Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would class myself as a socialist and don't like Cameron in the slightest, but I do think that trying to create a scandal out of inherited investments which were cashed out five or six years ago is really just "dirty politics". I don't remember hearing anything which was actually a lie, just answers which evaded the actual question. He said that he "isn't currently benefiting from" and that he "won't benefit in the future".... but avoided the point that he "had benefited in the past". I would much rather politics was decided by policies and ideals than over personalities and personal attacks. Cal" I suppose that's true. Hell why not tell Google, Amazon & Starbucks it's OK not to pay back dated taxes. He should have been totally up front from the off rather than hide things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would class myself as a socialist and don't like Cameron in the slightest, but I do think that trying to create a scandal out of inherited investments which were cashed out five or six years ago is really just "dirty politics". I don't remember hearing anything which was actually a lie, just answers which evaded the actual question. He said that he "isn't currently benefiting from" and that he "won't benefit in the future".... but avoided the point that he "had benefited in the past". I would much rather politics was decided by policies and ideals than over personalities and personal attacks. Cal" Precisely. I am a paid up member of the Labour Party but if someone is to be 'got' they need 'getting' in a watertight container not a tissue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would class myself as a socialist and don't like Cameron in the slightest, but I do think that trying to create a scandal out of inherited investments which were cashed out five or six years ago is really just "dirty politics". I don't remember hearing anything which was actually a lie, just answers which evaded the actual question. He said that he "isn't currently benefiting from" and that he "won't benefit in the future".... but avoided the point that he "had benefited in the past". I would much rather politics was decided by policies and ideals than over personalities and personal attacks. Cal I suppose that's true. Hell why not tell Google, Amazon & Starbucks it's OK not to pay back dated taxes. He should have been totally up front from the off rather than hide things. " The O.P. says that Cameron DID pay all due UK taxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings." Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc." It would have to have a value of over £6000 and depend if you used your car for business | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc." Like with anything I sell,I like to make a profit if I can.I'm only asking because I've just heard a mp on the news saying that if you have a house abroad and sell it,any profits you should pay tax on it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If it was an inheritance and was under the capital gains threshold then he has done nothing wrong. This is just Corbyn again clutching at any straw to get his name in the mix as always. inam going to laugh my ass off if some of his Labour buddies get caught up in this as well " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am voting to leave the (EU). God. forbid if, Jeremy. Corbyn. became, Prime. Minister. The. Labour. Party. would have, Britain. on it's knees." Labour have saddened me recently with the Anti Semitism. I just can't take anyone seriously in politics at the moment it's either mud slinging or scandal with either party. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc. It would have to have a value of over £6000 and depend if you used your car for business " That's for capital gains - if he buys and sells as trading then income tax and NI are due. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc. It would have to have a value of over £6000 and depend if you used your car for business That's for capital gains - if he buys and sells as trading then income tax and NI are due. " That's a fair point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"2 Labour MP's have called for Cameron to resign over this, Tom Watson and I think the other one is John Mann. They must think serious wrongdoing has occurred to call for his resignation. " Just the pack going in for the kill | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc. Like with anything I sell,I like to make a profit if I can.I'm only asking because I've just heard a mp on the news saying that if you have a house abroad and sell it,any profits you should pay tax on it." You do in the country where you sell it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc. Like with anything I sell,I like to make a profit if I can.I'm only asking because I've just heard a mp on the news saying that if you have a house abroad and sell it,any profits you should pay tax on it. You do in the country where you sell it" I'm not right sharp with stuff like this...good job I'm not self employed... I be locked up owing shit loads of money to the taxman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc. Like with anything I sell,I like to make a profit if I can.I'm only asking because I've just heard a mp on the news saying that if you have a house abroad and sell it,any profits you should pay tax on it. You do in the country where you sell it I'm not right sharp with stuff like this...good job I'm not self employed... I be locked up owing shit loads of money to the taxman." Are you David Cameron?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc. Like with anything I sell,I like to make a profit if I can.I'm only asking because I've just heard a mp on the news saying that if you have a house abroad and sell it,any profits you should pay tax on it. You do in the country where you sell it I'm not right sharp with stuff like this...good job I'm not self employed... I be locked up owing shit loads of money to the taxman. Are you David Cameron? "That's below the belt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is desperate stuff trying to nail Cameron on an issue like this. There are literally thousands of such schemes in existence and many, many pension funds are invested in exactly the same kinds of schemes. Anyone with a pension is highly likely to be indirectly investing in a scheme like this. Are we looking to hang all of these people as well? Total non story." Total rubbish. If it was a non-story, Cameron would have admitted the situation from the start, rather than avoiding the question first (it's a private matter!  ), then trying to dodge it with the pathetic 'not benefitting now or in the future' weasel, which was so obvious a child could see through it.
The fact is that our Prime Minister, a millionaire, has financially benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme, which he claims himself to be 'morally wrong'. He has financially benefitted as an MP from unfairly pushing the burden of public service provision onto the poor through tax avoidance, making his claims of 'we're all in it together' more repugnant than they ever have been.
He had no credibility before, so god knows where he is now. Can't wait to see what George is hiding too, he has already been avoiding the questions publically, but it will soon come out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Monday - Thursday Cameron dives & dives when reporters fire questions asking if he had offshore tax avoiding investments Friday the small part of the wedge starts to show, this will open up much more as days go on Labour has accused David Cameron of "hypocrisy" after he revealed he had owned shares in an offshore trust set up by his late father. On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson said the PM had called people who invested in similar schemes "morally wrong". So; what can you believe from a Government that lies to you, are they also lying about the EU simply to keep their coin chest full Cameron cannot be trusted" Non story. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"30 grand ? was that a typo ? A 30 grand sale ? It's hardly a fortune. He says he sold them BEFORE he entered number 10. If so it doesn't need commenting on. If he said he thinks it's morally wrong AFTER he sold them , then he can't be taken to task on that either. No im not a Tory but if you are going to get someone the pieces have to fit. You can't hammer them in because it suits your argument. " This. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is desperate stuff trying to nail Cameron on an issue like this. There are literally thousands of such schemes in existence and many, many pension funds are invested in exactly the same kinds of schemes. Anyone with a pension is highly likely to be indirectly investing in a scheme like this. Are we looking to hang all of these people as well? Total non story." I couldn't agree more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is desperate stuff trying to nail Cameron on an issue like this. There are literally thousands of such schemes in existence and many, many pension funds are invested in exactly the same kinds of schemes. Anyone with a pension is highly likely to be indirectly investing in a scheme like this. Are we looking to hang all of these people as well? Total non story. Total rubbish. If it was a non-story, Cameron would have admitted the situation from the start, rather than avoiding the question first (it's a private matter! ), then trying to dodge it with the pathetic 'not benefitting now or in the future' weasel, which was so obvious a child could see through it.
The fact is that our Prime Minister, a millionaire, has financially benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme, which he claims himself to be 'morally wrong'. He has financially benefitted as an MP from unfairly pushing the burden of public service provision onto the poor through tax avoidance, making his claims of 'we're all in it together' more repugnant than they ever have been.
He had no credibility before, so god knows where he is now. Can't wait to see what George is hiding too, he has already been avoiding the questions publically, but it will soon come out."Would you mind telling us all where your investments are, what shares you hold and how you have benefitted from any of your father's business affairs please. Or is that a private affair? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would you mind telling us all where your investments are, what shares you hold and how you have benefitted from any of your father's business affairs please. Or is that a private affair? " I am not a member of parliament, I do not hold public office, therefore I am not bound by the rules that govern people who hold those offices. If I did hold public office I would declare all my outside interests, what benefits I gained from them and I would not use my public office to influence or attempt to influence any issue where there was a potential conflict of interests! AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is desperate stuff trying to nail Cameron on an issue like this. There are literally thousands of such schemes in existence and many, many pension funds are invested in exactly the same kinds of schemes. Anyone with a pension is highly likely to be indirectly investing in a scheme like this. Are we looking to hang all of these people as well? Total non story. Total rubbish. If it was a non-story, Cameron would have admitted the situation from the start, rather than avoiding the question first (it's a private matter! ), then trying to dodge it with the pathetic 'not benefitting now or in the future' weasel, which was so obvious a child could see through it.
The fact is that our Prime Minister, a millionaire, has financially benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme, which he claims himself to be 'morally wrong'. He has financially benefitted as an MP from unfairly pushing the burden of public service provision onto the poor through tax avoidance, making his claims of 'we're all in it together' more repugnant than they ever have been.
He had no credibility before, so god knows where he is now. Can't wait to see what George is hiding too, he has already been avoiding the questions publically, but it will soon come out.
Would you mind telling us all where your investments are, what shares you hold and how you have benefitted from any of your father's business affairs please.
