So David Cameron said "I have a salary as prime minister, and I have some savings which I get some interest from and I have a house which we used to live in which we now let out while we're living in Downing Street, and that's all I have."
And "Downing Street then issued a statement, adding: "To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds.""
Which is all well and good, and I believe what he says.
But it's speculating about what he didn't say which is obviously more fun.
Let me start with "my inheritance will not include any ill-gotten gains, and there are no trust funds set up for me to dip into later in life!"
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 6 Apr 16 at 09:38
|
|
All my leftie friends who have been posting crap about how Iceland "sorted" the Bankers in 2008/9 have gone very quiet on this !
|
>> how Iceland "sorted" the Bankers in 2008/9
They should stick to selling frozen food.
|
>> Let me start with "my inheritance will not include any ill-gotten gains, and there are
>> no trust funds set up for me to dip into later in life!"
I would suspect it has already been spent.
|
>> tinyurl.com/camwonga (Guardian)
>>
also says
" Breaking News -
Cameron family will not benefit from offshore trust in future
Downing Street says in fourth statement on PM's finances"
So perhaps he has already spent it all ? :-(
|
|
Forgive me for having been so suspicious... :-)
|
Well the PM's speech writers and PR men do seen to be struggling.
It takes FOUR statements to spit it out.
IMO the verdict is " Could try harder. They do need to concentrate."
|
.......either it got moved back onshore PDQ last night :-)
.......or the fact that we had to wait until this morning demonstrates that he's got as little clue about his own financial state as he has about the country's........
|
Wasn't there something years ago (from the Major era, I think) about cabinet ministers putting their personal finances into 'blind trusts' to ensure detachment from any government decisions they might have to make?
It's unseemly and opportunistic to try to splash mud from this on to Dave unless (a) there was something truly illegal, not merely undesirable, in Pa Cameron's affairs, and (b) Dave knew about it at the time.
|
I don't think Cameron can be blamed if any of his inheritance has been crookedly amassed, unless of course he was privy to some nefarious scheme to help amass it. Who of us can know whether misdemeanours partly account for our own inheritances, which may have trickled down over generations?
If running an offshore account is legal there is no more to say about it as far as the holder is concerned. There is of course a great deal to say if some intermediary, such as an accountancy firm, is laundering the funds on the side in some way.
|
>>>> Who of us can know whether misdemeanours partly account for our own inheritances, which may
>> have trickled down over generations?
Me. I once inherited £20k from a kindly childless great uncle, which my wife thoughtfully spent on bodged bathroom refurbs and an IKEA kitchen. Said uncle had come from nothing and simply worked as a clerk for a civil engineering firm his entire life. He had some savings at the end which he split up amongst several nieces and nephews, savings which had been held in tax-paying UK bank accounts. I kind of wish he'd blown it all on himself, but he seemed happy enough with his simple lifestyle up to the end.
If I inherit anything from my mother, I know she's done everything above board all her life and paid all her dues, and more probably.
I can guarantee there will be no further inheritances.
I feel sure many millions in this country have similar circumstances.
|
>> To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds
.. under their real names. They might benefit indirectly under someone else's name which was the whole point of having offshore accounts!
Mind you, even Putin was not named in the leak. So technically he has no hidden assets.
It would be very naive to believe that our PM is not a beneficiary of tax haven, especially when his father was involved.
|
"It would be very naive to believe that our PM is not a beneficiary of tax haven, especially when his father was involved."
So you think he is lying? Why is it naive? Is it what you would do?
|
Do you, Movilogo, understand the difference between avoidance and evasion?
If you do, which are you determined to think the PM guilty of?
Also, are you worried about all the other things he hasn't denied? Alien landings, harbouring Lord Lucan, etc. etc.
|
Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is sensible. Who on earth pays more than they have to?
|
People who don't/can't understand the byzantine tax system. People who can't/won't afford to purchase professional advice on the matter.
People who aren't wealthy enough/in the right line of work to avoid PAYE.
Those people. Most of us.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 6 Apr 16 at 11:28
|
As regards evasion and avoidance, James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde (1863-1944) put the matter perfectly:
"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
|
There is a very fuzzy line between what's legal and what isn't. I don't know a great deal about it but I worked with IT contractors and some were using exotic schemes like being paid abroad and then taking loans from the foreign entity. I don't think that was illegal but it felt wrong to me so I didn't do it - and today I read that it is now illegal, retrospectively.
Lots of very well off people have relied on advisers to invest their money. Some have come unstuck with losing millions to charlatans and some have done something illegal (albeit often trusting professional advice).
But it's not just what they did with the money, it's how they came across it in the first place which is often the bigger question.
|
I believe that there is actually a reasonably clear line. One normally knows when one is pushing it.
None if these schemes which were subsequently found to be illegal actually sounded reasonable at the time. Just people felt that they could get away with it.
Following the law to the letter is avoidance, legal and your right.
