Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

David Cameron admits to profiting from offshore fund !!! watch

    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I suspect there may well be more to come out. He's been incredibly shady, telling a series of half truths and evasive statements and it makes you wonder what he has to hide.
    Our Prime Minister being dishonest and evasive merits criticism. Do I think he avoided tax himself? At the moment no, (although i'm sure there's more to come out) but that doesn't mean he's done nothing wrong.
    Or, rather, you hope there's more to come out. We can judge him if and when it does; let's stick to what we do know until then instead of half-indicting him in the hope that what you perceive as his evasion is actually evidence for anything.

    He bought shares in a company which he knew was set up to avoid tax.
    Source?

    It makes him a hypocrite

    He's a hypocrite and dishonest and that calls for criticism.
    Welcome to politics, Bornblue. Or rather: welcome to life. Most people don't go through life without ever having contradicted themselves. Next you'll be telling me that Jefferson's opposition to slavery was insincere because he owned slaves himself.

    Refer also to what I said earlier about favouritism; you're more naive than I thought if you really believe that any other politician, including ones you admire, are as likely to publicly expose the wrongdoings of their own family members as they are of others.

    he's been going on about how immoral tax avoidance is and about how this tory government has done more than any other government ever and how 'tax avoiders' have nowhere to hide, about 'how sunlight' is the best medicine, all this time he knew he had shares in a company set up to avoid tax and he knew his father was avoiding tax.
    To be clear: he sold his shares in early 2010, prior to becoming Prime Minister. (A lot of people are erroneously counting this as a half-truth because he initially said that he didn't own any shares; well, it's true, he doesn't own any currently.) His father also died around the same time. You seem to think that Cameron is personally responsible for informing the public of his father's tax affairs; he isn't.

    We have a right to know about the financial dealings of our Prime Minister and any vested interests he may have.
    True.

    He famously said recently 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hear'. He wants to invade into our private lives yet when he was initially asked he responded 'this is a private matter'.
    That's a fair criticism, yes, if a little puerile.

    I've been very critical of Corbyn, but I also am keen to separate the fact from the fiction.
    Well, you seem to think that he's owned these shares 'all this time', when in fact he sold them before taking office, so I'm unsure of this.

    I don't think Cameron should resign though.
    And would this be your view if he wasn't an asset for the Remain campaign in the referendum? I saw you saying something similar on another thread. :holmes:
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Dragon_)
    Stop p*ssing on the bonfire lol , the Icelandic PM resigned over a lesser fault.
    Yeah, but Iceland is a reasonable, civilised place.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Or, rather, you hope there's more to come out. We can judge him if and when it does; let's stick to what we do know until then instead of half-indicting him in the hope that what you perceive as his evasion is actually evidence for anything.



    Source?



    Welcome to politics, Bornblue. Or rather: welcome to life. Most people don't go through life without ever having contradicted themselves. Next you'll be telling me that Jefferson's opposition to slavery was insincere because he owned slaves himself.

    Refer also to what I said earlier about favouritism; you're more naive than I thought if you really believe that any other politician, including ones you admire, are as likely to publicly expose the wrongdoings of their own family members as they are of others.



    To be clear: he sold his shares in early 2010, prior to becoming Prime Minister. (A lot of people are erroneously counting this as a half-truth because he initially said that he didn't own any shares; well, it's true, he doesn't own any currently.) His father also died around the same time. You seem to think that Cameron is personally responsible for informing the public of his father's tax affairs; he isn't.



    True.



    That's a fair criticism, yes, if a little puerile.



    Well, you seem to think that he's owned these shares 'all this time', when in fact he sold them before taking office, so I'm unsure of this.



    And would this be your view if he wasn't an asset for the Remain campaign in the referendum? I saw you saying something similar on another thread. :holmes:
    We'll see what else/if anything comes out.
    Even it it transpires he's not tax avoided, he has been dishonest, a hypocrite and evasive. It also concerns what type of family he comes from, one that avoids tax and boasts about it.

    It's also been revealed that in 2013 he tried to stop the EU demanding more transparent about the owners and financial transactions regarding corporations set up in tax havens.

    I want Cameron to stay for the moment because I want to stay in the eu and despite how much I dislike him, I dislike Osborne and Boris more.
    In fact I've been impressed with his eu stance and take down of the out argument and how reasonable he has come accross.

    After the EU referendum I'll be all too happy for the Tory party to continue tearing themselves apart.

    Ideal result would be remain to win, followed by a leadership challenge and unrest in the Tory party.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Even it it transpires he's not tax avoided, he has been dishonest, a hypocrite and evasive.
    So he's been a politician. Is this news to you?

    It also concerns what type of family he comes from, one that avoids tax and boasts about it.
    What does it matter what kind of a family he comes from?

    It's also been revealed that in 2013 he tried to stop the EU demanding more transparent about the owners and financial transactions regarding corporations set up in tax havens.
    That's a general Tory tendency, not something that's peculiar to Cameron. Saying this is like saying, 'politician uses his position and influence to further his ideological agenda.' Anybody who's bringing this up now as if it's news is quite obviously going through item after item, hoping that something will stick. Suffice it to say, the general public is dumb enough that the items don't have to be thrown with too much force.

    I want Cameron to stay for the moment because I want to stay in the eu and despite how much I dislike him, I dislike Osborne and Boris more.

    In fact I've been impressed with his eu stance and take down of the out argument and how reasonable he has come accross.

    After the EU referendum I'll be all too happy for the Tory party to continue tearing themselves apart.

    Ideal result would be remain to win, followed by a leadership challenge and unrest in the Tory party.
    So: assuming that there wasn't an impending EU referendum, you would be calling for his resignation over this leak? :holmes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    So he's been a politician. Is this news to you?



    What does it matter what kind of a family he comes from?



    That's a general Tory tendency, not something that's peculiar to Cameron. Saying this is like saying, 'politician uses his position and influence to further his ideological agenda.' Anybody who's bringing this up now as if it's news is quite obviously going through item after item, hoping that something will stick. Suffice it to say, the general public is dumb enough that the items don't have to be thrown with too much force.



    So: assuming that there wasn't an impending EU referendum, you would be calling for his resignation over this leak? :holmes:
    No I wouldn't call for his resignation over this even if there were no impending EU referendum. I don't think it warrants a resignation, it just shows him up to be the shady, total hypocrite that he is.

    Yes most politicians are like that, most people are but he's the prime minister and should be held to a higher standard given what he does affects all of us on a daily basis.

    The whole leak just shows the reality of society, one rule for the elite, one rule for everyone else and when Cameron's own family benefits from tax avoidance, it's no surprise that very little of any substance is being done about it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The_Dragon_)
    Its just been revealed Dave made a nice sum from his Panama account whilst avoiding paying UK tax. Will he be ousted ?
    He sold shares in a company based in a tax haven; he payed capital gains tax at the correct level and did nothing illegal. There's no reason this should be made an issue of.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    He sold shares in a company based in a tax haven; he payed capital gains tax at the correct level and did nothing illegal. There's no reason this should be made an issue of.
    It wasn't even like it was a massive fund either

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    No thanks. If it was Labour you would be hearing the same thing.
    The media overall would be saying the same thing, definitely, no doubt (except more Daily Mail led than the Guardian). I meant I'd argue why the investment fund was ethically sound of you disagreed, but it's a moot point since we agree.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    I mean that his tax affairs should be investigated. He said he will publish his tax returns - great. But there are still many questions not answer, cba to list them on here but I'm sure you can look for it yourself.
    It's your argument.
    You've also said there was nothing morally wrong about Cameron's tax affairs, so how do you reckon there are still many questions to answer?

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    You're still not getting it. People are saying he must resign because he not only gave misleading/false press statements but he took a rather long time to reply to questions which he could have answered from the day he got them, which suggests he could have something to hide, wouldn't it? Ask yourself if you were involved in dodgy dealings, would you not want to hide it? Wouldn't you hesitate (which is exactly what he did) answering questions? Wouldn't you try to delay it and wait for the press attention to go away? He said it himself, he waited.

    It's not sensationlist to demand for a resignation for the reasons above, it's not just misleading/false statements. If you still find this hard to understand you can say so and I will copy and paste it again. Even if he doesn't resign they still need to do something.
    The Prime Minister must resign because he apparently took a 'long time' to answer questions about a huge, complex scandal? Seriously do you hear what you're typing? If these are the standards we judge PMs by then we'd average 52 a year.

