Anyone going to the Downing Street Protests?

[drew]

It's not most probably legal it is legal but the press have an agenda over morality and won't let go.

I personally have less of an issue with this sort of thing than others but I do understand the anger it riles in others my main problem is that the anger stems from jealousy in the main, the I deserve more for nothing brigade. Would love to meet a die hard lefty who has managed to build up his/her own business and then been lucky enough to sell it for a considerable sum of money and HASN'T taken exit planning advice to mitigate tax. Morally that's exactly the same scenario as here but why wouldn't you want to keep money that you have earned right? Anyway...

The problem is the hypocrisy. You're right, he hasn't done anything illegal but then again, I'm not sure Jimmy Carr had either. Can't wait for his next monologue on the issue!!!

 

[KZNSeagull]

good post and you are most probably right, but the element of trust comes in to play now and in this moment of time the tories are not going to be trusted, and yes as everyone says what Cameron has done is most probably legal ,but when it comes to putting that cross on the election paper people will ask themselves is it moral

What precisely has he done wrong? I see he has published a summary of his tax returns now and there is nothing in them that is wrong.

 

[studio150]

good post and you are most probably right, but the element of trust comes in to play now and in this moment of time the tories are not going to be trusted, and yes as everyone says what Cameron has done is most probably legal ,but when it comes to putting that cross on the election paper people will ask themselves is it moral

It is legal not probably legal.

Also the next time there is a General Election Cameron has already stated that he will not be seeking a third term as PM, therefore most of the public will not think back four years, but will be considering what the climate is at the time, and who the leaders of the main parties are.

 

[drew]

If it was introduced I would expect it to fall in line with the cost of a Dental check-up under the NHS which is now £19.70. However I would not expect this to be introduced as any Government would be very wary of the public backlash and the huge loss of votes. It would presumably lead to an increase in deaths as people don't go to see the Doctor due to the cost involved.

When NI contributions are combined with Income Tax to just have one tax on income, this would see an increase in revenue which could be used for the NHS presuming that the new tax is applied to all income (dividends, interest, etc)

Have you got some figures to support that?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

What precisely has he done wrong? I see he has published a summary of his tax returns now and there is nothing in them that is wrong.

Could not agree more....all a fuss over nothing.

 

[beorhthelm]

Nice and simple then. So, what would happen if a US manufacturer of PV panels expanded due to expected growth in the EU due to government subsidies for green power and then the governments change their policy to stop subsidies and that affects sales and this company then has the right to sue. Maybe new stringent restrictions on emissions from vehicles affects US manufacturers profits etc etc.

you've suggested a couple of scenarios that would apply for a company to sue, on the grounds the goal posts have changed and a business model has been compromised (though the second would be in EU manufacturers favour on current form). quite right imo, if a business wants to invest millions or billions in an industry they should have a stable legal and regulatory framework. it doesnt mean laws cant be passed, it means a government needs to account for the cost of the change. this is quite different from 1066gulls suggestion they can sue due to "loss of profits the endure through taxation and other investment".

if you think its secretive, see the US and EU websites. personally i think its not such much secret as dull and complex, so the media and individuals cant be bothered, so a bunch of fear stories has filled the void. what little i've read suggests there's good and bad in there, as you might expect from a massive agreement with so many interests. it may be noteworthy that theres groups in the US believe its bad for them, presumably too many commie regulations they'll have to abide.

 

[glasfryn]

It's not most probably legal it is legal but the press have an agenda over morality and won't let go.

I personally have less of an issue with this sort of thing than others but I do understand the anger it riles in others my main problem is that the anger stems from jealousy in the main, the I deserve more for nothing brigade. Would love to meet a die hard lefty who has managed to build up his/her own business and then been lucky enough to sell it for a considerable sum of money and HASN'T taken exit planning advice to mitigate tax. Morally that's exactly the same scenario as here but why wouldn't you want to keep money that you have earned right? Anyway...

