Panama Papers

[Earl Aelfheah]

I had understood that Cameron had purchased shares in Blairmore himself as opposed to inheriting them, but perhaps I have misunderstood this?

[Otta]

This has been completely overplayed. Wasted opportunity to really make him squirm.

[DulwichFox]

It's not all over by any means.. Fat lady has yet to sing...

DulwichFox

[????]

The thing is this posh Tories thing isn't as powerful as Lefties think (it failed last time) - take the inheritance thing a reasonable amount of the electorate are against inheritance tax (the actions of Mr Tony Benn and Ralph Milliband would suggest they were too :) ); a reasonable amount of people think tax is best avoided as much as possible; Now i'm not saying either of these positions are morally correct but many people hold them so this focus is very echo-chamery to me

Lefty Twitter is doing the rounds with "Osbourne paid more tax than Corbyn earned" - to me, no longer a natural lefty, I think "so what that's a good thing isn't it?" rather than it''s evidence of anything sinister. It is really anti-wealth and many people aspire to wealth.

[*Bob*]

LM - yeah, that's what I meant, a good summation. I still think he needs a kicking though, he shouldn't get off just because 'that how things are', because if he does, that's how things will always be - only probably worse.

Unfortunately, I think Otta - and ???? are right - some important points about the nature of politics, power and hypocrisy relating to those two - has descended into high-street-solicitor-level detail which in truth - only a small amount of leftie shouters will really give a shit about.

Sometimes I long for the days when a Tory political scandal meant spanking, riding crops, and an orange wedged in the mouth.

[red devil]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sometimes I long for the days when a Tory

> political scandal meant spanking, riding crops,

> and an orange wedged in the mouth.

Never mind, I'm sure the Rocket Man will come up trumps any day now...

[miga]

I think what this scandal really needs is for Bono to weigh in.

[LondonMix]

Wasn't a some Tory peer caught out like that relatively recently. I vaguely remember seeing a old white man in women's lingerie surrounded by prostitutes on the cover of tabloids. I can't remember all the details of who he was but I'm sure it was either a politician or a judge. Who was that again?

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Sometimes I long for the days when a Tory

> > political scandal meant spanking, riding crops,

> > and an orange wedged in the mouth.

>

> Never mind, I'm sure the Rocket Man will come up

> trumps any day now...

[*Bob*]

The Lords doesn't count - that sort of behaviour is virtually a requirement for entry.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/sleaze-lord-house-of-sleaze--back-to-business-as-usual-20150731-gioke0.html

[LondonMix]

Apparently as he chaired the Lords' privileges and conduct committee!

[DovertheRoad]

Personally I've been waiting for the morality vs legality question to be brought to a head and now quite enjoying the ensuing debate. As per Quids previous postings most don't get evasion versus tax planning (legitimate avoidance)....lots of sensible personal finance areas where you can legitimately choose how much tax to pay across certain range...splitting CGT allowance as a married couple, IHT planning etc. Tbh I don't know anyone who voluntarily pays the maximum amount of tax at all times if (i) they don't have to and (ii) as some kind of personal statement for the greater societal moral cause. Then there is small time cash declared fraud that millions indulge in daily from cabbies to shop owners... Ever done cash deals with a builder or handyman? Fiddled a work expense or taxi receipt? No real moral difference in my book.

Interesting that George and Dave, whose absolute net worth is considerably higher than their salaries reflect, have clearly agreed that ?200k ish is the publicly acceptable limit whilst in the corridors of power...

FTSE 250 execs, bankers, Hedge Fund guys all earning 7 fig packages and doing much worse. The whole thing is a misfiring mess that's forcing us to address a base moral issue. Looking fwd to see where it will end....

[PennyDreadful]

Just as an aside...today Dennis Skinner was ejected from the Commons for referring to Cameron as "Dodgy Dave", whereas last December there was no comeback for Cameron when he referred to opposition MPs as "terrorist sympathisers"...

[Loz]

PennyDreadful Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just as an aside...today Dennis Skinner was ejected from the Commons for referring to Cameron

> as "Dodgy Dave", whereas last December there was no comeback for Cameron when he referred to

> opposition MPs as "terrorist sympathisers"...

That's because the Cameron's comment didn't happen in the House of Commons.

[Blah Blah]

Lots of good points.

The other thing to remember is that he didn't just sell shares to clean up his image on becoming PM. The family also moved said business from the tax haven to onshore, also to save the new PM from any embarassing scrutiny. Only they didn't move it to mainland Britain where tax is 20%. They moeved it to Ireland where tax is 12%.

Had Cameron not becomw PM, he would still probably be benefitting from the dividends of a tax avoiding business interest. Corbyn is quite right when he says it's wrong to focus solely on post 2010. This whole issue for me is hypocrasy. Yes we know that lot's of people in public office take avantage of these loopholes, but that doesn't take away from the hypocrasy of preaching cuts and austerity and debt while living by a different standard. It insults ordinary people, and that matters when you are PM.

Just on the Media thing. The Andrew Marr show had an interesting take that Media owners are largely for Brexit and that is the reason why they are running so hard with this story. They want to bring Cameron down. Cameron's leadership ratings have gone down dramatically but Corbyns haven't gone up either.

Interesting article here that touches on some of the expressions of viewpoints we are making here....and perhaps why Corbyn is making no ground while the Tories are losing theirs.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/10/labour-heartland-doesnt-exist-voters?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Earl Aelfheah]

Paying a cabbie, a shop keeper, or a builder in cash is not tax avoidance. Cash is a legitimate form of payment, it's for the seller to ensure they declare their income, the onus is not on the purchaser. To think everyone is on the fiddle, exaggerating their expense claims, or taking up every offer to 'reduce their tax liability' that's put before them, is simply not true.

