Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate

Resignation? He had 30 grand in a company owned by his father, which he sold prior to becoming PM. He paid tax on all dividends and when he sold his stock the profit was insufficient to attract ant tax liability.
I'm still struggling to see wrongdoing.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Resignation? He had 30 grand in a company owned by his father, which he sold prior to becoming PM. He paid tax on all dividends and when he sold his stock the profit was insufficient to attract ant tax liability.
I'm still struggling to see wrongdoing.

You must be able to see what people are annoyed by it.

If not you're being deliberately obtuse.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

anyhow, what inward investment does a tax haven get? does it benefit the indigenous population?
does all this so called transparency actually make a difference to limiting evasion? or is it lip service?
seems there is no shortage of the worlds wealthy lining up to put cash into them and leaks aside, do we know anymore about this than we did in decades past.

My guess is that places like this are trying to attract investment, get wealthy people to live there, and thereby create jobs for the locals.

From their point of view they are often small with few natural resources or substantial domestic industries so the alternative is likely to be scraping by as a sometimes sunny but poor backwater.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Resignation? He had 30 grand in a company owned by his father, which he sold prior to becoming PM. He paid tax on all dividends and when he sold his stock the profit was insufficient to attract ant tax liability.
I'm still struggling to see wrongdoing.

You must be able to see what people are annoyed by it.

If not you're being deliberately obtuse.

You're mixing up doing wrong and bad PR. As Bally says, if he has paid any tax due on income or capital gains from that investment under UK rules he has done nothing wrong, even if it was in a tax haven.

But the PR is bad because it has the toxic Panama/tax haven tag and the man in the street will assume wrong doing by Cameron. This is what lefties are gleefully latching onto, despite the facts. Nothing new in that approach.

pblakeney

As I said earlier, it is a case of - Do as I say, not as I do.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Resignation? He had 30 grand in a company owned by his father, which he sold prior to becoming PM. He paid tax on all dividends and when he sold his stock the profit was insufficient to attract ant tax liability.
I'm still struggling to see wrongdoing.

You must be able to see what people are annoyed by it.

If not you're being deliberately obtuse.

I assume, but obviously can't know, that people object to the fact that people with enough money can avail themselves to legal opportunities that are dependent on wealth. They perhaps feel that it isn't fair. Well life isn't fair is it? I could walk down any high street go into a bank and see that the more I have to invest, the better the rate I can expect. Want a loan? The more wealthy I am, the better the rate. Fair? In an ideal world, probably not.
You may say that these two examples are different to the Panama question, but they have one thing in common. The practices are legal.
If I was fabulously wealthy like a F1 driver, I could base myself in Monaco and pay no tax. I'm not so can't but good luck to those that can. If the law gets changed and they have to start paying then they should be made to pay. Until then, no problem.
I have said before on other threads that people should fulfil their tax obligation. I have said on here that people who have acted illegally should be punished. No-one has even alleged illegality, never mind demonstrated any.
Cameron Snr appears on a list of investors in a tax haven. No allegation that what he did was illegal. DC paid tax on the dividends he received as being a very small investor in the company and fulfilled his tax obligations.
There has been a hysteria generated by the words 'Tax Haven' which is in some way reminiscent of the 'Paedophile' hysteria some years back. Then a mob attacked the home of a paediatrician because of the trigger word paed.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

When the PM is at (and a liar) , you have to wonder why anyone should give a shoot about the UK but i do, disgusting really and a complete let down for the once great one nation Tory party.

Leaders should be respected, the sort of people who you d follow into no mans land and he falls far short, he has led us all along with a series of half truths and out right lies, i suspect a resignation and a small windfall for my fav charity eh steve0 !!!!

Curious. Who was the last PM that you would have followed into no man's land? Or any world leader come to that.

ballysmate

From the Peston interview

It wasn't a family trust. It wasn't for the benefit of one particular family. Anyone could have bought units in it. And crucially if you were a UK citizen and bought units in it then you paid income tax on the dividends and you paid capital gains tax when you sold the shares. It was subject to full UK taxation. So that's what it was, there are many other unit trusts like it.

