Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[McLaren]

First topic message reminder :

Super

For starters I live in a one bedroom flat. But I think you know that it should not take the people of a nation putting refugees up in their house before the government is required to do anything about it.

For example the government could easily rent 50 premier inns and put the refugees there until they can be given homes.


"Of course it matters. They have a far greater responsibility than the UK does"

So you are saying that because those countries closer to Syria have neglected their responsibilities the UK has the right to do nothing? You are saying that one country doing nothing is sufficient for another country to justify doing nothing?


bob

WTF was that?

[super_realist]

You feeling ok Mac? Thought you were a fully paid up member of the Guardianista?

[McLaren]

We have been over this before super, I find the guardian's attitude to science appalling, for example printing a story recently where someone claimed genes had nothing to do with how the brain works.

If they are that dumb arsed on science I assume they show the same lack of care in other areas.

They may be one of the better papers in the UK but that is a whole bigger problem.

[golfermartin]

That means Faldo won 5 out of his 6 majors as an amateur. You'd have thought they'd've made more of that at the time!

[super_realist]

Mac, It's massively error strewn, and not just the spelling. Mind you, still better than "The New Day".

[pedro]

That means Faldo won 5 out of his 6 majors as an amateur. You'd have thought they'd've made more of that at the time!

What's the fuzz? If he was an amateur until 1993 he wouldn't have earned any money to hide anyway...

[GunsGerms]

Anyone think Cameron should stand down over his family's Mossack Fonseca exposure?

[super_realist]

Not at all Guns.
He's actually done nothing remotely different to what anything any of our pensions are invested in.

I heard a Tax expert on 5 live discussing today how he's done absolutely nothing wrong and how we'd all be hypocrites to slate him for it. Certainly changed my opinion on the matter.

None of it happened whilst he was PM, so there is no reason to stand down.

[GunsGerms]

Not at all Guns.
He's actually done nothing remotely different to what anything any of our pensions are invested in.

I heard a Tax expert on 5 live discussing today how he's done absolutely nothing wrong and how we'd all be hypocrites to slate him for it. Certainly changed my opinion on the matter.

None of it happened whilst he was PM, so there is no reason to stand down.

Surely it is his responsibility to be transparent about his assets while serving as prime minister? If he didn't do anything wrong then why lie about it?

[MontysMerkin]

I heard a Tax expert on 5 live discussing today how he's done absolutely nothing wrong and how we'd all be hypocrites to slate him for it.

Well that's settled that then.

[JAS]

Not at all Guns.
He's actually done nothing remotely different to what anything any of our pensions are invested in.

I heard a Tax expert on 5 live discussing today how he's done absolutely nothing wrong and how we'd all be hypocrites to slate him for it. Certainly changed my opinion on the matter.

None of it happened whilst he was PM, so there is no reason to stand down.

Surely it is his responsibility to be transparent about his assets while serving as prime minister? If he didn't do anything wrong then why lie about it?

I'd have to agree with Super on this one, despite being quite anti-Cameron. The media seem hell bent on missing the point of this whole exposure. The problem isn't what Cameron did or didn't do, they shouldn't be turning it into a witch hunt. It's not the fault of Cameron or any of the others that do it or indeed the accountants/specialists that advise them to do it. The problem is that the tax authorities don't have a consistent law/policy to deal with it. The line between legitimate avoidance and illegal evasion is quite blurred. It might be morally repugnant to squirrel away your millions and leave the average taxpayer to make up the tax shortfall but it's NOT illegal. Cameron has done nothing legally wrong. That being said, instinctively the Conservative elite will want to protect their own interests but politically he wants to be seen to be looking after the interests of the average Joe...rock & hard place spring to mind.

[GunsGerms]

He may not have done anything legally wrong but he did lie about it while slinging mud at others that did more or less the same thing. Does that not make him less trustworthy?

Personally I don't think any jurisdiction should allow funds or any form of corporation to be set up that issues bearer shares. That is only going to attract tax avoidance and money laundering.  By the same token I am equally suspicious of any bearer of bearer shares. Why the need for lack of transparency? What have you got to hide?

[super_realist]

It wasn't even "millions". It was £12k. Hardly something for the "oppressed" and "under-priveleged" to be crying into their processed microwave meals about.

