Cameron Tax Dodger

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

he is a hypocrite because he condemned people who were behaving legally but not, in his opinion morally like e.g. Jimmy Carr
he has never has had any moral fibre or any moral principles : just the knee jerk re-action to events although I do give him credit for often talking but doing nothing

This is the problem - no one seems to understand what is going on.

Jimmy Carr engaged in a contrived arrangement whereby he attempted to transform his income into a loan from an offshore company. I'm not sure there is a lot of evidence to suggest that he was behaving legally in this regard... It was a registered tax avoidance scheme but that judt means HMRC have been notified of it, not that they have agreed thst it was a legal arrangement.

Cameron, on the other hand, invested in a offshore fund which managed his money on a pooled basis and invested it in listed securities. He paid UK taxes that were due on the income and gains from that fund. Those UK taxes would have been EXACTLY the same had the fund been incorporated in England and Wales.

A lot has been made of the fact that blairmore holdings has paid no corporation tax in 30 years - but it wouldnt have paid any if it was onshore as collective investment schemes do not pay tax on dividend income or gains from dealing in shares.

So, he is not a hypocrite because he did not avoid or evade any tax, whereas Jimmy Carr did.

Mistermeaner

This whole thing smack's of desperation from the left hoping to take advantage of the general ignorance of large parts of the population and hark back to good old days of strike mentality honorable working class men against the elite.

poorly judged IMO as more identify with the Cameron's and Osbourne's of this country than the foots and s Cargill's of 30 years ago.

Virtually anyone in a DC pension scheme sipp and vast numbers with ISA's junior ISA's and ctfs will be invested in exactly the way Cameron was (directly or indirectly)

Of course if you are part of a public sector unfunded scheme fedby the magic money printing machine you needn't concern yourself with the facts of how things like economies function and global investment tools work.

Tromking

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Of course if you are part of a public sector unfunded scheme fed by the magic money printing machine you needn't concern yourself with the facts of how things like economies function and global investment tools work.

That's a bit unfair on Cameron, despite being a 15 year member of one of the most generous public sector schemes he seems to be fairly savvy about the things you talk of.

ffacoffipawb

Are we expected to believe he earned no dividends or interest income (taxed or untaxed) in 2014/2015?

Does he have no savings at all?

Incredible.

Or given to his wife to avoid paying tax perhaps.

Fined £100 for late filing of returns and he doesn't keep his own copies either? It sums up Labour's attitude to money-easy come easy go and, hey, there's always the benefits system.

Interestingly, the figures released show that Osborne's tax bill paid for Corbyn's salary, with some left over for the NHS. I think people like Corbyn should show a bit more gratitude.

C_Mababejive

This whole tax thing is a total non story. He hasnt broken the law,simples.

Who wouldnt avoid tax if they could? why i took some steps this very day to avoid some tax perfectly legally.

Anyway, at what point did any of us agree to pay any tax?

BobQ

DiggerUK wrote: »

The legality of what Cameron, and the Cameron family have done is not the issue. It's all legal.
The hypocrisy of David Cameron is not the issue either, hypocrisy and politicians are like peas and carrots.

The issue here is the conflict of interest as the head of the UK legislative assembly.
Public statements, that measures will be taken to curtail tax havens activities, have been made by him for years. Nothing has happened with UK legislation to make that happen. His chums and family have lost no sleep or income.
Yet correspondence to those in the EU trying to get legislation agreed to stop avoidance, have revealed that he has done everything he can to stymie such legislation.

Conflict of interest is obviously a matter of no importance to many posting here. It should be a matter of honour for any politician, but it looks like venality trumps honour in this mans case..._

As evidenced by the obsequious queue of his backbenchers this afternoon attesting to how he had nothing to apologise for.

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

...
Jimmy Carr engaged in a contrived arrangement whereby he attempted to transform his income into a loan from an offshore company. I'm not sure there is a lot of evidence to suggest that he was behaving legally in this regard... It was a registered tax avoidance scheme but that judt means HMRC have been notified of it, not that they have agreed thst it was a legal arrangement.
...

I think I'm right in saying that some UK contractors took part in a very similar scheme, where loans replaced salary, on seemingly open ended repayment options.

The companies offering the scheme were based in the IOM, and the government took a dim view, claiming that £400m+ was being lost.

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

...
Cameron, on the other hand, invested in a offshore fund which managed his money on a pooled basis and invested it in listed securities. He paid UK taxes that were due on the income and gains from that fund. Those UK taxes would have been EXACTLY the same had the fund been incorporated in England and Wales.

A lot has been made of the fact that blairmore holdings has paid no corporation tax in 30 years - but it wouldnt have paid any if it was onshore as collective investment schemes do not pay tax on dividend income or gains from dealing in shares.
...

So exactly what is the reason for using this offshore company then, if it confers no discernible advantage?

I don't get it. Why would you go to the effort?

BobQ

dunstonh wrote: »

Facts are not your strong point then.

Some people like to be aware and understand the facts. Others prefer to remain ignorant. Even if you don't support the Conservatives, you must surely see that the media attacks on the transactions are completely wrong. Or are you too far gone to the left to have a balanced view?

While I agree with you that the only facts available are that he pays the tax he has declared, we will probably never know what we are not told (in relation to offshore trusts). I am not saying they are illegal but we do know that his father had a substantial trust when he died and that Cameron has used his position to advocate that the EU should not seek to control offshore trusts. He has given some carefully worded assurances about past and present interests in trusts (which we must believe). The problem he has is people are not convinced that he will not become a beneficiary of a trust in the future. It is possible is it not?

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

So exactly what is the reason for using this offshore company then, if it confers no discernible advantage?

I don't get it. Why would you go to the effort?

Because the fund gets to operate under a simpler tax structure which makes the fund cheaper and easier to run.