Panama papers?...

[Kizzy]

What are they? What's going on?... :/

http://www.theguardian.com/news/live/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-global-reaction-to-huge-leak-of-offshore-tax-files-live?page=with:block-5702a9fbe4b0fde262ff63fc#block-5702a9fbe4b0fde262ff63fc

[Cherie]

You need to listen to the BBC news Kizzy, details of tax haven accounts leaked WH did a poem on it this am :joker:

[Kizzy]

I'll stick to the Guardian thanks ;)
Still fair play to the BBC here.

We'll be up to our scrawny necks in it too no doubt.

[bots]

I'll stick to the Guardian thanks ;)
Still fair play to the BBC here.

We'll be up to our scrawny necks in it too no doubt.

Its more a case of who hasn't been doing dodgy deals there .... really funny now they are all found out

[DemolitionRed]

The information contained in the documents is huge. This is a story that will continue to run and reveal for years.

[hijaxers]

Dear David - wow talk about 'on top' and about bout time ! Of course ' we're all in it together ' Yeah ok

[DemolitionRed]

I'll stick to the Guardian thanks ;)
Still fair play to the BBC here.

We'll be up to our scrawny necks in it too no doubt.

But watch how they turn our attention away from what's happening on our own front doorstep. I mean, lets all talk about Iceland and Putin!.

Poor Dave; I bet he was totally unaware of his father’s own attempts to hide the ownership of Blairmore Holdings, Inc. in order to avoid paying taxes in the UK :hehe:
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/04/04/greatest-tax-scandal-history-exposes-david-camerons-millionaire-father/

[Cherie]

But watch how they turn our attention away from what's happening on our own front doorstep. I mean, lets all talk about Iceland and Putin!.

Poor Dave; I bet he was totally unaware of his father’s own attempts to hide the ownership of Blairmore Holdings, Inc. in order to avoid paying taxes in the UK :hehe:
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/04/04/greatest-tax-scandal-history-exposes-david-camerons-millionaire-father/

This was discussed at length this afternoon on BBC 5 live so no hiding the issue

[Livia]

Looks like everyone's okay with these documents being "leaked". I mean, it fits in with a lot of people's agendas, doesn't it. David Cameron's Dad... how fortunate.

Anyone interested in who it was who leaked these documents? I mean, there is a whole other thread about Apple refusing to allow the Security Services to access a terrorist's phone because it'll apparently threaten "personal privacy"... but there's an awful lot of support... and a certain amount of glee... that some nameless, faceless organisation has unlawfully accessed what are essentially private files because it shames people you don't like.

You can't have it both ways... no access for the security services but full acceptance of some spotty hacker because he reinforces your own agenda.

[bots]

Looks like everyone's okay with these documents being "leaked". I mean, it fits in with a lot of people's agendas, doesn't it. David Cameron's Dad... how fortunate.

Anyone interested in who it was who leaked these documents? I mean, there is a whole other thread about Apple refusing to allow the Security Services to access a terrorist's phone because it'll apparently threaten "personal privacy"... but there's an awful lot of support... and a certain amount of glee... that some nameless, faceless organisation has unlawfully accessed what are essentially private files because it shames people you don't like.

You can't have it both ways... no access for the security services but full acceptance of some spotty hacker because he reinforces your own agenda.

Personally, i always protect peoples right to privacy. However, if someone breaches that and the information enters the public domain, then there is no going back, and if wrong doing has been committed, then it should be acted upon.

If it was a whistleblower/hacker, if they broke the law publishing it, they should be prosecuted. Simple really.

[DemolitionRed]

Whilst Cameron is not accountable for his fathers actions, he does have a duty to answer questions about whether or not he still has links to this offshore company. He can't claim its a private matter when tax evasion is of public interest and very much a public concern.

Lets also not forget that Cameron has a very privileged background which was financed by his fathers offshore dealings. If my parents stole the crown jewels and left them to me in their will, I wouldn't be allowed to keep or benefit from those jewels because they never really belonged to my parents, they belonged to the country.

[smudgie]

Ian Cameron's offshore dealings were public knowledge years ago.
Plenty of people put their money offshore, the same as Swiss bank accounts. If it is not illegal then what is all the fuss about.....Ohhh yeah, someone with money and privilege might be getting one over on the taxman, these same people that probably already pay more taxes than us plebs earn.
Good for them. Seems it is a sin to be well off in this country. :idc:

[DemolitionRed]

When a crime is being committed, as we see here; then we often rely on whistle-blowers. Lets take a nursing home scenario where elderly folks with dementia are being abused. Its usually just one person who sees the going on as morally wrong and decides to pull the plug on this criminal activity.

I work in an environment where we are expected to whistle-blow if we see anything we deem to be suspicious.

The person who has pulled the plug on this massive tax evasion has not done so for financial gain or for notoriety, though he/she did ask for protection. They did not personally meet journalists in the flesh or talk to them on the phone. Everything was handed of in encrypted files. If the government had been able to unlock encryption, these files very probably couldn't of been handed over because they would of been immediately blocked and traced back to the sender.

[DemolitionRed]

Oh and before anyone says, tax evasion is not a crime...in my eyes its very much a crime. Its ****ing appalling that people are allowed to get away with this sort of theft.

[Livia]

Whilst Cameron is not accountable for his fathers actions, he does have a duty to answer questions about whether or not he still has links to this offshore company. He can't claim its a private matter when tax evasion is of public interest and very much a public concern.

Lets also not forget that Cameron has a very privileged background which was financed by his fathers offshore dealings. If my parents stole the crown jewels and left them to me in their will, I wouldn't be allowed to keep or benefit from those jewels because they never really belonged to my parents, they belonged to the country.

You cannot prosecute the son for the sins of the father and David Cameron has no duty whatsoever to speak for his father's actions, whether he's Prime Minister or not. Seems to me that Cameron's biggest crime is to be considered "privileged".

[Livia]

Oh and before anyone says, tax evasion is not a crime...in my eyes its very much a crime. Its ****ing appalling that people are allowed to get away with this sort of theft.

Of course tax evasion is a crime. I can't imagine anyone saying it isn't.

[Livia]

When a crime is being committed, as we see here; then we often rely on whistle-blowers. Lets take a nursing home scenario where elderly folks with dementia are being abused. Its usually just one person who sees the going on as morally wrong and decides to pull the plug on this criminal activity.

I work in an environment where we are expected to whistle-blow if we see anything we deem to be suspicious.

The person who has pulled the plug on this massive tax evasion has not done so for financial gain or for notoriety, though he/she did ask for protection. They did not personally meet journalists in the flesh or talk to them on the phone. Everything was handed of in encrypted files. If the government had been able to unlock encryption, these files very probably couldn't of been handed over because they would of been immediately blocked and traced back to the sender.

So... this kind of action is okay in your books, respectable even. But terrorists can continue to use their cellphones with impunity knowing that the security services can't touch them. And let's face it, you're making up your own story here about the noble hacker doing it for the greater good and what the government can and can't access when you know no more about this story or who is responsible than any of us.

One rule of unlawful whistle-blowers, another for the security services.

[Livia]

Ian Cameron's offshore dealings were public knowledge years ago.
Plenty of people put their money offshore, the same as Swiss bank accounts. If it is not illegal then what is all the fuss about.....Ohhh yeah, someone with money and privilege might be getting one over on the taxman, these same people that probably already pay more taxes than us plebs earn.
Good for them. Seems it is a sin to be well off in this country. :idc:

Smudgie smacking the nail on the head, there...

[smudgie]

Of course tax evasion is a crime. I can't imagine anyone saying it isn't.

It is the confusion between evasion and avoidance that is the beggar here.
Avoidance may appear unfair to most, but until they change or tighten up the rules then it is quite within the law to stash your stash.
Well worth a visit to a decent financial advisor if you come into a little windfall.

[Livia]

It is the confusion between evasion and avoidance that is the beggar here.
Avoidance may appear unfair to most, but until they change or tighten up the rules then it is quite within the law to stash your stash.
Well worth a visit to a decent financial advisor if you come into a little windfall.

You're right Smudgie... making a habit of it, aren't you?!

If you have a good accountant he can save you a bomb, like you say. And I don't know anyone who says no... I won't claim that as a business expense because I want to pay as much tax as I can. Quite the reverse.

[arista]

On The PM
his dads account is legal.

New Labour had 13 fecking years
left it all.

Now Blair is Rich

[DemolitionRed]

You cannot prosecute the son for the sins of the father and David Cameron has no duty whatsoever to speak for his father's actions, whether he's Prime Minister or not. Seems to me that Cameron's biggest crime is to be considered "privileged".

Don't put words in my mouth Livia, nobody said prosecute Cameron; I said Cameron needs to answer questions regarding his current interests in his inheritance.

Of course tax evasion is a crime. I can't imagine anyone saying it isn't.

The deliberately muddled terms between “tax evasion” and "tax avoidance" tend to get used interchangeably, even by conservative MP's.

So... this kind of action is okay in your books, respectable even. But terrorists can continue to use their cellphones with impunity knowing that the security services can't touch them. And let's face it, you're making up your own story here about the noble hacker doing it for the greater good and what the government can and can't access when you know no more about this story or who is responsible than any of us.

One rule of unlawful whistle-blowers, another for the security services.


Absolutely. The whistle-blower in this case has done the British nation a huge service. They have very decently just confirmed what we already suspected but it needed a vigil anti with more guts than a xmas turkey to reveal the corruption going on by billionaires around the globe. Now Cameron has to be seen to be doing something because the majority of the nation won't allow this one to be swept under the carpet.

The British bourgeoisie and aristocracy have been benefiting from these arrangements for a very long time. Half this country is now owned by offshore investors and so no, I don't accept that the few crumbs the government throws at the British electorate is enough to pacify me. Why should the minions who humbly pay their taxes have to subsidise these massive tax avoiders.

So... NO, I don't trust this corrupt government to gain access to our privacy and I don't believe for a second that they want access to encryption because of terrorism.

[arista]

"I said Cameron needs to answer questions regarding his current interests in his inheritance. "

DR he did today Live on SkyNewsHD & BBCNewsHD (Northern Live Event)
all legal.
His Dead Dad
seems to be more a Problem with Fecking Labour
wasting time over this.

[DemolitionRed]

"I said Cameron needs to answer questions regarding his current interests in his inheritance. "

DR he did today Live on SkyNewsHD & BBCNewsHD (Northern Live Event)
all legal.
His Dead Dad
seems to be more a Problem with Fecking Labour
wasting time over this.

why do you always use Labour as the straw man?

[arista]

why do you always use Labour as the straw man?


Today Corbyn rushed onto TV News
I want him to say how he can make the UK better
Not Waste My fecking time
on the PM's dead dad
who broke no laws

If the LibDems did that
I would attack them

[arista]

http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/content/uploads/2015/09/GettyImages-4878675481.jpg
not today it Ain't

its all about he PM's dead dad

[DemolitionRed]

http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/content/uploads/2015/09/GettyImages-4878675481.jpg


tax havens have become honey pots for aggressive tax evaders / avoiders and Corbyn is right to call for an independent investigation into all British citizens who are using this loophole. That investigation includes Cameron.

Doesn't it bother you that a number of Tory peers are involved in a substantial amount of tax avoidance and possible evasion or that the wealthy are taking a staggering amount of money that should have been taxed and hiding it away, when you yourself have been taxed on every penny?.

Isn't that theft?

[arista]

The PM himself is not part of any of this
Nothing Illegal.

Corbyn turns into Trump
saying "The Prime Minister in his own interest , needs to tell us whats going on"?

Feck All
under 13 years of New Labour
thats whats going on.


Talk Sense DR

[DemolitionRed]

Me talk sense!!

Go and have a word with yourself Arista

[Kizzy]

Looks like everyone's okay with these documents being "leaked". I mean, it fits in with a lot of people's agendas, doesn't it. David Cameron's Dad... how fortunate.

Anyone interested in who it was who leaked these documents? I mean, there is a whole other thread about Apple refusing to allow the Security Services to access a terrorist's phone because it'll apparently threaten "personal privacy"... but there's an awful lot of support... and a certain amount of glee... that some nameless, faceless organisation has unlawfully accessed what are essentially private files because it shames people you don't like.

You can't have it both ways... no access for the security services but full acceptance of some spotty hacker because he reinforces your own agenda.

We can argue how morally indefensible it is for illegal behaviour to out corruption at the highest level, how that is comparable to security services asking for access to data I don't know... In the end they hacked it anyway so there really is no high ground to be had is there?
There is also no 'glee' in knowing this information, nor does it affect anyone I don't like, personally I don't know anyone affected here.

[Kizzy]

Ian Cameron's offshore dealings were public knowledge years ago.
Plenty of people put their money offshore, the same as Swiss bank accounts. If it is not illegal then what is all the fuss about.....Ohhh yeah, someone with money and privilege might be getting one over on the taxman, these same people that probably already pay more taxes than us plebs earn.
Good for them. Seems it is a sin to be well off in this country. :idc:

Speak for yourself smudgie.

Tax is proportional, you pay more the more you earn. If you earn not very much you don't have the luxury of moving your money places where you can effectively pay no tax.
It is not a sin to be rich in this country, that's a ridiculous statement. It's the double standards that stick in the craw of many, when the likes of Jimmy Carr were exposed as avoiding tax he was accused of being 'morally corrupt'... seems the more you earn the less corrupt it is not to declare it!
How very odd.

[kirklancaster]

Looks like everyone's okay with these documents being "leaked". I mean, it fits in with a lot of people's agendas, doesn't it. David Cameron's Dad... how fortunate.

Anyone interested in who it was who leaked these documents? I mean, there is a whole other thread about Apple refusing to allow the Security Services to access a terrorist's phone because it'll apparently threaten "personal privacy"... but there's an awful lot of support... and a certain amount of glee... that some nameless, faceless organisation has unlawfully accessed what are essentially private files because it shames people you don't like.

You can't have it both ways... no access for the security services but full acceptance of some spotty hacker because he reinforces your own agenda.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: What you have to understand Livia - as difficult as that may be for anyone with logic - is that this contradiction within some peoples views of 'Neighing' to the Security Services having access to terrorists phones because of 'privacy protection', and the 'Yeighing' to this invasion of privacy in the case of these so-called 'Panama Papers', is nothing unusual.

