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

Scroll to see replies

And I don't know when Somalia was a stable society. It certainly is not because there is no government (which there is anyway).

Here it would help if you possessed even a superficial knowledge of recent world history. The Somalian government totally collapsed in the early 1990s, the national army disbanded and warlords took over. In other words, your proposed economic and social system.

Surely if you're right, Somalia would have been a paradise in that period? The wealthy providing their own security with private armies, the citizenry freed from the dead hand of the state. If your theories are right, presumably there would have been an economic boom in that period? :wink:

It's also unclear why you're talking about stability. Why would you expect any kind of stability in a society dominated by warlords and private armies (i.e. the society you propose)? Presumably that's irrelevant anyway, all that matters is that everyone is free to do whatever they want.

Reply 101

Trapz99

Original post by Bornblue

No Labour figures were found on the list, numerous Tories are. Our own prime ministers family engages in massive corruption.

It's his family, not him. No one should care about his family's private life. He should be judged on his own actions, not those of others.

Reply 102

Sisuphos

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

Here it would help if you possessed even a superficial knowledge of recent world history. The Somalian government totally collapsed in the early 1990s, the national army disbanded and warlords took over. In other words, your proposed economic and social system.

Surely if you're right, Somalia would have been a paradise in that period? The wealthy providing their own security with private armies, the citizenry freed from the dead hand of the state. If your theories are right, presumably there would have been an economic boom in that period? :wink:

It's also unclear why you're talking about stability. Why would you expect any kind of stability in a society dominated by warlords and private armies (i.e. the society you propose)?

A) I don't propose anything. It's an open question of cost benefit analysis and the examples you mention are not examples of anarchism (or if they are, they're no worse than what was was before whatever you think goes on there atm).

B) Somalia was never, as I said, a stable society. What you propose is that a statist Somalia would be so much better that wealthy Somalians would rather pay 60% of their earnings (or so as wealthy people must do if they fully comply with the laws) to the state to avoid "anarchism".

What I said was that even if anarchism exists in Somalia, it is not the cause of instability. It was as bad or worse as a statist society. The only claim I need to make is that wealthy Somalians have no incentive to pay western type marginal taxes whilst receiving the shittiest imaginable state services.

So, again, even if anarchism exists in Somalia (I don't even care to discuss whether SA resembles anything like an anarchist society because it is clearly obvious that it doesn't) I would not compare it with western, stable democracies. I'd compare it with it self as a statist vs non-statist society. From 91 to 06, was Somalia really worse off than it was before or now? more to the point, were the rich Somalians better off or worse off?

Reply 103

username878267

Original post by Trapz99

It's his family, not him. No one should care about his family's private life. He should be judged on his own actions, not those of others.

Not when he's used such money to his own benefit and still has family wealth stuffed in these offshore tax havens.

Reply 104

Trapz99

Original post by Bornblue

Not when he's used such money to his own benefit and still has family wealth stuffed in these offshore tax havens.

Why do you care about what he does in his private life? It's not important. What's important are his policies.

Reply 105

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Observatory

Is it hypocrisy? afaik, neither Cameron nor his government has taken any stance in favour of high taxes on investments, nor in favour of wealth taxes. Their pension reforms have reduced the investment tax burden for most on-shore investors. What Cameron's father has done might be unpopular but isn't ideologically inconsistent with what Cameron has done.

Similarly the implication with Ralph Miliband was that Edward Miliband was also an extreme Marxist, not that he had betrayed his father's principles.

I think most reasonable people view it as unpatriotic to evade tax at all costs, which is what those schemes are about.

Ralph Miliband was directly accused by the Tory lie machine of being a Britain-hater and unpatriotic.

Anyone for more pots and kettles? :rolleyes:

Reply 106

username878267

Original post by Trapz99

Why do you care about what he does in his private life? It's not important. What's important are his policies.

If someone is avoiding paying tax, especially the PM ad his family that very much is not a private matter.

Reply 107

username878267

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Ralph Miliband, who fleed Nazi persecution as a youngster came to the UK and experienced antisemitism. Despite this he fought for Britain in the war against the Nazis.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail were writing love letters to Hitler and congratulating him on his 'successes'. Yet apparently Ralph hated Britain...

Ralph was fighting Hitler, while the Daily Mail were getting starry eyed about him.

Reply 108

Observatory

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think most reasonable people view it as unpatriotic to evade tax at all costs, which is what those schemes are about.

During a war, maybe. Right now, in peacetime, perfectly legal tax avoidance might be seen as disapproval of high taxes, or redistribution of wealth, or public services - all of which I grant are quite popular, giving some people still grounds to be upset - but I don't think many would interpret it was unpatriotic. The few people saying things like that are themselves unpatriotic most of the time, and opposed to patriotism on principle most of the time, which suggests that even what little of that there is, is largely rhetorical.

Ralph Miliband was directly accused by the Tory lie machine of being a Britain-hater and unpatriotic.

Anyone for more pots and kettles? :rolleyes:

No doubt Ralph Miliband would have loved a Britain ruled by him and his friends, or perhaps his son; his writings show he didn't much like Britain as it actually was during his lifetime, that he liked it least of all when it saved him from the Nazis, and came to like it more after it shifted left.

Reply 109

TSRUsername99

Original post by Observatory

During a war, maybe.

What about all that money going to North Korea and Syria?

Reply 110

Observatory

Original post by TSRUsername99

What about all that money going to North Korea and Syria?

If the Prime Minister's father had established an investment fund in North Korea, I would agree that there is something seriously amiss.

Reply 111

Jammy Duel

Original post by JordanL_

Several Tories have been mentioned in the leaks so far, and none of Labour.

So nobody in Labour engages in this tax avoidance, doesn't mean there is no tax avoidance, I recall two Mr Milibands, they've largely slipped out of the public eye, both were Labour MPs and one still is and was in fact leader of the opposition and engaged in tax avoidance. Why did people vote for those morons, eh?

Reply 112

TSRUsername99

Original post by Observatory

If the Prime Minister's father had established an investment fund in North Korea, I would agree that there is something seriously amiss.

Terrorists, paedophiles and criminals must not be allowed a “safe space”.

Reply 113

usainlightning

Original post by Sisuphos

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.