed up legal procedures (as the rules stand) and some illegal practices.

He did pay tax on the funds made from the wealth from the trust, he paid dividend tax.

Putting funds abroad and growing them is legal. Hiding the money abroad is illegal. The trust his dad setup is 100% legal, not moral, but legal. Another case that was on the panama program where a guy who made money through property investments by putting it through a nameless company is apparently legal too, but barely, and could be investigated to be illegal evasion of tax.

Tax avoidance measures can be as simple as using the marriage allowance, its legal. But there is no clear line between whats legal and whats illegal, that can be made to look legal. Thats what needs attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRUMPYS DEN

I'll take your word for it

---

I knew we would find some common ground

You are know known as a liberal , I would name one but they have all vanished

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

FYP as you glossed over a fairly important part of the situation but anyway. Let's take Cameron out of it and just talk about the British PM and the rest of the Cabinet as figures rather than people or their party.

Do you think, because of the position of influence they're in, that their own finances should be open to some scrutiny? My view is that the UK is lucky that the press is allowed to investigate and publish potential conflicts of interest. If they turn a blind eye in this case and others, then what incentive is there for the government to govern in the best interests of the country and not just themselves?

And does the amount matter? If it's only about 30 grand, peanuts for the big corporations, then does that make it ok? To me, I don't think it does.


EDIT: In short, there are some very corrupt governments out there and I don't think the UK is one of them. This type of press investigation is what keeps it (relatively) clean.

---

You say it was a tax avoidance scheme as if that was the intended purpose, but I'd been sent this today and it seems to paint a different picture

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...nd-was-not-tax

For those that like their research will find that a lot of these unit trusts were based in jurisdictions and were done so for proper business reasons, whatever that means. The article suggests the FT is a good place to start and that is where I had a look. From what I've read here the issue around Blairmore is the fact its beneficial owner was shrouded in secrecy, a bit like Langstone, but that doesn't mean that Blairmore avoided paying any taxes that were properly due in the UK.

If our PM came clean at the outset this would have already run its course. Because Cameron circumvented the issue and initially spoke with a forked tongue, trust has disappeared so where there might be nothing underhand in all of this, his previous behaviour now creates an impression that may be too hard to shake off and thus damage his political reputation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

You clearly speak for yourself mate , if I became rich most of it would go to charity for the homeless and mentally ill

Not everyone is greedy once they get some dosh

---

I dont speak for myself. I am not ignorant enough to claim what I would do if I had loads of money.

And your right plenty of rich people donate to charity.... to avoid paying tax. Its a common tax avoidance measure. Dont trust those that donate loads to money, they are normally doing it to make themselves feel better for other dodgy practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

No sharp cookie mr Rees mogg, sharp cookie

---

Whose he?
Why don't you get back to work now and let me go through my offshore portfolio-I'm bantered out for now Josef.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon

Your mixing it up. Tax avoidance is LEGAL, tax evasion is illegal. Where is the line separating the 2, well that depends on how clever your accountant is. You have mixed up legal procedures (as the rules stand) and some illegal practices.

He did pay tax on the funds made from the wealth from the trust, he paid dividend tax.

Putting funds abroad and growing them is legal. Hiding the money abroad is illegal. The trust his dad setup is 100% legal, not moral, but legal. Another case that was on the panama program where a guy who made money through property investments by putting it through a nameless company is apparently legal too, but barely, and could be investigated to be illegal evasion of tax.

Tax avoidance measures can be as simple as using the marriage allowance, its legal. But there is no clear line between whats legal and whats illegal, that can be made to look legal. Thats what needs attention.

---

Yeah and guess which prime minister said he was going to sort it out ?

I will give you a clue .....his name is David Cameron .....who was as guilty as anyone of playing around the blurred lines