The fuzzy line is when bending the rules becomes breaking. I don't do either.
|
>> Tax evasion is illegal.
e.g. not declaring your earnings - clear enough.
>> Tax avoidance is sensible. Who on earth pays more than they have to?
e.g. taking some of your (genuinely) self-employed income as dividends, or keeping savings in ISAs - also very clear.
Less clear is a massive grey area in-between. including
- people who look, walk and quack quite like employees but are paid via their own service companies.
- company structures that make no sense other than reducing taxation - this would include extensive use of labyrinthine arrangements involving companies in low tax legislations where the group has essentially no external customers or suppliers, but accrues significant profits.
- numerous 'wheezes' that PWC, Deloittes, E&Y and KPMG find for their large clients and which HMRC challenge and often close down when they learn of them. One we have all probably encountered was the payment services one, where retailers including M&S allocated c. 2.5% of what you paid to the cost of handling your payment to them - this avoiding VAT on that amount as such a service is non-VATable. There was a protracted case, retailers didn't cough the VAT for at least a couple of years but HMRC won that and got the money back.
Most wheezes though are much more opaque. HMRC now ask on corporation tax returns whether the company has made use of any "tax avoidance schemes". There is I assume a lot of horse trading where HMRC will launch or threaten to launch a challenge and deals are done, accompanied by widely drawn undertakings from the company that it will discontinue the practice.
|
>>Tax avoidance is sensible. Who on earth pays more than they have to?
That is not fair, that is not right: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDzwbrNLNc0&feature=youtu.be
|
>> If you do, which are you determined to think the PM guilty of?
>>
....I don't think the core of the debate around the PM when the Panama papers were released had anything whatsoever to do with the legality or otherwise of his, or his father's actions.
It was much more to do with the hipocrasy of his recent positioning and statements on off-shoring, should it emerge that he was himself, directly or indirectly, a beneficiary of such arrangements.
|
>> It was much more to do with the hipocrasy of his recent positioning and statements on off-shoring, should it emerge that he was himself, directly or indirectly, a beneficiary of such arrangements.
Exactly! The whole Panama offshore company incident is possibly legal under any law. However, it is the politicians who make those rules and then themselves avail the loopholes to keep their wealth hidden. Then preach that the fellow citizens should declare all wealth and pay tax on it.
|
|
Dave's dad wasn't a politician.
|
...Dave's dad wasn't the one taking a political position opposing the use of off-shoring to avoid tax; Dave is.
If Dave's dad was the only one to benefit (and specifically if Dave himself didn't benefit) then there is no (real) basis to claim hipocrasy.
If he did, however, benefit, then there is a clear basis for such a claim. It is interesting to see the weasel-words that the ever-desperate denials contain - still a lot of wriggle-room, even after the latest statements.
If he did benefit, I'd think much more of the man if he simply came out with it, said it was up to his father to do what he wanted with his own money even if he himself disapproved, and confirmed, categorically, that none of the money he has had control in has ever been in any similar arrangement.
|
|
Thank God I'm not rich or famous. It must be unspeakable having Tom Dick and Harry commenting ignorantly and rudely on one's finances, lifestyle and so on. Tchah!
|
>> confirmed, categorically, that none of
>> the money he has had control in has ever been in any similar arrangement.
It seems highly unlikely that that is the case. Most people who have been to Eton and Oxford have been supported financially by their parents, I imagine. Hence the careful choice of words.
Not that I think it matters much at this stage, as that much is obvious. Presumably that is why Corbyn is still gnawing the bone.
|
>> Dave's dad wasn't a politician.
>>
Shouldn't dad have a capital 'D'?
Ok, Ok, it's been a long day. ZZZzzzzzzzz.:-)
|
No; 'dad' is a common noun, like 'father' and 'mother'. Dave would have written 'Dad' on his birthday cards, but referred to him to anyone else as 'my dad'.
Similarly, 'my Mother' is wrong, unless you're a nun. Or German. German-speaking nuns must get very confused, as expressed in songs about climbing mountains.
Been a long day here too.
|
>> ........... Dave would have written 'Dad' on his birthday cards........
>>
.....and on his begging letters................
|
>> Dave would have written 'Dad'
>> on his birthday cards, but referred to him to anyone else as 'my dad'.
>>
>>
Rubbish.
The Camerons are toffs, he'd have referred to him as "Father".
|
|
OK, but he went to Eton, so "Pater"....
|
>>Exactly! The whole Panama offshore company incident is possibly legal under any law. However, it is the politicians who make those rules and then themselves avail the loopholes to keep their wealth hidden. Then preach that the fellow citizens should declare all wealth and pay tax on it.
I think you don't understand this very well.
Not declaring all wealth is breaking the law - tax evasion. Taking advantage by following the law closely is legal - avoidance.
And what do you mean by "loophole"? I know what the word means, but what do *you* mean by it?
|
Loophole is allowing tax havens to operate.
