[Livia]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

why do you always use Labour as the straw man?

[arista]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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]

not today it Ain't

its all about he PM's dead dad

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by arista

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]

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

[Kizzy]

Youtube video

[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/...-panama-papers

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

Tenuous...at best.

[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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

[/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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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?