Or is that a private affair? "I'd be happy to. We should have the same system as Norway, where everyone's taxation and income is available for inspection. Of course, that will never happen here. Our publicly elected representatives have too much to hide, and the electorate are too stupid to know why it matters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is desperate stuff trying to nail Cameron on an issue like this. There are literally thousands of such schemes in existence and many, many pension funds are invested in exactly the same kinds of schemes. Anyone with a pension is highly likely to be indirectly investing in a scheme like this. Are we looking to hang all of these people as well? Total non story. Total rubbish. If it was a non-story, Cameron would have admitted the situation from the start, rather than avoiding the question first (it's a private matter! ), then trying to dodge it with the pathetic 'not benefitting now or in the future' weasel, which was so obvious a child could see through it.
The fact is that our Prime Minister, a millionaire, has financially benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme, which he claims himself to be 'morally wrong'. He has financially benefitted as an MP from unfairly pushing the burden of public service provision onto the poor through tax avoidance, making his claims of 'we're all in it together' more repugnant than they ever have been.
He had no credibility before, so god knows where he is now. Can't wait to see what George is hiding too, he has already been avoiding the questions publically, but it will soon come out.
Would you mind telling us all where your investments are, what shares you hold and how you have benefitted from any of your father's business affairs please.
Or is that a private affair?
I'd be happy to. We should have the same system as Norway, where everyone's taxation and income is available for inspection.
Of course, that will never happen here. Our publicly elected representatives have too much to hide, and the electorate are too stupid to know why it matters."You don't vote then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is desperate stuff trying to nail Cameron on an issue like this. There are literally thousands of such schemes in existence and many, many pension funds are invested in exactly the same kinds of schemes. Anyone with a pension is highly likely to be indirectly investing in a scheme like this. Are we looking to hang all of these people as well? Total non story. Total rubbish. If it was a non-story, Cameron would have admitted the situation from the start, rather than avoiding the question first (it's a private matter! ), then trying to dodge it with the pathetic 'not benefitting now or in the future' weasel, which was so obvious a child could see through it.
The fact is that our Prime Minister, a millionaire, has financially benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme, which he claims himself to be 'morally wrong'. He has financially benefitted as an MP from unfairly pushing the burden of public service provision onto the poor through tax avoidance, making his claims of 'we're all in it together' more repugnant than they ever have been.
He had no credibility before, so god knows where he is now. Can't wait to see what George is hiding too, he has already been avoiding the questions publically, but it will soon come out.
Would you mind telling us all where your investments are, what shares you hold and how you have benefitted from any of your father's business affairs please.
Or is that a private affair?
I'd be happy to. We should have the same system as Norway, where everyone's taxation and income is available for inspection.
Of course, that will never happen here. Our publicly elected representatives have too much to hide, and the electorate are too stupid to know why it matters.
You don't vote then?"What a stupid question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is desperate stuff trying to nail Cameron on an issue like this. There are literally thousands of such schemes in existence and many, many pension funds are invested in exactly the same kinds of schemes. Anyone with a pension is highly likely to be indirectly investing in a scheme like this. Are we looking to hang all of these people as well? Total non story. Total rubbish. If it was a non-story, Cameron would have admitted the situation from the start, rather than avoiding the question first (it's a private matter! ), then trying to dodge it with the pathetic 'not benefitting now or in the future' weasel, which was so obvious a child could see through it.
The fact is that our Prime Minister, a millionaire, has financially benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme, which he claims himself to be 'morally wrong'. He has financially benefitted as an MP from unfairly pushing the burden of public service provision onto the poor through tax avoidance, making his claims of 'we're all in it together' more repugnant than they ever have been.
He had no credibility before, so god knows where he is now. Can't wait to see what George is hiding too, he has already been avoiding the questions publically, but it will soon come out.
Would you mind telling us all where your investments are, what shares you hold and how you have benefitted from any of your father's business affairs please.
Or is that a private affair?
I'd be happy to. We should have the same system as Norway, where everyone's taxation and income is available for inspection.
Of course, that will never happen here. Our publicly elected representatives have too much to hide, and the electorate are too stupid to know why it matters.
You don't vote then?
What a stupid question. "Why? Are you a part of the electorate or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Matthew 7:16 "Matthew 7:1 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Matthew 7:16
Matthew 7:1 " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..." "Sounds about right. Anyone with that kinda money probably doesn't know where it all came from | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"had he just came out at the start and said what he is saying now then maybe it would be less of an issue, just looks shifty and lets be honest if he has clearly had such poor recall of this when it was going to be asked of him and he has ducked and dived till now.. how trustworthy is his recollection of the amount.. this will run and run for him and others.." People need to think this through a little bit more before jumping to conclusions. 1) Many of us on here will have parents who are now deceased and would be aghast at the thought of accusations being made against them when they can no longer defend themselves. 2) Offshore schemes are VERY common and many pensions and investment funds are set up in this way. In all likelihood, hundreds of thousands - maybe millions of UK residents will be indirectly benefitting from just such schemes. The schemes exist in this way because the corporate regulattory burden is significantly less in offshore tax havens meaning that the funds have less overhead and potentially greater returns. 3) He paid tax on the dividends as everyone else does. 4) There is no requirement to disclose anything about investments as long as they are held lawfully, tax is paid on the earnings and there is no conflict of interest. 5) If he had £30,000 invested and he earned say 6% interest, then he earned a massive £1,800 a year in interest - on which he paid tax as p[art of his overall earnings. Non story | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The schemes exist in this way because the corporate regulattory burden is significantly less in offshore tax havens meaning that the funds have less overhead and potentially greater returns. " I quoted the relevant part of your post. You may see that as a benefit, but I do not. They are tax avoidance schemes. When wealthy people put there money into such schemes, they burden of paying for public services falls unfairly on the poor, who cannot take advantage of such schemes. This is morally wrong, no matter that people like Cameron are personally intervening to protect them and keep them 'legal'. He is a hypocrite, and the son of a tax avoider. He is doing his very best to keep tax avoidance legal. In short, he should resign. He is not a fit man to be Prime Minister. But then how often has that ever caused a Prime Minister to resign? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would class myself as a socialist and don't like Cameron in the slightest, but I do think that trying to create a scandal out of inherited investments which were cashed out five or six years ago is really just "dirty politics". I don't remember hearing anything which was actually a lie, just answers which evaded the actual question. He said that he "isn't currently benefiting from" and that he "won't benefit in the future".... but avoided the point that he "had benefited in the past". I would much rather politics was decided by policies and ideals than over personalities and personal attacks. Cal" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I jumped to the conclusion that Tom Watson was a dick But now I know it "It must be much simpler to look at politics like supporting a football team. Go blue! Boo red! Ooh...we got a corner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I jumped to the conclusion that Tom Watson was a dick But now I know it
It must be much simpler to look at politics like supporting a football team.
Go blue! Boo red! Ooh...we got a corner."You said it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings. Depends if it's classed as trading. Did you buy it to sell on for a profit etc. Like with anything I sell,I like to make a profit if I can.I'm only asking because I've just heard a mp on the news saying that if you have a house abroad and sell it,any profits you should pay tax on it." . Second houses are liable to capital gains. Cars I think they limit to a certain number per year | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The schemes exist in this way because the corporate regulattory burden is significantly less in offshore tax havens meaning that the funds have less overhead and potentially greater returns. I quoted the relevant part of your post. You may see that as a benefit, but I do not. They are tax avoidance schemes. When wealthy people put there money into such schemes, they burden of paying for public services falls unfairly on the poor, who cannot take advantage of such schemes. This is morally wrong, no matter that people like Cameron are personally intervening to protect them and keep them 'legal'. He is a hypocrite, and the son of a tax avoider. He is doing his very best to keep tax avoidance legal. In short, he should resign. He is not a fit man to be Prime Minister. But then how often has that ever caused a Prime Minister to resign?" So ordinary people don't have pensions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We appear as a nation to resent anyone who appears to have more than what we have. It's a case of the have not's despising the have's. Jealousy beyond belief. Quite sad really, you have what you have - make the best of it!" I for one have no problem with others having more than I have,good luck to them and more power to their elbow I say. However I do resent those who have more riches than the dreams of avarice or could be spent in a 100 lifetimes defrauding us all (that's what not paying your fair share of taxes is) so they can hide it away and watch the numbers getting bigger! If you cant understand that then you are very sad indeed! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So ordinary people don't have pensions?" Actually that is what they have planned for us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We appear as a nation to resent anyone who appears to have more than what we have. It's a case of the have not's despising the have's. Jealousy beyond belief. Quite sad really, you have what you have - make the best of it! I for one have no problem with others having more than I have,good luck to them and more power to their elbow I say. However I do resent those who have more riches than the dreams of avarice or could be spent in a 100 lifetimes defrauding us all (that's what not paying your fair share of taxes is) so they can hide it away and watch the numbers getting bigger! If you cant understand that then you are very sad indeed!" But who else benefits from the number getting bigger? Couldn't be you through your pension could it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The schemes exist in this way because the corporate regulattory burden is significantly less in offshore tax havens meaning that the funds have less overhead and potentially greater returns. I quoted the relevant part of your post. You may see that as a benefit, but I do not. They are tax avoidance schemes. When wealthy people put there money into such schemes, they burden of paying for public services falls unfairly on the poor, who cannot take advantage of such schemes. This is morally wrong, no matter that people like Cameron are personally intervening to protect them and keep them 'legal'. He is a hypocrite, and the son of a tax avoider. He is doing his very best to keep tax avoidance legal. In short, he should resign. He is not a fit man to be Prime Minister. But then how often has that ever caused a Prime Minister to resign? So ordinary people don't have pensions?" Millions of ordinary people don't have private pensions. Regardless of that fact, any benefit to private pension pots is far outweighed by the negative effects on quality of life in the UK caused by stripping tax revenues away from the national economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"every one who as responded to this thread is now on mi6 and mi5 computer data base " Just an extra entry on my bulging files. I have at least 4. 
