Panama Papers

You clearly don't, because this is much bigger than just tax avoidance. There are corrupt government officials (from around the world, before you spout out "ERMERHGERD WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE OF UK GOVERTMENT DOING THIS?!?") syphoning public money into offshore account via this company. There are drug cartels laundering their money via this company. There are multinational corporations hiding their money in secret accounts to avoid paying enormous tax bills that literally rob the countries of much needed healthcare and other vital services via this company.

I've already clearly stated I've been talking about Blairmore. If you reply to me then can you at least argue about what I talked about not something else?

Then there are the smaller matters such as Cameron's dad's money.

Yes, I would like to understand the facts before judging Cameron or his dad.

How's this for moral outrage?

Cameron in 2012: What Jimmy Carr has done to avoid tax is reprehensible.
Cameron in 2016: My family's investments are a private matter and not the concern of the public.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, eh?

The difference being I believe Jimmy Carr's scheme was ruled ineffective. At the moment no one has any facts on what Cameron's dad did, or if Cameron himself has been involved. At least this is the case when I last looked this morning.
 
I've already clearly stated I've been talking about Blairmore. If you reply to me then can you at least argue about what I talked about not something else?



Yes, I would like to understand the facts before judging Cameron or his dad.



The difference being I believe Jimmy Carr's scheme was ruled ineffective. At the moment no one has any facts on what Cameron's dad did, or if Cameron himself has been involved. At least this is the case when I last looked this morning.

Talking out of your backside. You're replying to a thread about titled "Panama Papers" about the Panama Papers in its entirety - take your own advice, eh?

Ineffective? Jimmy Carr paid less than 2% tax on his earnings. You have a very warped definition of "ineffective."

David Cameron called it "morally wrong". That's an actual quote, btw. Yet he has been doing it all along and that's ok. Righto.
 
Talking out of your backside. You're replying to a thread about titled "Panama Papers" about the Panama Papers in its entirety - take your own advice, eh?

Ineffective? Jimmy Carr paid less than 2% tax on his earnings. You have a very warped definition of "ineffective."

David Cameron called it "morally wrong". That's an actual quote, btw. Yet he has been doing it all along and that's ok. Righto.

Did have a chuckle on the last episode of 8 out of 10 cats countdown (before all this came out). First two letters on the board, I,R.... "let's hope the next letter isn't an S, eh Jimmy?"
 
Did have a chuckle on the last episode of 8 out of 10 cats countdown (before all this came out). First two letters on the board, I,R.... "let's hope the next letter isn't an S, eh Jimmy?"

Lol he got ripped apart. I felt sorry for him... I didn't understand why he felt so ashamed and sorry for what he had done.

I would've played the "mind your own business" card... Ha ha haaaaaaaa
 
Last edited:
No i'm not, I just get bored of the "oh it's legal" arguement. Like I said there are plenty of legal things which are considered morally repulsive.

No, because you are still conflating legality and morality. They are quite different things. And besides since slavery is illegal in this country the "it's legal but morally repulsive" argument is a non sequitur. Straw man tactics...

Like I said, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right (and at the end of the day it's still just use of loopholes...). Whilst some guy on a low wage pays his taxes and struggles to make ends meet, do you think he finds it unfair someone else who is a hell of a lot richer doesn't pay anything because he can afford to hire a creative accountant?

Lots of things in life aren't 'fair'. You can't legislate fairness

Of course, because he's of sound mind. Nobody likes taxes, suck it up. If you want to live in society, pay them or go live in the woods.

But these people are paying tax. Just not enough in your opinion, but this is the point: thus far, no-one (British) in these documents has been shown to have paid any less tax than they are legally obliged to. Incidentally I suspect there are more than a few people on what you call 'low wages' who aren't. Cash economy?

Even if we had a flat tax rate you can bet people would still tax avoid.

Maybe, but there'd be a lot less incentive. Also it would be a lot easier to spot the miscreants because all these loopholes wouldn't exist

Lmao....... this x1000, what is going through this guys head. If they were independant then yeah but no... but the fact is they're dependencies.

Reason and logic (I like to think ;)) rather than emotion, which always results in bad law in my opinion. Back on topic, they're actually Oversea Territories so they're self-governing internally. And imposing direct rule would be in breach of Chapter XI, Article 73 (the bit about encouraging and developing self-government) of the UN Charter. Hence my little chuckle at Jeremy Corbyn.
 
No, because you are still conflating legality and morality. They are quite different things. And besides since slavery is illegal in this country the "it's legal but morally repulsive" argument is a non sequitur. Straw man tactics...

I keep asking you how is it?

If I go ahead and do the things in my post above and say "but it's legal" as my excuse what do you think peoples reactions would be? I could fly to a country and sleep with a 10 year old then come back here and tell you. You going to give me a pat on the back? well done pal, it's ok it was legal.

What's straw man about it? what can't you wrap your head around? All i'm doing is using the same excuse to justify my ****** behaviour.

All I see is mental gymanastics employed by people to defend whatever action it is they are doing, in this case tax avoiding. Whilst everyone else pays, they don't.

Why do you seem to have such a hard time understanding and getting it into your head that it angers people? and rightfully so. The system needs a reform.

