Panama Papers

[miga]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Besides passing cash on while bypassing IHT (as I

> say, 'whatever') - a massive chunk of it also paid

> for his son's very privileged education. Would his

> son have made it to PM had he been Dave from

> Harris Peckham? Like Bollocks would he! Anyone who

> can't see how this generally might have an Air Of

> Stink to millions of people up and down the land

> must have a serious lack of braincells, regardless

> of whether Dave himself didn't actually do

> anything wrong guv'.

Just because it "feels wrong" to millions of people, doesn't mean it's logical. It is understandable, though.

Also, Corbyn didn't go to university, and he *might* become PM. From another angle, there are many who receive that same privileged education, and don't do anything much with themselves. Peivilege and succes is not a 1 for 1, and neither is (or was) privilege a pre-requisite to climb in politics. And finally - none of this invalidates Cameron's stance on tax policy.

[*Bob*]

Privilege and success is not a 1 for 1 but if you can't look at the current cabinet, or any other cabinet from over the last, say, 300 years - and see a definitive correlation, you need to look harder!

Corbyn will never be PM.

[*Bob*]

My Dad left me these rings, necklaces and bracelets.

He was a burglar, but hey - that wasn't my fault.

Now I live very comfortably in a big house and think poor people need kicking.

[LondonMix]

*Bob* I doubt anyone on this thread doubts that privilege provides substantial advantages. That benefit is already measurable at the level of economic privilege prevalent in ED.

If you think privilege automatically disqualifies you from being PM then you must have felt that way before because Cameron has ALWAYS been privileged.

As for judging people by the actions / deeds of their parents, I think that's a terrible idea. I actually can't imagine anything worse for a society.

[LondonMix]

Again, I say all of this as someone who disagrees with a number of the governments policies.

[miga]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Corbyn will never be PM.

OK, your opinion (which I agree with), but he's the current alternative. Many other PMs (on both sides) have not come from huge privilege.

> Would his son have made it to PM had he been Dave from

> Harris Peckham?

It's this I take issue with really...there are and have been many counter-examples without huge privilege in positions of power.

I'm not arguing about social mobility in general. It's getting worse and this is a travesty brought about by successive governments' policies.

> My Dad left me these rings, necklaces and bracelets.

> He was a burglar, but hey - that wasn't my fault.

If you have evidence that David Cameron's living on proceeds of crime, I'm sure the Police and Media would love to hear about it.

[*Bob*]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's this I take issue with really...there are and

> have been many counter-examples without huge

> privilege in positions of power.

You're right - a full 15% of prime ministers didn't have a private education.

Of course, more than 50% of those 15% went to selective grammars (like I did). Most of these schools have now been colonised by privileged people who want to save on school fees, can afford to move into the area, can prep their kids to pass - and as such they are no longer 'open to all' regardless of social or economic status in the same way that they used to be.

If this constitutes a good hit-rate for the non-privileged getting to the very top, then it's a sorry state of affairs.

[*Bob*]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As for judging people by the actions / deeds of

> their parents, I think that's a terrible idea. I

> actually can't imagine anything worse for a

> society.

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't. I hope no-one would judge me in such a manner. But then I'm not heading-up a government whose policy is to clamp down on tax avoidance despite me having directly benefited from a fortune made from helping people avoid tax - and kept quiet about it - until someone found out. That's the difference.

[miga]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> miga Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> If this constitutes a good hit-rate for the

> non-privileged getting to the very top, then it's

> a sorry state of affairs.

I couldn't agree more with this. It's appalling, and it seems to have sneekily got worse while everyone was watching Kirsty Allsop talk houses and holidaying in Ibiza over the last couple of decades. Also - the last century saw a great deal of social change for the better, some of which is now being rewound, so the 300 years is a bit long for a meaningful comparison. I'd probably just include the last century.

[LondonMix]

That doesn't make sense. Most times reform comes from those who have benefited and best understand the ills of an issue.