Why not declaring all wealth is breaking the law? As per my understanding it is illegal only in earning is made in UK and due tax is not paid on the income.
If someone has any assets outside UK, does it need to be declared to HMRC?
|
>>Loophole is allowing tax havens to operate.
No, that's not a loophole. That's just the law.
>>As per my understanding it is illegal only in earning is made in UK
I recommend you do not do your own tax returns.
www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/overview
>>If someone has any assets outside UK, does it need to be declared to HMRC?
It depends, but yes is a frequent answer.
|
So in my book a loophole is an unintended consequence of the complex legislation which people can exploit, often with the help and guidance of expensive professionals, to minimise their tax liability. There have been loads over the years. The law is so complex and the rich can afford to pay mucho moolah to lawyers and accountants to protect their wealth, whereas HMRC is more restrained on where it spends its money. Some of the loopholes have been shut, but often after the horse has bolted, although some have been closed retrospectively.
The line is fuzzy - for instance on a theme I know about there is no clear guidance as to what defines whether an IT contractor is within IR35 (i.e. is an employee) or not. There have been indicators (e.g. direction and control, existence of company premises etc) and this year they have tightened it all, but there is still no one place where the thousands of contractors can look up and see if they are in or out. HMRC has to go through test cases to have it determined almost on an individual basis, which it simply cannot afford to do,.
|
>> The line is fuzzy - for instance on a theme I know about there is
>> no clear guidance as to what defines whether an IT contractor is within IR35 (i.e.
>> is an employee) or not.
I don't think I'm in much danger, as I don't have contracts that require me to turn up somewhere at particular times, I have no specified hours of work, engagements so far are short in terms of number of days effort although they can be spread over several months, and I work (when I can get it) for different people. However I do pay the extra for some IR35 defence cover to IPSE (formerly PCG), just in case since it is impossible to be assured that they would never challenge me.
A bit trickier it seems if you have a contract lasting 12 weeks or more with regular hours. One prospective client recently did not want even to deal with my own company, but expected me to sign up with their preferred umbrella company who would "employ" me (and take some of my earnings I suppose). In the end the person I was going to be interim for didn't leave so I never found out quite how that worked.
|
Not sure I'd realised you were in that line anyway, but it always seemed to me that multiple concurrent clients/freedom of location and hours and the ability to determine how you did the job (rather than taking direction) were the key elements.
I was on my lasy job for 3 years but the client kept moving us all from one company to another, so no engagement I had was longer than about 8 months. More smokescreening which wouldn't really standd up if challenged.
I too had the IR35 protection policy but HMRC can inquire up to 7 years back (and if they find something that can be extended) and the insurance I had only covers for the current year. I knew I'd be stopping work so I was able to bung all additional dosh into pension, as I'd not taken full allowances for a few years. This meant even if I was investigated and judged as being within IR35, there should be nothing to pay as the company bought me pension rather than paid me dividends.
|
>> Not sure I'd realised you were in that line anyway,
No, not the same as you - I am almost retired but I do get "projects" consulting on my area of knowledge and experience which is around some financial services.
I have never had any dividends but I might this year - I have been paying us annual wages just under the NI limits but it has built up a bit so I might as well extract some more this year using the new dividend limits as well.
|
|
How can the ordinary man/women still have respect for these sheisters.They set the example how not to run a reasonable fair society.
|
I am subscribed to email newsletters form my MP - a Conservative (peace be upon Him). He has obviously punted my address on to the rest of the party machine as I often receive missives from central office.
Today's effort purports to come from David Cameron and is entitled: "Helping you keep more of the money you earn".
Desperate, desperate, transparent, shameless effort. I am a little bit sickened.
|
|
The 11m documents were leaked from Mossack Fonseca. Presumably there are billions more documents covering deals they weren't involved with...
|
>> The 11m documents were leaked from Mossack Fonseca. Presumably there are billions more documents covering
>> deals they weren't involved with...
The perfectly morally normal ones you mean?
|
|
Well, yeah :-) Plus a few more dodgy ones I expect...
|
Cameron has fallen foul of the "Revealing the truth bit by bit" trap.
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that in recent photographs he appears to have acquired a very thin moustache? It makes him look about 20 years older, and bears a strong resemblance to one of those stock buffoon colonel types in an old black and white film - Basil Radford perhaps?
|
>> Cameron has fallen foul of the "Revealing the truth bit by bit" trap.
>>
>>
>>
He has. Get it all out into the open on day one and it soon goes away.
|
>>> Basil Radford perhaps?
...or Boothby Pagnell, that forgotten 30's B-movie actor commemorated by a sign on the A1 near Grantham.....
;-)
|
I always think that the A14 has some of the best place names either side of it that sound like out of work Shakespearean actors.
To name but a few, Burton Latimer, Hemingford Grey, Denford Ash, Grafham Water and Offord D'Arcy.
