Panama Papers

PermaBanned · 8 Apr 2016 at 20:50

Or like being disappointed in a school prefect for stealing sweets from the sweet stall.

nate922 · 8 Apr 2016 at 20:56

[TW]Fox;29370847 said:
This is genuinely ridiculous - he had some shares which he sold before he became PM and paid UK tax on the proceeds.

People are acting as if he's some sort of deliberately shady big time tax crook, it's almost as if they WANT to believe that because it suits whatever opinion they already held so have taken this and run with it, perhaps through lack of understanding, perhaps through not being that bothered about the facts anyway.

I can't believe people are even calling for resignation!? For what?

He bought shares in a company which is run by his father.
This isn't like you/me buying Barclays/BP shares on the FTSE.

He knew what he was buying into. It's likely that only certain people have access to these shares. He is in insider of an offshore company.

My dad paid for my schooling, who do you think paid for his schooling?
Who paid for Eton?
Who paid for his trust fund?
Where did this money come from? Offshore of course.

It's a matter of do what I say, and don't do what I do.

I agree that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. However if you're Apple/Google/Part of the big boys club then the rules don't apply.

Bear · 8 Apr 2016 at 21:17

nate922 said:
He bought shares in a company which is run by his father.
This isn't like you/me buying Barclays/BP shares on the FTSE.

He knew what he was buying into. It's likely that only certain people have access to these shares. He is in insider of an offshore company.

He was given them by his father if I'm not mistaken, he didn't buy them. Also, yes you could buy into that fund all be it a large buy in but then many funds have large buy ins unless you use certain brokers

datalol-jack · 8 Apr 2016 at 21:20

Yeah, this is getting somewhat muddled up. He owned shares, and he sold them in 2010. Where'd the buy bit come from?

nate922 · 8 Apr 2016 at 21:20

Bear said:
He was given them by his father if I'm not mistaken, he didn't buy them.

from the bbc:
Downing Street said Mr and Mrs Cameron bought their holding in April 1997 for £12,497 and sold it in January 2010 for £31,500. That year the personal allowance before capital gains tax was paid was £10,100 per person.

datalol-jack · 8 Apr 2016 at 21:24

nate922 said:
from the bbc:
Downing Street said Mr and Mrs Cameron bought their holding in April 1997 for £12,497 and sold it in January 2010 for £31,500. That year the personal allowance before capital gains tax was paid was £10,100 per person.

Ahh, cheers. The grey matter is cooperating now.

Bear · 8 Apr 2016 at 21:26

nate922 said:
from the bbc:
Downing Street said Mr and Mrs Cameron bought their holding in April 1997 for £12,497 and sold it in January 2010 for £31,500. That year the personal allowance before capital gains tax was paid was £10,100 per person.

Ok I was mistaken

datalol-jack · 8 Apr 2016 at 21:28

Bear said:
Ok I was mistaken

Yep. I remember the original evasive DS statement, but not the follow ups in detail.

Danthus · 8 Apr 2016 at 21:45

Didn't the Cameron's claim DLA?

SpeedFreak · 8 Apr 2016 at 22:26

This witch hunt is ridiculous. He had an investment, made money and paid all due taxes.

DLA? He had a disabled son and was entitled to the benefit.

Caged · 8 Apr 2016 at 23:09

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are more concerned that it took 5 pre-prepared statements to say "yeah I had shares and sold them", and what he finally owned up to isn't even a big deal.

It's got people wondering why someone would try and stop that relatively benign piece of information getting out, and together with the original claim of "it's private go away" from the leader of a government with an almost insatiable desire to spy on their own citizens it does sort of leave a bad taste. It also does nothing to counter the 'one rule for the ruling class, one rule for the plebs' argument.

Pudney · 8 Apr 2016 at 23:13

PermaBanned said:
They shouldn't have to. If you have to explain to people that 'this type of trust is morally okay, but this type of trust is morally wrong even though they're incredibly similar' you've already lost. Cameron's credibility is shot, I don't see him lasting much past the EU ref.

They're not similar. At all. But the average person has no comprehension of this so you get stupid statements.

robfosters · 8 Apr 2016 at 23:18

SpeedFreak said:
DLA? He had a disabled son and was entitled to the benefit.

I wonder how quick he would be to cut it if he were still claiming it.

datalol-jack · 8 Apr 2016 at 23:20

Caged said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are more concerned that it took 5 pre-prepared statements to say "yeah I had shares and sold them", and what he finally owned up to isn't even a big deal.

It's got people wondering why someone would try and stop that relatively benign piece of information getting out, and together with the original claim of "it's private go away" from the leader of a government with an almost insatiable desire to spy on their own citizens it does sort of leave a bad taste. It also does nothing to counter the 'one rule for the ruling class, one rule for the plebs' argument.

I suspect he's trying to dodge this turning into calls for additional legislation, which would mean confrontation with the dependencies and their business lobbies... again.

It's the contrast between the departments as well. Transparency, unity and security on one hand, and threats, terrorism and investigative powers on the other. You cannot have an open-closed-but-open-to-data-miners society, lol.

Caged · 8 Apr 2016 at 23:42

For me the best outcome from the last two weeks of the long journey to Tory self-destruction is that the media seem to actually be prepared to be critical of the government again. There needs to be more vocal disapproval of Cameron's system of setting the press agenda by calling a photo-op, reading out a prepared speech from a team of writers and then ducking out of questions.

It's too much I guess to hope for a well informed electorate but it would be nice if the press weren't actively distorting things.

Robi · 9 Apr 2016 at 00:36

I find it hilarious that people still don't realise the difference between evasion and avoidance. All of the facts are pointing to the latter, so why are people acting as if it's the former?

One is illegal, the other is very much legal.

PermaBanned · 9 Apr 2016 at 00:39

Robi said:
I find it hilarious that people still don't realise the difference between evasion and avoidance. All of the facts are pointing to the latter, so why are people acting as if it's the former?

One is illegal, the other is very much legal.

This is why.

Robi · 9 Apr 2016 at 00:42

PermaBanned said:
This is why.

"Where he doesn't have to pay taxes"

But the PM did pay tax on the proceeds?

Caged · 9 Apr 2016 at 00:52

He said it was immoral and unfair, didn't mention the legality of it. Cameron's view (from that short clip) is that if it's immoral then it's a problem.

So it's only fair for people to judge on a morality scale, because that's the established way of judging taxation apparently.

Caged · 9 Apr 2016 at 01:24

Right, but the point is that modern politics is moral outrage for badly understood reasons, and then a good bit of stoking the fire carried out by the press. Cameron was happy to use this to his advantage when condemning Jimmy Carr, so the pleas to leave Dave alone because he did nothing illegal are going to fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned.

He couldn't go as far as saying Jimmy Carr broke the law back in 2012 so he resorted to turning taxation into a moral issue, he should have stayed out of it then and he wouldn't look so daft now. Obviously hindsight is great.