...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

I think the importance of this debacle isn't what Cameron did, but the way he has been caught out looking hypocritical and less than honest, and frankly incompetent.

Not the qualities one would wish for in a national leader, really.

IPity, yes it's not lefties behind all this yes as a conservative voter I certainly do see that. Partially anyway.

Also as more in the Brexit camp, I wouldn't mind at all if Cameron resigned to destabilise the remain camp.

I don't think he should feel he has to resign though. And I dont think it would be right over this issue.

But the lefties are behind it as well. Most of the banners I saw in photos of the rally thing yesterday had 'Socialist Worker' prominently written on them.

Things were different before the 2008 crash. I think people just compared interest rates and thoughts about onshore and offshore were not particularly of interest as UK was doing fine.

However after the crash there was less government money for public services so there was new interest in where people were investing. Therefore DC taking the money out of the trust in 2010 was adjusting to the new reality.

I find it annoying he is getting flamed for this when he has caused/ allowed so many worse things to happen on his watch: bedroom tax, seven day NHS funded through reduction on junior doctors pay, universal credit, reorganisation of the health services at the same time as freeze on health services, failed to check progression of ISIS, academies and free schools at the same time as huge funding reductions in schools, badger cull, attack on the BBC, tuition fees.

I am just hoping this won't hand the referendum to the out campaign

The ignorance about these investment is amazing , this was NOT a private family overseas trust , it was not even a trust at all .It was an investment in an open ended investment company ( similar to a unit trust ) .It was a company registered in Panama , and domiciled in Ireland for reasons other than tax .It was fully regulated under the uk investment regulations.

Anyone can buy units in an OEIC and most are held via roverseas registered companies .Millions of people in this country have units in similar vehicles , if you have a managed stocks and shares ISA or a pension fund it will probably hold units in an OeIC.This fund was open to any investor , albeit at the riskier end of the scale , it's about as common investment as you can get after a bank account.

There is NO tax saving for the individual , this was an income fund so all the income was paid out every year and is put on the recipients tax return and income tax paid .On disposal the gain is declared and taxable in the same way .

DC probably held this as part of a wider portfolio , as is common with people holding public office he probably instructed the whole portfolio to be sold when he took office , he probably didn't routinely look at the individual holdings and almost certainly would not have been aware that it was registered in Panama.Has anyone here who holds shares in unit trusts or in an ISA checked to see where the underlying company is registered .If you are really concerned you should look because it often is not the UK .

This is a complete storm in a teacup , made up by the media and fuelled by the politics of envy .Very few intelligent people in politics are critiquing him because they probably have these investments too .

It is a complete storm in a teacup, but I don't think people tend to be terribly financially sophisticated so it's easy to make negative headlines out of a non story.

On a similar note, I''m a big fan of AIM VCTs. All growth and dividends are tax free and you get a tax rebate from HMRC of 30% of your initial investment. However, if I mention this to my ILs, they think I'm involved in some big tax dodge! There are numerous ways to legally minimise taxes. Gifting to lower inheritance tax liability is one of the most straightforward ways possible.

This is how it seems today, regardless of legality.
Inheritance tax threshold is £325,000
DC officially inherits £300,000
DC 12 months later, in a new tax year, received £100, 000 and £100, 000 as gigs from ha mother.
So he inherited £500,000 but avoided paying inheritance tax.

This is a misunderstanding of how IHT works. IHT is charged on the estate, not the recipient. I read somewhere that his fathers' estate was £2m plus so there would have been a great deal of IHT paid before the beneficiaries received their share.

The money paid later by his mum is from her assets, and if she survives 7 years will not form part of her estate.

But Pity isn't the Labour Party largely supporting the 'Remain' campaign in the EU Referendum? - so damaging Cameron at this stage not really helpful to their cause?

