[UK] New questions emerge about Cameron's missing £72.000 - Polidicks

[t]http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00007/David_Cameron_3_7414c.jpg[/t] Picture of Cameron ducking to avoid taxes [quote=bbc]He still faces questions, though. Downing Street is providing no details about the £72,000 the PM received for selling "other shares" beyond his investment in Blairmore Holdings. Or the £40,000 he received in cash from his stockbroking account. It is argued by some that Mr Cameron should reveal which shares he invested in and how he structured those investments. Also, it is worth noting that revealing tax returns reveals very little about a person's absolute wealth...[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36009963[/url] [quote=mirror]Shamefaced David Cameron faces a public grilling over his personal tax affairs amid questions about a second secret stash of shares worth £72,000. The under-fire Prime Minister will make a humiliating statement to Parliament after his tax returns showed he secretly sold off another huge tranche of shares in 2010 alongside the £31,000 stake in his dad’s offshore fund. Downing Street is refusing to say which other investment funds or private firms the PM held a stake in - and if any more of them were based in dodgy tax havens.[/quote] [url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-face-public-grilling-7728437#ICID=sharebar_twitter[/url] I wonder what else will be dredged up. I bet the rest of parliament are shitting about their own nest eggs getting discovered.

I don't really see why this is a problem? This was discovered through his tax returns, meaning he paid tax on it. These "dodgy offshore tax havens" are meaningless in the case of the original fund, because all the profits are passed on to investors anyway and as such are not liable to taxation at the fund level. I wish the media would wait and gather all the facts before revealing half of a story that rides on the back of another story that holds no weight anyway. I don't like David Cameron's policies but he doesn't deserve this. Not yet, anyway - time will tell whether he actually did anything wrong.

[QUOTE=Trumple;50114620]I don't really see why this is a problem? This was discovered through his tax returns, meaning he paid tax on it. These "dodgy offshore tax havens" are meaningless in the case of the original fund, because all the profits are passed on to investors anyway and as such are not liable to taxation at the fund level. I wish the media would wait and gather all the facts before revealing half of a story that rides on the back of another story that holds no weight anyway. I don't like David Cameron's policies but he doesn't deserve this. Not yet, anyway - time will tell whether he actually did anything wrong.[/QUOTE] They don't like the fact that he has money. Politics of envy.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50114628]They don't like the fact that he has money. Politics of envy.[/QUOTE] I feel like that's exactly it. The PM is rich, like every other PM before him, it's just that this particular PM was put in the spotlight. The media doesn't care if all the money he earned was properly taxed - they just care about the fact he's been shown to have money

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50114628]They don't like the fact that he has money. Politics of envy.[/QUOTE] Close! We (I, but I assume most are thinking the same) don't like the idea of a tax avoider being the guy in charge of closing the loopholes used by tax avoiders. You were almost right tho. 5 points to slitherin

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50114659]Close! We (I, but I assume most are thinking the same) don't like the idea of a tax avoider being the guy in charge of closing the loopholes used by tax avoiders. You were almost right tho. 5 points to slitherin[/QUOTE] What tax avoiding has he done?

[QUOTE=Trumple;50114665]What tax avoiding has he done?[/QUOTE] Having his money is an offshore account with the intention of avoiding paying taxes in the UK.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50114806]Having his money is an offshore account with the intention of avoiding paying taxes in the UK.[/QUOTE] He had shares in a fund (owned by his father) located overseas. That isn't the same thing remotely, and you should know this.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50114813]He had shares in a fund (owned by his father) located overseas. That isn't the same thing remotely, and you should know this.[/QUOTE] So by having shares in that fund is he is profiting from tax avoidance directly? thats even worse? That would be an even bigger conflict of interest. I honestly thing you are deluded thinking that's ok. You could (I and will) argue that he avoided paying inheritance tax. Inherited amount was just under taxable threshold then a little later he receives a free gift from his mum? Tax free naturally coz its just a gift right? For good behavior no doubt. Dodgy Dave

