Eleven million tax avoiding documents..

[unbeliever]

I'm happy that my taxes can help all children, regardless of who they are, and where there is a genuine need.

 

But if the Camerons had significant offshore investments at the same time as claiming benefits that could be a moral issue, or maybe worse if the money was not declared on any claim to DWP.

 

What would you say if one of the little guys, someone like you, had an undeclared £30k stashed in the Isle of Man but was claiming benefits? You'd probably want them strung up

 

I'm not suggesting illegality, just wanting to know our PM is clean, and just trying to understand how policy decisions have been influenced especially given recent changes to benefits for the disabled.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2016 at 17:48 ----------

 

 

How does proving their integrity stop them running the country? The country doesn't stop running because Cameron has to answer a few questions does it?

 

Do you want disability benefits that are currently universal, to be means tested?

Why?

If somebody has a disability, whatever their financial status, they have extra costs. Shouldn't we all chip in to help with those costs?

[milquetoast1]

Actually, the Tivoli Group, Smythson's holding company, is based in the tax haven, Guernsey, so I shouldn't think tax will be too much of a problem for the fragrant Samantha....

 

My company's parent company is based in the US. We still pay the same UK corporation tax regardless. If we paid dividends to the parent company they would have to pay US tax, but we don't pay dividends at the moment because they want us to grow so they're actually investing.

 

You're complaint about the holding company, of a company, that employs, the wife, of David Cameron, is simply an irrelevant and unfair slur by six degrees of separation.

 

Desperate.

 

I don't even like Cameron, and have only once voted Tory, but I despise identity party politics, and this "story" is just ridiculous.

[I1L2T3]

Do you want disability benefits that are currently universal, to be means tested?

Why?

If somebody has a disability, whatever their financial status, they have extra costs. Shouldn't we all chip in to help with those costs?

 

Of course we should, if there is a genuine need.

[unbeliever]

Of course we should, if there is a genuine need.

 

Does determining "genuine need" require a means test?

Because I'm not sure one is necessary in the case of disability.

It makes more sense to me to offer support regardless. For example I would have no problem with taxpayers' money being offered to David Blunkett to help deal with his disability despite the fact that he's far from poor. I don't know whether this already happens.

It's essentially an ongoing medical expense, and healthcare is supposed to be funded by the taxpayers in this country.

[Anna B]

Failed on Cameron, so go for his wife. Nice.

 

That's not a nice thing to say. What's up, can't you argue the facts?

 

Husbands and wives are in it together. You can't separate them, (except for tax purposes....)

 

Anyway, my point still stands. Paying someone £500,000 makes a mockery of ordinary hard working people. Rewarding Work with pay is being devalued with these sorts of ridiculous salaries. Even Cameron doesn't get that sort of pay and he's running the country (allegedly.)

[unbeliever]

That's not a nice thing to say. What's up, can't you argue the facts?

 

Husbands and wives are in it together. You can't separate them, (except for tax purposes....)

 

Anyway, my point still stands. Paying someone £500,000 makes a mockery of ordinary hard working people. Rewarding Work with pay is being devalued with these sorts of ridiculous salaries. Even Cameron doesn't get that sort of pay and he's running the country (allegedly.)

 

Erm. No.

To a first approximation, people who are paid more have gone to considerable effort to acquire more valuable skills.

It's not a perfect system, but it would be quite wrong to pay everybody the same no matter how much effort they put in at school etc.

[Anna B]

Erm. No.

To a first approximation, people who are paid more have gone to considerable effort to acquire more valuable skills.

It's not a perfect system, but it would be quite wrong to pay everybody the same no matter how much effort they put in at school etc.

 

Oh pleease...

[Obelix]

I don't think you should belittle the importance of what is being discussed here.

 

I think you are overinflating the importance of what's being discussed. But with your obvious hatred of anything blue you are determined whatever and however possible to smear muck.

 

The tax expert the BBC had on it commenting over the weekend got it totally spot on.

 

"Man makes boring investment and pays all his tax"

 

That' basically, apart from a bit of fevered frothing at the mouth by people who don't know better and should - is the sum total of it all.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2016 at 22:49 ----------

 

Oh pleease...

 

It's true Anna, no matter how you want to say it's not fair.

[Anna B]

Erm. No.

To a first approximation, people who are paid more have gone to considerable effort to acquire more valuable skills.

It's not a perfect system, but it would be quite wrong to pay everybody the same no matter how much effort they put in at school etc.

 

I have no problem with some people being paid more than others - it's how much more that is the problem.

 

In case you haven't noticed the gap between rich and poor is growing at an alarmingly increasing rate, and that is bad news for everybody. It is skewing the system and creating all sorts of anomalies - the housing crisis, for example, is just one of them.

 

Some individuals are now wealthier than some governments. A mere 62 people are said to hold 50%of the world's wealth. That gives them unprecedented power and influence.

[I1L2T3]

I think you are overinflating the importance of what's being discussed. But with your obvious hatred of anything blue you are determined whatever and however possible to smear muck.

 

The tax expert the BBC had on it commenting over the weekend got it totally spot on.

 

"Man makes boring investment and pays all his tax"

 

That' basically, apart from a bit of fevered frothing at the mouth by people who don't know better and should - is the sum total of it all.

 

It's not just about that one investment.

 

And it seems that Cameron didn't even publish his full tax returns, but rather a kind of accountant's synopsis/overview.

 

Let's have the full returns. All the other leaders are publishing their full returns.