These are the same people who for years on here, have called David Cameron and some of his closest cronies, every bad name in the book - from 'Evil', 'Dishonest' and 'Corrupt', to 'Uncaring' and 'Heartless' - UNTIL it comes to Cameron and his closest cronies stance on remaining in the EU, which just happens to coincide with their own viewpoint, and then they READILY accept EVERY one of Cameron's claims about the benefits of EU membership, and their hatred of him has visibly shifted to notable EU 'OUT' campaigners Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

Add to the above, the fact that these same people weep and wail about the impoverished state of the N.H.S., Schools and other services, and the lack of homes, whilst at the same time protesting against any type of immigration control, and there is no wonder we are confused - or should that be THEY are confused?

[Kizzy]

Who are 'they'? I should like to have a word with 'they,' 'they' seem like really nice people.

[Kizzy]

mFymD53G72M

[Kizzy]

The prime minister must explain to the country “exactly what’s been going on” with his family’s financial affairs in the wake of the Panama Papers leaks, and should be subjected to an investigation to determine whether tax has been avoided Jeremy Corbyn has said.

The Labour leader said he wanted HM Revenue and Customs to launch an investigation into all those implicated in the tax haven revelations, including David Cameron’s family.

Corbyn also argued that the government should consider imposing direct rule on British overseas territories and crown dependencies to stop them sheltering tax avoiders and evaders. Downing Street has insisted that the financial affairs of Cameron’s late father, Ian, which were detailed in the Panama leak, were a private matter.

Corbyn told reporters: “Well, it’s a private matter in so far as it’s a privately held interest. But it’s not a private matter if tax is not being paid. So an investigation must take place, an independent investigation, unprejudiced, to decide whether or not tax has been paid. “I think the prime minister, in his own interest, should tell us exactly what’s been going on.”


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/05/david-cameron-must-come-clean-on-tax-says-jeremy-corbyn-panama-papers

[MTVN]

Looks like everyone's okay with these documents being "leaked". I mean, it fits in with a lot of people's agendas, doesn't it. David Cameron's Dad... how fortunate.

Anyone interested in who it was who leaked these documents? I mean, there is a whole other thread about Apple refusing to allow the Security Services to access a terrorist's phone because it'll apparently threaten "personal privacy"... but there's an awful lot of support... and a certain amount of glee... that some nameless, faceless organisation has unlawfully accessed what are essentially private files because it shames people you don't like.

You can't have it both ways... no access for the security services but full acceptance of some spotty hacker because he reinforces your own agenda.

Good point, and like Smudgie also says it is important to distinguish here between illegal tax evasion and legal tax avoidance. The latter will probably always be a fact of life and has continued to flourish despite every government in about the last twenty years constantly trying different methods and schemes to close loopholes and clamp down on it. Also think its unrealistic to close down 'tax havens' considering that the economies of a lot of these small countries are hugely reliant on their tax status.

[DemolitionRed]

Good point, and like Smudgie also says it is important to distinguish here between illegal tax evasion and legal tax avoidance. The latter will probably always be a fact of life and has continued to flourish despite every government in about the last twenty years constantly trying different methods and schemes to close loopholes and clamp down on it. Also think its unrealistic to close down 'tax havens' considering that the economies of a lot of these small countries are hugely reliant on their tax status.

Well to be precise, the rot set in around 1898, but that's a long story that meanders back to the Middle Ages.

There is though, a surprisingly simple way of defusing and clearing up this rather nasty outbreak of corporate fascism that the world is currently suffering from, and it involves a gradual and broad sweeping reform of the tax system, but first the masses have to become aware of it and understand what really happened in the last century.

[joeysteele]

Personally I make little difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, both result in likely due taxes not being paid where they should be.

However this has nothing at all to do with David Cameron and just as I was disgusted at the slurs and raking up of old stories factual or not about Ed Miliband's Father, I equally am disgusted at any attempt of getting at David Cameron over this either,relating to his deceased father.

The present govt to be fair, has made a start to deal with tax avoidance and evasion, not enough but it has started, and the company David Cameron's Father seems to have had connections with was dealt with by David Cameron.

Whatever comes from this list, all I hope for is those who should be paying tax are made to do so, if this list helps finds anyone who should be, then even better.

[DemolitionRed]

:clap1::clap1::clap1: What you have to understand Livia - as difficult as that may be for anyone with logic - is that this contradiction within some peoples views of 'Neighing' to the Security Services having access to terrorists phones because of 'privacy protection', and the 'Yeighing' to this invasion of privacy in the case of these so-called 'Panama Papers', is nothing unusual.

These are the same people who for years on here, have called David Cameron and some of his closest cronies, every bad name in the book - from 'Evil', 'Dishonest' and 'Corrupt', to 'Uncaring' and 'Heartless' - UNTIL it comes to Cameron and his closest cronies stance on remaining in the EU, which just happens to coincide with their own viewpoint, and then they READILY accept EVERY one of Cameron's claims about the benefits of EU membership, and their hatred of him has visibly shifted to notable EU 'OUT' campaigners Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

Add to the above, the fact that these same people weep and wail about the impoverished state of the N.H.S., Schools and other services, and the lack of homes, whilst at the same time protesting against any type of immigration control, and there is no wonder we are confused - or should that be THEY are confused?

Well I for one am voting for out of the EU or did you miss me saying that?!
If you have more patronising assumptions to make, send them to my secretary.

[bots]

Personally I make little difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, both result in likely due taxes not being paid where they should be.

However this has nothing at all to do with David Cameron and just as I was disgusted at the slurs and raking up of old stories factual or not about Ed Miliband's Father, I equally am disgusted at any attempt of getting at David Cameron over this either,relating to his deceased father.

The present govt to be fair, has made a start to deal with tax avoidance and evasion, not enough but it has started, and the company David Cameron's Father seems to have had connections with was dealt with by David Cameron.

Whatever comes from this list, all I hope for is those who should be paying tax are made to do so, if this list helps finds anyone who should be, then even better.

I think this sums it up. The actual event bears no relation to the Apple case, and it has even less to do with wanting to be in or out of the EU

[joeysteele]

I think this sums it up. The actual event bears no relation to the Apple case, and it has even less to do with wanting to be in or out of the EU



I agree, good point.
Virtually nothing at all to do with it I would say,I personally,speaking only for myself,cannot see the point at all of being in or out of the EU needing to be being raised as to anyone's comments here.

Anyway,I would be one of the 'they' who supported David Cameron's EU stance,I agree with him on that,also however I have never liked Boris Johnson anyway and in fact I still like Michael Gove despite him wanting out.

So as on that issue,equally so I will defend again David Cameron on this Panama list issue because I think it wrong to get at him because of it.
What his deceased Father may or may not have done is not something to be used to beat him with.

[kirklancaster]

QUOTE=DemolitionRed;8597200]Well I for one am voting for out of the EU or did you miss me saying that?!
If you have more patronising assumptions to make, send them to my secretary.[/QUOTE]

Ha ha - Methinks that you think FAR too much of yourself dear and overestimate your importance in these debates. I was neither addressing you, nor referring to you, so save the thinly veiled perjorative comments, you may need them.

[kirklancaster]

I think this sums it up. The actual event bears no relation to the Apple case, and it has even less to do with wanting to be in or out of the EU

And just WHO said that it had? Perhaps you will explain?

[bots]

[/B]

And just WHO said that it had? Perhaps you will explain?

I think you will find that you brought up the EU Kirk ... you know this has f all to do with the EU. People are able to evaluate the rights and wrongs of particular behaviour without linking it to whether the individual is pro or against the EU.

[kirklancaster]

I think you will find that you brought up the EU Kirk ... you know this has f all to do with the EU. People are able to evaluate the rights and wrongs of particular behaviour without linking it to whether the individual is pro or against the EU.

I did not ask who brought up the EU - YOU said; "and it has even less to do with wanting to be in or out of the EU"
to which I asked: "And just WHO said that it had? Perhaps you will explain?".

I posed just such a question, because I NEVER said that the EU had anything DIRECTLY to do with the thread subject, but I
used the EU as just one of several examples to illustrate my point that certain people are illogical - in my opinion - in their contradictory views:

ie - For over a year, Cameron is the devil incarnate and not to be trusted UNTIL he confirms his extreme pro-EU stance.

In the above context - which was made crystal clear in my post - it has EVERYTHING to do with the post of Livia's that I was responding to.

I do not understand the need for the 'F' word though - unless it denotes irrational supressed anger?

[Kizzy]

QUOTE=DemolitionRed;8597200]Well I for one am voting for out of the EU or did you miss me saying that?!
If you have more patronising assumptions to make, send them to my secretary.

Ha ha - Methinks that you think FAR too much of yourself dear and overestimate your importance in these debates. I was neither addressing you, nor referring to you, so save the thinly veiled perjorative comments, you may need them.[/QUOTE]

I could say the same to you, Comments relating to 'them' are as ambiguous as the 'some people' reference. Maybe state who you are addressing to take the guesswork out of forming a response to your posts.

[Kizzy]

Good point, and like Smudgie also says it is important to distinguish here between illegal tax evasion and legal tax avoidance. The latter will probably always be a fact of life and has continued to flourish despite every government in about the last twenty years constantly trying different methods and schemes to close loopholes and clamp down on it. Also think its unrealistic to close down 'tax havens' considering that the economies of a lot of these small countries are hugely reliant on their tax status.

Where's the good point? I can't see one, there is no comparison between hacking illegally and security services having access to phones, none.

[Ninastar]

Looks like everyone's okay with these documents being "leaked". I mean, it fits in with a lot of people's agendas, doesn't it. David Cameron's Dad... how fortunate.

Anyone interested in who it was who leaked these documents? I mean, there is a whole other thread about Apple refusing to allow the Security Services to access a terrorist's phone because it'll apparently threaten "personal privacy"... but there's an awful lot of support... and a certain amount of glee... that some nameless, faceless organisation has unlawfully accessed what are essentially private files because it shames people you don't like.

You can't have it both ways... no access for the security services but full acceptance of some spotty hacker because he reinforces your own agenda.

Brilliantly well said.

[Marsh.]

Where's the good point? I can't see one, there is no comparison between hacking illegally and security services having access to phones, none.

It's accessing personal information about someone without their permission. Pretty simple comparison.

[Kizzy]

It's accessing personal information about someone without their permission. Pretty simple comparison.

Tenuous...at best.

[Marsh.]

Tenuous...at best.

How so?

[Kizzy]

'A survey, published this week but conducted just days before the Panama Papers leaks, finds that 77 per cent of the public believe David Cameron has a “moral responsibility” to ensure the UK’s overseas territories are as transparent on tax as possible.

The ComRes poll, commissioned by Christian Aid and Global Witness, also found that 81 per cent agree that all companies, whether registered in the UK or in overseas territories, should be legally required to reveal who owns them.'

Seems the majority of people would like a more honest approach to 'offshore' dealings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/panama-papers-jeremy-corbyn-capitalises-on-david-camerons-tax-affairs-as-global-scandal-deepens-a6970486.html

[bots]

:clap1::clap1::clap1: What you have to understand Livia - as difficult as that may be for anyone with logic - is that this contradiction within some peoples views of 'Neighing' to the Security Services having access to terrorists phones because of 'privacy protection', and the 'Yeighing' to this invasion of privacy in the case of these so-called 'Panama Papers', is nothing unusual.

These are the same people who for years on here, have called David Cameron and some of his closest cronies, every bad name in the book - from 'Evil', 'Dishonest' and 'Corrupt', to 'Uncaring' and 'Heartless' - UNTIL it comes to Cameron and his closest cronies stance on remaining in the EU, which just happens to coincide with their own viewpoint, and then they READILY accept EVERY one of Cameron's claims about the benefits of EU membership, and their hatred of him has visibly shifted to notable EU 'OUT' campaigners Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

Add to the above, the fact that these same people weep and wail about the impoverished state of the N.H.S., Schools and other services, and the lack of homes, whilst at the same time protesting against any type of immigration control, and there is no wonder we are confused - or should that be THEY are confused?

I did not ask who brought up the EU - YOU said; "and it has even less to do with wanting to be in or out of the EU"
to which I asked: "And just WHO said that it had? Perhaps you will explain?".

I posed just such a question, because I NEVER said that the EU had anything DIRECTLY to do with the thread subject, but I
used the EU as just one of several examples to illustrate my point that certain people are illogical - in my opinion - in their contradictory views:

ie - For over a year, Cameron is the devil incarnate and not to be trusted UNTIL he confirms his extreme pro-EU stance.

In the above context - which was made crystal clear in my post - it has EVERYTHING to do with the post of Livia's that I was responding to.

I do not understand the need for the 'F' word though - unless it denotes irrational supressed anger?

The bit in bold written by you clearly states that peoples opinions are being driven by their stance on the EU referendum. Like people do not have the clarity of thought to judge a situation on its own merits

Yet again, you attack posters personally rather than sticking to the topic.

Also please refrain from getting personal in your responses to me.

[DemolitionRed]

'A survey, published this week but conducted just days before the Panama Papers leaks, finds that 77 per cent of the public believe David Cameron has a “moral responsibility” to ensure the UK’s overseas territories are as transparent on tax as possible.

The ComRes poll, commissioned by Christian Aid and Global Witness, also found that 81 per cent agree that all companies, whether registered in the UK or in overseas territories, should be legally required to reveal who owns them.'

Seems the majority of people would like a more honest approach to 'offshore' dealings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/panama-papers-jeremy-corbyn-capitalises-on-david-camerons-tax-affairs-as-global-scandal-deepens-a6970486.html

Yes of course they do because if we allow MP's and peers to cover over their off-shore tax dodging's, how can we, the electorate, decide if they are representing us or representing themselves and their friends/families.

like Dave says, "we are all in this together"...well Dave, transparency starts at the top and so you need to be the one turning over the stones.

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=bitontheslide;8597703]"The bit in bold written by you clearly states that peoples opinions are being driven by their stance on the EU referendum. Like people do not have the clarity of thought to judge a situation on its own merits"

What are you talking about?

I CLEARLY said that peoples opinions on David Cameron and his closest cronies have become contradictory since he confirmed his pro-EU stance, NOT that those peoples opinions in their entirety per se are being driven by THEIR stance on the EU Referendum.