And the problem is?

orraloon

Ballysmate wrote:

From the Peston interview

It wasn't a family trust. It wasn't for the benefit of one particular family. Anyone could have bought units in it. And crucially if you were a UK citizen and bought units in it then you paid income tax on the dividends and you paid capital gains tax when you sold the shares. It was subject to full UK taxation. So that's what it was, there are many other unit trusts like it.

And the problem is?

So why the Panama bit?

As stated above, 'offshore', 'tax haven' and 'Panama' are becoming toxic terms. Perceptions change, and perceived injustice, never mind what is legal or not legal, rightly raises hackles, in a country where the strapline for years now has been 'Austerity' (for some, not for all).

Anyroads, surely the only reason for registering an entity offshore is to limit the visibility by authorities, fiscal or judicial, over the ownership of assets. And you only do that if you want to hide something.

ballysmate

orraloon wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

From the Peston interview

It wasn't a family trust. It wasn't for the benefit of one particular family. Anyone could have bought units in it. And crucially if you were a UK citizen and bought units in it then you paid income tax on the dividends and you paid capital gains tax when you sold the shares. It was subject to full UK taxation. So that's what it was, there are many other unit trusts like it.

And the problem is?

So why the Panama bit?

As stated above, 'offshore', 'tax haven' and 'Panama' are becoming toxic terms. Perceptions change, and perceived injustice, never mind what is legal or not legal, rightly raises hackles, in a country where the strapline for years now has been 'Austerity' (for some, not for all).

Anyroads, surely the only reason for registering an entity offshore is to limit the visibility by authorities, fiscal or judicial, over the ownership of assets. And you only do that if you want to hide something.

I don't pretend to have much knowledge in the field but it seems to have been set up in Panama after some relaxation of currency exchange back in 1979/80. If this is incorrect please update me.

Meanwhile...

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-07/the- ... blairmore/

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Resignation? He had 30 grand in a company owned by his father, which he sold prior to becoming PM. He paid tax on all dividends and when he sold his stock the profit was insufficient to attract ant tax liability.
I'm still struggling to see wrongdoing.

You must be able to see what people are annoyed by it.

If not you're being deliberately obtuse.

You're mixing up doing wrong and bad PR. As Bally says, if he has paid any tax due on income or capital gains from that investment under UK rules he has done nothing wrong, even if it was in a tax haven.

But the PR is bad because it has the toxic Panama/tax haven tag and the man in the street will assume wrong doing by Cameron. This is what lefties are gleefully latching onto, despite the facts. Nothing new in that approach.

You can see why people are annoyed tax havens exist.

You can see even more that a PM who leads a government who makes deep cuts to public services in order to reduce government deficit using one is doubly annoying.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Meanwhile...

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-07/the- ... blairmore/

from the article...

UPDATE
So for the avoidance of doubt, what I am saying is that the Blairmore furore shines a light on the extraordinarily high incidence of the use of offshore arrangements by businesses to avoid tax.
Most would say that is a noxious phenomenon.
And given David Cameron's public stand against such tax avoidance, it is embarrassing for him that his late dad employed such techniques at the investment fund he founded.
But Blairmore itself does not appear to have been a vehicle designed to reduce the personal tax bill of the Camerons.

again DC is caught out by his rhetoric..... much like family values from the same lot a few years ago, not illegal but not what most people can do and certainly not in the "all in it together" mantra.

DC had 6 years to make clear that this was his dads fund, he had nothing to do with it and perhaps donate the fund to charity, with a net worth of £30million he would nt miss it, he didnt, kept it secret and is paying the price

orraloon

Ballysmate wrote:

I don't pretend to have much knowledge in the field but it seems to have been set up in Panama after some relaxation of currency exchange back in 1979/80. If this is incorrect please update me.

Meanwhile...

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-07/the- ... blairmore/

You park your assets in a jurisdiction which is happy to not deduct corporation taxes on profits, and leave the asset to build free of tax. You don't take dividends or sell asset thereby avoiding paying UK income or CG taxes at your marginal rate. Leave the assets there outside of scrutiny by UK authorities. Sometime in the future, kick that issue down the road, work out how to extract the funds while minimising personal tax liability, by e.g. I dunno employing the services of a taxation expert.