If Cameron has done anything wrong, it's perhaps not being completely truthful about something, however, you have to ask, if it's not illegal, and it isn't, then why is it anyone's business but those who hold those accounts?

I wish the media would stop going looking for synthetic scandal and hoping to sell copies of their dying media by attempting to create a story where there is none.

This explains it nicely. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qdlwc

[McLaren]

Super

The difference is that you and I cannot change the laws or set the governments tone towards tax avoidance.

Given that he has offshore investments how can we be sure he acted impartially when deciding the UK's tax laws?

[JAS]

He may not have done anything legally wrong

Correct so there is little or no grounds for a concerted witch hunt on the presumed basis that he has

but he did lie about it while slinging mud at others that did more or less the same thing.

What was the specific lie??

Does that not make him less trustworthy?

He's a politician, does anyone with half a brain realistically think any politicians in this day and age are remotely trustworthy?? Sad situation because yes they SHOULD be trustworthy but the reality is they are not, none of them.

Personally I don't think any jurisdiction should allow funds or any form of corporation to be set up that issues bearer shares. That is only going to attract tax avoidance and money laundering.  By the same token I am equally suspicious of any bearer of bearer shares. Why the need for lack of transparency? What have you got to hide?

Yes, for politicians and everyone else Money laundering is illegal, Tax avoidance on the other hand is not (ISA's are a Tax avoidance vehicle) Tax EVASION is illegal

[pedro]

Agree this has turned into a which hunt. The media has done next to nothing explaining why being involved in offshore companies per se is a problem.

[super_realist]

Mac, do yourself a favour and put your indoctrinated hatred of the Tories aside for a minute.

Criticise Cameron for not being straight up if you like (even though he owes you no explanation about his private LEGAL financial business), but if you listen to the expert on BBC, it will explain how there is nothing wrong with what he has done in a financial/legal, how it has been poorly reported in an inaccurate manner and also how it doesn't differ in the slightest from how our pensions might also be invested (not that I expect you have one, that would be aspirational for you I imagine).

[beninho]

Rich guy with powerful connections involved in off shore tax avoidance schemes shocker. I don't like him and I think this government is plainly awful. How crap are the opposition though. Why is no onellaying in to a divided party over Europe more than they are. The junior doctor thing is rumbling on and on. I don't think he us dodgy though.

[super_realist]

Funny how Cameron gets stick for this sort of thing, but when Ken Livingstone did it, no one batted an eyelid.
Nothing but a witchhunt.

[beninho]

It was only a witch hunt because the press knew about the offshore account yet Cameron at worse lied at best tried to mislead when he was asked questions. He has admitted he handled it badly. He should have been honest at the start especially if he believes he has done nothing wrong.

And anyway its the opposition parties job to make it a witch hunt. That's what being in opposition is all about. I though wouldn't be surprised if some EU exit tory members are behind some of this anyway.

[skiddy]

Hardly a witch hunt. David Cameron has criticised others in the past for the same thing such as Jimmy Carr. Hes called aggressive tax avoidance morally wrong. Hes essentially said what scum like his father did was immoral, so hardly a witch hunt.

[super_realist]

How is his father "scum" for doing something perfectly legal? Any of us who have ISA's or a pension also are likely to have interests in similar trusts.

I wish people would stop being babies about this, and pretending to hold some sort of moral high ground.

[beninho]

I find the fact that he accepted 200 from his mum as a means of reducing the inheritance liability over 7 years pretty dodgy. Legal yep, but not Sonething that a leader of a country who set budgets and taxes should be anywhere near. Politicians and especially prime ministers should be whiter than white and not involved in anything that could be construed as dodgy.

The only issue is whether this will have an impact on the EU exit vote. I hate cameron but agree with him on that one!

[beninho]

Though didn't cameron say these offshore tax schemes were morally wrong and something else when jimmy Carr and other celebs got caught out. He really hasn't helped himself.

[super_realist]

They aren't the same thing.

Of course, he's looked a bit of a plank in this, but he's done nothing legally wrong.

[BlueCoverman]

There is certainly nothing 'dodgy' about Inheritance Tax Planning. Let's not forget that this money will have already been taxed once and no doubt at the highest income tax rate applicable at the time when it was earned. And if Mrs Cameron does not survive a full seven years from the date when she gifted this money to her son a further 40% of the amount gifted will still be due in Inheritance Tax from her Estate.

