Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Flamingo Purple said:
Can someone who knows more about it explain the implications of Cameron's tax avoidance? What is it exactly he's done wrong?
Click to expand...
He's done nothing wrong legally- he paid tax on his investments. What he did mess up on was how he handled it. He denied he has any current shareholdings (which is true), but finally admitted he used to have before he became PM- ergo he sounded obstructive.

Before he became PM he actually sold all of his shareholdings, which was a smart move, but his apparent reticence to admit having once held offshore investments has been damaging.

People not familiar with finance assume 'offshore' means dodgy, which really doesn't have to be the case- eg a US asset manager might not want to launch versions of a fund in every EU country due to cost, so they launch a single one in the UK, Dublin or Luxembourg. To anyone not in the fund's country of domicile, it is deemed offshore, albeit open to the exact same regulatory and tax scrutiny as a domestically-domiciled one.
 
Jippy said:
He's done nothing wrong legally- he paid tax on his investments. What he did mess up on was how he handled it. He denied he has any current shareholdings (which is true), but finally admitted he used to have before he became PM- ergo he sounded obstructive.

Before he became PM he actually sold all of his shareholdings, which was a smart move, but his apparent reticence to admit having once held offshore investments has been damaging.

People not familiar with finance assume 'offshore' means dodgy, which really doesn't have to be the case- eg a US asset manager might not want to launch versions of a fund in every EU country due to cost, so they launch a single one in the UK, Dublin or Luxembourg. To anyone not in the fund's country of domicile, it is deemed offshore, albeit open to the exact same regulatory and tax scrutiny as a domestically-domiciled one.
Click to expand...

The two ideas are kind of incongruous though, aren't they?

There's little wrong with what you've said, but how can selling up prior to becoming PM and doing it in the first place both be sensible ideas; assuming that the timing of the sale bears relevance?

The British public aren't really all that interested in law - they'd happily see paedophiles strung up by the balls and murderers assassinated. They care more for mob justice and even-handedness in their own eyes (which I accept is problematic).

Cameron dug his own grave by (directly) condemning Jimmy Carr and (indirectly) his peers. I'd offer the argument that it is more acceptable for a high-profile person to exploit tax laws than it is for an individual who is directly responsible for making them; in fact, I would go so far as to say that it is irresponsible for the prime minister of the United Kingdom to knowingly exploit a law/loophole to his/her own advantage at any point of their professional career instead of looking for a way to close/fix it.

The reality of our current system is that the poor/uneducated pay every penny of their due tax or suffer the consequences. The wealthy/educated are able to minimise their contributions disproportionately and, as far as I can see, that creates a never-ending loop. That simply isn't fair. And, if anyone should be a paragon of equity, it is the gentlemen who rules these isles; clearly, he is not.
 
Blatzo said:
The two ideas are kind of incongruous though, aren't they?

There's little wrong with what you've said, but how can selling up prior to becoming PM and doing it in the first place both be sensible ideas; assuming that the timing of the sale bears relevance?

The British public aren't really all that interested in law - they'd happily see paedophiles strung up by the balls and murderers assassinated. They care more for mob justice and even-handedness in their own eyes (which I accept is problematic).

Cameron dug his own grave by (directly) condemning Jimmy Carr and (indirectly) his peers. I'd offer the argument that it is more acceptable for a high-profile person to exploit tax laws than it is for an individual who is directly responsible for making them; in fact, I would go so far as to say that it is irresponsible for the prime minister of the United Kingdom to knowingly exploit a law/loophole to his/her own advantage at any point of their professional career instead of looking for a way to close/fix it.

The reality of our current system is that the poor/uneducated pay every penny of their due tax or suffer the consequences. The wealthy/educated are able to minimise their contributions disproportionately and, as far as I can see, that creates a never-ending loop. That simply isn't fair. And, if anyone should be a paragon of equity, it is the gentlemen who rules these isles; clearly, he is not.
Click to expand...
It was eminently sensible. If you have shares in BP and are making policy on the taxation of North Sea oilfields. Ditto holdings in companies in any industry.
With regards to his offshore fund holdings- he could have held the position in unnamed 'bearer shares', but didn't and paid full tax on them.
You can damn Cam for a number of things, but this is a leftist witch hunt. His only mistake was the way he communicated it. The likes of Corbyn know it was purely cheap point-scoring that plays on the ignorance of the masses.
 
