Just as an aside, I see from the list of directors that Ian Cameron was working for Smith & Williamson, the accountancy firm.
Had the "pleasure" of being in the company of some of their leadership several years ago, when the topic of diversity came up. All the S&W leadership were, as a quote about the sector goes..."male, pale & stale
I have to say, as someone who is involved in the world of tax professionally I find so many of the comments on this thread to be complete and utter bollocks.
Makes me wonder that if so many people are getting things arse about face about things I know about, then how much bollocks is also being spouted about things I don't really know much about.
*shakes head and retires from the thread, awaiting some ill-informed comment about tax advisors.
Something is either right or wrong from a moral standpoint. If you have to write pages to explain why something that is wrong is right you sort of miss the whole point!
Well we are 9 pages in and no one has yet provided a good reason why having overseas investments is morally wrong yet?
I genuinely defer to yours and others greater knowledge on this whole issue than mine.
What niggles away at me as a bog standard PAYE taxpayer is that this whole thing seems to be set up to allow the very wealthy to avoid tax. It just doesn't feel right. I don't doubt it's legal. If I was very wealthy I would probably take advantage or be advised to.
I'm thinking that their are politicians at this moment sitting waiting very anxiously to see if their offshore investments are going to be exposed. Why should this be ? They have done nothing wrong. I'll tell you why. It's because just like me and millions of others they know that the reality is not squeaky clean but something to conceal. A dirty little secret.
The system that allows this is somehow just wrong.
I would bet that a snap poll of the population now would come down very heavily in support of my view rather than some of the laissez-faire arguments above.
For me, it was never about Ian Cameron's tax affairs and very little to do with David Cameron's personal tax either. It's also not about the legitimacy of setting up an investment fund in the Bahamas, nor is it about Jimmy Carr or Singaporean VAT.
The cover up may be worse than the offence so far. Four different stories in five days.
This calls into question Cameron's credibility and judgement.
The biggest part of this story for me so far is the story in the FT that Cameron personally intervened to prevent the EU from opening up tax havens. Tax havens where he has a footprint.
Unlike anyone on this forum, David Cameron is in the position where he gets to set the laws on taxation. He doesn't have to have personally benefited from anything in the past for his judgement to come into question.
Something is either right or wrong from a moral standpoint. If you have to write pages to explain why something that is wrong is right you sort of miss the whole point!
Well we are 9 pages in and no one has yet provided a good reason why having overseas investments is morally wrong yet?
I genuinely defer to yours and others greater knowledge on this whole issue than mine.
What niggles away at me as a bog standard PAYE taxpayer is that this whole thing seems to be set up to allow the very wealthy to avoid tax. It just doesn't feel right. I don't doubt it's legal. If I was very wealthy I would probably take advantage or be advised to.
I'm thinking that their are politicians at this moment sitting waiting very anxiously to see if their offshore investments are going to be exposed. Why should this be ? They have done nothing wrong. I'll tell you why. It's because just like me and millions of others they know that the reality is not squeaky clean but something to conceal. A dirty little secret.
The system that allows this is somehow just wrong.
I would bet that a snap poll of the population now would come down very heavily in support of my view rather than some of the laissez-faire arguments above.
The whole thing just whiffs a bit to me.
The whole UK tax system whiffs. It is the reason why this sort of thing happens and the only people who can take advantage are the incredibly wealthy.
The irony is if we want the rich to pay more tax, we need to have less taxes Having hundreds of different tax rates, exemptions and allowances makes more work for the tax man and less work that the accountants and fund managers in order to conceal their funds. Why not simply have one flat rate of tax on all income and any UK citizen who fails to pay it is a criminal, or any company that fails to pay it is fined and its managers of prosecuted? Obviously there would need to be some basic allowances for the least able to pay, otherwise if we truly want transparency, get rid of the system that allows this kind of opaque business.
For me, it was never about Ian Cameron's tax affairs and very little to do with David Cameron's personal tax either. It's also not about the legitimacy of setting up an investment fund in the Bahamas, nor is it about Jimmy Carr or Singaporean VAT.
