UKC

Ian Cameron - Naughty, naughty!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Rob Exile Ward 04 Apr 2016
I know you're dead now, but it was bit of an unfortunate legacy to leave your 'we're all in it together/we're going to crack down on tax evasion' son, wasn't it?

Of course, we all believe David when he tells us he never benefitted from your tax evading shenanigans, he probably neither knows or cares to the nearest few mill how much he's worth.
7
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It's pretty much pure Alice in Wonderland, isn't it? If only Lewis Carroll were alive today.
Post edited at 21:38
3
Clauso 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

"We're all in it together." refers to fellow tax evaders, silly.

... Who's buying the next bottle of champers? Chin, chin!
2
 Mick Ward 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It does seem to be going that way.

And yet, through it all, Sam remains divine...

Mick (a romantic fule)
2
In reply to Mick Ward:

What are you drinking tonight Mick?
1
 Mick Ward 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Merlot!

Mick ('In vino, non veritas...?')
In reply to Mick Ward:

You do read her diaries in the Guardian, right?
 Trevers 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Somebody has been telling porkies, it seems!

(But seriously, is this not the political scandal of the century? Should it not be sufficient to remove that nasty little man from any position of power for life? Or am I mistaken?)
6
Removed User 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Where the hell's PostmanPat, I need to understand why this is just left wing spin?
 Mick Ward 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Oh no, leave me my illusions intact.

The green light at the end of the pier...

Nope, don't want to hear more. Love's just died.

Mick
Clauso 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You'll be accusing the Osborne family business of avoiding around £2m in UK corporation tax, in a recent property deal, next. A state of affairs that the Chancellor himself labelled "morally repugnant", and I believe him. After all, what could he possibly stand to gain from such shadowy shenanigans?
Clauso 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Ohhhh... A link may be beneficial here. In the interest of clarity?

http://www.channel4.com/news/george-osborne-family-business-6m-deal-with-of...
 Mick Ward 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> (But seriously, is this not the political scandal of the century? Should it not be sufficient to remove that nasty little man from any position of power for life? Or am I mistaken?)

You certainly should be right... but it seems as though the populace has become sanitised into near-indifference, with occasional drama (insight?) only registering in a soap-opera kind of way.

Mick

 humptydumpty 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

> You certainly should be right... but it seems as though the populace has become sanitised into near-indifference, with occasional drama (insight?) only registering in a soap-opera kind of way.

Sadly this seems accurate - the "scandal" is completely unsurprising.
1
 Trevers 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

> You certainly should be right... but it seems as though the populace has become sanitised into near-indifference, with occasional drama (insight?) only registering in a soap-opera kind of way.

> Mick

I feel almost too exasperated by how stupid and nasty this government has revealed itself to be over the last 11 months to be angry any more.
2
Jim C 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

" The sins of the father are to be laid upon the children.”
( in the form a nice legacy thank you very much)

This is all from just one offshore company that has been hacked. Ideally all public spirited hackers will now target all the offshore companies, and publish the names of the clients, and let them justify their involvement to HMRC.
1
 Big Ger 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm sure all here would be very keen to resign if they found out their father had done something legal.
6
KevinD 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

Curious as to whether they got hacked or it was an inside job.
Either way bet the security companies phones have been ringing constantly particularly asking for some people with network analysis skills.
Clauso 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I'm sure all here would be very keen to resign if they found out their father had done something legal.

Fair point... I hereby resign from the dole.
 Trevers 04 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I'm sure all here would be very keen to resign if they found out their father had done something legal.

Would you not agree that some lines of work or levels of public office require a higher degree of personal and familial integrity than others?
1
 Big Ger 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:
I don't know about familial, as we cannot know all the skeletons, even legal ones, in our family closet.

> Cameron cannot be held responsible for his father’s financial arrangements and nor can he monitor the activities of every senior party member seemingly acting as many wealthy earners do around the globe, legally minimising their tax bills. The issue for Cameron - as it will be for his successors, Tory or Labour - is what if anything individual governments can do when money is moved from haven to haven with the click on a computer and the expertise of a Panamanian law firm.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-panama-papers-tax-avoidance-scandal...
Post edited at 00:10
1
Pan Ron 05 Apr 2016
In reply to humptydumpty:

> Sadly this seems accurate - the "scandal" is completely unsurprising.

Indeed. I find it hard to get worked up over this. It surely covers just a tiny percentage of the dodgy dealings, evasion and general shenanigans that must go on. All well and good calling for those connected to lose their jobs, but if the remaining 99.9% who haven't had their details leaked can continue as usual, what does it achieve? It seems little more than a token moment of outrage, that will result in the odd sacking of individuals whose net worth effectively shelters them from the hardships of unemployment that most would experience. I really don't see any impact at all from this, and if anything I'm surprised at how surprised people seem to be!
1
 Trevers 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Well if I was running for the highest office in the land, proposing an austerity program and cuts that would disproportionately affect the poor, and I was selling this package under the slogan 'We're all in it together', while demonising honest people on benefits as workshy scroungers, and I happened to have been born into a great amount of wealth - I'd probably want to make damn sure that wealth was fairly gained and subject to all the same taxes that everyone else pays, so that I couldn't be painted as an appalling hypocrite.
1
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I don't know about familial, as we cannot know all the skeletons, even legal ones, in our family closet.

Well its lucky he has cleared it up and confirmed that he no longer makes use of offshore funds isnt it?
Oh wait my mistake he refuses to answer that question.

2
Clauso 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> I'd probably want to make damn sure that wealth was fairly gained and subject to all the same taxes that everyone else pays, so that I couldn't be painted as an appalling hypocrite.

<note_to _UKC _web _developers>Implement a multi-Like button</note_to_UKC_web_developers>
 Big Ger 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:

Well done you.
3
Clauso 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Well done you.

Which bit of his argument irks you?
 Big Ger 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Clauso:
None of it, why?

I'm sure that Trevers, should he ever become the holder of the highest office in the land, proposing an austerity program and cuts that would disproportionately affect the poor, and he was selling this package under the slogan 'We're all in it together', while demonising honest people on benefits as workshy scroungers, and he happened to have been born into a great amount of wealth - he'd probably want to make damn sure that his family wealth was fairly gained and subject to all the same taxes that everyone else pays, so that he couldn't be painted as an appalling hypocrite.
Post edited at 00:41
13
Clauso 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

<snigger>
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> I know you're dead now, but it was bit of an unfortunate legacy to leave your 'we're all in it together/we're going to crack down on tax evasion' son, wasn't it?
> Of course, we all believe David when he tells us he never benefitted from your tax evading shenanigans, he probably neither knows or cares to the nearest few mill how much he's worth.

Wasn't it David Cameron who changed the tax laws to block these loop holes, which are historical and no longer exist?

I think it is more important that people who personally held them like the Iceland PM are outed, not their members of family who in most cases are responsibly for their own affairs, you can't pick your family as the saying goes.
Post edited at 06:56
2
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Clauso:

> You'll be accusing the Osborne family business of avoiding around £2m in UK corporation tax, in a recent property deal, next. A state of affairs that the Chancellor himself labelled "morally repugnant", and I believe him. After all, what could he possibly stand to gain from such shadowy shenanigans?

Didn't one of the two ronnies pass on his property in trust to his kids to avoid a similar amount of inheritance tax and I saw no public savaging? Selective leftism?
12
In reply to summo:
I didn't know that one of the two Ronnies had been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, responsible amongt other things for fair and equitable tax collection. I must have missed that.
Post edited at 07:18
1
 felt 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> You do read her diaries in the Guardian, right?

They're inspired, but I don't care at all for her political column in the Observer.
 DerwentDiluted 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I didn't know that one of the two Ronnies had been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, responsible amongt other things for fair and equitable tax collection. I must have missed that.

Minister for 'Piscal Misanthropibility' perhaps?
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I didn't know that one of the two Ronnies had been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, responsible amongt other things for fair and equitable tax collection. I must have missed that.

nope, but he was working exactly within the framework of HMRC legislation, set by the government, just like these people were when they set their Panama deals up. The loop hole has been since closed. If you want to blame anyone it's the government of the day that allowed the loop holes to remain and HMRC. We all avoid tax.
9
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> We all avoid tax.

Oh? Are you doing the normal misrepresentation of comparing cycle to work or an ISA to offshore banking?
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> I think it is more important that people who personally held them like the Iceland PM are outed, not their members of family who in most cases are responsibly for their own affairs

You do realise David Cameron refuses to answer questions about whether parts of it are still in place and in use?
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Oh? Are you doing the normal misrepresentation of comparing cycle to work or an ISA to offshore banking?

my point is everyone tries their best to minimise their tax, within whatever schemes apply to them. There is nothing to stop a pensioner retiring today and taking all their pension (taxed for the 2nd time of course) and then putting it where they like in various offshore schemes, as many would have enough. The same with people down sizing housing, or with property which has gone up in the value they can benefit from many of the same 'loop holes' or ways of minimising your tax take as the ultra rich. Putting property into trust, gifting money to grand kids every year, or setting up pension or investment funds for kids/grandkids etc.. are all sound practices, the thing is many people are simply not motivated to do something about it themselves and prefer to moan about those that do. The rest is a fair percentage of jealousy.
14
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> You do realise David Cameron refuses to answer questions about whether parts of it are still in place and in use?

yeah, but so what, the money went in legally according to the tax legislation of the day, when a labour government allowed it to exist. At least the Tories closed it?

I'd worry more about Blairs tax and money, than Camerons.

EDIT, I think it's a little like the MPs questioning the Google boss about how much he is paid, it's simply not relevant. If they are both operating within the law, then there is nothing to answer. The bigger question is why did Labour not close it, why wasn't HMRC doing more in the past to prevent these gaps.
Post edited at 08:24
9
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> my point is everyone tries their best to minimise their tax, within whatever schemes apply to them.

Your point is utter bollocks. Dont judge everyone else by your standards.
Some IT contractors set up dubious company structures to minimise tax whereas others dont.
Likewise with trusts.
This isnt, as per your insinuation, people being lazy but rather people choosing not to game the system.

> The rest is a fair percentage of jealousy.

BINGO. We have a politics of envy claim.
3
 pebbles 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I didn't know that one of the two Ronnies had been appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer,

Actually, this would explain quite a lot....
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Your point is utter bollocks. Dont judge everyone else by your standards.

give me one example where you openly and willingly pay extra tax that you don't need to and I'll give you the moral high ground. I'm happy to pay a fairly high rate of tax and I feel I can see the benefit in services, but I won't pay extra compared to someone else earning the same money as I think that would be unfair.

> Some IT contractors set up dubious company structures to minimise tax whereas others dont.

but those that don't still take a tax free allowance, claim expenses etc.. granted there are varying levels and they might not have made themselves a company and put themselves and their wife down as directors, but there is nothing stopping the other contractors 'legally' doing so.

> Likewise with trusts.
putting your family home in trust because you live somewhere like London and it's rocketed in value since you bought in the 60/70s to help avoid inheritance tax is doing your kids a massive favour and exceedingly wise. In the coming years more and more families will get a massive tax bill and be forced to sell their family home unless they can come up with several hundred thousand pounds in cash.

> This isnt, as per your insinuation, people being lazy but rather people choosing not to game the system.

ok perhaps not just lazy, but foolish. If you are not prepared to invest a little time in your financial security in old age and help your kids, it is both lazy and foolish.

> BINGO. We have a politics of envy claim.
you telling me Corbyn won't be stoking the envy fire this week, keeping all those low paid labour voters on his side.
Post edited at 08:36
6
 pebbles 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

it should be like Godwins Law . The first person to pipe up "politics of envy" during a discussion on corruption automatically loses the argument.
1
 The New NickB 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Apparently it is a private matter, I wonder if Jimmy Carr will share that view.
1
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> yeah, but so what, the money went in legally according to the tax legislation of the day, when a labour government allowed it to exist. At least the Tories closed it?

Dont lie. The Tories closed some loopholes but left many wide open. If you cant see why it is of interest whether Cameron still had a conflict of interest let me flip it on its head to suit your partisan world view. Do you think Labours action position might have been compromised by the fact that at one stage the minister in charge of it had interests in offshore companies.

> I'd worry more about Blairs tax and money, than Camerons.

Ah politics of envy about the self made man rather than inherited wealth.

> EDIT, I think it's a little like the MPs questioning the Google boss about how much he is paid, it's simply not relevant.

That was partly theatre and partly a roundabout attack on the claim by google that their UK bods did bugger all but forward emails to Ireland.

> If they are both operating within the law, then there is nothing to answer.

Really? So the only thing that controls your behaviour is the law. Thats quite worrying. Bit like when godbots claim atheists cant be trusted because they dont have god spying on them.

> The bigger question is why did Labour not close it, why wasn't HMRC doing more in the past to prevent these gaps.

Can you list how the tories have closed it off. Are you confusing some small actions closing some loopholes but then opening up others as actually taking decisive action?

1
 krikoman 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> you telling me Corbyn won't be stoking the envy fire this week, keeping all those low paid labour voters on his side.

Not so much to do with envy more to do with fairness, I'd say, obviously you'd disagree. I happen to think that because you can afford to doesn't mean you have to (evade tax that is).
2
 Sir Chasm 05 Apr 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> Apparently it is a private matter, I wonder if Jimmy Carr will share that view.

This is rather the point, the issue is Dave's tax arrangements and whether, unlike Jimmy, he can continue to keep his arrangements hidden. His dad's tax arrangements are irrelevant and the people calling for people to be sacked because of their dad's actions are morons.
1
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> give me one example where you openly and willingly pay extra tax that you don't need to and I'll give you the moral high ground.

So we jump from tax minimisation to additional tax payments. I am curious as to whether you honestly cant understand the difference between the three or are just lying.

> but those that don't still take a tax free allowance, claim expenses etc..

Which arent the same thing. Lets try it this way with a contrived example.
Can you not see a minor difference between IT bod one using the normal allowance and expenses, when they can be arsed, and IT bod two who sets up their offshore company which owns the rights to "it bod two" brand and so has the onshore company make substantial payments to be allowed to use that name?

> putting your family home in trust because you live somewhere like London and it's rocketed in value since you bought in the 60/70s to help avoid inheritance tax is doing your kids a massive favour and exceedingly wise.

It is unlikely most would live in that "family home" anyway but nice tug at the heartstrings.

> it is both lazy and foolish.

Have you thought the kids might not be impressed about that sort of thing?

> you telling me Corbyn won't be stoking the envy fire this week, keeping all those low paid labour voters on his side.

if we are throwing about random stereotype accusations. Can you tell me Cameron wont be busy undermining any reform to allow the inherited riches to be retained?
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed User:

> Where the hell's PostmanPat, I need to understand why this is just left wing spin?

Do not fear. I'm here. Can u explain what was done, with what or whose money, and the tax benefits of it, and when you have done this, what you believe is wrong with this?
6
 BnB 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> This is rather the point, the issue is Dave's tax arrangements and whether, unlike Jimmy, he can continue to keep his arrangements hidden. His dad's tax arrangements are irrelevant and the people calling for people to be sacked because of their dad's actions are morons.

One of the few sensible, non-tendentious posts on this thread. Apart perhaps from calling people "morons", though I understand the frustration.
2
 The New NickB 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Should the Prime Ministers tax arrangements be anything but transparent? Seems odd to suggest otherwise.

He benefits from family money, so whilst nobody sensible is suggesting he should suffer for the sins of his father, any benefit me might derive from his fathers sins, probably shouldn't be private.
1
 colinakmc 05 Apr 2016
In reply to pebbles:

No it wouldn't, but one of the Chuckle brothers in that job might.
1
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> So we jump from tax minimisation

I fully understand, everything they did was legal, so they were tax minimalizing.

> Can you not see a minor difference between IT bod one using the normal allowance and expenses, when they can be arsed, and IT bod two who sets up their offshore company which owns the rights to "it bod two" brand and so has the onshore company make substantial payments to be allowed to use that name?

But if one can't be arsed and another milks the system for every penny then who is the fool. I'm happy to pay tax and quite a lot of it, but I won't pay extra, seems fair?

> It is unlikely most would live in that "family home" anyway but nice tug at the heartstrings.

perhaps, but perhaps that's part of the problem with UK housing, there is not a multi generational family home culture. Either way people work their whole lives then, have to either sell their home to pay for healthcare or inheritance tax, seems a little unfair? Many countries with a much narrower wealth gap in society have zero inheritance tax, so there isn't really a logical motive for it, other than taking in tax of course.

> Have you thought the kids might not be impressed about that sort of thing?

I think they'd be less impressed with a 40% tax bill. I don't know many kids who when they reach say 30 or 40yrs, would not be grateful for their parents setting up a pension or savings funds , or putting property in trust. If you set up a pension or fund when a child is born, then the benefits when they retire (probably early) are astronomical. We've been asked to be god parents a couple of times and have always set up an ethical fund in our bank with a little lump to get it going, much more use than a silver box for their first tooth etc..

> if we are throwing about random stereotype accusations. Can you tell me Cameron wont be busy undermining any reform to allow the inherited riches to be retained?

What is wrong with passing on some of your hard work to your kids? Don't you like them? As said above plenty countries with narrower gaps don't have inheritance tax.
Post edited at 09:42
1
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> Not so much to do with envy more to do with fairness, I'd say, obviously you'd disagree. I happen to think that because you can afford to doesn't mean you have to (evade tax that is).

it should act as a incentive to simplify UK tax, the HMRC guidelines are some of the biggest and most complex in Europe. There is a continued push in the UK to lower base tax rates and increase thresholds, but services need paying for, so they try to squeeze extra tax out of people through 100s of little clauses and mini taxes, but these just create loop holes and gaps.

Better to have a much higher tax at all levels, CGT, Corp etc.. and very few clauses and exceptions. Hard to avoid and very transparent. For any person in Sweden you can put their details in online and see exactly how much anyone earns per year and how much tax they paid on it, no hiding. But there is no inheritance tax, planning ahead is encouraged, I get a pension statement from the government showing exactly what I would have if I retired at various ages, so there is no denying you weren't told to plan ahead.
Post edited at 09:41
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> I fully understand

Clearly you dont since you seem to be confusing several different issues here.

> But if one can't be arsed and another milks the system for every penny then who is the fool.

You seem to be having difficulty with basic concepts here. Its not that one cant be arsed its that they might feel obligations to the society around them not to game the system.

> I'm happy to pay tax and quite a lot of it, but I won't pay extra, seems fair?

Ok, so how do you determine what is extra? Since you seem rather confused about this.

> Many countries with a much narrower wealth gap in society have zero inheritance tax, so there isn't really a logical motive for it, other than taking in tax of course.

Or to avoid concentration of wealth over generations. Can you give examples of those countries with much narrower wealth gap who have had zero inheritence tax for 50 years or more. Since using countries which have done it in the last 20 years or so will not tell us anything interesting. Its a bit like shouting about Sweden's education success and the fact it had free schools before waiting to see what effect that policy had once it had had chance to sink in.

> I think they'd be less impressed with a 40% tax bill. I don't know many kids who when they reach say 30 or 40yrs, would not be grateful for their parents setting up a pension or savings funds , or putting property in trust.

I am the kid. I am grateful to my parents for their support, particular making sure I wasnt brought up in the shithole they were, but any money from them is a bonus. I guess the difference is I was brought up to be independent.

1
 Sir Chasm 05 Apr 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> Should the Prime Ministers tax arrangements be anything but transparent? Seems odd to suggest otherwise.

That's why I didn't suggest it. They should be transparent, but, as I said, can (not should) Dave carry on keeping the arrangements hidden?

> He benefits from family money, so whilst nobody sensible is suggesting he should suffer for the sins of his father, any benefit me might derive from his fathers sins, probably shouldn't be private.

I'm not sure it matters, we're probably all assuming he benefitted - would he be lowered in my estimation if he confirmed it? Not really.
Clauso 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

David Cameron would prefer if Britain went back to talking about his romantic liaison with a dead pig.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/hey-remember-that...
1
 Sir Chasm 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Clauso:

Snouts in the trough vs todger in the snout. It's all porcine to me.
1
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Clearly you dont since you seem to be confusing several different issues here.
> You seem to be having difficulty with basic concepts here. Its not that one cant be arsed its that they might feel obligations to the society around them not to game the system.
> Ok, so how do you determine what is extra? Since you seem rather confused about this.

I live in Sweden, have interests in the UK still with business, investment and property, here I'm a sole trader and in another partnership. I deal with tax & pay tax in both countries, plus double taxation rules and I do all my own returns. I have a reasonable grasp of the tax laws, but thanks for asking.

> Or to avoid concentration of wealth over generations.

there is no evidence that it does or doesn't. Taxing wealth at it's point of creation is the easiest way to redistribute it, not 50 years later when they die.

> I am the kid. I am grateful to my parents for their support, particular making sure I wasnt brought up in the shithole they were, but any money from them is a bonus. I guess the difference is I was brought up to be independent.

it is possible to bring someone up responsibly and independently, but also help them. Our 8 yr old has struck the deal that if he goes a year without us buying him any sweets or that kind of thing we give him a 1000krona which is roughly £80. He also has a few hens of his own and generally sells a few eggs, or we help him rear some chicks and sells the young hens. So he is learning the value of money, but we still have some funds and investments that will benefit both our kids in years to come.
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Clauso:

Probably a tad jealous of China's approach to the leak.
Sensible I guess since it prevents the great unwashed getting carried away by the politics of envy.
 Bob Hughes 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
In fairness to Ian Cameron, the fund in question wasn't just for the family money - it was a commercial investment fund (customers included the Rolling Stones apparently. Or, their bank at least). This is relevant because there would presumably be a fiduciary duty to minimise costs so if the fund managers knew of a way to minimise tax they have a duty to use it.

However, from the sounds of things the set-up did sail pretty close to the wind with nominal directors who didn't really do anything other than fill out the numbers of non-UK based directors so they could credibly claim that the fund was managed from the Bahamas. Again, not strictly-speaking illegal, but ethically questionable and, given that David Cameron is Prime Minister and, as said above, has pushed austerity with a message of "We're all in it together" (I wonder how much he regrets ever having said that...), then definitely open to criticism.

edited to add:

If it turns out that there is still family money in the fund then that would, obviously, be more serious.
Post edited at 11:00
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Or to avoid concentration of wealth over generations. Can you give examples of those countries with much narrower wealth gap who have had zero inheritence tax for 50 years or more.

if you are genuinely interest this explains why one country reduced it over 20 years and finally removed it 10 years ago, as it wasn't considered to be having the desired effect.
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-disastrous-inh...
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> I have a reasonable grasp of the tax laws, but thanks for asking.

I didnt. I am struggling here since you dont seem capable of answering a question but instead go off on some random tangent.
Sounds like by your criteria though you could be a fool. Since if you are not using an accountant with a specialty in tax law (I am assuming from what you say you aint one) then you are almost certainly paying more tax than you would need to with an aggressive tax management policy. So you are IT bod one and not two.

> there is no evidence that it does or doesn't.

your claim was that there was no logical reason apart from for tax. Whilst there are several other factors involved there is a fair amount of evidence showing it did have an impact on the inherited wealth in the early part of the 20th century.

> it is possible to bring someone up responsibly and independently, but also help them.

Now where did I say otherwise? I was simply answering you claim about children being upset if their parents didnt do their best to remove inheritance tax.

