Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Looking at the papers and particularly some of the comments, there does seem to be general ignorance. A lot of playing the man and not the ball going on.

Yep, one of the red tops had a headline on avoiding tax on a gift from his mother, which is not just legal but as someone on here put it 'as parliament intended'.

rick_chasey

And to be clear, the reason ISAs and pension tax breaks exist is because people generally don't save as much as they should do, and so the gov't tries to correct that failure by incentivising them to save.

Tax havens do not provide the same kind of social advantage.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Looking at the papers and particularly some of the comments, there does seem to be general ignorance. A lot of playing the man and not the ball going on.

You don't get it.

Once you are really rich, suddenly a whole bunch of tax advantages become available to you, meaning you can actually pay proportionally less tax than low earners.

Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant. People feel that the more you earn, the more you should pay; at least proportionally as much as others.

Tax havens aren't accessible to everyone in the same way ISAs or pensions are; they're only available to people who earn enough to pay for al the admin to go with it etc.

That's what irritates people. And from a gov't who's made such a song and dance about the parlous state of state finances, people are keen that everyone pays their fair share. That's why the Tories came up with the 'we're all in this together' slogan; because they know people will only be OK paying up for reduced services if everyone's doing the same. This illustrates to everyone what has been in the back of lots of people's minds; that it isn't.

There's also a smaller point that if your leaders are using these tax haven set ups and are benefitting from laws that advantage the rich at the expense of state finances (where the spending is proportionally more on the poor, and rightly so), then they may have a vested interest to protect the rich over the poor. Given the poor are plenty more numerous than rich, that won't fly in a democracy....

Sounds like you have just skipped the last few pages and repeated what you said before.

A few relevant points in reply to yours:
1. Cameron has avoided no tax despite all the misinfomed bleating on here.
2. The point that tax havens are jot accessible to all like ISA's, pensions etc is rubbish. You or I can invest in offshore funds just like we can an onshore fund. Many of these do not have large minimum investment requirement. Sure there are others where you need to out in a lot, but there are lots of onshore financial products life that. That's life.
3. A lot of the people complaining about those who in their eyes do not pay enough tax usually pay very little tax themselves. They know that they do not end up paying for all the things they want the state to provide.
4. Its a fact of life that when you earn more your tax affairs tend to become more complex and you need tax advice not just to manage your affairs sensibly but also to make sure you stay wihin a very complex set of laws. If tax was simpe I'd be doing something else.
5. Yet again, take a look at the facts about how much tax in both absolute terms and percentage of total tax take those in the upper income brackets pay.

rick_chasey

Ok.

1. I never mentioned Cameron.

2. If tax havens are so accessible so accessible, why does it seem they're used exclusively by the well off? Id' suggest the advantages of a tax haven only kick in when you already have a lot.

3. You can't take someone's wealth out of the context of who pays a lot and who doesn't. Hence me using the world 'proportional'. People feel that it's about paying the fair amount PROPORTIONALLY. That's important.

4. People don't care if tax is complex for the rich. Mo money mo problems. People have an innate sense of fairness, and that bleeds through all democratic policies. They feel tax havens for the already well off is not only not fair, but it's costly for the state. Which it really is!

5. Again, irrelevant. I'm discussing perceptions, and why people are p!ssed off. Perception is realty in politics. Out of interest, how much more would tax revenue be if the money wasn't squirrelled way?

Ultimately, you, Stevo, believe the state finances are parlous, right? Surely making moves to close tax havens and stop people hiding money earned in the UK abroad would improve that situation, wouldn't it?

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Looking at the papers and particularly some of the comments, there does seem to be general ignorance. A lot of playing the man and not the ball going on.

Yep, one of the red tops had a headline on avoiding tax on a gift from his mother, which is not just legal but as someone on here put it 'as parliament intended'.

A lot of articles and comments about DC inheritance of 300k being below the threshold of IHT. So it is.
As I understand things, and Stevo can correct me as he does it for a living the situation is thus :

An estate can pass from spouse/ partner with no tax liability. Any other estate, not individual bequest over the threshold attracts IHT. The executors of an estate are responsible for paying any duties, using assets from the estate. It is possible to stipulate that any bequest be net of tax. Unless we get sight of Cameron Snr's will we will not know if this is the case.
In any event, it appears that Cameron did not evade or even avoid tax as he didn't write his father's will did he?
As regards the gift from his mother, there is no tax liability unless she dies within 7 years, in which case a tax becomes due on a sliding scale, dependant on how long she lives after the gift.
Again, no tax has been avoided as the old dear is still alive.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Looking at the papers and particularly some of the comments, there does seem to be general ignorance. A lot of playing the man and not the ball going on.