The cover up may be worse than the offence so far. Four different stories in five days.
This calls into question Cameron's credibility and judgement.
The biggest part of this story for me so far is the story in the FT that Cameron personally intervened to prevent the EU from opening up tax havens. Tax havens where he has a footprint.
Unlike anyone on this forum, David Cameron is in the position where he gets to set the laws on taxation. He doesn't have to have personally benefited from anything in the past for his judgement to come into question.
I think he'll survive this.
Absolutely right. And to be fair, the previous Labour government was just as bad.
I feel that we as a country have always been a bit hypocritical about this issue, because there are so many clever people making a huge living from it (and no @Off_it I'm not referring to you, before you start. I'm thinking of the big consultancies and their more shadowy relatives.). We just ought to have a debate about it. @ShootersHillGuru and @Fiiish both have honourable positions, and I hope with SHG's last post they'll be reconciled personally at least :-)
The Scandinavian approach may well not work any time soon in the UK but at least we ought to study the pros and cons of both their system and attitudes to tax. A start could be that all MPs at least, do have to have their tax returns accessible on line (Cameron says he will publish them, right? Good on him, if so). After all, Norway and Sweden and Denmark have economies that have been equal to or better than the UK's in performance in the last 30 years. So the implication is that having a stricter cleaner tax system does not seem to damage an economy.
I hope Cameron survives this matter, but I also hope that the whole tax question finally forces itself up the political agenda, and that we here keep discussing it, undeterred by people who say we are talking bollocks but without the generosity to share their professional knowledge (which @Dippenhall@Fiiish and @cafcfan have done really well, even if I am still a bit confused about my unit trusts)
Something is either right or wrong from a moral standpoint. If you have to write pages to explain why something that is wrong is right you sort of miss the whole point!
Well we are 9 pages in and no one has yet provided a good reason why having overseas investments is morally wrong yet?
I genuinely defer to yours and others greater knowledge on this whole issue than mine.
What niggles away at me as a bog standard PAYE taxpayer is that this whole thing seems to be set up to allow the very wealthy to avoid tax. It just doesn't feel right. I don't doubt it's legal. If I was very wealthy I would probably take advantage or be advised to.
I'm thinking that their are politicians at this moment sitting waiting very anxiously to see if their offshore investments are going to be exposed. Why should this be ? They have done nothing wrong. I'll tell you why. It's because just like me and millions of others they know that the reality is not squeaky clean but something to conceal. A dirty little secret.
The system that allows this is somehow just wrong.
I would bet that a snap poll of the population now would come down very heavily in support of my view rather than some of the laissez-faire arguments above.
The whole thing just whiffs a bit to me.
The whole UK tax system whiffs. It is the reason why this sort of thing happens and the only people who can take advantage are the incredibly wealthy.
The irony is if we want the rich to pay more tax, we need to have less taxes Having hundreds of different tax rates, exemptions and allowances makes more work for the tax man and less work that the accountants and fund managers in order to conceal their funds. Why not simply have one flat rate of tax on all income and any UK citizen who fails to pay it is a criminal, or any company that fails to pay it is fined and its managers of prosecuted? Obviously there would need to be some basic allowances for the least able to pay, otherwise if we truly want transparency, get rid of the system that allows this kind of opaque business.
This is exactly right to my mind. The system is so complex that it's not fit for purpose. How anyone truly understands the whole thing is truly astonishing. Any party that genuinely set out to completely simplify the tax system would get my vote. It needs root and branch surgery.
For me, it was never about Ian Cameron's tax affairs and very little to do with David Cameron's personal tax either. It's also not about the legitimacy of setting up an investment fund in the Bahamas, nor is it about Jimmy Carr or Singaporean VAT.
The cover up may be worse than the offence so far. Four different stories in five days.
This calls into question Cameron's credibility and judgement.
The biggest part of this story for me so far is the story in the FT that Cameron personally intervened to prevent the EU from opening up tax havens. Tax havens where he has a footprint.