2
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Clauso:

> You'll be accusing the Osborne family business of avoiding around £2m in UK corporation tax, in a recent property deal, next. >

Er, no. You'll be doing that but seemingly without any foundation. Have you actually read the link the attached?

Anyway, here we are a day after the Cameron story broker (well actually about five years after it broke) and none of the indignant contributors on UKC can actually explain any details of what it is they are indignant about. Anybody.....?
7
 jkarran 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> I'm sure all here would be very keen to resign if they found out their father had done something legal.

I doubt many here are high ranking politicians who've directly benefited from (and perhaps inherited?) their father's wealth while standing on a phony 'one nation' social justice platform and proudly claiming 'we're all in it together'. Meanwhile essential services are run down because we're told we can't afford them. Doesn't look good though I'm sure he'll shrug it off.
jk
1
Removed User 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Ideally all public spirited hackers will now target all the offshore companies, and publish the names of the clients, and let them justify their involvement to HMRC

But that's not going to leave Mick Fowler much time to win his next Piolet D'Or.
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Sounds like by your criteria though you could be a fool. Since if you are not using an accountant with a specialty in tax law (I am assuming from what you say you aint one) then you are almost certainly paying more tax than you would need to with an aggressive tax management policy. So you are IT bod one and not two.

I have a relative and two friends in the UK who are current chartered accountants (two working on personal taxation, the other in business). My partner uses an accountant here, as well as doing work related to finance and HR. Plus tax here is a little less complex and more up front, but all rules and amendments are published in multiple languages, and finally the local tax office is much easier to deal with than HMRC, you can ring or email and get a quick reply, or simply turn up and ask in person. So again, I think we are fine thanks for asking. We could of course pay a fortune to any of the big 4 for example, but any additional savings are very unlikely to offset their serious fee, even taking into account that accountant's fees are also tax deductible, there is a point where you are chasing every decreasing gains.

> I was simply answering you claim about children being upset if their parents didnt do their best to remove inheritance tax.

they'll hardly thank you after you've gone, if they've been left with avoidable bills?
 elsewhere 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Have you read the full 2.6TB leak?


1
 Trevers 05 Apr 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> I doubt many here are high ranking politicians who've directly benefited from (and perhaps inherited?) their father's wealth while standing on a phony 'one nation' social justice platform and proudly claiming 'we're all in it together'. Meanwhile essential services are run down because we're told we can't afford them. Doesn't look good though I'm sure he'll shrug it off.

> jk

Or try and find a dead cat from somewhere to swing around...
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/hey-remember-that...
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> Have you read the full 2.6TB leak?

What do you mean, the full 11 million documents?
4
 elsewhere 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes.
1
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> they'll hardly thank you after you've gone, if they've been left with avoidable bills?

I give up. You seem to be answering an imaginary person.
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> Yes.

No, have you? Unlike most of the posters on here I am not making judgments on what Cameron, father and son, have done. Do you think the other posters have read the 11 million documents in which case they know something we don't?
If so, don't you think they should tell us?
6
Removed User 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:

So are you suggesting that this situation was introduced by the current government and ignoring the fact that the previous Labour government did precisely nothing about the problem. Let's not also forget that the practice is not illegal and all governments have had a chance to change the laws to outlaw the practice. In addition, let's not forget that the UK is one of the biggest tax havens in the world and for many decades has been happy to flout other countries laws by having strict secrecy laws. Many people on the political left including Benn and Branson have been happy to use (and still do) offshore structures to minimise their tax liabilities so lets be a but more objective about this subject.
1
 elsewhere 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
So there's no reason to think your political opinions are any better informed than those of any other politically interested person.
Post edited at 11:36
1
 Trevers 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

No, I'm personally attacking Cameron who I have long regarded as a nasty, small-minded individual leading a government who are pushing a package of cruel and stupid policies, and whose position as leader I now see as being completely untenable. As the prime minister and someone born into great wealth, he's a figurehead for the ruling elite, whatever political party they belong to. And as I've mentioned previously on this thread, he now appears to be a disgusting hypocrite.
3
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> No, I'm personally attacking Cameron who I have long regarded as a nasty, small-minded individual leading a government who are pushing a package of cruel and stupid policies, and whose position as leader I now see as being completely untenable.

I am not sure this follows through. Although it does bring the spotlight back on him refusing to confirm if he still has interest in offshore accounts. His repeated inability to answer this question is somewhat at odds with his previous claims about transparency. Or, for that matter, his attacks on Jimmy Carr for his tax arrangements as opposed to being a shit comedian.
 galpinos 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, we are all basing our opinions on the information that has been released via the media. Ian Cameron ran an offshore fund “based” in the Bahamas. There were more non-UK directors (6), some based in the Bahamas than UK directors (5) so the fund could be perceived to be based in the Bahamas and therefore avoid paying tax in the UK. It would appear that the non-UK directors were just for show and the actual running of the company was all done by the UK directors. This, though maybe legal, it pushing the rules to breaking point. To quote Richard Brooks of Private Eye (former HMRC tax inspector),

> “If HMRC had seen the papers they would have had some very serious questions. The clear intention for Blairmore was to avoid becoming UK tax resident and the test for this, even in 2006, is the location of the central management and control.

> “This means where the key business decisions are taken. The evidence here suggests in this period they weren’t taken outside the UK, in which case it is hard to see how the company was not managed and controlled, and therefore tax resident, in the UK at the time.”

Now, had these been the father of a random rich chap, it wouldn’t have made headline news. It is, however, the father of the Prime Minister, who is currently pushing through an austerity policy and about to chair an international summit on corruption and the importance of closing tax loopholes.

If he was still benefiting from a regime such as the above, it would look rather bad. Of course, he could release the info to the media and make the story go away but he seems reluctant to do that…… Is it that hard to understand?
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to elsewhere:
> So there's no reason to think your political opinions are any better informed than those of any other politically interested person.

That's a complete non sequitur

What on earth have my political opinions
Got to do with whether Ive read these 11 million documents?
I'm asking what it is that all these posters know about the cameron family's tax affairs on which they base their judgent.
Post edited at 12:08
12
 galpinos 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I'm asking what it is that all these posters know about the cameron family's tax affairs on which they base their judgent.

If David Cameron would release that info to the press, the public could make that judgement, but he won't. Which then leads to speculation, especially in light of his father's endeavours to "minimise his tax burden".
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> Well, we are all basing our opinions on the information that has been released via the media. Ian Cameron ran an offshore fund “based” in the Bahamas. There were more non-UK directors (6), some based in the Bahamas than

> If he was still benefiting from a regime such as the above, it would look rather bad. Of course, he could release the info to the media and make the story go away but he seems reluctant to do that…… Is it that hard to understand?

I'm not an expert on these things. What taxes would the fund have paid were it to have been onshore? What money did Cameron senior have in these funds? What were an are the tax benefits? What is the status of the fund in question now?
8
 RomTheBear 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:
> there is no evidence that it does or doesn't. Taxing wealth at it's point of creation is the easiest way to redistribute it, not 50 years later when they die.

Well actually taxing at the point of death is probably easier.
It would be quite hard to tax people every year on the increased value of their assets, imagine the mess of trying to get a valuation every year...
Post edited at 12:06
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:
> If David Cameron would release that info to the press, the public could make that judgement, but he won't. Which then leads to speculation, especially in light of his father's endeavours to "minimise his tax burden".

So you're argument is that "pleading the fifh" is his main demonstrable "crime" so far and confirms guilt of other misdeeds?
Post edited at 12:09
7
Jim C 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Or, for that matter, his attacks on Jimmy Carr for his tax arrangements as opposed to being a shit comedian.

Some good material for Jimmy Carr to go to town on Cameron I would have thought.
I don't find Carr funny, but I might be prepared to have laugh at a politician's expense, if Carr has a go.

1
 galpinos 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I'm not an expert on these things. What taxes would the fund have paid were it to have been onshore?

I've no idea. Corporation Tax I assume, I am but a simple engineer on PAYE. I'm not looking at in anymore detailed terms than offshore - no tax, in the UK (where it was really based) - some tax.

> What money did Cameron senior have in these funds?

No idea whether this info is public. He was a director, that's the extent of my knowledge.

> What were an are the tax benefits?

To being off-shore? Paying no tax compared to whatever tax is due within the UK I assume.

> What is the status of the fund in question now?

Still in existence, worth in excess of £22 million, based in Ireland since 2012.

I guess you know all this so why ask?
Post edited at 12:34
1
 elsewhere 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I'm not an expert on these things. What taxes would the fund have paid were it to have been onshore? What money did Cameron senior have in these funds? What were an are the tax benefits? What is the status of the fund in question now?

Quite possibly those questions will never be answered so in the mean time...

...if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
1
 galpinos 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So you're argument is that "pleading the fifh" is his main demonstrable "crime" so far and confirms guilt of other misdeeds?

It's not an argument, it was in answer to your question. You asked what everyone knew about Cameron's affairs, I replied nothing, as he won't tell them. I was just stating the facts.

I made no mention of confirming guilt about other misdeeds, I just stated that I believe that him refusing to divulge the relevant information that would make the speculation disappear only fuels that speculation.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

J K Rowling's view of the matter may be of interest:

https://twitter.com/samatlounge/status/717278402470928384/photo/1
 pneame 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Very nicely put by jkr. Not a wasted word.
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Or, for that matter, his attacks on Jimmy Carr for his tax arrangements as opposed to being a shit comedian.

there is a difference, Carr openly avoided tax. Cameron's father (for whom he is not responsible for) may have. If someone in your family does something wrong, is that your fault too?
2
 Trevers 05 Apr 2016
In reply to pneame:

> Very nicely put by jkr. Not a wasted word.

She's absolutely spot on, as usual!
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> Quite possibly those questions will never be answered so in the mean time...

> ...if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

So, on the basis of not knowing what it looks like because you haven't sen anything more than a fleeting glance through dirty glass you have decided it looks like a duck. Don't you think doing a bit of research into what ducks look like and what this looks like might be worth doing before declaring it's a duck?
5
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:
> I made no mention of confirming guilt about other misdeeds, I just stated that I believe that him refusing to divulge the relevant information that would make the speculation disappear only fuels that speculation.

Fair enough. In the absence of information or understanding of the facts that is actually the reasonable position to take. A shame that more posters on here don't recognise that.
Post edited at 13:32
3
 Valaisan 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> (But seriously, is this not the political scandal of the century?)

Nope. Its not just a political scandal, its simply; a scandal and its not the biggest of the century, that must surely go to the big daddy of all tax evasion schemes (if we're sticking to topic):

$8 Trillion flows through Holland's tax avoidance loopholes every year - that is 10% of the GWP every year moving around untaxed by anyone.
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:
> I guess you know all this so why ask?

Because none of that demonstrates that Ian Cameron, let alone David Cameron, got any tax benefits at all from the arrangement. It maybe that Ian Cameron did reduce his taxes but even then quite probably by only a few grand.

I find it interesting that neither the media or posters on here display any interest in trying to understand what may or may not have happened but are quite happy to condemn the man on the basis of that ignorance. It's, dare I say it, very Mailesque.
Post edited at 13:48
7
 Valaisan 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> there is a difference, Carr openly avoided tax. Cameron's father (for whom he is not responsible for) may have. If someone in your family does something wrong, is that your fault too?

No, its not your fault but there is an argument that you should be ordered to make some form of compensation for those tax losses or your ill-gotten gains. Its a little bit the same with the reparations debate. Our forefathers were guilty of slavery so we should apologise for it and repair the damage to some extent, if we can (as a Nation I mean); same thing for tax avoidance. If my forefathers benefitted financially from avoiding tax and then that wealth in some form was passed on to me then I have an advantage afforded me by (alleged and potential) illegal activities and I should be made to pay for their illegal tax dodging if proven guilty in absentia. If it is not investigated and then not found to be true then no, I shouldn't pay.
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:

> No, its not your fault but there is an argument that you should be ordered to make some form of compensation for those tax losses or your ill-gotten gains. Its a little bit the same with the reparations debate. Our forefathers were guilty of slavery so we should apologise for it and repair the damage to some extent, if we can (as a Nation I mean); same thing for tax avoidance.
>

Why? Tax avoidance is not even a crime. Is this a new system? Your great grandfather did something that was totally legitimate but we don't like it now so you owe me some money,

7
 Valaisan 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Why? Tax avoidance is not even a crime. Is this a new system? Your great grandfather did something that was totally legitimate but we don't like it now so you owe me some money,

I agree, slight correction: I meant tax 'evasion'. Otherwise I stand by my point of view.
 MonkeyPuzzle 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Did we ever like it? Were we ever condoning of having 6 puppet board members in order to offshore a company that in reality operated from the UK?
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> If someone in your family does something wrong, is that your fault too?

Once again. Cameron has repeatedly failed to respond on whether his family still uses that fund. Given his claims about transparency being important in government and being relaxed about people seeing his tax returns it is somewhat odd isnt it?
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:
> I agree, slight correction: I meant tax 'evasion'. Otherwise I stand by my point of view.

Well it would appear to irrelevant in this case then.

But do you think descendants of all criminals should have to pay "reparations". I know of know convicted felons in my ancestry so I vote in favour.
Post edited at 14:00
5
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Once again. Cameron has repeatedly failed to respond on whether his family still uses that fund. Given his claims about transparency being important in government and being relaxed about people seeing his tax returns it is somewhat odd isnt it?

It's not "odd" at all. Setting a precedent regarding transparency in personal financial affairs is not at all the same as supporting transparency in government and has all sorts of different implications.

Having said that, I think he should make a clarification.
Post edited at 14:00
3
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I find it interesting that neither the media or posters on here display any interest in trying to understand what may or may not have happened but are quite happy to condemn the man on the basis of that ignorance.

Awesome.
So what we have is some information on dubious looking practices.
When asked Cameron, who lets not forget talks about transparency being essential, declines to answer claiming it is a private matter.

Therefore closed case. Amazingly convenient.
I look forward to you applying the same standards to any discussion of Corbyn.
 Trevers 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-camero...

"I think some of these schemes – and I think particularly of the Jimmy Carr scheme – I have had time to read about and I just think this is completely wrong."

"People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his 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."

"The government is acting by looking at a general anti-avoidance law but we do need to make progress on this. It is not fair on hardworking people who do the right thing and pay their taxes to see these sorts of scams taking place."
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Awesome.

> So what we have is some information on dubious looking practices.
> Therefore closed case. Amazingly convenient.

The case is not "closed". That's the point. It's open. The posters on here seem to think it is "closed".

There is nothing necessarily "dubious" about the practices. There are 3,000 offshore funds openly located in the BVI, run publicly by well know asset managers from the Prudential to Fidelity, quoted daily in the newspapers and the HMRC issues guidelines on the internet (and previously in writing) about the regulation, costs and tax treatment of such entities.

> I look forward to you applying the same standards to any discussion of Corbyn.

Good.


Regarding the PM's own financial holdings it has been stated publicly by his team (2015) "He does not have any offshore assets, accounts or private shareholdings of any description"
Are you saying he is just lying?
Post edited at 14:16
5
 Valaisan 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

That's the problem with short answers, too many loopholes for qualification and attack!

> Well it would appear to irrelevant in this case then.

Not really, with regard to the Panama papers the media is talking largely about 'avoidance' for now because it can't suggest 'evasion' until there is real evidence of it or the lawyers of these very wealthy people will be all over them - however: I would suggest that there will be some evasion mixed in with the avoidance and as someone else said on this thread: did we ever condone 6 dummy directors on an offshore company that skims off the profits from a UK operating business? Legal, yes; moral, no. Should I pay if my Dad did it, perhaps, as I said: if his activities were proven to be illegal. As for immoral, we need to change the law, Internationally, but it will never happen in my lifetime.

I also believe there is a level at which avoidance becomes evasion as a result of the intention and outcome but I couldn't be bothered to get into that now.

> But do you think descendants of all criminals should have to pay "reparations". I know of know convicted felons in my ancestry so I vote in favour.

No. Reparations are reserved for National issues, not individual ones; that is compensation and no I do not think that if my Dad killed or harmed someone I should compensate them, instead he should have been punished; however, if the harm to that individual was financial and those gains were passed on to me, I think I should pay compensation (if I have it to pay!) but there's no premise in law that allows for that (I think).
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> The case is not "closed". That's the point. It's open. The posters on here seem to think it is "closed".

Some do. Some dont. Some just find it entertaining.
The only one who seems desperate to closed things down is you however.

> There is nothing necessarily "dubious" about the practices.

I am sure you can come up with some good reasons for those directors. Or indeed the use of bearer bonds. Adds one hell of a lot of admin doesnt it?

> Are you saying he is just lying?

It has been stated by his team (2016) when asked about family money still invested in the fund that "That is a private matter.£
So I find how specific his teams answer was in 2015 interesting.
Post edited at 14:24
2
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:
> That's the problem with short answers, too many loopholes for qualification and attack!

> Not really, with regard to the Panama papers the media is talking largely about 'avoidance' for now because it can't suggest 'evasion' until there is real evidence of it or the lawyers of these very wealthy people will be all over them - however:

So you think that the Cameron case might involve evasion by Cameron as opposed to avoidance or neither. Why?

> I also believe there is a level at which avoidance becomes evasion as a result of the intention and outcome but I couldn't be bothered to get into that now.

And this would include involvement with a legally constituted and declared offshore fund?

> No. Reparations are reserved for National issues, not individual ones; that is compensation and no I do not think that if my Dad killed or harmed someone I should compensate them, instead he should have been punished; however, if the harm to that individual was financial and those gains were passed on to me, I think I should pay compensation (if I have it to pay!) but there's no premise in law that allows for that (I think).

So if your great grandad did some dodgy capers on the side you should be compensating his descendants? Don't you think, apart from any other objections, that this might get a little impractical?
Post edited at 14:31
3
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Some do. Some dont. Some just find it entertaining.

Most do.

> The only one who seems desperate to closed things down is you however.

How exactly does suggesting that we try and understand what was happening before making judgement constitute "being desperate to close things down" ?

> I am sure you can come up with some good reasons for those directors. Or indeed the use of bearer bonds. Adds one hell of a lot of admin doesnt it?

You think having offshore directors of an offshore funds is in some way suspicious or odd? Why is that?

> It has been stated by his team (2016) when asked about family money still invested in the fund that "That is a private matter.£

> So I find how specific his teams answer was in 2015 interesting.

Why, would you make a public declaration of your sibling or wife's financial activiites?

4
 Valaisan 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> There is nothing necessarily "dubious" about the practices. There are 3,000 offshore funds openly located in the BVI, run publicly by well know asset managers from the Prudential to Fidelity, quoted daily in the newspapers and the HMRC issues guidelines on the internet (and previously in writing) about the regulation, costs and tax treatment of such entities. <

Thanks Postman...now suitably depressed

What you have done is remind me that capitalism equals greed and greed causes poverty or a hand-to-mouth existence for most and it has forever been like that and may always be. It makes me feel sick that the human race is unable to transcend this selfish gene and look to work towards a society of compassion and comfort for all, not just the 1% who seem to harbour 80% of it, perhaps more.

Essentially, Governments around the World condone tax avoidance starting at the top with the pension companies, giant banks and high corporates and then this privilege is allowed to insidiously trickle downward until it hits those who can't quite afford to play. It is at that level that these Governments start to flex their muscle and suck as much tax from everyone below that level as possible with the fear of fines and jail if they don't pay up.

Its a disgrace that just in our own Country (or Union, whichever you prefer) the mainstream parties are talking about adding 1% to the basic rate of tax or bumping up the top level from 40 to 45 or 50%, when the huge British Corporates are avoiding (and dare I say evading!) Billions in taxable profits every year which could pay for all the services we as a nation need.

3
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:

> Thanks Postman...now suitably depressed

> What you have done is remind me that capitalism equals greed and greed causes poverty or a hand-to-mouth existence for most and it has forever been like that and may always be. It makes me feel sick that the human race is unable to transcend this selfish gene and look to work towards a society of compassion and comfort for all, not just the 1% who seem to harbour 80% of it, perhaps more.
>
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and raised the living standards of more people than any other "system" in the history of mankind. But that's for another thread.
6
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Most do.

In your view. However you dont exactly take the most balanced view on things do you?

> How exactly does suggesting that we try and understand what was happening before making judgement constitute "being desperate to close things down" ?

Apart from you arent doing that are you. You seem to be deploying your new favoured tactic of trying to set the tone of any discussion to the questions you feel comfortable with.

> You think having offshore directors of an offshore funds is in some way suspicious or odd? Why is that?

Because I enjoy making strawmen and then demanding they answer that question. Oh shit my mistake thats you.
So why do you think they have some directors being paid a pittance and bearer shares. Seems to add some unnecessary layers doesnt it? Unless the purpose is to conceal.

> Why, would you make a public declaration of your sibling or wife's financial activiites?

Come on postie you can do better than that. Since those are the only three options arent they? Although I am surprised you think you believe he shouldnt be honest about his wifes affairs since they would tend to have a direct impact on his.
1
 Valaisan 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and raised the living standards of more people than any other "system" in the history of mankind. But that's for another thread.

What an interestingly simplistic response.

So in its simplicity, I agree, it certainly has.

However, on the same basis, it has also kept more people in poverty too. I would argue that capitalism has more importantly fuelled an unsustainable rise in global population from around 1 Billion in the 1800's to 7 Billion and counting today, of which a majority of which live in abject poverty because the wealthier regions of the World suck all the resources out of them (crops, minerals, life!). The population doubled in the 300 yrs between 1500 and 1800 but in the next 300, i.e. 1800 to 2100, it is set to multiply by 10, at least half of which, in my opinion, will live in poverty.

You call that successful. I don't.
4
 timjones 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:


> Come on postie you can do better than that. Since those are the only three options arent they? Although I am surprised you think you believe he shouldnt be honest about his wifes affairs since they would tend to have a direct impact on his.

Everyone appears to be looking at this from the wrong angle IMO.

Is it about honesty or is it quite simply that no-one should be forced to hurriedly disclose their family members business affairs in order to appease their political opponents and the press?

Why should anyone be subjected to extra public scrutiny because they have a relative in politics?
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> In your view. However you dont exactly take the most balanced view on things do you?

> Apart from you arent doing that are you. You seem to be deploying your new favoured tactic of trying to set the tone of any discussion to the questions you feel comfortable with.

So when I say "Can u explain what was done, with what or whose money, and the tax benefits of it, and when you have done this, what you believe is wrong with this?"
"Don't you think doing a bit of research into what ducks look like and what this looks like might be worth doing before declaring it's a duck?
"What taxes would the fund have paid were it to have been onshore? What money did Cameron senior have in these funds? What were an are the tax benefits? What is the status of the fund in question now? "

What I'm actually saying is "lets not discuss this" Really? What an interesting mind you have.


> Because I enjoy making strawmen and then demanding they answer that question. Oh shit my mistake thats you.

So when you ask "I am sure you can come up with some good reasons for those directors " you are not implying that might not be good reasons for having directors? In which case, why do you confirm that below. Looks like the "straw man" is alive after all.

> So why do you think they have some directors being paid a pittance and bearer shares. Seems to add some unnecessary layers doesnt it? Unless the purpose is to conceal.

Well, for the first, maybe because it was a legal requirement. Just a wild guess of course. For the second, to preserve anonymity. Is it your argument that the only reason an investor might want anonymity is to avoid or evde tax?

> Come on postie you can do better than that. Since those are the only three options arent they? Although I am surprised you think you believe he shouldnt be honest about his wifes affairs since they would tend to have a direct impact on his.