Reason and logic (I like to think ;)) rather than emotion, which always results in bad law in my opinion. Back on topic, they're actually Oversea Territories so they're self-governing internally. And imposing direct rule would be in breach of Chapter XI, Article 73 (the bit about encouraging and developing self-government) of the UN Charter. Hence my little chuckle at Jeremy Corbyn.

Here is some crazy reason and logic for you.

they should pay damn taxes like everyone else has to.
 
Last edited:
Talking out of your backside. You're replying to a thread about titled "Panama Papers" about the Panama Papers in its entirety - take your own advice, eh?

The only link given is the BBC which doesn't state anything about Mayfair or molten gold.

Edit: there's something about a criminal enterprise using the solicitors to set up an offshore company to deal with stolen gold. My posts have been about Blairmore, although I haven't stated that previously it started as a response to Old Coals.

If you take the time to comment on my posts it's up to you to comment on my content, not your own made up version of my content.


Ineffective? Jimmy Carr paid less than 2% tax on his earnings. You have a very warped definition of "ineffective."

Well. I'm talking about legally ineffective. As in the scheme didn't achieve what it set out to do.

[/quote]David Cameron called it "morally wrong". That's an actual quote, btw. Yet he has been doing it all along and that's ok. Righto.[/QUOTE]

At this moment in time his dad had been doing something similar not Cameron himself and no ones bothered to answer what UK activities the offshore entity has carried out. if you tell me the offshore company bought UK property and similar and avoided tax then I would agree with you. But can you actually say anything about what the company did/does?
 
Talking out of your backside. You're replying to a thread about titled "Panama Papers" about the Panama Papers in its entirety - take your own advice, eh?
 
Nice blog post from a tax QC:

http://waitingfortax.com/2016/04/04/some-thoughts-on-the-panama-papers/

Excerpts:

In the coming days professional firms and others whose business it is to service or speak for those amongst the wealthy who prefer not to pay their taxes will be out in force in the newspapers and the media channels. Having assets in, or which have passed through, Panama is consistent with avoidance, they will tell you.

They – and, too, the Government which will want to defend its record in this field – will suggest that the outrage you feel about what you read you are wrong to feel. And that people can perfectly lawfully have assets in Panama. And that you cannot conclude from the fact that name X or name Y has appeared in the Panama Papers that X or Y has done anything wrong.

And you won’t be able to contradict them.

You won’t know whether Mr X or Mrs Y have declared their tax liabilities on those assets in the UK. You have no entitlement to know anything about their UK tax affairs.

HMRC won’t tell you. HMRC is bound by a duty of confidentiality – and that duty is so very strict that if I was Mr X I could stand, smiling, on national news, next to HMRC’s Chief Executive and declare that I had paid every penny I owed and even if HMRC’s Chief Executive knew this an outrageous lie she would still not be able to contradict me.

and

For the purposes of UK tax law, most tax havens are the same. There is no magic effective in UK tax terms that can only be performed in Panama. Moreover, Panama is not next door. It is not a British tax haven with the comforting familiarity such brings. It does not enjoy an especial reputation for trust and solidity.

People think of these things when they are choosing where to put their money. They are big disadvantages for Panama.

So there has to be a reason why you go there.

What Panama has offered – its USPs in the competitive world of tax havenry – is an especially strict form of secrecy, a type of opacity of ownership, and (if the reports of backdating are correct) a class of wealth management profession some of whom have especially compromised ethics.

You go to Panama, in short, because, despite its profound disadvantages, you value these things.

(Sorry that's most of the post but it's good stuff!)
 
Last edited:
Talking out of your backside. You're replying to a thread about titled "Panama Papers" about the Panama Papers in its entirety - take your own advice, eh?

if you want my views on the overall situation I'd be happy to give them. But all you've done is attack my statements on the basis of a position I haven't taken or even mentioned. "strawman" comes to mind.

I'm surprised at your lack of maturity though, I'll give you that.
 
I keep asking you how is it?

If I go ahead and do the things in my post above and say "but it's legal" as my excuse what do you think peoples reactions would be? I could fly to a country and sleep with a 10 year old then come back here and tell you. You going to give me a pat on the back? well don pal, it's ok it was legal.

What's straw man about it? what can't you wrap your head around? All i'm doing is using the same excuse to justify my ****** behaviour.

Because you are attempting to refute my argument by refuting an argument I haven't made. In this instance your logical fallacy also attempts to claim the moral high ground by advancing an emotive, and irrelevant, subject.

All I see is mental gymanastics employed by people to defend whatever action it is they are doing, in this case tax avoiding. Whilst everyone else pays, they don't.

Why do you seem to have such a hard time understanding and getting it into your head that it ****es people off? and rightfully so. The system needs a reform.

I get that some people are annoyed, and thankfully we don't live in a society where the rage of the mob holds sway over the rule of law. I could ask why you don't seem to be able (or willing) to accept the difference between what is legal (avoidance) and illegal (evasion). I repeat, so far no-one (British) has been accused of the latter.

Can I ask? Do you have an ISA, some other savings (ie not a current) account, pay into a company/private pension. If yes, then you 'avoid' tax on some of that money. Its not an accusation. It is important that people understand the difference between avoidance and evasion (and that applies outside this thread also). And yes, there is a world of difference in scale between my little pension pot and an off-shore account in the Cayman's or wherever.

I quite agree with you that the UK tax system is long overdue for drastic reform. Flat rate gets my vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom