The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Xann]

The Tories will reform tax at a rate proportional to how scared they are of the rabble.

Since the system is so large and messy there's holes enough for the forseeable future.

Empty chairs at fundraisers if they were too effective.

[blandy]

11 hours ago, Risso said:

Have you seen that letter whereby the trust proposals have been "blocked" Pete?  I'd have thought that EU legislation was a bit more complicated than Cameron merely writing a letter.  The fact is, the UK now has a register of beneficial owners, which a lot of countries in the world don't have.  I'm not entirely sure having a register of trusts would work, less so how it would prevent tax avoidance.

I've read the ft article, which has extracts, comment from EU people involved in the sessions on trusts and shell companies, and detail of the process. It also gives an example of how trusts can be and were used for embezzlement of huge sums. In summary other EU Countries said he intervened personally to weaken the legislation, creating a loophole that could be exploited, but which they wanted closed. Double standards is what is alleged and it seems hard not to agree. I think a concern re trust funds is that the ones in these havens are sometimes used to avoid corporation tax in the uk - that basically money is routed out of the U.K, by a management company who then run the trust from the uk to make themselves money (with their ownership and control of the trust fund hidden)  and the management company evades corporation tax on the fund profits, because "it's controlled and run in BVI" or wherever. I bow though to your far greater knowledge.

[Risso]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I've read the ft article, which has extracts, comment from EU people involved in the sessions on trusts and shell companies, and detail of the process. It also gives an example of how trusts can be and were used for embezzlement of huge sums. In summary other EU Countries said he intervened personally to weaken the legislation, creating a loophole that could be exploited, but which they wanted closed. Double standards is what is alleged and it seems hard not to agree. I think a concern re trust funds is that the ones in these havens are sometimes used to avoid corporation tax in the uk - that basically money is routed out of the U.K, by a management company who then run the trust from the uk to make themselves money (with their ownership and control of the trust fund hidden)  and the management company evades corporation tax on the fund profits, because "it's controlled and run in BVI" or wherever. I bow though to your far greater knowledge.

Have you seen the letter Pete?  That's apparently all it takes to "personally intervene" and stop legislation, which I suspect isn't actually correct.  If it was, I imagine this Brexit lark would not be happening.  The letter is here. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/258997/PM-letter-tax-evasion.pdf Frankly, it's a load of rubbish.  And you're falling into the Guardian trap of talking about "trust funds", when I suspect you mean either trusts OR funds, as they're completely different things.  Any fund, offshore or not, is not set up to avoid tax, they're set up to make investments., and give returns on those investments.  A lot of them are set up in offshore jurisdictions, because of the tax, and I would be amazed if most people on here with pensions didn't have some of their pot invested in them.  Some UK funds are tax exempt as well though, so the difference is small.  A trust on the other hand, is an agreement whereby assets are taken out of personal possession and placed in the legal hands of trustees.  A trust fund, is just cash that a trust pays to the likes of the Bullingdon boys.

Cameron has brought all this on himself though, as his evasive answers have made him look guilty, when in fact he hasn't avoided a single penny of tax.  Completely different from the Jimmy Carr issue who used a convoluted mechanism to classify income as loans.

[chrisp65]

So, it turns out that Samantha Cameron has a P.A. and fashion adviser on a salary somewhere between £26,000 and £53,000 paid for by the state (or as I like to think of it, me).

Who is this public employee advising Sam Cam on wardrobe? It's the grandaughter of a former tory MP Lord Elliott of Morpeth. I guess she just gave the best interview for a very necessary job?

Just remember that, when your job centre has a recruitment freeze and your library asks for volunteers. The government are using your tax to pay someone to advise the PM's wife what to wear.

Nothing to see here, nothing but snouts in a trough.

Rosie Lyburn just one of £8.4Million worth of 'special advisers' we pay for each year.

 

Quote

Ms Lyburn, who went to Durham University, was a model at Beulah London, and also worked as parliamentary assistant to Conservative politician Alok Sharma and an events manager for the Conservative Party.

She is reportedly a friend of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, William and Kate.

The government's register lists some 92 "special advisers" at a cost to the taxpayer of £8.4 million a year.

and before any deflections, it would be equally wrong regardless of the colour of the tie

[sharkyvilla]

Surely the key thing is that it says P.A. and fashion advisor?  It's not that ridiculous that a P.M.'s wife might need a personal assistant really.

[Davkaus]

4 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Surely the key thing is that it says P.A. and fashion advisor?  It's not that ridiculous that a P.M.'s wife might need a personal assistant really.

Yes it is. This isn't America, and she's not the first lady.