And not really astro-turfing MN type true blue Tories who are out to destroy him either. Not many Gove or UKIP supporters, for example on MN

Completely agree WRT Nothing to hide. Nothing to Fear - there seems to be a big dose of 'Know Your Place' too

the Royal Family's tax/financial affairs will never see the light of day in this centuary/ever

but the latest headline about his mother gifting him £200,000 which he will only pay tax on if she dies within 7 years of the gift is an entirely normal and widespread practice. Yes this is what my dad did and we are benefiting from it. I'm damned if I feel guilty about it either. My mum and dad worked hard to build up a business. God awful long hours on a dairy farm. They didn't do it to hand money over to the tax man.

Lefties are just pathetic full stop

Please elaborate. This is a broad statement.

What Hilda said. Also I would recommend that people watch and listen to what the tax lawyer who was interviewed (think it was BBC?) said - someone posted a link upthread. There are a lot of comments on this thread which indicate people have no idea about tax, investment, companies etc.

It's off at a tangent but I want to say this: a poster up-thread says that no-one pays more tax than they can get away with. I think that's not true. Isn't it something that JKRowling and Eltin John are known for? Both have chosen to not take up various non-resident loopholes, etc.
Not sur about the rest of their tax set-up but ... just thought I'd mention that.

For what it's worth, I think tax is too easily avoided -legally avoided - by the very well-off. It's not OK.

But it makes me very angry that I sense this is linked to the EU debate.

I hope as much energy will be expended on the tax affairs, and income, of the Blair family, and the Kinnock family also.

I really don't see any 'lefties behind this'. This and the other anti-Cameron stories we've had recently really are the pro-exit Tories getting out the knives.

cat unless you can persuade J K Rowling to publish her tax return we will never know. I am quite sure that she makes full use of legitimate tax avoidance tools. She is well known for her charitable philanthropy (one of many legitimate ways of reducing a tax bill )

Goblin - why? Is Blair the PM? Is Kinnick the PM?
Are they cutting disability benefits by £30 a week?

Politicians should never get into morals. It always comes back to haunt them and they get caught with their trousers down. Reducing your tax affairs lawfully is a moral good. It means you love your family and want to care for them. Cameron should never have spoken out against lawful avoidance. Silly him.

However I don't think it will affect the EU vote - UK voters are very sensible. On right and left we know it makes sense to stay in and stay in we shall.

Goblin whoever is in power should be setting a good example for the country so yes, while Blair was in power I'd certainly have been interested in dodgy tax goings on, especially if he'd been spouting on about the immorality of it. I'm sure there'd be some tax 'planning' going on there but as he's no longer PM it's not as relevant now.

Kinnock wasn't really a contender so not sure why you'd want to look at his, unless you wanted all MPs to be investigated.

Eustace hello again.
In your opinion reducing your tax share is morally good.
In my opinion avoiding tax when you are in charge of austerity measures is morally bad.
Asserting over and over again that it is morally good to avoid tax does not make it true.

candy. What a strange statement! By your own logic asserting over and over again that it is morally bad doesn't make it true either.

Some warped thinking and complete misunderstanding of how the real world operates on this thread.

Does anyone remember that what DC's mother did is very similar to what Tony Benn did after his wife died? He did not want his children - one of whom was and is an MP - to pay more tax than was legally required when he died and he acted accordingly. And I don't blame him. He was right.

Thank god we've got you here to set us straight Anthony with all your facts about how the real world works rather than just your opinions. Oh, wait...

David Cameron presided over the change in child benefit which means my husband is taxed on some income I receive. As he's involved himself in my tax affairs, I reserve the right to be interested in his.

Fwiw though I have no issue with the gifts from his mother. Other posters are right, that's normal practice. He's just lucky his mum has followed his dad wishes and not blown the cash on toyboys and fast living which is the risk with that strategy.

They should make everyone's tax returns public. Reducing your tax bill as much as you can is morally wrong in my opinion, that tax money is needed.

anthony in your opinion