If you have a problem comprehending my posts that's your problem, but do not put words in my mouth or use 'Strawman' tactics to try to draw me into some argument for the later purpose of having me penalised by the Mods.

This is a discussion forum and I am airing my views.

"Yet again, you attack posters personally rather than sticking to the topic."


Pray enlighten me as why - in your erudite mind - there is a difference between some members criticising or disagreeing with my views and opinions and my criticising or disagreeing with other members views and opinions?

I was referring to some members VIEWS and OPINIONS - NOT those members PERSONALLY.

Again, you are attempting to persuade others that I am being personal because you have an ulterior motive.

"Also please refrain from getting personal in your responses to me."

This last above from you is LAUGHABLE - I DEFY you to prove HERE and NOW just where I have been PERSONAL with you in this thread?

I have been polite and civil because THERE IS NOTHING PERSONAL - IT IS A DISCUSSION FORUM.

You on the other hand, used an abreviated swear word in the form of an 'F' when there was no need to.

If you do not 'like' me but feel that you cannot 'out' argue with me when we are in opposite camps on a subject, then please just refrain from debating with me - there is really no need to use underhand tactics to try to get me infracted or banned by drawing me into arguments of your making.

And the above is an earnest request - nothing more.

[DemolitionRed]

The problem is Kirk, at every given opportunity you will try and turn a perfectly reasonable debate into some sort of veiled personal put down. Instead of discussing the issue, they want to discuss you want to discuss, with ridicule and accusational tone, the posters who are trying to concentrate on topic. This always moves us away from the debate and into some sort of psychological war on words with each other.

"These are the same people who for years on here, have called David Cameron and some of his closest cronies, every bad name in the book - from 'Evil', 'Dishonest' and 'Corrupt', to 'Uncaring' and 'Heartless' - UNTIL it comes to Cameron and his closest cronies stance on remaining in the EU, which just happens to coincide with their own viewpoint, and then they READILY accept EVERY one of Cameron's claims about the benefits of EU" [/B]

What you are suggesting here is, those people, the ones you're accusing of being 'turncoats' have made their decisions on staying in the EU because of what Cameron says and if they agree with what Cameron says, they are somehow retracting all the vile things they said about him previously.

Well I've got some news for you cupcake. I certainly didn't decide to vote out because of what Johnson said and I didn't decide to vote out of the EU because of what you said, in fact I never even read what you said, so its highly unlikely that the left leaning in voters are taking a lot of notice of Cameron and have done their own reading and their own research. Voting to remain 'in' Europe doesn't mean they agree with Camerons politics, it just means they agree with him regarding Europe. Since when did politics become all one camp?

[Livia]

How many years have people been joking about their Swiss bank accounts... or their dealings with the Cayman islands? It's like everyone has just woken up and realised there is a problem. Successive governments haven't done anything to end the practise. I'm astounded that everyone is so very shocked. It looks like people have suddenly woken up to it simply because David Cameron's family is involved and it's an excuse to be appalled by him. I've love to have a look at Blairs' accounts... just for my own interest.

[DemolitionRed]

How many years have people been joking about their Swiss bank accounts... or their dealings with the Cayman islands? It's like everyone has just woken up and realised there is a problem. Successive governments haven't done anything to end the practise. I'm astounded that everyone is so very shocked. It looks like people have suddenly woken up to it simply because David Cameron's family is involved and it's an excuse to be appalled by him. I've love to have a look at Blairs' accounts... just for my own interest.

We all knew there was a problem but that problem had never been unearthed like it just has.
I agree, NL were culpable for a lot of tax dodging. This is something that has been going on for a very, very long time.

Shocked? why would we be shocked? Delighted more like

[Livia]

We all knew there was a problem but that problem had never been unearthed like it just has.
I agree, NL were culpable for a lot of tax dodging. This is something that has been going on for a very, very long time.

Shocked? why would we be shocked? Delighted more like

And that says all that needs to be said about this thread.

[bots]

How many years have people been joking about their Swiss bank accounts... or their dealings with the Cayman islands? It's like everyone has just woken up and realised there is a problem. Successive governments haven't done anything to end the practise. I'm astounded that everyone is so very shocked. It looks like people have suddenly woken up to it simply because David Cameron's family is involved and it's an excuse to be appalled by him. I've love to have a look at Blairs' accounts... just for my own interest.

There were countless examples of corruption and nepotism in the Blair years. Who can forget Cherie's investments in property or my personal favourite where she was invited to pick an item from a Knightsbridge fashion store, and helped herself to the shops contents :laugh:

[Livia]

There were countless examples of corruption and nepotism in the Blair years. Who can forget Cherie's investments in property or my personal favourite where she was invited to pick an item from a Knightsbridge fashion store, and helped herself to the shops contents :laugh:

I was more disgusted at the cash she made from the Human Rights Act, oiled through by her old man. Truth is, politicians are human and humans are fundamentally greedy.

[Kizzy]

And that says all that needs to be said about this thread.

Why is that all that needs to be said about this thread?
What have you misread into that statement that isn't what DR clearly stated here-
' if we allow MP's and peers to cover over their off-shore tax dodging's, how can we, the electorate, decide if they are representing us or representing themselves and their friends/families.'

[Kizzy]

I was more disgusted at the cash she made from the Human Rights Act, oiled through by her old man. Truth is, politicians are human and humans are fundamentally greedy.

Is this you justifying corruption?

[Niamh.]

You all should be like the Irish and realise that all Politicians are corrupt :hee:

[Kizzy]

You all should be like the Irish and realise that all Politicians are corrupt :hee:

Oh don't worry the scales are falling for many thick and fast :laugh:

[Cherie]

You all should be like the Irish and realise that all Politicians are corrupt :hee:

Exactly I only vote for independents now that I know won't get a seat as I don't like the idea if not voting. :notimpressed:

[Niamh.]

Exactly I only vote for independents now that I know won't get a seat as I don't like the idea if not voting. :notimpressed:

Well I would never vote for Fine Gael/Fine Fael anyway, they may as well be the same party

[Cherie]

It all comes down to morals and principals, I suppose some justify it by saying they pay enough tax, people can talk themselves out of paying anything, are cash in hand payments so different :think:

[Livia]

Why is that all that needs to be said about this thread?
What have you misread into that statement that isn't what DR clearly stated here-
' if we allow MP's and peers to cover over their off-shore tax dodging's, how can we, the electorate, decide if they are representing us or representing themselves and their friends/families.'

No, it was me replying to DR's comment that you're DELIGHTED that Cameron's father has been implicated. I don't know how you could have misinterpreted that.

Is this you justifying corruption?

No. In no way have I tried to justify anything. I stated a fact. But your misinterpreting skills are really coming on.... well done you.

[arista]

On our PM Dave
he has confirmed he is not part of this.

So Put Up or Shut Up

His Dead Dad was , though.

[Kizzy]

No, it was me replying to DR's comment that you're DELIGHTED that Cameron's father has been implicated. I don't know how you could have misinterpreted that.

I am?... What makes you think that? I don't know the guy.



No. In no way have I tried to justify anything. I stated a fact. But your misinterpreting skills are really coming on.... well done you.

I learnt from the best liv.

[kirklancaster]

You all should be like the Irish and realise that all Politicians are corrupt :hee:

:laugh: It must be the Irish quarter in me then, because I've been saying the same thing for years.

[Kizzy]

oops...
'Swiss police have raided Uefa’s headquarters in Nyon to seize details of a contract signed by the Fifa president, Gianni Infantino, following the Panama Papers leak.

The files, seen by the Guardian, show that Infantino – formerly director of legal services at Uefa – co-signed a television rights contract in 2006 with two businessmen who have since been caught up in football’s corruption scandal.'

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/06/uefa-offices-raided-swiss-police-panama-papers-gianni-infantino

[smudgie]

Well I for one would like a nice easy little tax dodge, any money we can save the taxman taking from hubby's hard earned pensions would suit us very well at the minute.
Hopefully the accountant earns his money shortly. Legally of course.

[Cherie]

Well I for one would like a nice easy little tax dodge, any money we can save the taxman taking from hubby's hard earned pensions would suit us very well at the minute.
Hopefully the accountant earns his money shortly. Legally of course.

In all honestly most people would, as long as it's legal, accountants would go out of business if this wasn't the case :fan:

[DemolitionRed]

No, it was me replying to DR's comment that you're DELIGHTED that Cameron's father has been implicated. I don't know how you could have misinterpreted that.


Wait...Since when were these Panama papers just about Cameron's dad? This isn't about smirking or gloating at our PM, this is about a huge number of super rich people paying no tax. This is about naming and shaming and catching up with these thieves and this is about making new tax laws that will protect the honest tax payers in Britain.

I pay through my tax contributions for the services I use; why would I subsidise some rich thief using those same services whilst paying nothing.

[Kizzy]

Oh don't bother I see the supercilious point scoring for what it is, my issue is the 'do as I say not as I do' attitude from the so called elite. Those who have to toe the line are justified in their condemnation for me.

[Ammi]

Well I for one would like a nice easy little tax dodge, any money we can save the taxman taking from hubby's hard earned pensions would suit us very well at the minute.
Hopefully the accountant earns his money shortly. Legally of course.

In all honestly most people would, as long as it's legal, accountants would go out of business if this wasn't the case :fan:




..to be fair, I think that Livia's comments have been very valid because it was stated specifically that 'delight' was being taken with this because of the involvement of David Cameron's father...I agree with Cherie and Smudgie (so long as it's legal..)...most people if not all who have or have had limited companies, have in some way evaded taxes or their accountants have through 'clever/inventive or whatever book-keeping'...and I would think that the more wealthy a person is, the more able they are to employ an accountant who will know more complex ways, so larger tax evasion sums...and who then would say, no thank you, I'd rather pay full taxes...not many people I would think, also because they go by advice from their accountants, they're the ones who find the loopholes and suggest using them and that won't change while loopholes exist...you yourself DR in the budget thread, said that you owned a limited company and that your accountant was becoming very excited and referencing tax evasion in a way that didn't seem condemning at all of it, so that does seem quite contradictory to the stance taken now, with this....


..this section I have to say is such a mess of personal agendas and personal insults, it starts to become nothing about the topic at all, which is why the amount of posters in it is becoming less and less sadly...one would have thought for people who seem to love these topics, that the smart move would be to stop being so rude and antagonistic/ridiculing etc so that the section doesn't dwindle even further, with very little pleasure from it of hearing different and diverse opinions...

[DemolitionRed]

Oh don't bother I see the supercilious point scoring for what it is, my issue is the 'do as I say not as I do' attitude from the so called elite. Those who have to toe the line are justified in their condemnation for me.

I don't understand the pettiness.

It's a big fraud. This is a part of our society that is corrupt and anyone who thinks its okay is deluded. This is exactly the sort of thing that puts millions of Brits into financial slavery. It sickens me. problem is: why doesn't it sicken everyone? are some people so divorced from reality they can't see the obvious.

[Kizzy]

..to be fair, I think that Livia's comments have been very valid because it was stated specifically that 'delight' was being taken with this because of the involvement of David Cameron's father...I agree with Cherie and Smudgie (so long as it's legal..)...most people if not all who have or have had limited companies, have in some way evaded taxes or their accountants have through 'clever/inventive or whatever book-keeping'...and I would think that the more wealthy a person is, the more able they are to employ an accountant who will know more complex ways, so larger tax evasion sums...and who then would say, no thank you, I'd rather pay full taxes...not many people I would think, also because they go by advice from their accountants, they're the ones who find the loopholes and suggest using them and that won't change while loopholes exist...you yourself DR in the budget thread, said that you owned a limited company and that your accountant was becoming very excited and referencing tax evasion in a way that didn't seem condemning at all of it, so that does seem quite contradictory to the stance taken now, with this....


..this section I have to say is such a mess of personal agendas and personal insults, it starts to become nothing about the topic at all, which is why the amount of posters in it is becoming less and less sadly...one would have thought for people who seem to love these topics, that the smart move would be to stop being so rude and antagonistic/ridiculing etc so that the section doesn't dwindle even further, with very little pleasure from it of hearing different and diverse opinions...

The 'delight' comes not in the fact he is Camerons father, nobody has a personal vendetta against any one person do they? That would be silly, so to make an accusation like that is not helpful to the debate.
DR has clarified their point, as have I therefore any further digging in that vein is purely to derail the conversation further, which if the discussion appears a mess I would say that was the cause.
Having to defend your standpoint so regularly is very wearing, believe me I do not enjoy being antagonised at all.

[Cherie]

I don't understand the pettiness.

It's a big fraud. This is a part of our society that is corrupt and anyone who thinks its okay is deluded. This is exactly the sort of thing that puts millions of Brits into financial slavery. It sickens me. problem is: why doesn't it sicken everyone? are some people so divorced from reality they can't see the obvious.


There are elements in every part of society that are corrupt, there are people who illegally claim benefits, there are people who have work done and pay cash, there are people who are self employed who have two sets of books, anyone with a spare few thousand and a good accountant can squirrel money offshore, its not a privilege of the very rich, and its nothing new, I think we need to turn our attention to third world countries like Africa where 30% of the countrys wealth is held offshore, yet their people are starving and dying of malaria and other preventable diseases, that is more of a scandal in my eyes

http://www.africanews.com/2016/01/18/30-per-cent-of-africa-s-wealth-held-offshore-oxfam/

[Niamh.]

There are elements in every part of society that are corrupt, there are people who illegally claim benefits, there are people who have work done and pay cash, there are people who are self employed who have two sets of books, anyone with a spare few thousand and a good accountant can squirrel money offshore, its not a privilege of the very rich, and its nothing new, I think we need to turn our attention to third world countries like Africa where 30% of the countrys wealth is held offshore, yet their people are starving and dying of malaria and other preventable diseases, that is more of a scandal in my eyes

http://www.africanews.com/2016/01/18/30-per-cent-of-africa-s-wealth-held-offshore-oxfam/

Have to agree with you there.

