The Panama Papers

[Griff9of13]

Of course Gideon's tax issues lie a bit closer to home than Panama: George Osborne family business 'has not paid corporation tax for seven years'

 

"George Osborne has received a dividend pay-out worth £1,230 from his family’s wallpaper business, despite the company not paying any corporation tax for the last seven years, according to reports."

[Saintslass]

I dont care if he inherits all or just a 1/4 of his fathers money, whatever the amount its still dirty money.

To begin with it isn't dirty money in that Cameron's father did nothing illegal (at that time).  Aside from that, what his father did has nothing to do with Cameron and is not Cameron's fault or responsibility and nor should Cameron be held responsible for what his father did.  If your father had murdered someone should you be held responsible for that?  No, of course not.  So all this hounding of Cameron over what his now dead father did is not only a nasty sign of our times but also extremely silly.

[Saintslass]

Panama Papers: George Osborne terminates interview when asked about family's tax affairs as David Cameron comes under more pressure

 

When The Telegraph are running headlines like this about a Tory government things must be bad.

The Telegraph have never been fans of Cameron or Osborne.  Neither are seen as conservative enough.

[WearyRhino]

So all this hounding of Cameron over what his now dead father did is not only a nasty sign of our times but also extremely silly.

 

 

Hounding? A man who has lived his entire life in extreme privilege, benefiting from an elitist education paid for (supplemented through the charitable status of 'public schools') by a father who is now known to have cheated the taxpayer. Excuse me if I hold back the tears.

[John Drake]

The Telegraph have never been fans of Cameron or Osborne.  Neither are seen as conservative enough.

 

Oh come on. They were fans enough to break election law urging people to vote Tory in 2015...

 

Telegraph newspaper fined £30,000 for e-mail telling readers to vote Tory

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/telegraph-newspaper-fined-30000-e-7049929

 

A newspaper has been fined £30,000 for sending an e-mail that urged readers to vote Tory on election day.

A watchdog found Telegraph Media Group broke strict data rules with the message sent to hundreds of thousands of people on May 7.

It was attached to the newspaper's morning e-mail briefing after a "last minute instruction from the editorial team", a ruling found.

Editor Chris Evans described the election - then thought to be on a knife-edge - as the "most important since 1979" and wrote: "The Daily Telegraph urges its readers to vote Conservative."

[RidingPie]

The Telegraph have never been fans of Cameron or Osborne. Neither are seen as conservative enough.

Indeed. I've suspected IDS's broadside at Osbourn was to make life easier for the UK trump... erm I mean Boris to take the reins.

[John Drake]

So all this hounding of Cameron over what his now dead father did is not only a nasty sign of our times but also extremely silly.

 

I refer you to my earlier comments regarding the treatment dished out to Ed Miliband.

 

What's sauce for the goose...

[WearyRhino]

[ckn]

To begin with it isn't dirty money in that Cameron's father did nothing illegal (at that time).  Aside from that, what his father did has nothing to do with Cameron and is not Cameron's fault or responsibility and nor should Cameron be held responsible for what his father did.  If your father had murdered someone should you be held responsible for that?  No, of course not.  So all this hounding of Cameron over what his now dead father did is not only a nasty sign of our times but also extremely silly.

Yes he did.  He illegally put the money and income into a shell trust with fake officers in charge who made the pretence that it was actually HQ'ed there therefore not subject to UK taxation.  That's outright tax evasion without any doubt at all.  The trust continued there until Cameron became PM when it was moved to Dublin to protect him from precisely this line of inquiry.

 

Also, to use your blunt example, if your father murdered someone, that's not your fault and you have no liability.  BUT if you father murdered someone then stole all their money and gave 1/4 of it to you then it is, especially if you knew that the illegal act took place.

[WearyRhino]

Not often I agree with Jess Phillips but she's spot on here.

 

 

The sins of Daddy Cameron were not illegal but they are utterly disgusting. They are worse than the sins of fathers up and down the country who can't find work, even the most feckless amongst them. 

People who don't pay their taxes are robbing from us all. The Camerons may well have forked out for education and health services, but it was my money that trained the doctors, nurses and teachers they used. Without the taxpayer the posh who jump the queue would just be sitting in a rather nicely decorated room without the staff to actually deliver the service. Every time Cameron Snr drove his car on a public highway, every time he could see on the street because of a streetlight, every day when there was a pavement outside his house and a regular bin collection, he took money from you, the nation's honest taxpayers, without seeing fit to put his hand in his pocket. And while the Camerons had a bob or two I doubt very much they funded their own private police force and army. I mean the Eton set are a bit old fashioned but think the acts of livery and maintenance is a step to far even for them. So they got the security we all enjoy but it was you footing the bill, not daddy darling.

[JohnM]

I refer you to my earlier comments regarding the treatment dished out to Ed Miliband.

 

What's sauce for the goose...

...is sauce for the Corbyn and others of his persuasion.

[Griff9of13]

The Cameron network: inherited wealth and family companies

[gingerjon]

Yes he did.  He illegally put the money and income into a shell trust with fake officers in charge who made the pretence that it was actually HQ'ed there therefore not subject to UK taxation.  That's outright tax evasion without any doubt at all.  The trust continued there until Cameron became PM when it was moved to Dublin to protect him from precisely this line of inquiry.

 

Also, to use your blunt example, if your father murdered someone, that's not your fault and you have no liability.  BUT if you father murdered someone then stole all their money and gave 1/4 of it to you then it is, especially if you knew that the illegal act took place.

