Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[RonJeremy]

No he's not because the question was out of context, if you read the post it was in response to. It's only a reasonable question if you are bang out of arguments and looking for ways to attack another poster.

 

Basically we don't know whether Cameron has paid more or less tax 'than he had to' but it has been utterly wonderful today to see the craft employed in putting together his statement this morning, avoiding an obvious question: has he benefitted already.

 

He may be on the ropes, might not be. I've got a feeling the next few issues of Private Eye could be pretty interesting anyway.

 

The OP - Obelix - thinks it was on topic and in context. That's good enough for me... obviously not for you, cause you don't want to answer.

 

Well done on derailing the thread BTW

[I1L2T3]

The OP - Obelix - thinks it was on topic and in context. That's good enough for me... obviously not for you, cause you don't want to answer.

 

Well done on derailing the thread BTW

 

The OP is not the divine ruler of the thread. I only said I agreed with the FT that Cameron should come clean, so Penistones's post was a bit out of context, and obviously an attempt to distract from the content of the FT article.

[RonJeremy]

The OP is not the divine ruler of the thread. I only said I agreed with the FT that Cameron should come clean, so Penistones's post was a bit out of context, and obviously an attempt to distract from the content of the FT article.

 

Distract? It was three pages later.

[I1L2T3]

Distract? It was three pages later.

 

Nope you are wrong. Post #290

[RonJeremy]

Nope you are wrong. Post #290

 

You really do want to derail this thread don't you.

He quoted on page 15 your post from page 13. We had all moved on from your attempted Cam-bashing

[I1L2T3]

You really do want to derail this thread don't you.

He quoted on page 15 your post from page 13. We had all moved on from your attempted Cam-bashing

 

It doesn't matter when he replied. He replied directly to my post. And his reply was out of context.

 

I think I've been pretty fair to Cameron to be honest.

[RonJeremy]

It doesn't matter when he replied. He replied directly to my post. And his reply was out of context.

 

I think I've been pretty fair to Cameron to be honest.

 

You've not been as bad as you might have been. But then again, there's nothing to go at.

[I1L2T3]

You've not been as bad as you might have been. But then again, there's nothing to go at.

 

As I've said I've got no reason to doubt anything he has said so far. The FT article said the same but pointed to some unanswered questions. All will become clear soon enough, one way or another.

[tzijlstra]

I am leaving a link to this interestimg article here for you all to ponder.

 

You might be interested in the reason why the UK has such a complicated relation with the EU and what actually drives property prices in London up in a frenzy.

[Bonzo77]

You're like some pro-aggressive tax avoidance argue-bot continuously making posts containing random one-liners.

 

Change the settings argue-bot

 

This is the guy who thinks cyclists should pay a Vehicle Excise Duty! If he can't work out Vehicle Tax, PAYE will go straight over his head!

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2016 at 08:11 ----------

 

Then just say "no" or "yes" then??

 

It's a stupid question! Someone using a legal loophole is still paying as much tax as they should be paying, in the eyes of the law, as someone who pays tax using the proper channels. However, the person who is using the loophole is deliberately avoiding paying the correct amount of tax. They've gone out of their way to look for ways to not pay their tax. Tax that has paid for schools, roads, fire service, NHS, tax that built the infrastructure that gave every one of us the platform to be successful in our own right. It's wrong and those loopholes should be closed and the people who use them should be investigated and punished!

 

Everyone goes ape when they see someone playing the benefits system!! What's the difference between someone using a tax loophole and someone banging out kids to deliberately avoid having to work for a living??..........Apart from several million in their bank account and the odd yatch?!

Edited April 7, 2016 by Bonzo77