Yep, one of the red tops had a headline on avoiding tax on a gift from his mother, which is not just legal but as someone on here put it 'as parliament intended'.

A lot of articles and comments about DC inheritance of 300k being below the threshold of IHT. So it is.
As I understand things, and Stevo can correct me as he does it for a living the situation is thus :

An estate can pass from spouse/ partner with no tax liability. Any other estate, not individual bequest over the threshold attracts IHT. The executors of an estate are responsible for paying any duties, using assets from the estate. It is possible to stipulate that any bequest be net of tax. Unless we get sight of Cameron Snr's will we will not know if this is the case.
In any event, it appears that Cameron did not evade or even avoid tax as he didn't write his father's will did he?
As regards the gift from his mother, there is no tax liability unless she dies within 7 years, in which case a tax becomes due on a sliding scale, dependant on how long she lives after the gift.
Again, no tax has been avoided as the old dear is still alive.

Coreect.

I'll deal with Ricks points later but the central theme there is about perceptions that are not supported by the facts. And a lack of reading of my previous posts - seems I can explain these things several times and some people just csrry on with their hackneyed assumptions and misconceptions based on a little knowledge of tax and what they read in the press :roll:

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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 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.

But I specifically asked what are the non-tax benefits.

SC, in a couple of my posts above I explain the non-tax benefits of these structures as I see them. Does that answer your question?

I just don't agree with you. I minimise my tax bill and if had more money would have no qualms about using more sophisticated methods to do so. It is up to the Govt to shut the loopholes - and that is the problem in this scenario Cameron is both poacher and gamekeeper. IMHO senior politicians should not be looking to minimise their tax liability. Cameron deserves to be forced out for being stupid.

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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 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.

But I specifically asked what are the non-tax benefits.

SC, in a couple of my posts above I explain the non-tax benefits of these structures as I see them. Does that answer your question?

I just don't agree with you. I minimise my tax bill and if had more money would have no qualms about using more sophisticated methods to do so. It is up to the Govt to shut the loopholes - and that is the problem in this scenario Cameron is both poacher and gamekeeper. IMHO senior politicians should not be looking to minimise their tax liability. Cameron deserves to be forced out for being stupid.

Did DC not sell everything in Jan 2010, before becoming PM?

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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 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.

But I specifically asked what are the non-tax benefits.

SC, in a couple of my posts above I explain the non-tax benefits of these structures as I see them. Does that answer your question?

I just don't agree with you. I minimise my tax bill and if had more money would have no qualms about using more sophisticated methods to do so. It is up to the Govt to shut the loopholes - and that is the problem in this scenario Cameron is both poacher and gamekeeper. IMHO senior politicians should not be looking to minimise their tax liability. Cameron deserves to be forced out for being stupid.

Did DC not sell everything in Jan 2010, before becoming PM?

To me it still seems wrong

On the flip side it is interesting that the same news outlets hammering DC (all of them) collectively took the stance that poor Ronnie Corbett had been forced to sell his house to avoid paying "death tax"

ballysmate

Yes, DC has taken no steps to reduce to avoid tax but little Ronnie avoided a 400k deduction. One is pilloried and the other gets sympathy. Funny old world.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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 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.

But I specifically asked what are the non-tax benefits.

SC, in a couple of my posts above I explain the non-tax benefits of these structures as I see them. Does that answer your question?

I just don't agree with you. I minimise my tax bill and if had more money would have no qualms about using more sophisticated methods to do so. It is up to the Govt to shut the loopholes - and that is the problem in this scenario Cameron is both poacher and gamekeeper. IMHO senior politicians should not be looking to minimise their tax liability. Cameron deserves to be forced out for being stupid.

Did DC not sell everything in Jan 2010, before becoming PM?

To me it still seems wrong

On the flip side it is interesting that the same news outlets hammering DC (all of them) collectively took the stance that poor Ronnie Corbett had been forced to sell his house to avoid paying "death tax"

It would have arguably been wrong if Cameron had reduced his tax bill by doing what he did. But as explained above several times, he didn't.

