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

[Nessalina]

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

[Alfieisnoisy]

It's legal so he's done nothing wrong?

So claiming benefits is legal therefore those who choose not to work are doing nothin wrong. Two sides of the same coin.

Personally I think those who can more than afford to pay tax should not be trying to reduce it. That money could go to schools, hospitals and all manner of public services being cut to the bone in the name of austerity. Just an example would be all the support services cut which could have been around to monitor the safety of little Ayeesha Jane Smith so brutally murdered by her so called mother. They might not have prevented it but many more people might have seen this child and the chances of saving her would have increased.

Another example would be the respite services for those families caring for loved ones with ill health or disabilities. Many cut completely so that families are not getting that respite.

Still as long as those who can reduce their tax bill are sitting pretty it doesn't matter does it?

People in Shiny Dave's position who can comfortably pay a proper tax bill should be doing so. Likewise Gideon's family who have a business which has allegedly paid no tax in seven years and apparently quite legally. Doesn't make it morally right,

[peggyundercrackers]

I don't understand why people are trying to compare Carr to Cameron - Cameron hasn't shoved all his salary through an offshore company then taken the money as a loan and as such avoided all tax. What carr done was completely illegal and despicable.

Camerons parents have just done what many other parents have done. I suspect many people who live in London and have expensive houses do exactly the same given their estate will leave them well over the IHT threshold.

[minifingerz]

People on very low incomes are expected to limit their family size and get jobs regardless of the fact that they may have a higher and more stable income on benefits, and with more children for moral reasons - because they owe it to their country to suck up the unpleasantness of living in poverty while also working their arses off doing an unskilled, often unpleasant and repetitive job.

Why then is it morally ok for the wealthy to seek to reduce their tax bill, given that the country NEEDS them not to do this and to pay the maximum rather than the legal minimum rate of tax?

The poor in this country have taken a disproportionately hard blow with austerity, with many having to eat less and heat their homes less. What sacrifices have the very wealthy made as a result of austerity?

It's also a disaster for local economies for governments to reduce the incomes of the poor in the way that ours has - poor people spend everything that they have and they spend it locally.

[AppleSetsSail]

Just an example would be all the support services cut which could have been around to monitor the safety of little Ayeesha Jane Smith so brutally murdered by her so called mother. They might not have prevented it but many more people might have seen this child and the chances of saving her would have increased.

This is one way of looking at it. Another is this: that child may as well have been living in a home that had abuse/neglect in flashing lights, and the many social workers who passed through were so incompetent or apathetic they were unable to do anything about it. Have you read anything to suggest that this was anything other than criminally poor judgement?

I've not seen anyone suggest that the social workers who saw that poor child missed the flashing neon signs because they were overstretched. To my mind, this is an indictment of a bloated bureaucracy that is so enormous and self-interested that it can't see the forest for the trees.

[ineedaholidaynow]

At what level of income do you decide when tax planning/avoidance becomes something people should not do?

We have a reasonable level of income, not exceptionally wealthy but comfortable. Should we not do tax planning? DH has had to buy shares in the business he works for. Yes that provides an income for us, but it also helps the business expand and employ more people, thereby helping the economy.

Companies need people investing in them.

[oliviaclottedcream]

YADBU and f*king deluded too. When the podgy faced, over privileged, bastard makes demands like //this on our tax money, he ought to be up front about his own.

Now he's trying to pretend to eat humble pie. 'Blame me'. How pathetic.

[lljkk]

YANBU.
Who decides what is the 'fair dues' amount of tax, in absence of legal rules to decide the tax due, some kind of kneejerk rules should apply instead?

Should all (rich) politicians should give away nearly all their wealth to the country?
That's one logical conclusion for calling them hypocrites because they used tax reduction strategies.

What next? SamCam's tax returns? That's effectively DC's money, too. What about the returns for rest of DC's family, Osborne's family, Kate Middleton's family...? Piers & Jeremy Corbyn? Anyone else 'owned' by taxpayers?

[TheWernethWife]

"None of us are responsible for our parent's politics or morals".

