http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/content/u...4878675481.jpg
not today it Ain't

its all about he PM's dead dad

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?

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

Me talk sense!!

Go and have a word with yourself Arista

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.

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.

: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?

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

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/...-panama-papers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Brilliantly well said.

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

Tenuous...at best.