Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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!
    sometimes it might be the case, yeah - but taking aim purely at the rich and not the politicians (even the labour politicians) that enable these structures is like targetting the police for letting criminals do whatever they want
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The law is for plebs like us. These people are above the law. Talk about a democracy. Democracy is just a front for the huge gap of equality there is in the UK. The funniest thing about this is that Cameron will deal with the matter 'severely'. What's he gonna do, lock his old man up. I don't think so. Society is never going to change. The rich get richer while poor go 6 feet under. How do you expect the world to get better when people that govern it are fraudulent themselves ?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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!
    Nonsense comment.
    Read again. Accountancy firms who gain a huge amount of income through tax avoidance schemes are drafting the tax laws and thus know all the loopholes. The same unelected, unaccountable people who benefit directly from the laws are drafting them.
    They then use these loopholes that they've created to their own benefit. That is corruption however you look at it.
    How you think that's fine is beyond me.


    That's an oligarchy and I repeat akin to Jimmy saville drafting child protection laws.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)

    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.
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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 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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    I agree. Everyone should pay the tax that they are legally required to pay.

    Edit: I don't think these people are able to reduce their overall tax burdens to zero, either. Not if they have any substantial connections to the UK. Multinational corporations work slightly differently, but tackling them requires international co-operation.

    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.
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A lot politicians do Labour and liberal included
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I just wish those same people wouldn't use fake patriotism and nationalism when it suits them. How many leading Tories wrap themselves in the flag, whilst depriving the exchequer of lawful taxes? And how many like Cameron pretend to be One Nation people out of one side of the face, whilst phoning their lawyers in Panama to manage tax evasion funds with the other?

    It's disgusting, hypocritical behaviour. Then we have Cameron nodding from the front bench when Osborne talked about no place to hide for tax evaders. It really is sick making.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I agree. Everyone should pay the tax that they are legally required to pay.
    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 **** 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? For him to make her have sex against her will just because it was legal?
    Please answer that.





    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?
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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 naive people like....
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    My analogy shows something being legal doesn't make it acceptable.

    They are loopholes, they are identifying gaps in the system, going against the spirit and purpose of the law on a technicality to avoid paying lawful taxes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assan)
    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....
    It is his money, it's his family's wealth which he owns and was passed down to him.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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 **** 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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    They do pay zero tax. Cameron's dad did, that's a scrounger, taking advantage of our publi services while paying nothing towards it.
    Something being legal doesn't make it acceptable. Purposely finding and exploiting a legal loophole is wrong.

    And again, having those who benefit from tax avoidance drafting tax laws is corruption. The whole thing is. The you consider that the same firms who draft tax laws, donate to the Tory party. The whole thing is a conflict of interests and we have corporations making laws which suit only them and go against the public interest.

    Maybe if we had impartial expertise drafting the laws we could prevent tax avoidance or at least criminalise it.
    Instead we have corporations making their own laws.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Purposely finding and exploiting a legal loophole is wrong.
    I'll simply refer you to this comment.
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    Otherwise I think at this point I'll just end up repeating myself, so I don't think it would be productive for me to continue.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    They don't. And neither do you, if you are really honest with yourself because what do you actually do to make a difference? Virtue signalling on an internet message board doesn't count, you do know that, right?

    Lot's of tax wheeze stuff is immoral and people are greedy. Haven't you learnt that yet?

    If you want to change these things devote your life to reforming international tax law.

    Good luck.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Who cares.

    When you look this good in swimming trunks. :sexface:

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It really does astound me how people like TimmonaPortella above come out of the woodwork to defend or at best apologise for the corruption that goes on.

    Apparently it's all OK that we have the big four writing our tax code because they're all sooo smart only they can do it. It's one thing our government enlisting them when they are the sort of people who will personally benefit: it's quite another seeing useful idiots who will never have enough money to use these schemes, and who will therefore be paying for them, cheer them on.

    It's pathetic the way people bow to big business and believe the propaganda about it: remember, these crooks are the sorts of people regularly referred to in the Tory media as "hard-working wealth creators"!

    Make no mistake, this obsequity is something peculiar to the more servile, docile, stupefied populations of the West, chief among these the UK. We open our legs and our property market to the laundered money of Saudi oil sheikhs, Russian mafiosi and Chinese Communist Party mandarins, and our own elites cycle theirs through the most extensive network of tax havens on the planet, while our own elected Chancellor argues passionately and wields his veto mercilessly against vote after vote by the other EU member states to take multilateral action on tax avoidance.

    In Iceland ten per cent of the entire voting population is protesting in front of the Althing right now demanding the removal of the prime minister, whose family, like Cameron's, has been implicated in the scandal, and who not a day after the scandal broke faces a vote of no confidence. That's the sort of contempt with which we should treat corrupt politicians.

    Can any one of us here imagine anything even remotely like that happening over here? There is more chance of Cameron's dad rising from the grave and being appointed to a plum position on the Public Accounts Committee than of the average Brit holding any of these verminous elites, British or foreign, to account for their corruption.

    After all, this has been known for years: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ily-tax-havens
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.