Unlike anyone on this forum, David Cameron is in the position where he gets to set the laws on taxation. He doesn't have to have personally benefited from anything in the past for his judgement to come into question.
I think he'll survive this.
Absolutely right. And to be fair, the previous Labour government was just as bad.
I feel that we as a country have always been a bit hypocritical about this issue, because there are so many clever people making a huge living from it (and no @Off_it I'm not referring to you, before you start. I'm thinking of the big consultancies and their more shadowy relatives.). We just ought to have a debate about it. @ShootersHillGuru and @Fiiish both have honourable positions, and I hope with SHG's last post they'll be reconciled personally at least :-)
The Scandinavian approach may well not work any time soon in the UK but at least we ought to study the pros and cons of both their system and attitudes to tax. A start could be that all MPs at least, do have to have their tax returns accessible on line (Cameron says he will publish them, right? Good on him, if so). After all, Norway and Sweden and Denmark have economies that have been equal to or better than the UK's in performance in the last 30 years. So the implication is that having a stricter cleaner tax system does not seem to damage an economy.
I hope Cameron survives this matter, but I also hope that the whole tax question finally forces itself up the political agenda, and that we here keep discussing it, undeterred by people who say we are talking bollocks but without the generosity to share their professional knowledge (which @Dippenhall@Fiiish and @cafcfan have done really well, even if I am still a bit confused about my unit trusts)
Fine. But tax returns are very unlikely to shed any light at all on the issues people seem to want answered.
A little bit of dividend income, maybe some capital gains (but less likely if gains are spread to take advantage of the annual limits), some expenses being offset against UK or overseas rental properties and that's about it isn't it? Nothing on the £2mn or whatever sheltered in ISAs, nothing on rolled up capital gains yet to be crystallised, nothing on any cash "gifts" given to family members to circumvent inheritance tax. And nothing on any family trusts because they are separate legal entities. Don't expect anything interesting at all from any published tax returns, save maybe from the quite wealthy cabinet members. Philip Hammond from Essex, state educated, and self-made man is seemingly the richest and his wealth is estimated at (only) £9mn. Probably then followed by Osborne with maybe £5mn mainly inherited from his family's wallpaper business.
Erstwhile readers of The News of the World who seemed to enjoy poring over others affairs, are likely to be heard saying "Is that it?"
For me, it was never about Ian Cameron's tax affairs and very little to do with David Cameron's personal tax either. It's also not about the legitimacy of setting up an investment fund in the Bahamas, nor is it about Jimmy Carr or Singaporean VAT.
The cover up may be worse than the offence so far. Four different stories in five days.
This calls into question Cameron's credibility and judgement.
The biggest part of this story for me so far is the story in the FT that Cameron personally intervened to prevent the EU from opening up tax havens. Tax havens where he has a footprint.
Unlike anyone on this forum, David Cameron is in the position where he gets to set the laws on taxation. He doesn't have to have personally benefited from anything in the past for his judgement to come into question.
I think he'll survive this.
I feel that we as a country have always been a bit hypocritical about this issue, because there are so many clever people making a huge living from it (and no @Off_it I'm not referring to you, before you start. I'm thinking of the big consultancies and their more shadowy relatives.).
I'm confused. If you're not referring to me are you saying that I'm not clever, am not making a huge living from it, or that I don't work for one of the "big consultancies or their more shadowy relatives"?
And more importantly, how on earth would you know?
Something is either right or wrong from a moral standpoint. If you have to write pages to explain why something that is wrong is right you sort of miss the whole point!
Well we are 9 pages in and no one has yet provided a good reason why having overseas investments is morally wrong yet?
I genuinely defer to yours and others greater knowledge on this whole issue than mine.
What niggles away at me as a bog standard PAYE taxpayer is that this whole thing seems to be set up to allow the very wealthy to avoid tax. It just doesn't feel right. I don't doubt it's legal. If I was very wealthy I would probably take advantage or be advised to.