[Kazanne]

There are elements in every part of society that are corrupt, there are people who illegally claim benefits, there are people who have work done and pay cash, there are people who are self employed who have two sets of books, anyone with a spare few thousand and a good accountant can squirrel money offshore, its not a privilege of the very rich, and its nothing new, I think we need to turn our attention to third world countries like Africa where 30% of the countrys wealth is held offshore, yet their people are starving and dying of malaria and other preventable diseases, that is more of a scandal in my eyes

http://www.africanews.com/2016/01/18/30-per-cent-of-africa-s-wealth-held-offshore-oxfam/

Cant add to this Cherie,well said , I am sure most of us would be accountable for something.:hehe::clap1:

[joeysteele]

No one should be able to avoid or evade paying any recognised due taxes to the UK, nothing should be legal as to that.

Anything that brings to light how it occurs, should be seen as helpful in stamping it out.

I certainly could not get away with just not paying even £10 of any due taxes I was expected to pay and neither should anyone else, company or individual.
No matter their individual status or how small or how large they may be either as a Company.

[Kizzy]

No one should be able to avoid or evade paying any recognised due taxes to the UK, nothing should be legal as to that.

Anything that brings to light how it occurs, should be seen as helpful in stamping it out.

I certainly could not get away with just not paying even £10 of any due taxes I was expected to pay and neither should any anyone else, company or individual.
No matter their individual status or how small or how large they may be either as a Company.

Thankyou Joey the voice of reason at last! thank you.
How are benefit fraudsters and those who work cash in hand treated? They are demonised in the press and made subjects of damning TV exposes, so if this behaviour is replicated further up the food chain why would the response be any different?

We are not Africa, or China or Outer Mongolia, we need not turn our attention anywhere but keep our focus trained on our democracy.

[Cherie]

Thankyou Joey the voice of reason at last! thank you.
How are benefit fraudsters and those who work cash in hand treated? They are demonised in the press and made subjects of damning TV exposes, so if this behaviour is replicated further up the food chain why would the response be any different?

We are not Africa, or China or Outer Mongolia, we need not turn our attention anywhere but keep our focus trained on our democracy.

And those up the food chain are demonised as well, Google and Starbucks being two that come to mind, legal loopholes have been found to avoid tax which must be closed. No we are not Africa but we prop them up don't we?

[DemolitionRed]

According to Wikileaks the panama papers were supported by USAID and Soros. Whilst Soros comes as no surprise, why would a USAID do this?

[Kizzy]

And those up the food chain are demonised as well, Google and Starbucks being two that come to mind, legal loopholes have been found to avoid tax which must be closed. No we are not Africa but we prop them up don't we?

And?... either both are or neither if there is to be an equal footing here.
How do we prop up Africa and how is that connected to tax avoidance? I don't understand the link between those two issues.

[Kizzy]

And more trickles out....

David Cameron personally intervened to prevent EU transparency rules affecting offshore tax trusts despite warnings it could create a loophole for tax dodgers, it has emerged.

The Prime Minister sent a letter that successfully argued for trusts to be treated differently from companies in anti-money laundering rules.

Mr Cameron wrote to the then-European Council president Herman van Rompuy, claiming that it was "clearly important we recognise the important differences between companies and trusts".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-intervened-stop-tax-crackdown-offshore-trusts-panama-papers-eu-a6972311.html

[Cherie]

And?... either both are or neither if there is to be an equal footing here.
How do we prop up Africa and how is that connected to tax avoidance? I don't understand the link between those two issues.

Have you read the link?, 14 billion in taxes lost every year would we need to pay as much Foreign aid or charity if they paid up?

[DemolitionRed]

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
Fredric Bastiat

[Kizzy]

Have you read the link?, 14 billion in taxes lost every year would we need to pay as much Foreign aid or charity if they paid up?

Again we can't control what other govts do or do not do, we are supposed to be operating in a democracy. Now we are aware of it (if we weren't prior to this) there may be some conversations to be had.
Does that change the fact that we need to also ask questions closer to home? No.

[Kizzy]

'David Cameron has admitted he did have a profitable stake in his father’s offshore investment fund, before selling it for around £30,000 before he became Prime Minister.

The admission comes five days after a huge cache of documents were leaked – dubbed the Panama Papers – detailing the tax affairs of thousands of individuals of worldwide. The Prime Minister’s father, Ian Cameron, who passed away in 2010, was exposed as running a fund under the name of Blairmore Holdings in the papers.

Downing Street staffers initially said that it was a “private matter” whether or not Mr Cameron had benefitted from the fund. It later issued a series of statements denying the Prime Minister currently benefitted from offshore funds, or stood to do so in the future. Though, despite the clarifications, a number of questions still remained. '

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/panama-papers-david-cameron-admits-he-did-have-a-stake-in-father-ian-camerons-offshore-investment-a6973586.html

[Kizzy]

David Cameron is a man with a reputation seemingly made of titanium. Really, who does this guy have to piss off to merit serious calls for his resignation? Considering it’s just been revealed that he did actually have a stake in his father’s offshore investment fund, the lack of outrage is astonishing.

He annoyed steel workers, migrants, those on benefits, students, the disabled, the working class, the unions and women ages ago. But it's OK – those people don’t matter in the grand scheme of things.

Then he came for the middle classes, which was a bit of a shocker. The Prime Minister has presided over four junior doctors’ strikes; forced teachers into debating industrial action over plans to turn schools into academies; and angered solicitors over cuts to legal aid.'

Excellent article :clap1:


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/after-finally-admitting-he-did-have-a-stake-in-his-fathers-offshore-fund-cameron-needs-to-resign-and-a6973631.html

[DemolitionRed]

David Cameron is a man with a reputation seemingly made of titanium. Really, who does this guy have to piss off to merit serious calls for his resignation? Considering it’s just been revealed that he did actually have a stake in his father’s offshore investment fund, the lack of outrage is astonishing.

He annoyed steel workers, migrants, those on benefits, students, the disabled, the working class, the unions and women ages ago. But it's OK – those people don’t matter in the grand scheme of things.

Then he came for the middle classes, which was a bit of a shocker. The Prime Minister has presided over four junior doctors’ strikes; forced teachers into debating industrial action over plans to turn schools into academies; and angered solicitors over cuts to legal aid.'

Excellent article :clap1:


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/after-finally-admitting-he-did-have-a-stake-in-his-fathers-offshore-fund-cameron-needs-to-resign-and-a6973631.html

Its an article that relates to how I feel. I'm not depressed about this, I'm angry but I'm angry because, as Kirsty Major states: "why isn't the entire nation angry?". One has to be innately submissive if they can't accept the political reality of what's happened here. How can anyone just accept this and worse... become defenders of these upper class thieves. :conf:

[Kizzy]

Its an article that relates to how I feel. I'm not depressed about this, I'm angry but I'm angry because, as Kirsty Major states: "why isn't the entire nation angry?". One has to be innately submissive if they can't accept the political reality of what's happened here. How can anyone just accept this and worse... become defenders of these upper class thieves. :conf:

Sad isn't it? :( I'm wondering if they've put something in the water... this level of socio-political ennui is unprecedented!

[Tom4784]

Its an article that relates to how I feel. I'm not depressed about this, I'm angry but I'm angry because, as Kirsty Major states: "why isn't the entire nation angry?". One has to be innately submissive if they can't accept the political reality of what's happened here. How can anyone just accept this and worse... become defenders of these upper class thieves. :conf:

I have to agree with this. I find it shocking that people are actually defending those twats.

These tax dodgers are a part of the reason why things like working tax credits and benefits for the disabled are under threat. Those who cannot afford to pay are being made to do so because these stupidly rich ***** can't be bothered to pay their dues like the rest of us.

[Cherie]

vIts an article that relates to how I feel. I'm not depressed about this, I'm angry but I'm angry because, as Kirsty Major states: "why isn't the entire nation angry?". One has to be innately submissive if they can't accept the political reality of what's happened here. How can anyone just accept this and worse... become defenders of these upper class thieves. :conf:[/QUOTE


The nation isn't angry because everyone can emphasise with trying to pay as little tax as possible


[QUOTE=Kizzy;8600310]Sad isn't it? :( I'm wondering if they've put something in the water... this level of socio-political ennui is unprecedented!

As above, there are so many scroungers and tax avoiders at all levels of society it's hard to get worked up over a particular section

I have to agree with this. I find it shocking that people are actually defending those twats.

These taxe dodgers are a part of the reason why things like working tax credits and benefits for the disabled are under threat. Those who cannot afford to pay are being made to do so because these stupidly rich ***** can't be bothered to pay their dues like the rest of us.


As above there are plenty people at all levels willing to ride on the coat tails of others.

[joeysteele]

I have to agree with this. I find it shocking that people are actually defending those twats.

These taxe dodgers are a part of the reason why things like working tax credits and benefits for the disabled are under threat. Those who cannot afford to pay are being made to do so because these stupidly rich ***** can't be bothered to pay their dues like the rest of us.

I agree with DemRed too, really it is beyond defending these people who avoid or evade any due taxation.

No way should it be possible and it is way overdue as to really clamping down hard on those who do.
As you rightly point out, these people are part of the reason the sick and disabled and most vulnerable are having to face cuts.

Although the main reason for that is the cruel political choice of this particular govt,who could have gone down other paths rather than the one of discriminating against,attacking and abusing in the main the sick and disabled.

[GiRTh]

Its an article that relates to how I feel. I'm not depressed about this, I'm angry but I'm angry because, as Kirsty Major states: "why isn't the entire nation angry?". One has to be innately submissive if they can't accept the political reality of what's happened here. How can anyone just accept this and worse... become defenders of these upper class thieves. :conf::clap1:

[Kizzy]

The onus has been on the lower end of the spectrum for so long it may have been a nice change for the angry mob to wave a pitchfork or two at some other demographic but...no, it hasn't happened, in fact they're pitied ...naw, just trying to make an extra million who would begrudge them that?!
Pfffft.

[Tom4784]

People on benefits are the devil yet we're perfectly fine with people richer than God robbing the state blind.

[Cherie]

People on benefits are the devil yet we're perfectly fine with people richer than God robbing the state blind.

Who are you attributing that to? No one on this thread has said it

[DemolitionRed]

Sad isn't it? :( I'm wondering if they've put something in the water... this level of socio-political ennui is unprecedented!

I certainly believe its depression with people who are really at the bottom. They either become depressed or they tolerate things so it doesn't consume them, but the 'middle class' are more likely getting high on the shiny fruits of capitalism so they don't really notice or have much interest in what's going on because they wrongly believe it doesn't affects them.

[Tom4784]

Who are you attributing that to? No one on this thread has said it

General attitude of the nation, dear. I'd bet some people here would certainly be grabbing their pitchforks if this thread was about 'Benefit cheats' though.

[Cherie]

General attitude of the nation, dear. I'd bet some people here would certainly be grabbing their pitchforks if this thread was about Benefit cheats though.

Got your crystal ball out have you pet?

[Tom4784]

Got your crystal ball out have you pet?

No, just remembering past threads about benefits and the kind of replies they'd get but please, try to patronise me while you defend a practice that's leading to your own quality of life becoming worse. I'm sure the Upper Echelon appreciate your support.

[joeysteele]

General attitude of the nation, dear. I'd bet some people here would certainly be grabbing their pitchforks if this thread was about 'Benefit cheats' though.

Good strong point, I agree again.
Even against the tiny,yes tiny, few of them that the media struggle to dig up and splash all over their front pages.

[GiRTh]

People on benefits are the devil yet we're perfectly fine with people richer than God robbing the state blind.Have to agree with this.

Some people seem more outraged this story has come out than they are with the individuals involved but if it was say a story of a single mum with 8 kids I doubt they'd be so lenient.

[DemolitionRed]

People on benefits are the devil yet we're perfectly fine with people richer than God robbing the state blind.

Yep, its a clever form of conditioning. It's why a lot of people find it even unfashionable or distasteful to talk about the political reality.

[Tom4784]

Have to agree with this.

Some people seem more outraged this story has come out than they are with the individuals involved but if it was say a story of a single mum with 8 kids I doubt they'd be so lenient.

Ah yes, I remember that thread. People begrudged her a car despite the fact she had to commute to Birmingham daily.

Still, she's in less need of help and support then a bunch of rich bastards with the means to hide their assets abroad, I'm sure.

[GiRTh]

Ah yes, I remember that thread. People begrudged her a car despite the fact she had to commute to Birmingham daily.

Still, she's in less need of help and support then a bunch of rich bastards with the means to hide their assets abroad, I'm sure.Exactly. :clap1:

[Cherie]

No, just remembering past threads about benefits and the kind of replies they'd get but please, try to patronise me while you defend a practice that's leading to your own quality of life becoming worse. I'm sure the Upper Echelon appreciate your support.

I'm sure all those benefit cheats give you high fives all round as well :laugh:

[Cherie]

Have to agree with this.

Some people seem more outraged this story has come out than they are with the individuals involved but if it was say a story of a single mum with 8 kids I doubt they'd be so lenient.

Was she forced to have 8 kids? nope she wanted them and wanted the state to pay for them, no wonder people tune out

[Tom4784]

I'm sure all those benefit cheats give you high fives all round as well :laugh:

With one sentence, you've proved I'm right.

Quick to label people benefit cheats yet you're okay with tax evasion? How hypocritical.

[GiRTh]

Was she forced to have 8 kids? nope she wanted them and wanted the state to pay for them, no wonder people tune out
And they should be just as outraged over this story.

[Tom4784]

Was she forced to have 8 kids? nope she wanted them and wanted the state to pay for them, no wonder people tune out

Yet you're okay with people hiding their asssets abroad so they can hold on to their 5th houses when the state's cutting benefits and budgets for public services?

Very odd.

[Cherie]

With one sentence, you've proved I'm right.

Quick to label people benefit cheats yet you're okay with tax evasion? How hypocritical.

:eek: are you telling me there are no people cheating the system giving legitimate claimants a hard time

[Cherie]

Yet you're okay with people hiding their asssets abroad so they can hold on to their 5th houses when the state's cutting benefits and budgets for public services?

Very odd.

Are you saying they pay no tax at all? What about the people who worked hard for their 5 houses?

[Tom4784]

:eek: are you telling me there are no people cheating the system giving legitimate claimants a hard time

I'm saying that pretty much everyone on benefits needs them and relies on them to live. People who thrive off benefits through playing the system are an extreme rarity, you only believe it's a major problem because you've swallowed the crap that was tailor made to demonise the lower classes. Most people struggle on benefits, it's not easy.

