Anyone going to the Downing Street Protests?

[highflyer]

30 pages later, and no one can yet articulate what Cameron has actually done wrong?

As I posted earlier in the thread, the crux of it seems to be jealousy that DC had a decent amount of money to invest in the 1st place.

What has Cameron actually done wong?

Despite declaring three years ago that he was going to do it, he hasn't sorted out the UK tax havens and allows them to continue to be used for hiding hiding financial activity - a lot of which will be very dodgy and will be causing a lot of harm across the world.

And let's be clear - he hasn't even tried very hard. He hasn't met anyone from these places since 2013

He also mishandled the whole process of revealing his own affairs - which I'd say is incompetence rather than lack of ethics (his lack of ethics is however amply demonstrated in other areas of his policy agenda)
.

 

[Ernest]

Dodgy Dave

 

[Soulman]

This is what Martin Lewis the financial advisor on TV stated yesterday.

"The Sunday Times front page is today implying Cameron's mother's £200,000 gift to him is an inheritance tax 'dodge' and 'avoidance'; yet I'm sure its own money section has often rightly recommended doing just that as legitimate tax planning. What next will we see "Cameron dodged £15,240 of saving tax by putting money in an ISA"?

So far in this debate I've been vocal on the fact we have a moral duty to pay our taxes - its the cost of living in a legitimate civil society. And offshore complex financial avoidance and dodgy hidden manipulative trusts should rightly be called avoidance and castigated

Yet lets call it avoidance when it is avoidance and not using government allowances to do things that we're supposed to do - even if you're prime minister. To try and grow this story by trying to darken the act of standard tax planning, isn't a good route,

The rules are plain you can give money from income, or give money more than 7 years before you die and there's no inheritence tax. Utilising that isn't dodgy."

 

[Sorrel]

Like most politics, the aim is to present a shorthand view of someone so that people just use that when making up their minds. Tax-dodge Dave, for example. The impression is what matters, not the details (or lack of them) behind the complaint. Sometimes it doesn't work, but the idea is if you fling enough mud some of it will stick.

I'm not sure it's a good idea for the Labour Party to be so personal in their attacks, as these tend to only play well to those who are aren't supporters of the government anyway. There's a good case to be made that the tax havens under UK jurisdiction need reforming (providing we don't push them so far they make a UDI), but concentrating on the PM is not going to change anything.

Labour should maybe also go for the "50p tax cut helped the Tory politicians" line; I think that would be quite a successful attack.

 

[Brian Fantana]

They have on numerous occasions but you have your fingers in your ear and probably are still singing 'ding a ling'.

1. Hypocrisy. He went to great lengths to criticise other celebrities for legal (but questionably not moral) schemes based overseas.
2. He took a long time to come clean and then eventually that was with reservations, ie not benefit in the 'future'
3. He lobbied the EU about rules for overseas trust funds knowing he had had investments in them (and probably knows many that still do, possibly within his own family although admittedly legal).
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013
4. Possibly not previously made reference to but he has now stated he sold other shares. What were these and had there been any possible or perceived conflict with any legislation that he has subsequently been involved in.
5. As much as I don't like the man, Corbyn seems to have a long list!!!!

Nothing wrong with any of that.

 

[Brian Fantana]

What has Cameron actually done wong?

Despite declaring three years ago that he was going to do it, he hasn't sorted out the UK tax havens and allows them to continue to be used for hiding hiding financial activity - a lot of which will be very dodgy and will be causing a lot of harm across the world.

And let's be clear - he hasn't even tried very hard. He hasn't met anyone from these places since 2013

He also mishandled the whole process of revealing his own affairs - which I'd say is incompetence rather than lack of ethics (his lack of ethics is however amply demonstrated in other areas of his policy agenda)
.

Politician in not doing what they said they'd do. Hardly anything new is it.

 

[drew]

Nothing wrong with any of that.

I'm wondering how you type with both fingers in your ears!!!

 

[drew]

This is what Martin Lewis the financial advisor on TV stated yesterday.

"The Sunday Times front page is today implying Cameron's mother's £200,000 gift to him is an inheritance tax 'dodge' and 'avoidance'; yet I'm sure its own money section has often rightly recommended doing just that as legitimate tax planning. What next will we see "Cameron dodged £15,240 of saving tax by putting money in an ISA"?

So far in this debate I've been vocal on the fact we have a moral duty to pay our taxes - its the cost of living in a legitimate civil society. And offshore complex financial avoidance and dodgy hidden manipulative trusts should rightly be called avoidance and castigated

Yet lets call it avoidance when it is avoidance and not using government allowances to do things that we're supposed to do - even if you're prime minister. To try and grow this story by trying to darken the act of standard tax planning, isn't a good route,

The rules are plain you can give money from income, or give money more than 7 years before you die and there's no inheritence tax. Utilising that isn't dodgy."

The fact that it was made so soon after his father's death raises the 'unprovable' question as to whether this was decided upon prior to his dad's death. If it was, and two of his siblings received the same, then that is a tax liability of £180k that has been avoided. If it was proved that his father had orchestrated this before his death then surely that becomes evasion!!! Food for thought.

 

[nwgull]

The fact that it was made so soon after his father's death raises the 'unprovable' question as to whether this was decided upon prior to his dad's death. If it was, and two of his siblings received the same, then that is a tax liability of £180k that has been avoided. If it was proved that his father had orchestrated this before his death then surely that becomes evasion!!! Food for thought.

Fairly sure that, regardless of what his dad wanted his mum to do with the money, this would still come under the description of tax avoidance. It'd only be evasion of his mum died within the 7 years and he didn't declare it.

 

[BLOCK F]

Fairly sure that, regardless of what his dad wanted his mum to do with the money, this would still come under the description of tax avoidance. It'd only be evasion of his mum died within the 7 years and he didn't declare it.[/QUOTE


This is exactly how I see it.

 

[Hastings gull]

Fairly sure that, regardless of what his dad wanted his mum to do with the money, this would still come under the description of tax avoidance. It'd only be evasion of his mum died within the 7 years and he didn't declare it.

Exactly. He is only doing what you, I and doubtless the vast majority of the population would do to avoid inheritance tax, if they came into that financial bracket. True, he is guilty of some hypocrisy, as he was less than totally truthful and full of censure for other individuals, but in the case of "the 7 year rule" to criticise him for utilising that, is equally hypocritical.