    Cameron was in a no-win position. Like I said earlier, people hear 'offshore' and get ahead of themselves. I certainly think he should have told the whole truth from the beginning but I can see why he wouldn't and it's certainly not an implication as to anything more at all. To try and infer anything more out of what actually has happened is pretty much the definition of sensationalism.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It wasn't even like it was a massive fund either

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Indeed. Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq was much more morally repugnant but was met with far less resistance.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The media overall would be saying the same thing, definitely, no doubt (except more Daily Mail led than the Guardian). I meant I'd argue why the investment fund was ethically sound of you disagreed, but it's a moot point since we agree.



    It's your argument.
    You've also said there was nothing morally wrong about Cameron's tax affairs, so how do you reckon there are still many questions to answer?



    The Prime Minister must resign because he apparently took a 'long time' to answer questions about a huge, complex scandal? Seriously do you hear what you're typing? If these are the standards we judge PMs by then we'd average 52 a year.

    Cameron was in a no-win position. Like I said earlier, people hear 'offshore' and get ahead of themselves. I certainly think he should have told the whole truth from the beginning but I can see why he wouldn't and it's certainly not an implication as to anything more at all. To try and infer anything more out of what actually has happened is pretty much the definition of sensationalism.
    He shouldn't resign no because he hasn't avoided tax himself. But what he has done is invest in a company which lists in its prospectus that it was set up to avoid UK tax.
    Given how he called tax avoidance immoral, boasts about his record is so good on it and goes on about sunlight being the best disinfectant, it makes him an absolute hypocrite. The way he's dealt with this has been incredibly shady and evasive too.

    The financial transactions and interests of our PM are very relevant and he's right to receive scrutiny for this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lol what David did was perfectly normal and legal. He had a shared account in a mutual fund outside the UK, it was a legitimate fund and had invested all over the world. He still paid tax on his profits, the only thing he didn't pay was the third layer of tax which was actually putting the money into the fund as the country the Blairmore fund was in had a 0% rate on it. He would have paid capital gains tax on it but the profit was small enough to allow him not to. There is nothing immoral about this, the only thing he did wrong was that he should have said all this on Monday and not let it be squeezed out of him.

    Those of you who think he will resign or be forced out are delusional to say the least, even the opposition parties merely state that he should have said it earlier. This shows that even they know he did nothing wrong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He shouldn't resign no because he hasn't avoided tax himself. But what he has done is invest in a company which lists in its prospectus that it was set up to avoid UK tax.
    Given how he called tax avoidance immoral, boasts about his record is so good on it and goes on about sunlight being the best disinfectant, it makes him an absolute hypocrite. The way he's dealt with this has been incredibly shady and evasive too.

    The financial transactions and interests of our PM are very relevant and he's right to receive scrutiny for this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I highly doubt it lists any such thing in it's prospectus, since as tax experts are coming out and saying the company structure is not one of tax avoidance. Dividends are taxed at the investor's place of domicile. It's a Panamanian company, so the fact it doesn't pay UK corporation tax is as relevant as it not paying North Korean tax.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I highly doubt it lists any such thing in it's prospectus, since as tax experts are coming out and saying the company structure is not one of tax avoidance. Dividends are taxed at the investor's place of domicile. It's a Panamanian company, so the fact it doesn't pay UK corporation tax is as relevant as it not paying North Korean tax.
    Virtually all of us are hypocrites when the test is turned full volume, money x membership of the arrogant classes and it most certainly is. The more superior one considers oneself the greater the likelihood of making oneself an exception, for one already considers oneself to be one. Why are you even surprised at their behavior? It is psychopaths that you need to worry about, and they reach the top too. This is to you all.
    I totally agree with your contribution, and likely have such investments myself - Everything may appear questionable if one focuses on it hard enough.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think for all the reasons people could hate david cameron and call for him to resign this is a pretty week one.

    1) The fact that blairmore avoided paying tax means it could afford to pay higher dividends to its investors which means that any british investor in the fund would pay higher income tax and if the investment is large enough, higher capital gains tax due to the increased value of the shares. If DC shares his tax returns and it turns out that he has paid all his taxes then is there an issue.

    2) DC seems to be copping a lot of the flack for the actions of his father.

    3) It's not as straight forward as saying that the company was set up purely to avoid tax. It was initial set up and based in the Bahamas because of the fixed exchange rate with the US dollar - the company traded in dollar bonds. In other words the company was set up where it would make most money. The fact that it was based in a tax haven doesnt mean that 0 tax is paid it just means that investor profits aren't double taxed, i think this makes it a bit less black and white morally.

