How long will Cameron stay at No.10

vivatifosi

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

dunstonh wrote: »

The media are out in force today against him too. Yet, he doesnt actually appear to have done anything wrong. Focus on his mother gifting him money as PET. That is quite normal and covered within UK tax rules and commonly used by many parents when they get older.

A lot of the articles appear to be written by those that seem to confuse financial planning to reduce taxation with tax evasion.

Putting money in an ISA is tax avoidance. So, will the media start to go on about that soon?

It's rolled over into the area of pettiness now. Most of us are not wealthy enough to concern ourselves with offshore arrangements, at least directly. Yet many will consider gifting money under the seven year rule due to rampant HPI in the south east.

Why should anyone be surprised that Cameron has?

DiggerUK

vivatifosi wrote: »

...........I think the Brexit vote is the bigger risk to him............

dunstonh wrote: »

........he doesnt actually appear to have done anything wrong.

Legally he hasn't put a foot wrong, but pretending to crack down on tax avoidance schemes, then stymying EU efforts to curtail them; whilst taking full advantage of Blairmore holdings, is at best hypocritical.
He knew were the money came from, that it was 'accumulated in a tax efficient manner' and still argued for national austerity claiming "we are all in this together"
The figures about how much IHT the family avoided paying is unclear, but he benefited.

HornetSaver wrote: »

..........As for the poll, it remains open till after the EU refererendum.......

If he loses the EU referendum it would be the least embarrassing way for the party to dump him..._

kinger101

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

dunstonh wrote: »

Putting money in an ISA is tax avoidance. So, will the media start to go on about that soon?

Not quite. When people talk about tax avoidance, they mean using the legislation in a way the parliament didn't intend. So ISAs, pension contributions and childcare vouchers wouldn't fall within this definition. Tax evasion (which he wasn't accused of) is simply not paying tax which is due, and people often tend to hide assets for this purpose.

The simple fact is Cameron didn't actually avoid any tax. UK Residents are taxed on any dividends and capital gains on their worldwide assets. The capital gain on the disposal of the shares was under the annual exemption.

The only thing in my mind that is questionable is whether the Blairmore holdings was in fact UK resident. A former HMRC Inspector has suggested that if the tyres on Blairmore were kicked a little, then the question of where the company was managed might mean that it was actually UK resident. Companies are not resident in Panama just because they have an office and some employees there. But any transgression here is Cameron Snr's.

It's entirely a non story. If Cameron had been using Panama's secrecy laws to hide taxable income, of hide having a financial interest in a company, then it would be news. Indeed, it was the Icelandic PM's concealment of stocks he had in a company that was a creditor of the Icelandic banks that brought him down. Massive conflict of interest.

vivatifosi

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

DiggerUK wrote: »

Legally he hasn't put a foot wrong, but pretending to crack down on tax avoidance schemes, then stymying EU efforts to curtail them; whilst taking full advantage of Blairmore holdings, is at best hypocritical.

That's the crux of it. Everything else is window dressing. Focusing on other areas of his tax affairs takes away from this and seems petty.

Unfortunately politicians saying one thing in the UK (crack down on tax evaders) while doing another behind closed doors at the EU is not unusual. But this is where the story lies. He may well be a hypocrite, but he's a hypocrite who's doing nothing wrong.

I am not a Cameron apologist, I just think the focus is on the wrong part of the story.

Tromking

Gone within three months.

This is terminal for Cameron, his ability to pontificate on any moral standpoint is now hopelessly compromised. Tax planning is fine, seeking out a camera to gob off about the moral dubiousness of Jimmy Carr makes him a hypocrite of the highest order.

kinger101

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

Tromking wrote: »

This is terminal for Cameron, his ability to pontificate on any moral standpoint is now hopelessly compromised. Tax planning is fine, seeking out a camera to gob off about the moral dubiousness of Jimmy Carr makes him a hypocrite of the highest order.

There's no similarity in the K2 tax scheme Jimmy Carr used and anything Cameron has done. Even the Observer now admits Cameron has no case to answer.

DiggerUK

kinger101 wrote: »

............Even the Observer now admits Cameron has no case to answer.

As prime minister, his adherence to integrity should be a few levels above comedians like Ken Dodd or Jimmy Carr though..._

http://www.taxjustice.net/2016/04/08/what-david-cameron-got-wrong/

kinger101

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

DiggerUK wrote: »

As prime minister, his adherence to integrity should be a few levels above comedians like Ken Dodd or Jimmy Carr though..._

http://www.taxjustice.net/2016/04/08/what-david-cameron-got-wrong/

The article doesn't actually point out anything Cameron did wrong. There isn't a law saying all companies in the world must have the headquarters in the UK so they pay tax here. While Blairmore might have operated somewhat questionably, by your reasoning, every MP who has bought a book from Amazon or a coffee from Amazon should resign.

Although there certainly are tax advantages to having the fund located in Panama (or Ireland) compared to the UK, it doesn't alter the fact that the individual holding the units who is resident in the UK is taxed in the UK.

In fact, it's probably impossible to buy a single FTSE 100 stock where the management do not make attempts to reduce their tax liability. In that sense, every share and pension scheme holder in the UK is doing precisely what Cameron did.

Jimmy Carr deliberately set out to avoid tax using an aggressive scheme. Ken Dodd evaded tax by hiding income. Cameron just happened to hold some publicly quoted units in an investment fund.

If you can't see the difference between these, you don't understand what has happened.

Rinoa

Cameron's certainly done nothing illegal, nor for that matter particularly immoral. But this matter, on top of an accumulation of recent failings, makes his position very delicate.

Interesting article on how his days as PM may be numbered.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3531040/PETER-OBORNE-beginning-end-Cameron-era.html

Spidernick

kinger101 wrote: »

The simple fact is Cameron didn't actually avoid any tax. UK [STRIKE]Residents[/STRIKE] domiciles are taxed on any dividends and capital gains on their worldwide assets. The capital gain on the disposal of the shares was under the annual exemption.

Corrected that for you, otherwise a good post.

Given all the stick he's getting, Cameron might well think 'Sod this' and leave before the end of the year, irrespective of the referendum result. I've read that his wife doesn't want him to stay long, as she'd rather be sunning herself overseas much of the time, rather than stuck in the UK.

I do wonder what Ed Miliband feels about it all (and David) given the way their late father's memory was dragged through the mud a while back solely for political reasons, which is far worse than anything directed at Ian Cameron this week.

My feeling re Corbyn is that if the May local elections go badly, possibly even the London Mayoral election, then the pressure on him may be increased. In the unlikely event of us voting to leave the EU, he may also come under pressure for not doing much but rather let the Tories tear themselves apart.

Time will tell.