David Cameron&#x27;s father &#x27;ran offshore fund that paid zero UK tax for 30 years&#x27;

Original post by Drewski

Because he's a politician. None of them know how to answer a question directly. And if he had answered directly he opens himself up to family being a legitimate target for political questions - something no politician wants and rightly so.

Bull.
Council tax. Road fund licence. VAT.

Did he avoid spending more tax, sure. Did he avoid spending any money on tax? I'm sure that's impossible unless he was actually a hermit.

But mostly. I just don't care. Couldn't give a flying ****.
I hate the media for bringing stories like this up. I hate people like you for banging on about it with so much vigour you'd think it was the end of the world. I hate the left. I hate the right. It's all petty, moronic bs and you're just buying straight into it like a total idiot.

Grow up and live your own life, because none of this **** really matters or makes any kind of difference to you.

If you don't care, don't post in this thread. That's one of my biggest annoyances, people coming on a thread to claim they don't care. Great, let us people who do care speak about it.

And nop, Cameron's dad avoided ANY tax. Zero. Nothing. Nil.

We're allowed to be outraged that it's one rule for the ultra wealthy, another for everyone else. That we have big accountancy firms drafting the laws which they later exploit. The fact that your average man pays tax whereas big firms and millionaires do not. The fact that we clamp down harshly on those on benefits while we do nothing about the millions more lost in tax avoidance.

That exploitation at the top is fine but awful at the bottom.
We live in a two tiered system. If you're uber wealthy you can avoid paying tax, but not if you're poor.

So yes I do care.
Thanks for the life advice though, i'm going into law to let you know. But thanks anyway.

If you're fine with this corruption that's up to you. But if you 'don't care' then don't comment and don't stop other people.

Reply 85

Original post by Aj12

To be blunt about it, it is a private matter. Unless something illegal has gone on ( given that these files have been passed on to HMRC, it'd become apparent quickly) it is little business of the public's. No doubt as it was passed down to him he payed inheritance tax on it too. What was he supposed to do? Go to his father aged ten and say daddy i'd like to be put up for adoption, because I feel your tax arrangements are wrong and I don't want to benefit from it? I truly hope you are this principled and have a detailed understanding of your parents financial arrangements.

Again, Cameron is not his father. Stop trying to beat Cameron with the actions of a parent. He is no a hypocrite because his father acted a particular war, you don't judge people by the actions of their fore bearers.

It is not, it is wrong. But you are trying to attack Cameron for something he likely
had little to do with.

I don't really see any issue with taking advantage of financial loopholes and clearly it is a different issue compared to murder or rape. Personally I do all I can to legally safe money, when I see companies or individuals taking advantage of legal loopholes my issue is with the people who wrote poor laws. Most people would argue doing all you can to legally save money is a rational decision.

For someone who hates political attacks on Labour politician's families you are certainly doing all you can to get the most of this story on DC's family.

My attacks have been far broader than just Cameron. They've been on the system which allows the likes of Cameron's family to pay no tax here.

It's a two tier system, if you're uber rich you can pay no tax, if you're not you have to.

You say your main issue is with people who write laws? Yet you think it's fine that we allow the big four accountancy firms to draft our laws? The same firms who make tens of millions from tax avoidance are drafting our tax code. That's corruption and Cameron allows it to happen. THE SAME PEOPLE DRAFTING OUR TAX LAWS ARE EXPLOITING THEM. And yes I do blame people for using them to pay no tax, it's their fault when our public services suffer - because they lack the money they need because of things like this.
You do also realise that these same firms who draft and benefit from our tax laws donate to the tory party? The whole thing is corrupt and Cameron and his family exemplify that.

I do oppose attacks on Labour politicians families ad tory politicians families for irrelevant things like the fact they have a nanny or two kitchens. But when our PMs family is engaging in corporate tax avoidance, while our PM is claiming to get 'tough on tax avoiders' it's beyond a joke.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 86

TSRUsername99

Original post by Aj12

To be blunt about it, it is a private matter.

Nothing to hide nothing to fear, we need to make sure this money can't end up in the hands of terrorists!

Reply 87

Original post by doctorwhofan98

...But these people use public services that taxes pay for; they're essentially the 'scroungers' that the media depicts benefit claimants as. And with the logic that 'just because you didn't vote for the government, that means you don't have to obey the elected government' is a really poor idea - if I didn't vote for a party that supported tuition fees, do I find a way to avoid them?

They still do pay taxes just far fewer. E.g. consumption taxes for someone who spends hundreds of thousands of ££ per year are going to be pretty high. Those are unavoidable.They'd be "scroungers" if you believe that the public services very wealthy people use cost more than what they paid in taxes even accounting for the fact that they avoid capital gains tax or corporate tax or whichever taxes these people avoid by depositing their money in tax havens.

Given that most taxation for the rich is not to provide them with services but rather to fund public services for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford them, I don't think "scrounger" is the right way to characterise them.

