Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

FANG

Should The Pig F****r Resign Now

Recommended Posts

No, can't stand him (any more than I can stand Corbyn, Sturgeon etc) but he hasn't done anything wrong. He's not avoided, let alone evaded, any tax so why should he resign? And the pig f*cking turned out to have been entirely made up as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, load of fuss over nothing.

Though it does make you wonder how he managed to have a career in Public Relations.

Quite.

I don't like Cameron but so far the revelations about his financial affairs are less than staggering. He is certainly well off particularly when his wife's income is taken into account and he probably benefited to some extent from his father setting up his personal estate to avoid some IHT liabilities but I doubt he is using offshore funds to dodge UK income tax. Most of his wealth is in property just like a lot of other UK citizens and he certainly benefits from the generous tax treatment that receives but he does not have to hide it offshore to enjoy those benefits. There are much, much bigger tax avoiders in the UK ( and probably within his own party) who are probably more than happy to see Cameron taking a bullet on their behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb! The BBC interviewer was visibly flapping when she realised that she was just wrong.

The whole way the media and Cameron's political opponents have treated this matter is p*ssing me off as tax avoidance is a serious issue which they have just trivialized. It seems journalists can't do serious investigation any more. It is entirely right that Cameron be held to account for the way his government and HMRC have been soft on the issue of tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporations. It is entirely wrong that he is personally persecuted for tax arrangements set up by his father even if he was a beneficiary.

BTW I personally think we should go down the Norwegian route where all tax returns are available for public inspection. I suspect that would concentrate the minds of a few MPs and I dont just mean Tories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he's done nothing wrong; as much as I despise him, I want to stay and be forced out after the EU referendum as that would be much more difficult for him to accept.

What constantly (and still) pisses me off is that they voted for him in the first place. David Davis would have been infinitely better. Jihadi Jez is a leading a terribly weak opposition (despite what the Guardian commenters say). Dave should be miles ahead by now, but he keeps ******ing it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's laughable how the media have done it again, whipped up so much outrage (even on HPC where I would have thought that offshore investments would not have been an unknown concept to anyone).

Shall we ban all this like they say? - our pensions might really then be worthless. Perhaps everybody should invest in our steelworks.

As for Cameron answering for the contents of his deceased father's will - I wish our PM had the strength to tell the hacks to do one, but of course he can't, as it will lead to even more 'outrage'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.facebook.com/rob1972/videos/10154110453578000/

Worth 5 minutes of anyone's time.. but in summary, he's really done nothing wrong..

I think there's a minor bit of misinformation from that tax advisor. Blairmore was based in the Bahamas (not Ireland) while Cameron owned his shares (1997 to 2010). And being based in the Bahamas (or Ireland) almost certainly did result in some sort of tax saving compared to a fund administered in the UK.

I think the GBP30k in shares that Cameron owned and sold is a red herring. He seems to have bought the investment himself. I made some incorrect comments on the thread up top, thinking they were talking about his inheritance being held in a trust fund. (in my defence, everyone seemed to be using the wrong terminology)

However: Cameron has something to hide. Where is all his wealth hidden ? (Probably in his wife's name and trust funds for the children). And his dad probably did do a lot of tax avoidance/evasion. From which he benefited

This makes it very difficult for him to convincingly criticise tax avoidance, as the first thing he would be obliged to do is denounce his dad. And the jpurnos do need to keep digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And being based in the Bahamas (or Ireland) almost certainly did result in some sort of tax saving compared to a fund administered in the UK.

If he was declaring all the dividends on his tax return as he said, then I can't think what it would be. In some cases the tax paid would actually be more because there wouldn't necessarily be a foreign tax credit available for things wrapped in an offshore fund (might be for the Irish one but I'd assume not for the Bahamas).

You're asking the wrong question about where Cameron's wealth is hidden, that's all in plain site in property. His dad was worth around 10M, which got split between Cameron's mother and four children when he died - Cameron can easily account for his share with his multiple houses. The much more interesting question, which won't get answered, is where is his wife's money stashed, she's likely the more wealthy of the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a minor bit of misinformation from that tax advisor. Blairmore was based in the Bahamas (not Ireland) while Cameron owned his shares (1997 to 2010). And being based in the Bahamas (or Ireland) almost certainly did result in some sort of tax saving compared to a fund administered in the UK.

I think the GBP30k in shares that Cameron owned and sold is a red herring. He seems to have bought the investment himself. I made some incorrect comments on the thread up top, thinking they were talking about his inheritance being held in a trust fund. (in my defence, everyone seemed to be using the wrong terminology)

However: Cameron has something to hide. Where is all his wealth hidden ? (Probably in his wife's name and trust funds for the children). And his dad probably did do a lot of tax avoidance/evasion. From which he benefited

This makes it very difficult for him to convincingly criticise tax avoidance, as the first thing he would be obliged to do is denounce his dad. And the jpurnos do need to keep digging.

These are fair points.

The thing about Cameron's class is that they tend to hold hold wealth as family assets rather than as individuals so the two questions to ask are whether he is a possible future beneficiary of any offshore trust and does he have any role in the management or setting up of any offshore trusts. The whole point about non resident trusts is that they don't become visible until there is some sort of taxable event

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/non-resident-trusts

It is no surprise to find that "the tax rules for non-existent trusts are very complicated" to use the government's own words. They can confer significant tax benefits but needless to say setting them up is way beyond the means of most UK taxpayers.

The problem with the current hue and cry against Cameron is that most of the participants are playing the man not the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases the tax paid would actually be more because there wouldn't necessarily be a foreign tax credit available for things wrapped in an offshore fund (might be for the Irish one but I'd assume not for the Bahamas).

I don't know much about this stuff*, but I was thinking that the tax the fund would incur on it's actual operations would be lower e.g. avoiding stamp duty, business rates, VAT etc.

*approx zero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about this stuff*, but I was thinking that the tax the fund would incur on it's actual operations would be lower e.g. avoiding stamp duty, business rates, VAT etc.

*approx zero

Stamp duty would be the same regardless where it exists (just the UK as far as I know, the US doesn't have it for shares etc although it has a fee paid to the SEC that everyone, non-resident or not pays). From what I've seen, in the hedge fund industry at least, the operational costs for an offshore fund are materially higher than those for an onshore one since the real admin is all done onshore anyway and the offshore people (lawyers, directors, accountants) all charge for their services even though they don't do much beyond signing off on regulatory filings etc. I knew a chap - qualified accountant - who lived in the Cayman Islands for a few years who made his money by charging 10K USD a year to be a director of such funds and who spent almost all his time sitting on the beach since all he had to do was read some financial statements once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about this stuff*, but I was thinking that the tax the fund would incur on it's actual operations would be lower e.g. avoiding stamp duty, business rates, VAT etc.

*approx zero

The thing about trusts is that though they normally cannot exist in perpetuity under UK law they do have a lifetime greater than most individuals. In fact it was extended to 125 years in 2009 (ironically under a Labour government). They are normally means of protecting the assets within the entity rather than any income or gains derived from it which may well be taxed in a conventional way and at conventional rates.

Offshore trusts are used to attempt to get around some of the restrictions that exist under UK law. For example Panamanian trusts have no maximum duration period so potentially assets can be hidden there forever

https://www.world.tax/countries/panama/panama-trust.php

The same 'immortal' perpetuity rule applies in Jersey

https://www.world.tax/countries/jersey/jersey-international-trust.php

Interestingly Cameron's Dad was active in setting up trusts in both those locations

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/20/david-cameron-jersey-panama-geneva

The question people should be asking is not what untaxed income or capital gains is hidden in those trusts but what family assets are held there to avoid IHT etc

To be fair to Cameron his government has changed the law in 2015 to make it much harder to hide some types of UK residential property in such trusts as the law is now allowed to look through the envelop at this class of asset so to speak. However, other types of property holding can still be protected in this way. It really is a means of protecting the wealth of inherited "old money" in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a load of hypocritical sanctimonious toss.

I wonder how many people who criticise offshore tax-avoidance schemes (and Cameron apparently did not avoid tax this way) avoid tax themselves by investing in ISAs.

If Cameron goes, we get Osborne or Corbyn. F*** that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats he done that's illegal?

No-one seemed to care when the Millibands used a deed of variation to avoid tax. What about Ken Livingstone chucking money through a tax avoidance scheme? And that tw@t wants Cameron arrested. FFS.

Margaret Hodges family company? Guardian newspaper and it's parent company's offshore accounts? Unite union paid no tax in 2011-2012?

Anyone who has an ISA has sheltered income from tax. Are they criminals?

Cameron's a tw@t but those calling for him to resign over this are even more so.

Edit: Apparently I cant write tw@t!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a load of hypocritical sanctimonious toss.

I wonder how many people who criticise offshore tax-avoidance schemes (and Cameron apparently did not avoid tax this way) avoid tax themselves by investing in ISAs.

If Cameron goes, we get Osborne or Corbyn. F*** that.

I have checked my tax dodging ISA and apparently I managed to avoid £2.30 income tax last year but if the Chancellor cares to call in person I will hand it back to help reduce the national debt.

My Mum told me my grans estate was worth about £3000 when she died back in the 1980s but I won't be inheriting any of it as it appears in the interim my Mum has frittered it away on luxuries such as washing up liquid and Vim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a load of hypocritical sanctimonious toss.

I wonder how many people who criticise offshore tax-avoidance schemes (and Cameron apparently did not avoid tax this way) avoid tax themselves by investing in ISAs.

If Cameron goes, we get Osborne or Corbyn. F*** that.

I am not hypocritical and sanctimonious, I am jealous and resentful.

But (ignoring whether or not Cameron has been avoiding tax) comparing a tax efficient scheme specifically set up to encourage modest saving and investment, with using expensive lawyers to find loopholes in the tax law, seems a bit generous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   33 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.