David Cameron's father 'ran offshore fund that paid zero UK tax for 30 years'

No, it isn't. If you're suggesting that we should take steps to curb people's ability to avoid tax by moving money offshore I'm broadly right there with you, but to condemn individuals for making use of the laws as they are is an entirely different matter. I don't blame anyone for using the legal means that are available to them to protect their money.

As for your point that David Cameron's views may be influenced by the fact that he has benefited from these arrangements: well, quite, but leaders will always have particular experiences leading them to have more or less favourable views of different laws or systems etc. There's no avoiding that. We just have to judge our leaders on the basis of what they've done.

They are often one of the same. We are becoming very plutocratic. You could argue they have more influence and power than MPs. The government will work with them in designing rules with the intention of letting them know how to exploit loop hoes etc. David Cameron's wing of the Conservative party represents these people. One of them was his own dad!

Well gee, how silly it is to have accountants help in the drafting of extremely technical laws that involve matters of accountancy. What outrageous corruption!

I do blame corporations and millionaires paying no tax. Your average joe pays tax, yet these millionaires don't. It's a two tier system. It's selfish and greedy and I'd like to think people can just have a little bit of selflessness and compassion for others less well off.

Accountancy firms who gain a huge amount of income through tax avoidance schemes are drafting the tax laws and thus know all the loopholes.

I see what you're saying but my point is as you say that the same people making these legal loopholes are benefiting from them. That's pretty much an oligarchy.

Let me ask you this, marital rape was legal until 1991. Until then husbands could rape their wives, even if divorced and have no consequences. Was what they did perfectly acceptable just because it was legal? Imagine if that was your mum or family member who was raped by an ex partner but it was legal because they hadn't got divorced yet. Something being legal doesn't make it right or acceptable.

My gripe is we go at benefit claimants hard, yet we lose 100 times more from Shemes like these.

I do blame corporations and millionaires paying no tax. Your average joe pays tax, yet these millionaires don't. It's a two tier system. It's selfish and greedy and I'd like to think people can just have a little bit of selflessness and compassion for others less well off.

Of course it's selfish. They're allowed to be selfish as regards their own property. I expect people to obey the law and pay the taxes that fall due, but failing to organise your assets within the law so as to reduce the tax burden that does fall due is simple imprudence.

It is easy to be generous with other people's money, and it is easy to accuse someone of being selfish whilst you are rifling through his wallet.


I don't know if you know this, but tax laws are generally promulgated publicly. It's not as though they won't figure out and loopholes that exist in them by looking. People pay through the teeth to have them do exactly that.

They have expertise and this is enlisted in the production of laws within that expertise. If you think an MP with zero expertise in tax and accountancy would be able to draft a decent tax law without that help I don't think you've grasped the complexity involved here.

They should pay their tax like everyone else. They benefit from things like public roads, police, judiciary, fire services, the army , the navy etc yet they pay no tax, thats the definition of a scrounger.
Everyone should pay tax.

They're using their expertise to set up and identify tax loopholes to exploit. Not my conclusion-the Parliamentary committee's. They aren't offering impartial advice, they are bending the laws in their favour.

Having people who earn tens of millions off loose tax laws, drafting tax laws is corruption, it's oligarchy. I'm all for having impartial advisors but having people who are looking to exploit tax laws, draft them is a conflict of interests.


Let me repeat so you understand. The big four accountancy firms who make tens of millions from tax avoidance draft tax laws. They werr found to use the loopholes they created when drafting to help people avoid tax. The people benefiting the laws draft them, to the advantage of themselves and disadvanatge of the nation.

So? that doesn't exonerate him.

OP: Tbh, I'm quite okay with fiscal conservatives or free-market conservatives dodging taxes. They think taxation and therefore government services and spending should be minimal. No problems with them as long as they don't vote for spending increases.

But Cameron is not that kind of conservative (apparently). He's a Big Society or "compassionate" conservative or whatever ******** term careerist politicians have invented to explain why they've got no principled stances on anything that might jeopardise their chances to rule.

I agree. Everyone should pay the tax that they are legally required to pay.

Well, one way or another you will require the expertise of competent accountants who have extensive expertise in matters of taxation in drafting these laws. What is your solution to that?

Your analogy does not hold. The marital rape rule was a derogation from a general principle that was increasingly seen as unacceptable.

There are three general principles in relation to tax. Everyone should pay the taxes legally required of them; everyone should be capable of finding out what is legally required of them and everyone is otherwise free to do what they like with their own money.

When you refer to a legal loophole what you really mean is that Parliament has imposed a tax on A but not on B and I have chosen to do B rather than A because Parliament has not imposed a tax on B.

We do realize that just because it was "his father" doesn't mean it wasn't Cameron's money as well, right? Like, any half-intelligent person wouldn't do it themselves, for the sake of plausible deniability....precisely for moments like this and naieve people like....

Nonsense comment. You think the ultra wekathy should be able to pay zero tax yet take advantage of all our public services? That's the definition of a scrounger.


Your double standards are astonishing. Scroungers at the bottom to you are awful but scroungers at the top are fine.

It's not illegal to spend benefit money on booze and fags and sky tv but I bet you have a problem with that.

And answer me this because you didn't last time: In 1990, before marital rape was illegal, do you think it was perfectly acceptable for a man to rape his wife fords fully? For him to make her have sex against her will just because it was legal?
Please answer that.






simple, have impartial experts who don't work for a big firm which makes money off tax avoidance. Have people without a conflict of interests helping draft tax laws in the public interest rather than the corporate interest.

As I said, I don't think they can pay zero tax. And I didn't say that they shouldn't. I said the system should force them to. I simply don't blame them for minimising their tax burdens within the law.

As long as benefits payments are not made in respect of children I have no problem with people spending them on whatever they like. In fact I'd lower the taxes on their cigarettes and alcohol to boot.

I have never claimed that I think anything that is legal is morally acceptable. I think that people are entitled to manage their property according to the rules. It would be commendable if some of them gave more of their money away, and I admire people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett who do that, but I do not think rich UK citizens are morally bound to give any more money to the Treasury than the law requires them to. Your counterexample is trivial and I won't entertain it.

I am guessing that the problem is that the preponderance of accountants expert in these matters happen to work for the big 4. If we can find the appropriate expertise elsewhere, great.

Purposely finding and exploiting a legal loophole is wrong.

When you refer to a legal loophole what you really mean is that Parliament has imposed a tax on A but not on B and I have chosen to do B rather than A because Parliament has not imposed a tax on B.

I see what you're saying but my point is as you say that the same people making these legal loopholes are benefiting from them. That's pretty much an oligarchy.

Let me ask you this, marital rape was legal until 1991. Until then husbands could rape their wives, even if divorced and have no consequences. Was what they did perfectly acceptable just because it was legal? Imagine if that was your mum or family member who was raped by an ex partner but it was legal because they hadn't got divorced yet. Something being legal doesn't make it right or acceptable.

My gripe is we go at benefit claimants hard, yet we lose 100 times more from Shemes like these.

I do blame corporations and millionaires paying no tax. Your average joe pays tax, yet these millionaires don't. It's a two tier system. It's selfish and greedy and I'd like to think people can just have a little bit of selflessness and compassion for others less well off.