Donate SIGN UP

Panama Papers

Avatar Image
mushroom25 | 09:30 Mon 04th Apr 2016 | News
50 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35918844

well well well, who'd-a thought it?

can we expect high level fall-out from these disclosures, or is the matter just going to die the death after an initial flurry of indignant tut-tutting?
Gravatar

Answers

41 to 50 of 50rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
errm, he doesnt have to say anything except that his fathers tax affairs were his own private business.

and his father hasnt been proven to have evaded tax or done anything illegal thus far....

when will some people understand the difference between avoidance and evading tax ?

its every citizens duty to pay the tax legally required and not a penny more...all this bull about moral duty blah blah is a joke...anybody who pays more is a mug.
saint peter48; // his father stashed it away in offshore accounts and paid for his sons private education with the cash,//

If some of his money were (legally) offshore, it doesn't follow that it was used for his son's education, - unless you know otherwise?
This discussion is ridiculous.
bazwillrun and Khandro ...... here is a 2011 quote from Cameron, "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.

"People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes.
"That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with people planning their tax affairs to invest in their pension and plan for their retirement – that sort of tax management is fine. But some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong.
"The government is acting by looking at a general anti-avoidance law but we do need to make progress on this. It is not fair on hardworking people who do the right thing and pay their taxes to see these sorts of scams taking place."

So it follows that if DCs fathers affairs are private then Jimmy Carrs tax affairs are nothing to do with Cameron also!!

Cameron was the one who said it was 'morally wrong' what Carr was doing so what is good for the goose is good for the gander!
saint peter48; He is talking about "morally wrong schemes", have you any evidence that Cameron Snr was involved in any morally wrong schemes?
His father was a tax dodger, end of!!
// This discussion is ridiculous.// compared to some others Nigh .....

Beeb getting excited as int the good old left wing days...

altho Baz is correct in saying Lord Someone said in a tax case 1962 that it is the right of any man to order his affairs to minimise his tax.....

time has moved on and most people consider Costa lot moving their affairs abroad ( or Google ) and paying peanuts in tax ( Google 2% turn over ) is immoral. and to make it worth flying to BVI to attend board meetings, David's Dad would have been paying a lot of tax

but to echo the Beeb conclusion
some people will be saying he is not fit to be prime minister
and others will say good on him
// This discussion is ridiculous.// Nye

the UK is following NZ in enacting a GAAR - general anti-abuse rule - and I think that covers any scheme where the point of the scheme is just to avoid tax ( rather than as a company having a trading object )

and altho this discussion is ridiculous to Nigh -
it then involves making schemes lawful now - unlawful in the future
( wh is kinda what acts of parliament do anyway )

Revenue Law may be ridiculous ( thx to Nye ) but it means a helluva lot of money to some people ( the tax lawyers of course ) and a helluva lot of tax to us tax payers
///bazwillrun, they used Camerons name because he is a big fish, ///
^Answer to why his case was used by Jeremy Vine. Of course, Vine could use his own name, or should that be his 10yr old daughter's, when discussing tax avoidance. Even I'd tune in to hear that one. Perhaps the BBC nudged him down that road because strangely, despite the shock horror reaction to this story, they are complicit with 'all' their 'talent' in various tax avoidance schemes.

41 to 50 of 50rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Panama Papers

Answer Question >>