I'm thinking that their are politicians at this moment sitting waiting very anxiously to see if their offshore investments are going to be exposed. Why should this be ? They have done nothing wrong. I'll tell you why. It's because just like me and millions of others they know that the reality is not squeaky clean but something to conceal. A dirty little secret.
The system that allows this is somehow just wrong.
I would bet that a snap poll of the population now would come down very heavily in support of my view rather than some of the laissez-faire arguments above.
The whole thing just whiffs a bit to me.
The whole UK tax system whiffs. It is the reason why this sort of thing happens and the only people who can take advantage are the incredibly wealthy.
The irony is if we want the rich to pay more tax, we need to have less taxes Having hundreds of different tax rates, exemptions and allowances makes more work for the tax man and less work that the accountants and fund managers in order to conceal their funds. Why not simply have one flat rate of tax on all income and any UK citizen who fails to pay it is a criminal, or any company that fails to pay it is fined and its managers of prosecuted? Obviously there would need to be some basic allowances for the least able to pay, otherwise if we truly want transparency, get rid of the system that allows this kind of opaque business.
This is exactly right to my mind. The system is so complex that it's not fit for purpose. How anyone truly understands the whole thing is truly astonishing. Any party that genuinely set out to completely simplify the tax system would get my vote. It needs root and branch surgery.
I'm not holding my breath.
You're exactly right, it's all so complicated that I'd wager that nobody fully knows or understands the whole tax system - there are just so many taxes, rates and reliefs that nobody could realistically be expected to know it all (maybe apart from @PragueAddick, if he properly applied himself).
Want an example? Client of mine has a chain of shops selling a well known regional savoury product. If they stuck a sign outside saying that their product was "hot" then the taxman would want 1/6 of their turnover - that's turnover not profit. If that happens then there are no profits, shops get shut and people lose their jobs.
However, if on that same sign they instead call their product "freshly baked" then they "save" themselves millions of pounds, the business is in with a shout of making a profit and maybe they might be able to open up more shops and create more jobs.
The product is exactly the same and they are doing nothing "clever" with it. But is it "tax avoidance" by deliberately avoiding using the word hot? How would you describe your product if you knew about the vastly different tax treatment (and cost!)?
I could give you dozens of similar examples, just in my particular field. This tax lark is not quite as straightforward as you may think really - and that's before people start talking about morals.
For me, it was never about Ian Cameron's tax affairs and very little to do with David Cameron's personal tax either. It's also not about the legitimacy of setting up an investment fund in the Bahamas, nor is it about Jimmy Carr or Singaporean VAT.
The cover up may be worse than the offence so far. Four different stories in five days.
This calls into question Cameron's credibility and judgement.
The biggest part of this story for me so far is the story in the FT that Cameron personally intervened to prevent the EU from opening up tax havens. Tax havens where he has a footprint.
Unlike anyone on this forum, David Cameron is in the position where he gets to set the laws on taxation. He doesn't have to have personally benefited from anything in the past for his judgement to come into question.
I think he'll survive this.
I feel that we as a country have always been a bit hypocritical about this issue, because there are so many clever people making a huge living from it (and no @Off_it I'm not referring to you, before you start. I'm thinking of the big consultancies and their more shadowy relatives.).
I'm confused. If you're not referring to me are you saying that I'm not clever, am not making a huge living from it, or that I don't work for one of the "big consultancies or their more shadowy relatives"?
And more importantly, how on earth would you know?
For me, it was never about Ian Cameron's tax affairs and very little to do with David Cameron's personal tax either. It's also not about the legitimacy of setting up an investment fund in the Bahamas, nor is it about Jimmy Carr or Singaporean VAT.
The cover up may be worse than the offence so far. Four different stories in five days.
This calls into question Cameron's credibility and judgement.
The biggest part of this story for me so far is the story in the FT that Cameron personally intervened to prevent the EU from opening up tax havens. Tax havens where he has a footprint.
