David Cameron has to resign.

[PirateSmile]

If there is any evidence he has had even one penny of benefit from his father's dodgy tax arrangement, surely Cameron has to go?
He's saying 'it's a private matter' whilst presumably working on his notes for next month's conference on cracking down on such tax scams. You really couldn't make it up. He will no doubt plead ignorance but that's no defence. He is the PM. He should know he's benefiting from is essentially large scale fraud.
Are we really going to let him get away with this?

Oh meant to post that on yet another DC should resign thread

I agree with grumpy in the sense that I don't think he has done anything obviously shady, and it appears that he deserves some credit for making sure that his tax affairs were squeaky clean when he became party leader. (I can't stand the man but credit where credit is due.)

But the fact that he squashed EU efforts to make offshore funds more traceable/accountable really doesn't look good in this context. And his PR management over the last few days has been shocking, though in fairness the press knives are out and the best spinning in the world may not be enough.

Yes sorry op, I'll post it on the other identical thread.

My feeling is its up there with the awful right wing press over Ralph Milliband.

Ralph Miliband: "The man who hated Britain"

Ian Cameron: "David Cameron’s father took detailed legal advice about the pros and cons of different tax havens before the fund he had helped set up was transferred to Ireland" (which incidentally was at the same time that David Cameron was saying “Some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong”).

I'm not sure Ian Cameron is being traduced to the same extent.

I have very strong feelings of dislike for DC, but I can't see that he's broken the law in any way.

He obviously realised he was on slightly dodgy ground given that he got rid of his shares before becoming PM, but I don't think any worse of him now than I did before. It's hardly surprising to find out that an MP has been using methods to try and squeeze out a bit more profit. And it isn't surprising to me to discover that DC has been hypocritical.

However, if we are objecting to this on moral grounds, and saying Something Must Be Done, where do we draw the line? There are families in Britain with inherited wealth going back centuries, how far back are we looking to find dodgy activity? Should we be looking into the finances of DC's grandparents and great grandparents?

Even if DC were to resign, who would we get? There's information online about the tax dealings of companies linked to George Osbourne and his family. Is BoJo squeaky clean?

Fuck knows what the answer is though. Other than revolution of course.

I think the problem is that very few people understand the different types of investment fund out there and their respective tax treatments.

The left wing press are taking advantage of that and making out that Cameron has done something shady in the past, when in reality he has only done what thousands - probably millions- of investors small and large have also done, perfectly legally.

A £16k profit on a £30k investment held for several years is good but not obscene.

And I say that as a left-winger myself.

grumpy

It's nothing to do with his rich background.

It's the morality of taking advantage of the schemes he is supposed to be tackling.

It's the forcing the most vulnerable to bear the brunt of austerity measures on one hand but avoiding psying tax in the other.

He sold his shares in 2010!so he wouldnt be caught.

The legality is irrelevant. It's the morality and credibility which damages him.

Metalheads also makes a good point. Many people's ancestors probably benefited from the salve trade in the past (and other equally pernicious trades). Do we hold their descendants to that?

What about people who invest in tobacco companies, which indirectly kill millions every day. Most people who have any money in any pension or other investment probably have benefited from that.

Where do you draw the line?

The situation with Cameron happened in the currency of his Tory leadership. Perhaps that's where the line should be drawn GrumpyOldBag

grumpy

I don't have a problem seeing the line.

As others have said, the issues are firstly that David Cameron was asked to be honest and he chose not to be and instead repeatedly issued weaselly-worded evasive statements and secondly that he has shown himself to be a hypocrite.

In his favour at least he didn't declare himself to be a pretty straight sort of guy so it's not like we should be that surprised.

The legality is irrelevant
Indeed!
The ruling classes don't need to break laws, they are in a position to make the laws so that they further their own interests

Exactly suzanne

Why is it legal to avoid tax?

It does not benefit me in any way.

It does however negatively impact me.

Who made the tax loopholes?

Yep
The main defence of the very wealthy who are in a position to benefit from offshoring seems to be, 'oh well, but they played by the rules'
Well, duh
The rules were not delivered from on high from a beneficent impartial supercomputer
No the rules were set up by the people who benefit the most from them, nice work if you can get it😒

The loopholes weren't created intentionally, but have been identified and exploited by clever accountants. It's a result of years and years of complicated tax legislature.

Of course the benefit of complex tax legislation is that those with access to the best accountants are able to 'game' the system

The specific loopholes may not have been designed, but the overall system which allows loopholes to exist was designed.
Or at the very least it was designed by default via the failure to simplify the tax system

Yes. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.

What about self-employed people who conveniently have enough expenses to keep their income below a certain level, even if that is a low level. Say, enough to keep claiming child benefit. How many self-employed people are 100% truthful when it comes to tax matters?

Or is it only the really wealthy that we have a problem with?

Should anyone who has benefited from any tax avoidance scheme be barred from being a party leader? Even if that tax avoidance was done by an ancestor of that person?

All the people defending Cameron please answer this, why did Cameron say Jimmy Carr was immoral for doing the same thing?
So he obviously knew it was wrong.
People saying it was his dad and not him well he had the shares and must have known

all child benefit is universal.

And 2010 is not ancient history.

Cameron has done plenty of preaching about 'hard working families'. I wonder just how much 'hard work' was involved when he sold his Blairmore shares - a phone call/letter/email to an accountant, or a document requiring a signature? Oh dear, it's a hard way to earn £31500.

I've 9 GCSEs, 3 A-levels, a degree and a post grad qualification and worked for 25yrs and i've never earned £31,500 in a year.
I do have a disability though, which even with Access to Work meant I was disadvantaged.
I'm not envious of DCs money but you can't expect s man of his means to understand what real life is like and why we might not be impressed with him cutting benefits whilst having a "that's all I have" mentality.

I agree, OP. Surely DC's position is untenable now.

This is worth a read, from 2012:

Jimmy Carr tax arrangements 'morally wrong', says David Cameron:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron

I love the way he says he's 'read about' these schemes, as if he had no knowledge of them before! He clearly thought this would never come out.

"very dodgy tax avoidance scheme"
Says DC. But it's ok folks, cos it's legal doncha know.

The schemes used by Jimmy Carr et al used were established fir the sole purpose of avoiding personal tax liability.

Not comparable to DC's situation in any way