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?

King of swing?! Spin!

I think the guy whom the BBC interviewed in that clip makes exactly the point that I have made on this thread. As he said, if he was setting up a fund to avoid UK taxes, this isn't how he would have done it because all UK taxes were paid. This FT story gets closest to the facts - for this who don't have an FT subscription a different tax expert (to the one the BBC interviewed) is quoted and says it is not tax avoidance and in fact it is outrageous to regard this as abusive tax avoidance.

I think one of the commentators makes an interesting point that journalists saw a juicy story involving the PM, "tax" and "offshore", conflated them, wrote the headlines and worked back from there, only to find out after 5 days of headlines and intense pressure that there was no evidence to back them up. In the meanwhile the public have been calling for the PMs resignation assuming that what they were initially reading was the truth.

He won't resign, he's entitled. He's rich and avoids tax like most rich people. While I'm not a fan of DC what scares me is who would replace him, better the devil you know in this case.
What amazes me is Sam Cam and her 50k a year stylist! Paid for by the tax payer. That is really taking the piss when they are taking money off the most vulnerable.
The hypocrisy is grating.

I think this has been a PR nightmare for Cameron and unfairly.
As an ex PR man he should have realised how it would play out. It's entirely an own goal as far as I see it.

Today is a sad sad day for privacy rights.
Mr & Mrs Average started losing privacy rights years ago, but no-one much in government was bothered. They only start getting upset when their own privacy is disturbed (and yes, I do include people like the Blairs in this.)

I think one of the commentators makes an interesting point that journalists saw a juicy story involving the PM, "tax" and "offshore", conflated them, wrote the headlines and worked back from there,
Entirely caused by his own inept handling, which he finally admitted to yesterday. Yes, there is tax planning, avoidance and evasion, but since Cameron has seen fit to preach to others and make the disabled bear the brunt of his cuts, his affairs need to be seen to be clearly in the first category, which is doubtful.

What amazes me is Sam Cam and her 50k a year stylist! Paid for by the tax payer. That is really taking the piss when they are taking money off the most vulnerable.

Yes, that's a real scandal. I wasn't aware of Sam Cam having any public office, and as we know, she is a wealthy woman in her own right, so can easily afford the money. But no, her husband's government have decided that it's better to screw the disabled. Some people have no shame.

We all lost our privacy quite some time ago.
I think the government invades our privacy far more than we invade DC's.
I'm sure theirs plenty we don't know and DC is ok and not weeping into his cornflakes. He'll be ok, don't fret.

Peggy So after about three days of various wriggly explanations of why Cameron invested in a fund in Panama, you conclude that it was to support his Dad. Possible, but surely a little unlikely.

You tell me I should make my view clear instead of "berating from the sidelines" - I have been clear. My view is that it's odd to find him investing offshore when it was apparently such a bad deal. I don't believe he should be held to account for the actions of his Dad any more than any of us, but I really do fail to understand what he's been up to.

If there was no advantage to the Panama investment - why do it? As the Tory posters on this thread have amply demonstrated, they have no concept of philanthopy, just screw whatever you can out of wherever - so why would he take such a bad deal? Either he was stupid (which I don't believe) or there was a reason (secrecy, tax dodgjng) that we're still not hearing the full truth about.

His resignation would be pointless, frankly, since he's going anyway. He would presumably be replaced by Gideon which is certainly not a prospect anyone with a heart or any human decency would relish.

50k a year for style . while many hard working people along with ths sick disabled unemployed are lucky if they have £50 per year to spend on clothes,and to top it all. It's paid for by us the tax payer, but yet. It's the working poor sick disabled and unemployed who pick up a pittence who are the "scroungers".
and. These daft Muppets expect us to believe that they're in touch with the real world, and wonder why people get angry.
. Away and fuck. If they're in touch with the real world. I'm next in line to the Throne!!

I read about that £50k and thought I thought she was meant to be naturally stylish. I didn't realise we were all paying for it?

Much as I'd love to see DC resign and take the current government with him, I don't think this is the issue that should prompt it. People knew when they voted Tory that DC is rich and privileged and that he behaves accordingly - which includes hanging on to as much of his wealth as possible within a set of rules written to favour the rich and powerful. He's done plenty of immoral things during his time as PM, including the most recent attempt to reduce benefits for some of the most vulnerable people in the country. I'd rather campaign for and secure his resignation over something like that, than over legal if immoral tax dealings.

He's not attempted to reduce benefits. He's succeeded. PIP proposals were dropped postponed but ESA has been cut by £30 a week and that is happening.

And morning I agree, it is immoral and me too.

Well all the money he's cutting from the poor can go toward Sam Cams 50k PA. "style". Every cloud and all that. The situations that crazy. I don't how to feel

He should not resign. He is no worse than the wrecking crew that he took over from.
He is steering through (heading up) one side of the most important decision this country will make for generations, then he will be gone anyway.

The EU referendum is coming.