One could just as easily argue that Cameron's disgust with what his father did is what has spurred him to make clamping down on evasion a priority for his government. Again, no one can actually argue that this government hasn't clamped down on evasion more than recent labor administrations have.

That's the problem with judging people based on their parents actions. Individuals have no control over their parents actions or the advantages they received as children as a result of their parents decisions. As adults people can and often do strongly disapprove of some of their parents' behavior.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > As for judging people by the actions / deeds of

> > their parents, I think that's a terrible idea.

> I

> > actually can't imagine anything worse for a

> > society.

>

> Under normal circumstances I wouldn't. I hope

> no-one would judge me in such a manner. But then

> I'm not heading-up a government whose policy is to

> clamp down on tax avoidance despite me having

> directly benefited from a fortune made from

> helping people avoid tax - and kept quiet about it

> - until someone found out. That's the difference.

[*Bob*]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One could just as easily argue that Cameron's

> disgust with that his father did is what has

> spurned him to make clamping down on avoidance a

> priority for his government.

Ha ha! One could argue that. But one would know it to be nonsense.

"I'm disgusted with these shares I've inherited. So disgusted, I shall sell them for an amount which falls within the tax-free dividend allowance literally just before I become Prime Minister - and hope to god no-one finds out".

[LondonMix]

So, the only way Cameron could clamp down on tax evasion in your mind is if he'd refused his inheritance? That's the bar by which he should be judged even though he has not evaded any taxes when getting his inheritance or when liquidating it?

And for not refusing his inheritance you think he should what exactly? Reverse the measures implemented to clamp down on evasion at HMRC? Or does he have to resign?

Also, its the CGT allowance for couples not the dividend allowance (which doesn't exist though there is a lower tax rate for dividends than ordinary income to create an incentive for investment).

[*Bob*]

You would have thought if it were a conscience issue close to his heart (*strokes chin*) - he might have mentioned it. Must have slipped his mind I guess. I bet he's thinking back now to that bit of advice he had to sell the shares pronto and stay schtumm about Panama tax havens etc etc - and imagining all the political goodwill that a puny ?30k would have generated - if only he'd have made a thing of outing the information at the time and perhaps even donating the cash to a worthy cause or some such pithy gesture. Why, he'd be a HERO!

Anyway this is moot. Cameron is not a great reforming Prime Minister of conscience. He's not Gladstone, he's not even Blair. He's a very capable PR man - which is, unfortunately, what you have to be these days to become Prime Minister.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On the wider issue, the UK is very much complicit in helping people obscure the source of their income and in avoiding tax - which means in many cases aiding gangsters and despots, (as well as those who simply want to reduce their contribution to the societies in which they operate and profit). As I?ve said previously the current government has started to address some of this, but they could, and probably now will I?m sure, do more. If nothing else, such an outcome would make the whole furore worthwhile in my book.

On the specific issue of the Prime Minister - Someone asked what Cameron has actually done wrong. He?s been hypocritical and evasive, and shown very poor judgement. That?s it. I don?t suppose he?ll resign over it, but if I were him I would be taking real measures to ensure there is action on tackling tax avoidance and the secrecy which goes hand in hand with routing money through off shore shell companies and the like.

[LondonMix]

Okay, Bob you find his reforms insincere and done for PR rather than out of true conviction because he didn't disinherit himself.

If that's the story and the scandal then hopefully we can all move on.

Rahrahrah, I agree he has been evasive in coming forward with the details. My guess is he feared that despite no wrong doing, it would turn into a scandal anyhow. He was right. He was incredibly naive to think he could get away without a full disclosure and should be facing criticism for that regardless of why.

I disagree he's been a hypocrite but that's by the by.

I do agree the UK is a part of the global tax avoidance machine and that UK law explicitly allows and encourages various forms of tax avoidance. How this should be tackled is complicated but its a legitimate debate to have.

