Let's Get Political!

[horlock07]

Carr, with the help of his accountant, intentionally put money into an offshore based tax avoidance scheme involving complicated loan agreements that bordered on tax evasion.

Cameron held units in an offshore investment which is about as vanilla as it gets. It's not a tax avoidance scheme.

The two are very different things.

Please don't let facts get into this conversation you will ruin all the fun being had on social media!

[horlock07]

Interesting, and curious as you say as to why nothing has come out in the mainstream national media. I wonder what's holding them back...

I suspect that the fact that he is minister for DCMS and thus responsible for press regulation may have made certain editors loathe to rock the boat - especially amusing as the Mail are making a big deal about the celebrity threesome story being hidden by the courts (somewhat ridiculous as two minutes on line reveals who it is - I was surprised I must admit) whilst not reporting this one which is subject to no legal issue?

[Nemo]

Carr, with the help of his accountant, intentionally put money into an offshore based tax avoidance scheme involving complicated loan agreements that bordered on tax evasion.

Cameron held units in an offshore investment which is about as vanilla as it gets. It's not a tax avoidance scheme.

The two are very different things.

They are indeed, and that would have been a reasonable argument to make. Saying that his tax affairs are private however, was a daft thing to do as it was always going to lead to more scrutiny. For what it's worth, I don't particularly like that this story has become about Cameron rather than the genuinely shady stuff that was going on to help countries like North Korea and Zimbabwe avoid international sanctions, but I can't say I feel much sympathy for DC.

[Levi lapper]

How much did Cameron inherit from his Father? - how much of that wealth was created through tax avoidance?

That is what the issue is for me.

He should pay the tax liability on any inheritance of wealth accumulated from stealing from the rest of us, which essentially is what tax avoidance is.

[townforever]

Why are none of the Political leaders telling the public how they will stop this happening in the future ?

Why the labor party or the Lib Dems or the SNP, purposing how they would make offshore tax avoidance illegal ? rather than everyone is just clambering for cheap political points, rather than dealing with tightening up of the laws to improve the nation ?

[pauld]

Carr, with the help of his accountant, intentionally put money into an offshore based tax avoidance scheme involving complicated loan agreements that bordered on tax evasion.

Cameron held units in an offshore investment which is about as vanilla as it gets. It's not a tax avoidance scheme.

An offshore investment that would not have been as profitable (and hence not returned to him the same level of return on his investment) had it not been offshored to avoid paying UK corporation tax. That sounds like tax avoidance to me. There's also the moral avoidance of the way he's ducked and dived to try and hide this (and what else) with misleading and evasive answers. None of it illegal, all of it stinks to high heaven

[Tails]

There is nothing "wrong" about holding an offshore based investment and paying all relevant taxes.

How are yours going? 

There's plenty "wrong" with it. People don't do it because it's fun, they do it so they can AVOID paying TAX. As legal as it may be, it's questionable and for someone who has frequently talked about morals in this exact situation I'd say he's been a bit of a wrongun.

[Batch]

I'll rule myself out of being pm then. I'd absolutely use every legal means necessary to avoid paying tax.

couldn't give a fuck to be honest

[Samdy Gray]

An offshore investment that would not have been as profitable (and hence not returned to him the same level of return on his investment) had it not been offshored to avoid paying UK corporation tax. That sounds like tax avoidance to me. There's also the moral avoidance of the way he's ducked and dived to try and hide this (and what else) with misleading and evasive answers. None of it illegal, all of it stinks to high heaven

The tax avoided by registering a fund overseas in minimal, even UK registered funds pay very little in corporation tax. It's all taxed in the hands of the investor anyway, yes the investor gains more because of gross roll up but they also consequently pay more tax.

I'm not defending the way Cameron avoided or didn't disclose the full facts of his affairs, but what he's done is an extremely legitimate form of tax planning.

There's plenty "wrong" with it. People don't do it because it's fun, they do it so they can AVOID paying TAX. As legal as it may be, it's questionable and for someone who has frequently talked about morals in this exact situation I'd say he's been a bit of a wrongun.

It's only questionable by a) people who don't really understand what it actually is that he's done because b) the media have blown things way out of proportion and compared it with other completely incomparable tax evasion schemes.

[horlock07]

Why are none of the Political leaders telling the public how they will stop this happening in the future ?

Why the labor party or the Lib Dems or the SNP, purposing how they would make offshore tax avoidance illegal ? rather than everyone is just clambering for cheap political points, rather than dealing with tightening up of the laws to improve the nation ?