The spouse of the prime minister has no official role, no duties, no salary, and should absolutely not have a tax-payer funded personal assistant.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Davkaus

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Risso said:

Have you seen the letter Pete?  That's apparently all it takes to "personally intervene" and stop legislation, which I suspect isn't actually correct.  If it was, I imagine this Brexit lark would not be happening.  The letter is here. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/258997/PM-letter-tax-evasion.pdf Frankly, it's a load of rubbish.  And you're falling into the Guardian trap of talking about "trust funds", when I suspect you mean either trusts OR funds, as they're completely different things.  Any fund, offshore or not, is not set up to avoid tax, they're set up to make investments., and give returns on those investments.  A lot of them are set up in offshore jurisdictions, because of the tax, and I would be amazed if most people on here with pensions didn't have some of their pot invested in them.  Some UK funds are tax exempt as well though, so the difference is small.  A trust on the other hand, is an agreement whereby assets are taken out of personal possession and placed in the legal hands of trustees.  A trust fund, is just cash that a trust pays to the likes of the Bullingdon boys.

Cameron has brought all this on himself though, as his evasive answers have made him look guilty, when in fact he hasn't avoided a single penny of tax.  Completely different from the Jimmy Carr issue who used a convoluted mechanism to classify income as loans.

Thanks. Re Cameron's personal situation - yes damn right he's brought it on himself by his evasive answers. Plus previously criticising the likes of Jimmy Carr for his private, but legal activities and just the basic difference between his behaviours and attitudes and the policies of his Gov't.

Re the letter, the Prime Minister of the UK intervened to express the view that counter to the aims of others who were working to apply more stringent policies to Trusts he, as PM of the UK was saying "no don't" - it looks bad. There may be some arguments to say it's less important than some of their other steps, but it is the case that (from what I've read [no not in the Guardian]) that firstly, as you say, UK funds can be exempt from tax - so why use the Cayman Islands - of course one reason could be legitimate, but another can be, and is, the desire to obscure the real beneficial owners/ recipients of the profits. There are examples including Nigerian crooked politicians caught doing exactly that, and hiding embezzled multi millions. More will come out, I'm sure. 

One issue with these funds in the Caymans etc. of the kind Cameron was involved in is that while they do not pay UK corporation tax they can be in reality run from the UK and thus  really be UK corporations and thus evade tax, via the step of having basically inactive, passive, residents of the Haven declared as the controllers, when really they just do what some UK bod tells them to. That's a way of tax evading - setting up sham companies. That's why naming the people involved would be helpful.

 

[chrisp65]

21 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Surely the key thing is that it says P.A. and fashion advisor?  It's not that ridiculous that a P.M.'s wife might need a personal assistant really.

Did you or anyone vote for Samantha Cameron?

The key thing is she has a public money budget for advisers because she's married to someone. I thought we had royalty so we didn't have that first lady stuff?

Perhaps we could reduce the deficit by only voting for single politicians that promise not to get married.

Up to £53,000 per year. It's a stupid and crass waste of money when they are making other people redundant to try and save money.

[Xann]

Denis Thatcher was handed a bottle of gin and told to keep quiet.

Job done.

[Risso]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Thanks. Re Cameron's personal situation - yes damn right he's brought it on himself by his evasive answers. Plus previously criticising the likes of Jimmy Carr for his private, but legal activities and just the basic difference between his behaviours and attitudes and the policies of his Gov't.

Re the letter, the Prime Minister of the UK intervened to express the view that counter to the aims of others who were working to apply more stringent policies to Trusts he, as PM of the UK was saying "no don't" - it looks bad. There may be some arguments to say it's less important than some of their other steps, but it is the case that (from what I've read [no not in the Guardian]) that firstly, as you say, UK funds can be exempt from tax - so why use the Cayman Islands - of course one reason could be legitimate, but another can be, and is, the desire to obscure the real beneficial owners/ recipients of the profits. There are examples including Nigerian crooked politicians caught doing exactly that, and hiding embezzled multi millions. More will come out, I'm sure. 

One issue with these funds in the Caymans etc. of the kind Cameron was involved in is that while they do not pay UK corporation tax they can be in reality run from the UK and thus  really be UK corporations and thus evade tax, via the step of having basically inactive, passive, residents of the Haven declared as the controllers, when really they just do what some UK bod tells them to. That's a way of tax evading - setting up sham companies. That's why naming the people involved would be helpful.

 

"Man makes modest investment, pays tax on returns."

 

This video, if it works, explains things very well.  

 

12982163_1722927784610237_2041423283_n.mp4

[tonyh29]

You almost feel sorry for the BBC presenter in that clip ... 

[chrisp65]

It really does make you wonder why he made such a pigs orifice of trying to carefully word a 'clever' vague suspicious sounding none answer on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

 

[Shaw_nuff]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It really does make you wonder why he made such a pigs orifice of trying to carefully word a 'clever' vague suspicious sounding none answer on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

 

Because he has a penchant for pig's orifices?

[sharkyvilla]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It really does make you wonder why he made such a pigs orifice of trying to carefully word a 'clever' vague suspicious sounding none answer on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

 

Originally I assume it's because his dead Dad's name was being dragged through the mud.  I'd personally go tell them to go **** themselves but as a politician he should really have spun it better.

[Shaw_nuff]

cameron paid tax on profits that themselves were in part a product of tax avoidence facilitated by locating the company offshore in the first place.

 

We are constantly told that the City is a great national asset because it represents such a great pool of financial expertise- so why not base your company in the UK? Why base it in some remote speck half a world away?

 

I have no problem with people avoiding tax as long as everyone else can do the same- so, for example- why not introduce a law that allows those on PAYE to nominate the tax regime/location of their choice? This would allow the plebs to gain the same advantages as the rich and no one would have any cause to complain since we would all be in a position to choose the tax regime that offered us the lowest tax rates.

 

But- of course- such a law would never be introduced because the parasites that run the system are not stupid enough to allow the little to guy to follow their example.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, sharkyvilla said:

Originally I assume it's because his dead Dad's name was being dragged through the mud.  I'd personally go tell them to go **** themselves but as a politician he should really have spun it better.

Agreed, he dragged it out 4 days longer than necessary because he didn't want people questioning his dad's tax affairs in Panama?

From someone with a background in media, someone that has previous spoken about other individual's tax affairs, a politician, a millionaire with millions of pounds worth of special advisers around him, tax question evasion turned out to be a very poor tactic.

 

[sharkyvilla]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Agreed, he dragged it out 4 days longer than necessary because he didn't want people questioning his dad's tax affairs in Panama?

From someone with a background in media, someone that has previous spoken about other individual's tax affairs, a politician, a millionaire with millions of pounds worth of special advisers around him, tax question evasion turned out to be a very poor tactic.

 

Exactly, as he admitted today.  His family's links to the Blairmore fund was made public four years ago without quite the same media reaction though.

[Dr_Pangloss]

[MakemineVanilla]

I found the revelation of Cameron's hypocrisy when he condemned Jimmy Carr to be a real hoot, and his discomfiture is very gratifying.

Obviously when the Socialist utopia arrives, tax avoidance will carry the severest penalties and capital accumulation will be impossible as all assets will belong to the state and the value of money will have a limited lifespan, so no money and its accompanying advantages will be passed on from one generation to another.

The Cameron family are a perfect example of a certain class of people (kulaks) who make great efforts to pass on their ill-gotten gains from from one generation to the next.

As we all know, the Cameron family wealth derives from his great grandfather Ewen Cameron's time working for the Hong Kong and Shanghai bank, which was established to reap the rewards from the defeat of China in the Opium Wars. The bank acted as intermediaries and facilitators in the export of opium from India to the market the British had forced on China. During Ewen Campbell's time as chairman at the bank huge profits were made by financing the imperialist Russo-Japanese war, who were fighting over who should have the right to exploit Korea and Manchuria.

These are the origins of the Cameron family's wealth which dates back to the the 1860s and Ewen Cameron was rewarded a KCMG (1901), for his role in the furthering of British financial interests in the Empire.   

It is beyond doubt that David Cameron is still benefiting from his Victorian forebears' opportunism and it is impossible to imagine he would be Prime Minister without his family's determination to preserve their wealth over several generations.

To dwell on the minor benefits of recent advantageous tax arrangements is to reduce the real issues to trivia and overlook the bigger picture.  

   

[Risso]

16 hours ago, Shaw_nuff said:

cameron paid tax on profits that themselves were in part a product of tax avoidence facilitated by locating the company offshore in the first place.

 

We are constantly told that the City is a great national asset because it represents such a great pool of financial expertise- so why not base your company in the UK? Why base it in some remote speck half a world away?

 

I have no problem with people avoiding tax as long as everyone else can do the same- so, for example- why not introduce a law that allows those on PAYE to nominate the tax regime/location of their choice? This would allow the plebs to gain the same advantages as the rich and no one would have any cause to complain since we would all be in a position to choose the tax regime that offered us the lowest tax rates.

 

But- of course- such a law would never be introduced because the parasites that run the system are not stupid enough to allow the little to guy to follow their example.

Watch the video above and it'll explain why everything you've written is complete guff.