Panama Papers

SpeedFreak · 9 Apr 2016 at 12:42

ignore

bayo000 · 9 Apr 2016 at 12:57

Tunney said:
More specifically, he invested in a company whose raison d'être was to avoid paying UK tax.

Did HE invest? I thought he inherited some shares and sold them when he thought the time was right. Just like anyone else would in the situation.

stewski · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:03

bayo000 said:
Did HE invest? I thought he inherited some shares and sold them when he thought the time was right. Just like anyone else would in the situation.

As if everyone has an inheritance from their dodgy dealing fathers estate.

SciNeT · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:12

SpeedFreak said:
The company makes a profit in the Bahamas (or wherever) and there was no corporation tax due. It then disburses these profits to shareholders who pay tax based on their local tax laws.

Would you prefer if a 50% withholding tax was applied? What do you this would achieve?

Tax avoidance as a term should be banned. The general public seem unable to differentiate between illegally depriving the revenue service of tax due (evasion) and simply paying the correct tax based on your corporate structure and associated tax allowances.

This, but the lefties in this country are so dense it's contemptible.

datalol-jack · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:15

amigafan2003 said:

You're meant to sanction them first.

The fraud team kicks in later to avoid fights on the premises.

do_ron_ron · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:26

hellarda said:
As stated above many times, there was nothing wrong with what was done, he was not 'avoiding tax', all due tax was paid on the investment that was made.

I was talking in general about politicians. They have power over us and adopt the moral high ground and therefore should be squeakier than clean themselves.

You only have his word for the latest version but as shown over the previous days his word is not to be trusted. I watched the news last night and they were claiming that his latest statement is also inaccurate.

SoundEng · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:30

do_ron_ron said:
I was talking in general about politicians. They have power over us and adopt the moral high ground and therefore should be squeakier than clean themselves.

You only have his word for the latest version but as shown over the previous days his word is not to be trusted. I watched the news last night and they were claiming that his latest statement is also inaccurate.

Fair enough

Yes, but the news also tried to say that what he done was illegal, then got completely shut down by a tax expert

do_ron_ron · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:31

SciNeT said:
This, but the lefties in this country are so dense it's contemptible.

Yes and the far right and their apologists seem to think it is OK for a small section of the population who have the money to be able to do this while the consequences of less tax revenues are ideologically targeted on the poorest.

do_ron_ron · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:33

hellarda said:
Fair enough

Yes, but the news also tried to say that what he done was illegal, then got completely shut down by a tax expert

Based on what he has claimed which is still according to the news last night inaccurate.

datalol-jack · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:34

The far right has made a comment on the Panama Papers?

Caged · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:36

SciNeT said:
This, but the lefties in this country are so dense it's contemptible.

I had no idea you were a leftie

SpeedFreak · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:37

do_ron_ron said:
Yes and the far right and their apologists seem to think it is OK for a small section of the population who have the money to be able to do this while the consequences of less tax revenues are ideologically targeted on the poorest.

Such systems may give individuals the opportunity to evade tax. I don't think it right that anonymous offshore investments exist, however we are talking about David Cameron's situation at present.

While he may have had an interest in such a scheme, he repatriated the profits and paid all appropriate UK tax. How he came to own the shares seems to have been by way of inheritance so can't really be blamed for that.

PermaBanned · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:39

Moses said:
Does it? It doesn't/didn't make a profit because it distributed the money it made to its members, no? At which point tax was paid wherever they were domiciled for tax purposes, so here for Cam and Sam?

Yes, that is how it avoided tax...

Hagar · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:43

do_ron_ron said:
ALL politicians should by law have to show annually their tax statements and if found to be hiding/evading/avoiding tax then they should be kicked out of Parliament.

Perhaps we should adopt the Swedish model whereby everyones tax returns are public. Then there would be no room for confusion. I personally do not have an issue with that.

datalol-jack · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:47

nkata said:
Perhaps we should adopt the Swedish model whereby everyones tax returns are public. Then there would be no room for confusion. I personally do not have an issue with that.

Tbf, even extending the current registration of interests to lower amounts would be a start in that direction. Re Cam, the only reason it was under the radar because it was too low of an amount to register. Now, of course, you could start asking whether it was below the threshold for 6 years, or just recently; but that's not really what's required. The real pressure should be to increase transparency.

do_ron_ron · 9 Apr 2016 at 13:51

nkata said:
Perhaps we should adopt the Swedish model whereby everyones tax returns are public. Then there would be no room for confusion. I personally do not have an issue with that.

I am def. in favour of this for ALL Parliamentarians and those in senior public offices.

doofer · 9 Apr 2016 at 14:00

I feel a bit sorry for the PM over this embarrassing Panama stuff, everyone knows Cameron likes to hide his pennies away in a pig's head.

Pudney · 9 Apr 2016 at 14:04

satchef1 said:
In the case of Blairmore Holdings, wasn't it effectively based in and run from the UK, but with a Bahamian front for tax purposes? Why do that if no tax would be owed in the UK? Sounds like a lot of hassle for no gain.

As for your examples, they aren't even remotely similar.

Actually, no I don't think it was run from the UK. Why do you think it was?

I'd still like to know the answer to my questions.

Rosbif · 9 Apr 2016 at 14:08

nkata said:
Perhaps we should adopt the Swedish model whereby everyones tax returns are public. Then there would be no room for confusion. I personally do not have an issue with that.

There was a good program on Radio4 about this (I think it was about Norway though). It was interesting, because not only is the information open, but the records about who looked at the records is open also.

When they made the information public about who viewed your records, the number of snoopers dropped massively.

Ocean Breeze · 9 Apr 2016 at 14:16

Don't know what the fuss is about. It's £30k which is peanuts, he sold the shares and paid tax. There is nothing dodgy about it, let's move on..