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:


    So when asked if he benefits or will benefit from offshore funds in a tax haven, Osborne refuses to answer the question.

    A simple no would have done.

    If you have nothing to hide Gideon...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Good for him, income tax is too high


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    For a start this case was about profits, not income tax.

    But besides that point, comments and threads like this make me despair.
    We get very angry at exploitation at the bottom. We get furious when people spend benefit money on **** and beer. We go apesh*t when he hear of cases of benefit fraud. We demand harsh and big action against abuse at the bottom.


    Yet when the ultra wealthy exploit the system, to find loopholes to avoid paying the lawful taxes that everyone else does they are met with a mixture of indifference and support.
    We are regularly told we need to go after and reduce benefits because it costs so much. Yet we lose a hundred times more in tax avoidance. Our public services are in dire straits and in desperate need of funds yet we do nothing about one of the major sources of lost revenue.

    It's a two tier system, it's abhorrent when those at the bottom exploit and abuse the system but fine when those at the top do it.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Bornblue)


    So when asked if he benefits or will benefit from offshore funds in a tax haven, Osborne refuses to answer the question.

    A simple no would have done.

    If you have nothing to hide Gideon...
    Exactly.
    Offline

    21
    I also hate the word "late" to describe someone who is deceased. Late means you took too long to do something. "Camerons late father". CAMERON'S DEAD DAD FFS!! Just say it like it is.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Calling for somebody to resign over something their father did? Utterly pathetic.
    A Prime Minister reaping rewards from a large-scale tax avoidance scheme, in a time of austerity no less, is a total disgrace and a glaring conflict of interests.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Solid 2015 article from Toby Young breaking down the confused arguments against tax avoidance.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/i...u-dont-either/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Solid 2015 article from Toby Young breaking down the confused arguments against tax avoidance.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/i...u-dont-either/
    Bogus argument really.
    We have a two tier system where if you have lots of money you can pay no tax but if you're poor you have to.

    And I'm sure your argument is 'blame the laws not people who exploit them' but when it's pointed out that the same firms who benefit from tax avoidance pay the tories to write tax codes, it's oligarchy. You seem to think it's okay for big corporate firms who directly benefit from tax avoidance to write the tax laws rather than have impartial experts do it.

    Your argument just keeps shifting the goalposts. You say you blame the system not the people but then you also support the system which allows corporate firms who benefit from tax avoidance to write our tax laws.

    And the strangest part is that you'll never be rich enough to use one of these schemes that you're currently funding.

    We are regularly told we have to cut public services and make cuts to the disabled because there's no money left yet we allow this loss of hundreds of millions per year.

    David Cameron a few years ago called tax avoidance immoral, wonder what he thinks of his father now.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Bogus argument really.
    We have a two tier system where if you have lots of money you can pay no tax but if you're poor you have to.

    And I'm sure your argument is 'blame the laws not people who exploit them' but when it's pointed out that the same firms who benefit from tax avoidance pay the tories to write tax codes, it's oligarchy. You seem to think it's okay for big corporate firms who directly benefit from tax avoidance to write the tax laws rather than have impartial experts do it.

    Your argument just keeps shifting the goalposts. You say you blame the system not the people but then you also support the system which allows corporate firms who benefit from tax avoidance to write our tax laws.

    And the strangest part is that you'll never be rich enough to use one of these schemes that you're currently funding.

    We are regularly told we have to cut public services and make cuts to the disabled because there's no money left yet we allow this loss of hundreds of millions per year.

    David Cameron a few years ago called tax avoidance immoral, wonder what he thinks of his father now.
    I note that you haven't explained where the article's reasoning fails -- I suspect because you didn't bother to read it, which is a little odd given you chose to respond to my post, although it would explain why you've just rehashed every post you made to me on the first couple of pages of this thread. The truth is that you haven't been able to produce in any of your posts any coherent argument as to why people should be considered morally obliged to pay more tax than the law requires them to.