Unlike anyone on this forum, David Cameron is in the position where he gets to set the laws on taxation. He doesn't have to have personally benefited from anything in the past for his judgement to come into question.
I think he'll survive this.
I feel that we as a country have always been a bit hypocritical about this issue, because there are so many clever people making a huge living from it (and no @Off_it I'm not referring to you, before you start. I'm thinking of the big consultancies and their more shadowy relatives.).
I'm confused. If you're not referring to me are you saying that I'm not clever, am not making a huge living from it, or that I don't work for one of the "big consultancies or their more shadowy relatives"?
And more importantly, how on earth would you know?
What I'm saying is,my remark was not aimed at you. Or anyone on this thread.
I would be genuinely quite interested to know what you do, so I could better judge where you are coming from in any opinions you might put forward, but since most of them are that I and some others are talking bollocks, it's probably a waste of time enquiring.
I know something about Google and Facebook because I've worked in advertising for over 30 years, and belatedly I realised their business is media ownership, and I think everybody else should be aware of that, in case they are taken in by this 'technology company' crap. I don't know at all about the many complexities of the UK tax system (although I know it is complex), and would be pleased if you educate us all about it. But the very fact that it is complex is part of the problem. I wonder what would happen if we learnt some tax lessons from Estonia, and who would lose out if we did.
This bloke seems to know a bit about tax. Do you consider that he talks bollocks too? Genuine question.
Having had time to catch up completely with this thread, I do have a couple of questions:
These are primarily aimed at those who are posting about Cameron's actions being dishonest.
- How would you view a contractor who has a one man Ltd Company (UK Based) which was utilised to cut down the taxes he incurred?
- How about a web application that was developed and maintained in London, but via a company registered in Singapore - avoiding EU VAT legislation so reducing prices and operating under a more favourable tax situation?
The owner of these two companies takes money out of them via Dividends and pays the appropriate personal tax to HMRC.
The first situation is incredibly common - and widespread from individual contractors working 9-5 to celebrities at the BBC. As long as they keep on top of the relevant requirements that ensure they dont find themselves classed as a permanent employee (IR35) they're good to go.
Whilst the second would most likely be a situation I would look at - if only for the ability to undercut competitors and operate with a more simplistic approach to finances.
Both of these situations are above board and require no secrecy. Both of them however require that the actual money that hits the individuals pocket is taxed correctly and HMRC take their share.
They may not be illegal, but they are taking the piss to various degrees. I don't know enough about the differences between the rules for filing your taxes as an ordinary self-employed person or setting yourself up as a company, but I can envisage circumstances where setting up as a company makes it more straightforward to run the business and pay your tax. I don't have an issue with those who do it for those reasons, but gaming the wage / dividend ratio is taking the piss, and doing it SOLELY so you can game the amount of tax you pay is seriously taking the piss.
The Singapore example is seriously taking the piss too. The work is being done in London, the company is taking advantage of our national infrastructure, but they're shirking paying their fair share by registering in a different country. And when our public services are being seriously compromised by underinvestment, and ordinary people whose circumstances mean they can't use the kind of wheezes described are having to pay more tax, no wonder they aren't impressed by the "but it's perfectly legal" argument.
The simple solution is that if someone has a contract of employment with a UK organisation, then that entity should deduct the appropriate amount of tax. Paying an employee's company just allows them to avoid tax. If there are any offset costs they should subsequently be negotiated with HMRC.
The issue for me and I suspect for a lot of other people is not Cameron's wealth. Let's make no mistake, he is a very wealthy man and anyone who believes he "Survives" on a Prime Minister's pittance is mistaken. For certain, he will have other interests which make him a lot of money.
The issue for me is the fact that he is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and he has just spent the best part of a week telling lies to the British people and indeed the whole world and worst of all is that he actually believes that it is acceptable to do so.
He is not fit for office and his credibility has been shot to pieces. From now on nothing he says on any subject can be believed. Not saying he was believed before all of this came out as the man is a professional liar.