    4) What does an investment firm actually owe the UK tax payer any way? Given that the fund doesn't utilise any of britains natural resources, doesn't use the british workforce. trades in non-uk debt. The only connection with britain is that he was born here.
    It's not like starbucks who take up space on our high street, make use of the british labour market (whch the tax payer has paid for since childhood) sell goods to the british people and then tax all the profits without paying tax. etc etc.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It's your argument.
    You've also said there was nothing morally wrong about Cameron's tax affairs, so how do you reckon there are still many questions to answer?
    There is nothing legally wrong with his tax affairs but there is something morally wrong with it. He had shares in an offshore company set up for tax avoidance, he has said that the Tories are the only part who have come down the hardest on tax avoidance when he was part of it himself, that's hypocritical. Again, he hasn't done anything illegal, but many people think that he's a hypocrite.

    The Prime Minister must resign because he apparently took a 'long time' to answer questions about a huge, complex scandal? Seriously do you hear what you're typing? If these are the standards we judge PMs by then we'd average 52 a year.
    You're not reading my posts properly. It's not just how long he took to answer important questions but what that implies. Again I ask, if you were involved in dodgy tax affairs then wouldn't you wait for media attention to go away from you? Wouldn't you try to hide it? Wouldn't you lie? That's what he did. If people take so long to answer questions like that and lie about it at first suggest he has something to hide. If a Prime Minister has something to hide it raises questions about his credibility. Do you want a credible Prime Minister or not? You would rather have a Prime Minister who is untrustworthy? I'm not saying I think this but I am saying what most people think. 94% of people think he should resign... Not saying he should but that's what people want.

    Personally, I think David Cameron is our best bet for now, because if he goes down then he might have worse people replace him such as George Osbourne, who is not a popular choice.

    Cameron was in a no-win position. Like I said earlier, people hear 'offshore' and get ahead of themselves. I certainly think he should have told the whole truth from the beginning but I can see why he wouldn't and it's certainly not an implication as to anything more at all. To try and infer anything more out of what actually has happened is pretty much the definition of sensationalism.
    That's true, people do hear 'offshore' and get ahead of themselves. So why wouldn't he try to tell the truth at the beginning? How would you know?

    Well... so much for sensationalism. More than 80,000 people have signed a petition for him to resign. People aren't happy with what he has done, his reputation is going and he's becoming less credible. Maybe that's why they want him to resign and not because of a "delay in response".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Lol, bet half the fools in this thread still drink at Starbucks, would pay their builders cash in hand, and order off Amazon.

    Get a life, normal humans tax avoid, and he hasn't even done that.
    Cause a fuss over an actual issue.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    He sold shares in a company based in a tax haven; he payed capital gains tax at the correct level and did nothing illegal. There's no reason this should be made an issue of.
    (Original post by Mr Hyde(r))
    Lol what David did was perfectly normal and legal. He had a shared account in a mutual fund outside the UK, it was a legitimate fund and had invested all over the world. He still paid tax on his profits, the only thing he didn't pay was the third layer of tax which was actually putting the money into the fund as the country the Blairmore fund was in had a 0% rate on it. He would have paid capital gains tax on it but the profit was small enough to allow him not to. There is nothing immoral about this, the only thing he did wrong was that he should have said all this on Monday and not let it be squeezed out of him.

    Those of you who think he will resign or be forced out are delusional to say the least, even the opposition parties merely state that he should have said it earlier. This shows that even they know he did nothing wrong.
    Shut it, you two. We deal in hysteria, partisanship and emotional nonsense around here, not facts and logic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Shut it, you two. We deal in hysteria, partisanship and emotional nonsense around here, not facts and logic.
    Lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We already know that we are all of us imperfect, so what`s the debate?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    He sold shares in a company based in a tax haven; he payed capital gains tax at the correct level and did nothing illegal. There's no reason this should be made an issue of.
    He didn't declare those interests though. Serving politicians are supposed to declare things like that if it is likely to affect the way they vote and debate in the commons. Maybe resignation is extreme but something needs to happen - if nothing happens then it sends a message to all the other self serving politicians that making large sums of money from offshore funds and then not declaring it is somehow acceptable behaviour. We certainly don't want to set a precedent like that.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 11, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.