...to think David Cameron's tax affairs are no- one else's business?

(202 Posts)
Nessalina Sun 10-Apr-16 00:31:43

I think all of this furore over the PM's finances is a bit bizarre. If the law allows people to reduce the amount of tax they may need to pay through lawful methods, why shouldn't he be able to do the same? Yes, he's a red-faced pillock with far too much money, but he's not actually broken any laws... Prepares to be flamed

Fyaral Sun 10-Apr-16 00:45:08

No one is suggesting he has done anything illegal. However he is a massive hypocrite and is answerable to that in public officr. Look at the fuss HE made over Jimmy Carr.

ApricotSorbet99 Sun 10-Apr-16 00:46:42

Er....the issue is not his tax affairs, but his extraordinary hypocrisy with regard to many previous statements about the tax avoidance activities of others.

He's a prick. And I would want him to resign if I wasn't so nervous about getting snivelling Gideon in his place.

candykane25 Sun 10-Apr-16 00:58:18

He's just released his tax returns voluntarily.
There's two other threads already debating this to buggery.
I'm happy to show DC my tax returns, got nothing to hide. I've had a quick look at his and was glad to read them.
Lots of things are nobody's business but he's the PM and he's got himself into this predicament by saying one thing but appearing to do another.
A PM will of course come under scrutiny. He's doing what he needs to do to deal with this crisis.
I'm sure he'll be ok with it.

I didn't vote for him though perish the thought

PalacePalacePalace Sun 10-Apr-16 01:10:34

Of course it's our business.

It's the hypocrisy.

He may not have broken any laws. But he appears to have used every rule to his advantage.

The gifts from his mother of £100k plus appear to inheritance tax avoidance. Aside from his father's offshore accounting - which whilst he seems to have inherited a modest (?) Amount, it must have gone some way to pay for Eton fees, house purchase etc. He can't really say he hasn't benefitted from it.

To be fair this is probably the same for most v wealthy people. Except they aren't the prime minister .

Eugh. The whole affair against the backdrop of what has happened and is happening to benefit claimants, the sick, disabled, vulnerable etc makes me feel sick.

There is more to come from the Panama papers.

Scooterloo Sun 10-Apr-16 01:15:38

YABU. He is happy enough to comment on other's, and after all, we are all in this together

*I think some of these schemes – and I think particularly of the Jimmy Carr scheme – I have had time to read about and I just think this is completely wrong.

‘People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.
‘That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong*

BirthdayBetty Sun 10-Apr-16 01:25:58

Major hypocrisy.
I've benefited from hidden 'money'

You plebs can't hide it!
What? 'You have to claim tax credits' you benefits scoundrel!
You have cancer? Work until you die, you're not ill, you waste of space.
What? You have epileptic seizures regularly, how dare you be on WRAG?

limitedperiodonly Sun 10-Apr-16 01:26:27

Prepares to be flamed

I don't know whether this ^^ or 'did you mean to be so rude?' is the wankiest thing in the MN universe.

Would adding: 'non?' deliver peak wank?

Discuss...

limitedperiodonly Sun 10-Apr-16 01:29:03

Yes, btw. He's not only a hypocrite but a stupid one.

TeatimeForTheSoul Sun 10-Apr-16 01:31:51

I believe it was no ones business until he started to take the moral high ground. As soon as he started preaching the example he sets dies become relevant.
Same for any person in power.

TeatimeForTheSoul Sun 10-Apr-16 01:32:11

*does

WhereYouLeftIt Sun 10-Apr-16 01:47:45

"If the law allows people to reduce the amount of tax they may need to pay"

See, that's the bit I think we should concentrate on.

Generally, the tax rules are written to allow people to reduce their tax liability to encourage people to do something that the government actively wants them to do, e.g. pensions savings or investing in particular industries such as the film industry or manufacturing.

Can you think of any good reason why the government would want people to hold their money outside these shores so that it is a secret and they can pretend to have less money than they actually have? No, neither can I. Except that these rules have been drafted by people with money to hide. Or by people who have clients who have money to launder hide. Yep, HMRC seconds people working in the big fancy reduce-your-tax lax firms to draft the rules. Have a read at www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tax-avoidance-treasury-minister-dismisses-absurd-warning-that-hmrc-is-too-cosy-with-accountancy-8588945.html

So the people (like David Cameron) who should be cleaning the system up to stop us being such a haven for criminal money laundering and despots fleecing their impoverished countries - what do they choose to do? Clean the system up? Ensure that the tax revenues from those who have money are maximised to pay for all those pesky pubic services? No, they use the loopholes for personal gain.

And that is why David Cameron's, and indeed all those in Government's tax affair are very far from being no one else's business.

AdrenalineFudge Sun 10-Apr-16 02:31:18

WhereYouLeftIt Very well put. Same thing with non dom status this will soon be yesterday's news and the cycle continues. Wash rinse repeat.

