The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Dr_Pangloss]

21 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

Surely the key thing is that it says P.A. and fashion advisor?  It's not that ridiculous that a P.M.'s wife might need a personal assistant really.

What in the hell would she need a PA for?

[MakemineVanilla]

17 hours ago, Shaw_nuff said:

 

But- of course- such a law would never be introduced because the parasites that run the system are not stupid enough to allow the little to guy to follow their example.

But didn't the shopkeepers in a little Welsh town work out a scheme for off-shoring their profits?

They were reported as being uncomfortable with the idea, which seems to suggest that attitudes are cultural.

But how many people even do their best to ensure their estate is not subject to inheritance tax (40%)?

The 7-year rule is a very simple method of reducing the size of an estate, but I don't know anyone who has done it or are beneficiaries from such a move.

I am sure that the assumption that only the rich are allowed to do such things, prevents the 'little guy' from benefiting.

 

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

What in the hell would she need a PA for?

Someone's got to go back to the pub to get the kid(s).

[sharkyvilla]

2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I found the revelation of Cameron's hypocrisy when he condemned Jimmy Carr to be a real hoot, and his discomfiture is very gratifying.

Obviously when the Socialist utopia arrives, tax avoidance will carry the severest penalties and capital accumulation will be impossible as all assets will belong to the state and the value of money will have a limited lifespan, so no money and its accompanying advantages will be passed on from one generation to another.

The Cameron family are a perfect example of a certain class of people (kulaks) who make great efforts to pass on their ill-gotten gains from from one generation to the next.

As we all know, the Cameron family wealth derives from his great grandfather Ewen Cameron's time working for the Hong Kong and Shanghai bank, which was established to reap the rewards from the defeat of China in the Opium Wars. The bank acted as intermediaries and facilitators in the export of opium from India to the market the British had forced on China. During Ewen Campbell's time as chairman at the bank huge profits were made by financing the imperialist Russo-Japanese war, who were fighting over who should have the right to exploit Korea and Manchuria.

These are the origins of the Cameron family's wealth which dates back to the the 1860s and Ewen Cameron was rewarded a KCMG (1901), for his role in the furthering of British financial interests in the Empire.   

It is beyond doubt that David Cameron is still benefiting from his Victorian forebears' opportunism and it is impossible to imagine he would be Prime Minister without his family's determination to preserve their wealth over several generations.

To dwell on the minor benefits of recent advantageous tax arrangements is to reduce the real issues to trivia and overlook the bigger picture.  

   

Short of building a time machine, I'm not entirely sure what Cameron is supposed to do to change any of that?  

[blandy]

19 hours ago, Risso said:

"Man makes modest investment, pays tax on returns."

This video, if it works, explains things very well.  

12982163_1722927784610237_2041423283_n.mp4

"URL signature expired"

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Risso said:

Watch the video above and it'll explain why everything you've written is complete guff. 

I can't see the video. I imagine it says something like the gubbins was set up by his Dad when Thatcher allowed money to be moved abroad, and it was set up in the tax haven because that meant that people from all over the world could put money into it. That the trust was run from the tax haven and not from the UK, and that when profits were made, UK residents paid tax, where due, upon those profits. That he's done nothing illegal, and there are entirely legal and sound reasons why these funds can be set up and that all's well with the world, in that regard. Later on (2012) it was moved to another low tax jurisdiction, Ireland and people are still obliged to pay UK tax on their profits if they are UK residents.

Which is (if I've understood right) all true.

There remains though a huge web of criminality, embezzlement, corruption and tax avoidance conducted via tax havens, many British dependencies. Almost all UK people, practically are not in a position to benefit in the (legal) way Cameron did.

I suppose in essence it is another reminder to us that the world is not a fair place. A reminder that the wealthy, through legal or other means are much more able to avoid and evade paying their fair share of tax. A reminder that the Gov't cabinet is made up, in significant part, of millionaire sons of privilege. And we are reminded of various empty guff from the likes of Cameron that we are all in it together and so on. So we are reminded of their privilege, hypocrisy and difference from the rest of us.

I'm pretty confident that others will be caught (up) too, in due course. Which will be nice.

[Risso]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I can't see the video. I imagine it says something like the gubbins was set up by his Dad when Thatcher allowed money to be moved abroad, and it was set up in the tax haven because that meant that people from all over the world could put money into it. That the trust was run from the tax haven and not from the UK, and that when profits were made, UK residents paid tax, where due, upon those profits. That he's done nothing illegal, and there are entirely legal and sound reasons why these funds can be set up and that all's well with the world, in that regard. Later on (2012) it was moved to another low tax jurisdiction, Ireland and people are still obliged to pay UK tax on their profits if they are UK residents.

Which is (if I've understood right) all true.

There remains though a huge web of criminality, embezzlement, corruption and tax avoidance conducted via tax havens, many British dependencies. Almost all UK people, practically are not in a position to benefit in the (legal) way Cameron did.

I suppose in essence it is another reminder to us that the world is not a fair place. A reminder that the wealthy, through legal or other means are much more able to avoid and evade paying their fair share of tax. A reminder that the Gov't cabinet is made up, in significant part, of millionaire sons of privilege. And we are reminded of various empty guff from the likes of Cameron that we are all in it together and so on. So we are reminded of their privilege, hypocrisy and difference from the rest of us.

I'm pretty confident that others will be caught (up) too, in due course. Which will be nice.

 

Most of what you say is right Pete.  Cameron really has done nothing wrong here.  He invested in an offshore fund.  That particular one might have been out of reach of the average bloke in the street with its £100K minimum investment, but there are plenty of others that aren't, and at the risk of repeating myself, most pension schemes will have funds invested offshore.  Anybody can invest in offshore funds, and you don't need to be rich to do so.  There's no tax avoidance involved at all.

And yes, I'm sure that offshore places do indeed facilitate the sorts of things that you say are going on, although there's been a big push towards clearing things up over the years.  Clearly some places have a lot more work to do than others though.  I was pleased to see the lack of almost any mention at all of the Isle of Man in the Panama Papers stuff.  It's not surprising though, as the standards we're required to hit over here for anti-money laundering are extremely high, as is the tax information exchange info.

Again, you're right, the cabinet is made up of a lot of millionaires, but then so is the other side of the house.  As I pointed out earlier, Tony Benn left a multi-million pound property portfolio when he chucked a seven, and his family took steps (sensibly) to mitigate their IHT risk.  Ed and David Miliband did the same.  Then there's the utterly repugnant Margaret Hodge, who had to threaten legal action against newspapers if they as much as mentioned Stemcor.  And on your wider point, rich people will always be able to do stuff that the less well off can't, just because they're rich.

But Cameron really has made the most dreadful arse up of everything.  The issue is that a lot of offshore information has been released, a lot of it shady, but a lot of it completely benign.  Obviously the less dodgy stuff doesn't sell newspapers though, and he could have done with that lawyer bloke from the video running his PR office, as he shut the BBC journo up completely.

[Shaw_nuff]

5 hours ago, Risso said:

Watch the video above and it'll explain why everything you've written is complete guff. 

I did snd no it doesn't so guff off.

[Shaw_nuff]

3 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

But didn't the shopkeepers in a little Welsh town work out a scheme for off-shoring their profits?

They were reported as being uncomfortable with the idea, which seems to suggest that attitudes are cultural.

But how many people even do their best to ensure their estate is not subject to inheritance tax (40%)?

The 7-year rule is a very simple method of reducing the size of an estate, but I don't know anyone who has done it or are beneficiaries from such a move.

I am sure that the assumption that only the rich are allowed to do such things, prevents the 'little guy' from benefiting.

 

There's a fair point there. Most people wouldn't see the pile of bricks they need for shelter as an 'estate' I suppose, nor would have everyday access to an at-hand solicitor. The best solicitors would be prohibitive to all but those who would see them as a nominal fee for a much greater return.

[Risso]

24 minutes ago, Shaw_nuff said:

I did snd no it doesn't so guff off.

You mean you don't understand the issues.  Fair enough, I suppose it is easier to just disengage your brain and take what the Guardian says at face value.

[coda]

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

in dave eggers' novel the circle politicians become under pressure to become 'fully transparent'. they are pressured to wear a camera at all times and have all information about their personal lives readily available and those that seek privacy are treated with suspicion.

 

[Xann]

On 4/10/2016 at 16:10, Risso said:

... disengage your brain and take what the Guardian says at face value.

You should see what they're saying today...

Quote

 

The boss of Revenue & Customs (HMRC), the government department overseeing a £10m inquiry into the Panama Papers, was a partner at a top City law firm that acted for Blairmore Holdings and other offshore companies named in the leak.

Edward Troup, executive chair of HMRC since April, is a former partner at Simmons & Simmons, whose clients have included the Panama-registered fund created by David Cameron’s father, Ian.

 

Though he was there when all this was going on, they're covering their ass...

Quote

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Troup, Simmons & Simmons or any of its clients, and nothing in the files that indicates Troup personally advised any offshore company registered with Mossack Fonseca.

Grauniad

 

[maqroll]

 

[Rodders]

10 hours ago, coda said:

 

I'm more than willing to host a charitable chip-out scheme, all those wishing to lighten the Prime Minister's load put their details in to the pot and Dave gives us all a fiver each. Such a noble enactment of the big society too

[HanoiVillan]

13 hours ago, coda said:

How is Charles Moore still around?

[Xann]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

How is Charles Moore still around?

The blood of innocents.

[MakemineVanilla]

17 hours ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

in dave eggers' novel the circle politicians become under pressure to become 'fully transparent'. they are pressured to wear a camera at all times and have all information about their personal lives readily available and those that seek privacy are treated with suspicion.

 

The best thing about the book was its convincing prescience.

But I seem to remember that once it was established for politicians and high-ups, pressure quickly mounted for everyone else to comply.

The present demand for transparency is likely to reveal that a lot of people and agencies we would assume are against tax avoidance (Guardian journos and trade unions), have made arrangements to protect their assets.

As the Icelandic banking crisis revealed, a lot of local authorities had salted away their reserves off-shore, so it would seem likely that many will have investments which avoid tax.

No doubt those LAs will claim that such arrangements are made for the best possible motives.

It is a can of worms.

[tonyh29]

23 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

and trade unions),

and Islington council as it turns out .. wonder who their MP is 

[Risso]

18 hours ago, Xann said:

You should see what they're saying today...

Though he was there when all this was going on, they're covering their ass...

Grauniad

 

They put that in anything to do with tax these days, do the Graun.  "There's nothing to suggest that Mr X or X Limited have done anything naughty" when the express intention of putting that statement in is to make the reader think that they really are being very naughty indeed.

A lot of people need to be careful, as if this whirlwind starts getting out of hand, then MPs from all over the house are going to have to start answering some difficult questions.  And they could start with Ken Livingstone and Margaret Hodge, by way of example.