Can you say the same for the rich bastards who evade taxes out of greed? You can't yet you're defending them until the last.

Why are people in need demonised yet the greedy are seen as sympathetic?

[Tom4784]

Are you saying they pay no tax at all? What about the people who worked hard for their 5 houses?

They should pay their due just like the people who are struggling to hold on to their only house.

[Cherie]

I'm saying that pretty much everyone on benefits needs them and relies on them to live. People who thrive off benefits through playing the system are an extreme rarity, you only believe it's a major problem because you've swallowed the crap that was tailor made to demonise the lower classes. Most people struggle on benefits, it's not easy.

Can you say the same for the rich bastards who evade taxes out of greed? You can't yet you're defending them until the last.

Why are people in need demonised yet the greedy are seen as sympathetic?

Have you any figures to back that up? Once again I reiterate I have no problem paying my taxes to support those in need, but I resent paying to those who play the system and depend on it as a lifestyle choice.

[Cherie]

They should pay their due just like the people who are struggling to hold on to their only house.

So if you had a Ltd company and your accountant suggested he could save you a few quid,what would your response be ?

[Tom4784]

Have you any figures to back that up? Once again I reiterate I have no problem paying my taxes to support those in need, but I resent paying to those who play the system and depend on it as a lifestyle choice.

Do you have any figures to show that people who play the system are anything more than an extreme minority?

A lot of the people in the area I live in are reliant on benefits to live, a lot of my family would be in dire straits without Working Tax Credits or ESA. A couple of years back I was on JSA for a period of time and it's not something anyone would live on if they had a choice and I can only imagine it's gotten worse with things like Sanction targets and some of the pilot schemes I've heard about.

Through the experiences and stories of people I know and my own experiences I'm willing to bet that less than one percent of people on benefits are playing the system. Nobody would go through that **** if they had any other choice.

[Tom4784]

So if you had a Ltd company and your accountant suggested he could save you a few quid,what would your response be ?

Given my experiences, I'd pay what I owe just like I do now.

[Kizzy]

I'm sure all those benefit cheats give you high fives all round as well :laugh:

As the elite will of course be high fiving you... kidding I'mm 99.9% sure they wouldn't give you the steam off their piss.

[bots]

In the same way that someone on benefits will position themselves to maximise their claim, those paying tax look to maximise their income and lessen their tax burden ... both positions equally valid and equally within the law. It may well be the case that the vast majority of investments made through this company are perfectly legitimate and above board. Those that have used it for money laundering and tax fraud should be prosecuted, but in a similar way to those on benefits, the number of real criminals is likely very small.

[Cherie]

Given my experiences, I'd pay what I owe just like I do now.

Isn't that the point, they are paying what the owe under the law?

[Cherie]

As the elite will of course be high fiving you... kidding I'mm 99.9% sure they wouldn't give you the steam off their piss.


And I wouldn't want it

[Cherie]

In the same way that someone on benefits will position themselves to maximise their claim, those paying tax look to maximise their income and lessen their tax burden ... both positions equally valid and equally within the law. It may well be the case that the vast majority of investments made through this company are perfectly legitimate and above board. Those that have used it for money laundering and tax fraud should be prosecuted, but in a similar way to those on benefits, the number of real criminals is likely very small.

Talking way too much sense there...people with money ...Baad, people on benefits..good etc etc

[the truth]

over half these tax avoiders are british and now one of the inheritors of these rewards , dave Cameron aka mr slippery , is pretending he is the hero who will stop this mass multi trillion worldwide robbery....hes admitted he was lying about shares, but hes also ducked questions on his whole family and his inheritance...how exactly is a man on £130k a year worth over £30 million ?

[Tom4784]

Isn't that the point, they are paying what the owe under the law?

Well, if you want to get technical then those few people on benefits who know how to play the system are also working within the law, doesn't stop you from hating them, doesn't it?

The main difference is that people on benefits need them to live, Tax Evaders do it out of greed and they have a bigger effect than a few people on benefits who know how to get what they need from the system.

You're comparing someone who needs benefits to live to people who are making your life worse through their own greed by withholding money they owe to the state.

It honestly astounds me how you or anyone else can defend this.

[joeysteele]

:eek: are you telling me there are no people cheating the system giving legitimate claimants a hard time

Not as many as the media would have us believe there are,and the vast majority of people on benefits were once working and later circumstances such as redundancies,loss of jobs or severe ill health forced them out of work and into benefits.
They often had the so called luxuries before they became unemployed or ill, yet people begrudge them the idea of even having just an up to date TV.

Yet while annoyance rears its head on this issue of tax avoidance or evasion, the same hard condemnation against that greed does not surface like it does for someone on benefits who may have a computer or good quality TV, no matter the circumstances.

The last estimation on a benefits programme was on a Channel 4 programme with Richard Bacon indicated that the benefit claimants making fraudulent or wrong claims was an extremely small number indeed.

This Panama list has hundreds of thousands to millions on it I understand,yet gets nothing like the scorn that a benefit cheat may get,when in fact that is exactly what these people are doing, who already have the wealth to do so, cheat the system.

[joeysteele]

over half these tax avoiders are british and now one of the inheritors of these rewards , dave Cameron aka mr slippery , is pretending he is the hero who will stop this mass multi trillion worldwide robbery....hes admitted he was lying about shares, but hes also ducked questions on his whole family and his inheritance...how exactly is a man on £130k a year worth over £30 million ?

I agree.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt until today, when he eventually after days of being asked about them,admitted he had funds in these places.
Which he promptly said he sold in 2010 before he became PM.

What great difference does he think there ought to be as to decency whether as PM or leader of her Majesty's Opposition considering he had them during all his years of being that Opposition leader..
I see no difference myself in fact.

[Tom4784]

I did the maths, with the benefit cap in place the maximum a single person can claim in benefits for a year is £18,200 (£350 a week) and that's the maximum, a family can claim up to £26,000 (500 a week) a year. Once again, these are the maximum rates for multiple different benefits. The average amount you'll get yearly from JSA is around £3697 (£71 a week) as of last year.

Remember that very few people will claim enough different benefits to hit the cap and the cap is only lifted for certain benefits like Disability or Military Based benefits. So basically, the only way you're gonna claim more is if you qualify for it.

These tax evaders are hiding away millions in taxable money, just a few of them paying the proper amount of tax would cover a lot of people who are reliant on benefits.

People on benefits aren't draining the state, it's the arseholes who won't pay their taxes that are the real issue here.

[Kizzy]

Talking way too much sense there...people with money ...Baad, people on benefits..good etc etc

Who has said this, people with money bad... people on benefits good?

What comments led you to this conclusion, Maybe you borrowed that crystal ball that's rolling around.. BOTS just used it to foresee the small amount of criminal behaviour involved here.

[GiRTh]

I did the maths, with the benefit cap in place the maximum a single person can claim in benefits for a year is £18,200 (£350 a week) and that's the maximum, a family can claim up to £26,000 (500 a week) a year. Once again, these are the maximum rates for multiple different benefits. The average amount you'll get yearly from JSA is around £3697 (£71 a week) as of last year.

Remember that very few people will claim enough different benefits to hit the cap and the cap is only lifted for certain benefits like Disability or Military Based benefits. So basically, the only way you're gonna claim more is if you qualify for it.

These tax evaders are hiding away millions in taxable money, just a few of them paying the proper amount of tax would cover a lot of people who are reliant on benefits.

People on benefits aren't draining the state, it's the arseholes who won't pay their taxes that are the real issue here.:clap1:

[joeysteele]

I did the maths, with the benefit cap in place the maximum a single person can claim in benefits for a year is £18,200 (£350 a week) and that's the maximum, a family can claim up to £26,000 (500 a week) a year. Once again, these are the maximum rates for multiple different benefits. The average amount you'll get yearly from JSA is around £3697 (£71 a week) as of last year.

Remember that very few people will claim enough different benefits to hit the cap and the cap is only lifted for certain benefits like Disability or Military Based benefits. So basically, the only way you're gonna claim more is if you qualify for it.

These tax evaders are hiding away millions in taxable money, just a few of them paying the proper amount of tax would cover a lot of people who are reliant on benefits.

People on benefits aren't draining the state, it's the arseholes who won't pay their taxes that are the real issue here.

The other issue as to the full welfare spending is also often overlooked in that the vast majority of it goes on pensions and pensioners extras immaterial of what wealth any of those pensioners have,except for Pension credit.

When calls are made to reduce welfare spending and the govt view is not to touch pensioners at all, then the only people who can be hit are the sick, disabled, most vulnerable and jobless.
Where really in all truth as you have pointed out, there are no really big pickings to take anything from them that could be, or are fair and just in any form.

Unlike rooting out and getting due taxes which have been evaded or avoided from such as those on this Panama list who have massive means at their disposal.

[Kizzy]

Govt response to the leaks...

''Our message is clear: there are no safe havens for tax evaders and no-one should be in any doubt that the days of hiding money offshore are gone. The dishonest minority, who can most afford it, must pay their legal share of tax, like the honest majority already does''.

The truth...

However, the Conservative party itself is bankrolled by tax dodgers. An investigation by the Political Scrapbook in 2013 showed that at least 14 of the top 20 Tory donors can be linked to tax havens. Top Tory patrons likely avoid tax and then donate hundreds-of-thousands of pounds to the party.

Accordingly, six household multinationals gushed over a ‘mate’s rate’ of 0.3% corporation tax in 2014. Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google, eBay and Starbucks paid next to none of the 21% corporation tax, while small and medium-sized businesses must pay their share.


http://www.thecanary.co/2016/04/07/revealed-conservative-party-bankrolled-tax-havens/

[Tom4784]

Govt response to the leaks...

''Our message is clear: there are no safe havens for tax evaders and no-one should be in any doubt that the days of hiding money offshore are gone. The dishonest minority, who can most afford it, must pay their legal share of tax, like the honest majority already does''.

The truth...

However, the Conservative party itself is bankrolled by tax dodgers. An investigation by the Political Scrapbook in 2013 showed that at least 14 of the top 20 Tory donors can be linked to tax havens. Top Tory patrons likely avoid tax and then donate hundreds-of-thousands of pounds to the party.

Accordingly, six household multinationals gushed over a ‘mate’s rate’ of 0.3% corporation tax in 2014. Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google, eBay and Starbucks paid next to none of the 21% corporation tax, while small and medium-sized businesses must pay their share.


http://www.thecanary.co/2016/04/07/revealed-conservative-party-bankrolled-tax-havens/

The next election can't come soon enough.

[the truth]

Obama stated this tax avoiding is not billions its, TRILLIONS. This allied to the corporate takeover of the entire world is ultimately responsible for wall wars and famines. You can forget everything else, THIS is the only and real battle left. EVERYTHING else is mere smokescreen divide and conquer methods used by the elite 0.1% to keep the other 99.9% peasants in the ****

am I exaggerating?

the migrant crisis 100% created by the elite 0.01%
they sold the wespons, they started the wars, they wanted open borders for dirt cheap labour
the EU
again open borders totally dangerous but all about cheap labour. ONLY NOW do we realise the EU has outlawed anything every being nationalised again

[kirklancaster]

Have you any figures to back that up? Once again I reiterate I have no problem paying my taxes to support those in need, but I resent paying to those who play the system and depend on it as a lifestyle choice.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Well said Cherie.

The problem of 'Benefit Cheats' is not anywhere near as miniscule as some on here like to claim - if my own direct personal knowledge is typical of the real nationwide figures.

[Cherie]

Not as many as the media would have us believe there are,and the vast majority of people on benefits were once working and later circumstances such as redundancies,loss of jobs or severe ill health forced them out of work and into benefits.
They often had the so called luxuries before they became unemployed or ill, yet people begrudge them the idea of even having just an up to date TV.

Yet while annoyance rears its head on this issue of tax avoidance or evasion, the same hard condemnation against that greed does not surface like it does for someone on benefits who may have a computer or good quality TV, no matter the circumstances.

The last estimation on a benefits programme was on a Channel 4 programme with Richard Bacon indicated that the benefit claimants making fraudulent or wrong claims was an extremely small number indeed.

This Panama list has hundreds of thousands to millions on it I understand,yet gets nothing like the scorn that a benefit cheat may get,when in fact that is exactly what these people are doing, who already have the wealth to do so, cheat the system.


Like at lot of people I was genuinely appalled at the tax credits and PIP proposed cuts, forgive me for not feeling the same for the example brought into this thread about the woman with 8 kids. I don't know why people aren't as outraged as others would like them to be on this issue, maybe people are just fed up or busy with life

[Kizzy]

Are you saying they pay no tax at all? What about the people who worked hard for their 5 houses?

Yes that's exactly what many are saying, no tax at all.

'David Cameron's late father used one of the most secretive tools in the tax avoidance trade to ensure his firm never paid any dues in Britain'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3523719/How-PM-s-father-sure-firm-paid-no-taxes-UK-Panama-Papers-reveal-Ian-Cameron-use-bearer-shares-later-outlawed-son-David.html

[Kizzy]

Loving the deflection in this thread, it is officially a strawman argument.

[joeysteele]

Like at lot of people I was genuinely appalled at the tax credits and PIP proposed cuts, forgive me for not feeling the same for the example brought into this thread about the woman with 8 kids.

I am annoyed at any benefit cheat or anyone claiming what they should not too, however because it is a stick to beat benefit claimants with when any case does appear like the one you mention.
Then the media and others try to present that as more the norm than a tiny majority,with no figures to back same up however.

I do not know how many as a % may be cheating the system but when I see TV programmes devoted to the issue and they always say, all of them, that the cheats are a very small number indeed,then I accept that.

From my personal experience of being involved with people on benefits and preparing casework as to them,I find more people 'not' claiming what they should be getting rather than finding people claiming wrongly.
It is why when the DWP cuts anyone's benefits, if they go the whole way and go to a court tribunal on appeal, I have yet to see a case where the DWP actions is upheld and the benefits not ordered to be restored in full or in a greater part.


Do you ever ask yourself, despite the likes of ATOS and now the American firm re-assessing the claimants,the media scratching around like rats looking for food, looking for benefits cheats,and this particular govt going all out to discredit those on benefits that still a tiny number are actually found and make it to the front pages of any so called newspapers.
I do and my answer to myself is because there are in truth very few to actually find anyway,if there were we would see them likely named and shamed every day in the media.

