When the corporations take over that'll happen.
Also, David Cameron and the Panama Papers is an awesome band name.
General / Off-Topic David Cameron and the Panama Papers
- Thread starter Patrick_68000
- Start date
When the corporations take over that'll happen.
Also, David Cameron and the Panama Papers is an awesome band name.
Your words, not mine.
I never said it was any sort of shady plot.
I simply said and I say again, it is very suspicious that the papers seem to have details of so many politicians and leaders, yet none from America.
If I were an irrational conspiracy theorist, I would be thinking it was a nasty plot to smear the American ruling classes by implication. Given the divided state of American politics and law, that can only result in a further division of the unity of the USA.
Fortunately, I have lived long enough not to jump to conclusions and simply ask questions then bide my time. In the sure and certain knowledge that when we plebs are supposed to know we will be told.
We've not seen the raw data. The journalists have "filtered" the data for public interest stories, politicians, leaders, sanction busting, criminal activity etc. It's possible that some Americans are in the leak, but they and their affairs were sufficiently mundane not to be published.
.
we may never know, I simply put forward some possible explanations for the anomaly you noticed. They are supposition as the hard facts to prove or disprove the theories is beyond our reach. However the theories are based on known facts and balances of probabilities. It is highly likely and logical that different tax havens will suit different nationalities better. Panama is more in the "orbit" of the US than other havens, so it is not a stretch that other havens might be more attractive to Americans.
Just a few thoughts on the absence of US companies in the data released to date:
Delaware
Nevada
Wyoming
U.S. Virgin Islands
Not taking sides (and most definitely not pushing an agenda); just a point of interest is all.
Delaware
Nevada
Wyoming
U.S. Virgin Islands
Not taking sides (and most definitely not pushing an agenda); just a point of interest is all.
There's an article on the bbc herehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35985463 about an oil company moving it's registered base from the Bahamas to Mauritius because it had assets in Uganda, and a Mauritius company would avoid capital gains tax on Ugandan assets, whilst a Bahamas based company would have to pay the tax.
This is the kind of thing I was getting at, depending on what you want to achieve (avoid UK taxes, avoid US taxes, Ugandan taxes) you will select the appropriate tax haven. Ir may be that Panama is not a good choice for the sorts of things Americans want to do (avoid us taxes I imagine).
This is the kind of thing I was getting at, depending on what you want to achieve (avoid UK taxes, avoid US taxes, Ugandan taxes) you will select the appropriate tax haven. Ir may be that Panama is not a good choice for the sorts of things Americans want to do (avoid us taxes I imagine).
Nope.
It has already been remarked about no Americans being on the data. The BBC and others. I posted a link recently.
As for the rest, you're still guessing. It strikes me that if I were to speculate as much as you you'd be saying
Oh wait, you already did.
So speculation about the facts behind a small morsel of information is out then? 'Cos this whole thread is based on speculation that DC has done something illegal or immoral based on the fact that his late father set up an investment fund (I believe it's a hedge fund) that, like many others was registered outside the UK and DC and his wife invested some £15k in it. All the facts point to it being a legal and normal arrangement, all the facts point to all the appropriate taxes having been paid.
So far there is to quote a tax expert "nothing that would make me raise my eyebrows", yet people are still speculating there might be something illegal and so call for more digging.
.
If corbyn publishes his taxes and "there is nothing unusual" should we keep digging as well?
So far there is to quote a tax expert "nothing that would make me raise my eyebrows", yet people are still speculating there might be something illegal and so call for more digging.
.
If corbyn publishes his taxes and "there is nothing unusual" should we keep digging as well?
No, some did indeed argue that.
Many, myself included, argued that there is no evidence of any wrong doing by Cameron and that the documents are more interesting for what they don't contain than what they do.
You are right, the Americans don't need to use the likes of Panama etc. They have states that offer lower rates etc. As in the examples above.
Also as you have said: Data released so far; there is a lot more to come.
X-Terminator
Banned
His mom laundered £200,000 to avoid inheritance tax in future. Not only that but you must pay tax on any money gift over £3000 in any year. That is a jail sentence for a person in his position!
Agreed: Dave has not released his tax returns, just a piece of paper with some numbers on it. No official documents. At the same time, I have not said that Dave has broken any UK laws, that is why he has accountants etc..
However: He is being dishonest; with the tax payers of the UK.
He is being a hypocrite to the people of the UK; by trying to convince them, that we are all in it together.
He has manipulated the UKs tax law, to gain financially. (Example: £300,000 inheritance, plus 2 times 'gifts' of £100,000; all legal under UK law, but if had come in one lump, would have cost him, £200,000, approximately in tax. £200,000, lost gains to the treasury.) This is an individual that stands to inherit, through a trust fund, close to £40 million; after leaving office.
He may have, mislead parliament about his assists etc, at the time he was an MP, I am not saying he has done so here; for legal reasons, but it would seem, that he has because: If he sold his interests in a Panama Trust in 2010 or 2012; after being advised to do so; due to him becoming Prime Minister. Why weren't these 'interests' mentioned before, in his financial declarations as an MP?
Hate to harp on, but that's what I've maintained, repeatedly here, about every UK government for the last 35+ years.
A major fraud based upon a supposed, never-ending, economic crisis that must be dealt with by cutting services and pay to the lower paid while cutting taxes to the higher.
That's nonsense.
The issue is hiding investments from the tax man, not investing where you get the best returns.
So far he has inherited £300k, the rest presumably going to his mother (who will receive it tax free as a spouse). As he's only inherited £300k he only has to pay the tax due on that, which is zero because the rules say less than £325k(ish) is free.
:
When his mother dies the rest of the estate will become due for tax.
.
As for the gifts, I assume HMRC has passed them as within the rules, so what's the problem? Yes, if they had elected to transfer the lot as a £500k lump from his father's estate it would have attracted a but under £80k of tax (not £200k, the 40% is on the amount over the £325k limit). But instead they decided to do it as a £300k inheritance and 2 £100k gifts which are only free of IHT if the giver survives 7 years. This is totally legal.
:
This is no different from someone using a student/nurses/pensioner card to get discounts at places which give discounts. Students/nurses/pensioners don't have to use the discount, they could pay full price.
:
If someone said they'd give you £500k today but you'd have to pay £80k to HMRC, or you could get £300k and then two further payments of £100k that you might not have to pay the tax on, what would you honestly go for?
On 500k he would have had to pay, 40% As you said, it is over the 325k threshold.
If I was given 500K and told I could have it all, if I took 300k and then 2 gifts of 100k, of course I would have it that way; but we are not discussing my morals or ethics, we are talking about a Prime Minister; who claims to have better morals than the rest of us.
and you are not a fan boy?
FYI, it's like income tax, you only pay the tax on the amount above the £325k,
so £500k would be 40% x (£500-£325) = 40% of £175k or £70k.
Not 40% x £500k = £200k
Not a fan boy. Just trying not to be a hypocrite.
I think condemning someone for doing what you would have done in their shoes is hypocritical (hell, it's not even what I think, it's the literal definition of hypocrisy).
As this little video clip points out, the same papers that are calling him out give advice about minimising tax liabilities in their money section.
Last edited:
No, stop manipulating things to fit your own thoughts. No I am not a Prime Minister and NOT in his shoes. Therefore I am not setting an example or claiming that I am. He is. The option is there for me to take and the extra £175k would make a massive difference to my life. To him, it is nothing; well not nothing to him, as he is grabbing and hoarding all he can.
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
You did miss that he overpaid tax by not claiming all of the allowances he could.
So, just for the record, the point here is that a Prime Minister should have a different tax regime compared to every other person in the UK?
Does this mean that all other parties will promise to pay extra tax for moral reasons on their expenses? Or will all forego their personal allowances?
In short - man follows tax rules. Man pays correct tax according to the rules. This is a non-story.
So, just for the record, the point here is that a Prime Minister should have a different tax regime compared to every other person in the UK?
Does this mean that all other parties will promise to pay extra tax for moral reasons on their expenses? Or will all forego their personal allowances?
In short - man follows tax rules. Man pays correct tax according to the rules. This is a non-story.
The real problem about this simple little idea is that this man who is following all the rules to find those little loopholes to save him obscene amounts of money is also the same person who makes those rules. This is why transparency is so important, and why the leader of the opposition has asked for an enquiry. "None of your business" is not an acceptable response.
I hope an enquiry would look into the affairs of some of the other politicians as well..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ss-that-pays-no-corporation-tax-a6873151.html
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
Isn't that just another way of saying 'as PM he should follow different tax rules from the rest of us?' He alone does not set the tax regime, so you must by definition include every MP in this. If any one of them has an ISA they need to be put in jail or something, after all, it's avoiding tax via a loophole. If any of them has an offset mortgage, then prosecute them. It's avoiding tax via a loophole. My dad bought me lunch last week - should I pay 40% of the cost of it if he dies in the next 7 seven years? Or do I get a bye because I'm not PM?
In all honesty every MP should be subject to an enquiry, not just the ones the Indy/Grauniad have a pop at. While they are at it the trade unions and most charities need a good going over too - they avoid tax by a loophole too don't forget. (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/MANUALS/ctmanual/ctm41260.htm) and UNITE is quite famous for avoiding corporation tax via various loopholes.