In theory let the profits accumulate. However glad :roll: to see Shiny Faced Dave appears to have inherited his father's ability to be a bit 1/2 a4sed, "the performance of this small £21m fund has been anything but stellar"

ballysmate

Let profits accumulate? Doesn't matter if your assets are here or abroad, you only pay tax on profits. From the article

As a company incorporated in Panama, the tax would go to the Panamanian taxman - which would do naff all good to our deficit (and Panama as a point of principle doesn't want the tax).

Second, the less tax Blairmore pays in Panama, the bigger the dividends it can in theory pay to investors in Britain - who should therefore pay commensurately more tax in the UK.

And finally, Blairmore's Panama/Bahamas structure - which latterly became a Panama/Dublin structure - is spectacularly conventional.

So when anyone takes their profits they have to pay tax. The greater the profit, the greater the tax take for HMRC.

Again, where's the problem?

mamba80

So why didnt cameron tell all at the beginning of the week or better still, 6 years ago? how long did he have this fund?
i m assuming this was never registered in the list of MPs interests or we d have known about it earlier.

Yet another example of his v poor judgement.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

So why didnt cameron tell all at the beginning of the week or better still, 6 years ago? how long did he have this fund?
i m assuming this was never registered in the list of MPs interests or we d have known about it earlier.

Yet another example of his v poor judgement.

MPs are not required to declare shareholdings in unit trusts, holdings below £70,000 or 15% of a partnership:

http://order-order.com/2016/04/08/why-c ... interests/

surrey_commuter

maybe somebody could explain why you would offshore money if there is no tax benefit - this is a genuine question as it might make the general public less sceptical

iPete

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe somebody could explain why you would offshore money if there is no tax benefit - this is a genuine question as it might make the general public less sceptical

Someone please correct me but there were no foreign exchange restrictions in Panama in the 1980s, something to do with it being beneficial for trading on the stock exchange with USD and nothing to do with tax at the time.

edit: oh sh** i stopped lurking.

orraloon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe somebody could explain why you would offshore money if there is no tax benefit - this is a genuine question as it might make the general public less sceptical

Put your entity under the jurisdiction of a country or territory which has a low or zero rate of company tax. Say Panama for a topical example, though I'm sure our resident tax expert will be along shortly to clarify if I get things wrong. And better still choose one which has no disclosure arrangements.

Company, or fund keeping it topical, profits are not subject to deduction of corporate tax, so clear benefit there.

Keep your dosh in low or no tax states. Witness Apple and other mega USanian corporates keeping their massive piles of cash outside the relatively high tax US.

Your cash is only subject to UK or US or wherever corporate taxes when it is moved back onshore. And individual owners / shareholders of such funds / companies are only subject to income tax when they actually take an income, or CGT on sale of asset.

Everyone's a winner, except HMRC, IRS, etc etc.

briantrumpet

orraloon wrote:

Everyone's a winner, except HMRC, IRS, etc etc.

Us, in other words.

Lookyhere

briantrumpet wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Everyone's a winner, except HMRC, IRS, etc etc.

Us, in other words.

the bottom line is that the more tax accountants like Steve0 save their clients or these people save by using off shore (and i love the phrase "tax efficient") means less for the things that matter to us plebs...... schools health road mtc etc or the more we have to pay through PAYE.
As someone said the powerful/rich make the rules and enforce or not and they dont like paying tax.

i cant understand some saying "whats the problem?"

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe somebody could explain why you would offshore money if there is no tax benefit - this is a genuine question as it might make the general public less sceptical

If you're fighting a corrupt regime it can be useful to be able to squirrel some money away in secret.

Think of it as what's app encryption for your money

Lookyhere

This is hilarious....

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if- ... 73161.html

pblakeney

Lookyhere wrote:

This is hilarious....

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if- ... 73161.html

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Meanwhile...

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-07/the- ... blairmore/

from the article...

