Huge leak exposes elite's tax havens

[Rincewind]

It is like some people have an iron bar wedged in their car;s steering mechanism on here.  

[Webbo]

If Corbyn was benefiting personally from private, undeclared donations from trade unions, would you say that was "his business" and that he should be judged only on his policy? I wouldn't. I'd say that it was a potential conflict of interest and such donations should be declared.

 

I gather that Cameron is now promising that he won't benefit in the future from his Dad's tax avoidance schemes, but is declining to comment as to whether he benefited in the past. Whether or not he did, that's an unwise approach. If he didn't, he could just say so. If he did, he could say, "yes, I did benefit from my Dad's tax avoidance, but I didn't know where his money had been (even if he did) and I'll make an equivalent donation to HMRC or charity"?

 

As for equivalence with Miliband's Dad, there is none:

- Nobody is denying that Cameron Sr was involved in tax avoidance: that's perfectly legal, unlike tax evasion. We can form our own moral/political views on that, but the only political issue is whether his son benefited, thereby compromising his political stance on tax avoidance. Nobody has told lies about the Camerons - or even suggested that Cameron Sr was "the man who hated Britain", because he exploited legal loopholes to avoid contributing to the British exchequer. 

- Likewise, nobody denies that Miliband Sr, was a lifelong Marxist and supporter of the hard left. Again, people can make their own judgments on that, but holding/expressing such views is perfectly legal. But on that basis - and based on a diary note about British nationalism written when he was 17 - he was accused of being "the man who hated Britain". This was despite the fact that he chose to come here to escape Hitler and chose to stay here (paying his taxes as far as I'm aware) - and served in the Royal Navy during WW2, including during the Normandy landings. I can just imagine the Mail's response if someone accused WW2 veterans in general of "hating Britain" just because they supported political change - say voting UKIP or Brexit.

 

Here's the Mail's lies about Miliband Senior, and son Ed's response:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2439593/Why-father-loved-Britain-Ed-Miliband.html

I suspect if there was a tory whose father was a keen supporter of fascism you wouldn't be quite so forgiving.

[Buce]

I suspect if there was a tory whose father was a keen supporter of fascism you wouldn't be quite so forgiving.

And I'm certain that Alf has more integrity than that.

[Strokes]

Of course it's party political.

The government have made a big deal about cracking down on tax avoidance - how can they be trusted to do so if they have a vested interest?

Everything else you have said is your standard strawman answer: what other countries' leaders do is irrelevant - we - as voters and British citizens have a right to know what our politicians are up to.

Yeah I agree with that, any politician found to be part of tax avoidance schemes should be promptly sacked. I know it isn't illegal but the government has positioned itself in such a way that it cannot carry these.

[Webbo]

Where's the evidence that Cameron has benefited from tax avoidance? (Not that it's illegal anyway)

[Buce]

Where's the evidence that Cameron has benefited from tax avoidance? (Not that it's illegal anyway)

There is no evidence - yet, but if he has nothing to hide, why is he behaving as if he has? Truth avoidance?

Nobody is suggesting it's illegal. Many would question the morality, though.

[Webbo]

There is no evidence - yet; if he has nothing to hide, why is he behaving as if he has?

Nobody is suggesting it's illegal. Many would question the morality, though.

What has he done that suggests that?

[Buce]

What has he done that suggests that?

He has given 'partial answers' on three occasions:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/06/david-cameron-and-family-will-not-gain-from-offshore-funds-in-future

[Webbo]

He has given 'partial answers' on three occasions:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/06/david-cameron-and-family-will-not-gain-from-offshore-funds-in-future

In terms of my own financial affairs, I own no shares. I have a salary as prime minister and I have some savings, which I get some interest from and I have a house, which we used to live in, which we now let out while we are living in Downing Street and that’s all I have. I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description.

 

 

and

 

To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares.

As has been previously reported, Mrs Cameron owns a small number of shares connected to her father’s land, which she declares on her tax return.

 

Seems pretty clear to me, unless you work on the assumption that he's a tory so he must be lying.

Now a reporter is saying he hasn't mentioned siblings , maybe his Dad bought him an expensive present with the money he earned from this scheme, who knows? It seems a desperate attempt to make something out of nothing.

 

Don't know why my bit's in itallics.

[Buce]

Seems pretty clear to me, unless you work on the assumption that he's a tory so he must be lying.

Now a reporter is saying he hasn't mentioned siblings , maybe his Dad bought him an expensive present with the money he earned from this scheme, who knows? It seems a desperate attempt to make something out of nothing.

Don't know why my bit's in itallics.

He says that he does not benefit now, will not in the future (all of which had to dragged out of him), but still refuses to address whether he has benefitted previously.

To me, he is behaving like someone with something to hide.

[Webbo]

He says that he does not benefit now, will not in the future (all of which had to dragged out of him), but still refuses to address whether he has benefitted previously.

To me, he is behaving like someone with something to hide.

Would it be fair to say you're not exactly unbiased?

[Alf Bentley]

I suspect if there was a tory whose father was a keen supporter of fascism you wouldn't be quite so forgiving.

 

 

Your blinkered cynicism is misplaced, sir!

 

Nobody should be judged by their parents' beliefs or actions, only by their own. Cameron deserves no criticism for his father having avoided tax - and would deserve no criticism if his father had been a fascist. My Dad's father was an active member of the Irish Blueshirts (small-time quasi-fascists) in the 1930s, though I only knew him as a kind old man who gave me a ride in his horse and cart and bought me a top-of-the-range ice lolly. My Dad grew up as a Bevanite Labour supporter, so it would be a bit odd to blame him for his father's "fascism".

 

People can form their own view on Miliband Senior's politics (from what little I know, I disagree with him) and on Cameron Senior's tax avoidance (legal but immoral, in my view). But they did nothing illegal, as far as I'm aware, and were not democratic representatives, so their actions are pretty unimportant. Ed Miliband was a democratic representative, so if he'd been engaged in revolutionary plots, he'd deserve criticism - but he wasn't. Cameron is the country's senior democratic representative and has announced a policy to tackle the scourge of tax avoidance. So if he has benefited financially from his father's tax avoidance, then he is a hypocrite with a conflict of interest that makes it hard to take seriously his commitment to tackling tax avoidance.

I should stress that I'm not referring to his Eton fees (he was a child, so cannot be blamed for that) but to his inheritance on his father's death. He should say whether he inherited any money from tax havens - and, if so, whether he demonstrated the sincerity of his opposition to tax avoidance by paying the tax that would have been due on it and not just pocketing it.

 

For the record, I don't think Tories "hate Britain". I don't even think Nick Griffin "hates Britain" - he'd just love a very different sort of Britain to the sort that I'd love. It was despicable that the Mail described Miliband Senior, a refugee from the Nazis who served Britain in WW2 and devoted his life to British academia, as "the man who hated Britain" - and doubly despicable that they sought to use that lie to smear his son, who didn't even share his views. If anyone did that to a Tory, I'd also find it despicable.

 

 

Would it be fair to say you're not exactly unbiased?

 

Imaginary scenario:

 

Interviewer: Mr. Corbyn, is there any truth in the allegation that you've been accepting backhanders?

Corbyn: I can formally and pompously announce that neither I nor my family are currently receiving any backhanders.

Interviewer: But, Mr. Corbyn, have you received backhanders in the past and will you receive them in the future?

Corbyn: I can categorically state that in the future I shall never receive any backhanders.

 

Wouldn't your first thought be: "It sounds as if this mealy-mouthed weasel accepted backhanders in the past...he needs to clarify that!" 

[Rincewind]

He cannot say it about the future TBF But a good post.

[Webbo]

 

 

Imaginary scenario:

 

Interviewer: Mr. Corbyn, is there any truth in the allegation that you've been accepting backhanders?

Corbyn: I can formally and pompously announce that neither I nor my family are currently receiving any backhanders.

Interviewer: But, Mr. Corbyn, have you received backhanders in the past and will you receive them in the future?

Corbyn: I can categorically state that in the future I shall never receive any backhanders.

 

Wouldn't your first thought be: "It sounds as if this mealy-mouthed weasel accepted backhanders in the past...he needs to clarify that!" 

I wouldn't if the evidence was just tittle tattle regarding one of his relatives. I might point out the hypocrisy of some of his supporters, what 1 man's father does proves he's a crook, what our bloke' s father does is irrelevant and you're a terrible person for implying that it does.

I don't blame Labour for trying to smear Cameron, that's politics, anyone who chooses a career in that knows the risks. I just wish Labour didn't pretend they were on a different moral plain.

[Jon the Hat]

I think regardless of whether his father made or kept money offshore, Dave has a right to his inheritance subject to the usual taxation as long as it was legally earned.  The fact that Dave is clearly tightening the rules on these kinds of schemes is a positive thing, and not impacted by whether or not he might have inherited some money (if he even has at this stage - his mother is still with us) which may or may not have been partially earned or held offshore.

[Buce]

Cameron 'blocked EU crackdown on tax on offshore trusts in 2013':

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

[Jon the Hat]

Cameron 'blocked EU crackdown on tax on offshore trusts in 2013':

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

 

Or indeed "Cameron proposed different approach for trusts and companies" perhaps recognising that companies offer a much larger prize.

[Buce]

Would it be fair to say you're not exactly unbiased?

In as much that I am cynical of the honesty and integrity of any politician, yes.

But just because he's a Tory? No. You're judging me by your own standards. There isn't another poster on here who blindy toes the party line like you do, and I'm not the only one to have pointed that out to you.

No offence intended.

[Alf Bentley]

I wouldn't if the evidence was just tittle tattle regarding one of his relatives. I might point out the hypocrisy of some of his supporters, what 1 man's father does proves he's a crook, what our bloke' s father does is irrelevant and you're a terrible person for implying that it does.

I don't blame Labour for trying to smear Cameron, that's politics, anyone who chooses a career in that knows the risks. I just wish Labour didn't pretend they were on a different moral plain.