Probably takes an extra messenger to move my file from its registry to whoever is going to add another flimsy to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issue is about those who hide there wealth from UK tax inspectorate . Mr Cameron as lied to UK voters and lied about his involvement in this . issue .He should now go . " Definitely! But he wont. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pmsl. How do you think pensions etc grow?" By creaming off the top. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pmsl. How do you think pensions etc grow? By creaming off the top." Lol, the top of what? Ok, when you put your money into a bank, what do you think happens to it? Does it just sit in a room? Do you actually know how the interest is created or where it comes from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"had he just came out at the start and said what he is saying now then maybe it would be less of an issue, just looks shifty and lets be honest if he has clearly had such poor recall of this when it was going to be asked of him and he has ducked and dived till now.. how trustworthy is his recollection of the amount.. this will run and run for him and others.. People need to think this through a little bit more before jumping to conclusions. 1) Many of us on here will have parents who are now deceased and would be aghast at the thought of accusations being made against them when they can no longer defend themselves. 2) Offshore schemes are VERY common and many pensions and investment funds are set up in this way. In all likelihood, hundreds of thousands - maybe millions of UK residents will be indirectly benefitting from just such schemes. The schemes exist in this way because the corporate regulattory burden is significantly less in offshore tax havens meaning that the funds have less overhead and potentially greater returns. 3) He paid tax on the dividends as everyone else does. 4) There is no requirement to disclose anything about investments as long as they are held lawfully, tax is paid on the earnings and there is no conflict of interest. 5) If he had £30,000 invested and he earned say 6% interest, then he earned a massive £1,800 a year in interest - on which he paid tax as p[art of his overall earnings. Non story " . That's not the whole story though is it?. The fact remains that FSA regulation requires traders and people offering financial services to conclude that clients money has come from legitimate sources. An awful lot of these tax havens(not all) are not about regulatory burden but about complete secrecy, which is why many of its clients were drug lords, sex traffickers, arms dealers and dictators!. Now Cameron snr might or might not have evaded tax but the bigger scandal is many of his clients will have been people laundering money from illegal sources. . . The illegal trade is worth trillions a year and they have to make their profits legal by means mostly similar to this! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is desperate stuff trying to nail Cameron on an issue like this. There are literally thousands of such schemes in existence and many, many pension funds are invested in exactly the same kinds of schemes. Anyone with a pension is highly likely to be indirectly investing in a scheme like this. Are we looking to hang all of these people as well? Total non story. Total rubbish. If it was a non-story, Cameron would have admitted the situation from the start, rather than avoiding the question first (it's a private matter! ), then trying to dodge it with the pathetic 'not benefitting now or in the future' weasel, which was so obvious a child could see through it.
The fact is that our Prime Minister, a millionaire, has financially benefitted from a tax avoidance scheme, which he claims himself to be 'morally wrong'. He has financially benefitted as an MP from unfairly pushing the burden of public service provision onto the poor through tax avoidance, making his claims of 'we're all in it together' more repugnant than they ever have been.
He had no credibility before, so god knows where he is now. Can't wait to see what George is hiding too, he has already been avoiding the questions publically, but it will soon come out.
Would you mind telling us all where your investments are, what shares you hold and how you have benefitted from any of your father's business affairs please.
Or is that a private affair?
I'd be happy to. We should have the same system as Norway, where everyone's taxation and income is available for inspection.
Of course, that will never happen here. Our publicly elected representatives have too much to hide, and the electorate are too stupid to know why it matters."Excellent. I'm looking forward to reading all about your financial affairs right here. Get typing........ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's a much better place for all this annoyance... "Part iv? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..." "Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"every one who as responded to this thread is now on mi6 and mi5 computer data base " Some of us already are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. ". You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"every one who as responded to this thread is now on mi6 and mi5 computer data base Some of us already are. ". You won't be on both!. You'll either be on one or the other | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. "Erm. So by extension you don't mind corporations paying their 'legal' amount of tax either? Not to mention contrasting with what i presume you pay yourself legally(non inverted commas..)? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
"Good point. I'll rephrase; according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"every one who as responded to this thread is now on mi6 and mi5 computer data base Some of us already are. .
You won't be on both!.
You'll either be on one or the other"I'm on both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too.
Erm. So by extension you don't mind corporations paying their 'legal' amount of tax either?
Not to mention contrasting with what i presume you pay yourself legally(non inverted commas..)? "Quite right, I don't mind. As long as it's legal. My posture would be very different if they were breaking any laws. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
". No that was the other guy .
Anyhow on a serious note, even if you don't mind a bit of tax evasion, surely your against child sex trafficking?.
How do you think they launder the billions of profit they make?.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"every one who as responded to this thread is now on mi6 and mi5 computer data base Some of us already are. .
You won't be on both!.
You'll either be on one or the other
I'm on both.". Ohh... You commit crimes home and abroad hey  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
.
No that was the other guy .
Anyhow on a serious note, even if you don't mind a bit of tax evasion, surely your against child sex trafficking?.
How do you think they launder the billions of profit they make?.
"I disagree strongly with tax evasion. I'm happy with reduction or avoidance. I'd like to avoid paying more myself to be honest. I'll ask a few questions, see if any of my pensions going into child sex trafficking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"every one who as responded to this thread is now on mi6 and mi5 computer data base Some of us already are. .
You won't be on both!.
You'll either be on one or the other
I'm on both..
Ohh... You commit crimes home and abroad hey "No. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Was anybody listening the the bollox that labour bloke on radio 2 was spouting ? What a plumb! Even though it was spelt out that the person still pays uk tax on the earnings and it's only the company he deals through paid nil tax. So even if you owned the shell company if and when you actually sold up you still pay uk tax in the profit you make so there is no tax avoided " . That's the whole point of a shell company in Panama. The money never comes home to pay tax on it. You just use the shell company to buy the stuff you'd need the money here for in the first place. Like a house | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
.
No that was the other guy .
Anyhow on a serious note, even if you don't mind a bit of tax evasion, surely your against child sex trafficking?.
How do you think they launder the billions of profit they make?.
I disagree strongly with tax evasion. I'm happy with reduction or avoidance. I'd like to avoid paying more myself to be honest.
I'll ask a few questions, see if any of my pensions going into child sex trafficking. ". Your avoiding the question I asked you.... How do you think the trillions raised from illegal activities gets laundered? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
.
No that was the other guy .
Anyhow on a serious note, even if you don't mind a bit of tax evasion, surely your against child sex trafficking?.
How do you think they launder the billions of profit they make?.
I disagree strongly with tax evasion. I'm happy with reduction or avoidance. I'd like to avoid paying more myself to be honest.
I'll ask a few questions, see if any of my pensions going into child sex trafficking. .
Your avoiding the question I asked you.... How do you think the trillions raised from illegal activities gets laundered?"I have no idea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
"I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. "Phew, that's okay then... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too.
Erm. So by extension you don't mind corporations paying their 'legal' amount of tax either?
Not to mention contrasting with what i presume you pay yourself legally(non inverted commas..)?
Quite right, I don't mind. As long as it's legal. My posture would be very different if they were breaking any laws."Oops. Forgot to quote Markoh. Okay. Fair enough. Then you don't think council tax should be lower? Or that funds for hospitals,schools, emergency services, local services for mental health, community projects, ROADS, libraries etc,etc,etc don't need increasing either? In which case,: that they should be further run into the ground? While certain individuals and corporations pay their 'legal' amount of tax? Do you care about the inequality which exists? Or is it okay while you're okay(or not) finacially, and everyone else can go hang? As long as it's legal? You are aware that laws are basically, like, made up, right? Who made them up? Why? And to benefit whom..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
.
No that was the other guy .
Anyhow on a serious note, even if you don't mind a bit of tax evasion, surely your against child sex trafficking?.
How do you think they launder the billions of profit they make?.
I disagree strongly with tax evasion. I'm happy with reduction or avoidance. I'd like to avoid paying more myself to be honest.
I'll ask a few questions, see if any of my pensions going into child sex trafficking. .
Your avoiding the question I asked you.... How do you think the trillions raised from illegal activities gets laundered?