Blatzo said:
The two ideas are kind of incongruous though, aren't they?

There's little wrong with what you've said, but how can selling up prior to becoming PM and doing it in the first place both be sensible ideas; assuming that the timing of the sale bears relevance?

The British public aren't really all that interested in law - they'd happily see paedophiles strung up by the balls and murderers assassinated. They care more for mob justice and even-handedness in their own eyes (which I accept is problematic).

Cameron dug his own grave by (directly) condemning Jimmy Carr and (indirectly) his peers. I'd offer the argument that it is more acceptable for a high-profile person to exploit tax laws than it is for an individual who is directly responsible for making them; in fact, I would go so far as to say that it is irresponsible for the prime minister of the United Kingdom to knowingly exploit a law/loophole to his/her own advantage at any point of their professional career instead of looking for a way to close/fix it.

The reality of our current system is that the poor/uneducated pay every penny of their due tax or suffer the consequences. The wealthy/educated are able to minimise their contributions disproportionately and, as far as I can see, that creates a never-ending loop. That simply isn't fair. And, if anyone should be a paragon of equity, it is the gentlemen who rules these isles; clearly, he is not.
Click to expand...

Jippy said:
It was eminently sensible. If you have shares in BP and are making policy on the taxation of North Sea oilfields. Ditto holdings in companies in any industry.
With regards to his offshore fund holdings- he could have held the position in unnamed 'bearer shares', but didn't and paid full tax on them.
You can damn Cam for a number of things, but this is a leftist witch hunt. His only mistake was the way he communicated it. The likes of Corbyn know it was purely cheap point-scoring that plays on the ignorance of the masses.
Click to expand...

We're reading from the same script.

That's politics though, isn't it? Image is everything.
 
Jippy said:
It was eminently sensible. If you have shares in BP and are making policy on the taxation of North Sea oilfields. Ditto holdings in companies in any industry.
With regards to his offshore fund holdings- he could have held the position in unnamed 'bearer shares', but didn't and paid full tax on them.
You can damn Cam for a number of things, but this is a leftist witch hunt. His only mistake was the way he communicated it. The likes of Corbyn know it was purely cheap point-scoring that plays on the ignorance of the masses.
Click to expand...

And it's pathetic. And now to attack the money gifted to Cameron is even more pathetic. Anyone who doesn't make use of this and other legitimate tax planning is a pillock.

As Martin Lewis from moneysavingexpert.com said......

The Sunday Times front page is today implying Cameron's mother's £200,000 gift to him is an inheritance tax 'dodge' and 'avoidance'; yet I'm sure its own money section has often rightly recommended doing just that as legitimate tax planning. What next will we see "Cameron dodged £15,240 of saving tax by putting money in an ISA"?

So far in this debate I've been vocal on the fact we have a moral duty to pay our taxes - its the cost of living in a legitimate civil society. And offshore complex financial avoidance and dodgy hidden manipulative trusts should rightly be called avoidance and castigated

Yet lets call it avoidance when it is avoidance and not using government allowances to do things that we're supposed to do - even if you're prime minister. To try and grow this story by trying to darken the act of standard tax planning, isn't a good route,

The rules are plain you can give money from income, or give money more than 7 years before you die and there's no inheritence tax. Utilising that isn't dodgy.
 
Last edited:
Marching said:
And it's pathetic. And now to attack the money gifter to Cameron is even more pathetic. Anyone who doesn't make use of this and other legitimate tax planning is a pillock.

As Martin Lewis from moneysavingexpert.com said......

The Sunday Times front page is today implying Cameron's mother's £200,000 gift to him is an inheritance tax 'dodge' and 'avoidance'; yet I'm sure its own money section has often rightly recommended doing just that as legitimate tax planning. What next will we see "Cameron dodged £15,240 of saving tax by putting money in an ISA"?