You're still right that the logic of not following any laws you yourself disagree with can spell disaster for a country. I don't disagree with that (although there ARE legitimate forms of protesting against laws through disobedience). But what I said is that I can understand small government types avoiding taxes as a form of civil disobedience that might be coherent with their political philosophy (since they consider high taxation to be discriminatory and unjust. Some anarchists consider taxation altogether to be entirely unjust so I'd include them in this category). Cameron is not in that group so I couldn't excuse him in any way.

Reply 88

Original post by Sisuphos

Given that most taxation for the rich is not to provide them with services but rather to fund public services for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford them, I don't think "scrounger" is the right way to characterise them.

Also, the rich do get major benefits from the welfare system. They can be comfortable in the knowledge they are unlikely to be murdered in their beds for their money.

A decent welfare state keeps us from descending to South Africa levels of wealth differential. In SA pretty much all upper-middle class people live in gated communities with armed guards, and rich people are regularly killed during robberies or taken hostage for ransom.

The wealthy absolutely benefit from a system that provides a safety net and keeps the inequality gap within certain levels

Reply 89

Original post by Sisuphos

Do they not use public roads? Do they not have their bins collected? Do they not use public parks? Do they not benefit from the country having a police force, a judicial system, an army, a navy, a government?

Reply 90

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the wealthy would hire guns in the so-called state of nature and annihilate 90% of the population. They do it now even in stable societies. Bodyguards and private security agents do not come from wealthy backgrounds.

But maybe not, maybe the lower classes would be organised and gang up on them. I don't know.

The point is that security, education, health, etc could be afforded by the wealthy privately. Maybe at a lower cost too, maybe higher but the fact is that whatever service the wealthy receive, they would probably be able to afford it privately instead of paying taxes for it. It's not an excuse to say that they receive public services. It's mostly not a choice anyone makes, you have to use monopolies like the police and roads and so on. There is no choice to not pay taxes and not use public services. If there was such a choice, I guarantee most wealthy people would take it. The middle and working classes on the other hand (especially the former) would most certainly lose quite a lot. The semi-lumpen and the wealthy, not so much.

Reply 91

Original post by Bornblue

I am not saying they don't benefit at all. I'm saying they're not at a net benefit. And also I'm saying that even if they were, taxation and public services are not optional, they're mandatory in many cases (though not all).

Reply 92

Original post by Sisuphos

As others have argued, having a system of laws and a police force is a net benefit to them as it prevents a lawless, anarchy.

Reply 93

Original post by Bornblue

As others have argued, having a system of laws and a police force is a net benefit to them as it prevents a lawless, anarchy.

No it is not clearly so. Net benefit means that they gain more by paying taxes and having national army and police and courts than they would by having private agencies and courts and not paying any tax at all.

Reply 94

Original post by Sisuphos

The point is that security, education, health, etc could be afforded by the wealthy privately. Maybe at a lower cost too, maybe higher but the fact is that whatever service the wealthy receive, they would probably be able to afford it privately instead of paying taxes for it

How's that working out for them in South Africa?

Reply 95

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

How's that working out for them in South Africa?

I don't know that South Africa is an example of a stateless society.

Reply 96

Original post by Bornblue

As others have argued, having a system of laws and a police force is a net benefit to them as it prevents a lawless, anarchy.

Also, the wealthy are only wealthy in the first place because they are able to enjoy the benefits of a legal system, of government regulatory agencies that ensure that we have a well-maintained power grid, that clean water comes out when you run the tap, that if someone commits a crime against your business then the police and courts will act. The existence of well-maintained roads that allows them to get goods to their business, of a logistics and transportation system that means you can ship goods cheaply... etc etc. These are only things you can really have if you are part of a society. And anyone with basic economic understanding realises the preponderance of wealth in modern Western societies is actually in the middle class. There's no way the wealthy could afford to maintain all these things by themselves.

You only have to look at that amazing success story Somalia to see what life is like without an overarching state entity.

In an anarchy system, you might be rich but what are you going to do if there's a general uprising like the French revolution, you are expelled from your lands and your children's heads are placed on spikes at the city walls? You can't spend your money if you're dead.

And the vast majority of wealthy people are sane enough to realise these things. The sort of puerile junior common room libertarianism we see proposed on TSR is so idiotic. And it's also rather strange in that they are openly proposing an economic system that provides they claim would provide security for an extremely narrow class. Generally neoliberals might propose a system that seems inequitable but they do (however misguidedly) believe that overall everyone will be better off. Here they don't even seem to bother with that (and why is it that invariably it is lower-middle class Tories who are the most extreme free market dogmatics? The sort of people who wouldn't even benefit from this ideology)

Reply 97

Original post by Sisuphos

I don't know that South Africa is an example of a stateless society.

It's an example of a society where there is basically no safety net and the wealthy live in a cocooned society where they pay for all their own services. The South Africa upper-middle and upper-class also have an extremely precarious existence and live in substantial physical risk

But you are welcome to try Somalia during its stateless years as your idea of a prime example of the benefits of stateless societies :lol:

Reply 98

username1450924

If DC's dad did do it then that is a terrible thing, but that does not mean every1 has to bash DC does it. I doubt everyone here would want to be laid into if their parents make a mistake.

Reply 99