 

 

Of course, there are hypocrites on all sides - and politicians on all sides will seek party political advantage out of their opponents' every embarrassment. 

There IS a genuine issue of credibility here, though - and I'd think the same if a Labour politician had received cash from a family member that might be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as skewing their judgment of a political issue. Or if a Labour politician wriggled and avoided giving full answers about any significant gifts they'd received.

 

I've stated my case, anyway: what Cameron's father did may have been immoral to some, but doesn't taint Cameron.....what matters is whether he benefited from it, and is being fully honest about that.

 

I've no problem with Tories slating Miliband's father for his hard left views - on a par with slating Cameron's father for tax-dodging, though irrelevant re. their sons in both cases. Accusing a WW2 veteran of "hating Britain" because of his political views in order to smear his son by association is on quite a different level. It's a shame you prefer "Yah! Boo!" politics. A better debate is possible.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Although the mud being thrown at Cameron regarding his personal affairs will only largely stick for people who originally had a poor impression of the guy, what should be interesting is what happens going on from here.

The problem as I see it is that the issue highlights a need to act in a way that would be completely against the Tory party ethos and the interests of some its biggest backers - to try and push for more regulation in these tax havens so that more tax is paid in the origin country.

I imagine the normal tactic would have been to grandstand but have little in terms of meaningful action behind the sentiments, but this doesn't seem possible given we've already had grand statements in this area in terms of Jimmy Carr and the Google / Starbucks tax debacles.

That may mean we see some actual action in this area, although it probably won't go as far as to be fully meaningful.

Out of interest - does anyone know whether the non-Dom changes muted before the election have been taken forward?

[Dodgy Bob]

Is basing an investment fund abroad as Cameron's father did really morally wrong? I can see why it is for a company like Amazon who make their money from this country but an investment fund might not even invest in any UK companies. If a company takes no benefit from a specific country is it still under moral obligation to pay that country tax?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Is basing an investment fund abroad as Cameron's father did really morally wrong? I can see why it is for a company like Amazon who make their money from this country but an investment fund might not even invest in any UK companies. If a company takes no benefit from a specific country is it still under moral obligation to pay that country tax?

If the investment fund was mainly run from the small island in question... traded in the related currency, benefited the local population to some degree etc, etc, etc - then no, there's nothing morally wrong.

But to setup your company in a little known, little visited island, simply to enjoy the tax status etc - there's something that doesn't sit quiet right with me and I'd be disapointed if the majority didn't feel this way.

Ok, it could be viewed as sensible to protect family wealth as much as possible and has been accepted by some as what rich people do... but those are excuses, not reasons why it's morally right to do it.

It's not too different from diving in football no?

[Rincewind]

Is it not similar to someone on benefits putting assets in somebody's else's name so to still claim? The government is cracking down on this.

When one of my brothers had a short separation with his wife, instead of her claiming maintenance of him for their children he gave her it himself. That saved him and her money. Not so sure the DWP would see it like that though but they are not millionaires and were doing it just to survive a little better. He was not being greedy or going out his way to con anyone. He worked full time and paid NI and income tax. Yet if a person on benefits goes £10 over the max in a bank account the benefits are stopped.

Is it any wonder some hide money under the bed or declare any windfall? Yet there is a different attitude to those with a few million to spare with the 'they are looking after their family future' and 'if the taxes were not so high' and 'I don't use that service so should not pay taxes for them

I guess you have to treat each case different as it is not as simple as it seems. Most people look for ways to make money go further and the more you have the easier it becomes .Personally,  I am happy with what I have. I am not one of those obsessed with having more.

[Jon the Hat]

Is it not similar to someone on benefits putting assets in somebody's else's name so to still claim? The government is cracking down on this.

When one of my brothers had a short separation with his wife, instead of her claiming maintenance of him for their children he gave her it himself. That saved him and her money. Not so sure the DWP would see it like that though but they are not millionaires and were doing it just to survive a little better. He was not being greedy or going out his way to con anyone. He worked full time and paid NI and income tax. Yet if a person on benefits goes £10 over the max in a bank account the benefits are stopped.

Is it any wonder some hide money under the bed or declare any windfall? Yet there is a different attitude to those with a few million to spare with the 'they are looking after their family future' and 'if the taxes were not so high' and 'I don't use that service so should not pay taxes for them

I guess you have to treat each case different as it is not as simple as it seems. Most people look for ways to make money go further and the more you have the easier it becomes .Personally,  I am happy with what I have. I am not one of those obsessed with having more.

 

Woah hang on a minute Ken.  Are you implying that the poor also bedn the rules a little?  Jesus.

 

Also, for someone not interested in money you spend a whole lot of time talking about it.

 

And no, having offshore investments is not the same as fraudulently claiming benefits you are not entitled to.

[Rincewind]

I think you misunderstood my post. Never mind forget it.

 

Yes sometimes they have to to feed themselves and pay bills

I was talking about other people not me.

Offshore investments are completely different to fraudulently evading paying taxes. Defrauding benefits is also wrong.

 

Looks an interesting programme on tonight. I'll be out though.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076vtmz