So Corbyn has apparently not kept copies of his tax returns and that is why he can't disclose them. Surely he could write to HMRC and ask for copies? Under the Data Protection Act he could make a subject access request.

sigh.

the fund wasnt in Panama, it was in Dublin, it was also registered with the HMRC. The fund invested in various stocks and shares and commodities all over the world. The most effective way to do this is to run it in a neutral trading territory. Check your pension, ISA they all use the same.

because it was registered with the HMRC two taxes will have fallen due. income tax on dividends and capital gains tax when sold. Dividends were all declared in his tax return and the gain he made when selling it was below the threshold to pay CGT. The shares were not on the register of members interests as they only have to be if more than £70k worth in any one company was held.

When he sold the rest of the shares - it would appear he lost money.

Offshore doesnt automatically mean tax avoidance or evasion. As has been amply quoted elsewhere, this was a mundane, legitimate, boring investment that every penny of tax due was paid. It was declared to the revenue at the time in full and was disposed of when he became PM.

Why should he resign - for having savings, some of which he invested? For renting his house out while he was PM? For being sent money by his mum?

odd - thank goodness for the voice of reason. Very many people in this country want to leave something to their children. House prices have enabled this to happen for a lot of people but obviously not all. Lots of poorer people aspire to saving something and an ISA is a tax avoiding scheme. So is paying cash to the plumber. So is putting money into any pension scheme. It is paid in before you are taxed. The government actively encourages us to save and helps charities by duch tax avoiding schemes thst are legal and perfectly sensible.

What David Cameron's Dad did, (it was NOT him that invested in Panama!!) and the gift from his Mother, are not a resigning matter. I am heartily sick of this continual witch-hunt by people who have no idea about the difference between avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal). The money pages of all national newspapers are full of advice on ISAs, inheritance tax planning and pension advice, yet they are sqealing like mad over Cameron doing exactly what they recommend!

Pension lump sums are tax free. All of you complaining may feel you have a moral obligation to pay tax on your pension lump sum if you get one. On the other hand - have you not earned it? Might it be useful for you in your old age, or for your grandchildren?

I fail to see why anyone with a good job and reasonable prospects would ever go into politics. Corbyn has contacted HMRC by the way. If someone cannot find his tax return, should he run the country?

bojorojo

Ironic - if you re-read your post you will see that that you conflate legal tax avoidance (ISA) with paying the plumber in cash. Then you go to moan that people don't know the difference between evasion and avoidance.

To be clear, ISA is legal avoidance. Paying the plumber in cash isn't avoidance or evasion unless you know s/he's not going to declare it.

Get yourself straight before you castigate others or your point loses force.

It is an Irregular verb

I tax plan
you sensibly avoid
He fiddles.

Rather like

I hold confidential briefings
You leak
He has been charged under S3 of the official secrets act

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/127053

Link to petition for vote of no confidence in Jeremy Hunt

I like it oddcommentator

No, he's done nothing wrong, but it's public perception which matters.

Why if it was all so above board didn't he publish his tax returns in 2012 when he first floated the idea? Why spend a week waffling before finally coming clean?

He's man who has shown himself completely out of touch with the majority of the population. Last year he wrote to the Leader of Oxfordshire County Council whining about the cuts to the public library in his constituency (his mother had signed a petition). He was told tartly by the Tory leader that it was his Government's cuts which were responsible, and that having trimmed the fat they were now cutting into the bone.

Then his wife, an extremely wealthy woman in her own right, apparently has an adviser being paid £50K + to advise on her wardrobe, paid for at the public expense (Info courtesy of Daily Mail so it must be correct!) Why? Why is this not seen as sponging off the taxpayer? Sam Cam doesn't hold public office. Did Denis Thatcher claim such an allowance?

At the same time that DC preaches "we are all in it together", he is cutting allowances to the disabled and sick. That's the sort of think which sticks in people's throats. Even IDS managed to discover a long lost conscience.

I don't think we know what money SamCam has. Her step father has land (which doesnm't itself mean you have money) but that doesn't mean you hand loads of money to your step daughter in most families.

Paying a plumber in cash is not necessarily tax evasion. Cash is still legal . In fact as a matter of principle I pay in cafes in cash because I don't see why hackers or the state shoudl know where I am and what I am paying. If people on here stop using cash the state will abolish it and we will be left with a very big brother state. However if the plumber does not pay tax on the cash then yes that is a crime and is evasion, whereas if you pay into an ISA or pension you are doing tax avoidance but even if morally wrong you are not breaking the law.

if you pay into an ISA or pension you are doing tax avoidance but even if morally wrong you are not breaking the law.
How are they immoral? They are free of tax to encourage people to save, which is highly beneficial to society and reduces the call on benefits. And pensions over the basic limit will be taxed when they are taken out.

And I doubt I'd feel the need to lie about having an ISA, should I be the leader of a country.

are you suggesting someone lied about their tax status liney?

He bought shares in 1997 and sold them 6 years ago. In fact he sold all of his shares in everything when he became PM. He stated that he (nor his immediate family) held no shares on or offshore and benefits from no offshore trusts.

The shares he owned generated dividends which were all fully declared to the HMRC and all taxes due were paid.

Where did he lie?