    I think it is okay to employ experts in the writing of legislation where necessary. I do not condone any improper action by any individual involved in the process to bend the rules to their own advantage.

    Even if you had some way of knowing about my personal finances present or future they would not be particularly relevant to any argument or comment I've made.

    David Cameron probably made a mistake in calling tax avoidance immoral. This is a good example of why a leader ought not to pander to incoherent views.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Bogus argument really.
    We have a two tier system where if you have lots of money you can pay no tax but if you're poor you have to.
    One set of rules for the elite and another for the rest of us, eh? Except we all live under the same rules, they just have the money to justify the expense. And a poor person can still avoid paying taxes, just in much more limited ways for reasons of practically and worth, and for smaller proportional sums.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    A Prime Minister reaping rewards from a large-scale tax avoidance scheme, in a time of austerity no less, is a total disgrace and a glaring conflict of interests.
    You clearly do not understand what a conflict of interest actually is.

    The Icelandic PM had a conflict of interest. He was involved in determining the proportions in which the losses of Icelandic banks would be borne by different classes of persons who had dealings with those banks, at a time when he and his family were secretly members of one of the affected classes. His personal position might have swayed his political judgement.

    Any benefit which Cameron's father or Cameron himself had derived from the off-shore investment fund had been received long before Cameron advocated a clamp down on tax avoidance. Whatever position Cameron took on future tax avoidance would not make a penny piece difference to his or his late father's accumulated wealth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EccentricDiamond)
    Who gives a ****, labour destroyed this country beyond recognition with diversity and multiculturalism
    tell me about it. what with muslims dictating how christians act and in general how we should all treat them otherwise we are islamaphobic or somehow racist xD it is not only in the UK but everywhere in europe....it's like we lost our national pride and we are letting in millions of refugees just because their neighbouring countries wanted off with them...dark times ahead
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRUsername99)
    Good for him, good for TERRORISTS!!!11!!
    What on earth are you talking about?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What on earth are you talking about?
    If Daves dad can hide his money so can TERRORISTS!!1!!!! There must be no safe spaces for TERRORISTS!!1!!!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    For a start this case was about profits, not income tax.

    But besides that point, comments and threads like this make me despair.
    We get very angry at exploitation at the bottom. We get furious when people spend benefit money on **** and beer. We go apesh*t when he hear of cases of benefit fraud. We demand harsh and big action against abuse at the bottom.


    Yet when the ultra wealthy exploit the system, to find loopholes to avoid paying the lawful taxes that everyone else does they are met with a mixture of indifference and support.
    We are regularly told we need to go after and reduce benefits because it costs so much. Yet we lose a hundred times more in tax avoidance. Our public services are in dire straits and in desperate need of funds yet we do nothing about one of the major sources of lost revenue.

    It's a two tier system, it's abhorrent when those at the bottom exploit and abuse the system but fine when those at the top do it.
    People who say things like that are simply showing themselves be daily mail readers. People think that the amount of people who claim benefits and never want to work is much higher than it is.

    But if it were the case that we had this mass of people claiming benefits to buy cigarettes and beer it would be completely understandable that people wouldn't want to pay tax


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I note that you haven't explained where the article's reasoning fails -- I suspect because you didn't bother to read it, which is a little odd given you chose to respond to my post, although it would explain why you've just rehashed every post you made to me on the first couple of pages of this thread. The truth is that you haven't been able to produce in any of your posts any coherent argument as to why people should be considered morally obliged to pay more tax than the law requires them to.
    I have read it actually. As much as it pained me to read something by Toby Young, makes Cameron look unsmug.

    His argument were the same as yours, put more clearly and smugly for sure but containing the same gaping holes and goalpost shifting as yours.
    His argument like yours is essentially 'they're doing nothing illegal'. You say blame the system not the people who exploit it, yet when I bring up the system, you defend it...

    But I don't believe at all you can just separate the two. The people who benefit and the system itself are not entirely separate entities, shown by how those who make the laws benefit from them.