They are not there in the numbers people think they are,so in the main people on benefits should not be classed in the same way at all as someone who has wealth, hiding it,certainly from this Panama list, not declaring it all the time and fully intending to avoid or evade paying any dues taxes on it too.
Benefit cheats when found should and are dealt with and often severely at times too however they are nowhere in the same league as those who have already made or just acquired wealth to then play the system and hold off paying due likely tax they should.

If people know for sure of benefit being wrongly claimed, tell the DWP who will investigate every case,you may be stunned to learn however the number that are investigated on only the suspicions of another which turn out to be false suspicions in the first place.
Very dangerous to assume someone on benefits is cheating 'if' it is not known for sure.

Back to this issue, if there was nothing illegal, immoral or wrong about these accounts and funds, then why did the PM deny having them,why did he not declare it instantly when asked, and why hide them while in all his time as Opposition leader too.
It has had to be dragged out of him and rightly so,whoever else may be found in the same position as him,no matter what political party they belong to or who or what even as a company they may be,then they should really have the book thrown at them.

You rightly, I was pleased to see, condemned the PIP and tax credits planned cuts,I don't know whether you would do the same as to taking up to £30 a week off ESA claimants in the WRAG group of ESA too from next year.
Who are deemed too ill or disabled to work at the present time.

I find it really nauseating that anyone in power should get away with any form of tax avoidance or evasion, they should not as public servants even be involved in any scheme whether it is illegal or not.

They and the leaders of parties particularly who seek being elected to the highest office in the lands should actually be setting an example, something that I would say none of the people on this list have done or intended to do. Their actions just done out of pure greed and selfishness and not even needing to be done by them either.

[DemolitionRed]

Well, if you want to get technical then those few people on benefits who know how to play the system are also working within the law, doesn't stop you from hating them, doesn't it?

The main difference is that people on benefits need them to live, Tax Evaders do it out of greed and they have a bigger effect than a few people on benefits who know how to get what they need from the system.

You're comparing someone who needs benefits to live to people who are making your life worse through their own greed by withholding money they owe to the state.

It honestly astounds me how you or anyone else can defend this.

I refuse to live life in an apathetic daze, befuddled by reality TV, a banal press and the brainwashing that has left a lot of people to think immigrants and benefit claimants are the cause of all our ills.

[Cherie]

Yes that's exactly what many are saying, no tax at all.

'David Cameron's late father used one of the most secretive tools in the tax avoidance trade to ensure his firm never paid any dues in Britain'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3523719/How-PM-s-father-sure-firm-paid-no-taxes-UK-Panama-Papers-reveal-Ian-Cameron-use-bearer-shares-later-outlawed-son-David.html

Can I have a guardian link to this please, I don't read the DM

[DemolitionRed]

I knew this debate would get turned back on the benefit thieves but then political apathy sucks. Capitalism is damn clever, like the Romans who drugged the masses on bread and circus; MacDonald’s and that Jeremy Kyle. Mass hypnosis and biological manipulation.

This highly sophisticated tyranny need delusions of "freedom" because only then can these terrible and inhumane things occur, only then will we turn our focus and our anger towards the lowest common denominator....It feels like we are being harvested.

[Cherie]

I am annoyed at any benefit cheat or anyone claiming what they should not too, however because it is a stick to beat benefit claimants with when any case does appear like the one you mention.
Then the media and others try to present that as more the norm than a tiny majority,with no figures to back same up however.

I do not know how many as a % may be cheating the system but when I see TV programmes devoted to the issue and they always say, all of them, that the cheats are a very small number indeed,then I accept that.

From my personal experience of being involved with people on benefits and preparing casework as to them,I find more people 'not' claiming what they should be getting rather than finding people claiming wrongly.
It is why when the DWP cuts anyone's benefits, if they go the whole way and go to a court tribunal on appeal, I have yet to see a case where the DWP actions is upheld and the benefits not ordered to be restored in full or in a greater part.


Do you ever ask yourself, despite the likes of ATOS and now the American firm re-assessing the claimants,the media scratching around like rats looking for food, looking for benefits cheats,and tis particular govt going all out to discredit those on benefits that still a tiny number are actually found and make it to the front pages of any so called newspapers.
I do and my answer to myself is because there are in truth very few to actually find anyway,if there were we would see them likely named and shamed every day in the media.

They are not there in the numbers people think they are,so in the main people on benefits should not be classed in the same way at all as someone who has wealth, hiding it,certainly from this Panama list, not declaring it all the time and fully intending to avoid or evade paying any dues taxes on it too.
Benefit cheats when found should and are dealt with and often severely at times too however they are nowhere in the same league as those who have already made or just acquired wealth to then play the system and hold off paying due likely tax they should.

If people know for sure of benefit being wrongly claimed, tell the DWP who will investigate every case,you may be stunned to learn however the number that are investigated on only the suspicions of another which turn out to be false suspicions in the firs place.
Very dangerous to assume someone on benefits is cheating 'if' it is not known for sure.

Back to this issue, if there was nothing illegal, immoral or wrong about these accounts and funds, then why did the PM deny having them,why did he not declare it instantly when asked, and why hide them while in all his time as Opposition leader too.
It has had to be dragged out of him and rightly so,whoever else may be found in the same position as him,no matter what political party they belong to or who or what even as a company they may be,then they should really have the book thrown at them.

You rightly, I was pleased to see, condemned the PIP and tax credits planned cuts,I don't know whether you would do the same as to taking up to £30 a week off ESA claimants in the WRAG group of ESA too from next year.
Who are deemed too ill or disabled to work at the present time.

I find it really nauseating that anyone in power should get away with any form of tax avoidance or evasion, they should not as public servants even be involved in any scheme whether it is illegal or not.

They and the leaders of parties particularly who seek being elected to the highest office in the lands should actually be setting an example, something that I would say none of the people on this list have done or intended to do. Their actions just done out of pure greed and selfishness and not even needing to be done by them either.


Good post Joey I still think that the waters are muddied here by tax avoidance v evasion though, as for leaders setting examples, I doubt that will ever happen

[Cherie]

I knew this debate would get turned back on the benefit thieves but then political apathy sucks. Capitalism is damn clever, like the Romans who drugged the masses on bread and circus; MacDonald’s and that Jeremy Kyle. Mass hypnosis and biological manipulation.

This highly sophisticated tyranny need delusions of "freedom" because only then can these terrible and inhumane things occur, only then will we turn our focus and our anger towards the lowest common denominator....It feels like we are being harvested.

Read the thread back and confirm who derailed the thread by dragging another thread into it.

[Kizzy]

I knew this debate would get turned back on the benefit thieves but then political apathy sucks. Capitalism is damn clever, like the Romans who drugged the masses on bread and circus; MacDonald’s and that Jeremy Kyle. Mass hypnosis and biological manipulation.

This highly sophisticated tyranny need delusions of "freedom" because only then can these terrible and inhumane things occur, only then will we turn our focus and our anger towards the lowest common denominator....It feels like we are being harvested.

True, keep the masses pissed, skint and demoralised and you have a lovely nation of pliable civil obediants.

[Cherie]

True, keep the masses pissed, skint and demoralised and you have a lovely nation of pliable civil obediants.

You are such a ray of sunshine Kizzy :laugh:

[Kizzy]

I am annoyed at any benefit cheat or anyone claiming what they should not too, however because it is a stick to beat benefit claimants with when any case does appear like the one you mention.
Then the media and others try to present that as more the norm than a tiny majority,with no figures to back same up however.

I do not know how many as a % may be cheating the system but when I see TV programmes devoted to the issue and they always say, all of them, that the cheats are a very small number indeed,then I accept that.

From my personal experience of being involved with people on benefits and preparing casework as to them,I find more people 'not' claiming what they should be getting rather than finding people claiming wrongly.
It is why when the DWP cuts anyone's benefits, if they go the whole way and go to a court tribunal on appeal, I have yet to see a case where the DWP actions is upheld and the benefits not ordered to be restored in full or in a greater part.


Do you ever ask yourself, despite the likes of ATOS and now the American firm re-assessing the claimants,the media scratching around like rats looking for food, looking for benefits cheats,and this particular govt going all out to discredit those on benefits that still a tiny number are actually found and make it to the front pages of any so called newspapers.
I do and my answer to myself is because there are in truth very few to actually find anyway,if there were we would see them likely named and shamed every day in the media.

They are not there in the numbers people think they are,so in the main people on benefits should not be classed in the same way at all as someone who has wealth, hiding it,certainly from this Panama list, not declaring it all the time and fully intending to avoid or evade paying any dues taxes on it too.
Benefit cheats when found should and are dealt with and often severely at times too however they are nowhere in the same league as those who have already made or just acquired wealth to then play the system and hold off paying due likely tax they should.

If people know for sure of benefit being wrongly claimed, tell the DWP who will investigate every case,you may be stunned to learn however the number that are investigated on only the suspicions of another which turn out to be false suspicions in the first place.
Very dangerous to assume someone on benefits is cheating 'if' it is not known for sure.

Back to this issue, if there was nothing illegal, immoral or wrong about these accounts and funds, then why did the PM deny having them,why did he not declare it instantly when asked, and why hide them while in all his time as Opposition leader too.
It has had to be dragged out of him and rightly so,whoever else may be found in the same position as him,no matter what political party they belong to or who or what even as a company they may be,then they should really have the book thrown at them.

You rightly, I was pleased to see, condemned the PIP and tax credits planned cuts,I don't know whether you would do the same as to taking up to £30 a week off ESA claimants in the WRAG group of ESA too from next year.
Who are deemed too ill or disabled to work at the present time.

I find it really nauseating that anyone in power should get away with any form of tax avoidance or evasion, they should not as public servants even be involved in any scheme whether it is illegal or not.

They and the leaders of parties particularly who seek being elected to the highest office in the lands should actually be setting an example, something that I would say none of the people on this list have done or intended to do. Their actions just done out of pure greed and selfishness and not even needing to be done by them either.

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

What a guy, they are so lucky to have someone like you fighting their corner Joey :)

[Kizzy]

You are such a ray of sunshine Kizzy :laugh:

I know right :)

[Niamh.]

Can you all try to stay on topic and stop discussing eachother please? :fist:

[joeysteele]

Good post Joey I still think that the waters are muddied here by tax avoidance v evasion though, as for leaders setting examples, I doubt that will ever happen



Most used to Cherie.
However if we keep electing the wrong people and they keep getting away with things like this then you would be right as to them never now setting examples.

Just as we would never have learned this as to David Cameron without the leak of this list.

It really is time the citizens and voters of the UK were able to see with much more transparency all the dealings of those seeking election to parliament and indeed all other offices of public service too.

[DemolitionRed]

Cameron had the opportunity to be honest with us, instead he chose to wheedle his way out of it as best he could.

The question to me is, should he now resign. Personally I don't think he should because the act of resignation still has some shreds of honesty about it. I'd rather wait for the moment to see him publicly rejected and forced out for all his wrongdoings.

Should he on moral grounds offer to return some of the money to the treasury. I guess that is something he has to decide for himself but if he has an ounce of decency I think he should offer to pay for the pro euro leaflet out of his own money.

[joeysteele]

Cameron had the opportunity to be honest with us, instead he chose to wheedle his way out of it as best he could.

The question to me is, should he now resign. Personally I don't think he should because the act of resignation still has some shreds of honesty about it. I'd rather wait for the moment to see him publicly rejected and forced out for all his wrongdoings.

Should he on moral grounds offer to return some of the money to the treasury. I guess that is something he has to decide for himself but if he has an ounce of decency I think he should offer to pay for the pro euro leaflet out of his own money.

Well sadly we are not getting that chance in 2020 as he is not standing as leader of his party and PM again then.
He will be gone.
No way will voters in his constituency of Witney vote him down either.

[bots]

Who has said this, people with money bad... people on benefits good?

What comments led you to this conclusion, Maybe you borrowed that crystal ball that's rolling around.. BOTS just used it to foresee the small amount of criminal behaviour involved here.

I said it could be a small problem. I used the same crystal ball as others saying the number of benefit cheats is small :laugh:

this is a thread about tax evasion and money laundering basically. Both of which are illegal. If people have been doing that, they should be prosecuted. If however they have been legally reducing their tax burden, there is no case to answer because .... its legal, and we are not yet at the point where we prosecute people for behaving within the law.

With regard to people on benefits ... what has that got to do with the panama papers? Its a completely different topic and irrelevant to tax evasion and money laundering.

[Tom4784]

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Well said Cherie.

The problem of 'Benefit Cheats' is not anywhere near as miniscule as some on here like to claim - if my own direct personal knowledge is typical of the real nationwide figures.

Then where are these figures? And don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to shoot down my experiences as evidence but then offer your own in the next sentence?

I also like how everyone who is defending the tax evaders yet are dragging people on benefits are have conveniently ignored my post about the benefit cap and how much you can actually earn on benefits just because it blows up their whole argument that people on benefits are just as bad.

At the end of the day, Tax evaders who are using Tax Havens are costing this country more than people on benefits are. There's no denying this.

[Kizzy]

I said it could be a small problem. I used the same crystal ball as others saying the number of benefit cheats is small :laugh:

this is a thread about tax evasion and money laundering basically. Both of which are illegal. If people have been doing that, they should be prosecuted. If however they have been legally reducing their tax burden, there is no case to answer because .... its legal, and we are not yet at the point where we prosecute people for behaving within the law.

With regard to people on benefits ... what has that got to do with the panama papers? Its a completely different topic and irrelevant to tax evasion and money laundering.

Yet there is nothing anywhere to suggest it's anything but is there? Unlike this practice which appears to be endemic and global.

It's a straw man argument thrown in by god knows who, god knows why :laugh:

[arista]

Yes Kizzy before he was PM.


so not a problem
unless you are Labour John Mann MP
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/24/article-0-14AA6E57000005DC-466_233x334.jpg

[Cherie]

Then where are these figures? And don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to shoot down my experiences as evidence but then offer your own in the next sentence?