I have no idea. ". See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil!. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. ". What was it they said? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too.
Erm. So by extension you don't mind corporations paying their 'legal' amount of tax either?
Not to mention contrasting with what i presume you pay yourself legally(non inverted commas..)?
Quite right, I don't mind. As long as it's legal. My posture would be very different if they were breaking any laws.
Oops. Forgot to quote Markoh.
Okay. Fair enough.
Then you don't think council tax should be lower?
Or that funds for hospitals,schools, emergency services, local services for mental health, community projects, ROADS, libraries etc,etc,etc don't need increasing either?
In which case,: that they should be further run into the ground?
While certain individuals and corporations pay their 'legal' amount of tax?
Do you care about the inequality which exists?
Or is it okay while you're okay(or not) finacially, and everyone else can go hang?
As long as it's legal?
You are aware that laws are basically, like, made up, right?
Who made them up? Why? And to benefit whom..?"No sweat.... Yes. I get too little service for too much cost. I think those organisations could and should manage their resources a whole lot better. No. Yes. There will always be inequality somewhere. Kind of. Yes. The people we elect. Because it's part of their job. Some of us, not all of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too.
Erm. So by extension you don't mind corporations paying their 'legal' amount of tax either?
Not to mention contrasting with what i presume you pay yourself legally(non inverted commas..)?
Quite right, I don't mind. As long as it's legal. My posture would be very different if they were breaking any laws.
Oops. Forgot to quote Markoh.
Okay. Fair enough.
Then you don't think council tax should be lower?
Or that funds for hospitals,schools, emergency services, local services for mental health, community projects, ROADS, libraries etc,etc,etc don't need increasing either?
In which case,: that they should be further run into the ground?
While certain individuals and corporations pay their 'legal' amount of tax?
Do you care about the inequality which exists?
Or is it okay while you're okay(or not) finacially, and everyone else can go hang?
As long as it's legal?
You are aware that laws are basically, like, made up, right?
Who made them up? Why? And to benefit whom..?
No sweat....
Yes. I get too little service for too much cost.
I think those organisations could and should manage their resources a whole lot better.
No.
Yes.
There will always be inequality somewhere.
Kind of.
Yes.
The people we elect. Because it's part of their job. Some of us, not all of us."Ha. Okay. Let the (un)status quo carry on then! It's only a few million who suffer needlessly through under investment after all. While a few thousand benefit at the cost of others. Nowt like 'society' for regulating itself. Oh.Sorry. Our democratically elected representatives don't want to do that do they? But that's okay. We can trust corporations to do it more fairly and equitably for us can't we?! Private sector is always more cost effective, I know! COmpetition and all that. The public NEVER have to pay through the teeth for services as a result. AS long as the right wing, and the Daily Mail/Sun say it's okay, then cool.I believe them. They talk sense that lot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?"Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So ordinary people don't have pensions? Millions of ordinary people don't have private pensions. Regardless of that fact, any benefit to private pension pots is far outweighed by the negative effects on quality of life in the UK caused by stripping tax revenues away from the national economy." Do you actually know anything at all about how pensions (private, corporate or state supported) are invested? It certainly does not seems so. Nobody mentioned private pwensions - we are talking about all types of pensions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So ordinary people don't have pensions? Millions of ordinary people don't have private pensions. Regardless of that fact, any benefit to private pension pots is far outweighed by the negative effects on quality of life in the UK caused by stripping tax revenues away from the national economy. Do you actually know anything at all about how pensions (private, corporate or state supported) are invested? It certainly does not seems so. Nobody mentioned private pwensions - we are talking about all types of pensions. " Company pensions as well are a fast dying breed. If you are going to tell me that state pensions are invested through shell companies in Panama on the other hand, I'm all ears. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So ordinary people don't have pensions? Millions of ordinary people don't have private pensions. Regardless of that fact, any benefit to private pension pots is far outweighed by the negative effects on quality of life in the UK caused by stripping tax revenues away from the national economy. Do you actually know anything at all about how pensions (private, corporate or state supported) are invested? It certainly does not seems so. Nobody mentioned private pwensions - we are talking about all types of pensions. " And I notice you stick like glue to the straw man of pensions, and stay very, very, very far away indeed from discussing the morality of the rich avoiding tax and putting the burden of infrastructure provision on the poor. Funny that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Now Cameron snr might or might not have evaded tax but the bigger scandal is many of his clients will have been people laundering money from illegal sources. . . The illegal trade is worth trillions a year and they have to make their profits legal by means mostly similar to this!" That is a pretty astonishing and unfounded allegation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn. "There is no anti-semitism from Corbyn to deal with. It's a desperate smear from an increasingly desperate press that gets reliably parroted by people who read as far as the headlines and can't parse what comes after. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's the whole point of a shell company in Panama. The money never comes home to pay tax on it. You just use the shell company to buy the stuff you'd need the money here for in the first place. Like a house" That was so 1980's. The world has moved on and that is almost impossible to do these days in Europe or the US. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So ordinary people don't have pensions? Millions of ordinary people don't have private pensions. Regardless of that fact, any benefit to private pension pots is far outweighed by the negative effects on quality of life in the UK caused by stripping tax revenues away from the national economy. Do you actually know anything at all about how pensions (private, corporate or state supported) are invested? It certainly does not seems so. Nobody mentioned private pwensions - we are talking about all types of pensions. " Ssshh, you don't want to let people know where their pensions or interest on their savings comes from | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn. "Ah.. Hussain(Labour Bradford)is clearly a bit of a nutter. But there's a difference between saying a state(nasty Israel)is anti-muslim, and being an anti-semite. Israel has done more to disturb Middle East peace than any other on earth. and they're bank rolled by the US for stealing land/killing muslims with impunity. If it's wrong for linking this then so be it. It's not anti-semitism(in my eyes at least), it's more like anti-Israeli(of the government, not its people per se), which is fair enough and completely above board with me. Shame that the sentiments came about in such a rabid/unthought through manner by the silly councillors though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn.
There is no anti-semitism from Corbyn to deal with. It's a desperate smear from an increasingly desperate press that gets reliably parroted by people who read as far as the headlines and can't parse what comes after."Textbook but it's not from Corbyn. Hop down off the horse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn.
There is no anti-semitism from Corbyn to deal with. It's a desperate smear from an increasingly desperate press that gets reliably parroted by people who read as far as the headlines and can't parse what comes after." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Now Cameron snr might or might not have evaded tax but the bigger scandal is many of his clients will have been people laundering money from illegal sources. . . The illegal trade is worth trillions a year and they have to make their profits legal by means mostly similar to this! That is a pretty astonishing and unfounded allegation. " . Not really. . .http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20673466. . . He's just competing with the big boys | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn.
There is no anti-semitism from Corbyn to deal with. It's a desperate smear from an increasingly desperate press that gets reliably parroted by people who read as far as the headlines and can't parse what comes after."Nothing like the rabid tory bashing you do then. Bangs head on desk.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn.
There is no anti-semitism from Corbyn to deal with. It's a desperate smear from an increasingly desperate press that gets reliably parroted by people who read as far as the headlines and can't parse what comes after.
Textbook but it's not from Corbyn. Hop down off the horse. "That's right. Nor is it anti-semitism, except in one case where the woman concerned was suspended. There are members of the Jewish community who can't separate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. When the press is desperate for smear, this is what they are going with. I don't know what's more pathetic, that it gets reported or that it gets repeated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn.
There is no anti-semitism from Corbyn to deal with. It's a desperate smear from an increasingly desperate press that gets reliably parroted by people who read as far as the headlines and can't parse what comes after.
Nothing like the rabid tory bashing you do then.
Bangs head on desk...."You're right, it's nothing like it. Finally something we can agree on! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's the whole point of a shell company in Panama. The money never comes home to pay tax on it. You just use the shell company to buy the stuff you'd need the money here for in the first place. Like a house That was so 1980's. The world has moved on and that is almost impossible to do these days in Europe or the US." . It's like back to the future!. . . http://www.private-eye.co.uk/mobi/registry | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn.
There is no anti-semitism from Corbyn to deal with. It's a desperate smear from an increasingly desperate press that gets reliably parroted by people who read as far as the headlines and can't parse what comes after.
Textbook but it's not from Corbyn. Hop down off the horse.
That's right. Nor is it anti-semitism, except in one case where the woman concerned was suspended.
There are members of the Jewish community who can't separate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.
