Cameron Tax Dodger

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Nope again....I was talking about both.

ok then give us you views on Corbyn inheritance and his mysteriously missing 6 years of tax returns (no smoke without fire) , the Benns inheritance tax planning, Ken and his laundering through a company, the despicable Hodge and her dodgy off shore income etc.
and why Corbyn hasn't committed to introducing tax transparency.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

ok then give us you views on Corbyn inheritance and his mysteriously missing 6 years of tax returns (no smoke without fire) , the Benns inheritance tax planning, Ken and his laundering through a company, the despicable Hodge and her dodgy off shore income etc.
and why Corbyn hasn't committed to introducing tax transparency.

Already have see above. In any event I repeat why do you care so much what I think ???? Are my views that important to you?;)

Moby

Generali wrote: »

they are scum that should have something terrible done to them.

Fixed it for you!;)

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Already have see above. In any event I repeat why do you care so much what I think ???? Are my views that important to you?;)

The discussion was about tax avoidance and its legal and moral aspects.
You have use vile language to describe perfectly legal devices on the basis of 'morality' : but it seems your view of morality doesn't apply to Labour people only Tories
as I've said; you have no principles and no moral compass except hatred of the tories.

princeofpounds

So I thought I would put a little more information into the thread here (as the press have been putting lots of smoke in peoples' eyes on this subject). I found an interesting report written by JPMorgan about onshore vs. offshore investment trusts. I can't just copy-paste given copyright issues, but I can put down some related bullets:


- Of all the Investment Trusts/Offshore Investment Companies listed in the UK, 66% are offshore, and 34% are offshore (like the Trust in question for Cameron).


- The function of investment trusts is, amongst others, to a) share risk of investment amongst various co-investors b) aggregate assets to buy investments no individual can afford or access alone c) aggregate assets to get to a scale where professional management is economic d) provide tradeable securities when the underlying investment is not easily tradeable.


- Both of these structures, onshore and offshore, at set up to minimise (legally) tax at the trust level in the same way. They don't help individuals avoid tax in their home residence (unless you are a non-dom and meet certain criteria, which Cameron has never been).


- The key principle is actually stopping double taxation, not avoiding taxation that is already due. If you want to invest in a corporate, that gets taxed as normal.


If you want to put that investment in a collective investment trust, just for the valuable administrative reasons listed above, then it would be unfair to tax it again.


It would essentially double-tax people who cannot afford to buy companies solo. People holding assets in a fund structure should not be disadvantaged vs. people holding assets direct.


- Investment trust companies have been free of capital gains tax onshore since 1980 without any controversy (there were similar rules before that, it's not a new concept). In return, they have to obey certain rules; they have to hold diversified investments, and they have to pay at least 85% of their income out to shareholders each year, which is potentially taxable. Capital gains made by owners of the trust shares are also potentially taxable.


- Offshore funds historically weren't actually that popular, as they didn't really have any kind of tax advantage to a British resident who was paying all their tax. However, they mushroomed in the 90s because onshore investment trusts were limited to just shares and bonds at the time (so no infrastructure etc.).


- There is a tiny tax benefit to offshore funds in the usual jurisdictions because a) there is no stamp duty on a transaction and b) you don't pay VAT on service fees paid by the trust.


- There is another potential tax benefit to offshore funds because there is a bit more flexibility over whether returns are transferred from underlying investments as interest income or dividends. But any gains you make here at the trust level form part of your capital gains, so they end up getting taxed anyway in that way.


- Some real estate funds are actually coming onshore from being offshore to avoid tax, because the UK has adopted a new Real Estate Investment Trust structure that allows rental income to be paid out at a lower tax rates. Although the end receiver then has them taxed as income rather than dividends. That's quite a common structure worldwide.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

The discussion was about tax avoidance and its legal and moral aspects.
You have use vile language to describe perfectly legal devices on the basis of 'morality' : but it seems your view of morality doesn't apply to Labour people only Tories
as I've said; you have no principles and no moral compass except hatred of the tories.

'Vile' language:rotfl:That's brilliant....get over yourself mate!You take yourself far too seriously. It's a poxy forum!

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

'Vile' language:rotfl:That's brilliant....get over yourself mate!You take yourself far too seriously. It's a poxy forum!

any old rubbish to void discussing inheritance and tax avoidance by senior labour party people and how it deeply offend your 'moral' code : just like your admiration and lack of moral judgment on those that walk beside the IRA killers.

Mistermeaner

moby is blatant example of the duplicity of alot of the left; they superficially espouse a higher moral ground using terms like 'fair' but dig a little under the surface and what actually transpires is that they are just a 'selfish' as tories in looking to better their own position its just that folk like moby improve their own position best by being part of the collective under the labour banner which generally pays pubic sector workers more money - it is thus easy to talk the talk about 'fairness' from a public good point of view in support of the party who claims to represent that view where actually their only concern is their own personal wealth - they are just incapable of doing anything about improving their own situation themselves so have to rely on a government that will take things from others to give to them.

This is why no labour voters voluntarily over pay tax / hand back their tax credits / turn down their public sector pensions. The latter particularly is a huge burden for society at large as the unfunded and overly generous pensions present a huge burden to the deficit and other public spending on things such as the NHS but they have 'earned' their pensions and hence don't want to put that money back into the public pot.

They do however think while it is OK for them to take huge sums of money from the public pot as individuals that to make up the shortfall in spending ambitions that people in the private sector who generate wealth through their efforts should pay more into the public pot.

Its a strange duplicity and hypocritical view that many of them miss.

Doctors strikes yet another example of the same hypocracy at work.

chewmylegoff

Moby wrote: »

You really are naive mate. In no way was it 'incompetence'. It was premeditated dissembling to avoid the fury that followed. He knew how it would be seen. Can't you see that?

The problem with Jezza is that he's too straight and rather slow in some ways. He doen't dissemble at all ...that's partly why he isn't a good leader. He claims amongst the lowest expenses of any MP. He is not motivated by money/financial advantage in any way. He is the true idealist. Whereas Cameron is a liar and a fraud...... which sadly in this world makes him a more effective leader in some ways because it enables him to square the divisions within his own party. He's like the master of the art who he learned this from.....Tony Blair!

So you think that Cameron's disastrous press releases were a calculated scheme to avoid the fury that followed? It's pretty clear that the way that he release the information poured fuel on the fire - your primary focus (now that you've had to admit you are unable to say what tax has been avoided or how) is that he wasn't transparent in his dealings - so you are angry with him for not coming clean initially but at the same time you think he was trying to avoid your anger by not coming clean?!

You seem to have confused yourself.

And after spending the whole thread besmirching people for defending Cameron on the basis that he has made a full disclosure of everything he should have on his tax return, you are now defending corbyn for failing to disclose material parts of his income on his tax return!

Basically your views on people's actions seem to be formed entirely on whether you like their politics or not.

In summary, Cameron is a liar and a fraud and the evidence for this is that he has disclosed all of his income, paid all tax due and not engaged in any contrived tax avoidance as far as you are aware.

On the other hand Corbyn's failure to disclose all of his income to HMRC or to the public appears to you to be evidence of infallible honesty.

Either you are: a cartoon character from Viz; permanently drunk; Jeremy Corbyn; or Harry Redknapp's dog. I don't think there are any other plausible explanations for your logic.

chris_m

princeofpounds wrote: »

- Of all the Investment Trusts/Offshore Investment Companies listed in the UK, 66% are offshore, and 34% are offshore (like the Trust in question for Cameron).

Is that what you really meant to type? If so wouldn't it have just been quicker to type "all are offshore"?