Yes, of course there are other possibilities. But the opening posters seem to have ruled those out.
Post edited at 15:25
4
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:
> What an interestingly simplistic response.

> So in its simplicity, I agree, it certainly has.

> However, on the same basis, it has also kept more people in poverty too. I would argue that capitalism has more importantly fuelled an unsustainable rise in global population from around 1 Billion in the 1800's to 7 Billion and counting today, of which a majority of which live in abject poverty because the wealthier regions of the World suck all the resources out of them (crops, minerals, life!). The population doubled in the 300 yrs between 1500 and 1800 but in the next 300, i.e. 1800 to 2100, it is set to multiply by 10, at least half of which, in my opinion, will live in poverty.

>

Yere it's a bummer the way rising living living standards allow more people to survive. Better they all die in childbirth.
But enough already. It's all been argued on here many times before so I'll leave it to Hans:

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_see...

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language...
Post edited at 15:26
6
 galpinos 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You think having offshore directors of an offshore funds is in some way suspicious or odd? Why is that?

I think having off-shore directors who have little knowledge of the field in which the company they are a director of operates, who are being paid less than the UK directors and seem to contribute little to the steering of the company as all the decisions are made by the UK directors is little suspicious. It's not necessarily illegal (I don't know the relevant laws) but does look like going out of your way to avoid paying the tax you are morally obliged to pay. Again, avoiding the tax isn't illegal, but somewhat flies in the face of Ian Cameron's son's position of being "tough on tax avoidance".


KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> What I'm actually saying is "lets not discuss this" Really? What an interesting mind you have.

Unless you believe the hackers/journalists with access to the data are on this site and are ready to present it all to you then yes its fairly obvious you are trying to close down discussion.
I know that taking the tory line in this sort of thing will be hard but you could at least try a little bit.

> Well, for the first, maybe because it was a legal requirement. Just a wild guess of course.

excellent. Now for your next wild guess. Why are they setting up this company with additional admin layers. Is it anything to do with the claim in the prospectus about not paying UK tax? Odd how artificial these directors look isnt it?

> For the second, to preserve anonymity. Is it your arguement that the only reason an investor might want anonymity is to avoid or evde tax?

Fair point not directly bearer shares but some good reasons to be anonymous seem to be shown by other clients of Mossack Fonseca. Namely laundering stolen goods and evading sanctions.

I am sure however there is a perfectly respectable reason for it and if we all shut up and wait for all the details you demand are provided up front then in a few years it will be confirmed.


 galpinos 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Because none of that demonstrates that Ian Cameron, let alone David Cameron, got any tax benefits at all from the arrangement. It maybe that Ian Cameron did reduce his taxes but even then quite probably by only a few grand.

No, but it does demonstrate that Ian Cameron ran a fund that appears to have deliberately stretched the boundaries of the law in order to avoid his fund (I've no idea what his personal remuneration or tax liabilities were) paying the tax in the UK that they were morally due.

As I've said before, this is somewhat at odds with the "tough on tax avoidance" line that Cameron Jnr is peddling and his reluctance to clear his own name isn't helping.
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> I think having off-shore directors who have little knowledge of the field in which the company they are a director of operates, who are being paid less than the UK directors and seem to contribute little to the steering of the company as all the decisions are made by the UK directors is little suspicious. It's not necessarily illegal (I don't know the relevant laws) but does look like going out of your way to avoid paying the tax you are morally obliged to pay. Again, avoiding the tax isn't illegal, but somewhat flies in the face of Ian Cameron's son's position of being "tough on tax avoidance".

Having offshore directors of an offshore fund is often a legal requirement, and in the past it was often true that they didn't actually do much apart from meet those requirements. That was hardly a secret.
Nowadays, partly due to regulations brought in under Cameron's watch, the requirements placed on such directors are much higher. Those were different times.
5
 Valaisan 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yere it's a bummer the way rising living living standards allow more people to survive. Better they all die in childbirth.

> But enough already. It's all been argued on here many times before so I'll leave it to Hans:

You're cherry picking Postman and don't flap Hans at me. As for the sarcasm, that's cheap. Stats can be interpreted many ways, not just one, and the rise in living standards is reserved for those that can afford it or live within the system that provides it.

Capitalism is fuelled by greed and visa versa, both of which not only endorse the existence of tax havens but also their creation on the doorsteps of their own political masters (the Delaware to the U.S. and Isle of Mann to the UK, etc).

People in India, Africa and China (amongst other places) grow food that is sold to feed people like us. We live well whilst they live in poverty. That is your capitalism.

1
 galpinos 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Having offshore directors of an offshore fund is often a legal requirement, and in the past it was often true that they didn't actually do much apart from meet those requirements. That was hardly a secret.

It was a legal requirement to take your company off shore, which you were only doing in order to avoid paying tax in the country out of which your company actually operates.

> Nowadays, partly due to regulations brought in under Cameron's watch, the requirements placed on such directors are much higher. Those were different times.

What I think will be interesting is when the evidence of actual tax evasion comes out. At the moment, it's all the "vanilla" tax avoidance stuff but I'm sure they'll be some tax evasion* stories coming out once the evidence is collected.

*I'm not saying this with regards to Cameron, just that I can't believe all these shell companies did everything above board.
1
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:
> , when the huge British Corporates are avoiding (and dare I say evading!) Billions in taxable profits every year which could pay for all the services we as a nation need.

why don't people just stop shopping with these companies? because they like cheap prices and are perhaps a little hypocritical? Why are the prices so cheap, because they pay less tax in many cases, so they can undercut the competition which are paying full UK tax on all profits. If you ever use google to search, drink a chain coffee or amazon to shop you are a contributing factor.
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:

Cameron can't win, if he defended his family, the press would then say he should be doing better things like saving an efficient steel works, than looking after his kin. So better to not fan the flames and wait for the facts to come out, most of which haven't.
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Unless you believe the hackers/journalists with access to the data are on this site and are ready to present it all to you then yes its fairly obvious you are trying to close down discussion.

There wasn't much of a discussion, unless you think such open minded gems as "Somebody has been telling porkies, it seems!
(But seriously, is this not the political scandal of the century? Should it not be sufficient to remove that nasty little man from any position of power for life? Or am I mistaken?)"

count as discussion. It was a failed attempt to make some of the fishwives actually consider the issue on its merits and demerits rather than their preconceptions about DC. Obviously you also think its better just to have an ill informed rant.


> I know that taking the tory line in this sort of thing will be hard but you could at least try a little bit.

You've spent the last few hours complaining that there is no Tory line. If you think that trying to get people to look at the relevant information and ask relevant questions, rather than just sounding off, is the "Tory line", I'm pleased to toe it.

> excellent. Now for your next wild guess. Why are they setting up this company with additional admin layers. Is it anything to do with the claim in the prospectus about not paying UK tax? Odd how artificial these directors look isnt it?

Possibly, but one conventional reason would be that it has investors who are not liable to pay UK so it is easier for them to stay outside the UK tax net rather than have to pay and claim back.
What do you find artificial about the idea that an offshore fund has to meet the legal requirement to have a certain number of offshore directors?
Is it the whole concept of an offshore fund that you object to?


> Fair point not directly bearer shares but some good reasons to be anonymous seem to be shown by other clients of Mossack Fonseca. Namely laundering stolen goods and evading sanctions.

> I am sure however there is a perfectly respectable reason for it and if we all shut up and wait for all the details you demand are provided up front then in a few years it will be confirmed.

No, feel free to make the argument that this is the most likely reason based on the information that we have and that can be obtained about such funds and practices. I am sure you are genuinely interested.

4
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> It was a legal requirement to take your company off shore, which you were only doing in order to avoid paying tax in the country out of which your company actually operates.

Actually there were numerous reasons, one of which was to avoid paying tax in countries you weren't liable for tax in.

> What I think will be interesting is when the evidence of actual tax evasion comes out. At the moment, it's all the "vanilla" tax avoidance stuff but I'm sure they'll be some tax evasion* stories coming out once the evidence is collected.


I don't doubt that this is true in general. Apart from the usual third word and ex communist kleptocrats my money is on German and Swedish industrialists making a star appearance.


2
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> In your view. However you dont exactly take the most balanced view on things do you?

>
Well, in "my view" the first twelve out of thirteen posters. Perhaps you'd like a recount. It's obviously close.
3
 Valaisan 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> why don't people just stop shopping with these companies? because they like cheap prices and are perhaps a little hypocritical? < ....., etc, > you are a contributing factor.<

Yes! I completely agree, 100%, which is kind of the point I've been driving at with my insanely scoping posts on this thread. Most of us are to blame and I would love to see the human race change, move toward a less selfish more sustainable existence that most, if not all in a utopian way, could live well by.

As for myself, I do my bit, when I could be bothered and I tell myself often to try and be bothered more often.
2
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Obviously you also think its better just to have an ill informed rant.

No but I would prefer it to demands for silence until demands for information which isnt available are met.

> You've spent the last few hours complaining that there is no Tory line.

Have I. Dont suppose you can provide the quotes showing that? My "complaint" was that Cameron was avoiding answering the question which is somewhat different.

> Possibly, but one conventional reason would be that it has investors who are not liable to pay UK so it is easier for them to stay outside the UK tax net rather than have to pay and claim back.

odd that it was so tightly tied to the UK then. Well aside from the bits to avoid paying tax.

> No, feel free to make the argument that this is the most likely reason based on the information that we have and that can be obtained about such funds and practices. I am sure you are genuinely interested.

Whereas I am sure you are not.
 Bob Hughes 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

It seems pretty clear that the structure was designed to reduce the tax burden - the fund said as much in their prospectus.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ian-camerons-part-in-blairmore-holdings-2016-...
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> No but I would prefer it to demands for silence until demands for information which isnt available are met.
>
And I demanded silence where exactly?

What is it that you don't understand about "Can u explain what was done, with what or whose money, and the tax benefits of it, and when you have done this, what you believe is wrong with this?"

> Whereas I am sure you are not.

Wrong again then. Kind of odd to provide about the only background information to how these funds work if one's not interested, some might think.

3
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> It seems pretty clear that the structure was designed to reduce the tax burden - the fund said as much in their prospectus.


It reduces the immediate requirement to pay tax in the UK on earnings not repatriated to the UK. For people who are not liable to UK tax that is obviously helps. There are, of course other reasons for doing this which may or may not be nefarious.
There is no evidence that IC had any money on the fund. It is possible/probable that he did. It is possible that he didn't declare the income/gains. It is possible that others did so. But we simply don't know. It doesn't sem very reasonable or British to assume guilt.

As I understand, from doing the research that I'm told I'm not interested in, the other tax advantage for investors from 1982-84 was that income could be treated as capital gains and so attracted a lower tax rate.

3
 RomTheBear 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> why don't people just stop shopping with these companies? because they like cheap prices and are perhaps a little hypocritical? Why are the prices so cheap, because they pay less tax in many cases, so they can undercut the competition which are paying full UK tax on all profits. If you ever use google to search, drink a chain coffee or amazon to shop you are a contributing factor.

There is a big difference between corporations minimising their tax liability, in conformity with the law, in a competitive environment where if they don't they won't survive, and individuals illegally hiding away wealth and income for their own personal gain.

KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> What is it that you don't understand about "Can u explain what was done, with what or whose money, and the tax benefits of it, and when you have done this, what you believe is wrong with this?"

Which part of its a f*cking secretive scheme which has only partially come out into the open because a rather charming looking company got hacked and hence the full information isnt f*cking available dont you understand?

> Wrong again then. Kind of odd to provide about the only background information to how these funds work if one's not interested, some might think.

Apart from you havent. You have just come out with disingenuous comments about the purpose for requiring the directors etc.
I know you are in a difficult decision trying to defend cameron but do you really, truly, believe that the company was set up the way it was for any other reason than to minimise tax?

1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:
> You're cherry picking Postman and don't flap Hans at me. As for the sarcasm, that's cheap. Stats can be interpreted many ways, not just one, and the rise in living standards is reserved for those that can afford it or live within the system that provides it.
>
I'm using a one liner to illustrate a truth. Population has grown because more wealth increases life expectancy. Fact.

I'm not entering this debate but Hans summarises the basic arguments very well. If you don't agree, so be it. I'm unlikely to convince you or hear much new from you.
Post edited at 17:12
3
 RomTheBear 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

At the end of the day who cares whether he has money in the fund or not, I think the main point is thatt he evidence released seem to show that he was managing this fund from the UK whilst not paying one penny of tax in the uk.
If the evidence holds up to scrutiny then this would be clearly illegal.
 tony 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Which part of its a f*cking secretive scheme which has only partially come out into the open because a rather charming looking company got hacked and hence the full information isnt f*cking available dont you understand?

If that's related to Ian Cameron's financial arrangements, it's been known for some years he was involved in offshore funds based in a tax haven. I'm a bit confused as to why everyone is getting so hot under the collar about it now, given that it was originally reported on in 2012.
And the disclosure didn't come about as a result of the Panama Papers or leaks from law firms, but from investigative journalism, I think by reporters from the Guardian.

KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to tony:
> And the disclosure didn't come about as a result of the Panama Papers or leaks from law firms, but from investigative journalism, I think by reporters from the Guardian.

Its because the new leak gives more information about it including various board reports.
So the posties defence worked a bit better last time round.
Post edited at 17:32
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Which part of its a f*cking secretive scheme which has only partially come out into the open because a rather charming looking company got hacked and hence the full information isnt f*cking available dont you understand?

Why do you think it's secretive? It's been in the public domain for at least four years-as you'd know if you were as interested in knowing anything at all ,as you claim. Given that it publicly changed it's status in 2005 which the HMRC was clearly notified of, why do you think it was secret?

> Apart from you havent. You have just come out with disingenuous comments about the purpose for requiring the directors etc.

What, like "meeting the legal requirements"?

> I know you are in a difficult decision trying to defend cameron but do you really, truly, believe that the company was set up the way it was for any other reason than to minimise tax?



I don't know! But duty free shops are set up for people to minimise tax. As far as I can tell this wasn't some convoluted structure like the Alan Carr structure. It was just a bog standard offshore fund like thousands of others now and then.

My best guess is that some of Cameron's broking clients were either non resident or non domiciled in the UK and therefore, like the millions of people who still invest openly in offshore funds quoted and publicised in the daily papers, they needed a vehicle that allowed them to invest outside of the UK so he helped set one up. He may have put some of his own money in, but quite possible didn't. As I understand it the only benefit to him would have been to treat income as capital gains and thus attract a slightly lower rate of tax.

The fund could have been used by IC or the other investors to evade tax, by not reporting gains when the funds were repatriated to the UK. Some people did that but lots of people didn't. In this case we don't know, and neither would IC need to know, since he wasn't their tax advisor.

So, Im simply saying that the fund appears to be pretty commonal garden. At one end of possibilites it was set up for investors or even IC to evade tax by not declaring their gains, at the other end it was simply a way for individuals not to have to pay tax that they weren't liable for anyway. In the middle it perfectly legally and openly allowed investors (possibly including IC) to pay capital gains instead of income tax with the full knowledge of HMRC (from 1982-4) or simply to remain anonymous.

My guess is was not for evasion, in which case I don't regard IC as having done anything wrong. My point, is that the people like you jumping to conclusions are oing purely on the basis of political prejudice and not on any attempt to understand the fund or the context.

Maybe an IFA can come on here and give a more informed view?


Given that it managed on about £25mn in assets I don't imagine the fund itself would have made much of a profit after admin costs etc. so I imagine IC got paid a small fee of a few grand, which he was liable to declare just like any small business is liable to declare such income.

4
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> At the end of the day who cares whether he has money in the fund or not, I think the main point is that he evidence released seem to show that he was managing this fund from the UK whilst not paying one penny of tax in the uk.

> If the evidence holds up to scrutiny then this would be clearly illegal.

Nowadays there is not a cat's chance in hell that a fund of £25mn would make a profit anyway so the question may be irrelevant.
I'd agree that there were a lot of grey areas about the definition of where a fund is managed and I suspect that HMRC was aware of this and played along. If the fund were pretty passively managed it is quite possible that a few offshore meetings in nice places each year would have been the sum total of investment management required anyway.
From what one can tell he was probably exploiting a grey area but it wasn't exactly grand larceny.
Post edited at 17:49
5
Removed User 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:

So as these leaked documents prove, socialism and communism does not fuel greed or the wish to hold on to as much of your assets as possible. Perhaps it's just that the socialists/communists tend to do it in more illegal ways?
1
Removed User 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:

So I take it that you do not claim your "legal" tax allowances like everyone else to minimise your own personal "tax burden"?
1
 BnB 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Are you all arguing so much over minutiae that you haven't seen this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/35966533

I note he refers to his own investments not other members of the family. That is both consistent with the law and his standpoint yet invites questions nevertheless about any involvement he might have had in the investments held by other family members.
Gone for good 05 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

> Are you all arguing so much over minutiae that you haven't seen this?


> I note he refers to his own investments not other members of the family. That is both consistent with the law and his standpoint yet invites questions nevertheless about any involvement he might have had in the investments held by other family members.

I note he referred to his wife and children as well as himself. Does he have to declare the integrity of his Aunties, Uncles and Cousins as well?
 RomTheBear 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Nowadays there is not a cat's chance in hell that a fund of £25mn would make a profit anyway so the question may be irrelevant.

But that was in 2001...

> I'd agree that there were a lot of grey areas about the definition of where a fund is managed and I suspect that HMRC was aware of this and played along. If the fund were pretty passively managed it is quite possible that a few offshore meetings in nice places each year would have been the sum total of investment management required anyway.

> From what one can tell he was probably exploiting a grey area but it wasn't exactly grand larceny.

Yeah sure, they hired and paid directors just to make sure most of the board is abroad, paid staff in the Bahamas and incorporated in Panama, and paid expensive fees to clever tax specialists, just because it was fun, not to evade significant amounts of taxes....


The main thing with this kind of set up is that us is actually illegal, but set up in a way that it is basically impossible for hmrc to prove any wrongdoing. Until someone leaks it all...
Post edited at 18:22
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> But that was in 2001...

Yup, probably marginal then, but I don't know.

> Yeah sure, they hired and paid directors just to make sure most of the board is abroad, paid staff in the Bahamas and incorporated in Panama, and paid expensive fees to clever tax specialists, just because it was fun, not to evade significant amounts of taxes....

See my answer above. What do you think the 3,000 funds now registered in the BVI are now doing? All evading taxes in the full knowledge of the IRC, HMRC and the rest of them?
Post edited at 18:24
6
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

> I note he refers to his own investments not other members of the family. That is both consistent with the law and his standpoint yet invites questions nevertheless about any involvement he might have had in the investments held by other family members.

BBC is now reporting this is also true for his family except for his wife who owns a few shares "related to her family's land" ( I think it said that)
6
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There is a big difference between corporations minimising their tax liability, in conformity with the law, in a competitive environment where if they don't they won't survive, and individuals illegally hiding away wealth and income for their own personal gain.

I agree, one is operating within the law the other isn't. It would not matter if Cameron senior had made a billion in these funds, provided he declared the income. Some people seem to think these schemes are illegal, but it's non declaration of income which is generally the illegal bit.
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> The main thing with this kind of set up is that us is actually illegal, but set up in a way that it is basically impossible for hmrc to prove any wrongdoing. Until someone leaks it all...

is it illegal if you declare the income? Were there not HMRC guidelines for these very funds?
Post edited at 18:26
Jim C 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think the rich and famous have plenty of PR to talk on their behalf.
Not sure why you are spending your time giving them the benefit of doubt.

You 'guess' that there they would not be trying to evade.
You 'don't imagine' that any funds would have made a profit.
'From what you can tell' they were just exploiting gray areas!

Methinks thou dost protest too much. ( admit it you are a member of the Cameron Clan
Jim C 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> there is a difference, Carr openly avoided tax. Cameron's father (for whom he is not responsible for) may have. If someone in your family does something wrong, is that your fault too?

If my father robbed a bank, and passed the ill gotten gains onto me, then yes, that would be my fault , if I knew where it had come from.

Time will tell, if any of these people who have been named have been involved in , or knowingly gained from, anything illegal.
Tax evasion, money laundering, sanction busting or whatever, they are all possibilities .

Cameron has said that he has no funds , shares,, ' or anything of that kind' offshore. I might well believe him, but I will be even happier to have a transparent independent inquiry into these revelations to prove it.
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> I think the rich and famous have plenty of PR to talk on their behalf.

> Not sure why you are spending your time giving them the benefit of doubt.

Very old fashioned idea of people being innocent until proven guilty and sick of the fishwives on here making the usual lazy assumptions about something they show know sign of having the faintest knowledge about.

> You 'guess' that there they would not be trying to evade.

> You 'don't imagine' that any funds would have made a profit.

> 'From what you can tell' they were just exploiting gray areas!

I know, dreadful to acknowledge one doesn't know.



3
In reply to Postmanpat:
I haven't been able to contribute to this thread today, but it certainly seems na£ve and unreasonable of you to complain about the scrutiny that Cameron has come under. It was he who made a play that 'we are all in this together'; it was he that said he would fearlessly challenge tax havens. And he can say what he likes, unless his Dad or his Mum have cut him out of their will then he, and/or his children, will benefit substantially from his father's decision to move money abroad solely to avoid paying UK income tax.

In fact, I think this will run and run, because I suspect - on no grounds at all except that the Camerons have been involved in finance for many generations, which means a significant part of their job has been avoiding tax - Cameron is being disingenuous and careful in his wording. He *will* inherit his share of his parent's fortune when his mother dies, so maybe he doesn't have to worry to much about his own saving at the moment. His children will have significant trust funds already, which of course we won't be able to query. And if he's just got a 'some' savings, in a cr*p deposit account, then I suspect his definition of 'some' is qualitatively different from most of us.

People - even politicians - are allowed to be rich, it's how capitalism works and I think I probably agree with you that it's the least worst of economic systems for most of us. But there have to be checks and balances, to avoid power being exponentially abused and concentrated, and this is what some of those checks and balances look like. When Cameron stands up and says he's one of us, this demonstrates that no he's not - my dad never had offshore investments, did yours?; when he says we're all it in together he's lying. It may not be 'fair' on Cameron, but this exposure is going a little way to curb his 'man of the people' bullsh*t.
Post edited at 18:59
 tony 05 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Its because the new leak gives more information about it including various board reports.

So what's new this time round? The Morning Star posted the full 2006 prospectus. Ian Cameron's involvement has been known and not disputed for some time.

To my mind, the Cameron stuff is a disappointing distraction from the really important genuinely new information. There are far bigger fish to fry than David Cameron's dead father.
1
 tony 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> My guess is was not for evasion, in which case I don't regard IC as having done anything wrong. My point, is that the people like you jumping to conclusions are oing purely on the basis of political prejudice and not on any attempt to understand the fund or the context.

You don't have to guess. The Directors intended:
"that the affairs of the Fund should be managed and conducted so that it
does not become resident in the United Kingdom for United Kingdom taxation purposes.
Accordingly, and provided that the Fund is not trading in the United Kingdom through a fixed
place of business or agent situated in the United Kingdom that constitutes a £permanent
establishment£ for United Kingdom taxation purposes and that all their trading transactions in the
United Kingdom are carried out through a broker or investment manager acting as an agent of
independent status in the ordinary course of business, the Fund will not be subject to United
Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits.
"
quoted from the 2006 Blairmore prospectus
Post edited at 19:06
Donald82 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

Apprently, he may have been falsely represening the firm's work as being outside the UK. But whether illegal or not, it was at least cycnical tax avoidanance and cameron's wording about not benefitting is circumspect as f*ck. If you're prime minister, and you're campaigning on tax avoidance and tax evasion, not being honest about this would be pretty bad.
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> I haven't been able to contribute to this thread today, but it certainly seems na£ve and unreasonable of you to complain about the scrutiny that Cameron has come under.