When the press is desperate for smear, this is what they are going with. I don't know what's more pathetic, that it gets reported or that it gets repeated."Check the Labourlist very informative on the issue and even think adopting the recommendations by Progress is a good idea. Can't help think no smoke without fire when it's not just the press. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Monday - Thursday Cameron dives & dives when reporters fire questions asking if he had offshore tax avoiding investments Friday the small part of the wedge starts to show, this will open up much more as days go on Labour has accused David Cameron of "hypocrisy" after he revealed he had owned shares in an offshore trust set up by his late father. On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson said the PM had called people who invested in similar schemes "morally wrong". So; what can you believe from a Government that lies to you, are they also lying about the EU simply to keep their coin chest full Cameron cannot be trusted" . As far as I am aware he has done nothing illegal , so why worry about it . At least he is putting his efforts into running the Country in an efficient manner and probably pays a lot more tax than most of us. His wife also has a very successfull family background . They are givers , not takers . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Monday - Thursday Cameron dives & dives when reporters fire questions asking if he had offshore tax avoiding investments Friday the small part of the wedge starts to show, this will open up much more as days go on Labour has accused David Cameron of "hypocrisy" after he revealed he had owned shares in an offshore trust set up by his late father. On Thursday, the PM said he sold the shares before he entered Number 10 in 2010 and had paid all UK taxes due on profits from the £30,000 sale. He said the firm, Blairmore Holdings, had not been set up to avoid tax. Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson said the PM had called people who invested in similar schemes "morally wrong". So; what can you believe from a Government that lies to you, are they also lying about the EU simply to keep their coin chest full Cameron cannot be trusted. As far as I am aware he has done nothing illegal , so why worry about it . At least he is putting his efforts into running the Country in an efficient manner and probably pays a lot more tax than most of us. His wife also has a very successfull family background . They are givers , not takers ." What an unusual take on the issue from Pat! I nearly dropped my bacon sandwich in surprise! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"2 Labour MP's have called for Cameron to resign over this, Tom Watson and I think the other one is John Mann. They must think serious wrongdoing has occurred to call for his resignation. Just the pack going in for the kill" Two out of how many Labour MP's? I'd hardly call it a "pack" Oh and one is Tom Watson. Nonce finder general who has got serious form for barking up the wrong tree just to get his name in lights. As others have said I'd be more than happy to see Cameron hung out to dry. Even as a Tory I don't particularly like him, although we should all be thankful he kept Milliband out of No.10. But let's get him for something, this is "non story" of the year. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On balance of probabilities, I think it would be fair to say the Cameron family's tax affairs are *complicated* and the PM (hopefully) has other things taking up his time. I'll be generous and say that after a day of digging, his office skivvies went, "Whooops! Sorry DC, we've got some bad news about the money trail..."
Thank god he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
You don't know anything about it by your own admission the other day, but now you know enough to say all he was doing is legally avoiding a bit of tax!.
Good point. I'll rephrase;
according to what I've read in the paper, seen on the telly, heard on the radio, he's only (legally) saving a bit of tax, imagine if he was anti semitic too. .
Let us know when you're posting up your financial affairs so we can have a gander, as you said earlier, you're happy to....
I think the other party has got Anti semitism sown up. #Grubby. .
What was it they said?
Not sure I can link. But check the Guardian it's on the political page under Corbyn.
There is no anti-semitism from Corbyn to deal with. It's a desperate smear from an increasingly desperate press that gets reliably parroted by people who read as far as the headlines and can't parse what comes after.
Nothing like the rabid tory bashing you do then.
Bangs head on desk...."It's just my way of looking at what our political system offers. So yes. Tory bashing by reasoned arguments is DEFO on the menu. Bring it on! The selfish fuckers. If you want a caring, fairer society then there is no place for the Tories. They only appeal to the baser elements of human feeling. ANyway. What has the Corbyn/anti-semitism/Israel(pardon me while I stifle my giggle at that one)side thread got to do with me Tory bashing? Or are you saying that me defending Labour/attacking Israel in my last post was evidence of me Tory bashing?? I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, so you might need to help me out with that one. Or were you getting confused, rather than me thinking you hadn't made the link clear between my 'Tory bashing' and Israel and anti-semitism? Help me out please.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's the whole point of a shell company in Panama. The money never comes home to pay tax on it. You just use the shell company to buy the stuff you'd need the money here for in the first place. Like a house That was so 1980's. The world has moved on and that is almost impossible to do these days in Europe or the US.. It's like back to the future!. . . http://www.private-eye.co.uk/mobi/registry" . That private eye map is really good for a gander on your local area!. Here's another broad sheet report. . .http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-property-boom-built-on-dirty-money-10083527.html | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I love that Pat thinks Samantha Cameron comes from a 'very successful family background' as if they are just like us and have managed to make it to the top of the tree through hard work and industry. She's a descendant of King Charles II, for god's sake! "Ha. Are you implying that money,power and influence fosters more money, power and influence by any chance...?!? I'm sure she contributes her fair share to society and hasn't had a leg up on the way at ALL! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even as a Tory I don't particularly like him, although we should all be thankful he kept Milliband out of No.10. But let's get him for something, this is "non story" of the year." There seem to be an awful lot of people around the world interested in this 'non-story of the year'. https://www.google.co.uk/#q=david+cameron+tax+avoidance&tbm=nws | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even as a Tory I don't particularly like him, although we should all be thankful he kept Milliband out of No.10. But let's get him for something, this is "non story" of the year. There seem to be an awful lot of people around the world interested in this 'non-story of the year'. https://www.google.co.uk/#q=david+cameron+tax+avoidance&tbm=nws "Ha.Yeah. Who'd have thought anybody would think it was significant eh?! Well. Apart from the Daily Express, which had a massive 'story' on how Amanda Holden became famous(how can anybody say that wasn't important?)and how hazelnuts(or was it walnuts)may help reduce the chances of developing a cancer as its leader on the day the 'non story' broke. I'm sure Mr Condom Head was in there around page 11 or something. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I love that Pat thinks Samantha Cameron comes from a 'very successful family background' as if they are just like us and have managed to make it to the top of the tree through hard work and industry. She's a descendant of King Charles II, for god's sake! ". Anything that you inherit can be quickly lost if all your efforts are not dedicated to managing it . The family did not get to where they are today by siting back and doing nothing . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So ordinary people don't have pensions? Millions of ordinary people don't have private pensions. Regardless of that fact, any benefit to private pension pots is far outweighed by the negative effects on quality of life in the UK caused by stripping tax revenues away from the national economy. Do you actually know anything at all about how pensions (private, corporate or state supported) are invested? It certainly does not seems so. Nobody mentioned private pwensions - we are talking about all types of pensions. Company pensions as well are a fast dying breed. If you are going to tell me that state pensions are invested through shell companies in Panama on the other hand, I'm all ears. "Everyone that is in work has a "private" pension now its law unless you elect to opt out, many of the new private schemes now running will invest through hedge funds many of these will be based in these so called "tax Havens", DC's one moved to Ireland a few years ago, the reason these companies are run from lower tax economies is that the "company" pays less tax on ITS profits so there is more to distribute to the shareholders who have to declare that interest to the tax man in their country of residence, if or when they sell their shares they would be then liable for any gain above the purchase price, (there is a tax free allowance each year). Tax evasion( trying to avoid paying tax by unlawful means) is a crime tax avoidance( minimising tax by lawful means) is totally lawful, there is not one person in the world that pays MORE tax than they have to. Not referring to you but there are lots of comments here from people that dont appear to understand how tax works, for example someone said profit on selling a car is subject to income and NI tax, WRONG on both points. profits from selling a car could be subject to capital gains tax but unless its a vintage car that has gone up in value thats very unlikely, if it was a business car then a balancing charge(tax)could be payable. The only time income tax would be payable would be if you ran a business buying and selling cars and made a profit then you would pay income tax on the business profits and possibly NI as well depending on certain factors. To date DC has not broken any law whatsoever,if he had he would have gone by now, everyone will have a different view on whether he is a slimy politician or not, personally I dont think many do it for ritualistic reasons | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So ordinary people don't have pensions? Millions of ordinary people don't have private pensions. Regardless of that fact, any benefit to private pension pots is far outweighed by the negative effects on quality of life in the UK caused by stripping tax revenues away from the national economy. Do you actually know anything at all about how pensions (private, corporate or state supported) are invested? It certainly does not seems so. Nobody mentioned private pwensions - we are talking about all types of pensions. Company pensions as well are a fast dying breed. If you are going to tell me that state pensions are invested through shell companies in Panama on the other hand, I'm all ears.
Everyone that is in work has a "private" pension now its law unless you elect to opt out, many of the new private schemes now running will invest through hedge funds many of these will be based in these so called "tax Havens", DC's one moved to Ireland a few years ago, the reason these companies are run from lower tax economies is that the "company" pays less tax on ITS profits so there is more to distribute to the shareholders who have to declare that interest to the tax man in their country of residence, if or when they sell their shares they would be then liable for any gain above the purchase price, (there is a tax free allowance each year).
Tax evasion( trying to avoid paying tax by unlawful means) is a crime tax avoidance( minimising tax by lawful means) is totally lawful, there is not one person in the world that pays MORE tax than they have to.
