To think that David Cameron should resign?

[deeedeee]

Presiding over a government that is trying to spin doctors and teachers into militants ,

Supporting a chancellor that has failed to reduce the deficit by his own standards and has delivered two hated and u turning budgets in a row, over the death of the British Steel Industry, is attacking renewable energy in times of climate change, is taking support from the ill and disabled is and NOW he has admitted benefiting from TAX AVOIDANCE????!!!!
This is all wrong. How many more years of this?

Peggy what are you asking me to "prove" exactly?

Why did Cameron need to be investing in an offshore fund in Panama for?

My problem with this post is expecting David Cameron to be responsible for his father Ian Cameron's business dealings. Ian Cameron set up the fund in 1982, David was still at school then, he sold his share in it before reaching downing Street, and paid UK tax on profits. This is an utter non story. It's like saying I can't open a company because my dad was a shitty businessman and was bankrupt a few times, we are not responsible for our parents decisions. And nothing either Ian or David Cameron did was illegal.

Rant over......

I for one have been avoiding Amazon in favour of local shops, simply because Amazon are tax dodgers. I don't think I have ever patronised Starbucks, and don't intend to.

David Cameron: I could have handled tax row better
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36004856

I am now so cynical I just perceive this as spin and him saying what he thinks people want to hear.

I didn't vote for him but I accepted we live in a democracy and he won and therefore was our elected Prime Minister. I had a pretty neutral opinion.
However his policies, the lies, failures, cock up after cock up...
(Not to mention the pig gate/burning money / homeless man thing) has resulted in me having a very low opinion of him indeed.
He's a walking disaster really.

There's a reason why Corbyn is popular, even if tories are aghast at that.

Radicalrooster
Where did that conclusion come from? I like Corbyn, never voted before in any election because I hate the lot of them but might do it this time around.
When I see such a car passing by, I think to myself: great! They must have done hard work and so long as they are paying a fair share of it to the taxman, good to see they are having with the money hey must have earned with hard work.
It rarely occurs to me that they could be stealing the knew or hiding assets or whatever.
You are saying what you are saying because you have no other valid argument so all you can bank on is by screeching "oh these poor people are so jealous of the wealthy who can afford a car like that"! And that's a shame.

Yes. End of

Eustace
That's the whole point isn't it? I want o keep my money that we end up paying as tax but unfortunately I am not given the chance . So how come some people get to keep it safe while others dont. Just by the chance of birth or something? Also, the more wealth you have, the more likely you are I keep it? How is that sustainable and how do you think it's fair?
After all, the laws are made by the same people who are actually trying hard to keep their wealth for their families (while I don't have that moral high ground because i am not Cameron obviously, just some low life without morals). So how come you are saying that they are following the laws? I think you are spinning it to just make the argument go in vicious useless circles rather than actually being up a solid argument

What I think is happening now: Cameron and cronies have become really arrogant because they got in government twice and thought they will get away with murder. That arrogance shows how ignorant and out of touch they are anyway. But the point is that hopefully they won't stop digging their political graves anytime soon looking at the current rate.

And if not taxes, who or what pays for healthcare, roads, policing, education, garbage collection? Or do we only get them if we can afford to fund them individually?

Misti I accept taxes as requisite for a civilised society. That said, it's unreasonable to chide HRTs for not viewing it as their 'moral obligation' to pay more than is strictly neccessary when government services are so bad. This discussion can't exist in a 'what is the government doing well?' vacuum.

I don't think this is relevant to Cameron, who should presumably hold the state in much higher regard than I - but rather I'm responding to the comments about taxes as a moral imperative.

Wasonthelist I want you to show there was another way of investing in dollar companies before the exchange controls came down in the eighties.

..it's unreasonable to chide HRTs for not viewing it as their 'moral obligation' to pay more than is strictly neccessary when government services are so bad.

Who's fault is it that government services are so bad? The Government. Led by the very same DC.

I agree jelly, and that's why I said it's not really relevant to DC but rather another sentiment that had cropped up within this thread.

To be fair, I think the government is far bigger than DC and it would take a near-revolution to set it straight, but I agree with you in principle.

As the Prime Minister the buck stops with him. The argument that it is a big government and not just DC is a poor one. He is accountable.

Wasonthelist I want you to show there was another way of investing in dollar companies before the exchange controls came down in the eighties.

from BBC "Downing Street said Mr and Mrs Cameron bought their holding in April 1997 for £12,497 and sold it in January 2010 for £31,500. "

It was certainly possible to hold shares in USD accounts in the USA at that time, because I did it.