 

How about if you had personally intervened to ensure EU exemptions for 'inheritance planning vehicles' were untouched?  And that in doing so you marked the UK out as "the island of the blessed for tax evasion and money laundering"?

 

https://next.ft.com/content/0e7c0a20-fc17-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d

[Griff9of13]

I think I'm beginning to understand what they meant when they said "we're all in it together."

Five donors who have handed £16million to the Tories named in tax haven leak including billionaire former party treasurer, JCB heir and 'shady financier' property developer

[Saintslass]

Unlike many leftwingers, I have no problem at all with people inheriting wealth.  After all, an awful lot of people inherit wealth, usually in the form of property from their parents or other halves.  Just because parents were also very good at building a business or investing their money does not mean the children of those parents should not benefit.  I'm sure J K Rowling wouldn't give all her money away to charity if she had children and she's as leftwing as they come but I bet she hates the thought that the children of someone like herself - who had a talent and made lots of money from it - benefiting from that money, especially if they happen to either vote for or represent the Tory party!

 

David Cameron isn't responsible for what his father did or did not do (and according to reports I have read, what his father did was not illegal at the time he did it).  David Cameron had no say on which school he went to just as I didn't because they are decisions made by parents.  Likewise, David Cameron didn't have any say in to whom his father left his money when he died and I know that most people if not all people would not reject an inheritance from their parents on the basis that maybe - just maybe - some of it had avoided tax.

 

David Cameron has stated via No.10 press statements that neither he nor his family will benefit from his father's actions either now or in the future and for me that is sufficient.  I think the persistence of the leftwing press and some of their followers in trying to turn this into another Iceland scenario smacks of desperation.

[gingerjon]

 I'm sure J K Rowling wouldn't give all her money away to charity if she had children

 

JK Rowling has children.

[Saintslass]

JK Rowling has children.

Has she?  Oh, ok.  I had no idea whether she had or not, which is why I used 'if'.

[gingerjon]

Has she?  Oh, ok.  I had no idea whether she had or not, which is why I used 'if'.

 

That's not how I read it - so apologies - the 'if' seemed to be saying that she couldn't have children because if she did she wouldn't behave in a charitable way.

 

Quite famously she was a single mother on benefits when writing Harry Potter.  She gave substantial chunks of even her earliest royalties to charity.

[John Drake]

Unlike many leftwingers, I have no problem at all with people inheriting wealth.  After all, an awful lot of people inherit wealth, usually in the form of property from their parents or other halves.  Just because parents were also very good at building a business or investing their money does not mean the children of those parents should not benefit.  I'm sure J K Rowling wouldn't give all her money away to charity if she had children and she's as leftwing as they come but I bet she hates the thought that the children of someone like herself - who had a talent and made lots of money from it - benefiting from that money, especially if they happen to either vote for or represent the Tory party!

 

David Cameron isn't responsible for what his father did or did not do (and according to reports I have read, what his father did was not illegal at the time he did it).  David Cameron had no say on which school he went to just as I didn't because they are decisions made by parents.  Likewise, David Cameron didn't have any say in to whom his father left his money when he died and I know that most people if not all people would not reject an inheritance from their parents on the basis that maybe - just maybe - some of it had avoided tax.

 

David Cameron has stated via No.10 press statements that neither he nor his family will benefit from his father's actions either now or in the future and for me that is sufficient.  I think the persistence of the leftwing press and some of their followers in trying to turn this into another Iceland scenario smacks of desperation.

 

The issue isn't about inheriting wealth, it is about avoiding tax.

 

If everyone paid their fair share in tax, no more and no less than that, and didn't try to salt vast sums away under morally dubious offshore arrangements (which, lets face it, only those with plenty of cash to start with can afford to do in the first place), we could all pay less tax overall and have decent public services too.

 

But, so long as the super-rich and mega-corporations continue to hide their fair share away from the taxman, it means everyone else has to make up the shortfall on their behalf. That's what's making people angry here. One rule for them, another for the rest of us. David Cameron's dad is just a sideshow in all this. 

[WearyRhino]

The issue isn't about inheriting wealth, it is about avoiding tax.

 

If everyone paid their fair share in tax, no more and no less than that, and didn't try to salt vast sums away under morally dubious offshore arrangements (which, lets face it, only those with plenty of cash to start with can afford to do in the first place), we could all pay less tax overall and have decent public services too.

 

But, so long as the super-rich and mega-corporations continue to hide their fair share away from the taxman, it means everyone else has to make up the shortfall on their behalf. That's what's making people angry here. One rule for them, another for the rest of us. David Cameron's dad is just a sideshow in all this. 

 

 

[Griff9of13]

"After the Panama Papers leak, David Cameron has released four different statements about his financial affairs. Despite his clarifications, questions remain. Here are 10 he needs to answer:" Ten questions the prime minister has to answer about the Panama files

[gingerjon]

"After the Panama Papers leak, David Cameron has released four different statements about his financial affairs. Despite his clarifications, questions remain. Here are 10 he needs to answer:" Ten questions the prime minister has to answer about the Panama files

 

LOOK! LOOK! I'M SPENDING NINE MILLION OF YOUR POUNDS ON A LETTER. TALK ABOUT THAT!

[WearyRhino]

David Cameron appoints Sir John Chilcot to lead inquiry into family’s tax affairs

[Phil]

Fact is, most of us on here don't have any choice about our taxes, given that most of us are probably in the PAYE system.

[WearyRhino]

Of course Gideon has no idea about any of this stuff: