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?

And neither should they be forced into agreeing...

Politically, they do seem to agree though Clash. Having read several different newspapers today, there does seem to be a consensus.

As for 'magical' powers, the power to make financial arrangements wholly transparent would be great.

in drafting legislation Parliament intends what the legislation says

You can't possibly predicate an argument on the basis of "well I know what the law says but that's not what everyone meant".

Haven't read the whole thread but OP get a grip! Am I responsible for my fathers alcoholism? Did I get the benefit of spending hours in the pub? Of course not! Whatever your opinion of DC he is NOT responsible for anything his father did. For all we know he was six months old FFS! Jeez you do read some absolute shite on here and that really takes the biscuit.

Ah yes. The newspapers

That's a pretty one-legged argument.

I don't disagree Clash hence I've tried to read a few so as to attempt to get a balance. Sadly, like our leaders, we get the press we deserve.

An ISA is a tax avoidance scheme promoted by the government.

Successive governments have considered them a "good thing" to encourage people to save.

An off shore tax haven" scheme is a tax avoidance scheme allowed by the government. Although legal, smacks of the already wealthy being greedy.

Cameron may not be responsible for his late father's tax affairs, but it doesn't look good when he bangs on about 'hard working families' when some the wealth which financed his upbringing wasn't a product of hard work. Nor does it look good, knowing that he has probably inherited some of that wealth, when he is hammering the sick and disabled.

There are far better things about DC to get worked up about than this.

peregrina taking your argument then, would you advocate a (lack of) wealth test for politicians? Or maybe senior civil servants?

I don't think its acceptable that rich people avoid tax. I think loopholes should be closed down, for businesses as well.

If DC had done this himself I would be frothing at the mouth whether it was legal or not.....because of his position. But he hasn't.

homebythesea I am not sure what you have read into my posting. I have no objection to people being wealthy, but it's one thing to gain wealth legitimately and manage your money prudently, but quite another to obtain it fraudulently. Some of these schemes clearly sailed very close to the wind as far as legality was concerned, and were primarily tax avoidance schemes rather than prudent financial management. The fact that the information being leaked has caused a stink is, to my mind, evidence of this. I doubt whether the information that x number of Britons hold ISA accounts would be news, never mind be worthy of leaking.

peregrina you said
Cameron may not be responsible for his late father's tax affairs, but it doesn't look good when he bangs on about 'hard working families' when some the wealth which financed his upbringing wasn't a product of hard work. Nor does it look good, knowing that he has probably inherited some of that wealth, when he is hammering the sick and disabled.

Taken to its logical conclusion you are saying that no-one with inherited (or gained otherwise) wealth can possibly legislate in relation to those less well off than they are

Some of these schemes clearly sailed very close to the wind as far as legality was concerned,
But were not in fact illegal

were primarily tax avoidance schemes rather than prudent financial management.
tax avoidance is in fact the same as prudent financial management.

homebythesea Your own interpretation entirely as to what logical conclusions can be drawn.

Some schemes were not illegal, but the fact that they have now been closed down suggests that they were seen as evasion rather than avoidance.

tax avoidance is in fact the same as prudent financial management.

This depends on your viewpoint: a scheme which has its primary aim of minimising a tax bill, without a business reason, may well be evasion. It can be a fine distinction.

Chris Moyles was informed by his accountant "NT Accountants' (NT stands for No Tax apparently) that the Working Wheels scheme, where he claimed to be a self-employed used car salesman, was 'legal'. Despite this, he was still ordered to pay back the tax he'd avoided.

I don't have a business reason to put my cash in an ISA instead of a normal bank account. It is entirely to avoid paying tax.

We have a BTL flat - it is in my name as I have a lower marginal tax rate than DS. We did it this way entirely to avoid paying 50% tax on the rental income.

MY FIL died and trusts were set up for the benefit of my children and DNs to avoid paying additional tax on his estate.

We have pension funds instead of saving in another way for retirement. Because it is tax efficient

DH's employer is registered in a tax haven to minimise tax payments, which indirectly benefits employees

All everyday tax avoidance. Nothing surprising, nothing no-one knew about before.

The scandal going on in Iceland is far more juicy and interesting than David Cameron's involvement here. The PM is up to his neck in it, and denied it on tv up the point he was shown something with his signature on (and then still kept denying!) as are some of his coalition partners. Of course all the banks went to prison there, if you believe the myth of how Iceland 'won' the economic melt down. (All bollocks made up to suit socialist agendas btw, which is so depressing I don't even know where to begin).

As for David Cameron. Personally, I don't like tax arrangements like this, even when they were legal. Nor do I like who has benefited from them either directly or indirectly. They are morally wrong and everyone doing it knows they are wrong and on the fringes of legality even when they were still legal. Hence the who business of secrecy in the first place. Even those who did it legally, played a part in legitimising this type of business and hiding illegal activity if only through the sheer amount and nature of this invisible transactions. The idea that they 'hurt no one' is hideously misguided.

However I don't believe it would be right to hold someone 'accountable' for their father's affairs as that sets a dangerous precedent for other financial arrangements. (Eg your father runs up dodgy debt and you are responsible after his death).

Also it is true that this government have been trying to close loopholes up. Not as aggressively as I'd like, but what did Mr Blair and Brown do? It is not a question of blue v red. Nor a question of class. More about those who have money, and therefore ability and reason to do this who comes from all social backgrounds originally.

I think its great this has come out for so many reasons. It will make it increasingly harder for individuals, groups and states to justify this and be able to hide it. But it is important we focus on what are the worst abuses here and what murky trails they find to elsewhere.

I don't think David Cameron should go. I think the Iceland PM should go, and I think he should be follows by a few other leading individuals throughout the world.

'tax avoidance is in fact the same as prudent financial management.'

Not according to protocols from the House of Commons Briefing Paper May 2015 : Tax Avoidance: a General Anti-Abuse Rule.

inkanta - see my examples above

Homebythesea

Your examples look in the main legitimate, but Parliament has made a distinction here between tax avoidance and legitimate tax planning.

"Tax avoidance is not the same as legitimate tax planning. Legitimate tax planning involves using tax reliefs for the purpose for which they were intended. For example, claiming tax relief on capital investment, saving in a tax-exempt ISA or saving for retirement by making contributions to a pension scheme are all legitimate forms of tax planning."

My examples show there are other ways to minimise tax payment other than use of tax relief. All of which are both legitimate and legal

its not a private matter we could all say that.

'its not a private matter we could all say that.'

That's true. If you're going to get on your soup box about Alan Carr then your own stuff is not private.