;-)
|
....Boothby Pagnell (as already said) and Burton Coggles for me.
We often wonder, as we drive past, whether the dear old chaps are still with us........
|
>> To name but a few, Burton Latimer, Hemingford Grey, Denford Ash, Grafham Water and Offord
>> D'Arcy.
Not forgetting the local hearthrob Papworth Everard, and that great wit Dry Drayton.
|
|
You are all forgetting Chuffer Dandridge.............who I am sure Wogan once mentioned wore a Panama hat when the role demanded it.
|
Sorry to drag this thread rudely back on subject, but Cameron has now fully* outlined his involvement in the off shore scandal, and published his tax returns (or a summary thereof)
Has he done enough to explain defuse the situation? in my book yes. However when will politicians ever learn the simple facts that, defensiveness, half truths, omissions, prevarication and pretending it hasn't happened makes you look as guilty as sin. They all do it, they never learn.
*fully? I accept it, others may not.
|
It is actually quite surprising how little the PM earns. Even his much discussed inheritance of £300,000 from his father was not really that much.
I think his reluctance to reveal his income and financial details is something we all probably share but I guess in these days politicians have just got to be totally open about such matters.
Better to judge someone on how well they do their job which for Cameron I would say is reasonably well.
|
|
I don't know about that, i think £300k is a very large amount of money and is to most people.
|
I do not understand why we are attacking David Camerons inheritence.
I feel sorry for the Prime minister but he has been economic with the truth.
|
Well its a goodly sum but with most houses in the country worth around that sum an inheritance of £300,000 would hardly be exceptional.
I rather guess that many on here have homes worth well over that amount and investments to match.
|
This fellow (and another one on the BBC*) have firmly stated that the Prime Minister has done nothing wrong.... that the offshore element is a normal part of hedge fund type investing that many/most pension funds use.... and has nothing to do with tax avoidance.
tinyurl.com/zlk2jmn
*James Quarmby, tax lawyer. Very firm interview on BBC where he stated PM had done nothing wrong (can't find the interview now)
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 11:40
|
>> This fellow (and another one on the BBC*) have firmly stated that the Prime Minister
>> has done nothing wrong.
If Cameron had to fall on his sword over wrongdoing or morality in this matter my glee would be unbounded. However it's not going to happen because, on the evidence so far he's done nothing wrong or immoral.
He may however be on a stickier wicket politically either because he is, or can be portrayed as looking two faced on 'off-shore' or because of the rich boy inheriting £300k (and being gifted another £200k since by his Mum).
There may be nothing in the first because in reality there are plenty other reasons to base investment funds off-shore other than magicing profits out of the jurisdiction as alleged against Google et al. Still scope for mischief making by opponents though.
I agree that if you are in position to inherit a mortgage free property in SE England £300k may not not be a 'big win'. OTOH if you live in rented property on average income it would be a life changing amount. I was on a reasonable salary in my last job in London; £300k would be nearly 10 times my annual take home.
|
>> >> If Cameron had to fall on his sword over wrongdoing or morality in this matter
>> my glee would be unbounded. >>
>>
>>
Never had you down as an Osborne fan, Brompt.
|
>> Never had you down as an Osborne fan, Brompt.
Or Bojo. Osborne is also standing in the corner for the moment.
Perhaps, like her Maj., Cameron is important not for the power he wields but for the power he currently denies to anybody else:)
|
Not suggesting it isn't a 'big win', Bromp, just that it's hardly an exceptional occurrence or amount in the population at large; many of us have received or will get such an inheritance at some point. It's likely to happen to me, and when it does it'll have roughly the effect of a £20,000 a year pay rise. But it will happen only once, and I won't be buying any Lamborghinis.
Perhaps, like her Maj., Cameron is important not for the power he wields but for the power he currently denies to anybody else:)
Wouldn't argue with that bit, Manatee!
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 16:54
|
And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.
|
>> Well its a goodly sum but with most houses in the country worth around that
>> sum an inheritance of £300,000 would hardly be exceptional.
>>
>> I rather guess that many on here have homes worth well over that amount and
>> investments to match.
If my dear ole mum suddenly pops her clogs, closely followed by Mrs Z and I being killed in a bus crash, my lad would be inheriting something close on a million pounds. Which only goes to prove a million pounds aint what it used to be, and 300k even less so.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 11:50
|
>> Mrs Z and
>> I being killed in a bus crash, my lad would be inheriting something close on
>> a million pounds.
Same here...
£300k is hardly anything in today's terms, particularly where property is concerned.
|
I suppose it depends on your lifestyle and location but millions and probably tens of millions of people don't live in a £300k house and could never afford to. To them it would be a life changing amount. I'm pretty sure no in my family has a house worth that much fire example.
