Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[Obelix]

But you must realise that 10s of millions of Brits take money out of the country every year without declaring it.

 

I wasn't talking about taking money overseas...?

[foxy lady]

I wasn't talking about taking money overseas...?

 

I was talking about those naughty people who take money on holidaty and use it to buy things whilst abroad.

[I1L2T3]

I think you need to clarify the two issues in bold first (which are objective issues), before considering the likelihood of any influence (which is subjective).

 

This isn't a defence of Cameron, I'm just looking at the issue in logical and dispassionate terms.

 

Beyond that, unsurprisingly, each persons' bias -as informed by their experience and knowledge of course- can colour the situation either way.

 

Accessorily and anecdotally also, as the relation of a person with decades-old arrangements in a 'secretive banking jurisdiction', about which I still don't know the first thing to this day (other than 'they exist and go back a ways')...and have no wish to either, I can perfectly well believe that Cameron knew little <if anything> of his Dad's arrangements until his Dad passed away and he became an executor or trustee.

 

Indeed. Which is why I'm not jumping to conclusions and just stating the questions that need answering. The first one of course is how much money tyhe Cameron family invested, and whether David Cameron stands to benefit from that investment. Quite possibly they have invested nothing and are simply defending their privacy. The difficulty is the potential conflict of interest and that might be a subjective thing as you say. Just looking for a bit of transparency and consistency from our PM, that's all.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 12:01 ----------

 

So?

 

I mean so what? Oh of course. He gets to smear Cameron because DC doenst have the time or inclination to publish it so he must be hiding something.

 

Please - this is just childrens politics.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 11:53 ----------

 

 

The secrecy that the fund allowed?

 

Oh you mean the secrecy that every fund allows, be that UK based or not. You don't know how much I've got in a particular UK fund, nor will you ever, similar for DC.

 

All you are doing is pointing at something hs father did and when people point at things Millibands father did I'll bet you are the first to whine it's wrong and there are mean Tories about.

 

Talk about double standards.

 

Actually if you read my earlier post I stated clearly that I didn't condone it, just that a like-for-like attack should be expected.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 12:03 ----------

 

Why what have you got to hide?

 

Nothing.

 

What do you think I might be hiding?

[L00b]

Indeed. Which is why I'm not jumping to conclusions and just stating the questions that need answering. The first one of course is how much money tyhe Cameron family invested, and whether David Cameron stands to benefit from that investment. Quite possibly they have invested nothing and are simply defending their privacy. The difficulty is the potential conflict of interest and that might be a subjective thing as you say. Just looking for a bit of transparency and consistency from our PM, that's all.

Well, you need to dissociate investment, which is not taxable under any stretches of meaning, from income, which is taxable at relevant rates within relevant thresholds - in the UK if you are a UK taxpayer, regardless of where that income is generated.

 

So in the absence of capital and transaction amount controls (of old), "how much money the Cameron family invested" is none of your or anyone else's business.

 

"whether David Cameron stands to benefit from that investment" is a legitimate question for HMRC, in terms of either inheritance taxation or income taxation or both, since David Cameron is a UK resident and therefore taxpayer. If the investment is not generating any income (e.g. this fiscal year), there's nothing to tax, so the issue is moot.

 

If there is an income, then what will also be material, is where that income is effectively generated and what the latest local laws are.

 

You might find out that the vehicle's income and taxable gains are generated in e.g. Luxembourg.

 

Hooo, boo-hiss, tax avoidance, tax evasion, bankers, evil, yadda-yadda-yadda.

 

Until you inform yourself and realise that banking secrecy in Luxembourg is no more, and that banks there now shop your earnings anyway, to HMRC when you are a UK taxpayer, to the Fisc when you are a French taxpayer, <etc.> as part of the global and ongoing eradication of tax havens. Same in Switzerland, same in Liechtenstein.

 

So in that example context, the suspicion that Mr Cameron's tax affairs are perfectly in order (notwithstanding the existence and use of offshore domiciliation), as opposed to way out-of-kilter, is at least equally strong. And still none of your or Joe Public's business.

Edited April 5, 2016 by L00b

[Obelix]

Indeed. Which is why I'm not jumping to conclusions and just stating the questions that need answering. The first one of course is how much money tyhe Cameron family invested, and whether David Cameron stands to benefit from that investment. Quite possibly they have invested nothing and are simply defending their privacy. The difficulty is the potential conflict of interest and that might be a subjective thing as you say. Just looking for a bit of transparency and consistency from our PM, that's all

 

They have exactly the same right to privacy as you and I that's all. I fail to see why you think you have any right whatsoever to see what his investments are. The amount he's invested is irrelevant. Where it's invested is irrelevant.

 

All that is relevant is that when profits/returns/dividends are made then the appropriate tax is paid to the UK authorities. I don't see any evidence that this isn't the case.

 

I've got investments in the Bahamas. (used to have some in Panama as well). Does that automatically mean that I'm dodging UK tax you think, just because I have a shell company that holds investments and so forth? You really think that is just magically dodgy because it's not the same country as my domicile?

[nightrider]

So?

 

I mean so what? Oh of course. He gets to smear Cameron because DC doenst have the time or inclination to publish it so he must be hiding something.

 

Please - this is just childrens politics.

 

---------- Post added 05-04-2016 at 11:53 ----------

 

 

The secrecy that the fund allowed?

 

Oh you mean the secrecy that every fund allows, be that UK based or not. You don't know how much I've got in a particular UK fund, nor will you ever, similar for DC.

 

All you are doing is pointing at something hs father did and when people point at things Millibands father did I'll bet you are the first to whine it's wrong and there are mean Tories about.

 

 

I don't think this is quite right. The question being asked by newspapers is whether Cameron still has investments in this fund. That fund is alleged to have been setup to avoid paying UK tax. If the latter were to be true, then the public has a right to know if the PM is involved or not.

[Obelix]

It has? There is evidence that is the case? If so please show me because I've not seen any such so far.

[foxy lady]

I don't think this is quite right. The question being asked by newspapers is whether Cameron still has investments in this fund. That fund is alleged to have been setup to avoid paying UK tax. If the latter were to be true, then the public has a right to know if the PM is involved or not.

 

You use the word STILL. Do you have any evidence that he ever had money in any overseas fund?

 

When you say the fund fund is alleged to have been setup to avoid paying UK tax. Do you think for example all UK Pakistanis who have bank accounts back in Pakistan or who send money back to Pakistan to be invested should pay UK tax on the money?

Edited April 5, 2016 by foxy lady

[nightrider]

You use the word STILL. Do you have any evidence that he ever had money in any overseas fund?

 

 

The question should be whether he has now or has ever had investments in the fund, or received any benefit from the fund.

[foxy lady]

The question should be whether he has now or has ever had investments in the fund, or received any benefit from the fund.

 

Do you have any evidence to suggest that he has?