Tell that to Cameron who is upset about stuff said about his father - he wasn't bloody bothered when he slagged of Ed Miliband's dad was he

[LittleMisslovesspiders]

So claiming benefits is legal therefore those who choose not to work are doing nothin wrong

Don't you sign agreements to say you are actively looking for work?

[Rdoo]

I see there are some major head stuck in the sand conservatives on this thread.

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

No there aren't. There are some people not looking for something that isn't there.

PM pays his tax legally, - hold the front page.

[fakenamefornow]

Surely if he, or anybody else, if fiddling their taxes, that wouldn't appear on a tax return anyway? Not an accountant, so maybe it does have a 'tax avoided figure', doubt it though.

If everybody had to publish their tax returns, should that also mean people should publish benefits received?

[LittleMisslovesspiders]

I see there are some major head stuck in the sand conservatives on this thread.

I am not a conservative and I think that there are MPs on both sides of the house that could be stung by this.

[sulalovesbing]

I agree. I don't really care. All these lefties jumping on the bandwagon to get him fired are pathetic.

[Valmur]

Comparisons with Jimmy Carr are ridiculous. Carr indulged in aggressive tax avoidance which, if not illegal (which is debatable) certainly involved accounting in an unorthodox and misleading manner. Cameron has paid all due tax and accounted in a completely straight forward manner. There is no obligation, legal or moral, to pay more tax than is actually due.

[fakenamefornow]

I think one thing that might help is companies actually being companies. This company of DC's dad for instance, what does it do? What does it make? Answer, I'll bet is nothing, we just have layer upon layer of companies that have no purpose but to hide money and hide who owns/earns what.

[derxa]

This is all about an effort to smear Cameron ahead of the EU vote. Quite irrelevant beyond that. Agree
Cameron's done nothing wrong. Politics is about smearing your opponents. I wonder if the tax affairs of most MPs would pass the MN test. The expenses scandal was a scandal. This is not a scandal.

[Noneedforasitter]

Everyone on this thread in employment will be applying the personal allowance to their income, thus reducing their tax bill. No one is doing anything wrong, legally or morally, by doing so, they are just applying the basic tax laws.

The defence of Cameron on this thread is not right wing, it's just common sense.

[candykane25]

I do chuckle when people spit out the word lefties and think they are insulting us.

[Rdoo]

I agree. I don't really care. All these lefties jumping on the bandwagon to get him fired are pathetic
Calling people you don't agree with "lefties" as you perceive it to be an insult is more "pathetic".

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

'leftie' isn't an insult, is it?

Plenty of those on the left refer to themselves as"a bit of a leftie".

[TinkerbellaPan]

Let it be known that I think DC is an irritating red-faced buffoon and if he steps down I will enjoy watching him do so.

However, his situation in regards to the actual tax avoidance is different to JC's, so comparisons shouldn't be drawn in that respect.

I came across this video on fb yesterday which I found quite interesting and informative so thought I'd share: m.facebook.com/rob1972/posts/10154110468338000

(Apologies for mobile link, hope it works!)

[Mistigri]

Let it be known that I think DC is an irritating red-faced buffoon and if he steps down I will enjoy watching him do so.

Totally agree there. It's somewhat ironic that this is potentially the most damaging crisis of his career when he doesn't appear to have done anything "wrong" other than exercising somewhat poor judgement.

[Andrewofgg]

Where does it end? If the PM must release his tax returns who else?

Every MP?

Every councillor?

Every school governor?

Their OHs, siblings, grown-up children?

All of us?


This is a society which values privacy and I don't like it.

[Nessalina]

I agree with ineedaholiday - how exactly do you decide at what point someone becomes 'too rich' to morally avoid paying too much tax?
Someone who earns £26k and tries to put all their savings in a tax free ISA?
Someone who earns £50k and their parents give them a £10k gift to avoid the IHT? Still ok?
Someone who earns £150k and their mum gives them £100k after their dad passed away to avoid the IHT? Suddenly 'questionable' according to the press today...
Where do you draw the line of 'oh he's got loads of cash, he should pay much more tax than he has to because he can afford it'. Why should he??