I don't have any problem at all in the scrutiny he has come under. I welcome it. I have a problem with people prejudging the outcome and with the low level of analysis in the media.

> Cameron is being disingenuous and careful in his wording. He *will* inherit his share of his parent's fortune when his mother dies, so maybe he doesn't have to worry to much about his own saving at the moment. His children will have significant trust funds already, which of course we won't be able to query. And if he's just got a 'some' savings, in a cr*p deposit account, then I suspect his definition of 'some' is qualitatively different from most of us.

I think that is a good point and one that the media hasn't yet raised. But then again, he cannot be expected to provide transparency about his mother's finances.

> People - even politicians - are allowed to be rich, it's how capitalism works and I think I probably agree with you that it's the least worst of economic systems for most of us. But there have to be checks and balances, to avoid power being exponentially abused and concentrated, and this is what some of those checks and balances look like. When Cameron stands up and says he's one of us, this demonstrates that no he's not - my dad never had offshore investments, did yours?; when he says we're all it in together he's lying. It may not be 'fair' on Cameron, but this exposure is going a little way to curb his 'man of the people' bullsh*t.

The "we're all in it together" schtick is clearly silly, but I don't think that being rich should be a barrier to a political career. And no, my dad had no offshore investments!
Post edited at 19:10
4
 BnB 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The "we're all in it together" schtick is clearly silly, but I don't think that being rich should be a barrier to a political career. And no, my dad had no offshore investments!

New money. How distasteful!
 RomTheBear 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> is it illegal if you declare the income? Were there not HMRC guidelines for these very funds?

No what's illegal it's to run a business from the UK and pretend it is run from the Bahamas just to avoid UK tax.
Usually the dealings are shrouded in secrecy so there is absolutely no way for HMRC to check or prove where the businesses is actually run from (not that they usually even bother to check) but following the leak it is apparently evident that the fund was mostly run from the UK at least for a certain period of time.
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to tony:

> So what's new this time round?

How contrived the offshore part of the fund was in terms of highly productive directors and the board minutes showing the decisions being made in the UK.

 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to tony:
> You don't have to guess. The Directors intended:

>
Yes, I've read that, and it is consistent with my comments above. This is in the prospectus which presumably would have been available to HMRC.
Post edited at 19:55
3
 galpinos 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

Does my employer allow me a salary sacrifice scheme for my pension and childcare vouchers? Yes.

Have I sent up a company in the Bahamas, rounded up a load of locals to be sham directors, pretend my company is being run out of the Bahamas when it is actually based in the UK and avoided paying take on profits that company has made for the last 30 years? No

Are you trying the "Having an ISA is the the same as setting up a multi layered complicated company specifically designed to avoid the tax I am actually meant to pay" argument?
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:


> Are you trying the "Having an ISA is the the same as setting up a multi layered complicated company specifically designed to avoid the tax I am actually meant to pay" argument?


If the HMRC provides specific guidleines about how such funds are set up and what guidleins and regualtions apply why do you think that is not instructive about what "tax you are actually meant to pay"?
2
Removed User 05 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:

What I was saying was, that anyone will try and use the law and the current tax legislation to minimise their tax obligations. The fact that most people don't bother is their issue but most people on this site are only wanting to make a political point. It's not much different than all of the climbers in the past and now, who were/are claiming the dole without having any intention of looking for a job therefore defrauding the government and the rest of the tax payers.
Additionally, the tax authorities have, for many years, determined if a company/business.fund has been effectively "controlled" from the UK to stop many of the non resident tax exemptions. Perhaps many of the posters on this site should look at their own behavior over working for cash & not declaring income, before being critical of others.
3
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

I certainly agree that all the posters on here who are prime ministers, imposing austerity on disabled people and taking the moral high ground about tax avoidance, should review their financial affairs carefully before pronouncing, absolutely.
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Gosh, I always like to think that no-one hates the Tories more than me, but I see I was wrong.

Perhaps I'm not getting this, but from the quotes I've seen DC has denied in terms that he personally has any offshore holdings, but refused to say whether his family does on the grounds it's a private matter. That seems perfectly fair to me. I don't know his family circumstances, but I don't see that he's obliged to tell us whether his brothers or uncles or whatever have money offshore.

I actually haven't understood anything about this - was this Ian Cameron a professional fund manager, in which case I really can't see the story, or is there any reason to believe this fund was his own money?

From what I've seen though I can tell you that such arrangements are entirely routine in the property industry.

I've never seen any intelligent talk about why preventing these offshore arrangements is not as simple as 'closing these loopholes', but I'm pretty sure it isn't simple at all, either in terms of international law or of politics. It's not like every government since the Flood hasn't spoken of doing it and then failed. For just one thing, a lot of property-based funds which pension funds invest in are set up in this way. I'm pretty sure a sudden massive hit on those wouldn't be popular.

jcm
1
 Jon Stewart 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm really struggling not to find your perspective on this hilarious.

Ian Cameron uses a now famously dodgier-than-dodge (you know, clients under sanctions, usual stuff I guess?) firm of *Panamanian* solicitors to set up a not-in-the-UK/blatantly-in-the-UK investment fund that paid no UK tax for 30-odd years.

And your take on it isn't, "golly, how embarrassing, I'm glad I'm not David Cameron this week", it's "let's look in detail at the minutiae - there's probably a way to justify that contrary to what's screamingly obvious to everyone, there's nothing hilariously embarrassing about this at all...in fact, I'm outraged the suggestion!"

Can you see why the story itself might raise a smirk (note the thread title!), and how your reaction - as a representation of the true blue Tory outlook - is a lovely, apt addition to a rather humorous episode?
3
 john arran 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

> It's not much different than all of the climbers in the past and now, who were/are claiming the dole without having any intention of looking for a job therefore defrauding the government and the rest of the tax payers.

I was one such climber in the 80s. It was obvious that there was more unemployment than there were jobs - by a considerable margin at the time - and clearly there were plenty of people desperate to find work. Why therefore should I seek to take a job I didn't really want while in doing so depriving someone of a job they desperately wanted, when the result would be to have precisely zero effect on the public purse (in stark contrast to today's tax evasion outcomes)? Really I think the two situations cannot be compared.

Of course it's a different story in times of very low unemployment, but governments seem to have a habit of making sure such times don't happen too often.
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
>Having an ISA is the the same as setting up a multi layered complicated company specifically designed to avoid the tax I am actually meant to pay" argument

It's not an argument but a simple proposition of fact, I'm afraid. Lots of taxes are voluntary in the sense that if you pay money to the right people you can set up your arrangements to avoid them, and the more money you have the easier it is to do that. ISA's are one example. 'a multi layered complex company specifically designed to avoid the tax I am actually "meant" to pay' is another. It's a difference of degree rather than of kind.

What's that quote about taxation being merely a means of finding ways to pluck the goose as painlessly as possible?

jcm
Post edited at 21:00
1
 summo 05 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Gosh, I always like to think that no-one hates the Tories more than me, but I see I was wrong.

you would not see any actual serving labour MPs like say Margret Hodge putting money in a similar scheme would you, only a tories family?

 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I'm really struggling not to find your perspective on this hilarious.

> Ian Cameron uses a now famously dodgier-than-dodge (you know, clients under sanctions, usual stuff I guess?) firm of *Panamanian* solicitors to set up a not-in-the-UK/blatantly-in-the-UK investment fund that paid no UK tax for 30-odd years.

>
But what you don't seem to grasp is that the Panamanian lawyer, although it no doubt has some deeply dodgy clients , is also a widely used expert in certain areas with many totally legitimate clients so using them doesn't prove anything. And an offshore fund with that structure was pretty bog standard (unless it's got something I'm missing-which is quite possible).
I can remember as a young trainee around that time being quite surprised when I discovered fund managers at high street names all over the London were managing "offshore unit trusts" when they were clearly working in London. Actually I can't remember how that was structured but it was all perfectly open and above board and considered totally unremarkable.
Can you understand that it's against that background that I don't automatically regard offshore funds as proof of nefarious activity, find it ridiculous that people who it turns out know no more than me can be so sure, and withhold judgement until and if we find out more?


I'm not sure about the bearer certificates, although they were pretty common in that period I think, but the rest was pretty normal and still is.

Do you think that all offshore funds are full of tax evaders?
Post edited at 21:18
1
In reply to Postmanpat:

>Do you think that all offshore funds are full of tax evaders?

Politically speaking though, that's not the point, is it? The scandal is not that they're being illegally used. It's that they're being lawfully used.

jcm
Jim C 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:


But then again, he cannot be expected to provide transparency about his mother's finances.

Set up a petition against tax dodging, and Cameron's mother will probably sign it. ( and her sister
 Jon Stewart 05 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> you would not see any actual serving labour MPs like say Margret Hodge putting money in a similar scheme would you, only a tories family?

Yes, and this was a bit embarrassing for Ms Hodge. But while they're quite similar stories, the Hodge version isn't nearly so amusing, as there's no Panamanian solicitors working for Kim Jong-un, Bashar al-Assad and Robert Mugabe (alright, it's only their mates, but it's funnier to think that the Camerons share solicitors with those guys)!

You really don't think it's funny, do you?
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> I actually haven't understood anything about this - was this Ian Cameron a professional fund manager, in which case I really can't see the story, or is there any reason to believe this fund was his own money?

>
He was a "stockbroker"employed by Panmure Gordon, whose clients seem to have been primarily high net worth individuals and private banks-probably running money for high net worth individuals. It's known that the fund ran money for external investors (eg.Leopold Joseph, the private bank). The assumption is that because it was named after the Cameron family estate and he was a director ,that IC also had money in the fund or controlled it in some way, but this may not be the case at all.
Post edited at 21:45
2
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >Do you think that all offshore funds are full of tax evaders?

> Politically speaking though, that's not the point, is it? The scandal is not that they're being illegally used. It's that they're being lawfully used.

>
That depends what they are being lawfully used for.
1
 Jon Stewart 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

What's funny isn't the details, and whether or not there was tax evasion - I'm quite prepared to believe that there's nothing unusual nor irregular about Blairmore Holdings Inc. What's funny is the *story*, the context of Tory austerity policy, cracking down on tax loopholes, and the way it has emerged: the web of corruption that's now associated with Mossack Fonseca. It just doesn't look good. And being Prime Minister is all about making things look good, so David - good luck with this one!
 Skyfall 05 Apr 2016
In reply to john arran:

> I was one such climber in the 80s. It was obvious that there was more unemployment than there were jobs - by a considerable margin at the time - and clearly there were plenty of people desperate to find work. Why therefore should I seek to take a job I didn't really want while in doing so depriving someone of a job they desperately wanted

Wow, that's quite some degree of self denial worthy of a Tory politician....
1
 Postmanpat 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What's funny isn't the details, and whether or not there was tax evasion - I'm quite prepared to believe that there's nothing unusual nor irregular about Blairmore Holdings Inc. What's funny is the *story*, the context of Tory austerity policy, cracking down on tax loopholes, and the way it has emerged: the web of corruption that's now associated with Mossack Fonseca. It just doesn't look good. And being Prime Minister is all about making things look good, so David - good luck with this one!

Well I would agree on that. I suggested a few months ago that Jezzer might make it to Downing Street and was generally shot down in flames. Doesn't look so unlikely now.
2
 Skyfall 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

And do you take responsibility for your parents' actions?
 MonkeyPuzzle 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What's funny isn't the details, and whether or not there was tax evasion - I'm quite prepared to believe that there's nothing unusual nor irregular about Blairmore Holdings Inc. What's funny is the *story*, the context of Tory austerity policy, cracking down on tax loopholes, and the way it has emerged: the web of corruption that's now associated with Mossack Fonseca. It just doesn't look good. And being Prime Minister is all about making things look good, so David - good luck with this one!

Don't forget him chairing the upcoming international summit on tax transparency!
 Big Ger 05 Apr 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> He benefits from family money, so whilst nobody sensible is suggesting he should suffer for the sins of his father, any benefit me might derive from his fathers sins, probably shouldn't be private.

I agree, nobody sensible is, but Trevers is;


> (But seriously, is this not the political scandal of the century? Should it not be sufficient to remove that nasty little man from any position of power for life? Or am I mistaken?)
 john arran 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Skyfall:

> Wow, that's quite some degree of self denial worthy of a Tory politician....

You'll need to explain that to me. There's no self denial, since everyone makes the most of the unfortunate situation of high unemployment. If it helps to look at it from the privileged perspective of people who aren't desperate for work, think of it as people taking voluntary redundancy, only without these people actually having jobs in the first place. Who is the loser?
2
 MG 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I don't see how you came expect politicians to be responsible for their (dead) relatives affairs, or that this is hilarious. This reminds of the equally unfair attack on Milliband via his communist father.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart: "so David - good luck with this one!"

in fairness, DC could save a drowning child on holiday and half the population would wish he had drowned trying such is the hatred for all things tory in large parts of this country It's no surprise to me at all that this story has evolved as it has as people want it to be true so much they are too impatient to wait for the evidence and just loudly trying to wish it true. (i'm not saying it isn't BTW)
1
Pan Ron 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

> What I was saying was, that anyone will try and use the law and the current tax legislation to minimise their tax obligations.

Or maybe those with political power get to set or influence those laws and ensure they work in their favour?
Is anyone really surprised loop-holes exist that make it so easy to squirrel away funds in a somewhat odious, but marginally legal way?
 Jon Stewart 05 Apr 2016
In reply to MG:

> I don't see how you came expect politicians to be responsible for their (dead) relatives affairs,

I'm not saying that DC is responsible, I'm saying it's embarrassing.

> or that this is hilarious.

To understand why I think this is hilarious, you'd need to see how far removed employing Panamanian solicitors to set up offshore funds "based in the Bahamas" with Bishops acting as their vice presidents is from most people's lives. It's just another world, and once you throw in the context of the austerity programme, the catchphrase "we're all this together", the rhetoric about tax loopholes (plus, for good measure, a tenuous association with Robert Mugabe) then it becomes hard to believe it isn't satire.

> This reminds of the equally unfair attack on Milliband via his communist father.

What!? "The Man Who Hated Britain"! "An evil legacy"! You're not serious?
1
 Big Ger 05 Apr 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Don't forget him chairing the upcoming international summit on tax transparency!

Yes, it's good that he is doing something about it. In fact no prime minister has done more to stop tax loopholes.
8
Clauso 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Has anybody mentioned pigs yet?... I may have done, earlier on, but it's worth repeating.
KevinD 05 Apr 2016
In reply to MG:

> This reminds of the equally unfair attack on Milliband via his communist father.

There seem to be a couple of subtle differences. Like it was the daily fail claiming his father hated Britain ignoring the minor detail he fought for Britain whilst the Rothermeres initially cheerleaded Hitler and post war went nondomicile to show their deep love of Britain.
 Big Ger 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You know, you could swear that this whole tax loophole idea is something recent, and all the fault of the Tories, (has Thatcher been blamed yet?)

Whereas the notion of a non-domiciled status for tax purposes was introduced by William Pitt the Younger in 1799.
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Yes, it's good that he is doing something about it. In fact no prime minister has done more to stop tax loopholes.

Have you just repeated his own assertion to that effect? You'd make a good television journalist.
 Trevers 05 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What!? "The Man Who Hated Britain"! "An evil legacy"! You're not serious?

Wasn't one of the headlines based around some old lady's recollection that someone may or may not have run over a cat?
 galpinos 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Yes, it's good that he is doing something about it. In fact no prime minister has done more to stop tax loopholes.

This is a genuine question. What has he actually done? There has been a lot of rhetoric but what legislation has been passed? Have I missed something?
 neilh 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Does make me laugh the whole thing .One -it's an old story that is being recycled . The second point is that it's his wife who is wealthy.
 BnB 06 Apr 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> This is a genuine question. What has he actually done? There has been a lot of rhetoric but what legislation has been passed? Have I missed something?

I have a professional interest in tax avoidance. Or catching it, to be precise. I can assure you this government has made huge strides in comparison to any other administration over my 30 year career. On the corporate level, the recent GAAP and diverted profits legislation has already shown to have real bite. The much larger settlements you will soon see from multinationals stem from these changes. On the more individual level, laws like the 2004 offshore intermediaries legislation has eliminated a whole tranche of offshore avoidance schemes operated by freelance workers.

One innovation that brings about my own involvement in the avoidance catching game is to incorporate within recent legislation a clause that requires a UK buyer in certain industries to perform due diligence on the seller's tax arrangements within the shared transaction. If illegal avoidance is practised by the seller then, unless the buyer can prove adequate due diligence, the buyer can be hit for the UK tax and fine. Believe me this focuses the mind when you are the buyer!!

We are doing the job of HMRC in effect but from a position of power over the would-be tax avoider that results (rarely) in a refusal to buy or (usually) in the seller revising their income structure to fall within the guidelines.

Some of these changes result no doubt from public pressure rather than an ideology but a government is there to reflect the wishes of the people, and this one has gone much further than any of its predecessors. None of this changes the fact that any illegal tax avoidance by a politician, and it's important to focus on the illegal aspect, is unacceptable, as the Icelandic Premier has demonstrated.
1
 MG 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

You might have a point if it was David Cameron doing all that but it isn't.

I also don't get this idea that politicians have to be "like us" to hold office. Firstly because it's impossible as we all have a pretty narrow experience that only a few others will share and secondly because I don't want "normal" people as PM - see Corbyn for a flavour of what this would be like.
2
 summo 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Yes, and this was a bit embarrassing for Ms Hodge. But while they're quite similar stories, the Hodge version isn't nearly so amusing, as there's no Panamanian solicitors

regardless of where the money went her motives were hardly honourable for a serving MP? And who else is a customer of the scheme isn't really relevant, as I doubt anyone knew, no financial institution is going to say those names to potential clients. Plus, the type of fund it was, people simply work through a broker etc.. so they never deal with the company.
 summo 06 Apr 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> Is anyone really surprised loop-holes exist that make it so easy to squirrel away funds in a somewhat odious, but marginally legal way?

in the UK not at all, the most complex and hole ridden tax rules in Europe, so every political party is to blame.
 neilh 06 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

I am looking forward to Bono and Geldof's names coming to light in all this. The music world also needs a kick up the backside over these issues.
 Nevis-the-cat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

You make some good points, but the inheritance tax comparison does not readily work.

HMRC / VO have an open and transparent framework for individuals to work within. The gifting of a property and the 7 yr rule is long standing and well picked over.

On the other hand,. off shoring is so opaque as to be impenetrable. What is clear is that it in many cases it is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and avoid tax. The appointment of nominees, the claim that a business operates in an off shore territory when the board and "real" beneficial parties reside and operate in a country where they have a clear tax liability is rightly open to question.

Then we add the danger of the company that they keep. gifting a 3 bed semi in Penge does not require you to appoint the same tax and legal advisors as the Duvalier family, with the intention of the same.

Off shore tax status should not be completely banned - there are benefits that are quite legitimate - funds for example. anyone here with e pension might do well to think about the tax their investments have minimised due to the fund being off shore.
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to neilh:

> I am looking forward to Bono and Geldof's names coming to light in all this. The music world also needs a kick up the backside over these issues.
>
I believe that amongst the clients of Leopold Joseph, which invested in the Blairmore fund, were the Rolling Stones......

 summo 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
> HMRC / VO have an open and transparent framework for individuals to work within. The gifting of a property and the 7 yr rule is long standing and well picked over.

not really, the current scheme where they claim you can have an inheritance of £1m tax free is somewhat complex.
But, you have to be married etc.. to reach that allowance, which in the 21st century is a little Victorian. So depending where we live when our time is up, it might be worth us getting married purely for tax avoidance reasons, seems a little odd in the big scheme of things.

> On the other hand,. off shoring is so opaque as to be impenetrable. What is clear is that it in many cases it is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and avoid tax. The appointment of nominees, the claim that a business operates in an off shore territory when the board and "real" beneficial parties reside and operate in a country where they have a clear tax liability is rightly open to question.

I agree, it all comes down to the person who appoints a fund manager or invests in a fund which then buys into this scheme, who is liable? But also on the intentions of a person to report their gains to HMRC in which case it's all above board. I think the details to date on this leak are thin.

> Then we add the danger of the company that they keep.

I think it is unlikely that other customers details are shared among clients? And it's probably not dinner table conversation at the G20 etc.. so how would they ever know.

> Off shore tax status should not be completely banned - there are benefits that are quite legitimate - funds for example. anyone here with e pension might do well to think about the tax their investments have minimised due to the fund being off shore.

I would agree, consider and explore all options, it's our earned money after all, why waste it.
Post edited at 08:35
1
 summo 06 Apr 2016
In reply to neilh:

> I am looking forward to Bono and Geldof's names coming to light in all this. The music world also needs a kick up the backside over these issues.

cliff Richard, Elton john.... all the world's do gooders!!
 galpinos 06 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

Cheers for that. As a PAYE employee who know's little more tax minimisation than ISAs and salary sacrifice it all seems like cloak and daggers stuff (I have just watched the Night Manager I guess).
 galpinos 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I believe that amongst the clients of Leopold Joseph, which invested in the Blairmore fund, were the Rolling Stones......

There're not smug, goody two shoes, rub my ethical stance in your face kind of guys though. I'd imagine them sailing close to the wind legally. Bono however........ That would be amazing!
 neilh 06 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

I reckon that it could be more entertaining that the stuff with DC.

Geldof for my money is the one who is likely to be tarnished.
 Trevers 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-lab...

"There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future."
In reply to Trevers:

They must all be losing money then
 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

Quite. But this is UKC, they won't let those fact bother them.

Seems most people are still missing the point that, in the UK at least, the PM is legally bound to be transparent about his own finances.

How could he ever make any objective decisions.

1
 Valaisan 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I'm using a one liner to illustrate a truth. Population has grown because more wealth increases life expectancy. Fact.

> I'm not entering this debate but Hans summarises the basic arguments very well. If you don't agree, so be it. I'm unlikely to convince you or hear much new from you.

You're a difficult fellow to have a debate with postman, because you restate points I didn't disagree with and ignore one's I make that present a different take on things.

I agreed with you that the capitalist model (from the industrial age) has increased wealth and the global population: I even presented the figures. However, what I challenged was your suggestion that the capitalist model has been the most successful model in human history, and I challenged it because it was a too simplistic statement.

It is only successful looked at from one perspective: the positive ones, which are; increased life expectancy and living standards.

On the other hand, I can present a plethora of negative outcomes of your 'successful' economic model which had the human race evolved even just a little more selflessly may have been avoided in the main.

As for the global population growth, if you think going from 1billion to 10billion in the last 300 years is a good thing then any further discussion with you is utterly pointless.
 Valaisan 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:


> "There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future."

...'in future' Haha!
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:

> You're a difficult fellow to have a debate with postman, because you restate points I didn't disagree with and ignore one's I make that present a different take on things.