Your reference to exchange controls is utterly irrelevant.

I ask again, why did Cameron and his wife have to buy in Panama in 1997? What were they trying to achieve and why did that have to be done in Panama?

Misti I accept taxes as requisite for a civilised society. That said, it's unreasonable to chide HRTs for not viewing it as their 'moral obligation' to pay more than is strictly neccessary when government services are so bad.

Are you seriously suggesting these tossers would pay more tax if services were better? It's all a bit chicken and egg really isn't it? How about coughing up now so services can be improved?

Valentine2, drive that car to the next Corbyn/McDonnell gathering, and see if it escapes unscathed. I'll bet money on it being vandalised.

This country's full of selfish wankers for sure. It's also full of people pointing at others they perceive to have more than them and demanding 'I want what you've got'.

Sometimes life's not fair. Deal with it and move on.

Cameron's statement today seems to be more carefully chose words. He'll publish "the information that goes into his tax returns for past years" not his actual tax returns or the information that was in his tax returns. Also, he has not discussed whether he has received any loans from any offshore trust.

Radical you don't half talk some tosh.

Corbyn supporters are vandalisers?

I've never unleaded this one before, it's my very first Are you on glue?

Yes I am very aware life is not fair, being one of those people born with a genetic degenerative disability. Now that's no ones fault, including mine, but don't you bloody dare tell me to suck it up and move on. Do you realise how arrogant and unpleasant you sound?

Just read this on Facebook....

'In regards to the Panama Papers and what they've revealed. What I keep hearing the right say to try to justify it is "no laws were broken"

These are the people who actually make the laws though. So, if they pass a bit of legislation saying it's illegal you'll be outraged then? I don't get the logic.

Slavery was legal.
Apartheid was legal.
The Holocaust was legal.
Colonialism was legal.

Legality doesn't mean something isn't reprehensible. The fact is, these people are targeting the poor, the sick, the disabled with cuts...picking on the most vulnerable, driving them to suicide under the guise that there isn't enough money, all the while they aren't even paying their taxes and contributing to the amount of money we have to pay for goods and services in our society. It's repugnant. Not only that, they've made a very concentrated effort to conceal the fact that they aren't paying their taxes.

People who do that are absolutely not fit to run this country. So yes, Cameron has to go, as does Osborne and every other person who is complicit in dodging paying their taxes, irrespective of which party they're in. The thing is, Cameron and Osborne are the ones tasked with actually closing these tax dodging loopholes, they acknowledged they were a problem before taking office and have made statements since condemning them, made promises to sort it out, all the while knowing the UK was an actual hub for tax dodging schemes.

To say it's dishonest is the understatement of the year. To say it's wholly corrupt is closer the mark...

It's worth noting that although tax avoidance is not illegal (sigh) tax evasion is. The thing is, tax avoidance is solely a luxury the rich can afford to pay for. The rest of us are hounded and forced to pay our taxes, no exceptions and we'll get jail time if we refuse to comply.

That is blatant "one rule for us, another for you" mentality.

If you're okay with this, I urge you to go away and properly consider the hypocrisy and extremely damaging implications of these people not paying their way and the message it sends them if they're allowed to get away with it.

It's not exclusive to the Tories.
order-order.com/2016/04/08/kens-spectacular-tax-hypocrisy/

And don't even think about Blair salting away his millions.

No one has said that it's exclusive to the Tories.

Err - the thread is about Cameron. I think he's a Tory.

candykane25, seeing as Corbyn supporters spat upon and abused entrants to the Conservative Party Conference last year, I'm perfectly rational in my beliefs.

And your personal circumstances are neither here nor there. We can get involved in a game of one-upmanship about who's been hardest done by in life if you want, but that would bore the tits off everyone else.

And, as you may have guessed, I really couldn't give a fuck about how I come across, mainly because I'm not interested in pandering to your expectations of how I should rationalise certain issues.

Er - the thread is about the man who is our current Prime Minister and who has (hypocritically) spoken out about the immorality of UK citizens benefitting from offshore funds.

The whataboutery from the Tories on this thread is pathetic.

Blair's behaviour is indefensible. But he's not making policy. He's not attempting to take money away from the poor and the disabled. Neither is Livingstone.

Cameron is a spiv, a chancer and a liar. He won't go, but he should, and take the rest of the bastards with him.

Err - the thread is about Cameron.
So why did you mention Blair then? The Guardian did have a piece a few weeks back about the number of properties the Blairs owned, but nothing much seems to have been said since then.