How much in your home market?

grey_gym_sock

kidmugsy wrote: »

A counter-argument is taxation: contrary to all the recent hoo-ha, a typical consequence of holding foreign shares is paying foreign withholding tax on the dividends; you avoid that by investing at home.

if only ian cameron had had the benefit of your advice, he could have saved the money he paid to financial intermediaries operating in panama, legitimately paid less tax, and avoiding causing embarrassment to his son.

<sarcasm off>

but, for more straightforward investing, you have a point. especially in ISAs, where you can't get out of paying foreign withholding tax, but you have no UK tax liability on dividends to set the foreign withholding tax against (unlike in a taxable account).

kidmugsy

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

if only ian cameron had had the benefit of your advice, he could have saved the money he paid to financial intermediaries operating in panama, legitimately paid less tax, and avoiding causing embarrassment to his son.

As far as I can see, all that Cameron's father did was set up a foreign investment company so that his investors would avoid double taxation. Good for him: double taxation is objectionable.

I find Cameron the son a disagreeable fellow, but this hooha seems to me stupid, and/or dishonest.

bowlhead99

kidmugsy wrote: »

As far as I can see, all that Cameron's father did was set up a foreign investment company so that his investors would avoid double taxation. Good for him: double taxation is objectionable.

I find Cameron the son a disagreeable fellow, but this hooha seems to me stupid, and/or dishonest.

Yes - the tabloids and labour MPs who are baying for blood and hysterically screaming can it be right that a public figure is allowed to own offshore assets, sack this liar!!! are a bunch of muppets.

Investing in a global portfolio of investments via an investment fund that happens to be offshore, and paying tax on all the income and gains you get from it, doesn't seem too obscene to me. Siting an investment fund in a tax neutral jurisdiction like BVI or Cayman with no local corporation tax so that your investors who are (e.g.) UK and Spanish and Swiss and American and Hong Kong residents can collectively invest in shares in (e.g.) Japan, without having to worry about paying extra corporation tax in UK or Spain or Switzerland or USA or HK in addition to their own taxes because you domiciled the fund in one of those countries to favour a particular investor... seems eminently sensible.

I must admit to helping my mum indulge in a non-UK investment scheme a while back, putting Lindsell Train Global Equity in her ISA portfolio. It's domiciled in Ireland, like Blairmore is these days. Hargreaves Lansdown promote it on their marketing 150+ list, saying they like Lindsell and Train and "view the fund as an excellent way to access their best ideas.", but I suppose that's no excuse to embrace such moral turpitude. When my Dad was banging on about Dodgy Dave recently I didn't have the heart to remind him that his own wife was avoiding tax with an offshore scheme via a tax wrapper.

Great bit of political theatre from Dennis Skinner this week: https://youtu.be/Su4SE0IJDYY

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Great bit of political theatre from Dennis Skinner this week: https://youtu.be/Su4SE0IJDYY

Actually, I don't like it. I’m not impressed by Skinner’s antics. Skinner raised an important issue. Namely, that in 2013 the Cameron’s, sold their family home in Notting Hill, for which the ally, I mortgage was not subsidised by the taxpayer. They kept their constituency home whose mortgage interest payments were met by the taxpayer. Incidentally, this money was much more than the amount of money to which those on hosing benefit were entitled to claim. The money they used to trade up bought the house they are now renting out for a small fortune whilst living rent free in Downing Street and Chequers. Skinner’s question referred to this. If Skinner had apologised for calling Cameron dodgy then he latter would have had to answer the question. But, as Skinner was ejected from the Chamber the question did not need to be answered.

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Actually, I don't like it. I’m not impressed by Skinner’s antics. Skinner raised an important issue. Namely, that in 2013 the Cameron’s, sold their family home in Notting Hill, for which the ally, I mortgage was not subsidised by the taxpayer. They kept their constituency home whose mortgage interest payments were met by the taxpayer. Incidentally, this money was much more than the amount of money to which those on hosing benefit were entitled to claim. The money they used to trade up bought the house they are now renting out for a small fortune whilst living rent free in Downing Street and Chequers. Skinner’s question referred to this. If Skinner had apologised for calling Cameron dodgy then he latter would have had to answer the question. But, as Skinner was ejected from the Chamber the question did not need to be answered.

The thread was boring wasn't it? Much better to divert it to an unrelated political issue instead. Keep up the good work, toodle pip.

kidmugsy

Glen_Clark wrote: »

... in 2013 the Cameron’s, sold their family home in Notting Hill, for which the ... mortgage was not subsidised by the taxpayer. They kept their constituency home whose mortgage interest payments were met by the taxpayer.

For the sake of argument I'll assume that what you say is accurate.

With No 10 as tied cottage, they didn't need an owner-occupied house in London, so they sold it. As an MP he's still subsidised to have a constituency house, which he kept because he was still MP for that constituency.

What's your objection? Do you object to them using their capital to go into BTL? Why should the PM be banned from BTL? Anyway, they will presumably be stung by the new BTL tax laws: will that make you happy?

quarky

Thanks for the posts around UK/non-UK weighting. With my paltry investments it probably doesn't actually make a huge difference either way for me at the moment, but it is definitely useful moving forward.

Glen_Clark

kidmugsy wrote: »

For the sake of argument I'll assume that what you say is accurate.

With No 10 as tied cottage, they didn't need an owner-occupied house in London, so they sold it. As an MP he's still subsidised to have a constituency house, which he kept because he was still MP for that constituency.

What's your objection? Do you object to them using their capital to go into BTL? Why should the PM be banned from BTL? Anyway, they will presumably be stung by the new BTL tax laws: will that make you happy?

I think most people understand how offshore funds work and how they are set up to attract investors. I also think most of us understand why it is beneficial to pay tax in Panama instead of the UK.

So I really I hate to point out the blindingly obvious but DC currently lives rent free in the UK in a house that UK tax payers financially maintain, and yet he benefited from a scheme that was set up by five UK based Directors (including DC's father) to intentionally not pay tax in the UK.

Nobody has said he has done anything illegal but is it morally right that the PM benefits in this way? is it right that DC tried to cover up the fact from the British Electorate that he benefited from a tax avoidance scheme? Whilst criticising others for doing the same thing?