[Cherie]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

You are such a ray of sunshine Kizzy

I know right

[Niamh.]

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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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

[arista]

Yes Kizzy before he was PM.


so not a problem
unless you are Labour John Mann MP

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes Kizzy before he was PM.


so not a problem
unless you are Labour John Mann MP

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

[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/bu...-a6973746.html

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by 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/bu...-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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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”.