[*Bob*]

I don't think he should resign. I don't want to rake over his intimate financial details or trample on his dead father's grave. I am not mad with rage or envy.

But I cannot accept accept being a hypocrite is 'by the by'. That's the worst bit - that's what he deserves a shoeing for.

[Seabag]

I agree with what *Bob* says

And like I mentioned earlier if it's morals vs cash, then morals can take second consideration. But to me the cash is near immaterial, it's the 'hope no one finds out' bit for ?30k

That's the damage done, he's sold himself short and compromised his future position. And it's that he'll forever be reminded of

[LondonMix]

I'm not sure not disavowing your inheritance makes you a hypocrite when trying to enact tax evasion reforms.

If he deserves a rebuke, its for thinking he could wiggle out of this without making full disclosure when asked directly.

[*Bob*]

Totally, 'baggers.

I'd rather he was a playboy billionaire freely waving wads of money from outside number ten - than a sneaky little hypocrite grasping his measly ?30k on the sly.

[LondonMix]

What do you mean? The 30k CGT tax free allowance applies to everyone. He didn't get it because his inheritance was in the offshore vehicle. He got zero benefit.

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree with what *Bob* says

>

> And like I mentioned earlier if it's morals vs

> cash, then morals can take second consideration.

> But to me the cash is near immaterial, it's the

> 'hope no one finds out' bit for ?30k

>

> That's the damage done, he's sold himself short

> and compromised his future position. And it's that

> he'll forever be reminded of

[LondonMix]

I repeat, he did not grasp anything on the sly.

If he had been given his inheritance as a wire transfer in cash to his bank account and then invested it he would have received the same 30k CGT allowance. Its the same as you tax free allowance for income tax. You just get it. Its nothing special.

[*Bob*]

You're not getting my point I don't think - I know you get the tax and you understand it - but that's not *the* point - the point is not the money itself, not the legality of having it.

The point is HE KNEW that it would look bad if he (and his family) name was associated with offshore tax havens. His decision was to sell the shares, legally, all above board, but keep quiet about the whole thing hoping no-one would ever know.

He kept quiet and kept the money, not because it was legal, or his by right, or anything like that: he did it because BOTH keeping quiet and keeping the money suited his political purposes - and that's all there was to it.

If he could turn the clock back he would have done it differently - but with the same thing in mind: what would best suit his political purposes.

[*Bob*]

I'm probably explaining it (my point) badly.

Basically I don't care about the money, I care about the motivation. That's what sucks.

[Angelina]

Politicians are wriggly little things.

So his family have offshores, he benefitted (indirectly at least) and did not take the opportunity for transparency.

So really raises questions about morality.

Is this man honest?

Is he fair?

Does he govern this land fairly and honestly - on behalf of all people represented?

Well - it's quite clear that the answer to that is no. There is bias against the poor in favour of the wealthy.

Tax loopholes (while legal)are immoral, particulary when there is insufficient money to support the part of our society that need it.. Payment of tax by those benefitting from this country (as a business or otherwise) could and should be used for the benefit of the country and not allowed to be kept aside while we have benefits for disabled reduced as we do not have money to pay them.

Of course, those who benefit from tax loopholes will not want to see them closed - Cameron's family are known to benefit form this loophole and he is well aware of it's existence and therefore aware of the tax that could be brought in if these loopholes were closed.

The government should be making sure the right money is collected, not just how to spend the part that has.

[LondonMix]

No, I get what you are saying Bob. You are saying that its wrong that he didn't disclose the fact that he was left an offshore vehicle. That in the debate about tax avoidance over the years when he was condemning others, he should have been upfront and said he inherited one rather than being politically calculating and saying nothing, even though he didn't avoid any taxes and did nothing wrong.

I don't entirely disagree. However, for better or worse, because of the nature of politics these days, unforced disclosure on complicated issues can feel risky so I see it less as hypocrisy and more as,....I'm not sure what.