Panama Papers

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

It's not as if the tories ever questioned a labour leader's dad's loyalty to the UK .... no, wait a minute....:cool:

Moby

chewmylegoff wrote: »

But what is the evidence that these people who make govt policy in the UK are avoiding tax whilst telling you that you can't have a payrise? So far we have evidence that the father of the prime minister was the director of an investment fund with multiple clients incorporated in a tax haven. This hardly equates to what you are saying - it's not like the Panama papers show George Osborne embezzling govt funds and hiding them in a numbered Swiss bank account whilst laughing at your 0% payrise.

I'm still not clear what taxes you think are being wrongfully evaded and what you think morally acceptable looks like. Is it your view that it should be illegal for any UK person to invest money in a company located in another jurisdiction?

Presumably therefore you want to ban UK companies from having overseas subsidiaries (which pay no UK corporation tax on their profits even when those profits are remitted to the UK thanks to the reforms of Gordon Brown). You must also want to ban all inward investment into the UK as we can't have overseas nationals investing their money in the UK rather than investing it locally for all of the same reasons? Or is inward investment legitimate, it's only outward investment that is the problem?

I'm suggesting total transparency for a start! Every detail! Getting the truth from Cameron is like nailing jelly to a wall. The problem is we don't know what is going on.....but why would Ian Cameron go to the trouble of using such financial instruments? Why would he set up a faux company, (Blairmore), move funds between Panama, Geneva and Ireland? Was he investing in a company outside our jurisdiction or avoiding paying tax in our jurisdiction? The motives should be made public!

Every travel claim I submit is scrutinised and pinged back to me if I'm a penny over my claim. I'm reminded continually to use the cheapest transport options available. My dinner allowance is under a tenner!
I want the same rules to apply to them in their tax affairs. Did you see Osborne arrogantly end an interview at lunch time yesterday .....claiming too many questions were being asked and the nature of the questions had changed from what was agreed?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

'David Cameron intervened personally to prevent offshore trusts from being dragged into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance, it has emerged.'

Eight members of China’s Communist party elite whose family members used offshore companies were revealed but members of the Chinese public were unlikely to hear about them because state censors have ordered reports on the Panama Papers to be deleted, with the warning: “If material from foreign media attacking China is found on any website, it will be dealt with severely.”

We can't control what other country's do of course but it seems communist China is taking advantage of a system which is corrupt to the core!

vivatifosi

Moby wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

'David Cameron intervened personally to prevent offshore trusts from being dragged into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance, it has emerged!

I don't think this juxtaposition got as much coverage as it deserved yesterday. Instead it was buried under the negative response to the government spend on Brexit campaigning.

My sense is that if we stay in the EU, this issue will work its way back on to the agenda pdq.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

It's not as if the tories ever questioned Jeremy's dad's loyalty to the UK .... no, wait a minute....:cool:

what's this about Jeremy's dad : gives us the details as I haven't heard about this.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

I'm suggesting total transparency for a start! Every detail! Getting the truth from Cameron is like nailing jelly to a wall. The problem is we don't know what is going on.....but why would Ian Cameron go to the trouble of using such financial instruments? Why would he set up a faux company, (Blairmore), move funds between Panama, Geneva and Ireland? Was he investing in a company outside our jurisdiction or avoiding paying tax in our jurisdiction? The motives should be made public!

Every travel claim I submit is scrutinised and pinged back to me if I'm a penny over my claim. I'm reminded continually to use the cheapest transport options available. My dinner allowance is under a tenner!
I want the same rules to apply to them in their tax affairs. Did you see Osborne arrogantly end an interview at lunch time yesterday .....claiming too many questions were being asked and the nature of the questions had changed from what was agreed?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

'David Cameron intervened personally to prevent offshore trusts from being dragged into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance, it has emerged.'

Eight members of China’s Communist party elite whose family members used offshore companies were revealed but members of the Chinese public were unlikely to hear about them because state censors have ordered reports on the Panama Papers to be deleted, with the warning: “If material from foreign media attacking China is found on any website, it will be dealt with severely.”

We can't control what other country's do of course but it seems communist China is taking advantage of a system which is corrupt to the core!

what we need is totally openness about all people's income and taxation:
maybe we shall have a poll on the question

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

It's not as if the tories ever questioned Jeremy's dad's loyalty to the UK .... no, wait a minute....:cool:

Did Tories do that or was it the newspapers? (Genuine q. but IIRC it was the newspapers which is a different thing entirely).

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Did Tories do that or was it the newspapers? (Genuine q. but IIRC it was the newspapers which is a different thing entirely).

Perhaps the poster concerned is confusing Corbyn with Miliband? I know that the Daily Mail had a pop at Ralph Miliband's views, but I can't recall anyone doing the same to David Corbyn who, as far as I'm aware, was a perfectly respectable middle-class electrical engineer in possession of a seven bedroomed manor house in Cheltenham.

zagubov

My bad: - I meant to type "a labour leader's dad" and typed Jeremy by mistake.

DigForVictory

Ripping fun though all this stuff is, unless the leaked documents will be acceptable to courts, most of what it does is just open eyes to wrongdoing, not making it formally punishable.

The legal status will determine whether HMRC may seize or freeze assets for the benefit of the Exchequer.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

My bad: - I meant to type "a labour leader's dad" and typed Jeremy by mistake.

So it wasn't the Tories....not really very much the same thing at all. It doesn't seem reasonable to hold the Tories responsible for everything the Mail writes any more than it would be reasonable to hold Mr C responsible for the rubbish Ms Toynbee writes.