Printable View
That was a kicker eh?
David Cameron's father mentioned in the Panama papers leak? Will David pay it back or is his position untenable? Apparently there were more rich tories investing in off-shore companies as tax havens. It is nothing we didn't already know I suppose.
Rotten from the core? :confused
I see yesterday he says he only has his salary one house which is rented out and some savings.
Poor guy almost feel sorry for him!!!
Did say almost.
Seems he has a poor memory, in the past he left a kid in the pub then forgot which football team he supports now he has forgotten he owns two houses worth £4.5M, got £300000 in his fathers will and with his wife is worth over £30M.
Not everyone can be so modest having only that to live on. He was worried earlier this year his kids would not be able to afford to buy a house when they leave home!!
Yes we are supposed to let him off with it as its Tory right of passage to cheat the system and all around then forget all about it.
Iceland PM has gone will there be more? Let's wait and see
I maybe wrong but I don't think the Iceland pm is a tory
Are you guilty for the actions of your father, mother or anybody else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
I don't agree with tax avoidance, but to try to undermine somebody due to the actions of their parents is hardly fair.
That just stinks of rank jealousy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Z
What does the amount of money somebody has have to do with whether or not we 'let them off with it'?
If you come by monies from anyone who has not gained it in a legal manor or if that monies has gained value or quantity through the non legal or non payment of the TAX due you are guilty . Statement made by D Cameron in 2007 at a party select committee. I remember it word for word as he pointed the figure at Labour.
You are liable to death duty for your father's estate. Ian Cameron's estate was valued at £10m but on death his estate was only £2.6m of which David inherited £300,000. That is one huge shortfall that hasn't been taxed. The reason for that imo is that oversees companies are held in bearer shares that are completely untraceable and accountable. Someone somewhere is holding £7.4m of oversees investment that hasn't been taxed.Quote:
Originally Posted by theone
David Cameron is well connected, very rich and well versed in the selective use of the English language. Read his family and his own story here: http://caltonjock.com/2015/08/08/dav...op-of-society/
As nobody would expect me not to have an opinion re the Panama Papers....here it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
There are already ways to minimise your tax bill while still holding your assets within the UK. Therefore taking assets off-shore is greed, not need, by those who have enough savings/income to make it worth while. If they were still being taxed at more than 75% of their earned income, I might have some measure of sympathy. I have no real problem with legal tax avoidance as a principle.....all of us would do it, if most of us were not employees, did not pay tax by PAYE and had options to avoid it. As it is, tax avoidance by the little people, in the only ways they can accomplish it, is termed tax evasion and is illegal.
Where I do have a problem is with the people who make the laws/rules which set the taxes for the people in the UK, not paying the tax they are due to pay under a system which assumes that, and bases it's economic forecasts on everybody paying the UK tax which is due on their UK assets. I think that anyone who is an MP, MSP, local councillor, or anyone involved in politics who aspires to hold any of those positions, should not be allowed to stand for election/re-election if they use tax avoidance methods like off-shore trusts which reduce their liability even further than is already the case if they kept their assets within the UK.
It is rank hypocrisy for people charged with setting tax and benefit levels for the country, to be deliberately using loopholes they themselves have inserted to leave black holes for manipulation by accountants and financial advisors, to reduce the tax they themselves pay into the cost of running the country, while at the same time, increasing the input to their own pockets via their taxpayer funded salaries/expenses/perks and subsidies.
It may not be illegal, but it is morally repugnant that MPs etc even think that further reducing the tax they pay into the UK to meet the costs they impose on the country, is acceptable......and I'd be interested to see Cameron's tax returns from the time of his first election to Parliament in 2001...because he obviously realised when he became PM that off-shore reduced tax input to the Exchequer was not a good idea when holding that position....and I can't understand why he thought it was a good idea when he was "only" an MP and voting on the taxation levels of all the rest of us.