[DovertheRoad]

Not what I said though is it Rah...and whilst in theory you are right HMRC now have powers to hit cash payers if it looks like they are complicit (knowing) in the fraud. "I didn't know...not my problem" now doesn't wash so well...

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not sure what your point is. It seems to be 'everyone's at it', but perhaps I've missed something.

[DovertheRoad]

I thought my points were clear but basically:

- There is massive hypocrisy in all of this generally when it comes to the "moral" argument. Well written law is clear but issues of morality are often a grey area which in this case has society failing to arrive at a consensus.

- Many people whose tax affairs comprise a solely salary with a PAYEE deduction each month don't understand legitimate options in personal finance that allow for choices as to how and when you pay tax.

- On the subject of paying tradesmen etc cash and pleading ignorance I disagree with you that this absolves the purchaser from any moral hazard. It's down with a wink and a nudge and everyone knows it's unlikely to be fully declared to HMRC. Morally I view that as worse than legitimate tax planning for IHT as it is outright evasion.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Everyone gets that there is a difference between breaking the law and not. There is also a clear difference between a 'wink and a nod' when paying in cash and simply paying someone in cash. Not everyone does the former. Morality isn't clear cut and each person must do what they believe to be right, but that is not to suggest that one can't engage in discussions of ethics and morality. As someone else stated, not everything which is legal is moral and not everything which is illegal necessarily immoral.

In terms of your three points:

-I do agree there is (inevitably) hypocrisy in this debate. But that doesn't mean that a debate of both how things are and how things ought to be is not worthwhile, or instructive. Cameron himself has been fairly hypocritical in my view and we can reasonably expect him as PM (and someone who influences policy / law) to hold himself to a higher standard.

- I don't accept that people are too stupid to understand the differences between avoidance and evasion. The grey area has shrunk since the general avoidance rules came in at the beginning of the year, but prior to that there was fairly broad scope for morally questionable avoidance (which may or may not have been considered 'legitimate' depending on one's point of view).

- It's up to each individual to pay the appropriate tax. If you somehow conspire in tax avoidance then that's pretty clear cut. I don't accept that everyone does this. I don't like the supposed 'truism' that 'everyone's at it'. It's simply not true.

[*Bob*]

There's only hypocrisy if someone says 'you shouldn't do this, this is wrong' in public - but then does it in private. This doesn't apply to the majority of people, say, paying cash and avoiding VAT. They don't parade around denouncing who do it. Doesn't mean it's 'right', but it's not hypocrisy.

Whilst there are exceptions (accepted, RRR) let's face it, the vast majority of people will chisel away their own little bit of 'getting away with it' - according the means at their disposal - and they forge their own justifications.

If you're a super-rich corporation, you hire some very big clever expensive accountants to funnel your money through ThingyLand and limit your taxation.

If you are moderately well-off, you hire one decent accountant to tell you all the things you can get away with without going over the line.

If you have no money, you pay cash with a wink. It may (legally) be the worst of the three but it's all you've got.

The interesting thing is that the justification for those on the bottom often comes from looking at those above, perceiving them to be 'getting away with it' and thinking 'well, screw them, I'm going to get my bit'. Cameron's ?30k just recruited a whole new generation of vat-avoiders.

[Seabag]

If you take the time, hire the 'decent accountant' you'd be amazed what you can claim back and for, and each year it tweaks and changes.

If you hire a tax adviser who's hobby is attending every tax seminar there is, then even better. I'm endlessly amazed and sometimes a little "WTF really?" At what's doable and legit claim wise, and you'd be daft not to take them up

And morality, what is that exactly ?

[DovertheRoad]

Rah - once again, read above, I didn't once say "everyone is at it". But with 80% of home owners admitting paying cash to avoid vat or get a better deal with their builder (same thing really) and it all thought to cost ?2B + per year it grates that many of those people are up in arms on twitter etc about Cameron's IHT planning. That's the public declaration vs private action hypocrisy...

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's a fair point Dover, but Cameron has pontificated on this a fair bit and as someone who makes the rules, he should rightly be held to a higher standard. The biggest issue for me was that he spend five days making weasel statements and trying to hide the fact of his past interests in Blairmore. This is someone who has repeatedly called for transparency in peoples tax affairs.... And he's the PM ffs. I don't think it's a hanging offence, but he's shown pretty poor judgment and is entirely to blame for creating this circus.

[????]

So therefore should john McDonnell stop moralising rah then? (Westminster Council pension managed in Guernsey) or infact any MP? (MP's pension fund managed in Jersey)... ALL of this is standard investment practice...

...all it (this ridiculous noise) demonstrates is people's financial illiteracy.

To tie in what Cameron had done in equivalence with say Jimmy Carr who used extremley aggressive tax avoidance to minimise his tax is just wrong and to tie him in with money laundering false at the extreme end of teh Panama Papers

I just despair of people's stupidity and moral high-grounding.

Most fuckwits on social media are still struggling with evasion/avoidance.

God help us if the financially moronic and wealth haters ever get their hands on power - unless you ca run a modern health service on worthiness.

[LondonMix]

That was my point a bit earlier up thread. Some of the structures we are talking about are no more immoral than an ISA and are used by government entities. They are used in the exact spirit the law intended. Its a separate debate as to if the law should be what it is or if the law is fair. However, as I've said before, there isn't a moral equivalency with actual evasion.

Its like asking someone why they take the tax incentive when investing in their pension rather than just investing outside a pension product and pay more tax. Of course, if you want to do it that's fine but to be condemned for using tax incentives in the law as the law expects you to is not cheating or sneaky.