Not referring to you but there are lots of comments here from people that dont appear to understand how tax works, for example someone said profit on selling a car is subject to income and NI tax, WRONG on both points. profits from selling a car could be subject to capital gains tax but unless its a vintage car that has gone up in value thats very unlikely, if it was a business car then a balancing charge(tax)could be payable. The only time income tax would be payable would be if you ran a business buying and selling cars and made a profit then you would pay income tax on the business profits and possibly NI as well depending on certain factors.
To date DC has not broken any law whatsoever,if he had he would have gone by now, everyone will have a different view on whether he is a slimy politician or not, personally I dont think many do it for ritualistic reasons "Yes, I understand that. The question is not whether it is legal, but whether it should remain legal. The obvious answer is that it should not, as it is morally wrong. And the reason Cameron is under fire for this is that he has repeatedly criticised people for taking part in tax avoidance schemes...people like his dad, that is. "Speaking at the time he said: "It is not fair on hardworking people who do the right thing and pay their taxes to see these sorts of scams taking place." In 2013, he revealed the G8 summit, hosted by the UK that year, would draw particular attention to tax dodging. In January of that year he said: “We want to drive a more serious debate on tax evasion and tax avoidance. "After years of abuse, people across the planet are rightly calling for more action and, most importantly, there is gathering political will to actually do something about it.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-past-attacks-on-tax-evasion-after-admitting-to-profiting-offshore-trust-following-a6974001.html Just fancy that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So ordinary people don't have pensions? Millions of ordinary people don't have private pensions. Regardless of that fact, any benefit to private pension pots is far outweighed by the negative effects on quality of life in the UK caused by stripping tax revenues away from the national economy. Do you actually know anything at all about how pensions (private, corporate or state supported) are invested? It certainly does not seems so. Nobody mentioned private pwensions - we are talking about all types of pensions. Company pensions as well are a fast dying breed. If you are going to tell me that state pensions are invested through shell companies in Panama on the other hand, I'm all ears.
Everyone that is in work has a "private" pension now its law unless you elect to opt out, many of the new private schemes now running will invest through hedge funds many of these will be based in these so called "tax Havens", DC's one moved to Ireland a few years ago, the reason these companies are run from lower tax economies is that the "company" pays less tax on ITS profits so there is more to distribute to the shareholders who have to declare that interest to the tax man in their country of residence, if or when they sell their shares they would be then liable for any gain above the purchase price, (there is a tax free allowance each year).
Tax evasion( trying to avoid paying tax by unlawful means) is a crime tax avoidance( minimising tax by lawful means) is totally lawful, there is not one person in the world that pays MORE tax than they have to.
Not referring to you but there are lots of comments here from people that dont appear to understand how tax works, for example someone said profit on selling a car is subject to income and NI tax, WRONG on both points. profits from selling a car could be subject to capital gains tax but unless its a vintage car that has gone up in value thats very unlikely, if it was a business car then a balancing charge(tax)could be payable. The only time income tax would be payable would be if you ran a business buying and selling cars and made a profit then you would pay income tax on the business profits and possibly NI as well depending on certain factors.
To date DC has not broken any law whatsoever,if he had he would have gone by now, everyone will have a different view on whether he is a slimy politician or not, personally I dont think many do it for ritualistic reasons ". Traditionally Pension firms have very little invested in hedge funds, although this is changing a bit recently, most pension funds have limits on what risk there allowed to invest in, hence why they tend to stick to bonds and regular shares with good dividends | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I love that Pat thinks Samantha Cameron comes from a 'very successful family background' as if they are just like us and have managed to make it to the top of the tree through hard work and industry. She's a descendant of King Charles II, for god's sake! . Anything that you inherit can be quickly lost if all your efforts are not dedicated to managing it . The family did not get to where they are today by siting back and doing nothing . "Enlighten us then Pat - what did Samantha Cameron's family do to earn their fortunes that was not a result of their inherited wealth and privilege? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I love that Pat thinks Samantha Cameron comes from a 'very successful family background' as if they are just like us and have managed to make it to the top of the tree through hard work and industry. She's a descendant of King Charles II, for god's sake! . Anything that you inherit can be quickly lost if all your efforts are not dedicated to managing it . The family did not get to where they are today by siting back and doing nothing .
Enlighten us then Pat - what did Samantha Cameron's family do to earn their fortunes that was not a result of their inherited wealth and privilege? "Scum has a bouyancy, doesn't it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What I found interesting is caMoron saying that there was only £30,000 involved and that he paid all UK taxes on earning. Also that the profits were under the capital gains threshold and therefore no tax was due on them. That is the definition of a tax avoidance/evasion scheme! The slimy shit went on national TV and basically said our family tax dodge is so good I have the accounts to prove I did nothing wrong! Just like all the other slimy shits who are stealing our countries wealth and being helped by caMoron and his corrupt Eaton class war cronies." good point and I agree although not in all true YES; he said he paid all UK tax on his profits BUT: and a big but; Blairmore Holdings is an offshore company, it does not pay tax on its profits SO; the profits Cameron received are higher, much higher than if Blairmore Holdings were based in UK and not offshore SO, whether you agree or not, Cameron indirectly did make gains on a tax dodge anyone disagree if so please explain | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" YES; he said he paid all UK tax on his profits BUT: and a big but; Blairmore Holdings is an offshore company, it does not pay tax on its profits SO; the profits Cameron received are higher, much higher than if Blairmore Holdings were based in UK and not offshore SO, whether you agree or not, Cameron indirectly did make gains on a tax dodge anyone disagree if so please explain" OK... Blairmore Holdings was incorporated in Panama and this means that it was incorporated in a jurisdiction where the Company paid little to no tax on its profits and thereby enabled greater dividends to be paid to shareholders. This is the very essence of an offshore Trust/Fund/Scheme. If Panama was not a tax haven then profits from Blairmore would have been taxed in panama and that is not much use for anyone in the UK. Similarly, if Blairmore was incorporated in any other country that was not a tax haven, its profits would be taxed to the benefit of that particular country. As it happens, Panama was the country and so shareholders benefitted from dividends that were paid free of any panama deductions and ALL 100% of the tax went to HMRC. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Camerons did not declare their income and therefore HMRC benefitted from the higher tax take enabled by the fact that none was taken at source in Panama. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" YES; he said he paid all UK tax on his profits BUT: and a big but; Blairmore Holdings is an offshore company, it does not pay tax on its profits SO; the profits Cameron received are higher, much higher than if Blairmore Holdings were based in UK and not offshore SO, whether you agree or not, Cameron indirectly did make gains on a tax dodge anyone disagree if so please explain OK... Blairmore Holdings was incorporated in Panama and this means that it was incorporated in a jurisdiction where the Company paid little to no tax on its profits and thereby enabled greater dividends to be paid to shareholders. This is the very essence of an offshore Trust/Fund/Scheme. If Panama was not a tax haven then profits from Blairmore would have been taxed in panama and that is not much use for anyone in the UK. Similarly, if Blairmore was incorporated in any other country that was not a tax haven, its profits would be taxed to the benefit of that particular country. As it happens, Panama was the country and so shareholders benefitted from dividends that were paid free of any panama deductions and ALL 100% of the tax went to HMRC. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Camerons did not declare their income and therefore HMRC benefitted from the higher tax take enabled by the fact that none was taken at source in Panama. " So? you are saying Cameron is squeaky clean, you think this is the end of his sneaky financial affairs or just the tip of the ice berg with much more to follow now where's my bag of pop corn | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" YES; he said he paid all UK tax on his profits BUT: and a big but; Blairmore Holdings is an offshore company, it does not pay tax on its profits SO; the profits Cameron received are higher, much higher than if Blairmore Holdings were based in UK and not offshore SO, whether you agree or not, Cameron indirectly did make gains on a tax dodge anyone disagree if so please explain OK... Blairmore Holdings was incorporated in Panama and this means that it was incorporated in a jurisdiction where the Company paid little to no tax on its profits and thereby enabled greater dividends to be paid to shareholders. This is the very essence of an offshore Trust/Fund/Scheme. If Panama was not a tax haven then profits from Blairmore would have been taxed in panama and that is not much use for anyone in the UK. Similarly, if Blairmore was incorporated in any other country that was not a tax haven, its profits would be taxed to the benefit of that particular country. As it happens, Panama was the country and so shareholders benefitted from dividends that were paid free of any panama deductions and ALL 100% of the tax went to HMRC. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Camerons did not declare their income and therefore HMRC benefitted from the higher tax take enabled by the fact that none was taken at source in Panama. " And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this? "Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
"Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely? It's asset stripping basically. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically."It's definitely something but it's not asset stripping. That's the practice of buying a failing company and selling its best bits in a nutshell I always thought? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
"You and I both know that the only reason it is not incorporated in the UK is to provide a vehicle for people like Ian Cameron to put their money in so that they don't pay tax in the UK on money earned in the UK. And for their children like David Cameron to benefit from. Money that they have because they have benefited from living in the UK. Money they have inherited from people who have made money from living in the UK. So I am absolutely fine with people incorporating companies in Panama to avoid paying tax on their money...as long as we don't let them or their children ever set foot in this country again. That seems a very fair and reasonable way of doing things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically.