SlinkyVagabond Sun 10-Apr-16 03:54:58

As the saying goes "caesar's wife should be beyond reproach" and so should our elected public officials. And as for the rank hypocrisy of berating Carr et al for the same thing, not terrifically surprised.

scarednoob Sun 10-Apr-16 04:13:14

I should care, for reasons set out eloquently above. However, I am so jaded with uk politics and politicians that I just can't seem to get bothered by it. He avoids tax; so-called for the people labour MPs send kids to private school and live in million pound houses and charge tens of thousands for speeches; lots of them abused expenses - lather, rinse, repeat. They're all the same and I find it hard to name one that I like or trust.

KondoLisaNice Sun 10-Apr-16 05:47:20

Of course his tax affairs are his own private business unless he's doing what he has has told us not to do because he thinks it's morally wrong.

Also wHy is it right to expose people for fiddling benefits claims but claim it's "private" when it's rich people fiddling their tax?

Laquila Sun 10-Apr-16 05:53:52

Love that, Limited - "Would adding: 'non' deliver peak wank" - YES

WhereYouLeftIt - the Guardian did an interesting piece with a bit about potebtial valid reasons for putting money offshore, although obviously I have no clue whether DC's dad had any of these reasons. The natural cynic/leftie in me suspects not.

peggyundercrackers Sun 10-Apr-16 06:21:10

Anyone who doesn't plan to reduce their IHT is frankly bonkers. Absolutely everyone does it so yes we are all in this together. Look at the miliband brothers - they have done it - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

peggyundercrackers Sun 10-Apr-16 06:22:20

Once again we can't know if the money from his mum was planned or not - I suspect not given most people don't know what their parents are going to do with their money.

No he should not resign.

GinandJag Sun 10-Apr-16 06:32:04

This whole story is absolutely belwildering.

No one should pay more tax than the law asks for.

DC paid the tax that was due on his investment, and actually paid more tax to the UK as a result of the investments being held off-shore. He did not avoid tax.

JontyDoggle37 Sun 10-Apr-16 06:37:04

What you are missing here, with regard to DC's father, is time context . In the seventies, eighties and even nineties, putting money offshore was completely accepted as a legal method of reducing your tax bill and wasn't considered dodgy or morally reprehensible. We're looking at it it now through a different lens that has a higher moral code attached, but I don't think it's fair to judge past acts by today's standards, when no laws were broken.
Also, I've worked in Tax for eighteen years, and yes at one of those '*fancy schmancy*' London places mentioned above. It's quite right, people do get asked to help HMRC Write the laws, because they're the experts. However, what they can't control is how laws change in other countries, which has an impact on how our laws sometimes work. Also, they will do their absolute best to write loophole-free laws, but a) they are often bound by current HMRC rules and systems and b) sometimes someone else will later look at that law with different eyes and see a way of interpreting it differently. That is why HMRC makes massive updates to Tax law almost every year, as it becomes clear what works, what doesn't, and as they change their systems. You also have to take account of a changing market: e-companies, and where their profits should be taxed when they only exist in the Internet was a big problem at first - no-one knew, because it was such a big market change, so for a while, perfectly legally some companies managed to pay very little tax at all, until the laws caught up. Now the power of the media is encouraging us to judge tax affairs on a moral, not a legal basis, which is an entirely new approach to taxation.

peggyundercrackers Sun 10-Apr-16 07:04:18

Jonny there is no moral code - there are people that shout about it but if they had enough money to take advantage of the system like every other person does they would be doing it too - I don't believe for one second there are people out there volunteering to pay more tax because it's the moral thing to do. Hypocrites is the word that comes to mind.

cdtaylornats Sun 10-Apr-16 07:05:21

I will watch the Panama papers with interest - for one thing I don't believe all of the Labour parties rich members don't use these financial vehicles.

Anyone who doesn't reduce inheritance tax is either stupid or prefers giving money to the government than to their kids.

Cameron hasn't got hidden money that we have found, any claim is speculation at best and libellous at worst.

People also seem to think that because Cameron is PM they have a right to look into his wife, parents and siblings - they aren't public figures, they have a right to privacy.

ThroughThickAndThin01 Sun 10-Apr-16 07:09:06

YANBU. It's a non story.

But it would be better if he had revealed it all at the beginning of the week not the end.

I don't care if he resigns or not. He shouldn't have to. But if he does, I think it will hugely benefit the 'leave' campaign.

jellyfrizz Sun 10-Apr-16 07:14:08

Now the power of the media is encouraging us to judge tax affairs on a moral, not a legal basis, which is an entirely new approach to taxation.

The media didn't just start encouraging us to judge tax affairs on a moral basis. They reported David Cameron moralising about the tax affairs of others.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now