UPDATE
So for the avoidance of doubt, what I am saying is that the Blairmore furore shines a light on the extraordinarily high incidence of the use of offshore arrangements by businesses to avoid tax.
Most would say that is a noxious phenomenon.
And given David Cameron's public stand against such tax avoidance, it is embarrassing for him that his late dad employed such techniques at the investment fund he founded.
But Blairmore itself does not appear to have been a vehicle designed to reduce the personal tax bill of the Camerons.

again DC is caught out by his rhetoric..... much like family values from the same lot a few years ago, not illegal but not what most people can do and certainly not in the "all in it together" mantra.

DC had 6 years to make clear that this was his dads fund, he had nothing to do with it and perhaps donate the fund to charity, with a net worth of £30million he would nt miss it, he didnt, kept it secret and is paying the price

But Blairmore itself does not appear to have been a vehicle designed to reduce the personal tax bill of the Camerons.

So no evasion or even avoidance then. Anyone can invest, just like the Camerons, make a profit and pay tax on them just like the Camerons.
He didn't need to declare his ownership of unit trusts as a MP because they didn't meet the criteria.
So as it stands, DC openly invested in a foreign company, received dividends on which he paid tax.
There is no loss to the taxman.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe somebody could explain why you would offshore money if there is no tax benefit - this is a genuine question as it might make the general public less sceptical

Put your entity under the jurisdiction of a country or territory which has a low or zero rate of company tax. Say Panama for a topical example, though I'm sure our resident tax expert will be along shortly to clarify if I get things wrong. And better still choose one which has no disclosure arrangements.

Company, or fund keeping it topical, profits ar

e not subject to deduction of corporate tax, so clear benefit there.

Keep your dosh in low or no tax states. Witness Apple and other mega USanian corporates keeping their massive piles of cash outside the relatively high tax US.

Your cash is only subject to UK or US or wherever corporate taxes when it is moved back onshore. And individual owners / shareholders of such funds / companies are only subject to income tax when they actually take an income, or CGT on sale of asset.

Everyone's a winner, except HMRC, IRS, etc etc.

I've already explained how the UK anti tax haven rules work, have a read.

What you describe though isn't far off the mark in that an offshore investment behicle itself will not pay tax itself on the income and gains that it makes (apart from maybe withholding taxes in some cases when it invests overseas). And that the investors in such a vehicle are taxed on their income (dividends) or gains (when they sell/cash in their investment) in their home territory when they receive these.

If this sounds a bit familiar to you, it should. Because apart from the offshore aspect, that's pretty much how your pension fund works

It would appear that the only real difference here is the amount that some people have to invest and not the tax treatment. Which brings us back to one of the underlying themes of this part of the thread - good old politics of envy

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Everyone's a winner, except HMRC, IRS, etc etc.

Us, in other words.

the bottom line is that the more tax accountants like Steve0 save their clients or these people save by using off shore (and i love the phrase "tax efficient") means less for the things that matter to us plebs...... schools health road mtc etc or the more we have to pay through PAYE.
As someone said the powerful/rich make the rules and enforce or not and they dont like paying tax.

i cant understand some saying "whats the problem?"

I dont have clients btw.

I love all this talk about paying your 'fair share'. There are too many lazy gits who choose 'lifestyle jobs' that result in them not earning much and not paying much tax - and in many cases being net recipients from the state rather than net contributors. If they worked a bit harder then they might be able to pay their 'fair share' as well.

After all, we're all in this together

ballysmate

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

When the PM is at (and a liar) , you have to wonder why anyone should give a shoot about the UK but i do, disgusting really and a complete let down for the once great one nation Tory party.

Leaders should be respected, the sort of people who you d follow into no mans land and he falls far short, he has led us all along with a series of half truths and out right lies, i suspect a resignation and a small windfall for my fav charity eh steve0 !!!!

Curious. Who was the last PM that you would have followed into no man's land? Or any world leader come to that.

Well?

Stevo_666

Given my point above about how offshore funds work from a tax perspective, I'd also like mamba to tell us whether he has any money invested in a pension fund

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given my point above about how offshore funds work from a tax perspective, I'd also like mamba to tell us whether he has any money invested in a pension fund .

i ve a salary, a house and some savings which give me an income... thats it.....