They might well do, but i don't think here is really representative of the population.
|
That's perfectly true, Sooty - and equally perfectly not the point. £300,000 would significantly affect most people's financial position. But of those who get such a sum - a minority, perhaps, but a large one - most will get it only once in a lifetime, when they inherit their parents' estate.
As Z and I mentioned in the Cobra thread, half a million doesn't buy anything grand in the Southeast - it wouldn't buy my house, which is far from grand - and plenty of pensioners choose not to liquidate, even partially, their property assets even once they reach the rattling-around stage of life.
My last point may not apply to Cameron himself, but it's also worth bearing in mind that parental windfalls will, in many cases, do no more than put their middle-aged beneficiaries back on an even keel. Anyone ten years younger than me or Dave (who's a couple of years older than me) will have borne all of the property price inflation of recent years without the benefit of the one-off stock market gains of the 1980s and 90s.
|
|
I'm sure all that's true, it doesn't really change anything i mentioned early on though.
|
I still fail to see why inheriting £300,000 is viewed as
1) Unususual. With average property values in London over £500,000 it must happen to hundreds of people every day.
2 Somehow wrong.
|
When have we decided to create wealth rather than rely on a booming housing market.
To me property is an easy game.
Setting up a business and creating wealth use to be a way to get wealthy and rich.
|
>> I still fail to see why inheriting £300,000 is viewed as
>>
>> 1) Unususual. With average property values in London over £500,000 it must happen to hundreds of people every day.
I'm sure it does happen to people. I never suggested otherwise. What i did say that £300k is a large amount of money to many, a life changing amount. Many others will never receive such an amount of money.
>> 2 Somehow wrong.
>>
I never suggested that either.
|
>> I suppose it depends on your lifestyle and location but millions and probably tens of
>> millions of people don't live in a £300k house and could never afford to. To
>> them it would be a life changing amount. I'm pretty sure no in my family
>> has a house worth that much fire example.
>>
>> They might well do, but i don't think here is really representative of the population.
>>
average property price in the uk is 280k. 65% of uk population are house owners. Think you may well be a little out of touch there.
|
....I think you'll find the report here rather debunks that and supports Sooty's point fairly well
tinyurl.com/liesdamnlieasand
(It also shows the huge "skewing" effect the SE has on the average).
|
>> ....I think you'll find the report here rather debunks that and supports Sooty's point fairly
>> well
>>
>> tinyurl.com/liesdamnlieasand
>>
>> (It also shows the huge "skewing" effect the SE has on the average).
The skewing effect does not come into it. If the average property price in carpshire is 60k, an inheritance of 60k in carpshire is life changing. If the average price of property in goodshire is 500k an inheritance of 300k to goodshire resident, is not quite so life changing.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 19:36
|
...aah, the change of argument again. The debate was around the £300k figure.
(and, unless the inheritance was to be spent on property, the life-enhancing effect of any amount would be fairly similar, wherever the inheritee lived).
|
>> ...aah, the change of argument again. The debate was around the £300k figure.
Yes you changed it, the only way you could find a problem with the argument.
>> (and, unless the inheritance was to be spent on property, the life-enhancing effect of any
>> amount would be fairly similar, wherever the inheritee lived).
No it wouldn't. That was the point. a 300k inheritance is nothing in the south.
However you seem to be playing the man again so, the immortal answer, whatever.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 19:44
|
>>That was the point. a 300k inheritance is nothing in the south.
I can't see that that was ever the point, until you just introduced it.....
The point (originally raised by Sooty) was that living in a £300K house wasn't representative of the majority of the population. As such, only a minority of people could look forward to inheriting £300k (as a life-changing amount), even more so if they had siblings.
The Land Registry figures rather support his argument if (as has been done) the argument is being based on property values (with the average house price outside the SE being well below £300K).
I would agree, however, that a £300k+ inheritance would certainly be much more common in the South (East), due to the skewing effect of those property prices on estate values there.
Given the above, I still can't see that the effect of any given sum of money is greatly more or less life-changing wherever the inheritee lives, unless, as I said, such inheritance is to be ploughed back into the property market (which is skewed).
|
>> Think you may well be a little out of touch there.
>>
Which bit do you think specifically?
|
>> Which bit do you think specifically?
The bit where the average price is 280k and the bit where 65% of the uk are house owners.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 01:33
|
The bit where the average price is 280k and the bit where 65% of the
>> uk are house owners.
>>
Whether those two facts are true or not doesn't mean what I said was wrong.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 19:45
|
Is see the Guardian quote that figure but the Land Registry quote £190,000 - not sure of the reason for the difference.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511386/Land-Registry-February-HPI-2016.pdf
|
|
I should imagine President Blare's finances (and her husband's) would make much more interesting reading !
|
|
What on earth is the point of someone publishing their tax returns? If they've done anything dodgy they're not going to be on there.
|
>> It is actually quite surprising how little the PM earns.