The issue for me and I suspect for a lot of other people is not Cameron's wealth. Let's make no mistake, he is a very wealthy man and anyone who believes he "Survives" on a Prime Minister's pittance is mistaken. For certain, he will have other interests which make him a lot of money.
The issue for me is the fact that he is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and he has just spent the best part of a week telling lies to the British people and indeed the whole world and worst of all is that he actually believes that it is acceptable to do so.
He is not fit for office and his credibility has been shot to pieces. From now on nothing he says on any subject can be believed. Not saying he was believed before all of this came out as the man is a professional liar.
You are right, it didn't stop them. If people are stupid enough for vote for them then they will just carry on as normal and assume the electorate are as thick as shit and treat them accordingly.
They have all been allowed to get away with this type of behaviour for so long that they don't need to find any other way of doing things.
I didn't imply that he wasn't paying his taxes. I was implying that he is not fit for office because he is a compulsive liar.
Has he actually lied about this though? He has been at best evasive and at worst misleading but he has never stated that he never had any shares in Blairmore.
Here is a great video that succinctly summarises why this is a storm in a teacup. Shame the BBC has done nothing to publicise this interview so the quality is pretty poor (watch out for the two very loud message tones towards the end from the phone he is using to record the interview). As he states in his interview, if Cameron Sr or his son were looking to avoid tax there are much better ways of doing it.
Shay Given phoned me and said we have all assumed that the rich will duck and dive and fiddle the deal as much as they can, it is no big deal. On this I agree with him, it will always happen. Maybe the moral dilemma is around the notion and purpose of taxation not amounts of money. The super rich continually strive to be individual gated communities with their private health, private school, private security, private lounges, private jets and so on. If you are so rich it is easy to say you can afford what you need, why get involved in any common purpose. The question to contemplate is about taxation itself.
I am really loving this story - it just keeps giving!
I will admit that, a week ago, I was absolutely sure that the Prime Minister had not done anything illegal with regards to his tax.
Now, he's released five statements, culminating with a "full" publication of the tax he's paid. The question is - does that make him look less guilty or more?
Compare it to someone accused of speeding, producing a list of roads he's driven down, below the speed limit. Or a bank robber listing all the banks he hasn't robbed. Or a serial murder listing the billions of people he hasn't murdered. Or the swimming pool security officer listing the years in which "no one died". yes, we get it, Mr Cameron, you have paid lots of tax - that doesn't mean, necessarily that you have paid all the tax you should have.
A week ago, I was convinced that the Prime Minister - whilst being a hypocrite - was not a tax cheat. I am much less convinced now.
I'm not sure how publishing your tax affairs can possibly prove to anyone that you are not hiding anything.
If you are then it won't be featuring on there anyway.
Well, it is possible. Here's an example. Chosen at random. :-)
Gordon Brown was very fond of claiming expenses for a gardener and cleaner at his Scottish residence. Money he was later forced to pay back because it was deemed excessive. Now, of course, if your employer paid across such sums to you, you'd be obliged to put it on your tax return as a benefit in kind. It would be interesting to see if Gordon honestly included these sums on his tax return wouldn't it?
I'm not sure how publishing your tax affairs can possibly prove to anyone that you are not hiding anything.
If you are then it won't be featuring on there anyway.
Well, it is possible. Here's an example. Chosen at random. :-)
Gordon Brown was very fond of claiming expenses for a gardener and cleaner at his Scottish residence. Money he was later forced to pay back because it was deemed excessive. Now, of course, if your employer paid across such sums to you, you'd be obliged to put it on your tax return as a benefit in kind. It would be interesting to see if Gordon honestly included these sums on his tax return wouldn't it?
Only one way to find out. Anything to bury that gold-flogging nick-griffin-eyed badger-from-wind-in-the-willows-impersonating bullying wanksock is fine by me. Pretty sure Blair "accidentally" shredded all his expenses. His legacy has crashed faster and further than Jimmy saville's
Comments
Makes me wonder that if so many people are getting things arse about face about things I know about, then how much bollocks is also being spouted about things I don't really know much about.