>
And you're difficult not to have a debate with. Read my posts. I've done this one many times. I said I am not interested in having this debate at this time. And nobody said that this economic model is perfect and couldn't be improved upon. People are not perfect and aren't going to be.

Another time maybe.
2
In reply to Valaisan:

'As for the global population growth, if you think going from 1billion to 10billion in the last 300 years is a good thing then any further discussion with you is utterly pointless. '

Well I'm going to defend that. The alternative, in simplistic terms, is that given contraception wasn't widely available until very recently, that the billions of people you are implicitly objecting to would have died, mostly from starvation, thirst or easily treated illness.

We should celebrate historical population growth - and our capability to mostly feed them - as a triumph, and now put equal efforts into reversing it. Which, in fact, we are mostly doing.
1
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to MG:

> You might have a point if it was David Cameron doing all that but it isn't.

I'm not saying that DC is responsible, I'm saying it's embarrassing. Obviously, if DC was doing this, it would be a completely different thing, an instant resignation a la Gunnlaugsson. Exactly as the OP said, "a bit of an unfortunate legacy" - it's funny because it shows the PM in such an unflattering light that he has absolutely no control over; and totally unsurprising. You don't seem to grasp that I'm not saying, "this is disgusting, DC must go", I'm merely very amused by the truly awful PR disaster that the Panama papers have created for him.

> I also don't get this idea that politicians have to be "like us" to hold office. Firstly because it's impossible as we all have a pretty narrow experience that only a few others will share and secondly because I don't want "normal" people as PM - see Corbyn for a flavour of what this would be like.

You might not like that idea, but so what, that isn't the issue. The issue is the PM has imposed a programme of cuts that have hit the poorest hardest and gone on and on about tackling tax avoidance; and then we see what we already knew about his background - he comes from an elite that dishonestly* hordes excessive wealth in tax havens.


*you might equate honesty and legality, I don't.
1
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> regardless of where the money went her motives were hardly honourable for a serving MP? And who else is a customer of the scheme isn't really relevant, as I doubt anyone knew, no financial institution is going to say those names to potential clients. Plus, the type of fund it was, people simply work through a broker etc.. so they never deal with the company.

You just don't understand it, do you? The fact the Hodge is also a hypocrite does nothing to ameliorate the situation for DC. The fact that Ian Cameron obviously had no connection with Bashar al-Assad doesn't undo the damage of them being named in the same newspaper headline.
1
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> "There are no offshore funds/trusts which the prime minister, Mrs Cameron or their children will benefit from in future."

When someone says to me that there is no story here, no need to look further, I WANT to look further.

If what they say is correct, they will have no problems clarifying the points to the avoidance of any doubt.
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You just don't understand it, do you? The fact the Hodge is also a hypocrite does nothing to ameliorate the situation for DC. The fact that Ian Cameron obviously had no connection with Bashar al-Assad doesn't undo the damage of them being named in the same newspaper headline.

It's a sad world if the electorate are dumb enough to judge a politician based on such a tenuous link!
In reply to Jim C:

I still think that Cameron is being disingenuous - and he will have absorbed this sort of attitude to money with his mother's milk.

I'm struggling to believe that Cameron senior left 'only' £2.74 million; it might sound a lot to you or I, but given his family have been property owning financiers in the South East for generations that seems incredibly low. There's other weird stuff - Cameron's brother became the owner of £2.5 million estate before Cameron senior died - that could have made for some awkward family conversations if David wasn't confident that he would get a similar share in due course. Ditto the £1 million given to his sisters in 2006 - didn't David ever say, excuse me Dad, what about me?
1
 BnB 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Valaisan:

> ...'in future' Haha!

This was a clarification of the original statement which used only the present tense. And helpful in that respect while leaving a glaring omission of the past. The question is: had DC once benefited from, say, a dodgy offshore inheritance which he has now repatriated while actively today cutting down on avoidance, is he a reformed crusader for justice or a hypocritical posh boy?
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> It's a sad world if the electorate are dumb enough to judge a politician based on such a tenuous link!

I don't think Offduty, would dismiss things as easily as you seem to.
Police and journalists follow up every lead (even if it at first seems tenuous) , and they should not be detered when a lot of red herrings are put up.

1
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> I don't think Offduty, would dismiss things as easily as you seem to.

> Police and journalists follow up every lead (even if it at first seems tenuous) , and they should not be detered when a lot of red herrings are put up.

I'd hope that the police wouldn't waste to much resource chasing smoke. Journalists are different in that they will chase anything that will sell papers to a readership that are suckered by a story.
2
 Bob Hughes 06 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

according to the Telegraph DC inherited 300kEUR when his dad died.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/05/panama-papers-david-cameron-forc...
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I still think that Cameron is being disingenuous - and he will have absorbed this sort of attitude to money with his mother's milk.

> I'm struggling to believe that Cameron senior left 'only' £2.74 million; it might sound a lot to you or I, but given his family have been property owning financiers in the South East for generations that seems incredibly low. There's other weird stuff - Cameron's brother became the owner of £2.5 million estate before Cameron senior died - that could have made for some awkward family conversations if David wasn't confident that he would get a similar share in due course. Ditto the £1 million given to his sisters in 2006 - didn't David ever say, excuse me Dad, what about me?

Can I suggest that your speculation tells us absolutely nothing about the Prime Minister or his family but hints that there may well be some rather petty jealousy and back-biting in your own family?
4
In reply to timjones:

You couldn't be further from the truth, tbh. Despite some potential awkwardness (parents 2nd and 3rd marriages, half brothers and sisters etc) both our parent's affairs were settled without a cross word - or a solicitor - between any of us.

But you go ahead and believe what you want.

1
 tony 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I still think that Cameron is being disingenuous - and he will have absorbed this sort of attitude to money with his mother's milk.

> I'm struggling to believe that Cameron senior left 'only' £2.74 million; it might sound a lot to you or I, but given his family have been property owning financiers in the South East for generations that seems incredibly low. There's other weird stuff - Cameron's brother became the owner of £2.5 million estate before Cameron senior died - that could have made for some awkward family conversations if David wasn't confident that he would get a similar share in due course. Ditto the £1 million given to his sisters in 2006 - didn't David ever say, excuse me Dad, what about me?

The estate going to the brother isn't necessarily that odd. The brother is older, and older brothers certainly used to be the inheritors of the bulk of the family wealth. It may just be that IC was doing the traditional thing.
1
In reply to tony:

Primogeniture eh, the reason that back in Elizabethan days young aristocrats were sent abroad to find their fortune while those pathetic foreigners carved up their estates between the sons and sat at home happy and content???!!

Not sure even the Cameron's 'old' money is as old as that...
1
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> You couldn't be further from the truth, tbh. Despite some potential awkwardness (parents 2nd and 3rd marriages, half brothers and sisters etc) both our parent's affairs were settled without a cross word - or a solicitor - between any of us.

And that rather neatly illustrates the folly of making idle assumptions about the personal affairs of other peoples families!

> But you go ahead and believe what you want.

TBH I have no more interest in your family affairs than those of the Prime Minister. I was endeavouring to highlight the fact such speculation is both distasteful and ill-advised.
2
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Primogeniture eh, the reason that back in Elizabethan days young aristocrats were sent abroad to find their fortune while those pathetic foreigners carved up their estates between the sons and sat at home happy and content???!!

> Not sure even the Cameron's 'old' money is as old as that...

Primogeniture has it's merits, but it's not as simple as that.

The owner of property or a business may choose to leave it to their family in many different ways depending on their own judgement of the circumstances.

Who knows maybe the £300k that DC allegedly inherited was as valuable to him at the time as his brothers "share"? Maybe it was even less of a ballache in the long run than however much his brother may have received in other forms or physical assets.

I just don't get what all the fuss is about apart from silly political point scoring. At present it appears that someones father once managed an offshore fund that was legal at the time but possibly may not be legal under todays rules.

They also apparently dealt with a solicitor who may also have dealt with some dodgy characters. Find me a solicitor that hasn't dealt with some dodgy characters, it appears to be widely accepted as part of the job. If dealing with solicitors is a crime then we're all likely to be guilty at some point in our lives.
Post edited at 16:05
1
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to tony:

> The estate going to the brother isn't necessarily that odd. The brother is older, and older brothers certainly used to be the inheritors of the bulk of the family wealth. It may just be that IC was doing the traditional thing.

It would also be fairly common where one family member had worked in a family business whilst others went and found lucrative careers elsewhere.
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> I just don't get what all the fuss is about apart from silly political point scoring. At present it appears that someones father once managed an offshore fund that was legal at the time but possibly may not be legal under todays rules.

> They also apparently dealt with a solicitor who may also have dealt with some dodgy characters.

Your ability to edit reality into a version that is coherent with your political outlook is impressive. It is possible, as you and PMP have shown, to focus on the detail and ignore all the context; to rationalise away the issue through wilful blindness. The Panama papers reveal the workings of a global elite who dishonestly shuffle money around to ensure it stays in their hands rather than being spent by governments in the public interest. This elite includes people we know to have fairly relaxed moral standards - people close to Assad, Putin, Mugabe, etc. None of this is at all surprising, but it's rare that we, the public, get any insight into these shady dealings, because they are kept secret (which is mostly probably reasonable, rather than conspiracy).

So now, in the context of the current govt's policies, as PM, it does not look good when it is revealed that your dad was a player in this game. It really doesn't.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Can't fault you there, Jon. Succinctly put.
1
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:


> So now, in the context of the current govt's policies, as PM, it does not look good when it is revealed that your dad was a player in this game. It really doesn't.

Oh dear, yet another Cameron offshore fund ( Jersey) has come to light.
( just as well the press not listen to the apologists on here, and kept digging)

If after complete transparency , IS achieved, and Cameron is proved to squeaky clean, then he can represent the UK and chair the anti-corruption summit.

 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

No. The real context is that these loopholes have been closed by someone who might potentially, might possibly, could have benefitted from them in the past.

I have a feeling that the "We're all in this together." misquote will be used forever in the same way as the "No such thing as society" misquote is.
1
 BnB 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> So now, in the context of the current govt's policies, as PM, it does not look good when it is revealed that your dad was a player in this game. It really doesn't.

I agree with everything you say in the previous paragraph but the question, surely, is not "did Cameron benefit in the past from wealth, which, by today's standards, might be deemed tarnished?" which I personally don't doubt. Rather "is he and his government taking reasonable steps to combat tax avoidance today?" for which there is some positive evidence, despite your instinctive reluctance to believe it.

Or to use a pithy and pragmatic phrase: can the poacher not turn gamekeeper for the benefit of the many?
1
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Oh dear, yet another Cameron offshore fund ( Jersey) has come to light.

>
You mean the one we've known about since IC's estate was declared in 2012?

1
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> No. The real context is that these loopholes have been closed by someone who might potentially, might possibly, could have benefitted from them in the past.

Can you explain why the context you highlight is "real" and why, by implication, the context I highlight is false?

> I have a feeling that the "We're all in this together." misquote will be used forever in the same way as the "No such thing as society" misquote is.

Incorrect:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/08/david-cameron-speech-in-ful...

(Google is pretty useful if you want to find something out).
1
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Your ability to edit reality into a version that is coherent with your political outlook is impressive. It is possible, as you and PMP have shown, to focus on the detail and ignore all the context; to rationalise away the issue through wilful blindness. The Panama papers reveal the workings of a global elite who dishonestly shuffle money around to ensure it stays in their hands rather than being spent by governments in the public interest. This elite includes people we know to have fairly relaxed moral standards - people close to Assad, Putin, Mugabe, etc. None of this is at all surprising, but it's rare that we, the public, get any insight into these shady dealings, because they are kept secret (which is mostly probably reasonable, rather than conspiracy).

> So now, in the context of the current govt's policies, as PM, it does not look good when it is revealed that your dad was a player in this game. It really doesn't.

Would you like to explain what my political outlook is, I'd hate to confuse you by failing to conform to your narrow-minded political stereotyping



6
 Dave the Rave 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> It's a sad world if the electorate are dumb enough to judge a politician based on such a tenuous link!

He was judged around these parts by his catastrophic policies and double standards prior to this revelation. The fact is that it's not a shock.
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

> the question, surely, is..."is he and his government taking reasonable steps to combat tax avoidance today?" for which there is some positive evidence, despite your instinctive reluctance to believe it.

That's quite reasonable, and it seems fair to say that there has been some progress. Yet, it seems to be in the news every few weeks that very large companies have been paying no or little tax, so I'm afraid you'll find my applause to be rather muted.

> Or to use a pithy and pragmatic phrase: can the poacher not turn gamekeeper for the benefit of the many?

Maybe.
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

I assumed you were a Tory voter, given how keen you are to dismiss this issue as "nothing to see here". Specifically, someone who's sceptical that wealthy people have a duty to pay (high rates of) tax in the country whose services they benefit from as part of a redistributive policy programme
2
In reply to BnB:

Might be pithy and pragmatic (?) but is it true?

Do you really believe for a single moment that Cameron has had an epiphany and believes in equality of opportunity, fair distribution of wealth and social justice for all?

Because I'm b*ggered if I do.

 BnB 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> That's quite reasonable, and it seems fair to say that there has been some progress. Yet, it seems to be in the news every few weeks that very large companies have been paying no or little tax, so I'm afraid you'll find my applause to be rather muted.

We're next month due to pay our corporation tax bill for the period commencing July 2014. Nearly two years back. Were our payments newsworthy I imagine it would take a little while yet for the story to hit the press. It takes time for these measures to bite in a way that can be measured in the public purse. The offshore intermediaries legislation of April 2014 for example will only have generated receipts in the last 3 months.

I understand why you doubt the Tory's determination and this news story does nothing to alter the general perception, but from the point of view of someone much closer to the coal face of corporate and individual avoidance, I've seen more (and more effective) measures introduced in the last 6 years than in the 25 that preceded it.
Post edited at 20:08
1
 BnB 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm not suggesting a Damascene conversion. Merely that he may value power more than money.
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I assumed you were a Tory voter, given how keen you are to dismiss this issue as "nothing to see here". Specifically, someone who's sceptical that wealthy people have a duty to pay (high rates of) tax in the country whose services they benefit from as part of a redistributive policy programme

You're making yourself look a bit of an arse

Check back and see if I've indicated scepticism "that wealthy people have a duty to pay (high rates of) tax in the country whose services they benefit from as part of a redistributive policy programme"?

I just think it's pretty crass to judge any politician ion the actions of their relatives. If the press or the opposition find evidence that David Cameron operates or has money in offshore funds then they have be a story. What we are seeing at present is just a shit stirring, fishing operation. It might sell papers, but I would find it distasteful regardless of the political leanings of the target.

FWIW no-one who I have talked politics with at length and in person has felt able to confidently make a guess at which party I might vote for
4
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I assumed you were a Tory voter, given how keen you are to dismiss this issue as "nothing to see here". Specifically, someone who's sceptical that wealthy people have a duty to pay (high rates of) tax in the country whose services they benefit from as part of a redistributive policy programme

I find that by searching for all previous posts of anyone on here , and selecting responses to political threads, can give a 'reasonable' indication to someone's political views. ( mine included)

( unless of course there are posters that continually play Devils advocate)

 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

I don't doubt what you say, I just doubt that the measures you refer to are effective against, or even aimed at, Google, Morgan Stanley, Amazon, etc. I think the distinction you draw between the past, in which Ian Cameron dishonestly shuffled money through the Bahamas, and the present, in which David Cameron is effectively addressing the issue of tax avoidance, is over-egging this pudding a little.
 BnB 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't doubt what you say, I just doubt that the measures you refer to are effective against, or even aimed at, Google, Morgan Stanley, Amazon, etc. I think the distinction you draw between the past, in which Ian Cameron dishonestly shuffled money through the Bahamas, and the present, in which David Cameron is effectively addressing the issue of tax avoidance, is over-egging this pudding a little.

The recent diverted profits legislation is aimed roundly at Amazon and Starbucks and their ilk as a matter of fact. Speculate away as to whether Cameron has benefited by association with his father's tax planning. I for one am sure he has. But you need to do some reading up instead of just guessing about the measures introduced. It's interesting stuff in a nerdy way although even my accountant got bored when I tried to discuss the double reasonableness test of the general anti avoidance provision with him

 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Check back and see if I've indicated scepticism "that wealthy people have a duty to pay (high rates of) tax in the country whose services they benefit from as part of a redistributive policy programme"?

You haven't. I made that assumption because the reasons Ian Cameron story is big news are so obvious, and yet you seem hell-bent on not acknowledging them, in tandem precisely with what the Tories (on telly and their supporters on here) are saying.

> I just think it's pretty crass to judge any politician ion the actions of their relatives...I would find it distasteful regardless of the political leanings of the target.

Well, it's great to hear from someone so obviously fair and objective...
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
To my mind it's not big news, it's non-story it would still be non-storyif it was Corbyns father or the father of any other MP. It's being overhyped for political ends, it's a cheap tactic and it only works because of the sort of lazy thinking that you have just exhibited.
Post edited at 20:43
6
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

I'm not sure your faith in, e.g. the diverted profits tax is universally shared; indeed wasn't that the measure that was criticised as scuppering efforts towards international harmonisation for the sake of making quick political capital?

To keep the pudding metaphor going, sounds like the proof will be with us in a couple of years.
 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Can you explain why the context you highlight is "real" and why, by implication, the context I highlight is false?

> Incorrect:


> (Google is pretty useful if you want to find something out).

Thanks for that. It's a cracking read. Proves my point nicely don't you think? Not sure what you mean by "incorrect".
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

The progressive thing to do, the responsible thing to do is to get a grip on the debt but in a way that brings the country together instead of driving it apart. That means showing leadership at the top which is why we will cut ministers' pay and freeze it for a parliament.

It means showing that we're all in this together, which is why we'll freeze public sector pay for all but the one million lowest paid public sector workers for one year to help protect jobs.

And it means showing that the rich will pay their share which is why for now the 50p tax rate will have to stay and child trust funds for those on middle and higher incomes will have to go.


I don't understand what you meant by 'misquote'.
 DancingOnRock 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The progressive thing to do, the responsible thing to do is to get a grip on the debt but in a way that brings the country together instead of driving it apart. That means showing leadership at the top which is why we will cut ministers' pay and freeze it for a parliament.

> It means showing that we're all in this together, which is why we'll freeze public sector pay for all but the one million lowest paid public sector workers for one year to help protect jobs.

> And it means showing that the rich will pay their share which is why for now the 50p tax rate will have to stay and child trust funds for those on middle and higher incomes will have to go.

> I don't understand what you meant by 'misquote'.

Did they not freeze pay for one year? I thought they did.
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:
> To my mind it's not big news, it's non-story it would still be non-storyif it was Corbyns father or the father of any other MP. It's being overhyped for political ends, it's a cheap tactic and it only works because of the sort of lazy thinking that you have just exhibited.

I'm with you in respect that it matters nought what party ( if any) the people involved in secretive offshore deals is in.
If Surgeon, Corbyn, Davidson, Cameron etc put themselves up for public office , then we are entitled to know if their wealth ( if they have any) was legally obtained.
They should be happy to answer every and all questions, so we can judge for ourselves.

I don't think that is lazy thinking. I do think that those that don't want to know the answers to such questions forget that it is the JOB of the opposition( of whatever party) to ask such questions( precisely for political reasons, thats what we pay them for)

Edit :-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13794955.Sleaze_and_cronyism__The_SNP_ar...
Post edited at 21:15
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

For what it's worth I've been looking at the tax status of offshore funds in the 1980s when Blairmore was established (1982).

They took off after the abolition of exchange controls in 1979. Initially the main tax advantage was that income could be rolled up and treated, on sale, as capital gain which attracted a lower tax rate. Post 1984 this became impossible and the main advantage was in "umbrella funds" which enabled holders to switch between different classes of asset within the fund eg. a sub fund of US shares to a sub fund of Asian shares without paying tax at the time. Tax would be payable when the umbrella fund itself was sold.
This tax advantage was removed in 1989 and the main advantage was the ability to time disposal to suit one's tax position best. eg having retired or moved abroad.

Such funds were open as retail funds to the general public. There were also offshore funds open to professional investors (institutions and high net worth investors) which generally seemed to have had the same attractions but could invest in higher risk instruments and needed less red tape in terms of prospectuses etc to establish. I assume Blairmore was one of these (unless we hear otherwise).

None of this rules out the possibility that Blairmore was used for tax evasion but more likely it was being used, like thousands of other publicly available and marketed funds to reduce tax primarily by delaying it, and also to enable investment in instruments deemed too risky for Joe Soap. Non resident clients would also find it appropriate.

No doubt some will be critical of this anyway, but the point is that it doesn't appear to be some devious and convoluted scheme available only to billionaires. It was pretty much available over the counter to anyone with a few grand to spare.
2
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Did they not freeze pay for one year? I thought they did.

Yes they did, why do you ask?
In reply to Postmanpat:

'It was pretty much available over the counter to anyone with a few grand to spare.'

Er ... I think the number of people with 'a few grand to spare' rather rules out most people, who therefore have no option but to pay tax as soon as they incur the liability. Which of course is how it should be.
4
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

It's right to ask if David Cameron has money invested in offshore funds but all this shit stirring because his father had money invested in such funds that appear to have been legal at the time is both unjust and irrelevant IMO.

2
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'It was pretty much available over the counter to anyone with a few grand to spare.'

> Er ... I think the number of people with 'a few grand to spare' rather rules out most people, who therefore have no option but to pay tax as soon as they incur the liability. Which of course is how it should be.

They won't have the such a liability, just as they won't be able to maximise their ISA or use their capital gains allowance. Will we be criticising people for doing this in thirty years time?
3
 RomTheBear 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> For what it's worth I've been looking at the tax status of offshore funds in the 1980s when Blairmore was established (1982).

> They took off after the abolition of exchange controls in 1979. Initially the main tax advantage was that income could be rolled up and treated, on sale, as capital gain which attracted a lower tax rate. Post 1984 this became impossible and the main advantage was in "umbrella funds" which enabled holders to switch between different classes of asset within the fund eg. a sub fund of US shares to a sub fund of Asian shares without paying tax at the time. Tax would be payable when the umbrella fund itself was sold.

> This tax advantage was removed in 1989 and the main advantage was the ability to time disposal to suit one's tax position best. eg having retired or moved abroad.

> Such funds were open as retail funds to the general public. There were also offshore funds open to professional investors (institutions and high net worth investors) which generally seemed to have had the same attractions but could invest in higher risk instruments and needed less red tape in terms of prospectuses etc to establish. I assume Blairmore was one of these (unless we hear otherwise).

> None of this rules out the possibility that Blairmore was used for tax evasion but more likely it was being used, like thousands of other publicly available and marketed funds to reduce tax primarily by delaying it, and also to enable investment in instruments deemed too risky for Joe Soap. Non resident clients would also find it appropriate.

Their own marketing was boasting of the fact that the fund would not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits. Let's cut the bullcrap please, the main purpose of the fund and similar fund is to facilitate tax evasion for their customers.

> No doubt some will be critical of this anyway, but the point is that it doesn't appear to be some devious and convoluted scheme available only to billionaires. It was pretty much available over the counter to anyone with a few grand to spare.

It was available to everybody I'm sure, but I am not sure how this makes any difference, the vast majority of people just pay their taxes and don't constantly look for dodgy ways to avoid it so it is understandable that people are critical of this.