>>
Less per annum than Wayne Rooney gets every week.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 13:24
|
>> Has he done enough to explain defuse the situation? in my book yes.
I am not concerned myself, although the press and Corbyn clearly think there is enough to have a go. Like CGN I think the more important point is whether he is doing a good job )plus his best to act with propriety).
>> However when
>> will politicians ever learn the simple facts that, defensiveness, half truths, omissions, prevarication and pretending
>> it hasn't happened makes you look as guilty as sin. They all do it,
The government EU pamphlet being a case in point. They can never be open when a platitude or half truth will do; it's a habit.
On the tax thing -
The key question must be whether there is anything undeclared that should have been declared. I would be surprised if Cameron has hidden anything.
FWIW just checked my stocks and shares ISAs (my retirement fund). I have modest amounts of five quoted investment trusts, of which 4 are domiciled in the UK and one in Guernsey (it's HICL, if anybody is interested).
Now I don't know the difference between HICL and Blairmore beyond the fact that HICL is quoted, any of us can buy or sell it daily, and Blairmore is not. HICL is a typical closed-ended investment trust; as well as being held directly by investors it is quite likely to be held by any number of OEICs or unit trusts of the kind used to hold ordinary pension assets by millions of people.
From a UK tax perspective, would there be any difference between owning shares in HICL (domiciled in Guernsey) and Blairmore (domiciled until 2010 in the Bahamas, and now in Ireland)? Cameron's position seems to be that there isn't. If there was, wouldn't somebody have told us by now?
Is it immoral to buy shares in foreign companies, provided you pay tax on any dividends you receive and on capital gains made on disposal?
The nuance here is that Cameron's dad was a director of Blairmore; Blairmore itself was a Bahamian/Irish company at least partly controlled by a Brit; was it really "run" from the Bahamas, or Ireland? We know that that is a common practice, and many UK companies have subsidiaries in e.g. Gibraltar, Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or Netherlands Antilles whose offices are also those of a local law or accountancy firm, and that the employees nominated as directors will make an annual trip there for a board meeting to establish that the company is run locally.
If David Cameron himself had been a director of Blairmore then I think he would be on a stickier wicket; does it matter that he was not exactly at arm's length from Blairmore?
The Daily Mirror poll, to the extent that it is in any way reliable, suggests he might have problem, with 94% saying he should resign!
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-blairmore-holdings-everything-you-7711620
It also uses the term "trousered" and describes him as "shame-faced", which comes pretty close to defamation, but probably not close enough for an amusing libel action.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/panama-papers-david-cameron-admits-7710840
|
It is not so amusing for people who got clobbered with the bedroom tax or there disability money taken away.The whole saga is smelly no matter how Cameron tries to cover it up.
Time will tell if the Tory pary will see him as a liability and ousted him out like they did with Maggie.
|
>> It is not so amusing for people who got clobbered with the bedroom tax or
>> there disability money taken away.The whole saga is smelly no matter how Cameron tries to
>> cover it up.
>>
>> Time will tell if the Tory pary will see him as a liability and ousted
>> him out like they did with Maggie.
>>
Remind me who pays for the bedroom tax and disability money.
It's not the poor or those on the minimum wage.
You can criticise the rich for being rich .. but if you do, remember they pay taxes which support the state.. Approx 5% of the population pay 30% of all income tax.
So if they stopped being rich, the poor would get a LOT poorer..
There are a lot of ungrateful people who think benefits are their right.
The next 20 years are likely to give them all a terrible shock.
|
>> It is not so amusing for people who got clobbered with the bedroom tax or
>> there disability money taken away.
Hardship is never amusing, on that we can agree.
Whether the "bedroom tax" was worth the battle, I don't know. I hope most people would agree with the principle that we should not be paying housing benefit for bigger accomodation than people need.
How that principle is applied, when and to whom, is the question isn't it?
>>The whole saga is smelly no matter how Cameron tries to
>> cover it up.
Well people seem to be able to smell something. What Cameron could or should have done, I'm not sure. He seems to have done the right things since 2009.
>> Time will tell if the Tory pary will see him as a liability and ousted
>> him out like they did with Maggie.
Indeed. I believe he went lower in the polls than Corbyn on the back of this.
|
Hip Hip Hip hurray
At least somebody is telling the truth.
|
|
It's a complete load of guff. Who cares whether Cameron's inherited money? No laws have been broken as far as I can see. Only the Labour party presumably are interested in all this, desperate for something to take the spotlight off their own problems. Can't blame them really, if I was a Labour MP I would probably be doing the same.
|
|
Yeah, where/are were Tony Blair's tax returns? him and the missus were and still are somewhat secretive.
|
>> It's a complete load of guff. Who cares whether Cameron's inherited money? No laws have
>> been broken as far as I can see. Only the Labour party presumably are interested
>> in all this,
McDonnell confirms his idiot status:
Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had "effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum and dad and not paid a penny on it," which, he said, showed there was "something wrong with the system".
