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

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by the bear)
    is that libel or slander... i always get them mixed up ? :hmmmm2:
    Libel is printed, slander is spoken but is also informally a synonym of defamation which libel and slander are types of.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Libel is printed, slander is spoken but is also informally a synonym of defamation which libel and slander are types of.
    so Ms Surprises libelled the Prime Minister... thanks Jammy.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Milibands dad used an isa which is expressly allowed and intended by Parliament. There is no loophole.

    On the contrary Cameron's family exploited a legal loophole, unintended by Parliament to avoid tax, going against the spirit of the law.
    You mean Parliament intended to tax every bar and street vendor in Panama City?

    No?

    Then what do you mean?

    If the answer if well, it was owned by Brits. So is virtually every bar on the Costa Del Sol, and Osborne doesn't tax these.

    The point is that tax has to have a territorial scope. We do that for businesses on the basis of their residency. Other countries tax in different ways e.g. the USA on nationality. Ultimately every country has to draw a distinction between those who are fair game for its taxmen and those who are the pickings of some other country's taxmen. There will inevitably be some people on one side of that boundary and others on the opposite side; but you can't just change that boundary because you don't like the fact that someone is on the other side of it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Iceland's PM has gone over Panama.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412

    Now then David, what's your excuse for clinging to office?
    You're serious suggesting a Prime Minister should resign for something that is unquestionably legal that his now-deceased father did?

    ****ing hell. Sometimes this country is absolutely bonkers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Iceland's PM has gone over Panama.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35966412

    Now then David, what's your excuse for clinging to office?
    Calling for somebody to resign over something their father did? Utterly pathetic.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You mean Parliament intended to tax every bar and street vendor in Panama City?

    No?

    Then what do you mean?

    If the answer if well, it was owned by Brits. So is virtually every bar on the Costa Del Sol, and Osborne doesn't tax these.

    The point is that tax has to have a territorial scope. We do that for businesses on the basis of their residency. Other countries tax in different ways e.g. the USA on nationality. Ultimately every country has to draw a distinction between those who are fair game for its taxmen and those who are the pickings of some other country's taxmen. There will inevitably be some people on one side of that boundary and others on the opposite side; but you can't just change that boundary because you don't like the fact that someone is on the other side of it.
    You're going to quite extraordinary lengths to justify tax avoidance. It's purposely finding and exploiting an unintended legal loophole to avoid tax.

    We are regularly told we have to make cuts and saving because there isn't enough money. Yet we allow tax avoidance which costs of hundreds of millions to take place.

    The double standards are astonishing. We're more bothered about going after pennies lost through benefit fraud than hundreds of millions in tax avoidance.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    This is becoming quite a tired argument. No matter how rigorous the legal frameworks, if you put thousands of highly paid City people onto the case, you will find loopholes. The problem is not the laws but the corrupted system where an entire industry is devoted to offshoring a critical part of our national tax base, to the detriment of all of us.

    I think a simple response would be to remove citizenship from all persons caught engaging in such conduct and prohibit them from ever receiving any access to public services. They would, for example, not be permitted to drive on British roads. Similarly, we should prevent all the tax-dodging corporations from having any access to things like police and fire protection, taxpayer-funded motorway connections or subsidised airports. (which is all of them)
    You can't remove citizenship and leave people stateless, ask Francois Hollande.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/wo...rism.html?_r=0
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Calling for somebody to resign over something their father did? Utterly pathetic.
    He shouldn't resign but he should be more honest about how much he knew/whether he has inherited money from the scheme and whether his family are still involved in it.

    Apparently the fact that the leader of the opposition had two kitchens was worthy of front page news so I think this definitely is.

    Cameron claimed 'it's a private matter', yet he doesn't hold that standard for other people. Remember his whole 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' as an excuse for intrusion.


    He shouldn't resign no, but he should be a damn site more honest. We have a right to know if our PM and his family have been engaged in a massive tax avoidance scandal.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You're going to quite extraordinary lengths to justify tax avoidance. It's purposely finding and exploiting an unintended legal loophole to avoid tax.
    I can recognize a loophole when I see one. What here was unintended? At the time this was done, no-one expected that the profits of foreign companies in which Brits had invested would ever be within the scope of UK tax.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I can recognize a loophole when I see one. What here was unintended? At the time this was done, no-one expected that the profits of foreign companies in which Brits had invested would ever be within the scope of UK tax.
    You earn money here, you should pay tax here. Like everyone else. It's that simple.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    You can't remove citizenship and leave people stateless, ask Francois Hollande.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/wo...rism.html?_r=0
    I'm willing in the interests of leniency to drop that part of the sentence. However, it is too much to ask that public services continue to be extended to such people if they cannot be bothered to help pay for them.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I can recognize a loophole when I see one. What here was unintended? At the time this was done, no-one expected that the profits of foreign companies in which Brits had invested would ever be within the scope of UK tax.
    I think the whole system would work better if they were and if that generally applied as a principle to all countries.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    You're serious suggesting a Prime Minister should resign for something that is unquestionably legal that his now-deceased father did?