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50114806]Having his money is an offshore account with the intention of avoiding paying taxes in the UK.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you read my first post but I'll clarify: The type of investment fund Cameron invested in is called a "distributor fund". That means that any profits arising through the investments are distributed to investors. The investors then pay tax on that income in whatever country they live in - so for example, Cameron puts it down on his tax returns here in the UK, an investor in the States does the equivalent over there. That means ALL profit the fund makes is taxed on an individual level rather than at the level of the fund. Bear in mind, a distributor fund can be set up in any country - it's not specific to "tax havens". Cameron didn't avoid paying any tax on the profit from his investments. He put it down in his tax returns and that was the end of it. This type of investment is not a "tax avoidance" because, quite simply, it [B]doesn't avoid you having to pay tax[/B]. It's a typical investment performed by anybody who invests in overseas companies.

IF wasn't cutting so many social programs I dought most people would care I feel this is more last straw that broke the camels back short of thing

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50114828]So by having shares in that fund is he is profiting from tax avoidance directly? thats even worse? That would be an even bigger conflict of interest. I honestly thing you are deluded thinking that's ok. You could (I and will) argue that he avoided paying inheritance tax. Inherited amount was just under taxable threshold then a little later he receives a free gift from his mum? Tax free naturally coz its just a gift right? For good behavior no doubt. Dodgy Dave[/QUOTE] Lmao at your characterisation of the inheritance tax dodge. Every middle class family in the country does this because the lifetime gift is a deliberate loophole left in. Everyone sensible 'dodges' this tax in the way that they don't deliberately pay the maximum amount of tax on everything. This tax loophole is similar to an ISA: It is deliberately left open because the government expect you to exploit it.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50114898]Lmao at your characterisation of the inheritance tax dodge. Every middle class family in the country does this because the lifetime gift is a deliberate loophole left in. Everyone sensible 'dodges' this tax in the way that they don't deliberately pay the maximum amount of tax on everything. This tax loophole is similar to an ISA: It is deliberately left open because the government expect you to exploit it.[/QUOTE] The difference is that David Cameron is in charge of writing the laws, so the excuse that someone is just using the system that is presented to them doesn't actually work for him. I wouldn't mind it if he wasn't also lobbying the EU to keep loopholes open (from a previous article in sh).

This was all that he said about trying to 'keep loopholes open' in his 'intervention': [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfbJ1lhXEAAHQUd.jpg[/IMG] Basically the tabloid the Guardian spun so much I'm surprised they didn't puke.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50114898]Lmao at your characterisation of the inheritance tax dodge. Every middle class family in the country does this because the lifetime gift is a deliberate loophole left in. Everyone sensible 'dodges' this tax in the way that they don't deliberately pay the maximum amount of tax on everything. This tax loophole is similar to an ISA: It is deliberately left open because the government expect you to exploit it.[/QUOTE] You realise this is what people are annoyed about don't you, that the government are deliberately leaving loopholes open? Nobody is claiming what Cameron did was illegal, they're claiming he's corrupt in that he's purposefully doing nothing to close loopholes.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50115121]You realise this is what people are annoyed about don't you, that the government are deliberately leaving loopholes open? Nobody is claiming what Cameron did was illegal, they're claiming he's corrupt in that he's purposefully doing nothing to close loopholes.[/QUOTE] You want the loophole of the ISA to be closed? Genius! [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] You want the one way to mitigate one of the most unpopular taxes among the electorate (and not just the wealthy), IHT, to be closed? What a popular policy! Cameron should implement it right away!