It's definitely something but it's not asset stripping. That's the practice of buying a failing company and selling its best bits in a nutshell I always thought? "Yeah that's what I thought too. Most obviously I was thinking about how Putin's associates have invested their money which they in turn got from the privatisation of formerly Russin state owned industries. I'm sure you could do something similar if you traced the money trail backwards from some of the British investors too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
You and I both know that the only reason it is not incorporated in the UK is to provide a vehicle for people like Ian Cameron to put their money in so that they don't pay tax in the UK on money earned in the UK. And for their children like David Cameron to benefit from.
Money that they have because they have benefited from living in the UK. Money they have inherited from people who have made money from living in the UK.
So I am absolutely fine with people incorporating companies in Panama to avoid paying tax on their money...as long as we don't let them or their children ever set foot in this country again. That seems a very fair and reasonable way of doing things.". Any money remitted back to the UK will be taxed so ttheir is nothing to worry about . I would be confident in stating that David Cameron and his family pay a lot more tax than most of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
You and I both know that the only reason it is not incorporated in the UK is to provide a vehicle for people like Ian Cameron to put their money in so that they don't pay tax in the UK on money earned in the UK. And for their children like David Cameron to benefit from.
Money that they have because they have benefited from living in the UK. Money they have inherited from people who have made money from living in the UK.
So I am absolutely fine with people incorporating companies in Panama to avoid paying tax on their money...as long as we don't let them or their children ever set foot in this country again. That seems a very fair and reasonable way of doing things.. Any money remitted back to the UK will be taxed so ttheir is nothing to worry about . I would be confident in stating that David Cameron and his family pay a lot more tax than most of us. "As a proportion of their wealth? Because that is what counts here, not the amount they pay. I am quite confident they pay less than the majority of people. And Pat, how is the research on how Samantha Cameron's family made their money without the benefit of inherited wealth and privilege going? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically."So when Toyota or Ford invest here in the UK they are asset stripping their home country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's the whole point of a shell company in Panama. The money never comes home to pay tax on it. You just use the shell company to buy the stuff you'd need the money here for in the first place. Like a house That was so 1980's. The world has moved on and that is almost impossible to do these days in Europe or the US.. It's like back to the future!. . . http://www.private-eye.co.uk/mobi/registry. That private eye map is really good for a gander on your local area!. Here's another broad sheet report. . .http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-property-boom-built-on-dirty-money-10083527.html" . Have you checked out your local area yet, there's a big building plot on poundswick lane showing up as owned by a foreign corporation!. . . . The independent article is really showing how the dirty laundered money is helping that tory revival in house prices though!. Georgie porgy must be well happy as his standard economic policy is woeful... Thank heavens for small mercies from sex slave, gun runner dictators I guess | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
You and I both know that the only reason it is not incorporated in the UK is to provide a vehicle for people like Ian Cameron to put their money in so that they don't pay tax in the UK on money earned in the UK. And for their children like David Cameron to benefit from.
Money that they have because they have benefited from living in the UK. Money they have inherited from people who have made money from living in the UK.
So I am absolutely fine with people incorporating companies in Panama to avoid paying tax on their money...as long as we don't let them or their children ever set foot in this country again. That seems a very fair and reasonable way of doing things."You are as always, a fair and reasonable poster. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
You and I both know that the only reason it is not incorporated in the UK is to provide a vehicle for people like Ian Cameron to put their money in so that they don't pay tax in the UK on money earned in the UK. And for their children like David Cameron to benefit from.
Money that they have because they have benefited from living in the UK. Money they have inherited from people who have made money from living in the UK.
So I am absolutely fine with people incorporating companies in Panama to avoid paying tax on their money...as long as we don't let them or their children ever set foot in this country again. That seems a very fair and reasonable way of doing things."In your country, you simply assume that everyone is guilty and prosecute them on your opinion. Not a country many would want to live in. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that all, most, some, any, a few of the individuals who invest in offshore trusts or funds pay no tax when they repatriate their funds to the UK. You are assuming something because it fits your version of a world where the rich persecute the poor and the life you live as a consequence is one of purgatory and torture at the hands of the rich. You should try thinking differently it might take that bitter taste out of your mouth | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically.
So when Toyota or Ford invest here in the UK they are asset stripping their home country?"I don't get your point? They've always been privately owned(i think?), and anyone who thinks MNCs 'belong' to any one nation is misunderstanding how the global economy now works(NOT that I'm saying that I have any understanding of it either). If a MNC makes proft(as most people would define it, as opposed to that company's 'creative' tax consultants)then absolutely it should pay tax(a truly fair tax, that is)to the country where that profit was earned from. If it's an individual, then ditto. My point about the privatisation of of Russian industry/commodities has nothing to do with Ford and Toyota. Can't you see they're completely different? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically.
So when Toyota or Ford invest here in the UK they are asset stripping their home country?
I don't get your point? They've always been privately owned(i think?), and anyone who thinks MNCs 'belong' to any one nation is misunderstanding how the global economy now works(NOT that I'm saying that I have any understanding of it either).
If a MNC makes proft(as most people would define it, as opposed to that company's 'creative' tax consultants)then absolutely it should pay tax(a truly fair tax, that is)to the country where that profit was earned from.
If it's an individual, then ditto.
My point about the privatisation of of Russian industry/commodities has nothing to do with Ford and Toyota. Can't you see they're completely different? "Russian commodities? What is that about? You are suggesting that money used to invest in an overseas company is asset stripping.... " Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely? It's asset stripping basically." No it is not asset stripping and we in this country can be EXTREMELY grateful that we have foreign individuals, investors and institutions that invest in this country because we depend on it. We can't stop UK residents investing overseas if we want overseas residents to invest here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically.
So when Toyota or Ford invest here in the UK they are asset stripping their home country?
I don't get your point? They've always been privately owned(i think?), and anyone who thinks MNCs 'belong' to any one nation is misunderstanding how the global economy now works(NOT that I'm saying that I have any understanding of it either).
If a MNC makes proft(as most people would define it, as opposed to that company's 'creative' tax consultants)then absolutely it should pay tax(a truly fair tax, that is)to the country where that profit was earned from.
If it's an individual, then ditto.
My point about the privatisation of of Russian industry/commodities has nothing to do with Ford and Toyota. Can't you see they're completely different?
Russian commodities? What is that about?
You are suggesting that money used to invest in an overseas company is asset stripping....
" Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically."
No it is not asset stripping and we in this country can be EXTREMELY grateful that we have foreign individuals, investors and institutions that invest in this country because we depend on it. We can't stop UK residents investing overseas if we want overseas residents to invest here.
"Erm. The Russian gas industry(just for one). It was state owned. Then it was privatised. The workers who got their shares were basically fucked over by entrepreneurs like Abramovich and the like. Said entrepreneurs then invested money gained from domestic assets in offshore wotsits. SO not only nicking what belonged to everybody, but not paying much/is any tax on it. So the Russians had a case of DP going on to them. There IS a difference, surely? Oh god. Foreign 'investment'. That's a whole other thread.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes everyone keeps ignoring my foreign investment story in houses...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-property-boom-built-on-dirty-money-10083527.html" You'll find that Too Hot goes wisely silent whenever anyone posts anything that contradicts his considered opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Each one of your posts reads exactly like this: "I have made a living helping the wealthy avoid paying taxes. What can I say here to avoid answering the moral questions that asks of me? And what can I say about the situation that will apply to the periphery of the issue, rather than the meat of it, and help to distract people's attention from it?" The rich do persecute the poor, if they prevent the equal distribution of wealth. That doesn't make me feel bitter, but it does cause me to look with disgust at the people and systems that enable that persecution." The problem is that the world that you are looking out on is very, very small and therefore your simple problems have simple solutions. In the real world, these tax issue are international problems that need international solutions for any meaningful result. We live in a first world country and as such we expect to be treated civilly and fairly by the state. In return we act civilly, we adhere to rules, laws and regulations and we pay our taxes. Despite what you think, the vast majority of people do the right thing and those who are most suspicious tend to be the ones who are most likely to break the rules themselves and that is why they assume everyone else is at it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Each one of your posts reads exactly like this: "I have made a living helping the wealthy avoid paying taxes. What can I say here to avoid answering the moral questions that asks of me? And what can I say about the situation that will apply to the periphery of the issue, rather than the meat of it, and help to distract people's attention from it?" The rich do persecute the poor, if they prevent the equal distribution of wealth. That doesn't make me feel bitter, but it does cause me to look with disgust at the people and systems that enable that persecution. The problem is that the world that you are looking out on is very, very small and therefore your simple problems have simple solutions. In the real world, these tax issue are international problems that need international solutions for any meaningful result. We live in a first world country and as such we expect to be treated civilly and fairly by the state. In return we act civilly, we adhere to rules, laws and regulations and we pay our taxes. Despite what you think, the vast majority of people do the right thing and those who are most suspicious tend to be the ones who are most likely to break the rules themselves and that is why they assume everyone else is at it." The lady doth suppose too much, methinks! Try looking behind the arras again. A correct opinion may be hiding there! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes everyone keeps ignoring my foreign investment story in houses...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-property-boom-built-on-dirty-money-10083527.html" But this simply illustrates the point I was making. It is almost impossible ffor a European or US resident to to do this now. Corruption on this scale has a home in the Third World and with corrupt government officials in those countries. This is far, far removed from legitimate investments and has to be sponsored. As an aside I can tell you that this is not the whole story "estate agents only have to carry out anti-money-laundering checks on the person selling the property, leaving the buyers bringing their money into the country facing little, if any scrutiny." Solicitors DO have to undertake AML due diligence and this involves having certified (and in some cases Notarised) photo ID and address ID copies of any individual holding more than 5% of the shares in an enttity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically.