1. Legatees don't pay tax on inheritances. Estates pay tax
2. His mum has presumably given him tax-paid money, and if his mum doesn't survive 7 years or more after the date of the gifts, then all or part of them will be counted in her estate for further tax.
Corbyn seems at sea as well
Asked about the £200,000 gift Mr Cameron received from his mother, the Labour leader said there was "possibly" a case for looking at inheritance tax rules.
Just when there was a chink of light for Labour, they confirm their unelectability.
|
I could not agree with you more.
Labour have lost hundreds of council seats as a consequence.
You do not have to be "rich" to own an expensive home.
How many homes in London are worth more than £300 thousand pound.
Thats Labours mayoral hopes gone.
Also the London assembly elections will show a big swing to the Conservatives.
Another own goal by Jeremy Corborn.
|
>> McDonnell confirms his idiot status:
>>
>> Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the prime minister had "effectively inherited £500,000 from his mum
>> and dad and not paid a penny on it," which, he said, showed there was
>> "something wrong with the system"
His point was quite clear. The system should be changed from one where only the estate pays tax.
It's hardly an unreasonable proposition that legatees should be taxed on inheritances if they're already reasonably well off.
The fact that money was taxed once already is neither here nor there. The four pack of beer I bought from my taxed income was subject to duty and VAT - is that wrong?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 22:20
|
>> It's hardly an unreasonable proposition that legatees should be taxed on inheritances if they're already
>> reasonably well off.
But surely the point of
>> McDonnell confirms his idiot status:
is that 200k of it is not inheritance? As his mother is not dead, Currently its a gift.
|
"It's hardly an unreasonable proposition that legatees should be taxed on inheritances if they're already reasonably well off."
So let me get this clear.
You believe that as well as death duties being paid out of the estate, (which is presumably made up of earnings or capital gains on which tax has already been paid) you want the legatee to also pay tax on the same money before they spends it on something which in all probability will also be taxed.
This is because the inheritor has the temerity to be "reasonably well off.
|
>>
>> His point was quite clear. The system should be changed from one where only the
>> estate pays tax.
>>
>> It's hardly an unreasonable proposition that legatees should be taxed on inheritances if they're already
>> reasonably well off.
You cannot be serious? Inheritance tax is already 40%.
>>
>> The fact that money was taxed once already is neither here nor there. The four
>> pack of beer I bought from my taxed income was subject to duty and VAT
>> - is that wrong?
And if he spends his £300,000 on beer he'll pay duty and VAT too.
Immaterial because not enough turkeys will vote for that particular Christmas.
|
|
There's some posts gone missing from this thread. Did any mods do it?
|
My suggestion was that it would be possible, and not unreasonable, to reform IHT so that those receiving a large windfall pay some tax on it and that such tax might bear some relationship to the inheritors circumstances.
As to CAmeron's £200k, I assume these to be potentially exempt transfers requiring Mrs C senior to survive seven years if they are not to count for IHT.
|
>> My suggestion was that it would be possible, and not unreasonable, to reform IHT so
>> that those receiving a large windfall pay some tax on it and that such tax
>> might bear some relationship to the inheritors circumstances.
so you want the recipient means tested before they get the inheritance? Would it not be fair to tax lottery wins, pools wins, premium bond wins in the same way, or is it just wealth accumulated by someones endeavours that you object to?
|
|
Love it. Tax their birthday presents too.
|
...wealth accumulated by someones endeavours...
If living in a house and managing to stay alive while the market does the work counts as 'endeavours'.
It might be a way to de-constipate the family house market: offer a tax incentive to parents (or whoever) to liquidate their oversized houses in return for tax concessions when they pass on the proceeds - without having to die first. The present system encourages people to stay on in houses that are too big for them 'to preserve the children's inheritance'.
|
>> offer a tax incentive
>> to parents (or whoever) to liquidate their oversized houses in return for tax concessions when
>> they pass on the proceeds - without having to die first. The present system encourages
>> people to stay on in houses that are too big for them 'to preserve the
>> children's inheritance'.
Thats a very good plan. In the short term it would pump spending money into the economy (care would need to be taken to prevent inflation), property prices would fall and no t be so inflationary, and the next generation could put money into their pension pots.
|
How does encouraging people with big houses to release them generate a bigger supply of smaller affordable houses for new-starters?
Don't the newly-downsized then themselves compete with the new-starters in the smaller-house market?
Surely old people should be encouraged to occupy the largest houses they can afford, to leave the smaller houses for people with smaller resources?
|
>> How does encouraging people with big houses to release them generate a bigger supply of
>> smaller affordable houses for new-starters?
>>
Because it allows some of those who were new starters a few years ago to get themselves a bigger house with more rooms / garden for their growing family.
