Panama Papers

I think the real issue that isnt being made abundantly clear is what benefits beyond the financial has this afforded Cameron and co.?

IE favours and the like.
 
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..

Well, according to him. We don't actually know, because despite promising to several times throughout the last few years, he's never released his tax returns. Which is suspicious in and of itself, in addition to the efforts he made to try to cover this up earlier in the week. If he does release them now, it'll be hard to trust their accuracy.
 
I'm not sure what releasing his tax returns would achieve since by definition it's only going to detail the stuff that will have been taxed appropriately. It's a distraction at best.

The focus shouldn't be on owning shares in a company and then selling them, it should be on taking five attempts to admit to it.
 
Well, that and actively campaigning against legislation that would have required overseas territories to be more transparent in their tax arrangements. Clearly not an impartial mediator.
 
Didn't they avoid paying CGT if the allowance at the time was 10k each and they got 31k between them?
 
I'm sure you don't. I doubt he'll go anyway, just waffle on about 'getting on with the job' etc etc and hope there's some disaster shortly to take the spotlight off him.
 
I think one of the issues is, that a PM should be whiter than white. With this ones antics I don't think that can really be said.
 
Given the fact that he once called Jimmy Carr for it, it's a bit serious given the knew the morality of it and it never once entered into discussion until he got caught.

"I will be learning from this mistake and making recompense etc" or some crap like that. So does that mean he will be stepping down like the Icelandic PM?

Or can he not do that because 'he's too important to make an example of' and we have no one of any moral fibre to do the job?

"The Prime Minister, speaking during a trip to Mexico in 2012, said to ITV: "I think some of these schemes – and I think particularly of the Jimmy Carr scheme – I have had time to read about and I just think this is completely wrong."

Jimmy Carr: “I'm going to keep it classy," he posted on his Twitter account. "It would be ‘morally wrong’ and ‘hypocritical’ to comment on another individual’s tax affairs."
 
Last edited:
morality.... technically speaking if anything, a minister should be more moral and ethical....

Again, not the same moral problem

What DC did is a small step from owning shares in Google, Starbucks, Vodafone or any of a whole host of other tax dodging businesses. What Jimmy Carr did is a giant leap further down the road.
 
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.

it is actually often simpler (from a regulatory perspective) to run a fund like that offshore
 
Last edited:
Easier to setup in those places with more business friendly laws. The type of distributory hedge fund he invested in is actually the last type of fund you would invest in if you were actively trying to avoid paying tax. This is a total non story.
BTW that pension fund you're paying into probably avoids paying tax too, better release all your private financial information and all your tax returns (lol at people saying he should do this).
 
Just watched an abridged version of Cameron's sorry speech on his tax records. #
Seemed pretty down to earth about it. I'm no fan of his but i think now that the baying for blood isn't really called for. It wasn't handled well.
If ANYTHING comes to light from the documents then he should swing from the yardarm, but until then he should be allowed to keep steering the UK into the nosedive, suicidal mess it is heading for ! :P
 
Back
Top Bottom