*shakes head and retires from the thread, awaiting some ill-informed comment about tax advisors.
What niggles away at me as a bog standard PAYE taxpayer is that this whole thing seems to be set up to allow the very wealthy to avoid tax. It just doesn't feel right. I don't doubt it's legal. If I was very wealthy I would probably take advantage or be advised to.
I'm thinking that their are politicians at this moment sitting waiting very anxiously to see if their offshore investments are going to be exposed. Why should this be ? They have done nothing wrong. I'll tell you why. It's because just like me and millions of others they know that the reality is not squeaky clean but something to conceal. A dirty little secret.
The system that allows this is somehow just wrong.
I would bet that a snap poll of the population now would come down very heavily in support of my view rather than some of the laissez-faire arguments above.
The whole thing just whiffs a bit to me.
The cover up may be worse than the offence so far. Four different stories in five days.
This calls into question Cameron's credibility and judgement.
The biggest part of this story for me so far is the story in the FT that Cameron personally intervened to prevent the EU from opening up tax havens. Tax havens where he has a footprint.
Unlike anyone on this forum, David Cameron is in the position where he gets to set the laws on taxation. He doesn't have to have personally benefited from anything in the past for his judgement to come into question.
I think he'll survive this.
The irony is if we want the rich to pay more tax, we need to have less taxes Having hundreds of different tax rates, exemptions and allowances makes more work for the tax man and less work that the accountants and fund managers in order to conceal their funds. Why not simply have one flat rate of tax on all income and any UK citizen who fails to pay it is a criminal, or any company that fails to pay it is fined and its managers of prosecuted? Obviously there would need to be some basic allowances for the least able to pay, otherwise if we truly want transparency, get rid of the system that allows this kind of opaque business.
I feel that we as a country have always been a bit hypocritical about this issue, because there are so many clever people making a huge living from it (and no @Off_it I'm not referring to you, before you start. I'm thinking of the big consultancies and their more shadowy relatives.). We just ought to have a debate about it. @ShootersHillGuru and @Fiiish both have honourable positions, and I hope with SHG's last post they'll be reconciled personally at least :-)
The Scandinavian approach may well not work any time soon in the UK but at least we ought to study the pros and cons of both their system and attitudes to tax. A start could be that all MPs at least, do have to have their tax returns accessible on line (Cameron says he will publish them, right? Good on him, if so). After all, Norway and Sweden and Denmark have economies that have been equal to or better than the UK's in performance in the last 30 years. So the implication is that having a stricter cleaner tax system does not seem to damage an economy.
I hope Cameron survives this matter, but I also hope that the whole tax question finally forces itself up the political agenda, and that we here keep discussing it, undeterred by people who say we are talking bollocks but without the generosity to share their professional knowledge (which @Dippenhall @Fiiish and @cafcfan have done really well, even if I am still a bit confused about my unit trusts)
I'm not holding my breath.
A little bit of dividend income, maybe some capital gains (but less likely if gains are spread to take advantage of the annual limits), some expenses being offset against UK or overseas rental properties and that's about it isn't it? Nothing on the £2mn or whatever sheltered in ISAs, nothing on rolled up capital gains yet to be crystallised, nothing on any cash "gifts" given to family members to circumvent inheritance tax. And nothing on any family trusts because they are separate legal entities.
Don't expect anything interesting at all from any published tax returns, save maybe from the quite wealthy cabinet members.
Philip Hammond from Essex, state educated, and self-made man is seemingly the richest and his wealth is estimated at (only) £9mn. Probably then followed by Osborne with maybe £5mn mainly inherited from his family's wallpaper business.
Erstwhile readers of The News of the World who seemed to enjoy poring over others affairs, are likely to be heard saying "Is that it?"
And more importantly, how on earth would you know?
Want an example? Client of mine has a chain of shops selling a well known regional savoury product. If they stuck a sign outside saying that their product was "hot" then the taxman would want 1/6 of their turnover - that's turnover not profit. If that happens then there are no profits, shops get shut and people lose their jobs.