Many may still be reluctant to downsize as it restricts the space available for visiting children / grandchildren, which is a consideration for some.
|
>> >>
>> Because it allows some of those who were new starters a few years ago to
>> get themselves a bigger house with more rooms / garden for their growing family.
>>
Yes, but wherever the older couple live they will be depriving someone else of that house. In their present house that is another older rich couple. If they move out to a small house they be occupying something that a younger poorer couple might want.
I don't see how any of this helps first-time buyers get a foothold on the ladder, apart of course from their own lucky relatives.
So the generational mismatch seems really to resolve back into the old problem of different family wealth, which hounding boomer housing values doesn't really address.
|
Yes, but wherever the older couple live they will be depriving someone else of that
>> house. In their present house that is another older rich couple. If they move out
>> to a small house they be occupying something that a younger poorer couple might want.
>>
>> I don't see how any of this helps first-time buyers get a foothold on the ladder, apart of course from their own lucky relatives.
>> So the generational mismatch seems really to resolve back into the old problem of different family wealth, which hounding boomer housing values doesn't really address.
I think it's meant to be part of the solution not the only one. There's a bit of supply and demand as well. If lots of large houses gone on the market it would push prices down for that size of house. More houses of course would be needed in general.
|
>> ...wealth accumulated by someones endeavours...
>>
>> If living in a house and managing to stay alive while the market does the
>> work counts as 'endeavours'.
I was thinking more of working hard and saving for the deposit, and scrimping for the mortgage.
|
>> My suggestion was that it would be possible, and not unreasonable, to reform IHT so
>> that those receiving a large windfall pay some tax on it and that such tax
>> might bear some relationship to the inheritors circumstances.
So, just to be clear, are you suggesting taxing the estate and then further taxing the recipients?
or is this to tax the recipients on an income basis rather than tax the estate?
|
|
I can't speak for the others but I've not deleted anything and there is nothing hidden. (We'd usually Hide unwanted posts, and sometimes add the reason for our own reference if not obvious so we each know what the other is doing).
|
|
Right cheers, must be a problem with the forum.
|
>> The government EU pamphlet being a case in point.
No its not, my reference was to politicians being personally attacked and failing to deal with it in a sensible manner. Nothing to do with regular, expected manifesto type government vagueness.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 07:24
|
>>From a UK tax perspective, would there be any difference between owning shares in HICL (domiciled in Guernsey) and Blairmore (domiciled until 2010 in the Bahamas, and now in Ireland)?
Not that I can see, Manatee, but what is the basic advantage to the UK investor of off-shore siting? For the company, the advantage is that its profits are more lightly taxed than in the UK. This makes its operations more profitable. Will it pass some of these profits over to the investor?
HICL's yield is 4.68% at a price today of 162.20 which is good, but not startlingly so (especially at the cost of a premium of 14%).
|
It's the yield that keeps the premium up presumably.
The fact of it being Guernsey domiciled was not a particular factor in holding it; but I assume it lowers its costs slightly. I added last August when the index dropped to roughly where it is now, 8% up with reinvestment but much of that is the premium widening.
For comparison, the UK Dividend Plus ETF (IUKD) is at 4.29%
The FTSE UK Dividend+ Index offers exposure to the 50 highest yielding UK stocks within the universe of the FTSE 350 Index, excluding investment trusts. Stocks are selected and weighted by one-year forecast dividend yield.
Just noticed that one is domiciled in Ireland, I'll be a pariah if it gets out!
|
>>Just noticed that one is domiciled in Ireland, I'll be a pariah if it gets out!
....simply publish your tax return on here, and all your problems will go away....... ;-)
|
We have become a tax haven for the rich.
And that is represented by the amount of billionaires living in central London.
|
So what? Billionaires spend money, drive Range Rovers, employee staff etc.
There is a disturbing trend in all this, fuelled by the Left, that wealth is bad. It sounds to me more like the Politics of envy than anything else.
|
It alwys does sound like the politics of envy if you're a rightie tightie.
It usually isn't. It's more about justice in the eyes of most.
|
|
I am not on the Right, probably more Centre ground. When I started out, I didn't have a pot to p*** in. It's through hard work, careful investment (both personal and business) that we are comfortably off. I am concerned that in all this tax return stuff being played out on the Political stage that wealth is being seen as a bad thing.
|
>> It alwys does sound like the politics of envy if you're a rightie tightie.
The R T types see two sorts of socialist. If they're poor they're envious and if well off hypocrites for not giving their cash away.
|
"The R T types see two sorts of socialist. If they're poor they're envious and if well off hypocrites for not giving their cash away."
Sounds like a fair assessment though, of course, it isn't just the RTs who see it that way.
|
I have nothing against people who work hard and do the right thing.
|
|
Anyone can work hard. The trick is to work efficiently.
|
>> Anyone can work hard. The trick is to work efficiently.
Exactly.
Similarly, any fool can think complicated, it takes a smart person to think simply.
|
Panama and elsewhere - R.P.