Because none of them ever do anything, Labour banging on about bank regulation is a case in point, they had the chance to sort this between 1997 and 2008 and chose to do nothing, its very easy to make statements when you are not in power but conversely difficult to actually do anything when you actually have the power necessary to make real change. The Lib Dems discovered this the hard way when they had a manifesto that was written on an understanding that they were unlikely to gain power and thus have to deliver anything.....

[Pax Romana]

stealing from the rest of us, which essentially is what tax avoidance is.

On that basis everyone who saves in an ISA, permits charities to which they have donated to reclaim the basic rate tax  or who put additional contributions into their pensions because of the tax benefits is stealing from the rest of us.  There is nothing automatically wrong with tax avoidance, done as intended it is positively encouraged by the government as being beneficial to individuals and to society in general.

It becomes morally wrong when 'clever' individuals exploit the rules in order to avoid paying tax that they genuinely should pay.  e.g. paying their income tax free into a charitable foundation that then pays it back to them tax free via a circuitous route.

What Cameron did is what all of us do via our pension funds etc.  Offshore enables avoidance of corporation tax but the income we then get is taxable.  Whether the UK should be trying to block this avenue is a matter of opinion but based on what has come out to date, Cameron has done nothing more than tens of millions of us do, albeit that he is richer and hence the sums are larger.

[Pax Romana]

How are yours going? 

they're going fine, as are yours

[horlock07]

An interesting summary of both sides of the argument... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35994283

[Reg Smeeton]

I'll rule myself out of being pm then. I'd absolutely use every legal means necessary to avoid paying tax.

couldn't give a fuck to be honest

Taxation is inevitable, but has to be seen as being fair...remember the mantra of the American colonists, "no taxation without representation" 

I just squirted some Fairy Liquid into the washing up bowl....I paid tax on that; fair enough we all do it would seem, but on closer scrutiny do the likes of Osborne and Cameron, because they set the rules and therefore can design ways around it.

Osborne wanted to put a tax on Cornish pasties. Why? Probably because it's the food of the poor.

It's the gap in fairness which is the problem....Tories believe it's fair enough that massive wealth accrued by just about any means should be exempt from taxation, because that way the benefits would filter down to the plebs, rather than as presently happens filter up. 

[jayohaitchenn]

But that in itself is another misconception, the taking back of East Coast into government control essentially tupe'ed all the commercial staff back into central control but allowed them to continue working as they had on a commercial footing, albeit under the umbrella of DOR. Remember the franchise only failed as National Express paid too much for it up front making it non-viable in the first place, there was no inherent fault with the franchise itself.

If anything it supports the point I was making that if a rail company under government control operates to commercial principles the model can work - although I remain unconvinced that it would work long term unless strict financial control is exercised to maintain efficiencies and not be used by government to create unnecessary jobs on silly terms just to create jobs to keep the unemployment rate down.

Finally East Coast was/is a lucrative trunk line with large business use, what works there isn't going to work on say Northern Rail which like many bus services needs government subsidy to even work, there is no size fits all whatever Jeremy may tell us all.

Equally I have no idea what to do about the steel industry, however I just don't see what Nationalisation will achieve apart from you and I as taxpayers covering the c.£1m loss a week that Port Talbot is making to keep people in jobs with no long term prospect of improvement, its not as if the Chinese are going to co-operate on global prices just to save our industry?

My opinions on the problems of nationalisation have been polarised by two conversations I have had this week; first was with a director of a former nationalised utility company who are having all manner of trouble as the majority of staff just do not seem to understand that in the private sector one doesn't have a blank cheque from government underwriting everything. They are trying to modernise working practices and no one will accept anything and he is tearing his hair out as the staff by their actions are basically hamstringing the whole company moving forward and actually risking their own jobs as they just don't get it - and to clarify the guy is not some capitalist beast, he is a long standing staff member with socialist sympathies who understands that they need to modernise to protect all their futures.

The second conversation was with a former colleague from British Waterways which went from government corporation to charity c.3 years ago. He was saying that from day one they have had it explained to them that without the supply of government money they need to be more sensible and commercially minded, however they have also embraced that outside government control they can borrow against assets to fund works and thus maintain and build their commercial business. Its a very different beast from when I was there when an engineering project that cost c.£280k was approved and undertaken on the business basis that it 'might' solve a problem - it didn't but with government funding it was no ones money so who cared!

Good response, thank you. I'd agree (being ex civil service) that there needs to be culture change, but I reject the idea that public sector workers just aren't as capable as those in the private sector. I genuinely believe the railways can be run efficiently by the people. All infrastructure should be publicly owned imo.

Can't speak about steel in detail because I have no experience, but if we can spend £50 billion propping up banks to save 1000 jobs, we can spend £1 billion propping up British steel to save 15,000 jobs.