Cameron and Tax Havens.

[Tangled up in Blue]

It's now not enough for a party leader to be scrupulously clean; but their dead parents have to be as well.

First the Mail had a go at Ed Miliband over his dead father, now Cameron's dead father for having investments and leaving them to his kids.

There's not even any allegation of illegality.

This is ridiculous (although poorly handled by Cameron).

Shouldn't we be focussing on the likes of Putin's cronies' laundering of their bribes?

If I were you, I'd stop reading The Daily Fail.You'll live longer.:winking:

On second thoughts.....

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35992167

It took 5 press releases from number ten before Cameron finally admitted this.

Shame on him.

this is the thing though - he thinks he is above scrutiny, it 'seems' from the latest update that nothing was illegal but he genuinely thinks 'put up or shut up' is enough of an answer to appease legitimate questions, then he looks like a right dick when he finally accepts he needs give a lil more information

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

"The BBC understands Mr Cameron will publish his tax returns, possibly next week."

And possibly not,I suppose.:winking:

 

[EastStandBlue]

Shouldn't we be focussing on the likes of Putin's cronies' laundering of their bribes?

Yes, definitely.

But that's not to say this isn't a legitimate story. If Cameron had came out and said immediately after the initial details were published what's now known it would've killed the story dead. It's really not that interesting compared to everything else involved in the papers, and certainly not as interesting as what's alluded to be in the pipeline in the coming weeks.

In his and his office's poor handling of it all the story's now taken on a new guise. It might not be the case that he had much to hide, but it looks increasingly as if there were attempts to sweep things under the rug and obfuscate.

On second thoughts.....

What does that even mean?

 

[callan]

If I were you, I'd stop reading The Daily Fail.You'll live longer.:winking:

On second thoughts.....

Perhaps you need to take a break from the zone?

 

[Benfleet A1]

Perhaps you need to take a break from the zone?

About 5 years should do it.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

About 5 years should do it.

Only five?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35994283

The row goes on.The gift that just keeps on giving.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Yes, definitely.

But that's not to say this isn't a legitimate story. If Cameron had came out and said immediately after the initial details were published what's now known it would've killed the story dead. It's really not that interesting compared to everything else involved in the papers, and certainly not as interesting as what's alluded to be in the pipeline in the coming weeks.

In his and his office's poor handling of it all the story's now taken on a new guise. It might not be the case that he had much to hide, but it looks increasingly as if there were attempts to sweep things under the rug and obfuscate.



What does that even mean?

Irony alert.:winking:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35994283

The row goes on.The gift that just keeps on giving.

It's disgraceful politicking from Labour, who are missing the real scandal here.

Only a financial illiterate (hello Barna!) could think that Cameron had been avoiding or evading tax by investing in that fund. He bought shares in it out of taxed income, he paid income tax on the dividends from it and paid all capital gains tax due on it (none as it was within the annual allowance). That's like the world's most ineffective tax avoidance scam ever. He didn't even invest it through an ISA.

And he'd disposed of it before he came Prime Minister.

This isn't a family trust fund but an investment fund that anyone can buy into. This is no different really to what your pension funds do with your money. There's no real difference to someone who invests a grand in a Stocks and Shares ISA - except then they seek a tax efficient wrapper to their investment so they don't pay income tax on the dividends or capital gains on the sale.

I suspect it's not even the most interesting bit of his wealth - the inheritance from his father will likely have actually been arranged in a far more aggressively tax efficient manner than this investment was. But Labour are too timid to take on inheritance, something where they could really be progressive and ease social mobility, as it's popular with the focus groups.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It's disgraceful politicking from Labour, who are missing the real scandal here.

Only a financial illiterate (hello Barna!) could think that Cameron had been avoiding or evading tax by investing in that fund. He bought shares in it out of taxed income, he paid income tax on the dividends from it and paid all capital gains tax due on it (none as it was within the annual allowance). That's like the world's most ineffective tax avoidance scam ever. He didn't even invest it through an ISA.

And he'd disposed of it before he came Prime Minister.

This isn't a family trust fund but an investment fund that anyone can buy into. This is no different really to what your pension funds do with your money. There's no real difference to someone who invests a grand in a Stocks and Shares ISA - except then they seek a tax efficient wrapper to their investment so they don't pay income tax on the dividends or capital gains on the sale.

I suspect it's not even the most interesting bit of his wealth - the inheritance from his father will likely have actually been arranged in a far more aggressively tax efficient manner than this investment was. But Labour are too timid to take on inheritance, something where they could really be progressive and ease social mobility, as it's popular with the focus groups.

What have Labour done that is disgraceful? The PM was asked questions which he dismissed, then watered down his dismissal, then said it's all in the past then eventually gave some kind of detail after letting it fester for four days.


I see this as Cameron inviting trouble. Any fool could see this is a big scandal for the rich and powerful and he has allowed himself to be sucked into it by not giving clear answers. Unless I have missed something all Labour have done is ask him to come clean. For him to be so evasive about having done nothing wrong makes it seem like he is hiding something else. He has made it seem like this is the tip of the iceberg - as far as I can see he has done this to himself.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It's disgraceful politicking from Labour, who are missing the real scandal here.

Only a financial illiterate (hello Barna!) could think that Cameron had been avoiding or evading tax by investing in that fund. He bought shares in it out of taxed income, he paid income tax on the dividends from it and paid all capital gains tax due on it (none as it was within the annual allowance). That's like the world's most ineffective tax avoidance scam ever. He didn't even invest it through an ISA.

And he'd disposed of it before he came Prime Minister.

This isn't a family trust fund but an investment fund that anyone can buy into. This is no different really to what your pension funds do with your money. There's no real difference to someone who invests a grand in a Stocks and Shares ISA - except then they seek a tax efficient wrapper to their investment so they don't pay income tax on the dividends or capital gains on the sale.

I suspect it's not even the most interesting bit of his wealth - the inheritance from his father will likely have actually been arranged in a far more aggressively tax efficient manner than this investment was. But Labour are too timid to take on inheritance, something where they could really be progressive and ease social mobility, as it's popular with the focus groups.

That's certainly something we can both agree on.

Apparently,Cameron inherited 300,000 quid from his father.It would certainly be interesting to know what he did with the dosh.

Meanwhile,I'm still waiting for Cameron to publish his tax returns but not with bated breath.:whistling:

 

[callan]

What have Labour done that is disgraceful? The PM was asked questions which he dismissed, then watered down his dismissal, then said it's all in the past then eventually gave some kind of detail after letting it fester for four days.


I see this as Cameron inviting trouble. Any fool could see this is a big scandal for the rich and powerful and he has allowed himself to be sucked into it by not giving clear answers. Unless I have missed something all Labour have done is ask him to come clean. For him to be so evasive about having done nothing wrong makes it seem like he is hiding something else. He has made it seem like this is the tip of the iceberg - as far as I can see he has done this to himself.

Has it occurred to you that those of us with pension funds may well be on Fonesca's books?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Has it occurred to you that those of us with pension funds may well be on Fonesca's books?

Have you replied to the wrong post? Mine was about Cameron taking 4 days to explain what he now says is a straight forward financial transaction.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Am I the only one on here that thinks this is a complete non story? Yes he's been a bit of a **** with his dithering around when it comes to explaining his position but the way in which the whole of the Labour hierarchy are jumping all over this to make something out of nothing just screams of desperate political point scoring with a holier than thou attitude.

DC has done absolutely nothing illegal. He's not avoided or evaded paying any income tax on monies coming to him whatsoever and lets not forget that anyone with just a modicum of common sense and intelligence would know that the political elite of this country, regardless of party affiliation, have been putting their money into perfectly legal funds, trusts, accounts etc for many many years. What's all the fuss about?

Can we all get back to concentrating and discussing the important things that matter in life. This really is a lot of hoohaa about nothing.

 

[mrsblue]

Am I the only one on here that thinks this is a complete non story? Yes he's been a bit of a **** with his dithering around when it comes to explaining his position but the way in which the whole of the Labour hierarchy are jumping all over this to make something out of nothing just screams of desperate political point scoring with a holier than thou attitude.

DC has done absolutely nothing illegal. He's not avoided or evaded paying any income tax on monies coming to him whatsoever and lets not forget that anyone with just a modicum of common sense and intelligence would know that the political elite of this country, regardless of party affiliation, have been putting their money into perfectly legal funds, trusts, accounts etc for many many years. What's all the fuss about?

Can we all get back to concentrating and discussing the important things that matter in life. This really is a lot of hoohaa about nothing.

Totally agree,and I'm no fan of Cammy.

Cannot wait for Jezza to publish his tax returns.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/09/david-cameron-questions-gift-mother

IT'S SCHWEPPES, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?........
Well, not a great deal. There has skilfully been included, just a little bit of fizz to provide a soupçon of interest .........enough to provide the media with headlines such as the one above. Yet this has all been carefully manufactured so that the 'openess' of the revelation counterbalances, or rather, outweighs any slight shock or indignation one may feel.
Anything financially suspect will have been sanatised when Cameron became PM in 2010. The more interesting (and probably embarrassing) info concerning his holdings, tax payments and income prior that date are certainly not going to be published.
Yet, what worries me more , is that they have been forced to go even this far. It gives me the impression that there is indeed great concern of the way the referendum could go and the negative effect the Panama Papers revelation could have on the Tories and more importantly, the 'stay in' campaign

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Am I the only one on here that thinks this is a complete non story? Yes he's been a bit of a **** with his dithering around when it comes to explaining his position but the way in which the whole of the Labour hierarchy are jumping all over this to make something out of nothing just screams of desperate political point scoring with a holier than thou attitude.

DC has done absolutely nothing illegal. He's not avoided or evaded paying any income tax on monies coming to him whatsoever and lets not forget that anyone with just a modicum of common sense and intelligence would know that the political elite of this country, regardless of party affiliation, have been putting their money into perfectly legal funds, trusts, accounts etc for many many years. What's all the fuss about?

Can we all get back to concentrating and discussing the important things that matter in life. This really is a lot of hoohaa about nothing.

The real "story" is that tax havens like that in Panama should be cracked down on.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/09/panama-papers-tax-havens-thomas-piketty

Until we see Cameron's pre-2010 tax returns, (which we won't), nobody can say for sure that he hasn't done anything illegal.

What he has done is certainly unethical even if it's not illegal.It is also hypocritical, given that he has previously called for more openess with regard to international tax havens,without revealing (until now) that he has benefited from their use.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Totally agree,and I'm no fan of Cammy.

Cannot wait for Jezza to publish his tax returns.

Famously, at the time of the expenses scandal,JC was notable for being the MP who claimed least in the form of expenses, of all the 650 MP's in the Commons.

He's also made it clear that he lives on his Parliamentary salary and journalism for The Morning Star.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/09/david-cameron-questions-gift-mother

IT'S SCHWEPPES, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?........
Well, not a great deal. There has skilfully been included, just a little bit of fizz to provide a soupçon of interest .........enough to provide the media with headlines such as the one above. Yet this has all been carefully manufactured so that the 'openess' of the revelation counterbalances, or rather, outweighs any slight shock or indignation one may feel.
Anything financially suspect will have been sanatised when Cameron became PM in 2010. The more interesting (and probably embarrassing) info concerning his holdings, tax payments and income prior that date are certainly not going to be published.
Yet, what worries me more , is that they have been forced to go even this far. It gives me the impression that there is indeed great concern of the way the referendum could go and the negative effect the Panama Papers revelation could have on the Tories and more importantly, the 'stay in' campaign

You're right of course.But how many people do you know whose Daddy has left them 300,000 quid and their Mummy 200,000? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk

None I suspect.