Not seen the Ronnie Corbett inheritance tax thing but there is more to it than simply selling your house.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ok.

1. I never mentioned Cameron. Lots of other people did, it is just addressing their moans for the nth time.

2. If tax havens are so accessible so accessible, why does it seem they're used exclusively by the well off? Id' suggest the advantages of a tax haven only kick in when you already have a lot. Perception again - I explained above how you or I can do so if we want. It is more a case of knowing where to look than being filthy rich. True, there is potentially more to gain when you pay more tax - but that's a truism. And I explained to you very clearly in a old thread how UK case law states that tax payers are allowed to arrange their financial affairs within the law so that the taxman cannot stick the largest shovel in. Remember that?

3. You can't take someone's wealth out of the context of who pays a lot and who doesn't. Hence me using the world 'proportional'. People feel that it's about paying the fair amount PROPORTIONALLY. That's important. Again, perception, often not helped by those with agendas and chips on shoulders pedalling the myth that all well off people and companies are tax dodgers. Again, the facts do not support this perception. I've linked to relevant sources often enough on this point.

4. People don't care if tax is complex for the rich. Mo money mo problems. People have an innate sense of fairness, and that bleeds through all democratic policies. They feel tax havens for the already well off is not only not fair, but it's costly for the state. Which it really is! Which state? Tax havens clearly set their rates to benefit them - just as any country does. They want to attract investment, create jobs etc. They do not think - oh, will this help [insert name of other country]? No country does. It's called tax competition and most countries do it. The few that think they can just carry on soaking businesses and hard working people have seen massive downturns in international investment. Look at the pattern on corporate tax rates even within the EU over the last 10-20 years. Pretty much uniformly downwards, including those Nordic role models beloved to many on here.

5. Again, irrelevant. I'm discussing perceptions, and why people are p!ssed off. Perception is realty in politics. Out of interest, how much more would tax revenue be if the money wasn't squirrelled way? Perception often comes from underlying facts - as I have demonstrated on this thread, the underlying facts do not support the perception.

Ultimately, you, Stevo, believe the state finances are parlous, right? Surely making moves to close tax havens and stop people hiding money earned in the UK abroad would improve that situation, wouldn't it?

You haven't answered my previous questions: 1. How do you close down a sovereign state (you referred to closing a tax haven) and 2. Where do you draw the line at what is tax haven and what is not? Without these you are going nowhere.

Also you will find that the investments in these territories come from all over the world. It would need global action to be effective.

I have already set out the pretty extensive actions that the UK has taken to secure tax revenues in relation to investments by UK nationals in low tax jurisdictions and won't repeat them again. Take a look at these and tell me what you think is missing. In my professional view they are pretty effective.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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 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.

But I specifically asked what are the non-tax benefits.

SC, in a couple of my posts above I explain the non-tax benefits of these structures as I see them. Does that answer your question?

I just don't agree with you. I minimise my tax bill and if had more money would have no qualms about using more sophisticated methods to do so. It is up to the Govt to shut the loopholes - and that is the problem in this scenario Cameron is both poacher and gamekeeper. IMHO senior politicians should not be looking to minimise their tax liability. Cameron deserves to be forced out for being stupid.

Did DC not sell everything in Jan 2010, before becoming PM?

He did, and probably for the reason that as PM he wanted to keep his tax affairs simple and try to avoid baseless, misinformed leftiebollox of exactly the variety we are seeing now.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Did DC not sell everything in Jan 2010, before becoming PM?

He did, and probably for the reason that as PM he wanted to keep his tax affairs simple and try to avoid baseless, misinformed leftiebollox of exactly the variety we are seeing now.

the papers peddling this so called leftiebollox are the very papers you d expect to be supporting the tories and cameron but they are not, they are capturing the mood of the majority in this country.

yep DC sold up, perhaps to limit his exposure to scrutiny, perhaps to make more money but in doing so, has raised even more questions - why? when ? how much? where ? etc etc i dont think the public/press wll stop until he resigns, which would might longer term be better for the tories, no succession fight a year before GE ?

but the question i cannot fathom is why a man who clearly had ambitions for hi office, went and did what he did, unless he some sort of half wit, surely he d have known that he was setting himself up for a fall?
he didnt need to make off shore investments, not did he need his mums 300k, just as he never needed to claim DLA or put in expense claims for paper clips and suits... he is worth some £30million - these are the actions of an arrogant, stupid and greedy man and one with very poor judgement.

