RugbyRebels

gthedog wrote:Cameron's toast
I give him a week

Not even slightly.

gthedog wrote:Cameron's toast
I give him a week

Unless it is proved that he has done something unlawful, then I don't think he is. People may not like Cameron for his privileged background, but the fact that his father invested money is no major shock. Even if his father broke laws, provided Cameron hasn't broken any himself then I don't see why he should have to resign. He is responsible for his own actions, not anyone elses.

Sandydragon wrote:

gthedog wrote:Cameron's toast
I give him a week

Unless it is proved that he has done something unlawful, then I don't think he is. People may not like Cameron for his privileged background, but the fact that his father invested money is no major shock. Even if his father broke laws, provided Cameron hasn't broken any himself then I don't see why he should have to resign. He is responsible for his own actions, not anyone elses.

He will not go, but this is about more than breaking laws. It's hypocrisy, and in a Politician that's not a good look.

But Labour should definitely be using this to their advantage. Are they? Doesn't seem like it to me

Are we really that surprised that such excessive social welfare is entrenched for the very wealthy?

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

gthedog wrote:Cameron's toast
I give him a week

Unless it is proved that he has done something unlawful, then I don't think he is. People may not like Cameron for his privileged background, but the fact that his father invested money is no major shock. Even if his father broke laws, provided Cameron hasn't broken any himself then I don't see why he should have to resign. He is responsible for his own actions, not anyone elses.

He will not go, but this is about more than breaking laws. It's hypocrisy, and in a Politician that's not a good look.

But Labour should definitely be using this to their advantage. Are they? Doesn't seem like it to me

Where's the hypocrisy?

I'm assuming the hypocrisy is years of an austerity mantra where grubby working people just have to pull their socks up.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Unless it is proved that he has done something unlawful, then I don't think he is. People may not like Cameron for his privileged background, but the fact that his father invested money is no major shock. Even if his father broke laws, provided Cameron hasn't broken any himself then I don't see why he should have to resign. He is responsible for his own actions, not anyone elses.

He will not go, but this is about more than breaking laws. It's hypocrisy, and in a Politician that's not a good look.

But Labour should definitely be using this to their advantage. Are they? Doesn't seem like it to me

Where's the hypocrisy?

He's condemned others for doing precisely what he has done
He's invested in a company that has offshore status which he knew had offshore status to maximise his profits and avoid tax. Take out the fact his father actually set the thing up.
He condemned Jimmy Carr for using a tax avoidance scheme but he has used an offshore company that was set up by his own father for the very purposes of tax avoidance

gthedog wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
He will not go, but this is about more than breaking laws. It's hypocrisy, and in a Politician that's not a good look.

But Labour should definitely be using this to their advantage. Are they? Doesn't seem like it to me

Where's the hypocrisy?

He's condemned others for doing precisely what he has done
He's invested in a company that has offshore status which he knew had offshore status to maximise his profits and avoid tax. Take out the fact his father actually set the thing up.
He condemned Jimmy Carr for using a tax avoidance scheme but he has used an offshore company that was set up by his own father for the very purposes of tax avoidance

The problem is that he hasn't avoided any tax. He's paid both income tax and capital gains tax on his share holding. I'm not a tax expert but I'm pretty sure he could have legitimately avoided paying either. What he has done is invest in a foreign company and pay tax in this country, which is precisely the reverse of what he's criticised people for. He also did all of this before becoming PM and whilst PM banned the bearer shares that this company had issued.

Perception my dear boy
Anyway his approval ratings are now below Corbyn
That's some achievement

You like that, don't you bitch.

Karma. Cameron shooting his mouth off and naming individuals such as Jimmy Carr, comes back to bite him on the arse...hypocritical cynt.

Seems Cameron has now published his tax details.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36007718

Case closed then. Oh, hang on, wasn't the issue to do with the offshore incomes he may not have been paying tax on?

I am aware that he declared income on the Blairmore fund, conveniently just under the capital gains threshold. But publishing your tax return is a bit like showing pictures of all the rooms in your house where you are not growing dope. It does nothing to prove the attic has not been converted to a hydroponics setup.

Having said that, the legacy from his father, and gifts from his mother seem to suggest an "efficient" tax regime exists in the Cameron household.

In amongst all the furore I've heard of some politicians who set themselves up as an unlimited company to get earnings from outside politicians salary. Is there an easy explanation as to how this is a tax dodge as it seems to me that when they take money out of their unlimited company they'll have to pay tax on it at that point??

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:In amongst all the furore I've heard of some politicians who set themselves up as an unlimited company to get earnings from outside politicians salary. Is there an easy explanation as to how this is a tax dodge as it seems to me that when they take money out of their unlimited company they'll have to pay tax on it at that point??

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Ken Livingston has done exactly that...and has demanded that Cameron be put in prison for his investment. Odd.

I love the use of language from the Tories. I won't try a direct quote as I can't remember, but to paraphrase I believe the statement ran along the lines of <<No member of the cabinet benefits from offshore tax havens>>

To me this reads, we all have them but won't bring the money back to the UK until we are no longer in politics. Therefore we can technically say that we don't benefit from these funds in the present tense.