    As for why 'people should be morally obliged', well the law intends them to pay 45% of tax or the relevant amount of corporation tax. It purposely allows for some exceptions such as ISAS which are intended for people to save. But these tax avoidance schemes are not expressly provided for or intended. It's taking advantage of a legal loophole.

    And again, these people benefit from having a system of roads and sewers, having a police force which protects them, having armed forces, having clean air, having a judiciary, having a monarchy etc. They enjoy the benefits of living in a civilised nation which keeps order and protects them, yet they don't want to pay any tax. That's the definition of a scrounger.

    The great irony is that those who avoid tax and those who support it tend to be the most patriotic, yet there are few things less patriotic than not paying any money into all these services like the army etc which they so claim to value.

    So yes there is something wrong. David Cameron slated Jimmy Carr for tax avoiding but he's not slated his own dad who by the sounds of it has shifted far more abroad... why is that?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    A Prime Minister reaping rewards from a large-scale tax avoidance scheme, in a time of austerity no less, is a total disgrace and a glaring conflict of interests.
    You know, I could almost accept it, although I hate tax dodging, if he was honest about it, but to find out he then blocked EU Parliamentary attempts to clamp down on it is the worst thing. Oh sorry. Not quite the worst. He then banged on in PMQs about how heroic he and little Georgie Liar are in leading the assault on the tax havens.

    It's all just unbelievably twisting hypocritical ******** and classic Toryism of the worst kind. It's total proof of why one should never, ever vote Tory, no matter how much one feels provoked into doing it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You clearly do not understand what a conflict of interest actually is.

    The Icelandic PM had a conflict of interest. He was involved in determining the proportions in which the losses of Icelandic banks would be borne by different classes of persons who had dealings with those banks, at a time when he and his family were secretly members of one of the affected classes. His personal position might have swayed his political judgement.

    Any benefit which Cameron's father or Cameron himself had derived from the off-shore investment fund had been received long before Cameron advocated a clamp down on tax avoidance. Whatever position Cameron took on future tax avoidance would not make a penny piece difference to his or his late father's accumulated wealth.
    It isn't a direct conflict of interest, but it's a conflict of cultures, Cameron clearly belongs to a family that believes this kind of behaviour is all fine and dandy and not only that, he defends the mechanisms that make it work at an EU level, whilst odiously and hypocritically claiming in the House that he's busy clamping down.

    However, you are only supposing that Cameron has no direct gain and I suspect more will be revealed on that in due course.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It isn't a direct conflict of interest, but it's a conflict of cultures, Cameron clearly belongs to a family that believes this kind of behaviour is all fine and dandy and not only that, he defends the mechanisms that make it work at an EU level, whilst odiously and hypocritically claiming in the House that he's busy clamping down.

    However, you are only supposing that Cameron has no direct gain and I suspect more will be revealed on that in due course.
    It is somewhat improbable Cameron had no direct gain. He was undoubtedly financially supported by his father at a time when father's income derived to a significant extent from running this fund even if father had no financial interest in the fund himself (and that is unknown).

    Cameron has been a very shallow thinker here. I don't think he does believe this kind of behaviour is okay. There is nothing wrong with his father's actions and if he had a spine he should say so.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)

    As for why 'people should be morally obliged', well the law intends them to pay 45% of tax or the relevant amount of corporation tax. It purposely allows for some exceptions such as ISAS which are intended for people to save. But these tax avoidance schemes are not expressly provided for or intended. It's taking advantage of a legal loophole.
    An argument that was specifically addressed in the article I linked. As was your 'roads and sewers' argument.

    I'm afraid I'm not particularly interested in going around in circles at the surface of this issue.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like Caneron has done a u turn and now admits he did profit from his father's tax avoiding scheme.

    I've never understood why politicians do this damage limitation denial thing when it comes to scandal, it just makes you look even worse when are have to admit the truth.

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016...-panama-papers
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.