You and bally should also be a bit more honest, if this was Corbyn on the receiving end of very bad PR regardless of guilt, you d not be defending him in the least, infact i suspect you d both love sticking the boot in :shock:

ballysmate

Yes the papers are pushing the story. Some with perhaps a mixed agenda. The Mail for instance is a Tory leaning paper but I think Brexit trumps all for them. Plus, they are all in the business of selling papers. To a degree, they will print what they think will sell.

Yes I think this will run and run. He may even step down after the referendum. Ironic that he may go because of some spurious claims that can't be substantiated, rather than any unpopular policy.

As regards his investments, for god knows how many times, he did nothing wrong. As has been explained ad nauseam, he invested in unit trusts, like countless others.

From a link I posted earlier

There are thousands and thousands of investment funds with near identical offshore structures.

I can think of loads of hedge funds, private equity funds and international investment funds with incredibly similar offshore identities.

They are so common that I would be staggered if there were not Labour MPs - among others - who had not at some juncture held investments in funds with similar offshore structures, though they might not have been aware of it.

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

He paid all tax required.

It wasn't his mum's 300k, he was left it in his father's will. His mum gave him 200k for reasons only known to them. If the intention had been to avoid IHT, surely it would have made more sense to leave nothing in the will and then Mrs C gift the whole 500k wouldn't it?

As regards your last paragraph, you now seem to be coming around to realise that he isn't guilty of any wrong doing and this is just bad PR.
Can't speak for Stevo, but yes, If I were to attack Corbyn with spurious allegations, I would expect someone to defend him with facts and reasoned argument, much like Stevo and I have done.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Did DC not sell everything in Jan 2010, before becoming PM?

He did, and probably for the reason that as PM he wanted to keep his tax affairs simple and try to avoid baseless, misinformed leftiebollox of exactly the variety we are seeing now.

the papers peddling this so called leftiebollox are the very papers you d expect to be supporting the tories and cameron but they are not, they are capturing the mood of the majority in this country.

yep DC sold up, perhaps to limit his exposure to scrutiny, perhaps to make more money but in doing so, has raised even more questions - why? when ? how much? where ? etc etc i dont think the public/press wll stop until he resigns, which would might longer term be better for the tories, no succession fight a year before GE ?

but the question i cannot fathom is why a man who clearly had ambitions for hi office, went and did what he did, unless he some sort of half wit, surely he d have known that he was setting himself up for a fall?
he didnt need to make off shore investments, not did he need his mums 300k, just as he never needed to claim DLA or put in expense claims for paper clips and suits... he is worth some £30million - these are the actions of an arrogant, stupid and greedy man and one with very poor judgement.

You and bally should also be a bit more honest, if this was Corbyn on the receiving end of very bad PR regardless of guilt, you d not be defending him in the least, infact i suspect you d both love sticking the boot in :shock:

So, in the absence of any concrete evidence of wrong-doing, you are reduced to making the usual subjective and unsubstantiated claims that he is stupid/of poor judgment/arrogant/greedy etc. That is weak.

If leader of the Tories as deeply flawed as you say can whup the Labour party at the last general election, the Left must be a complete bunch of losers. Oh, hang - that's exactly what this thread is about

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

So, in the absence of any concrete evidence of wrong-doing, you are reduced to making the usual subjective and unsubstantiated claims that he is stupid/of poor judgment/arrogant/greedy etc. That is weak.

If leader of the Tories as deeply flawed as you say can whup the Labour party at the last general election, the Left must be a complete bunch of losers. Oh, hang - that's exactly what this thread is about

As my Mother would say.... the proof is in the pudding, DC is under pressure from all sides and is less popular than Corbyn, as they say a week is a long time in Politics.

do you think he has shown good judgement? he has just thrown more wood on his pyre by part publishing his tax return, he is a hunting man, he should realise that once the hounds are on the scent, they ll run their quarry to ground.

you throwing insults at me, doesnt change a thing.

ballysmate

in the absence of any concrete evidence of wrong-doing, you are reduced to making the usual subjective and unsubstantiated claims that he is stupid/of poor judgment/arrogant/greedy etc