    ****ing hell. Sometimes this country is absolutely bonkers.
    this is the kind of fairytale logic with which Mr Corbyn and his pals would run the country.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You earn money here, you should pay tax here. Like everyone else. It's that simple.
    Who is the "you" in that statement?

    If the "you" is the Panamanian company, then clearly it didn't earn money in the UK. It went to a lot of trouble not to be conducting business in the UK.

    If the "you" is the investor then at the time these arrangements were made, the investor wasn't seen as earning money anywhere; the Panamanian company was seen as earning the money, until the Panamanian company paid a dividend to the investor. Once a dividend was paid then, subject to any fraudulent evasion, that was taxable as part of the investor's income.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I think the whole system would work better if they were and if that generally applied as a principle to all countries.
    Try telling a Frenchman that the profits of Alstom shouldn't be taxed in France insofar as the shares were owned by Brits or Germans.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    No, I wouldn't be any different. If nothing else you have to keep up if everyone else is doing it. That's the point. The law needs changing, it is impossible to stop people being greedy, the law just has to channel it in such a way that rational self-interest accidentally ends up helping wider society. However the law will not change as long as we keep being presented with and electing the sort of people who stand to benefit from these wheezes.

    The very fact that if I got into power I would want to do everything I could to shut down tax havens - even if out of rational self-interest I was using the things myself - almost guarantees that I am the sort of person who will never be in a position to come to power. However jaded you may be you have to admit that this is a world gone topsy-turvy.

    The trade unions, incidentally, used to be a route to influence for modest people with modest people interests but of course they made damn sure they killed that off.

    My rant above is preposterous but it is absolutely no less than these cheats and liars who pretend to be serving the British public deserve.
    In which case we seem to be largely in agreement. People are entitled to manage their property according to the law as it is stated -- yes? -- but the law should be crafted so far as possible to ensure that tax is paid to an appropriate level and in a fair manner. If we do agree up to that point I am not entirely sure how I managed to prompt such venom.

    As for the last part of your first paragraph, I pointed out earlier that every politician will have views of particular systems that are influenced by their own backgrounds and experiences. You have to judge them on what they actually do. On that basis, you may take a dim view of them anyway. I take a less dim view, but don't feel the need to delve into the issue because it is not the only issue I'm voting on, and far from the most important.

    I think someone with radical left wing views is currently at the helm of the Labour Party. Whether the British public can be convinced to vote for that sort of policy platform is another question.
    (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.
    What is it that you are seeking to achieve by intentionally misusing the word 'evade' here?

    If you wish to dispute the validity of the distinction, it would surely be more productive, or at least more clear and less of a distraction, to do it directly.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm willing in the interests of leniency to drop that part of the sentence. However, it is too much to ask that public services continue to be extended to such people if they cannot be bothered to help pay for them.
    You can't go there or you will break the social contract. Half of society (ish) take out more than they put in. The underclass "can't be bothered to help pay" at all, to use your phrase. Are you going to take away THEIR citizenship?

    The richest taxpayers keep everything afloat:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ncome-tax.html
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    and a supposed non-dom for tax purposes.
    Do you have a credible source for this. His background looks implausible for a non-dom.

    Essentially non-doms are a creation of greed of the British taxman backfiring.

    Domicile being something other than the country in which you live is a 19th century invention. The idea is that you acquire a domicile at birth which reverts whenever you have no other domicile and that is based on your father's domicile at the time of your birth.

    The problem was that the British taxman wouldn't let go of Brits moving abroad (including to other parts of the Empire). By a series of court decisions he made it very hard to acquire a domicile of choice different from one's domicile of origin.

    As Britain has come to attract wealthy individuals they have used those arguments in reverse. They say that despite residing here for decades, they have not acquired a domicile of choice in the UK and retain their domicile of origin which was their father's domicile.

    You may be born in the UK and lived your entire life in the UK, but your father never acquired a domicile of choice in the UK and so your domicile of origin is abroad. You have no domicile of choice in the UK and so are domiciled in a country you may never even have visited.

    In the case of Dacre it doesn't look likely that his father ever had a foreign domicile.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Good for him, income tax is too high


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Good for him, income tax is too high
    Good for him, good for TERRORISTS!!!11!!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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