I also like how everyone who is defending the tax evaders yet are dragging people on benefits are have conveniently ignored my post about the benefit cap and how much you can actually earn on benefits just because it blows up their whole argument that people on benefits are just as bad.

At the end of the day, Tax evaders who are using Tax Havens are costing this country more than people on benefits are. There's no denying this.



The principal of tax evasion remains the same whether it's 100.00 or 100,000, if a shop lifter steals a tin of peas or 10 tins of peas they are still shoplifting.

[joeysteele]

Yes Kizzy before he was PM.


so not a problem
unless you are Labour John Mann MP
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/24/article-0-14AA6E57000005DC-466_233x334.jpg

Before he was PM but still holding an important office as leader of the Opposition for nearly 5 years too.

It may have sounded better had he got rid of them once elected as leader of his party don't you think,

You don't think it odd he suddenly felt a need to get rid just as he was about to become PM but not otherwise.

It is amazing the scrutiny Ed Miliband came under as leader of the Opposition for apparently just having 2 or more kitchens.
Imagine the onslaught of endless abuse had he been on this Panama list.

[Tom4784]

The principal of tax evasion remains the same whether it's 100.00 or 100,000, if a shop lifter steals a tin of peas or 10 tins of peas they are still shoplifting.

But that doesn't reflect real life, it's all well and good on paper but if millions of pounds of taxable money is being hidden away then that's going to have more of an effect than the average joe doing it (which isn't that likely since most people don't have the means to open offshore accounts).

Everyone else has to pay their taxes so why are you defending people with the means to do so but don't due to their own greed?

[Cherie]

But that doesn't reflect real life, it's all well and good on paper but if millions of pounds of taxable money is being hidden away then that's going to have more of an effect than the average joe doing it (which isn't that likely since most people don't have the means to open offshore accounts).

Everyone else has to pay their taxes so why are you defending people with the means to do so but don't due to their own greed?


I've just heard a tax lawyer talking about this, he was of the view that off shore investments brings more into HMRC coffers than local investments, so not sure where that leaves your argument


The amount the PM had invested in share offshore was 12,000, not exactly millions is it, I reckon a lot of average joes with a stocks and shares isa would have that much invested

[Tom4784]

I've just heard a tax lawyer talking about this, he was of the view that off shore investments brings more into HMRC coffers than local investments, so not sure where that leaves your argument


The amount the PM had invested in share offshore was 12,000, not exactly millions is it, I reckon a lot of average joes with a stocks and shares isa would have that much invested

Tax Havens tend to be used for the opposite reason, dear.

It's not just about Cameron and I don't think I've based any of this argument on him so I don't know why you're throwing out that strawman to discredit me. I also doubt that there's many 'Average Joes' that have such an involvement in the stock market that offshore accounts and Tax Havens are much of an option for them...

[joeysteele]

Well if he had nothing to hide and they weren't being used for tax avoidance and if in fact it was even true such actions brought more into HMRC, then why on earth keep it hidden and disguise the fact he or anyone else used them.

If that is true in any way which I suspect it isn't, that these things bring more to HMRC,there should be nothing needing to be secret about them at all should there.

Probably no one on this list would ever admit to using them however I doubt,so what suspicions can anyone be reasonably left with other than they are rather dodgy dealings at the very least.
Why should anyone deny, as the PM did a few days ago even having them.

[smudgie]

Well if he had nothing to hide and they weren't being used for tax avoidance and if in fact it was even true such actions brought more into HMRC, then why on earth keep it hidden and disguise the fact he or anyone else used them.

If that is true in any way which I suspect it isn't, that these things bring more to HMRC,there should be nothing needing to be secret about them at all should there.

Probably no one on this list would ever admit to using them however I doubt,so what suspicions can anyone be reasonably left with other than they are rather dodgy dealings at the very least.
Why should anyone deny, as the PM did a few days ago even having them.

We all want our savings and banking kept private though Joey, no different for people with more money than us.

[Cherie]

Tax Havens tend to be used for the opposite reason, dear.

It's not just about Cameron and I don't think I've based any of this argument on him so I don't know why you're throwing out that strawman to discredit me. I also doubt that there's many 'Average Joes' that have such an involvement in the stock market that offshore accounts and Tax Havens are much of an option for them...

You say discredit, I say counter argument, you asked for debate last night :shrug:

[Kizzy]

The Smith & Williamson Blairmore Global Equity fund, founded by David Cameron’s father Ian, has been thrown into the spotlight after the release of the Panama Papers.
The vehicle, founded 34 years ago, still runs today and owns shares in companies like Google, Walt Disney and Amazon.

oh....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/panama-papers-david-cameron-s-late-father-s-blairmore-fund-fails-to-pay-off-for-wealthy-backers-a6973746.html

[Tom4784]

The Smith & Williamson Blairmore Global Equity fund, founded by David Cameron’s father Ian, has been thrown into the spotlight after the release of the Panama Papers.
The vehicle, founded 34 years ago, still runs today and owns shares in companies like Google, Walt Disney and Amazon.

oh....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/panama-papers-david-cameron-s-late-father-s-blairmore-fund-fails-to-pay-off-for-wealthy-backers-a6973746.html

So I'm guessing it's worth decidedly more than £12k.

[DemolitionRed]

Osborne pulled a confidence trick when he loudly and repeatedly claimed to be clamping down on tax avoidance back in the 2013 budget. What he actually did was rewrite corporate tax law which allows offshore multinationals to not only escape that clampdown but make it easier than ever to avoid paying corporate tax. He very deliberately relaxed laws that had been put in place by Nigel Lawson, that prevented companies shifting profits into their tax-haven subsidiaries.

[DemolitionRed]

So I'm guessing it's worth decidedly more than £12k.

By 1988 the fund was worth an estimated $20m.
The minimum investment in Blairmore Holdings is £100,000
An insider said that Blairmore Holdings - which is still operating with assets of £35 million – had been moved because its directors believed it was about to “come under more scrutiny”.

[Tom4784]

Osborne pulled a confidence trick when he loudly and repeatedly claimed to be clamping down on tax avoidance back in the 2013 budget. What he actually did was rewrite corporate tax law which allows offshore multinationals to not only escape that clampdown but make it easier than ever to avoid paying corporate tax. He very deliberately relaxed laws that had been put in place by Nigel Lawson, that prevented companies shifting profits into their tax-haven subsidiaries.

Not surprising, Osborne is a snake in a human meat sack.

[the truth]

Cameron should resign over this alone. how the hell is the country meant to believe for a second him and osbourne will now fight to close tax loopholes, tax avoidance and evasion? what a sick joke. THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE OF OUR GENERATION

[arista]

Cameron should resign over this alone. how the hell is the country meant to believe for a second him and osbourne will now fight to close tax loopholes, tax avoidance and evasion? what a sick joke. THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE OF OUR GENERATION



Bollocks
Done before he was PM.
Loads are the same as him.

BBC1HD Tomorrow 9PM
Have I Got News For You
recorded tonight
should have this Tip Top

[joeysteele]

We all want our savings and banking kept private though Joey, no different for people with more money than us.

No, not for me in high public life where people want us to elect them to power Smudgie, I cannot go along with that.

He,David Cameron is reported to have said, offshore accounts were immoral yet as Opposition leader he had one.

I think we, if asked to vote for someone, should be able to have some belief as to their integrity, this has shown not to be the case with David Cameron now on this issue.
Nothing at all to do with his deceased Father,he was never seeking high public office.

David Cameron had this account as did his wife too,yet denied they had,sorry but I think we need to see as much as possible about those seeking election to govt.
You can also tell a fair bit about people as to their financial affairs so for me full transparency should be the norm.
Especially as to anything that could be or is tax related in any possible sense.

[Kizzy]

0Ff749MYZSM

Viva la revolution?

[Cherie]

0Ff749MYZSM

Viva la revolution?

The French are notoriously militant, the last time the English were roused was during the poll tax riots :laugh:

[DemolitionRed]

Viva la revolution?[/QUOTE]

The French absolutely expect their government to work on behalf of the people and refuse to tolerate government nonsense.

[DemolitionRed]

Bollocks
Done before he was PM.
Loads are the same as him.

BBC1HD Tomorrow 9PM
Have I Got News For You
recorded tonight
should have this Tip Top

Its been going on since Thatcher, we are only noticing now because the trains picking up speed. What we are now witnessing is state schools/NHS/fire/benefits service dismantling/war/corruption of culture and we all still thrive and refuse to believe we no longer live in a democracy because we are too busy being distracted by TV bull****; driven by buying fever and propaganda dressed up as culture

[Kizzy]

The French are notoriously militant, the last time the English were roused was during the poll tax riots :laugh:

The French are militant? :joker:

Yep if you want fairness from your government you are now militant, I guess that makes me militant too... But I'm not French :worry:

[arista]

Its been going on since Thatcher, we are only noticing now because the trains picking up speed. What we are now witnessing is state schools/NHS/fire/benefits service dismantling/war/corruption of culture and we all still thrive and refuse to believe we no longer live in a democracy because we are too busy being distracted by TV bull****; driven by buying fever and propaganda dressed up as culture


Good Dave Stopped it.
then

[arista]

0Ff749MYZSM

Viva la revolution?


France has Higher Unemployed, Kizzy.

They are not a Open Market


They Need a New Government

[DemolitionRed]

Good Dave Stopped it.
then

Okay, if you're happy to believe that then there's no point discussing things further.

[Cherie]

The French are militant? :joker:

Yep if you want fairness from your government you are now militant, I guess that makes me militant too... But I'm not French :worry:

Militant as in confrontational, rather than indulging in armchair politics :D:

[Kizzy]

France has Higher Unemployed, Kizzy.

They are not a Open Market


They Need a New Government

Facts or ****...sorry I mean do you have a link to the employment statistics in France please?

[arista]

Facts or ****...sorry I mean do you have a link to the employment statistics in France please?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30597756

[Cherie]

12k invested confirmed again on ITV news with a 19k profit. Cameron going to publish his tax returns, maybe I'll pick up some tips :D:

[smudgie]

I've just heard a tax lawyer talking about this, he was of the view that off shore investments brings more into HMRC coffers than local investments, so not sure where that leaves your argument


The amount the PM had invested in share offshore was 12,000, not exactly millions is it, I reckon a lot of average joes with a stocks and shares isa would have that much invested

Something to do with the fact that there are three layers of tax to it all, going offshore means you can avoid tax on investing into other companies or forming new companies.
Any profits made are still taxed at the country you live in rate.
Mr Cameron didn't even make enough profit to warrant paying capital gains tax.
If the £30k was between both him and Mrs Cameronthen it pales into insignificance on the tax. he does have to pay.
His wage alone will be taxed at roughly £48k, plus anther £6k or so on national nsurance. No tax free allowance for such high earners.:shrug:

[joeysteele]

Cameron should resign over this alone. how the hell is the country meant to believe for a second him and osbourne will now fight to close tax loopholes, tax avoidance and evasion? what a sick joke. THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE OF OUR GENERATION

I don't agree he should resign over it but one thing is sure the damage to him is done now by his saying such funds were immoral, and then that he hadn't had one or that his family had benefited from one.
When he did have one and so did his wife too.

Anyway he is packing up before the next election and if we vote to leave the EU too, then he is gone for sure I firmly believe and pretty quickly after the referendum too.
His party is now really gearing up to oust him I think and it seems even some media have the knives out for him too.

The worst thing about this is that his words as to it have been meaningless,his word really ought to be his bond holding such a high office.
You are right in saying it is a really big issue too, it is, all these so called legal loopholes should be stopped, will we ever get a govt that will stop them I doubt that but it certainly will not be done by this present govt.

[Kazanne]

Something to do with the fact that there are three layers of tax to it all, going offshore means you can avoid tax on investing into other companies or forming new companies.
Any profits made are still taxed at the country you live in rate.
Mr Cameron didn't even make enough profit to warrant paying capital gains tax.
If the £30k was between both him and Mrs Cameronthen it pales into insignificance on the tax. he does have to pay.
His wage alone will be taxed at roughly £48k, plus anther £6k or so on national nsurance. No tax free allowance for such high earners.:shrug:

Agree with this smudgie,well said.

[arista]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/

Listen Live now


Ken Livingston and David Mellor
are Leading Britain's Conversation.

debating this mess

[billy123]

Live coverage of people protesting outside 10 Downing street.

CKYFzmbjVl4

[Kizzy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30597756

Thanks, that was a while ago it may have improved?

[DemolitionRed]

Best bits between 3 mins in and 10 mins approx.
Note the clip of Cameron ranting on about Jimmy Carr... what a ****ing hypocrite. Not unexpected though. Seems to have failed in his spin-doctoring too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b076v2xq/have-i-got-news-for-you-series-51-episode-1

Personally I don't think we've heard everything yet. Whoever is holding this information is likely holding back until Cameron thinks he's safe.

[arista]

Best bits between 3 mins in and 10 mins approx.
Note the clip of Cameron ranting on about Jimmy Carr... what a ****ing hypocrite. Not unexpected though. Seems to have failed in his spin-doctoring too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b076v2xq/have-i-got-news-for-you-series-51-episode-1

Personally I don't think we've heard everything yet. Whoever is holding this information is likely holding back until Cameron thinks he's safe.


Yes I started a thread on TV Chat
perfect time , for this new series.


Yes the PM is Safe
No Law Breaking,
just holding back info.



I do hope Corbyn has a good Script on Weds PMQ's ?
As Dave will have info on Labour Tax problems.

[billy123]

Out playing his part in protesting this disgrace of a Government.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/bobnot/rsz_untitled_zpsnwo0t5zx.jpg

[DemolitionRed]

Yes I started a thread on TV Chat
perfect time , for this new series.


Yes the PM is Safe
No Law Breaking,
just holding back info.



I do hope Corbyn has a good Script on Weds PMQ's ?
As Dave will have info on Labour Tax problems.

I did listen to that programme and it appears there's a lot of upset people. They say that there was no avoidance in the funds but then you have to ask,
why such lengths to be offshore? Of course there was avoidance.

You also have to ask why he very publicly condemned Jimmy Carr for doing exactly the same as what he was doing.