So far in this debate I've been vocal on the fact we have a moral duty to pay our taxes - its the cost of living in a legitimate civil society. And offshore complex financial avoidance and dodgy hidden manipulative trusts should rightly be called avoidance and castigated

Yet lets call it avoidance when it is avoidance and not using government allowances to do things that we're supposed to do - even if you're prime minister. To try and grow this story by trying to darken the act of standard tax planning, isn't a good route,

The rules are plain you can give money from income, or give money more than 7 years before you die and there's no inheritence tax. Utilising that isn't dodgy.
Click to expand...
They're still at it today. This headline would interest me more if it said 'REVEALED: How David Cameron saved Paul Dacre £X,000 by cutting top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in 2013'.

Revealed: How David Cameron saved himself £5,000 by cutting the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in 2013

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...000-cutting-rate-income-tax-50p-45p-2013.html
 
I guess if Cameron was pro-Brexit then the Mail wouldn't be going after him so much.
 
The stories about the £200,000 are ridiculous but that's just the media putting out high interest items to extend the news story. Then again I think it's in the public interest to see how IHT is avoided to be honest to allow fair judgement.

I'm not so convinced with the fund. He didn't legally do anything wrong but then again if the fund wasn't set up to avoid tax it certainly was at the time before its transformation to hide assets.

Although the phrase has been dropped his "All in this together" mantra rings hollow when the prime minister is partaking in such activities so far removed from the common man.
 
Jippy said:
They're still at it today. This headline would interest me more if it said 'REVEALED: How David Cameron saved Paul Dacre £X,000 by cutting top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in 2013'.

Revealed: How David Cameron saved himself £5,000 by cutting the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in 2013

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...000-cutting-rate-income-tax-50p-45p-2013.html
Click to expand...

:lol: And me too!

Perhaps he should adopt Corbyn's daft "I have a letter from...." style for the House of Commons. "I have a letter from Jippy of Redcafe saying thank you for saving me £X,000 in tax."
 
Smores said:
The stories about the £200,000 are ridiculous but that's just the media putting out high interest items to extend the news story. Then again I think it's in the public interest to see how IHT is avoided to be honest to allow fair judgement.

I'm not so convinced with the fund. He didn't legally do anything wrong but then again if the fund wasn't set up to avoid tax it certainly was at the time before its transformation to hide assets.

Although the phrase has been dropped his "All in this together" mantra rings hollow when the prime minister is partaking in such activities so far removed from the common man.
Click to expand...
I get the argument that a lot of people's estate will fall within the nil rate band, but plenty of property owners in London and the SE are in the IHT net. The means of gifting money to avoid IHT is no big secret. If you look at it one way, it also means that money is going to the kids who will spend it, rather than it sitting there accruing interest in a wealthy pensioner's bank account.

Marching said:
:lol: And me too!

Perhaps he should adopt Corbyn's daft "I have a letter from...." style for the House of Commons. "I have a letter from Jippy of Redcafe saying thank you for saving me £X,000 in tax."
Click to expand...
:lol:I'm sure what the Tories have saved me in income tax, they have more than made up for in hiked indirect taxes.
 
Swings and roundabouts Jippy ;)


I wonder what comrade Corbyn's thoughts are on his fellow party member Mr Blair ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...0-tax-on-income-of-more-than-12m-6287001.html

I bet he's not asked fellow comrade Margaret Hodge and her shares in the family business that were brought onshore using a scheme, known as the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, that offered reduced penalties and no risk of prosecution for Britons moving undeclared assets back to the UK.

And then there is Tony Benn who made sure his children benefitted from good tax planning....

When Tony Benn’s wife died, he took steps to immediately pass his assets onto his children to reduce their eventual inheritance tax burden. The children took part ownership of the family home in Holland Park, which was then quickly sold for £4.1 million. He also placed Stansgate House and its estate in trust, another nifty inheritance tax avoidance measure. Hilary Benn and his siblings directed benefited from his father’s careful tax planning.
 