Oh theres plenty of them but I have never counted them as socialists,hence not really lefties either, which is why there are many joining the Labour party for the first time and re-joining like myself, there is a groundswell of people who think that this govenment is corrupt and immoral more so the latter.
one thing I like about Corbyn is he is honest and tells you what he believes in like it or not, whereas Cameron tells you one thing and then does exactly the opposite himself and even worse believes his own retoric.
sorry I do not believe in his naughty boy act and says he will put it right(and if he is still there will be stabbed in the back by his own party).
every time he says this it reminds me of another of my bugbares when police,social workers ect say when another child dies we will learn our lessons they have been saying that since Maria Coldwell and how many years ago was that.
I have also said before that I am coming to the end of my time, if I had it again I would have done things a lot differently

 

[glasfryn]

What precisely has he done wrong? I see he has published a summary of his tax returns now and there is nothing in them that is wrong.

It is legal not probably legal.

Also the next time there is a General Election Cameron has already stated that he will not be seeking a third term as PM, therefore most of the public will not think back four years, but will be considering what the climate is at the time, and who the leaders of the main parties are.

Could not agree more....all a fuss over nothing.

so its OK to put money in a bank in Panama is it
not very patriotic is it

and you think he will last 4 years

 

[drew]

What precisely has he done wrong? I see he has published a summary of his tax returns now and there is nothing in them that is wrong.

I suspect that there will be more to come out once people have picked over the returns in far more detail.

For example, he inherited £300k from his dad, presumably his siblings inherited a similar amount. He then received two payments from his mother to balance up the legacy!!! What is that all about. Was that a way of avoiding IHT on part of his dad's estate (there would be no IHT payable on what is passed on to his spouse). If the £200k had been part of the original legacy then surely it would have been subject to 40% IHT (before being passed on to CDM). Will be interesting to see whether there is any information as to how much IHT was paid on his estate which was apparently worth £2.74m.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

so its OK to put money in a bank in Panama is it
not very patriotic is it

and you think he will last 4 years

Yes,people of all political persuasion,in every country in the whole wide world do it all the time....

and yes i think he will last another 4 years.

I love cats too and prefer them but i also like dogs....my cats understand this....hope that bit helps.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I suspect that there will be more to come out once people have picked over the returns in far more detail.

For example, he inherited £300k from his dad, presumably his siblings inherited a similar amount. He then received two payments from his mother to balance up the legacy!!! What is that all about. Was that a way of avoiding IHT on part of his dad's estate (there would be no IHT payable on what is passed on to his spouse). If the £200k had been part of the original legacy then surely it would have been subject to 40% IHT (before being passed on to CDM). Will be interesting to see whether there is any information as to how much IHT was paid on his estate which was apparently worth £2.74m.

So the gripe is now inheritance tax from this fathers estate is it, now that the Panama business has proved to be a dead duck? I see. He will have to pay IHT on the portion from his mother if she dies within 7 years of the date of the gift. As for the rest of it I have no idea, but tax accountants have said that there is nothing in the summary that " raises eyebrows". ie all perfectly legal and above board.

But the original complaint is that he "stole" from the taxpayer as he had money invested offshore. That has proved to be false.

 

[glasfryn]

Yes,people of all political persuasion,in every country in the whole wide world do it all the time....

and yes i think he will last another 4 years.

I love cats too and prefer them but i also like dogs....my cats understand this....hope that bit helps.

does not make it right though
and no he won't Europe or this episode will do for him
and my cats ,particularly one has been trying for world domination for years, but as yet she has not learned to open cans or pouches

 

[beorhthelm]

I suspect that there will be more to come out once people have picked over the returns in far more detail.