However, if on that same sign they instead call their product "freshly baked" then they "save" themselves millions of pounds, the business is in with a shout of making a profit and maybe they might be able to open up more shops and create more jobs.
The product is exactly the same and they are doing nothing "clever" with it. But is it "tax avoidance" by deliberately avoiding using the word hot? How would you describe your product if you knew about the vastly different tax treatment (and cost!)?
I could give you dozens of similar examples, just in my particular field. This tax lark is not quite as straightforward as you may think really - and that's before people start talking about morals.
hotFreshly bakedI would be genuinely quite interested to know what you do, so I could better judge where you are coming from in any opinions you might put forward, but since most of them are that I and some others are talking bollocks, it's probably a waste of time enquiring.
I know something about Google and Facebook because I've worked in advertising for over 30 years, and belatedly I realised their business is media ownership, and I think everybody else should be aware of that, in case they are taken in by this 'technology company' crap. I don't know at all about the many complexities of the UK tax system (although I know it is complex), and would be pleased if you educate us all about it. But the very fact that it is complex is part of the problem. I wonder what would happen if we learnt some tax lessons from Estonia, and who would lose out if we did.
This bloke seems to know a bit about tax. Do you consider that he talks bollocks too? Genuine question.
The Singapore example is seriously taking the piss too. The work is being done in London, the company is taking advantage of our national infrastructure, but they're shirking paying their fair share by registering in a different country. And when our public services are being seriously compromised by underinvestment, and ordinary people whose circumstances mean they can't use the kind of wheezes described are having to pay more tax, no wonder they aren't impressed by the "but it's perfectly legal" argument.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36007718
Now we know that the PM earns about as much in a year as Raheem Sterling is getting every week.
The issue for me is the fact that he is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and he has just spent the best part of a week telling lies to the British people and indeed the whole world and worst of all is that he actually believes that it is acceptable to do so.
He is not fit for office and his credibility has been shot to pieces. From now on nothing he says on any subject can be believed. Not saying he was believed before all of this came out as the man is a professional liar.
They have all been allowed to get away with this type of behaviour for so long that they don't need to find any other way of doing things.
Here is a great video that succinctly summarises why this is a storm in a teacup. Shame the BBC has done nothing to publicise this interview so the quality is pretty poor (watch out for the two very loud message tones towards the end from the phone he is using to record the interview). As he states in his interview, if Cameron Sr or his son were looking to avoid tax there are much better ways of doing it.
On this I agree with him, it will always happen.
Maybe the moral dilemma is around the notion and purpose of taxation not amounts of money. The super rich continually strive to be individual gated communities with their private health, private school, private security, private lounges, private jets and so on.
If you are so rich it is easy to say you can afford what you need, why get involved in any common purpose. The question to contemplate is about taxation itself.
I am really loving this story - it just keeps giving!
I will admit that, a week ago, I was absolutely sure that the Prime Minister had not done anything illegal with regards to his tax.
Now, he's released five statements, culminating with a "full" publication of the tax he's paid. The question is - does that make him look less guilty or more?
Compare it to someone accused of speeding, producing a list of roads he's driven down, below the speed limit. Or a bank robber listing all the banks he hasn't robbed. Or a serial murder listing the billions of people he hasn't murdered. Or the swimming pool security officer listing the years in which "no one died". yes, we get it, Mr Cameron, you have paid lots of tax - that doesn't mean, necessarily that you have paid all the tax you should have.
A week ago, I was convinced that the Prime Minister - whilst being a hypocrite - was not a tax cheat. I am much less convinced now.
If you are then it won't be featuring on there anyway.
Gordon Brown was very fond of claiming expenses for a gardener and cleaner at his Scottish residence. Money he was later forced to pay back because it was deemed excessive.
Now, of course, if your employer paid across such sums to you, you'd be obliged to put it on your tax return as a benefit in kind.
It would be interesting to see if Gordon honestly included these sums on his tax return wouldn't it?