Jippy said:
I get the argument that a lot of people's estate will fall within the nil rate band, but plenty of property owners in London and the SE are in the IHT net. The means of gifting money to avoid IHT is no big secret. If you look at it one way, it also means that money is going to the kids who will spend it, rather than it sitting there accruing interest in a wealthy pensioner's bank account.
.
Click to expand...

I find the idea that people have been wronged because of increasing property values put them into IHT a bit hard to swallow.

Then again that's more around my issue with gains on property value than anything. For everyone I know who has inherited down here (SE) it just goes straight back into property and causes further inflation in the housing market therefore making it harder for those who didn't inherit and more for those who will. It's basically unearned income creating further unearned income.

If you're going to support the principles of IHT then for a politician to use the techniques the rest of us might use to get round it is questionable of them and the rules.
 
Smores said:
I find the idea that people have been wronged because of increasing property values put them into IHT a bit hard to swallow.

Then again that's more around my issue with gains on property value than anything. For everyone I know who has inherited down here (SE) it just goes straight back into property and causes further inflation in the housing market therefore making it harder for those who didn't inherit and more for those who will. It's basically unearned income creating further unearned income.

If you're going to support the principles of IHT then for a politician to use the techniques the rest of us might use to get round it is questionable of them and the rules.
Click to expand...
You mean they use their inheritance for deposits? Your friends' parents must be dying unluckily early, given most buy in their 30s and inherit in their 40s or 50s.
I get you hate unearned gains. What about unearned losses if your property value goes down, sending you into negative equity? You take a risk buying property, it can go either way- the financial crisis should be recent enough for people to remember that buying property isn't a one-way bet.
 
Cfvrx9TW8AAdLcM.jpg


:lol:
 
Sir Alan Duncan, the Conservative former international development minister, says Cameron’s critics just hate people who are wealthy.

Duncan: If Cameron's critics aren't careful, we'll end up with the House of Commons "stuffed with low achievers."
Click to expand...

Get to f*ck, you clown.
 
So it comes to light that the very council Corbyn represents has the same style of overseas investments as Cameron had. As does the Trade Unions Fund Manager who have 3% of their £50m invested offshore in Jersey.

As for Corbyn's pathetic response to Cameron's statement....FFS! I know it takes all sorts but how anyone with half a brain cell can take him seriously is beyond me.
 
Love to see the dinosaur Skinner! I detest all he stands for but he is entertaining. :lol:
 
Silva said:
...And plenty of us can't see how you can take David 'head boy of the country' Cameron seriously. A man who's main ambition in office is to hold office.
Click to expand...

Head boy :lol: As I said Silvia, it takes all sorts.
 
I bet Marching is wearing a monocle and swirling a large glass of cognac right now.
 
Pij said:
But you definitely have a top hat though, right?
Click to expand...

Nope - he's got a...*drum roll*...panama hat!


It's ok, folks, don't trouble yourselves - I'll shoot myself.
 
SteveJ said:
Nope - he's got a...*drum roll*...panama hat!


It's ok, folks, don't trouble yourselves - I'll shoot myself.
Click to expand...

Just pretend to be a fox and the Tories will do it for you...
 
SteveJ said:
Nope - he's got a...*drum roll*...panama hat!


It's ok, folks, don't trouble yourselves - I'll shoot myself.
Click to expand...
"Pij" :lol:
 
Grinner said:
He should have withdrawn the remark and called him dickhead Dave instead.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to whether there's any greater punishment for a more severe remark. Cause, I mean, if dodgy can get you ejected for the rest of a session...you wonder why the ballsy ones like Skinner don't come out with something even more insulting if they can effectively get away with it.
 
Marching said:
Swings and roundabouts Jippy ;)


I wonder what comrade Corbyn's thoughts are on his fellow party member Mr Blair ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...0-tax-on-income-of-more-than-12m-6287001.html

I bet he's not asked fellow comrade Margaret Hodge and her shares in the family business that were brought onshore using a scheme, known as the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility, that offered reduced penalties and no risk of prosecution for Britons moving undeclared assets back to the UK.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're going to get very far if you try to convince people that Jez is protecting, or wanting to help Tony Blair with anything!

Dan said:


:lol:
Click to expand...

:lol: Hero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.