For example, he inherited £300k from his dad, presumably his siblings inherited a similar amount. He then received two payments from his mother to balance up the legacy!!! What is that all about. Was that a way of avoiding IHT on part of his dad's estate (there would be no IHT payable on what is passed on to his spouse). If the £200k had been part of the original legacy then surely it would have been subject to 40% IHT (before being passed on to CDM). Will be interesting to see whether there is any information as to how much IHT was paid on his estate which was apparently worth £2.74m.

as little as possible. this is basic tax planning at issue here, using well known and common rules to reduce (avoid if you want) the tax liability. anyone with a property and assets over the IHT threshold and a day to research, or an hour with an accountant, would be arranging their estate in similar fashion. i dont recall anyone calling for these decade old rules to be overturned, only that apparently it shouldnt apply to those in public eye. before we get on to the "morals" does anyone pay more tax than they should do? i've never met this person, everyone pays as much as is required and not a penny more.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

does not make it right though
and no he won't Europe or this episode will do for him
and my cats ,particularly one has been trying for world domination for years, but as yet she has not learned to open cans or pouches

also does not make it wrong either,if it's not illegal.....morals is what the arguments are about.

God bless the cats..

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

as little as possible. this is basic tax planning at issue here, using well known and common rules to reduce (avoid if you want) the tax liability. anyone with a property and assets over the IHT threshold and a day to research, or an hour with an accountant, would be arranging their estate in similar fashion. i dont recall anyone calling for these decade old rules to be overturned, only that apparently it shouldnt apply to those in public eye. before we get on to the "morals" does anyone pay more tax than they should do? i've never met this person, everyone pays as much as is required and not a penny more.

Well said.

 

[glasfryn]

So the gripe is now inheritance tax from this fathers estate is it, now that the Panama business has proved to be a dead duck? I see. He will have to pay IHT on the portion from his mother if she dies within 7 years of the date of the gift. As for the rest of it I have no idea, but tax accountants have said that there is nothing in the summary that " raises eyebrows". ie all perfectly legal and above board.

But the original complaint is that he "stole" from the taxpayer as he had money invested offshore. That has proved to be false.

not particularly moral or patriotic is it when he is telling others they should not be doing it, slippery behavior.
his father made a business getting people to use this bank to do exacty that not neccessarily to "steal" but deprive or as they minimise

 

[drew]

So the gripe is now inheritance tax from this fathers estate is it, now that the Panama business has proved to be a dead duck? I see. He will have to pay IHT on the portion from his mother if she dies within 7 years of the date of the gift. As for the rest of it I have no idea, but tax accountants have said that there is nothing in the summary that " raises eyebrows". ie all perfectly legal and above board.

But the original complaint is that he "stole" from the taxpayer as he had money invested offshore. That has proved to be false.

Where have people claimed he stole from the taxpayer? Yes there might be a few idiots that spout crap but in the main the criticism is that he was very good at slating others for benefiting from offshore tax havens and tax avoidance schemes yet he knew all along he had benefited from an offshore tax haven!!. You can put blue spin on it as much as you like.

 

[glasfryn]

as little as possible. this is basic tax planning at issue here, using well known and common rules to reduce (avoid if you want) the tax liability. anyone with a property and assets over the IHT threshold and a day to research, or an hour with an accountant, would be arranging their estate in similar fashion. i dont recall anyone calling for these decade old rules to be overturned, only that apparently it shouldnt apply to those in public eye. before we get on to the "morals" does anyone pay more tax than they should do? i've never met this person, everyone pays as much as is required and not a penny more.

or less here .............................otherwise you would have the bailiffs on your door
and it seems that they will have plenty of work soon

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

The problem is the hypocrisy. You're right, he hasn't done anything illegal but then again, I'm not sure Jimmy Carr had either. Can't wait for his next monologue on the issue!!!

Be quite interesting if all the cabinet AND shadow cabinet published their tax returns, I reckon there'd be quite a few more questions for both sides.

Given Brown's behaviour when he still had his mic on, not to mention Blunketts and others, I would suggest that neither party has particularly high morals.

 

[glasfryn]

Be quite interesting if all the cabinet AND shadow cabinet published their tax returns, I reckon there'd be quite a few more questions for both sides.

Given Brown's behaviour when he still had his mic on, not to mention Blunketts and others, I would suggest that neither party has particularly high morals.

the words power and morals do not compute