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?

He's corrupt. Corrupt politicians should have to face re-election.

Fuck we won't have any politicians then - they will all have to go.

Jelly big thumbs up icon if I knew how to do one!

Peggy I'd be very happy to boot all the corrupt ones out and start again with the ones that aren't, regardless of party lines.

Candy I would agree with that but I dont think DC is corrupt due to this issue - other issues maybe but not this one. I'm not even sure a politician can be above board at all times - every one of them is corrupt.

I think I agree peggy, it's the nature of the beast but unless we, the people who are paying their wages, don't keep holding them to account they will keep attempting to get away with it.

Our tax system isn't out of kilter with other major economies in the G20. So we aren't actually taxed to death compared with other countries. More than half the tax revenue is collected from the 10% who earn more than £40k. You can moan about being squeezed but try having real financial problems as one of the 90% and see which one you prefer. Equally, if you're a basic rate tax payer (the 90%), overall you typically take more out of the system through tax credits, child benefits, and government services (eg education, nhs) than you put into it. I think I have offended everyone now.

Never in UK history have those of us in the 25% who are net contributors paid such a high proportion of the nation's tax. We get no thanks for it and not surprising we are fed up to the back teeth over it. Kick us and we pay less tax (lawfully). Instead substitute a fairer percentage and simpler taxes and we pay more tax.

We get no thanks for it

Oh, honestly, stop. I don't think my sides can take it; they may split.

How ridiculous you sound. Like a petulant child threatening to take her ball home.

Eustace please can I have your thanks for tax cuts that do benefit the wealthiest percentage but cut my essential services and benefits?
I've iften found I get no thanks for that.

Agree Peggy and jelly. We've got to keep them on their toes. Whoever is in power.

Equally, if you're a basic rate tax payer (the 90%), overall you typically take more out of the system through tax credits, child benefits, and government services (eg education, nhs) than you put into it.

How many is typical though? I for one have never had tax credits, don't have children now to claim child benefit on, and therefore have no claim on the education services, and so far have made relatively little use of the NHS. There are an awful lot of people I know in the same boat. I imagine that we are putting in more than we take out. We might as we get older make heavier demands on the NHS, except that if the current Government continues, there won't be one left.

Imagine a doctor, personally responsible for the treatment of hundreds of people and therefore responsible for the actual futures of thousands of people in their lifetime. How much do you think that individual should be paid?

In a private healthcare system, they should (and can) be paid a fortune. Millions, potentially, particularly in the US. In a public healthcare system, acting in public service, their salary will be relatively limited. It's why a squaddie gets paid £17,000 a year even though they may be killed in the service of the country. Of course, even in this country the doctor can supplement their salary to a tremendous degree with private work. But then again medical professionals in this country understand that they are not engaged in a commercial, performance related endeavour whereby renumeration is dictated by profit made. If they did, then that's fine by me. It just means a private healthcare system.

My point was made in response to the rather bizarre suggestion that wealth automatically aggregates in the wrong places, and therefore should be forcibly redistributed by Government. When the financial futures of millions of people in the form of pensions, for example, do actually rest on the incentives of the market, and the abilities of the financiers in charge of those pension funds who are, whether we like it or not, incentivised by their remuneration, then that's a particularly stupid approach. Even more so when the mechanisms by which those investments gain value may well involve offshore arrangements that take advantage of domestic tax regulations. Thus, by seeking to close those loopholes you'd simply be harming other people's future financial security. I find it amusing that the pensions of the generally most left wing cohort in this country, namely university academics, are in the hands of rapacious city financiers earning millions.

And lastly of course, there is the common assumption that more tax revenue equals more 'stuff' for everyone. If a Government acts along ideological lines, then the funds it gathers will be disbursed accordingly. In the case of the Conservatives, it would be subsidising wealth creators or industry, for example, or trying to address the balance of payments deficit, rather than increasing benefits for example.

I'm still struggling to see your point Radical.

That we need public sector pension fund managers? And a government that looks after those that need it rather than those that want it?

No, my point was that in the wider scheme of things, stuff like offshore tax arrangements and the paraphernalia associated with them can be beneficial to society's interests. And that simply saying 'Tax the bastards' doesn't necessarily result in what you want it to result in.

DC has relaxed his tax returns.

Relaxed?!

That would be funny! Autocorrect

Peggy - why did Cameron have to invest in Panama?

DC has relaxed his tax returns

Now time for all other MPs to do the same

I've had a quick gander.
I must admit I feel better knowing what his income is and of course quite a bit of it is 50% with SamCam also having the other 50% coming into the household.
It informs me how likely it is that DC can relate to the average income.
I'm glad I've been able to see it, it makes things clearer.

I think this has been a PR nightmare for Cameron and unfairly.

Anyone like to comment after watching this video from the BBC and the clearly biased but flummoxed reporter?

www.facebook.com/rob1972/videos/10154110453578000/

No YANBU, yes he should resign and yes we deserve better than this from our representatives.

Wasonthelist he didn't choose panama - his dad choose where the fund was based as he set it up. He only invested in his dad's fund, maybe he did it to show he supported his dad.

Instead of asking the same question over and over again and trying to berate from the sidelines maybe you can offer us your thoughts on the subject and tell us what he gained and that the taxman lost by him investing in his dad's fund.

Today is a sad sad day for privacy rights. DC has disclosed summaries of his tax returns. Where will it end? We want a state which gives us many more privacy rights not fewer. This is the big story. Instead of an Englishman's home being his castle year by year it becomes the place in which big brother Bit State watches and charts everything we do on a continuous basis.

On balance I don't think he should resign for this as the facts stand. Although I agree it leaves a bad taste.

However, given that he's the king of swing and doesn't seem to care much for the facts when his party are trying to push a line or story, I find it difficult to have much sympathy for him.

think people are less forgiving of Cameron, Osborne et al because they have busily been taking as much money as they possibly can from the poor and vulnerable while claiming "We're all in this together!"

This is interesting, because I agree that this is the instinctive way to think. However, I find it very immoral also when lefties avoid. Because this means that they want the little people to pay for a high spend state but don't want to pay that themselves.

Finally, there's a difference between tax planning (using things such as ISAs for the intended purpose), tax avoidance (using tax provisions technically within the rules but NOT for the intended purpose but merely to reduce tax), and evasion (breaking the rules).

It can be a grey line between avoidance and evasion.