What about the line in the NewStatesman, 'Cameron bashing is not about the tax, it is about Brexit' and hence by extension, if it is about Brexit then it is about Scottish independence given that Sturgeon has said that she will ask for another Scottish indy ref?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddquine
Ach, as far as I'm concerned it is all about the moral turpitude of MPs of any parties (or anybody else) involved in bilking the UK of funds which then simply exacerbate the austerity regime, thus encouraging the reduction (as it was intended to do) of the little family silver the UK has left by selling it off to people who have their bank accounts in tax-havens, in order to cut a budget deficit which would not be as big as it is, if everybody paid all the taxes they were due to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
Everything in politics is not about independence, whatever the Unionists (who have never got over winning the vote, but who find themselves unable to pack us back into our allocated box,) and whatever the new SNP members with newly found cause think. However, making everything about Scottish independence, even if only peripherally, will serve to ensure that the adamant No voters will turn out in numbers to make their voices heard at the election, to try and reduce the pro-indy/SNP impact....and will turn out at the referendum to vote to stay because they don't want another referendum, in case it doesn't go their way next time. Project Fear writ small?
Brexit, if it happens, which I don't think it will, tbh, will not lead to an in one day/out the next outcome for either the UK from the EU....or Scotland from the UK, anyway.....so even if Brexit wins, there is no immediacy in having a referendum. An OUT vote will take a number of years to get us out (we are talking about disentangling ourselves from the EU bureaucracy, after all). I wasn't aware that Sturgeon had specifically said that a Brexit vote will mean a definite impetus requiring another referendum in short order, though as I don't buy mainstream newspapers any more and no longer have a TV licence, I may well have missed it. I thought she has said that it would be a change which could trigger one...and timing would depend on a number of other considerations...such as the level of support in Scotland for staying in the EU, and indication in the polls of sustained popular support for independence of around 60%..which would not be indicated by either this coming Scottish Parliament election, the EU referendum result or next year's council elections....as many people vote for the SNP who don't want to stay in the EU but do want to stay in the Union (I am related to a few of them).
Barring something spectacular happening, I can't really see any movement towards another referendum until after the council elections next year, and after the start of the implementation of the latest Scotland Act in 2018..... so by the time all the ducks are all in a row in Scotland, we will be heading to another UK General Election. I suspect a referendum may figure more specifically in the manifesto for the 2021 Scottish election, but think that it would be extremely foolish of the SNP to make any definite commitment to another referendum in this Parliamentary term when so much is possibly going to be changing, and we won't know what the results of those changes will be until they happen and work into the system.
Why do you say that an Brexit will take years to achieve? Alex Salmond said a Yes vote would take independence 18 months to achieve. That would only mean a 93% change in sovereignty, EU involvement only consists of 7% sovereignty.
But Alex Salmond didn't say that Independence Day would signal that everything which had to happen would have happened. The date for declaration was within an 18 month time frame, but there would still have been issues to be sorted out. Negotiations should have finished (though I suspect they wouldn't, given the attitude of Westminster at the time) but there would still be intertwined Westminster departments to separate out into their Scottish and rUK parts for relocation.....the DWP, HMRC, MOD, Pensions etc. All the 18 months indicated was that, at that stage, Westminster could no longer direct Scottish fiscal, foreign, economic policy etc, though they would, if Scotland was still using the pound, be directing the rUK macro-economic policy which would affect us (just as it does now, anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
It will likely be the same with the EU, there will be negotiations to be undertaken within a two year time frame, and when agreement is reached regarding a framework for withdrawal and UK's future relationship with the EU, the signing of the agreement signals the formal leaving of the EU, when the EU/UK treaties become redundant......and failing an agreement within two years, unless there is a mutual agreement to extend the time scale, the EU treaties would simply no longer apply in the UK. So that would take us into 2018. One study from 2015 says it could take up to 10 years to exit, though I suspect that is exaggeration from a study written at the request of a firm set up by Mandelson, but, as with a withdrawal from the UK for Scotland, while agreements might be in place, and treaties signed by the union(EU/UK) no longer apply, the UK, while existing as a sovereign entity outside the EU, no longer bound by EU laws and treaties with other countries, will still have to do stuff like negotiate trade agreements with individual countries to replace their EU trade links.
Repealing Acts/dissolving treaties is the easy part......the hard bit is negotiating a way through the bureaucracy which is always involved when one government butts up against another one....while hoping that there is no foot-stamping, pouting and foot-dragging by a hostile previous partner out to make difficulties.
Is there anymore on the company owned by David Cameron's dad,who owned what, who are they and what did the company do to make so much money . Is D Cameron not showing us his tax returns prior to his tenure as PM , is it to stop folk finding out how much money he took in disability as his sons carer. ( sorry for his loss ) Lets have all the figures back to 2000 and of course the figures only show the money they posted as true ,which could well be not the whole truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by caltonjock