And to be clear, no it is not just the Tories, they are all as slippery as a bucket of snot.

canta_brian wrote:I love the use of language from the Tories. I won't try a direct quote as I can't remember, but to paraphrase I believe the statement ran along the lines of <<No member of the cabinet benefits from offshore tax havens>>

To me this reads, we all have them but won't bring the money back to the UK until we are no longer in politics. Therefore we can technically say that we don't benefit from these funds in the present tense.

And to be clear, no it is not just the Tories, they are all as slippery as a bucket of snot.

I don't know how that would work because they'd clearly be benefiting from them whilst they owned them. The reason it's been phrased that way is because of the Cameron witch hunt: they want to exclude beneficial as well as legal ownership or any other interest they might have in such funds. i guess if you proceed from the absurd notion that all politicians are cunts then you might possibly come to your conclusion if you are prepared to assume they've lied.

Donny osmond wrote:In amongst all the furore I've heard of some politicians who set themselves up as an unlimited company to get earnings from outside politicians salary. Is there an easy explanation as to how this is a tax dodge as it seems to me that when they take money out of their unlimited company they'll have to pay tax on it at that point??

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You pay yourself by way of dividend rather than as salary because dividends are (or at least were) taxed at a lower rate. I think it may also enable you to drag in more expenses. It used to be the way forward if you were self employed and a number of my friends did it. I think they've changed it so that it's no longer tax efficient but I'm not sure.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: You pay yourself by way of dividend rather than as salary because dividends are (or at least were) taxed at a lower rate. I think it may also enable you to drag in more expenses. It used to be the way forward if you were self employed and a number of my friends did it. I think they've changed it so that it's no longer tax efficient but I'm not sure.

It's still cheaper. A lot of "expats" here were complaining about the rules here, because they changed it so dividends were taxed pretty much the same way as salary, and in the UK it isn't like that...so they "relocated" the company home.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:I love the use of language from the Tories. I won't try a direct quote as I can't remember, but to paraphrase I believe the statement ran along the lines of <<No member of the cabinet benefits from offshore tax havens>>

To me this reads, we all have them but won't bring the money back to the UK until we are no longer in politics. Therefore we can technically say that we don't benefit from these funds in the present tense.

And to be clear, no it is not just the Tories, they are all as slippery as a bucket of snot.

I don't know how that would work because they'd clearly be benefiting from them whilst they owned them. The reason it's been phrased that way is because of the Cameron witch hunt: they want to exclude beneficial as well as legal ownership or any other interest they might have in such funds. i guess if you proceed from the absurd notion that all politicians are cunts then you might possibly come to your conclusion if you are prepared to assume they've lied.

I believe that it is possible to argue that until the proceeds of an offshore investment are brough back to a market in which they can be spent there is no benefit to the owner of the funds. In this way I think it is possible to say the no member of the cabinet will benefit from offshore funds in the future, as by the time they benefit from the fund they will no longer be in the cabinet.

If you are lucky enough to have spare cash to invest in a fund and don't require the returns on a day to day basis I think it is entirely possible to maintain an offshore fund whilst in government and technically comply witgh the statements that have come out of Tory HQ.

BTW I don't think that all politicians are cunts. Most of the successful ones however...

Cameron is tip of the iceberg stuff. The corruption of tax dodging is now endemic and has been for a long time. There is now an industry geared up towards helping corporations and rich individuals avoid their responsibilities by moving funds around the globe.

And its helped by compliant governments and toothless regulators.

Richard Brooks "The Great Tax Robbery" is a book well worth searching out.

fivepointer wrote:Cameron is tip of the iceberg stuff. The corruption of tax dodging is now endemic and has been for a long time. There is now an industry geared up towards helping corporations and rich individuals avoid their responsibilities by moving funds around the globe.

And its helped by compliant governments and toothless regulators.

Richard Brooks "The Great Tax Robbery" is a book well worth searching out.

Indeed. There has been precious little talk about the banks that have set these trusts up.

In the end when have the Tories ever worried about morality? If it's legal it's fine. Despite that Dodgy Dave can go after Jimmy Carr and cries like a found out Bullingdon bully, when Daddy is bad mouthed.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith

UGagain wrote: Indeed. There has been precious little talk about the banks that have set these trusts up.

People love to relate stories. So it's easier when it's about someone rather than a faceless corporation.

However, it's the responsibility of the opposition to bring up the big issues, and in that Labour have completely missed the point, which is a shame.

We need to close tax loopholes that exist around companies.

Stom wrote:

UGagain wrote: Indeed. There has been precious little talk about the banks that have set these trusts up.

People love to relate stories. So it's easier when it's about someone rather than a faceless corporation.

However, it's the responsibility of the opposition to bring up the big issues, and in that Labour have completely missed the point, which is a shame.

We need to close tax loopholes that exist around companies.

I'd have thought it the media's role if we had a genuine one. I'm not altogether sure what Labour should be saying at this point.

I don't really care about the tax per se. The money isn't important in any economic sense.

It's the hypocrisy of the rich that steams me.