Earl Aelfheah

I'm not sure that tougher and tougher sentences are the whole answer (although they may be part of it). I think there are definitely big issues around male identity, the macho cultures in which boys and young men are brought up and the violence that some children unfortunately experience at home from a young age. I've seen boys who are actively encouraged to appear 'tough', to challenge and always hold their ground and to generally be aggressive, by parents who think that this is what being a man is about. It can breed a climate of fear for teenage boys who are terrified of losing face, of being seen as weak. I dunno, just my observations, i could be way off the mark. It is incredibly sad when this stuff happens though.

Also, there are plenty of other media outlets running with the story

It's kind of irrelevant to the discussion about Cameron though.

One of them is in the journalism business.

So that makes both OK? What's your point?

If Corbyn had been found to have shares in an offshore company I suspect many of those claiming it's not a story would be screaming from the lampposts for his head (so would I btw). Stop being dogmatically partisan, it's self evidently a legitimate story.

The fact is that Cameron rallied against tax avoidance. He called it immoral and he called for transparency in people's tax affairs whilst being rather evasive about his own. He has been hoist by his own petard.

You're right Loz. It does take a couple of readings though. That said I disagree with it still. There are plenty of pro Cameron voters who will have been dismayed by his handling of the situation.

Btw, I don't really think the story is about what Cameron's father did. It's the fact that he hasn't been upfront about the interests he had in Blairmore, he didn't declare them and he was extremely evasive when asked about them. Put in the context of his public moralising over such schemes and personal criticism of others with similar interests and I think he has fairly opened himself to accusations of hypocrisy.

The idea that we should aspire to a more equal society is not 'the politics of envy'. Many affluent people and many on the right as well as the left will share that vision. If you want a society that is productive, cohesive, secure and successful, you do need to ensure that levels of inequality don't get out of control. Tony Benn came from an extremely privileged background, but believed in social democracy.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Planning application submitted. For foxes muscles?

livingstine is a bell end. I think where Cameron deserves to be criticised is in relation to his hypocacy (berating others who have been involved in similar schemes) and for his evasive and frankly weasely response to initial questions. That account Liz is very partial / partisan in the sense that it takes as read that Cameron is the best person to be trusted with running things. That's a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact.

To be fair, this government has done more to crack down on avoidance than New Labour ever did. I don't think the Blairmore thing would have been much of a story had Cameron not (a) been so vocal on the ills of tax avoidance and (b) just given a single, straight forward statement on it all in the first place.

I can't find the site plans online. Sorry for being thick, but could someone point me in the right direction?

LadyDeliah has my vote!

Cameron was very vocal on Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance. I believe he called it 'immoral'. He?s been exulting everyone not to avoid tax and yet he himself has held shares in a company which seems to have been set up with the purpose of doing exactly this. @Londonmix - I think it's obvious why some feel that using off shore companies to hide income and avoid tax (opportunities which are certainly not open to all) is at odds with the notion of everyone being in 'it' (deficit reduction) together.

Just seen the latest (5th?) statement from Cameron over (the ironically named) Blairmore. Must say, he's handled that marvellously. Seriously, who is advising him?

Have you checked out the prices in Question Air a couple of doors down. Really bland, conservative casual wear at high prices. Uninspiring and over priced.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Public services at breaking point, cuts all over > the shop, and Cameron justifies ?9mil of public > funds on a propaganda campaign to encourage the > status quo with Europe. Disgraceful. > > Louisa. I agree it's pretty poor that taxpayers money is being used to promote one side of a political debate in this way.

I have heard so many Brexiters with completely different (and contradictory) visions of what 'out' would mean for the UK. This for me is a big problem.

....and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact, as you say, that there are people actually committing crimes and laundering money.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah-- I agree that there are people actually > committing crimes and laundering money. It should > be investigated who they are and they should be > prosecuted. > > The point I was making to Jeremy is that people > legally using existing tax law are unlikely not to > do so unless the law changes. You think these > people are morally bankrupt and I think these > people are like most people on earth, neither good > nor bad. > > I was simply drawing the distinction regarding the > plumber that few people will knowingly break the > law compared to those that simply use the law as > its intended to their advantage. I agree that people legally using existing tax law are unlikely to stop unless the law changes. I have said that the law needs to change. I haven't suggested people who reduce their tax burden are 'morally bankrupt', but that it's not true that everyone seeks to do so. People are capable of making different moral judgments. I don't think it's necessarily true that people who avoid tax 'simply use the law as its intended to their advantage'. sometimes this is true, but often complex avoidance schemes deliberately take advantage of unintended flaws in the system, of loop holes. This is what I mean about breaking the spirit of the law, if not the letter of it.

I think it's an individual judgment. My point is simply that it is not true that given any opportunity to reduce one's tax burden, 'everybody would'. Plenty of people have turned down opportunities to reduce their tax because schemes seem less than straight forward and (although legal) morally dubious. And again, I point to the final line in that article which I think it the whole point: "Perhaps it is not because the behaviour is criminal: tax evasion or money laundering or public corruption. Perhaps it is not. But ? and especially in the case of Panama ? very possibly it is."

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It might seem trite but its true. There is a > difference between acting legally and illegally. > If you want people on mass not legally reduce > their tax bill you have to change the laws that > allow and induce them to do so. Trying to plead > to some moral duty would be as effective as > telling an average person not to put money in an > ISA because the government needs more tax revenue. > It would seem absurd, because it is absurd. Tax free ISAs were created for the purposes of encouraging saving. They are intentionally and explicitly set up for the purposes of not paying tax on savings. Putting money in a cash free ISA complies with not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of it. Putting money into an ISA is completely different to off shoring money in Panama. The key point of that article is this: "What Panama has offered ? its USPs in the competitive world of tax havenry ? is an especially strict form of secrecy, a type of opacity of ownership, and (if the reports of backdating are correct) a class of wealth management professionals some of whom have especially compromised ethics. You go to Panama, in short, because, despite its profound disadvantages, you value these things. And the question you should be asking is, what is it about this Mr X or that Mrs Y and his or her financial affairs that causes them to prioritise secrecy or opacity or (if the reports are correct) ethically compromised professionals above all else? Perhaps it is not because the behaviour is criminal: tax evasion or money laundering or public corruption. Perhaps it is not. But ? and especially in the case of Panama ? very possibly it is." I agree that the law needs to be tightened. To imply that anything which is lawful is necessarily moral however, is quite different.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There a plenty of people who don't break the law > rahrahrah but everyone uses legal ways to minimize > their tax bill. Paying dividends from your > company is really no different than investing in a > tax free ISA. > > Some people's behavior might seem morally wrong to > you but the reality is they are simply using > government set up structures and policy like > everyone does. There is a world of difference between a tax free ISA and some of the more complex tax avoidance which takes place (which whilst not in breach of the letter of the law, is clearly not in the spirit of it). It is simply not true that 'everyone does it'. Plenty of people decide to pay more than they strictly have to, because they don't want to get involved in lawful, but unprincipled avoidance strategies. I guess you'll just have to take my word on this.