TBF Stevo, you are mistaken to single Looky out. That is the basis of all the lefties' arguments on here regarding Cameron's tax and investments.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

in the absence of any concrete evidence of wrong-doing, you are reduced to making the usual subjective and unsubstantiated claims that he is stupid/of poor judgment/arrogant/greedy etc

TBF Stevo, you are mistaken to single Looky out. That is the basis of all the lefties' arguments on here regarding Cameron's tax and investments.

whiff of sour grapes from you pair, if Labour is so useless why is the Tory press turned on ...wait for it... the TORIES!!!

of course DC has been a moron, bad PR (as both call it) doesnt just happen! he has screwed up and been found caught short, a hypocrite and all this seems just what happened to John Major over so called tory family values, i wonder who David has slept with? ah we already know that.. Miss Piggy

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

in the absence of any concrete evidence of wrong-doing, you are reduced to making the usual subjective and unsubstantiated claims that he is stupid/of poor judgment/arrogant/greedy etc

TBF Stevo, you are mistaken to single Looky out. That is the basis of all the lefties' arguments on here regarding Cameron's tax and investments.

whiff of sour grapes from you pair, if Labour is so useless why is the Tory press turned on ...wait for it... the TORIES!!!

of course DC has been a moron, bad PR (as both call it) doesnt just happen! he has screwed up and been found caught short, a hypocrite and all this seems just what happened to John Major over so called tory family values, i wonder who David has slept with? ah we already know that.. Miss Piggy

Sour grapes? Not at all. Labour are useless. I've posted before about the danger of the Tories losing themselves the election. No matter what the Tories do, it doesn't improve the Labour party's policies does it? They remain bad.

None on here have been able to point to any wrong doing on his behalf. The mere mention of offshore or tax haven has sent people, including some on here into a frenzy and they have seemed to suspend rational thought.
Again, how has he been found out. No-one has shown how he has avoided tax, let alone evaded any. If he has done wrong, please tell us to what degree. An estimate will do. I'm sure the Labour party and the papers have teams of accountants working on it, so what have they found?

ballysmate

Further to the above, if it is shown that he acted improperly I would join you in calling for his resignation. But so far people have come up with nothing.

ballysmate

In a previous post, Looky posted

he didnt need to make off shore investments, not did he need his mums 300k, just as he never needed to claim DLA or put in expense claims for paper clips and suits... he is worth some £30million - these are the actions of an arrogant, stupid and greedy man and one with very poor judgement.

According to that well known Tory paper. The Mirror, Cameron is entitled to a 20k tax free allowance.

After claiming the allowance in 2010-11, Mr Cameron voluntarily declared extra taxable income to cancel out the perk in subsequent years before officials found a way to waive it entirely from 2014-15.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/da ... rk-7725537

Yeah, sheer greed.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

in the absence of any concrete evidence of wrong-doing, you are reduced to making the usual subjective and unsubstantiated claims that he is stupid/of poor judgment/arrogant/greedy etc

TBF Stevo, you are mistaken to single Looky out. That is the basis of all the lefties' arguments on here regarding Cameron's tax and investments.

Fair point, he was just the last one to come out with pretty much the same weak stuff

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Further to the above, if it is shown that he acted improperly I would join you in calling for his resignation. But so far people have come up with nothing.

I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with an offence that he has committed...don't all shout at once

Frank the tank

As Obama said, not verbatim they haven't broken the law,but, the laws are wrong.

ballysmate

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

Stevo_666

Still waiting then

Frank, btw, was wondering where you were...saw this pic and thought of you

Frank the tank

The man is a despicable sh*t and his wife has a £53k/year image consultant paid for by our taxes. I would be quite happy to see Sam Cam and Daves heads removed from their torsos and stuck on a spike.
And a red hot poker inserted into the rectum of George Osborne.
May sound harsh, but,I really have nothing but hatred in my heart for these people.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

You may have a point Frank, perhaps the laws are wrong. How can you justify Inheritance Tax? Paying 40% tax on income that has already been taxed.

Apart from the point that it is double taxation, only a socialist could dream up taxing somebody for being dead.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

The man is a despicable sh*t and his wife has a £53k/year image consultant paid for by our taxes. I would be quite happy to see Sam Cam and Daves heads removed from their torsos and stuck on a spike.
And a red hot poker inserted into the rectum of George Osborne.
May sound harsh, but,I really have nothing but hatred in my heart for these people.

Which party is the 'Nasty Party'?