Now looking at this story it seems that David Cameron although he probably benefited indirectly from it, had indeed little to do with this
Post edited at 21:37
1
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> It's right to ask if David Cameron has money invested in offshore funds but all this shit stirring because his father had money invested in such funds that appear to have been legal at the time is both unjust and irrelevant IMO.

But how are we to know if they just 'appear' to have been legal without 'shit stirring' as you see it.( Due Scrutiny as others do)

We are asking for complete transparency. All parties are subject to such scrutiny, and so they should be.
Last week it was the SNP, ( and for all I know those accusations may also be proven to be false, as you believe to be the case here)

But this week it happens to be the Conservatives. ( and a few other world leaders
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:


> It was available to everybody I'm sure, but I am not sure how this makes any difference, the vast majority of people just pay their taxes and don't constantly look for dodgy ways to avoid it so it is understandable that people are critical of this.

I can think of plenty of people will be highly critical of this but are often keen to deal in cash to avoid "troubling the taxman."

2
 Sir Chasm 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

How low down the tiers of politicians would you like to apply this "complete transparency"? Just the cabinet? All MPs? Anyone elected to public office? Parish councillors?
KevinD 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> because his father had money invested in such funds that appear to have been legal at the time

Just like Jimmy Carr then?
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> But how are we to know if they just 'appear' to have been legal without 'shit stirring' as you see it.( Due Scrutiny as others do)

> We are asking for complete transparency. All parties are subject to such scrutiny, and so they should be.

> Last week it was the SNP, ( and for all I know those accusations may also be proven to be false, as you believe to be the case here)

> But this week it happens to be the Conservatives. ( and a few other world leaders

The key difference with the SNP in the article you linked to is that they all appear to have been judged on their own actions rather than the actions of their relatives.

The papers that have been leaked may reveal things that are worthy of investigation but the current media circus focused on the PM is not the right way to go about it IMO.
 RomTheBear 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> I can think of plenty of people will be highly critical of this but are often keen to deal in cash to avoid "troubling the taxman."

And they'll be hypocrites for sure but the majority of us (I hope) do pay their taxes.
 MG 06 Apr 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

>
> It was available to everybody I'm sure, but I am not sure how this makes any difference, the vast majority of people just pay their taxes and don't constantly look for dodgy ways to avoid

Are these all dodgy if they were over the counter ways of reducing tax as PMP says? More so than pension contributions say, that are also over the counter products that avoid (all) tax. For me the test would be did parliament intend them to exist, or were they artificial loop-hole fiddles.

2
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Just like Jimmy Carr then?

Nothing like Jimmy Carr in one crucial respect. His children weren't pilloried for his actions.
Post edited at 21:51
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Their own marketing was boasting of the fact that the would not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits. Let's cut the bullcrap please, the main purpose of the fund and similar fund is to facilitate tax evasion for their customers.

You clearly have no understanding of what that phrase means. That prospectus would have been made available to the HMRC in 2006. Do you honestly think they would be explicity highlighting that it was set up to evade taxes?

You also seem not to noticed the next para "Subject to their personal circumstances, Shareholders resident in the United Kingdom for taxation purposes will be liable to United Kingdom income tax or corporation tax in respect of dividends or
other distributions of an income nature made by the Fund, whether or not such distributions are reinvested. "

"If an investor who is resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for taxation purposes holds a £material interest£ in a collective investment scheme that constitutes an £offshore fund£ and that collective investment scheme does not qualify as a £distributing fund£ throughout the period during which the investor holds that interest, any gain accruing to the investor upon the sale, redemption orother disposal of that interest (including a deemed disposal on death) will be taxed at the time of such sale, redemption or other disposal as income (£offshore income gains£) and not as a capital gain. The Shares will constitute £material interests£ in an £offshore fund£ for the purpose of those provisions of the Taxes Act."

etc etc etc.


> It was available to everybody I'm sure, but I am not sure how this makes any difference, the vast majority of people just pay their taxes and don't constantly look for dodgy ways to avoid it so it is understandable that people are critical of this.

Not true. Most poeple who can will use ISAs, pension tax breaks, duty free allowances, capital gains tax allowances etc.
Post edited at 21:54
1
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> How low down the tiers of politicians would you like to apply this "complete transparency"? Just the cabinet? All MPs? Anyone elected to public office? Parish councillors?

I'm a member of a community council, and we are currently reporting the council to the ombudsman and a specific councillor to the ethics committee. ( and will sit across the table from the said councilor next month. )
Nothing personal.

Does that answer the question. ( Anyone elected to public office, it comes with the territory)
Post edited at 21:51
KevinD 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Nothing like Jimmy Carr in one crucial respect. Hi children weren't pilloried for his actions.

good point in Jimmy Carr's case David was busy judging and not coming up with vague answers.
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Just like Jimmy Carr then?

No, there is an obvious difference between a bog standard vehicle sold openly to investors on the basis of clearly legislated guidleines to allow its existence, and a deviously created artificial scheme designed to subvert the intentions of the law.
Post edited at 21:52
2
 Sir Chasm 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

So how much tax did you pay last year?
1
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> good point in Jimmy Carr's case David was busy judging and not coming up with vague answers.

ISTM that some pretty clear answers have been given, they just haven't been the answers that the mob are longing for.
 DR 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think I love you
KevinD 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> ISTM that some pretty clear answers have been given,

If by pretty clear answer you mean starting with not answering and then needing several attempts to become reasonably clear although still having some handy vagueness then yes.
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> So how much tax did you pay last year?

If you really want to know PM me ( but how you will know what I say is true though
 timjones 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> If you really want to know PM me ( but how you will know what I say is true though

Awww come on what's sauce for the goose.....

If the PM has to be totally transparent then so should you
1
 Sir Chasm 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> If you really want to know PM me ( but how you will know what I say is true though

You won't say? Fair enough, neither would I.
Have you got any offshore investments?
 MonkeyPuzzle 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, there is an obvious difference between a bog standard vehicle sold openly to investors on the basis of clearly legislated guidleines to allow its existence, and a deviously created artificial scheme designed to subvert the intentions of the law.

Devious like having enlisted ringers with next to zero actual control as named board members, so that the company could be 'offshore' but in reality controlled from England?
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> The papers that have been leaked may reveal things that are worthy of investigation, but the current media circus focused on the PM is not the right way to go about it IMO.

I think that it is to the credit of the U.K. that we are challenging our leaders on this.
Is Putin coming under the same pressure from his own media?
If not, do you think that is a good or a bad thing?

If Putin HAS accumulated , and hidden , illegally obtained wealth, does it become 'clean' money as soon as he passes it on to his children?

 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Devious like having enlisted ringers with next to zero actual control as named board members, so that the company could be 'offshore' but in reality controlled from England?

As I said last night, I can remember as a young trainee around 1982 being quite surprised when I discovered fund managers at high street names all over the London were managing "offshore unit trusts" when they were clearly working in London. When I mentioned this to one of them she looked at me like I was a half wit. Actually I can't remember how that was structured but it was all perfectly open and above board and considered totally unremarkable. I assume they had nominal trustees or directors offshore.

In this context, whatever you think of the rights or wrongs, there was nothing creative or "devious" about having such people on the board. It was the standard practice, in line with the specific guidelines of the laws of the time. They probably though a bishop would give it credibility! Since then the guidlines about the requirements of trustees have been tightened in the same way they have been for eg.non executive directors.

Carr's scheme, by contrast, was highly convoluted and unsual in its structure.

4
 MG 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

I think your reticence shows that broadcasting personal finance arrangements isn't something it is reasonable to expect politicians to do. They are private matters.
3
 MonkeyPuzzle 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

So to stop something being devious and dishonest, it must be normalised. Got it.
1
 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not sure I can buy the idea that this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35961422

wasn't dodgy. As MG said, the test is whether provision is made in legislation, or whether the intention is subverted.

Widespread in the sector? Yes, certainly sounds like it. Not dodgy? Harder to believe!
1
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
> So to stop something being devious and dishonest, it must be normalised. Got it.

How can it be dishonest if it is transparent and declared to the relevant authorities and the authorities have written volumes of laws explaining how it works? Devious "going astray from a proper or accepted way". Well, it was the accepted way! I trust you're not a lawyer or an accountant.

If you want to argue that you don't think it should work that way, fine. But to suggest that offshore trusts, the laws for which were carefully created by the government in great detail the 1980s and the modus operandi of which were openly declared in the prospectuses, were "devious and dishonest" then you should either be in a monastery or buying a dictionary.

If, as seems likely, Blairmore was basically just a bog standard offshore fund (for professional investors) run according to the laws and accepted standards of the day, then the idea that he should be hauled over the coals for it thirty years later is nuts.
Post edited at 23:20
3
Jim C 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> You won't say? Fair enough, neither would I.

> Have you got any offshore investments?

You say I won't say, I offered to tell you if you PM me!
( Edit, I pay my taxes PAYE)
However, I'm NOT a public servant, I take no public money, I hold no public office, I have no obligation to reveal any interests, that the others that we are discussing do.
Having said that, to answer your question, I have not inherited any shares, I currently hold no shares, I have no offshore investments/ savings/ property. I own my home outright. ( same goes for my wife, and my dead father)
(I also am a non drinker, non smoker, anything else you want to know ?)
Post edited at 23:23
 Sir Chasm 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

I'm not sure I believe you, can you prove you have no offshore investments?
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm not sure I can buy the idea that this:


> wasn't dodgy. As MG said, the test is whether provision is made in legislation, or whether the intention is subverted.

> Widespread in the sector? Yes, certainly sounds like it. Not dodgy? Harder to believe!

I can barely think of any offshore funds that had a real fund manager offshore. As I said, I can't remember how that worked but there was no way that every FM in London was breaking or pushing the boundaries of the law without HMRC having given the green light. I don't know if Blairmore was subject to a specific law that made it necessary to make investment decisions overseas which means that it was pushing the boat out more than the others.

Honestly, the thing that wasn't normal retail offshore funds was obviously the bearer bonds, but I suspect that it wasn't uncommon for funds for "professional investors" who simply wanted anonymity. Yup, it raises questions but doesn't prove anything.

4
 Oceanrower 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> I'm a member of a community council,

> I hold no public office,

Err?

 Jon Stewart 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> there was no way that every FM in London was breaking or pushing the boundaries of the law without HMRC having given the green light. I don't know if Blairmore was subject to a specific law that made it necessary to make investment decisions overseas which means that it was pushing the boat out more than the others.

It sounds more like you're describing tolerance on the part of HMRC with respect to practice that had become the norm, all self-perpetuating because it was in no one's interest to pull the plug (and to do so might have been impossible for HMRC because of weak legislation - better just not do anything?).

> Honestly, the thing that wasn't normal retail offshore funds was obviously the bearer bonds, but I suspect that it wasn't uncommon for funds for "professional investors" who simply wanted anonymity. Yup, it raises questions but doesn't prove anything.

I agree it doesn't prove anything. Doesn't look good though, does it?
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I agree it doesn't prove anything. Doesn't look good though, does it?

I think we have to be careful to get this exactly right. It certainly doesn't look good, but it also just isn't good, in that here was a British businessman who avoided (correct me if I'm wrong) contributing anything to our treasury. In the same way, at a very minor level, I have a similar question about Cameron junior: just why couldn't he stay in the UK for his Easter holiday, giving our tourism his moral and economic support? To boil this whole question down to basics, just why are these governors of our lives just such total hypocrites? I'm going to be merciless when I next hear a Tory of this ilk using the term 'scrounger' (as they are wont to regarding the less fortunate in our society.)
Post edited at 23:59
 Postmanpat 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It sounds more like you're describing tolerance on the part of HMRC with respect to practice that had become the norm, all self-perpetuating because it was in no one's interest to pull the plug (and to do so might have been impossible for HMRC because of weak legislation - better just not do anything?).

No, it's still the case. I believe what happens now is that the fund may be registered offshore eg.in Ireland, but the day to day management is subcontracted to an investment advisory subsidiary in London. Board meetings will be held in Dublin a few time a year to "manage the fund" in the sense of overall policy, administrative issues etc. This was probably what was happening in the 1980s.

In the case of Blairmore, the day to day management seems now to be done by 2006 small but quite well know company, Smith and Williamson.

The private eye guy, Brooks, seems to think that Blairmore was pushing the boundaries but I don't know why he says that in their case.

> I agree it doesn't prove anything. Doesn't look good though, does it?

From thirty years later no, because bearer bonds became associated with drug gangs etc and have been made illegal. But at the time, I don't know if it looked bad. I think lots of wealthy people prefer anonymity for legitimate reasons.

1
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I think we have to be careful to get this exactly right. It certainly doesn't look good, but it also just isn't good, in that here was a British businessman who avoided (correct me if I'm wrong) contributing anything to our treasury. In the same way, at a very minor level, I have a similar question about Cameron junior: just why couldn't he stay in the UK for his Easter holiday, giving our tourism his moral and economic support?
>
No, that is almost certainly wrong. Cameron sat on the board of Blairmore and was paid a maximum of $20,000pa for that in 2006. Since that was in the prospectus he obviously paid tax on it. In addition for most of his life he was full time employee of the stockbroker, Panmure gordon and would been subject to PAYE and income tax just like anybody else.

It is probable that he also had some investments in Blairmore (we don't know) and some in Jersey but we have no evidence either way of the tax treatment of these.

Regarding politician's holidays, Cameron like most of them makes a big thing out of spending most of his holidays in the UK. Frankly I just think it's silly to think that politicians shouldn't have a decent break in the sun from time to time. They are human beings, after all. At least he doesn't ponce off dodgy billionaire friends like Blair.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:

You've lost me completely on your very strange last sentence.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:

Also, I think you need to be a bit cautious about Blairmore at the moment.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>just why couldn't he stay in the UK for his Easter holiday, giving our tourism his moral and economic support?

What a bizarre thing to say. Why should he, any more than anyone else? It's not hard to imagine why Prime Ministers want to go somewhere for their holidays where they're not recognised by everyone who meets them.

>just why are these governors of our lives just such total hypocrites?

That's easy. It's because they are mirrors of ourselves. If you want to know why our politicians are like they are (whatever that is), consider what it is that attracts our votes.

jcm
Removed User 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I can barely think of any offshore funds that had a real fund manager offshore. As I said, I can't remember how that worked but there was no way that every FM in London was breaking or pushing the boundaries of the law without HMRC having given the green light.

You can't believe large parts of the City weren't/aren't 'pushing the boundaries of the law'! I think they might term that 'maintaining competitive edge' or similar. Were have you been since 2007?
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

One of my employees gets a daily email from the Tories boasting about their achievements (I know; don't worry - i've got my eye on him). Today's was headed 'Helping You To Keep More What you Earn'.

Now that's timing.

jcm
3
 summo 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The fact that Ian Cameron obviously had no connection with Bashar al-Assad doesn't undo the damage of them being named in the same newspaper headline.

I guess, given that a large percentage of folk aren't bright enough to understand the topic or separate the two? Wasn't it DC who was out voted in going to war against Assad? Now you are portraying them as allies.
1
 summo 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> I think that it is to the credit of the U.K. that we are challenging our leaders on this.

Selective challenging I would say.

> Is Putin coming under the same pressure from his own media?
> If not, do you think that is a good or a bad thing?
> If Putin HAS accumulated , and hidden , illegally obtained wealth, does it become 'clean' money as soon as he passes it on to his children?

wonder how many UK football club owners are tied to such schemes, will the UK public stop paying crazy gate prices, merchandising etc.. to reduce their wealth, or to stop a few footballers from living millionaire lifestyles, nope they won't. Even though most are far richer than anyone in Westminister. Rich Russians and Arabs buy individual properties, worth more than Camerons & Osbourne total family wealth all the time.
3
Jim C 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Oceanrower:

No Paid office , it's voluntary
1
 RomTheBear 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> You clearly have no understanding of what that phrase means. That prospectus would have been made available to the HMRC in 2006. Do you honestly think they would be explicity highlighting that it was set up to evade taxes?

> You also seem not to noticed the next para "Subject to their personal circumstances, Shareholders resident in the United Kingdom for taxation purposes will be liable to United Kingdom income tax or corporation tax in respect of dividends or

> other distributions of an income nature made by the Fund, whether or not such distributions are reinvested. "

> "If an investor who is resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for taxation purposes holds a £material interest£ in a collective investment scheme that constitutes an £offshore fund£ and that collective investment scheme does not qualify as a £distributing fund£ throughout the period during which the investor holds that interest, any gain accruing to the investor upon the sale, redemption orother disposal of that interest (including a deemed disposal on death) will be taxed at the time of such sale, redemption or other disposal as income (£offshore income gains£) and not as a capital gain. The Shares will constitute £material interests£ in an £offshore fund£ for the purpose of those provisions of the Taxes Act."

> etc etc etc.

I know, you would be liable to income tax when bringing any money back from this fund into the uk.
But of course those using such funds usually don't declare anything they bring back (the good old suitcase full of cash is still very popular, as shown with the recent hsbc files), don't bring it back but just borrow against it, or use even more convoluted ways to bring it back without paying tax.

That's why I said these funds are enabling tax evasion... In themselves they are often (barely) legal but designed in a way that makes it easy for anybody to massively cheat the system.

> Not true. Most poeple who can will use ISAs, pension tax breaks, duty free allowances, capital gains tax allowances etc.

And here it is, the good old argument that putting money in a isa is no different than dodging tax by using offshore fund. e

ISA and pension tax breaks are designed to encourage people to save a bit of money, and most people use them legally to that effect, and that's perfectly fine.

But no PP, using convoluted offshore funds with fake foreign directors, and abusing double taxation laws to shelter away millions is not the same as the average joe with 5k in his ISA and the occasional duty free pack of fags at the airport.

If I start setting up a schene to abuse the ISA system to shelter away millions then it would be a fair comparison, but most people don't.
Post edited at 07:04
1
Jim C 07 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:
I believe there is a big problem, in football especially, with iffy tax 'schemes' .
I WAS a very keen watcher of sports, ( never football) but I have long since not cared less about who 'wins' what , as I lost trust way back , . You can't be sure what is genuine competition now, and with huge money being put into the various sports, the motivation in the ' sportsmen' that I liked to watch has gone.
Post edited at 07:01
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I know, you would be liable to income tax when bringing any money back from this fund into the uk.

> But of course those using such funds usually don't declare anything they bring back (the good old suitcase full of cash is still very popular, as shown with the recent hsbc files), don't bring it back but just borrow against it, or use even more convoluted ways to bring it back without paying tax.

> That's why I said these funds are enabling tax evasion... In themselves they are often (barely) legal but designed in a way that makes it easy for anybody to massively cheat the system.

> And here it is, the good old argument that putting money in a isa is no different than dodging tax by using offshore fund. e

> ISA and pension tax breaks are designed to encourage people to save a bit of money, and most people use them legally to that effect, and that's perfectly fine.

> But no PP, using convoluted offshore funds with fake foreign directors, and abusing double taxation laws to shelter away millions is not the same as the average joe with 5k in his ISA and the occasional duty free pack of fags at the airport.

>
I realise to the laymen such funds may appear "convoluted" but then again most laymen struggle with the tax treatment of pensions and the arithmetic of compound interest. To any IFA, accountant or tax lawyer they are plain vanilla. The tax treatment of profits by the holders is just the same as for an onshore fund.The para in the prospectus you are jumping up and own about is standard boiler plate that you'll find in the same or similar form in every offshore fund, and is required by law to confirm that the fund is applicable laws and regulations (I can provide them for you if you want)-what UK taxes do you think are being avoided?

So are you saying that all offshore funds are set up primarily for the purpose of illegal tax evasion?

Are you saying therefore that any bank, legal firm, accountant or IFA which establishes, manages, administrates or recommends such funds (pretty much all of them) is party to immoral and illegal activity?

If you are, and I suspect you are, then do you not think it over the top to single out Cameron senior as if he had done anything particularly nefarious as opposed to "being a financial advisor"
3
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed User:
> You can't believe large parts of the City weren't/aren't 'pushing the boundaries of the law'! I think they might term that 'maintaining competitive edge' or similar. Were have you been since 2007?

Yes, but managing a plain vanilla offshore fund wasn't one of those ways.

As I've said before, there are lots of genuinely convoluted ways of avoiding tax and some very rich people evading tax. Personally I agree that both should be clamped down on (which as noted by others, is what is happening). I aslo agree tht HMRC resources should be increased not reduced.

It may yet turn out that IC was involved in such convoluted schemes, but the evidence so far doesn't justify the assumption.
Post edited at 09:09
2
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> I guess, given that a large percentage of folk aren't bright enough to understand the topic or separate the two? Wasn't it DC who was out voted in going to war against Assad? Now you are portraying them as allies.

I'm not portraying them allies! As someone who's appalled by the tax-and-spend policies of his govt, I'm taking great delight in seeing the headlines associating them together as part of a powerful, corrupt elite. While I have to admit to having a tiny bit of sympathy for David Cameron, since it really isn't his fault (this sympathy of course is meaningless in the context of what he has done to the vulnerable in our society), it is healthy for us to be reminded of the corruption within the political system we live under.

As much as you, and particularly PMP, can try to blot this out of the picture by focusing on the technical details, it's hasn't gone unnoticed by the press and the public!
1
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> As much as you, and particularly PMP, can try to blot this out of the picture by focusing on the technical details, it's hasn't gone unnoticed by the press and the public!

So now suddenly you trust the press!!! Funnily enough your favourite the Daily Mail was all over this, with almost exactly the same information, several years ago. Basically the laymen has been trained to think "offshore"=corrupt so obviously they look askance at this.

If you want to argue that offshore=corrupt then so be it and it can be made illegal, but to work on the basis that it is already illegal and was thirty years ago is clearly nonsense.
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>tax-and-spend policies of his govt,

The what?? Are you saying Assad taxes and spends, or Cameron?! Either way it seems an unconventional criticism.

jcm
1
 tony 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So now suddenly you trust the press!!! Funnily enough your favourite the Daily Mail was all over this, with almost exactly the same information, several years ago. Basically the laymen has been trained to think "offshore"=corrupt so obviously they look askance at this.

I think one of the difficulties with trying to justify the actions of Cameron is that for the layperson, offshore = flyboys in the banks, and we know that flyboys in the banks have been known to stretch the limits of what's legal (sometimes to the point of breaking the elastic), even in recent years, since 2008.
There is a huge suspicion among the general public that the world of finance lives to different sets of rules to everyone else, and the Panama Papers only add to those suspicions. It might be right to say that no wrong has been done in Cameron's case, but the perception is one of privilege and being above and beyond the rules by which most people abide.
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Haha. Sorry that was a bit unclear.

I'm appalled by DC's tax and spend policies, i.e. the politically motivated rate of deficit reduction; balance of spending cuts vs tax rises; and most crucially, where the cuts have fallen.
 MG 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
> As much as you, and particularly PMP, can try to blot this out of the picture by focusing on the technical details,

Whereas you and others see Cameron and offshore in the same paragraph and immediately jump to words like illegal, evasion, corrupt and elite.

The Guardian is struggling to show Cameron is more than somewhat wealthy

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/06/the-cameron-network-inherit...
2
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to MG and Postmanpat:

> Whereas you and others see Cameron and offshore in the same paragraph and immediately jump to words like illegal, evasion,

I haven't said that

> corrupt and elite.

That's what the Panama papers in general say to me, yes.

