Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 460
- Location
- Wirral
That's me happy. Someone fell for it
arse... never post late at night
Stand by the statements though
Panama Papers
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
arse... never post late at night
Stand by the statements though
About not being dirty.
The odd thing is though, if he has absolutely nothing to hide, why all the weasel words all week and 5 statements to try and deflect the issue.
Surely by now he, and his PR advisors, knew this would come out once the Journo's started circling around the story, they can't be that PR naive after this amount of time.
So even if he has gone through all the UK legislation (declaring the income, CGT thresholds etc) the way he has handled it gives political capital to his detractors and it still makes people think he is hiding something else.
It beggars belief they can still handle things like this so incompentently
Last edited:
It beggars belief they can still handle things like this so incompentently
Not really, the only thing they've been any good at is making the poor poorer. Everything else they've missed targets they set themselves.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 460
- Location
- Wirral
It beggars belief they can still handle things like this so incompentently
It's the standard politician's instinct; don't own up to anything, deny it
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Absolutely and it's understandable they act this way. Our media crucify anyone they can with no sense of proportion. If they can get a scalp, they will.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
The following is doing rounds on Twitter from The Coalition, but for copyright reasons, I'll paraphrase and summarise.
You couldn't makes this up! It all makes sense now.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2015
- Posts
- 1,124
- Location
- London
Frank Underwood for president!
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 8,876
- Location
- Hoddesdon, London, UK
Wouldn't surprise me if they made it a 'crime' or 'act of terrorism' to download the files
Remember that when it comes to your internet records: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
However, the tax affairs of the rich are a private matter.
However, the tax affairs of the rich are a private matter.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 460
- Location
- Wirral
I quite like mine (tax affairs) to be private as well, as I suspect would you. So are you advocating one rule for us, another for anyone we don't like/are jealous of?
The following is doing rounds on Twitter from The Coalition, but for copyright reasons, I'll paraphrase and summarise.
You couldn't makes this up! It all makes sense now.
Lol indeed
We could follow the Norwegian model of tax transparency. I'd be happy for my tax records to be public if everyone else's were.
But more than that, I'd like a bit of consistency. Government ministers are keen to infringe on our privacy but less keen about their affairs being made public.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 460
- Location
- Wirral
Oh I think we'd all like some consistency!!
Which (neatly) brings me on to this; another QC tax expert who believes that Blairmore isn't a tax avoidance scheme at all! A view echoed by Robert Peston.
Think my head's starting to hurt...
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,124
- Location
- Shepley
Or we could accept they are both private matters rather than allowing the state to intrude in our lives while being unwilling to be transparent itself?
I'd be more than willing to share my tax affairs though. I think there should be more transparency over salaries and remuneration in general.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 460
- Location
- Wirral
Edward Snowdon's apparently calling for Cameron to resign...
1) absolutely none of your business,
2) so about your pal Vlad, or you not too fond of polonium laced tea?
1) absolutely none of your business,
2) so about your pal Vlad, or you not too fond of polonium laced tea?
Oh dear.
You might be right about the fair and socially moral concept, but you are wrong about the hard choice wealthy people would face. If the UK was the only place on earth, and people had to work, your idea might fly. But in the real world, if you present people with £100m+ a choice of a marginal tax rate of 100% in the UK and 20% (or whatever) in the US, or Monaco, or a load of other places, guess which they are likely to pick?
But suppose for argument's sake some proportion of that group don't want to leave the UK, maybe because of family here or other non-financial reasons. Then what? Well, if I had a £100m net worth, and the lifestyle that goes with it, and some government tells me that I can run a business, make money and they're going to tax it at 100%, my response would be that I can live quite nicely on a mere £100m, and that unless the work and more specifically risk of running the business generates a reasonable return, I just won't bother running it. Not only would government revenue from my extra earnings be zero, because the extra earnings would be zero, but the business would close and employees are going to be looking for another job, or claiming benefit.
50% tax on a few million quid extra annual income is better for government, and other taxpayers, than 100% of nowt.
That's the problem with setting fiscal policy by the politics of envy. In the real world, it doesn't work.
Do you think the possibility of a government setting punitive tax rates hasn't occurred to the very rich? That many, most or maybe all haven't taken steps to prepare for it? There's a reason most people in that bracket have homes in multiple countries and "assets" offshore. Saving tax is, believe me, a long way from the only reason to have offshore investments, or offshore bank accounts. Nor is there anything at all illegal or immoral about doing so, provided you declare any relevant income, profits or gains, and pay the tax due.
Moral outrage over obscene wealth is all very well, but in the real world the ultra-rich group you target are absolutely the most mobile people on earth. They choose where to live, and can change it more or less on a whim. And bear in mind, in the UK, quite a large number of very wealthy people living here, and paying taxes here, are doing so *because* of UK tax regimes, and are actually not native Brits in the first place. Remove the attractiveness of the tax regime and you remove much or all of the incentive to reside, for tax purposes, here in the first place.
I wouldn't be willing to share my financial affairs, including tax, with the public. It's nobodt's business but mine, and in the realm of tax-relevant info, the relevant tax authorities.
However, I'm not seeking to run the country. A case can certainly be made that those that do or seek to run it, which certainly includes all ministers, shadow ministers, and probably all MPs, should be entirely transparent. Or, at a minimum, put all investments into a blind trust for the duration of their time in Parliament.
Agreed - the opinion of an American traitor doesn't matter one jot. You've got to laugh at Russia and her 'big lies' - when a pal of Putin gets named in the Panama Papers it's a western conspiracy against Russia. When the British PM gets named he should resign.