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50115134]You want the loophole of the ISA to be closed? Genius! [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] You want the one way to mitigate one of the most unpopular taxes among the electorate (and not just the wealthy), IHT, to be closed? What a popular policy! Cameron should implement it right away![/QUOTE] IHT doesn't even affect the majority of the electorate, it's a tax that pretty much only affects the richest. I don't think it's all as unpopular as you say.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50115134]You want the loophole of the ISA to be closed? Genius! [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] You want the one way to mitigate one of the most unpopular taxes among the electorate (and not just the wealthy), IHT, to be closed? What a popular policy! Cameron should implement it right away![/QUOTE] Yeah that only affects rich people or very well off people. [url]https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/overview[/url]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50115121]You realise this is what people are annoyed about don't you, that the government are deliberately leaving loopholes open? Nobody is claiming what Cameron did was illegal, they're claiming he's corrupt in that he's purposefully doing nothing to close loopholes.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the very secret ISA loophole. Or the well documented tax-free gift: [url]https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts[/url] This is not dodgy by any means. It is public knowledge, and these tax rules were around for years before Cameron came in to power. People are now confusing the offshore investments with the inheritance when in reality these two things have nothing to do with each other, and are both perfectly legitimate using well-known tax rules. Tax-free allowances are not loopholes, they are well-known allowances. It's no different from your income tax allowance of ~10k. Sure, if you quit your job at the 10k mark and didn't work for the rest of the year, you wouldn't have to pay tax on your income because none would be due. It's the same principle here. And it's used by everyone.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50115167]Yeah that only affects rich people or very well off people. [url]https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/overview[/url][/QUOTE] Around 2/3 of people own their own homes, a large number of houses are over that threshold. So no, I'm afraid, just because, like me, you're poor and young, doesn't mean that only rich people are affected. Unless you want to class so many people as 'rich' that it is meaningless. [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;50115159]IHT doesn't even affect the majority of the electorate, it's a tax that pretty much only affects the richest. I don't think it's all as unpopular as you say.[/QUOTE] A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH, friend, shows it is actually THE MOST UNPOPULAR TAX (at least a few sources from various angles show that). Sorry.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50115181]Around 2/3 of people own their own homes, a large number of houses are over that threshold. So no, I'm afraid, just because, like me, you're poor and young, doesn't mean that only rich people are affected. Unless you want to class so many people as 'rich' that it is meaningless. [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH, friend, shows it is actually THE MOST UNPOPULAR TAX (at least a few sources from various angles show that). Sorry.[/QUOTE] People want the threshhold increased, it's not unpopular they just want it adjusting.

If it doesn't even affect most people, then why do they need the threshold increased? Stop making stuff up as you go along and admit that it is unpopular.

My stepdad was commending Cameron and his family for doing this, saying it's natural for companies and people to minimise their taxes. I absolutely get that it's natural for people to try to minimise taxes but it's also the responsibility of the government to prevent tax evasion and avoidance. That's a bit of a conflict of interest there. Especially when you consider the wider context that he's trying to cut budget deficit and has actively impoverished sick and disabled to get there and then been part of the reason we have a deficit.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50115208]If it doesn't even affect most people, then why do they need the threshold increased? Stop making stuff up as you go along and admit that it is unpopular.[/QUOTE] It doesn't affect most people for the time being, but obviously it needs to rise with inflation. It's mostly down to the increasing house prices in London.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50115218]It doesn't affect most people for the time being, but obviously it needs to rise with inflation. It's mostly down to the increasing house prices in London.[/QUOTE] Then why do people not like it if it doesn't affect them?

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50115231]Then why do people not like it if it doesn't affect them?[/QUOTE] Where have you gotten these figures for people not liking it? Most I can find it stuff of people wanting it raised so they dont get caught in it as inflation rises. Either that or just your average idiots getting worried over something that won't affect them because they don't understand how it works.

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/11/why-everyone-hates-inheritance-tax-even-if-theyll-never-pay-it/[/url] [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] I was actually incorrect in the number of people who have to pay it. But I was completely correct about how unpopular it is, as I have seen repeated everywhere.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50115251][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/11/why-everyone-hates-inheritance-tax-even-if-theyll-never-pay-it/[/url] [editline]12th April 2016[/editline] I was actually incorrect in the number of people who have to pay it. But I was completely correct about how unpopular it is, as I have seen repeated everywhere.[/QUOTE] So essentially stupid people who don't understand it and said they didn't like it on one poll. It's a necessary tax, without it you risk effectively creating an oligarchy of constantly passed down wealth very similar to the old nobility. Anyone who opposes that, particularly if they don't even pay it is a moron.

Well, have fun losing elections then I guess. People hate this tax.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50115282]Well, have fun losing elections then I guess. People hate this tax.[/QUOTE] I think if it came to an election and you actually explained it to them, most wouldn't care. It's just people not actually understanding what it is on a poll.