Offshore = currupt? Well I wouldn't really know in general terms, but we're not dealing in general terms here, I'm sat reading stories of how a specific fund worked, leaked from a solicitor's office, a firm that's been exposed as experts in hiding the wealth of the most dubious world leaders! So far, your valiant efforts to convince me that this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35961422

isn't dodgy, have fallen pretty flat. I'm not saying it was illegal, but yes, it looks pretty corrupt to me.
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So now suddenly you trust the press!!!

Not really, I'm just enjoying watching them making DC squirm. And as I said - and this refers to the Panama papers more generally,

> it is healthy for us to be reminded of the corruption within the political system we live under
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to tony:

> I think one of the difficulties with trying to justify the actions of Cameron is that for the layperson, offshore = flyboys in the banks, and we know that flyboys in the banks have been known to stretch the limits of what's legal (sometimes to the point of breaking the elastic), even in recent years, since 2008.

>
Yes, and that is pretty much the point I am making.

There are, of course, significant parts of the finance sector that fit that description. There is also a view amongst many (on UKC it would seem) that people and companies have a duty to maximise the tax they pay, so that any attempt to reduce tax liabilty is regarded as corrupt.

My position is that the definition of what is actually "corrupt" should be clarified, broadened and clamped down upon (which is a long process). But my view is also that reducing tax liabilities is a perfectly sensible, reasonable and legal activity.

Essentially the usual suspects on UKC are happy either to make the assumption that IC's activities fall in at least the "fly boy" category and probably the illegal category, but since some of them think that any tax reduction strategy is corrupt they don't even draw a distinction. IC is therefore effectively "guilty" just by the nature of his job.

In this case, as much by the omission of fact as by the facts they present, the media colludes with the image.

2
 MG 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I So far, your valiant efforts to convince me that this:


> isn't dodgy, have fallen pretty flat.

I haven't made any! In fact I explicitly said I didn't know.
1
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to MG:

> I haven't made any! In fact I explicitly said I didn't know.

Fair enough, that bit applied to PMP only, was trying to be efficient!
1
 summo 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> tiny bit of sympathy for David Cameron, since it really isn't his fault

finally.

> focusing on the technical details,

you mean the facts?
2
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Fair enough, that bit applied to PMP only, was trying to be efficient!

Tax efficient?
2
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> finally.

? I haven't been arguing that DC is responsible at all, I've explicitly said the opposite.

> you mean the facts?

I mean a narrow subset of the facts at the expense of other facts.
1
 summo 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I mean a narrow subset of the facts at the expense of other facts.

are these like facts about the funds which aren't facts after all? Or known facts as opposed to known unknown facts about the fund? or the unknown known facts which have yet to emerge?

I suspect no matter what comes out in the wash, your anti tory/DC stance won't change as it's politically, not fact based?
2
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> IC is therefore effectively "guilty" just by the nature of his job.

We don't need just to jump to conclusions because he was a wealthy stockbroker, we don't need to rely on totally uninformed assumptions about offshore funds in general, we're being presented with a load of details about a specific case that look really dodgy, in a context that makes it look incredibly dodgy and saying "that looks pretty dodgy".

And yes, if that's the standard at which the whole sector works, then quite right you're all "guilty" and you need some much, much stronger regulation!
1
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:


> I mean a narrow subset of the facts at the expense of other facts.

What you mean the facts on how offshore funds are structured, how they are taxed, the advantages of this tax treatment, the contents of the prospectus, the number of such funds, the context in which they were established remuneration paid to the man (IC) in question by the fund in question? You know, the , er , relevant facts.

Much better just to believe what you read in the press which has, as usual, failed to make any effort to actually look for the "facts"-for or against.

2
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> We don't need just to jump to conclusions because he was a wealthy stockbroker, we don't need to rely on totally uninformed assumptions about offshore funds in general, we're being presented with a load of details about a specific case that look really dodgy, in a context that makes it look incredibly dodgy and saying "that looks pretty dodgy".

>
What are these "uninformed assumptions? You mean the facts presented to you.

No, you're being manipulated and falling for it.
2
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> I suspect no matter what comes out in the wash, your anti tory/DC stance won't change as it's politically, not fact based?

My anti-Tory stance is fact based. The facts of the policies implemented by this and previous governments and their effects on people in our society. There is nothing about this story that is going to have any bearing on that.

My stance on this story is that it's hilariously bad publicity for David Cameron, because of a whole load of colliding stuff that makes him look like a hypocritical, out-of-touch prick. It doesn't matter to me one jot whether IC's fund was just-about-technically above board (let's face it, with the details we've got that's the highest standard that could be met), the issue presented by the story is so much bigger (and it's nothing new, just a reminder).

I'm getting a bit bored of making the same point over and over now...
1
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> My anti-Tory stance is fact based. The facts of the policies implemented by this and previous governments and their effects on people in our society. There is nothing about this story that is going to have any bearing on that.

>
Ah, right....

> I'm getting a bit bored of making the same point over and over now...

Well stop making additional points then, and we can all do something more constructive than squabbling on here

2
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> What are these "uninformed assumptions? You mean the facts presented to you.

Sorry if that was unclear. The facts presented about Blairmore (the meetings, the Bishop, the bearer shares) look to the layman to be very dodgy. Presenting these facts in a context of leaked documents from a firm of solicitors who specialised in hiding the wealth of the incredibly corrupt doesn't really help.

> No, you're being manipulated and falling for it.

So you say. The defence "all that stuff? that's normal!" certainly doesn't inspire any greater confidence in the financial system and its governance!
1
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Sorry if that was unclear. The facts presented about Blairmore (the meetings, the Bishop, the bearer shares) look to the layman to be very dodgy. Presenting these facts in a context of leaked documents from a firm of solicitors who specialised in hiding the wealth of the incredibly corrupt doesn't really help.

Christ! You actually think that having board meetings outside the UK is "dodgy". You really haven't a clue.

> So you say. The defence "all that stuff? that's normal!" certainly doesn't inspire any greater confidence in the financial system and its governance!

So be it. It's a view.

2
 timjones 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> I think that it is to the credit of the U.K. that we are challenging our leaders on this.

> Is Putin coming under the same pressure from his own media?

> If not, do you think that is a good or a bad thing?

> If Putin HAS accumulated , and hidden , illegally obtained wealth, does it become 'clean' money as soon as he passes it on to his children?

You seem to be implying that DC has inherited "dirty" money. I have yet to see any evidence that the money was illegally obtained, let alone that it was passed on to David Cameron. We seem to be witnessing a highly speculative witch hunt, is that how we can expect our press to behave these days?
2
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Christ! You actually think that having board meetings outside the UK is "dodgy".

Not as a single fact without any context, no. Having to hold meetings outside the UK as a requirement not to pay tax here - along with everything else - seems to form part of a consistent picture though.

That, by the way, was a good example of focusing on a specific detail to obfuscate the bigger picture.

 timjones 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> My stance on this story is that it's hilariously bad publicity for David Cameron, because of a whole load of colliding stuff that makes him look like a hypocritical, out-of-touch prick. It doesn't matter to me one jot whether IC's fund was just-about-technically above board (let's face it, with the details we've got that's the highest standard that could be met), the issue presented by the story is so much bigger (and it's nothing new, just a reminder).

> I'm getting a bit bored of making the same point over and over now...

At the end of the day it's only "hilariously bad publicity" in the eyes of those who are desperate to see some bad publicity to fuel their prejudices.

Some of us find it amusing and a little worrying that so many so many people blindly lap up such stories.

3
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> Not as a single fact without any context, no. Having to hold meetings outside the UK as a requirement not to pay tax here - along with everything else - seems to form part of a consistent picture though.

So don't mention it then There's nothing "odd" about the bishop either. Companies in the UK routinely put Lords of the realm on their boards for much the same reason. Silly, maybe, not in any way evidence of corruption.
So we are left with the bearer shares, which I noted above.

The media is simply putting a list of essentially legal and normal practises together to confuse people into believing they are corrupt practices.
This morning the Grauniad has a piece , "revealing" that Blairmore "shopped around" for legal advice on where best to locate the fund as if this were evidence of corruption. Er, don't you think that if you are going to move the location of a business it might be a good idea to get legal advice?? What is actually interesting is that the the advice seems to have been all referring to cost and weight of regulatory oversight and nothing is mentioned about taxes at all. Something which the Grauniad just happens not to note. Funny that.....
Post edited at 11:56
3
Clauso 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Thursday pig reference. Oink.
In reply to Clauso:

If only we could channel all this speculation towards who is the married UK celeb who has taken out an injunction to protect his privacy from the details of a threesome he has had which has been reported in the US (but not here)?
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Clauso:

> Thursday pig reference. Oink.

Toowitawoo!
2
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> If only we could channel all this speculation towards who is the married UK celeb who has taken out an injunction to protect his privacy from the details of a threesome he has had which has been reported in the US (but not here)?

I worked that out, but now I've forgotten
1
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

> At the end of the day it's only "hilariously bad publicity" in the eyes of those who are desperate to see some bad publicity to fuel their prejudices.

Or those who are able to see beyond the (dodgy-looking but ultimately irrelevant) details of an offshore tax fund to see the story in context, as I said:

The Panama papers reveal the workings of a global elite who dishonestly shuffle money around to ensure it stays in their hands rather than being spent by governments in the public interest.

2
 tony 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The Panama papers reveal the workings of a global elite who dishonestly shuffle money around to ensure it stays in their hands rather than being spent by governments in the public interest.

You mean you didn't already know that?
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to tony:

> You mean you didn't already know that?

As said upthread a couple of times, of course we did, but we rarely get any insight into the workings, which is why the Panama papers are news.
1
 tony 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> As said upthread a couple of times, of course we did, but we rarely get any insight into the workings, which is why the Panama papers are news.

The basic workings have been well known for ages. The biggest thing about the Panama Papers, and the reason they're such big news, is the scale of the leak and the numbers of files now being scrutinised. Nobody who's been paying attention for the last few years will be in the least bit surprised.
 Jon Stewart 07 Apr 2016
In reply to tony:

> The basic workings have been well known for ages. The biggest thing about the Panama Papers, and the reason they're such big news, is the scale of the leak and the numbers of files now being scrutinised. Nobody who's been paying attention for the last few years will be in the least bit surprised.

True. We might find out a bit more though, once details about banks' involvement in corruption comes out too.

I bet PMP will be perfectly confident that there will be nothing to see: those guys are obviously as squeaky clean as Ian Cameron and Blairmore!
1
 timjones 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Or those who are able to see beyond the (dodgy-looking but ultimately irrelevant) details of an offshore tax fund to see the story in context, as I said:

> The Panama papers reveal the workings of a global elite who dishonestly shuffle money around to ensure it stays in their hands rather than being spent by governments in the public interest.

I guess it depends on what context you desire to view it
Zoro 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
as the title of thread said Naughty naughty!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-admits-he-profite...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3528711/David-Cameron-admits-DID-sh...

I wonder how Postmanpat will play this out?
Post edited at 19:05
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Zoro:

Apparently he's "happy to talk about it" now.
 BnB 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Zoro:

Stockbroker's son invests some money. Hold the front page!!

The only error of judgement is to have taken five days to announce what has been obvious all along. That Cameron is a past beneficiary of perfectly legal investment strategies which run counter to the zeitgeist and which his government is now being persuaded ever more loudly to constrain. Actions which the current furore might well accelerate.
2
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Zoro:

> as the title of thread said Naughty naughty!

> I wonder how Postmanpat will play this out?

Well I'm flattered that anyone would give a toss. When I say your post I thought he'd admitted doing something naughty for a minute.
I'd say that he was stupid not to have made this statement years ago when the story first broke, and that, unless he is lying, he has proved me right so far.

He has paid all the tax due on the dividends and sale from the fund-which were the same as if it were on onshore fund.(I rather doubt he'd have claimed this erroneously in the full knowledge the HMRC can check) . He has not used anonymity to hide anything.

Given that, as he says and the 2006 prospectus makes clear, the purpose of the fund was to invest in US assets, I am not clear that even the fund itself avoided any UK tax liability by being offshore, although it may have done so in some limited way. Actually, I'd thought, and it may have been so, that in the early years the fund benefited from rolling up income as a capital gain, but that would only have been possible for 2 years at most.

We don't know, of course, on what basis his dad or other investors invested in the fund. Maybe Dave was the exception that proved the rule but I suspect not.

3
Gone for good 07 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

> Stockbroker's son invests some money. Hold the front page!!

> The only error of judgement is to have taken five days to announce what has been obvious all along. That Cameron is a past beneficiary of perfectly legal investment strategies which run counter to the zeitgeist and which his government is now being persuaded ever more loudly to constrain. Actions which the current furore might well accelerate.

But it's a major error of judgement. He had 3 separate opportunities to reveal his financial dealings with Blairmore and failed to make full disclosure until now. He has made himself an easy target for his political enemies and this will rumble on with who knows what still to be owned up to.
I see the Argentinian PM is being investigated.
How long before DC faces the same humiliation.
2
Gone for good 07 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:

And what if the furore over the EU leaflets is found to be an attempt by the Government to deflect attention away from DCs dubious financial affairs?
Could be an interesting couple of weeks for Downing Street.
1
 BnB 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Gone for good:

> And what if the furore over the EU leaflets is found to be an attempt by the Government to deflect attention away from DCs dubious financial affairs

Possible. But could the mail shot have been organised quite so quickly? More likely it is to keep pace with the propaganda of the Exit campaign.

Zoro 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Give over, of course i want to know what you think!

Time, and again your witty banter has entertained me, although i have to admit on pratically every topic i couldn't find your opinions more disagreeable!

I am not surprised at all with David Camerons, or his fathers behaviour, but i do find his deception morally objectionable. This has now proven to me what i have suspected, that he is untrustworthy.

I want a PM who is it in together, and not one who believes it is ok to mislead the public, unless evidence pressures him otherwise.
The PM knows that the majority find avoidence/minimising of taxes in this way morally wrong, even though they might be legal, hence his recent deception.

In my opinion he has been naughty, naughty!


2
Gone for good 07 Apr 2016
In reply to BnB:
David Cameron has disastrously mishandled the crisis over his tax affairs

http://flip.it/5u8gI

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/

He's in the sh$t now!!
Post edited at 21:18
1
Removed User 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
If all this turns out for the worst will you remove his picture from your bedside table? I guess the one of Maggie can stay like...
Post edited at 21:27
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Zoro:

> The PM knows that the majority find avoidence/minimising of taxes in this way morally wrong, even though they might be legal, hence his recent deception.
>
How has he avoided taxes?
3
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed User:

> If all this turns out for the worst will you remove his picture from your bedside table? I guess the one of Maggie can stay like...

I'll be sending it to you to use as bog paper. The George Osborne one is already in the post.

Much more interesting than Cameron is what may come out on the broader front of overseas kleptocrats and who was actin for them.
3
 neilh 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Zoro:
Is that it! I expected millions. Not a few thousand. I am so disappointed. what an utter waste of time.
1
KevinD 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Gone for good:

> And what if the furore over the EU leaflets is found to be an attempt by the Government to deflect attention away from DCs dubious financial affairs?

As BnB says I would be bloody surprised if that was the case. In terms of getting sign off, test prints and then the full run its going to need some time booking out.
So think the only interesting thing about the EU leaflets is that they do seem a tad underhand in getting them in just before the campaign officially starts and so apparently dodging some of the restrictions.
That said with some of the tosh from the other side I would call it a draw.
Lusk 07 Apr 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Is that it! I expected millions. Not a few thousand. I am so disappointed. what an utter waste of time.

Well, that will be what his £10,000 per hour lawyers will have advised him to say, for today anyway!
1
 Trevers 07 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:
I am worried that all the bad press for Cameron will push people towards Brexit, which is more or less the one thing I find myself agreeing with him on.
Post edited at 22:24
1
Removed User 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Just watching Newsnight now. I am convinced you are in actual fact Toby Young and I claim my £5!
1
 DancingOnRock 07 Apr 2016
In reply to neilh:

He's only worth about £30m. For a 'toff', he's not a particularly rich one. Despite what the Marxist haters around here would have you believe.
2
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed User:
> Just watching Newsnight now. I am convinced you are in actual fact Toby Young and I claim my £5!

It's nice that you're thinking of me. After all , "There's only one thing worse than being talked about and that's not being talked about", but don't you think you're getting a little obsessed?

Go climbing or have a nice lie down
Post edited at 23:22
4
In reply to Postmanpat:
I must say that I have been continually amazed just how high you've been sticking your head above the parapet on this one and I think you'd be well advised to ease off a bit ... because I fear there is quite a lot more to tell about Blairmore. That's all I'm saying.
Post edited at 23:49
1
 Trevers 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I must say that I have been continually amazed just how high you've been sticking your head above the parapet on this one and I think you'd be well advised to ease off a bit ... because I fear there is quite a lot more to tell about Blairmore. That's all I'm saying.

You do realise Postmanpat isn't actually David Cameron, I think
 Postmanpat 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> I must say that I have been continually amazed just how high you've been sticking your head above the parapet on this one and I think you'd be well advised to ease off a bit ... because I fear there is quite a lot more to tell about Blairmore. That's all I'm saying.

Are you saying you have some inside information or that this is your hunch?

And what I have done is a bit of exploration into the nature of the fund and equivalent funds, on top of some background knowledge, and pointed out that on the back of this there was plenty of rationale for such funds which didn't imply illegality or necessarily even avoidance. If it turns out that this one was misused, which I have always acknowledged is possible, then so be it.

My beef is with those who draw conclusions without the evidence. I have some more evidence and context and tended to take a benign view. So far nothing has emerged to undermine that but but await further developments. The key might be IC's tax returns, or Mrs.Cameron senior's financial statement..
Post edited at 00:00
5
 The New NickB 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
I've been researching custom printed bog roll of the Cabinet, I think I'm on to a winner. I may need some tax advice!
Post edited at 23:58
In reply to Trevers:

I know v well who PMP is - he's actually a v old friend (and climbing friend) or mine, dating back to c. 1975. But we never discussed politics at the crag, afaicr.
 Trevers 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I know v well who PMP is - he's actually a v old friend (and climbing friend) or mine, dating back to c. 1975. But we never discussed politics at the crag, afaicr.

All my real life friends are fed up of me talking about politics, and my family vote conservative, which is why I'm forced into ranting about it on here
In reply to Postmanpat:

No, it's much more than a hunch. The way people's identities are hidden by these offshore trusts is deeply disturbing. There is a huge amount of trickery involved. You know this.


 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I know v well who PMP is - he's actually a v old friend (and climbing friend) or mine, dating back to c. 1975. But we never discussed politics at the crag, afaicr.

I think we did in the car though!!
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It's nice that you're thinking of me. After all , "There's only one thing worse than being talked about and that's not being talked about", but don't you think you're getting a little obsessed?

> Go climbing or have a nice lie down

This to me is deeply disturbing. That you, of all people, should say Hardonicus is 'a little obsessed', when he has posted precisely 8 times on this thread, and you, 130.

I think you need to take those blinkers off for a second or two.

In reply to Postmanpat:

> I think we did in the car though!!

I don't remember a single heated argument. But then, I never have been a very political animal. In fact.
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> No, it's much more than a hunch. The way people's identities are hidden by these offshore trusts is deeply disturbing. There is a huge amount of trickery involved. You know this.

There can be, but there isn't necessarily. That is my point. Hundred of these funds exist and are listed in the FT everyday. Most holders aren't up to no good. . Actually, I wonder if DC even knows the background to Blairmore. He was only 15 or 16 when it was set up although presumably he has since made it his business to know.

Suppose the fund was set up for perfectly legitimate reasons, the Cameron family declared all their tax liabilities, but some other holders didn't? It's quite likely but it could also happen on onshore assets.
2
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> This to me is deeply disturbing. That you, of all people, should say Hardonicus is 'a little obsessed', when he has posted precisely 8 times on this thread, and you, 130.
>
Yes but none of mine have been random ones about him!

2
In reply to Postmanpat:

All I can say is .. ummm. Not at all what I've been reading in some of the more in-depth articles about it. As I say, surely best left at the moment ...
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> All I can say is .. ummm. Not at all what I've been reading in some of the more in-depth articles about it. As I say, surely best left at the moment ...

We'll see. Well, actually we might not see! Goodnight.
1
Removed User 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Don't worry Pat - just general Tory baiting from my end! Night night.
 Ridge 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> You do realise Postmanpat isn't actually David Cameron, I think

Have you ever seen Postmanpat and David Cameron in the same room together?
 summo 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> He's only worth about £30m. For a 'toff', he's not a particularly rich one. Despite what the Marxist haters around here would have you believe.

exactly, plenty footballers make that before they are even 40, all obtained indirectly from terrace tickets, merchandise and tv subscriptions.... and people love them, it's an odd world.
3
 BnB 08 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> exactly, plenty footballers make that before they are even 40, all obtained indirectly from terrace tickets, merchandise and tv subscriptions.... and people love them, it's an odd world.

Appositely, the higher earning footballers make most of their income by selling their image rights. It's an aggressive form of tax avoidance which HMRC and its equivalents around the world have struggled to combat.
1
In reply to BnB:

How? Is the income from sales of image rights not taxable?
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> How? Is the income from sales of image rights not taxable?

Its paid into a company and so pays (the lower) corporation tax rate instead of the marginal rate of income tax. The companies are usually offshore, presumably so they can used if the player goes overseas.
Ultimately they will have to pay income tax on income paid to them by the company.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/8264147/How-image-ri...
 timjones 08 Apr 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> I've been researching custom printed bog roll of the Cabinet, I think I'm on to a winner. I may need some tax advice!

I'd take a look at profit averaging. One good cabinet reshuffle and your entire stick could become worthless overnight
 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> exactly, plenty footballers make that before they are even 40, all obtained indirectly from terrace tickets, merchandise and tv subscriptions.... and people love them, it's an odd world.

And the irony is; it is mainly directly coming from the pockets of poor people into those of the rich people.

Maybe it's because all those footballers are working class boys done good?
2
 jkarran 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well I'm flattered that anyone would give a toss. When I say your post I thought he'd admitted doing something naughty for a minute.

He has. He's admitted to attempting to deceive the public with his four previous obfuscatory statements. As usual he takes the public for mugs.

How he's managed to turn his very small part in this story from something that should have been decisively handled into something that leaves him looking like a shifty crook is beyond me. I thought he was supposed to be good at this politics game.
jk
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> He has. He's admitted to attempting to deceive the public with his four previous obfuscatory statements. As usual he takes the public for mugs.

>
Actually he hasn't admitted that but I agree he's completely screwed up his PR, which, given his previous career is slightly ironic to say the least.

1
 jkarran 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Actually he hasn't admitted that but I agree he's completely screwed up his PR, which, given his previous career is slightly ironic to say the least.

Admitted, demonstrated intent, call it what you will he's still clearly dropped a bollock and left himself open to all kinds of criticism justified and not.
jk
Removed User 08 Apr 2016
In reply to timjones:

Just because they're not in the cabinet doesn't mean they're not only fit for wiping your arse with!
 MonkeyPuzzle 08 Apr 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> As usual he takes the public for mugs.

A hundred times this. How he's not been called out more times by more of the public for his clear contempt for our intelligence makes me depressed. Maybe we are mugs* after all.

* I'm not. I'm a tea cup.
 The New NickB 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Removed User:

> Just because they're not in the cabinet doesn't mean they're not only fit for wiping your arse with!

Yes, I think the IDS for your IBS line will be a very good seller.