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/09/12/article-3531269-32FF103F00000578-161_308x441.jpg


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/09/12/32FEF5F100000578-3531269-The_protests_are_being_organised_around_the_hashta gs_Resign_Came-a-114_1460201368456.jpg
No Fellas Dave is staying to sort it all out

[bots]

You also have to ask why he very publicly condemned Jimmy Carr for doing exactly the same as what he was doing.

Jimmy Carr reduced his tax paid to 1%, we are not surely comparing him to the prime minister

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/09/12/32FF030900000578-3531269-image-a-122_1460201882290.jpg

[The Prime Minister, pictured leaving
the conference today, admitted he
could have handled questions about
his tax affairs better]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3531269/David-Cameron-unpopular-Jeremy-Corbyn-PM-agrees-publish-six-years-tax-returns-Panama-Papers-leak.html#ixzz45KWwDcdc

[billy123]

New link to the protest.

GfVxpXa-eP0

[DemolitionRed]

Jimmy Carr reduced his tax paid to 1%, we are not surely comparing him to the prime minister

What Jimmy Carr did was not illegal but it was morally wrong.
What David Cameron did was not illegal but it was morally wrong.

[Kizzy]

Nor did Jimmy lie he blabbed o TV and exposed himself, Cameron out and out lied.
I haven't benefitted.... Oh, wait yes I benefitted.

[bots]

What Jimmy Carr did was not illegal but it was morally wrong.
What David Cameron did was not illegal but it was morally wrong.

Morally wrong according to which measure?

If something is legal, its fine. No issue, end of story. You cannot be convicted of any crime based on some subjective moral measurement.

I think its morally wrong that people defend religion, but there is nothing i can do about it as its peoples right to do so

[arista]

Nor did Jimmy lie he blabbed o TV and exposed himself, Cameron out and out lied.
I haven't benefitted.... Oh, wait yes I benefitted.


No Kizzy
he witheld that info,
Broke no Laws


Corbyn does not want him to resign
he wants Dave to sort it out
Ref: interview on SkyNewsHD live
from Scotland.

[Kizzy]

No Kizzy
he witheld that info,
Broke no Laws


Corbyn does not want him to resign
he wants Dave to sort it out
Ref: interview on SkyNewsHD live
from Scotland.

No Arista he lied, he stated he had not benefited and then days later admitted he had benefited, ergo...he lied.

[arista]

No Arista he lied, he stated he had not benefited and then days later admitted he had benefited, ergo...he lied.


Kizzy he sold them
before he was PM


Thats why its OK

[Kizzy]

Channel 4 News ‏@Channel4News 19h19 hours ago
Exclusive: @channel4news finds third off-shore investment fund linked to David Cameron’s father http://bit.ly/1SF7X63

https://twitter.com/Channel4News

[Kizzy]

Kizzy he sold them
before he was PM


Thats why its OK

He might have flogged them for a tidy profit, that's beside the point... He still lied about them in the first instance, you can get as bold as you like it won't change that fact.

[DemolitionRed]

Morally wrong according to which measure?

If something is legal, its fine. No issue, end of story. You cannot be convicted of any crime based on some subjective moral measurement.

I think its morally wrong that people defend religion, but there is nothing i can do about it as its peoples right to do so

Well then, the same could be said for Jimmy Carr couldn't it? but Cameron wanted us all to know he thought it was morally wrong.

I adamantly disagree with this loophole in the honey-pot law which allows the super rich to greatly benefit by opening offshore companies. I didn't agree to this law but Cameron did; that btw, doesn't make it alright.

[arista]

He might have flogged them for a tidy profit, that's beside the point... He still lied about them in the first instance, you can get as bold as you like it won't change that fact.

30K

Before he was PM.


Thats why he gets away with it


No Bold up needed

[arista]

From SkyNewsHD & BBCNewsHD
The PM will publish his Full Tax Returns
from 2010 onwards.


so Kizzy "the First for Ever Leader to do that."


Later tonight maybe
after the Sunday papers are out etc.

[Kizzy]

If he hadn't lied this might not have been necessary and 1000s of people wouldn't be baying for his resignation...

[arista]

If he hadn't lied this might not have been necessary and 1000s of people wouldn't be baying for his resignation...


They can Stomp all they want
He Ain't leaving his Job.


He broke No Laws
That is a Fact

[Kizzy]

They can Stomp all they want
He Ain't leaving his Job.


He broke No Laws
That is a Fact

They're angry at the subterfuge I think.

[Kizzy]

-oIfhoNVGPo&nohtml5=False

[user104658]

Meh it's a total non-event anyway. If Cameron was to go, he'd just be replaced with some other identikit silver spoon **nthole :shrug:. If it's the tories, what does it matter if it's David Cameron or Plavid Plameron or whoever? Same pig ****er with a different face, tbh.

[empire]

I was reading the paper today, and I think cameron, and russell brand are the same, because both have not paid one penny to the tax man in their lives, and one tried to keep it under the carpet, and another tried to make himself out as, the anti capitalist hero, these mps and celebrities demand the the british public accept refugees into the country, and would they have these people placed into their homes and mansions, no, cameron and brand have the same number of houses and mansions that have the same price of value,

[billy123]

I was reading the paper today, and I think cameron, and russell brand are the same, because both have not paid one penny to the tax man in their lives, and one tried to keep it under the carpet, and another tried to make himself out as, the anti capitalist hero, these mps and celebrities demand the the british public accept refugees into the country, and would they have these people placed into their homes and mansions, no, cameron and brand have the same number of houses and mansions that have the same price of value,I would love to see you produce a source that Russell Brand has not paid one penny in tax in his life but of course you wont supply one because it is utter bollocks.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_M4CfuCaw1fg/TECRQ1WeTnI/AAAAAAAABl4/yKLpMlxC36I/s1600/3(Wonka).jpg

[DemolitionRed]

So now we have Camerons personal tax details but it appears this special form for MP's isn't complete https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/501416/sa102mp-2016.pdf because there is no mention of 'gift aid'.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/09/david-cameron-questions-gift-mother

[joeysteele]

Full credit to the PM for issuing the info today as to his tax returns.

That is commendable, what isn't is the way he tried to avoid doing so earlier in the week with a series of sidestepping actions as to the issue.

He has proven his word that nothing untoward has occurred since he got rid of these funds just before he became PM.
Well that is fine and totally to his credit but the returns he has issued only go back to that time 6 years ago.
The main issues as to this appear to be in the time he had them before 2010.

Now let us have more of the at least leading lights in govt and indeed Opposition doing the same.
Has he cleared up the queries,yes as to his time since Prime Minister, before he became PM, that remains a possible grey area still unless he intends to issue more returns from first becoming leader of the Opposition.

He has done enough for now and quite frankly has enough to do at present too fighting for his political survival with the EU referendum, if that comes back to leave, he is for sure a goner,aided by any doubts and suspicions as to these funds before 2010 which he is hopefully still intending to address now.

[Kizzy]

'Interest from his high street savings accounts amounted to £26 in 2009-10, £87 in 2010-11, £365 in 2011-12 before rising to £2,701 in 2012-13, £6,681 in 2013-14 and £3,052 in 2014-15.'

He moved some serious money prior to the election by the look of it...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/panama-papers-david-cameron-inherited-300000-from-father-and-received-200000-gift-from-mother-tax-a6976991.html

[Kizzy]

Donation or kick back?

'David Cameron’s troubles deepened on Saturday night as a Tory donor named in the Panama Papers was revealed as a trusted middleman for a company raided by the Serious Fraud Office, which is investigating what has been described as the world’s biggest bribery scandal.

David Cameron: blame me for mishandling Panama Papers news
Prime minister tells Tory forum he should have handled offshore fund revelations better as protesters call for resignation
Read more
Javad Marandi, who with his wife has donated nearly £250,000 to the Conservatives, appears in a series of emails leaked from the offices of oil services business Unaoil.'

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/09/tory-donor-was-trusted-middleman-for-oil-firm-involved-in-bribes-inquiry

[Kizzy]

6imhgG_JLMU

[DemolitionRed]

6imhgG_JLMU

Good link Kizzy. You can't help but love this man but I really wish he'd stop taking large breaths through his nostrils. :hehe:

[Kizzy]

Yes I noticed he does that :laugh: Maybe he's not well? aw get well soon jez x

[joeysteele]

Of course just another point,'if' anyone is doing anything dubious or wanting to keep quiet financially related about, especially as to 'tax'.

Then it is not going to be on any tax returns since they will not want tax authorities knowing about it anyway.

Not saying the PM has anything to answer as to this issue post 2010 now,to give him some benefit of doubt but that is the scale of the problem to even find all those not honouring the full taxes they should be.

[user104658]

How is it news that he's doing this, by the way? They're all bloody at it and all always have been. This is surely common knowledge. Honestly I despair sometimes. OK not sometimes - a lot.

I can't believe people are like "Derpy derp u wot?? These people hide monies off-shore?? OMG :omgno:".

Did people GENUINELY not realise this?

[Tom4784]

How is it news that he's doing this, by the way? They're all bloody at it and all always have been. This is surely common knowledge. Honestly I despair sometimes. OK not sometimes - a lot.

I can't believe people are like "Derpy derp u wot?? These people hide monies off-shore?? OMG :omgno:".

Did people GENUINELY not realise this?

I think it's more to do with the fact that Cameron's had the gall to lie about it AND condemn other people in the past for doing the same thing he did.

Nobody's surprised about it but now people have proof of it so now they can get angry about it and demand action.

[user104658]

Nothing will happen, though. Either it will blow over and everyone will forget / not care in 6 months time, or it'll escalate to the point where Cameron has to go (IMO unlikely) and he'll be replaced with a Tory clone. A new face for the beast but nothing will actually change at all. Although good luck to them in finding an experienced Tory who hasn't fiddled their tax at some point...

[Cherie]

Good luck with finding anyone on the planet who doesn't want to pay less tax

[joeysteele]

Good luck with finding anyone on the planet who doesn't want to pay less tax

Indeed but it doesn't make it right not to,even moreso when anyone can, from their already surplus wealth, afford to employ an individual to get round such taxes and thus avoid paying all that is due.

I said earlier, I and others would likely never be able to avoid paying some paltry sum like £10 of due taxes, so why should anyone else be able to just because they are in a more privileged position.

Being able to do it and wanting to do it does not make it right.

Although actually as to your point of finding anyone who doesn't want to pay more tax, I for one would be quite content to see my taxes raised 'IF' the raised funds were going direct to the NHS or the most vulnerable.

[GiRTh]

Good luck with finding anyone on the planet who doesn't want to pay less tax
Forty millionaires ask to raise taxes on wealthy (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/40-millionaires-ask-new-york-raise-taxes-wealthy-1-percent-plan-fairness)

[Cherie]

Forty millionaires ask to raise taxes on wealthy (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/40-millionaires-ask-new-york-raise-taxes-wealthy-1-percent-plan-fairness)

Amazing I didn't think it was possible

[Kizzy]

Amazing I didn't think it was possible

That people with money can't be socially responsible? Bit judgy :hehe:

[Cherie]

Indeed but it doesn't make it right not to,even moreso when anyone can, from their already surplus wealth, afford to employ an individual to get round such taxes and thus avoid paying all that is due.

I said earlier, I and others would likely never be able to avoid paying some paltry sum like £10 of due taxes, so why should anyone else be able to just because they are in a more privileged position.

Being able to do it and wanting to do it does not make it right.

Although actually as to your point of finding anyone who doesn't want to pay more tax, I for one would be quite content to see my taxes raised 'IF' the raised funds were going direct to the NHS or the most vulnerable.


If we had a breakdown of our taxes like we see on a council tax bill ( I said on the on the TV licence thread that 1.60 added for social care wasn't enough) maybe people would be more likely to pay. Say for instance you could choose to direct an extra percentage into the NHS, as it stands it goes into a black hole and a lot of it gets wasted like 9 million on a pamphlet. There will always be people who will swerve the system it doesn't make it right but you can close every loophole and anther will be found. As for listening to politicians the majority are feathering their own nests in my view.

[Cherie]

That people with money can't be socially responsible? Bit judgy :hehe:

Hey I can be as judgy as the next person :hee:

[Kizzy]

Hey I can be as judgy as the next person :hee:

I noticed :idc:

[Cherie]

I noticed :idc:

:joker:

[Kizzy]

;) jk ly rly

[Cherie]

;) jk ly rly

Of course right back at you Kizzy :laugh:

[GiRTh]

Amazing I didn't think it was possibleIts rare but refreshing to see.

[MTVN]

Well after all that Cameron's taxes actually show nothing of interest at all, nothing illegal and nothing that's even very shady. I see no reason why he should publish all his taxes from before he was PM - to even release what he has is pretty unprecedented and makes him by far the most transparent PM we've ever had

[bots]

Forty millionaires ask to raise taxes on wealthy (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/40-millionaires-ask-new-york-raise-taxes-wealthy-1-percent-plan-fairness)

40 out of a total of 319,000 :laugh: in NY, an incredibly small percentage 0.000125 %

There are now 715,000 millionaires living in Britain compared with 508,000 in 2010, with London having the highest concentration of wealthy individuals.

[arista]

SNP have now Followed the PM
by publishing the Tax Returns
of course they are not in these Panama Leaks

[joeysteele]

Well after all that Cameron's taxes actually show nothing of interest at all, nothing illegal and nothing that's even very shady. I see no reason why he should publish all his taxes from before he was PM - to even release what he has is pretty unprecedented and makes him by far the most transparent PM we've ever had

Hmm, putting my lawyers hat on, I feel that may be a grey area.

He already had said he got rid of the funds before coming to be PM in 2010, the returns he has allowed to be issued, back him up on that there is nothing there since 2010 that may be incriminating.
He clearly pre-empted that scenario with his stating, eventually, that he sold them all in 2010.

What is not known as to before and what he tried to avoid confirming all week, as to not only he but his wife having funds there before 2010,may be a different story.
What he has allowed out is only info for after the funds were no more.

If he really wanted to put this to bed completely, in my view, and also if he really has nothing a all of interest then publish the previous 6 years too up to 2010 as well as the 6 years after 2010.
Again though,I do afford him credit for what he has done so far although it being limited.

See, to clear myself completely on this, if I were him and indeed other high faces in govt and opposition, I would have published all my returns as far back as I could possibly go to squash completely any suspicions any may have about my financial arrangements and tax.
If that is, I had not a thing to hide.