So when Toyota or Ford invest here in the UK they are asset stripping their home country?
I don't get your point? They've always been privately owned(i think?), and anyone who thinks MNCs 'belong' to any one nation is misunderstanding how the global economy now works(NOT that I'm saying that I have any understanding of it either).
If a MNC makes proft(as most people would define it, as opposed to that company's 'creative' tax consultants)then absolutely it should pay tax(a truly fair tax, that is)to the country where that profit was earned from.
If it's an individual, then ditto.
My point about the privatisation of of Russian industry/commodities has nothing to do with Ford and Toyota. Can't you see they're completely different?
Russian commodities? What is that about?
You are suggesting that money used to invest in an overseas company is asset stripping....
" Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically."
No it is not asset stripping and we in this country can be EXTREMELY grateful that we have foreign individuals, investors and institutions that invest in this country because we depend on it. We can't stop UK residents investing overseas if we want overseas residents to invest here.
Erm.
The Russian gas industry(just for one). It was state owned. Then it was privatised. The workers who got their shares were basically fucked over by entrepreneurs like Abramovich and the like. Said entrepreneurs then invested money gained from domestic assets in offshore wotsits.
SO not only nicking what belonged to everybody, but not paying much/is any tax on it.
So the Russians had a case of DP going on to them.
There IS a difference, surely?
Oh god. Foreign 'investment'. That's a whole other thread..
"Sorry, you have completely lost me. No idea where Russian asset stripping has come from in this thread or what I replied to. I don't see any relevance whatsoever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Each one of your posts reads exactly like this: "I have made a living helping the wealthy avoid paying taxes. What can I say here to avoid answering the moral questions that asks of me? And what can I say about the situation that will apply to the periphery of the issue, rather than the meat of it, and help to distract people's attention from it?" The rich do persecute the poor, if they prevent the equal distribution of wealth. That doesn't make me feel bitter, but it does cause me to look with disgust at the people and systems that enable that persecution. The problem is that the world that you are looking out on is very, very small and therefore your simple problems have simple solutions. In the real world, these tax issue are international problems that need international solutions for any meaningful result. We live in a first world country and as such we expect to be treated civilly and fairly by the state. In return we act civilly, we adhere to rules, laws and regulations and we pay our taxes. Despite what you think, the vast majority of people do the right thing and those who are most suspicious tend to be the ones who are most likely to break the rules themselves and that is why they assume everyone else is at it. The lady doth suppose too much, methinks! Try looking behind the arras again. A correct opinion may be hiding there! "I'm not quite sure what he/she's trying to say either. Or understand the point. So basically if someone makes up a law then as long as everyone toes the line all's foul and fair? Surely a democracy allows for wuestioning of rules and laws. Especially when many of them can be seen to exist purely for the accumulation of wealth by the few at the expense of the many. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And now do you want to tell us about the fact that Blairmore has never paid any tax in the UK on its profits in thirty years because it was incorporated in Panama, 'as it happens'? Or is that not relevant to the slant you are giving this?
Why should it pay tax in the UK if it is incorporated in Panama? Are we going to make some new isolationist rules and raise the drawbridge by not allowing British nationals to do anything outside of the UK? Or shall we inist that every company in the world has to pay tax in the UK even if it is not registered in the UK and conducts no business in the UK?
Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically.
So when Toyota or Ford invest here in the UK they are asset stripping their home country?
I don't get your point? They've always been privately owned(i think?), and anyone who thinks MNCs 'belong' to any one nation is misunderstanding how the global economy now works(NOT that I'm saying that I have any understanding of it either).
If a MNC makes proft(as most people would define it, as opposed to that company's 'creative' tax consultants)then absolutely it should pay tax(a truly fair tax, that is)to the country where that profit was earned from.
If it's an individual, then ditto.
My point about the privatisation of of Russian industry/commodities has nothing to do with Ford and Toyota. Can't you see they're completely different?
Russian commodities? What is that about?
You are suggesting that money used to invest in an overseas company is asset stripping....
" Depends where a lot of the money invested in them comes from, surely?
It's asset stripping basically."
No it is not asset stripping and we in this country can be EXTREMELY grateful that we have foreign individuals, investors and institutions that invest in this country because we depend on it. We can't stop UK residents investing overseas if we want overseas residents to invest here.
Erm.
The Russian gas industry(just for one). It was state owned. Then it was privatised. The workers who got their shares were basically fucked over by entrepreneurs like Abramovich and the like. Said entrepreneurs then invested money gained from domestic assets in offshore wotsits.
SO not only nicking what belonged to everybody, but not paying much/is any tax on it.
So the Russians had a case of DP going on to them.
There IS a difference, surely?
Oh god. Foreign 'investment'. That's a whole other thread..
Sorry, you have completely lost me. No idea where Russian asset stripping has come from in this thread or what I replied to. I don't see any relevance whatsoever."I did lay it out fairly clearly earlier. You even commented upon it with your extremely tenuous, irrelevant and problematic Ford/Toyota response. Keep up now! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes everyone keeps ignoring my foreign investment story in houses...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-property-boom-built-on-dirty-money-10083527.html But this simply illustrates the point I was making. It is almost impossible ffor a European or US resident to to do this now. Corruption on this scale has a home in the Third World and with corrupt government officials in those countries. This is far, far removed from legitimate investments and has to be sponsored. As an aside I can tell you that this is not the whole story "estate agents only have to carry out anti-money-laundering checks on the person selling the property, leaving the buyers bringing their money into the country facing little, if any scrutiny." Solicitors DO have to undertake AML due diligence and this involves having certified (and in some cases Notarised) photo ID and address ID copies of any individual holding more than 5% of the shares in an enttity." . I know... That's why I said they use places like Panama to have their holding companies BECAUSE it relies on secrecy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am out of here. I have to arrange interest disbursement payments on an offshore fund before heading off to Monte Carlo for the weekend. have fun "You know when you're beat, I'll give you that. Have fun! This 'non-story' is playing out beautifully for Corbyn. Latest YouGov polling shows him with better approval ratings than Cameron. He is also polling higher than Cameron, Osborne or Boris Johnson on who people trust to deal with tax avoidance and havens. I guess Cameron will only score highly if they start asking people who they trust to avoid tax! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What about Mr Chuka una and his accounts overseas that paid x number of millions for his london home !" Sounds like something he would do, the weasel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sounds like a large storm in a small teacup to me but also a timely reminder to everyone that Cameron had a wealthy and privileged background. " On the contrary, the fact that our government is colluding with business to unfairly move wealth from the poor to the rich is pretty much the defining issue of our time. This is a welcome reminder this is happening at the highest levels of our 'democratic' society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes everyone keeps ignoring my foreign investment story in houses...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-property-boom-built-on-dirty-money-10083527.html You'll find that Too Hot goes wisely silent whenever anyone posts anything that contradicts his considered opinion. ". The tax evading is really the sideline.... The headline is the bit nobody's talking about!. Where the original investment came from?. That's why they had to be in Panama, away from prying eyes and with complete anonymity!. . . . Of course you could argue from a merely economic standpoint, whether laundered money causing house price bubbles in your economy is actually a good thing anyhow! Housing is notoriously unproductive as the head of bank of international settlements pointed out last year in his look at the UK economy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So after listening to all this,does this mean that if I buy a car for £2000,then sell it for £4000...should I pay tax on the £2000 profit.Would the £2000 be classed as earnings." Capital Gains....but everyone has a "personal allowance" for that before any tax is due. Cameron sold shares at a profit that was below the threshold...so mo capital gains tax was due. He had previously been paid dividends....and paid tax on them. Just as you or I would on any shares...regardless of where the company was based. Just on the whole point....anyone who has a company or private pension also probably has money invested (on their behalf) in offshore holding companies. The dividends and profits from these shares go into growing your pension fund! That makes us all as guilty (or not) as Cameron. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Which politicians can be trusted? look at the middle east peace envoy. how the feck did he get that job. He should be up for war crimes and the proceeds of crime !" Ex envoy bless him. Blair as Middle East peace envoy= the death of irony. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