"He shat on you, now you can shit on him".
 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> A hundred times this. How he's not been called out more times by more of the public for his clear contempt for our intelligence makes me depressed. Maybe we are mugs* after all.

> * I'm not. I'm a tea cup.

Because a huge swath of middle Britain agree with his views. These people are fairly intelligent but just hold different views. In they main they stay silent when the Labour Party are in power and just get on with their lives, quietly muttering under their breaths things like "They're spending money they don't have." And "I told you so."
1
 planetmarshall 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> There can be, but there isn't necessarily. That is my point. Hundred of these funds exist and are listed in the FT everyday. Most holders aren't up to no good.

Most holders also aren't the First Lord of the Treasury. At worst he has been dishonest, at best naive to think that having such intimate links to an offshore fund at a time when large scale tax avoidance is a bete noir ( and one which he himself has publicly criticised ) would not become politically embarrassing.

In either case I might question his suitability to be Prime Minister, though I doubt it will come to that.
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Because a huge swath of middle Britain agree with his views.

No doubt, but I hope that very few agree with the outright cynicism shown by him and Osborne over things like the 'living' wage, the attempted hit on tax credits, the attempted hit on DLA, the 'aren't we doing marvellous' budget pre and the 'ooh it's much worse than we thought' budget post election. The Tory party's worst enemy has always been its own arrogance, and Cameron and Osborne think they're far too clever by far. It feels *good* when they mess it up.
1
 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
> No doubt, but I hope that very few agree with the outright cynicism shown by him and Osborne over things like the 'living' wage, the attempted hit on tax credits, the attempted hit on DLA, the 'aren't we doing marvellous' budget pre and the 'ooh it's much worse than we thought' budget post election. The Tory party's worst enemy has always been its own arrogance, and Cameron and Osborne think they're far too clever by far. It feels *good* when they mess it up.

It shouldn't feel good at all. These people are doing their best to run a country. Sniping at them is a pointless exercise other than to get them out of office to get a different bunch in with different ideas.

The economy is huge and complex and I'd much rather have a stable government in power for several years with clear aims that everyone understands.

The sniping is all very tedious.
Post edited at 12:28
2
 planetmarshall 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It shouldn't feel good at all. These people are doing their best to run a country.

Diddums.
2
 MonkeyPuzzle 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It shouldn't feel good at all. These people are doing their best to ruin a country.

Sorry. ^ Too easy.

But no. I don't believe they're doing their best to run a country. If they were doing their best they wouldn't pursue ideologically driven policies which are demonstrably harming the most vulnerable in our society. They don't give a shit about the country, unless by the country you mean Tory voters.
2
 jkarran 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> ...These people are doing their best to run a country...

Well that's certainly one way of looking at it.

> Sniping at them is a pointless exercise other than to get them out of office to get a different bunch in with different ideas.

That'd be nice.
jk
1
KevinD 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The economy is huge and complex and I'd much rather have a stable government in power for several years with clear aims that everyone understands.

sorry not sure of the link to the tories here? Since I suspect peoples understanding of their aims vary massively. From the posties save the world from the evil commie corbyn through to less rose tinted views.

Speaking of Cameron. Curious that he argued in 2013 for trusts to be kept separate from companies in terms of privacy.

 tony 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It shouldn't feel good at all. These people are doing their best to run a country.

What if their best isn't good enough? Or if their best is only won at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable?
2
 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> sorry not sure of the link to the tories here? Since I suspect peoples understanding of their aims vary massively. From the posties save the world from the evil commie corbyn through to less rose tinted views.

> Speaking of Cameron. Curious that he argued in 2013 for trusts to be kept separate from companies in terms of privacy.

No link to the Tories. Tends to happen to whatever government although maybe less to Labour unless they propose illegally invading a country and starting a war.
1
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:
> Most holders also aren't the First Lord of the Treasury. At worst he has been dishonest, at best naive to think that having such intimate links to an offshore fund at a time when large scale tax avoidance is a bete noir ( and one which he himself has publicly criticised ) would not become politically embarrassing.

>
You seem to missed the bit where dissolved the "intimate links" ie. Sold it before he became PM.
Yes, he's managed the whole thing badly. Given the story is several years old he no doubt misjudged its impact.

Ive always thought he had a tin ear for the electorate, which is why he needed coulson, hilton et al so much.

Do u feel the same about miliband and benn's tax minimisation schemes?
Post edited at 14:01
1
KevinD 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Tends to happen to whatever government although maybe less to Labour unless they propose illegally invading a country and starting a war.

I guess the problem in that case was the tories were happy supporting them. So despite massive public opposition the choices were limited.
Donald82 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

In case this hasn't been posted above. DC definitely broke the rules.

He had to declare it if people could reasonably believe it might influence his behaviour as an MP. Clearly, very clearly, people can reasonably believe that links to a tax haven like this could influence him. He's not a stupid man, so he must know this.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/04/david-cameron-did-not-declare-his-ear...
In reply to Donald82:

I wouldn't have thought people could believe that any more than they would believe that if he buys milk it must influence his views on how British agriculture is best run, but there you go. It's astonishing what some people will believe.

Anyone who's ever bought a private pension has money in an offshore trust.

If he'd bought a thirty grand ISA, would people reasonably believe that would affect his views on taxation? I fancy you'll find rather a lot of MPs who aren't disclosing in that case.

The language some of the press are using about this is quite extraordinary. All this stuff about how Blairmore Holdings has never paid tax, for instance. Of course it hasn't. It's the investors who pay UK tax, as Cameron has, once they bring their investment back on shore.
1
Donald82 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Fair enough. But other people could reasonably believe that involvement at all in offshore financial transactions of this kind might possibly influence his views on tax havens. And he must know that. So it's against the rules.

Personally I'm more concerned by his not being straight about it now.
1
In reply to Donald82:

Well, as I say, if you believe that then you also believe that any MP who has ever bought a personal pension should be declaring that. I really don't think that's how it works.

jcm
1
 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Fair enough. But other people could reasonably believe that involvement at all in offshore financial transactions of this kind might possibly influence his views on tax havens. And he must know that. So it's against the rules.

> Personally I'm more concerned by his not being straight about it now.

Well, he obviously didn't think it was that important to spend his time preparing a detailed press release over it.

He's quite right because this is another situation that it doesn't matter what he says, the Internet/press judge, jury and executioners have already decided his guilt.
1
Donald82 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Try to think of a few reasons why pensions and ISAs are different from Cameron's pop's fund.
Donald82 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Well, he obviously didn't think it was that important to spend his time preparing a detailed press release over it.

Well, the press releases were obviously carefully worded and he is guilty of not declaring an interest to parliament and not being honest with the public later.

You can tell when one side is losing the argument when they start with the "wouldn't matter what he said..."

 summo 08 Apr 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> But no. I don't believe they're doing their best to run a country. If they were doing their best they wouldn't pursue ideologically driven policies which are demonstrably harming the most vulnerable in our society. They don't give a shit about the country, unless by the country you mean Tory voters.

I know, and Brown, Darling and Balls were doing such a fantastic job before 2010, it was all going so frightfully well, with such a positive outlook. What UK really needs right now is a party with some strong economic and financial experience, people with skills from the real world not career politicians, perhaps Corbyn and McConnell?
4
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Although I'm hardly having the vapours - to date - over what's been revealed - to date - I think this defence that 'it's what all pensions do so [ahem] we're all in it together' is a bit lame.

Your average pension contributor has no idea how their funds are, or should be, being invested, that is why they pay someone else to look after them - and not unreasonably, particularly since Maxwell, they assume that there are regulations in place to ensure that it is legal, above board and with minimal risk.

This wasn't just any old pension scheme, though so it WASN'T subject to the same regulations and besides, it was set up and run by his Dad - hardly the same as just having a few quid each week stopped from your pay.
 summo 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> Anyone who's ever bought a private pension has money in an offshore trust.

and you should worry how well the banking sector does, as their funds will be propped up by the more reliable low risk shares from some banks.
Post edited at 17:15
1
 Hat Dude 08 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

> What UK really needs right now is a party with some strong economic and financial experience, people with skills from the real world not career politicians, perhaps Corbyn and McConnell?

It's so reassuring to know you're being fleeced by experienced good crooks
 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Ah, yes. Sorry I forgot that certain posters aren't interested in discussion, they're just here to 'win' an argument.

Good luck with that.
2
 summo 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Hat Dude:

> It's so reassuring to know you're being fleeced by experienced good crooks

has to be more reassuring to be conned by an expert, than one of the muppets on the opposition benches. Although no doubt millions will vote for Corbyn in the future.
2
Donald82 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Er, like people who say things like...."wouldn't matter what he said..." and then "you're just in it to win it"

I'd be quite happy to engage in sensible discussion around this. But you don't seem keen on that and the other chap is making silly comparisons to pensions and ISAs. Another tactic of the 'in it to win it'.. although I think he actually means it.
Post edited at 18:03
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Whether a pension scheme is subject to regulations isn't the point. Sure, this fund could have made riskier investments than pension funds if it had wanted to, but so what?

And if the average private pension buyer doesn't know whether their funds are in offshore investments, maybe they should ask, and assuming they or some of them are (which they will be) maybe they should consider a voluntary contribution to the exchequer to make up for the tax they've saved, assuming of course they agree that such things are wicked.

There isn't the slightest difference of principle between this sort of fund, private pensions and ISAs; they're both ways of investing money without paying certain types of tax, in ways which the government has decided should be legal. That's all there is to it.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily manipulated the public is by the press.

jcm
1
moffatross 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> "The language some of the press are using about this is quite extraordinary. All this stuff about how Blairmore Holdings has never paid tax, for instance. Of course it hasn't. It's the investors who pay UK tax, as Cameron has, once they bring their investment back on shore." <

Sorry if you think me correcting one little detail is pure pedantry, but DC hasn't paid tax. His statement kind of implied that he would have, in that he said was that he was "subject to all the UK taxes in the normal ways" but he didn't actually pay any tax on his profits from Glenmore.

Edit, wow !! A dislike already, for stating the truth. Was it an 'ironic' dislike ?
Post edited at 19:25
3
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

> Sorry if you think me correcting one little detail is pure pedantry, but DC hasn't paid tax. His statement kind of implied that he would have, in that he said was that he was "subject to all the UK taxes in the normal ways" but he didn't actually pay any tax on his profits from Glenmore.

>
Yes he did, unless he is lying, which is unlikely given that hmrc can check it in a millisecond.
As jcm and i have tried to get into people's skulls, tax is declared and due on dividends and sales, just like an onshore fund and this was done.
The tax avoidance is not by the holders. Its by the fund, but not on the profits of buying and selling shares-which are never taxable in a fund-but on things like stamp duty and Uk withholding tax on dividends. The latter will largely effectively be paid in the end on disposal
3
 tony 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

What tax should he have paid that he didn't pay? And if you want to be taken seriously, it's Blairmore, not Glenmore.
moffatross 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

DC paid income tax on his dividends. He didn't (see the quoted post by jcm) pay tax when he brought the investment back onshore. No ambiguity at all.
moffatross 08 Apr 2016
In reply to tony:

Do you just scan for typos or do you sometimes read the content too ?
1
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:
> DC paid income tax on his dividends. He didn't (see the quoted post by jcm) pay tax when he brought the investment back onshore. No ambiguity at all.

What on earth are you talking about?? What JCM said was:

" It's the investors who pay UK tax, as Cameron has, once they bring their investment back on shore"

Which is what Cameron said. As it happens, the capital gain on the sale was not big enough to require tax to be paid anyway so of course he didnt pay any. Are you suggesting he should have??!
Post edited at 19:58
2
moffatross 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

So are you asking me if I was wrong to correct JCM's statement that DC paid tax when he brought his investment back on shore, when in fact DC didn't pay tax when he brought his investment back onshore, simply because no tax was due when DC brought his investment back onshore, and after JCM said that some of the stuff the press were saying is ridiculous ?
1
 DancingOnRock 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I have a feeling that lots of people seem to think that if you earn over £50k, then anything else should be taxed at 50% and anything that isn't is classed as tax evasion via a loophole.

It's very frustrating.
2
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

> So are you asking me if I was wrong to correct JCM's statement that DC paid tax when he brought his investment back on shore, when in fact DC didn't pay tax when he brought his investment back onshore, simply because no tax was due when DC brought his investment back onshore, and after JCM said that some of the stuff the press were saying is ridiculous ?

No, i'm tellng you it was irrelevant pedantry which any reasonable person would infer was meant to imply that DC or JCM had done somethig wrong.
3
moffatross 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

So correcting an untruth is an irrelevant pedantry if it doesn't suit your credo ?
2
 Jon Stewart 08 Apr 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> I have a feeling that lots of people seem to think that if you earn over £50k, then anything else should be taxed at 50% and anything that isn't is classed as tax evasion via a loophole.

You might think that, but no one's said it. Classic caricaturing of the opposing position.

It's a sliding scale, isn't it? There's no objective definition of to what degree it's 'right' or 'wrong' to actively reduce your tax burden. If you're into all this kind of thing, then an offshore fund with a local bishop from the Bahamas on the board, with anonymous shares, etc, falls onto the 'reasonable' part of the scale along with ISAs, whereas for others who are PAYE and take little active role in how their pension is invested, this seems ridiculous and corrupt.

What makes me laugh is the suggestion made by PMP that the legislation *invites* the setting up of these arrangements (and that there's govt endorsed guidance on how to do so), rather than these arrangements being a way to con the taxpayer out of money that would otherwise go to HMT to fund services. Take a step back and look from the outside: it involves of a Bahamanian Bishop to make it legal - ridiculous and corrupt, maybe?
Post edited at 20:29
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

> So correcting an untruth is an irrelevant pedantry if it doesn't suit your credo ?

No its irrelevant pedantry if its irrelevant pedantry. What is your credo that makes it relevant?

If it is purely that writers should be accurate then you should abide by it and not state that "DC didnt pay tax"
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>take little active role in how their pension is invested, this seems ridiculous and corrupt.

And supposing your pension were invested in Blairmore or similar unit trusts? Would that be "ridiculous and corrupt"? And would you care?

jcm
1
 Jon Stewart 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> There isn't the slightest difference of principle between this sort of fund, private pensions and ISAs; they're both ways of investing money without paying certain types of tax, in ways which the government has decided should be legal.

Are you really sure about that? Why, if it was intended by the govt, would the arrangements have to involve the offshore directors? 'Decided not to make illegal once this way of getting around the intended policies became established' I can believe. 'Intended' I cannot.
 tony 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

> Do you just scan for typos or do you sometimes read the content too ?

I did read the content. There wasn't really much substance to it. Typing Glenmore instead of Blairmore isn't a typo. To me, it's a bit of a sign that you're casting around without really knowing what you're talking about. Anyone who has been following the story all week know the name of the fund in question.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. What tax should DC have paid that he didn't pay?
2
In reply to moffatross:

Yes, you're right that DC didn't need to pay capital gains tax and only paid tax on the dividends, just as he would have needed to had the investment been in the UK.

Seems to me that receiving dividends can fairly be described as 'bringing his money back on shore', but by all means set it out how you'd like.

Ironic that's he's being slated for avoiding tax when actually the profit he made was so small that once it became taxable in the UK there was no UK tax payable.

jcm
1
moffatross 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> If it is purely that writers should be accurate then you should abide by it and not state that "DC didnt pay tax" <

Why ? Are you saying that DC did pay tax when he brought his investment onshore ?

1
 Jon Stewart 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >take little active role in how their pension is invested, this seems ridiculous and corrupt.

> And supposing your pension were invested in Blairmore or similar unit trusts? Would that be "ridiculous and corrupt"?
Yes.

> And would you care?
Difficult question: it would pose me with a dilemma.
In reply to Jon Stewart:

You're not making any sense. It might help if you distinguished between doing something illegal and doing something which in tax terms does not have the consequences which you hoped it had.

All these offshore trusts run the risk of being tainted if they're found on close inquiry by HMRC to have been run from the UK instead of by the overseas directors. What happens is that the UK people 'make suggestions' and the overseas directors generally act on them, if they want to carry on in business. It's a bit of a fiction. As PMP said above, invariably the effective, although not the formal, control is in the UK. The 'tax expert' in Private Eye will know this perfectly well; he's just shit-stirring.

jcm
In reply to Jon Stewart:

In that case, if you have bought a private pension, and if you care to make inquiries, I suspect you will find yourself facing a dilemma.

jcm
2
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

> Why ? Are you saying that DC did pay tax when he brought his investment onshore ?

No, because there was no tax to pay so the point is irrelevant.
You, however, started your post by saying that he "paid no tax" , which was a misleading statement worthy of the Mail.
You also said he paid no tax on his "profits". Are you arguing that the total return on an investment is not the profit?
3
 Jon Stewart 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> You're not making any sense. It might help if you distinguished between doing something illegal and doing something which in tax terms does not have the consequences which you hoped it had.

I'm making the assumption that we're all talking about tax avoidance rather than tax evasion. If there was anything illegal involved with Blairmore, then that completely changes the picture to instant resignation for the PM, not just (largely self-inflicted) humiliation. I don't think it's difficult to understand that 'legal' and 'ridiculous and corrupt' are not mutually exclusive! Although perhaps for lawyers that might be conceptually difficult?

> All these offshore trusts run the risk of being tainted if they're found on close inquiry by HMRC to have been run from the UK instead of by the overseas directors. What happens is that the UK people 'make suggestions' and the overseas directors generally act on them, if they want to carry on in business. It's a bit of a fiction. As PMP said above, invariably the effective, although not the formal, control is in the UK. The 'tax expert' in Private Eye will know this perfectly well; he's just shit-stirring.

So you're saying, yes, it's legal but dishonest. What is it we disagree on?
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>If there was anything illegal involved with Blairmore, then that completely changes the picture to instant resignation for the PM

I see. And supposing it were found that whatever your pension has been invested in had been run illegally in ways you knew nothing about by people you'd never met, presumably you'd resign from your job as well?

>What is it we disagree on?

If you think that the entire basis on which offshore trusts are run is dishonest, fine. All I'm saying is that on that basis a large chunk of the private pension industry, the property investment industry and no doubt others are also dishonest. If you want to root out the evil you perceive you'll find it goes an awful lot wider than you think.

jcm
1
moffatross 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

>"You, however, started your post by saying that he "paid no tax" , which was a misleading statement worthy of the Mail."<

How is that misleading ? I was directly quoting a post stating that DC paid tax when he brought his investment back onshore when he didn't. And as for using the jaded straw-man 'what tax should DC have paid ?', do please think of something original to say.
4
 Jon Stewart 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> In that case, if you have bought a private pension, and if you care to make inquiries, I suspect you will find yourself facing a dilemma.

Employer schemes (public and private), but yes, probably? Much like the way that almost everything I buy in the supermarket would pose me with a dilemma were I to research the supply chain. Such is living in the modern world.

Drawing a moral equivalence between the Primark customer and the executive who negotiated the deal with the Bangladeshi sweatshop, however, is a poor argument.
1
 Jon Stewart 08 Apr 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I see. And supposing it were found that whatever your pension has been invested in had been run illegally in ways you knew nothing about by people you'd never met, presumably you'd resign from your job as well?

Why would I do that? My job isn't chairing an international summit on tax evasion! You're drawing an equivalence where none exists.

> >What is it we disagree on?

> If you think that the entire basis on which offshore trusts are run is dishonest, fine. All I'm saying is that on that basis a large chunk of the private pension industry, the property investment industry and no doubt others are also dishonest. If you want to root out the evil you perceive you'll find it goes an awful lot wider than you think.

No doubt. But what you're saying now is merely that the practice is widespread, a step back from being in line with the policy intent.
1
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

>

> How is that misleading ? I was directly quoting a post stating that DC paid tax when he brought his investment back onshore when he didn't. And as for using the jaded straw-man 'what tax should DC have paid ?', do please think of something original to say.

Because it was a misleading statement ignoring the fact that he had paid tax on the profits on the form of dividends from his investment that he brought onshore (pr for that matter, not brought onshore)
It wasnt me who asked what tax he should have paid (it was Tony) but it seems to me it was entirely relevant.
Are you seriously claiming that your point was purely a pedantic clarification and not an implication that DC had not paid some aplplicable taxes?
3
 Postmanpat 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Changing the subject slightly, it does make me laugh seeing so many lefties who complained about the anti Corbyn bias in the press, being willingly manipulated by same anti brexit press when it gangs up on Dave &#128512;
3
 Richard Smith 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I have been expecting all these "Bash Camron" comments. Anyone got a Pension? You might want to look where they invest your money, Camron done nothing wrong, all above board, it was the Irish Company that his Father used to put the money where it was; you find that your pension money is also gone to an "Off Shore Account" too. As long as Camron paid Tax on it, which he did, what the probs. If I had money, Lottery win (me having money... never happen), it would not stay in this Country for the Greedy Bank to get their 'Dabs' on. Banking, Investments & Pension all very doggy and looked after by the thieves... sorry I meant Banks.

At least with the Conservatives you know they up to something, unlike Labour, the bash others and they are just as bad; everyone should keep an eye on them too.
4
 tony 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

> >"You, however, started your post by saying that he "paid no tax" , which was a misleading statement worthy of the Mail."<

> How is that misleading ? I was directly quoting a post stating that DC paid tax when he brought his investment back onshore when he didn't. And as for using the jaded straw-man 'what tax should DC have paid ?', do please think of something original to say.

Why is it a strawman? You're saying he didn't pay tax. I'm asking what tax didn't he pay? If you're sure of your point, it shouldn't be hard to say what tax he should have paid - income tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax, what?
2
moffatross 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm ignoring Tony and his weird attempt to patronise someone on the internet.

You however, are deliberately obfuscating. I think you're all in it together
2
 tony 08 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

> I'm ignoring Tony and his weird attempt to patronise someone on the internet.

> You however, are deliberately obfuscating. I think you're all in it together

I'm not trying to patronise you, I'm trying to find what tax you think DC should have paid but didn't.
1
 Jon Stewart 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Changing the subject slightly, it does make me laugh seeing so many lefties who complained about the anti Corbyn bias in the press, being willingly manipulated by same anti brexit press when it gangs up on Dave &#128512;

Well then, I look forward to your hearing your dignified, respectful support for JC next time the press smell Labour blood? It won't be long!
In reply to tony:

Well, presumably he reckons Cameron should have invested in some kind of equivalent UK-based which was in turn investing in US companies, and thus paid corporation tax as well as the income tax he was liable to and did pay, and the capital gains tax he would have paid if he'd actually made enough money to be liable to it. He'd have been damned lucky to find such a thing, mind, since no-one else other than him would have wanted to invest in it.

We really need to stop this ludicrous chasing of politicians for doing things which pretty much any of us do.

jcm
2
 Postmanpat 09 Apr 2016
In reply to moffatross:

> I'm ignoring Tony and his weird attempt to patronise someone on the internet.

> You however, are deliberately obfuscating. I think you're all in it together

Obfuscating?? How?
2
 summo 09 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If there was anything illegal involved with Blairmore, then that completely changes the picture to instant resignation for the PM,

why? If you applied the same moral code across parliament and their members of family, the place would be empty. Even many of the those working in there, but not MPs would be gone too.


1
 summo 09 Apr 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Well then, I look forward to your hearing your dignified, respectful support for JC next time the press smell Labour blood? It won't be long!

labour's bleeding to death slowly anyway, every day they keep Corbyn as leader, it's just too slow to notice.
2

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...