[beninho]

There may be nothing dodgy. Then why do they nt get rid of it completely.

[super_realist]

There's no need why they should get rid of it, and there is no reason why people shouldn't keep using them.
People are trying to present some sort of moral high ground as if it's "one rule for the rich, and one for the poor " or some old hackneyed cliche, without realising they're own investments probably benefit similarly. Their outrage is simply misplaced, as they aren't understanding the situation.

Why get rid of something that is legal? Why don't people just change their "disgusted of Turnbridge Wells" attitude to a legal financial transaction, or better still, actually do some research to find out if they actually have justification for it, and they'd soon find they didn't

[BlueCoverman]

A good question Ben. And certainly one a great deal of hard working families in your location and many parts of South East and Southern England in particular have asked, after being caught up in (at a time of great personal sadness anyway) purely because of spiralling and out of control house prices.

This has been partially addressed in recent budget, but too little and too late for a huge amount of people.

[beninho]

But cameron has made numerous statements about clamping down on tax avoidance schemes, he called out celebrities for using tax avoidance schemes calling them morally wrong. Yet it seems that he has benefited from an offshore tax avoided ce scheme through his father and it's likely that this isn'ttthe only one he's been involved in. He then was gifted an extra 200 from his mum with the aim of not paying inheritance tax when she pops off and therefore avoiding any tax.

When questioned following the leak he tried to deny it before admitting it when everyone knew he was lieing.

The issues isn't his use of the schemes it's his blatant hypocrisy on the matter. He is untrustworthy and it may fk over the country when people vote against him at the referendum.

[super_realist]

Criticise Cameron for being a hypocrite and dishonest, but that's it, there is nothing else to complain about.

[Davie]

I would ask anyone who is criticising Cameron if they would have done the same thing in his position. Anyone who says no is probably a liar

[super_realist]

If I was Cameron, I'd just tell people to mind their own effing business. I'd also do the same if I were one of those celebrities who do the OTHER kind of tax avoidance.
Why are people so obsessed with what other people do LEGALLY with their own money?

[JAS]

It's the politics of envy Super, simple as that. The media are getting this all wrong by hounding Cameron, as many say he's done nothing wrong.

The left are playing the whole situation all wrong as well. Attacking wealth and wealth creation is extremely destructive for the left. Most people with a fair amount of wealth have worked damned hard for it, how dare the lazy and feckless try and demonise them for it. What the left need to attack if they want to make political capital is greed, not wealth. Wealth gained through hard work is absolutely fine and an aspirational ideal. Wealth gained through greed and/or abuse of power or inside information however should attract much more scrutiny.

[beninho]

I would ask anyone who is criticising Cameron if they would have done the same thing in his position. Anyone who says no is probably a liar

well you will struggle to find anyone in his actual position. Not many leaders of the opposition or prime ministers making grand claims and statements about tax avoidance including plans to name and find actual company owners so they can be named. The guy is a hypocrite and has handled this badly.

[navyblueshorts]

Re. Dodgy Dave. I wonder what his take from Blairmore will be when his mum pops off? No-one seems to have asked that yet. Presumably, his dad left all the profit from the blatant dodgyness to his wife when he popped off? I imagine Dave will get a decent share of that eventually but, oh no!, he won't have made anything out of the Blairmore thing...

[McLaren]

The Icelandic PM had to go for a much smaller stake in off shore accounts.

[super_realist]

It's the politics of envy Super, simple as that. The media are getting this all wrong by hounding Cameron, as many say he's done nothing wrong.

The left are playing the whole situation all wrong as well. Attacking wealth and wealth creation is extremely destructive for the left. Most people with a fair amount of wealth have worked damned hard for it, how dare the lazy and feckless try and demonise them for it. What the left need to attack if they want to make political capital is greed, not wealth. Wealth gained through hard work is absolutely fine and an aspirational ideal. Wealth gained through greed and/or abuse of power or inside information however should attract much more scrutiny.

I'm sick of those sorts of people, all that condemnation, yet I bet they shop at Amazon, Ebay, do their internet searches at Google and buy Apple. All companies seen as doing their business in a less than "honest" way.

Bloody hypocrites.

[skiddy]

Actually those companies are pretty straightforward and say they are minimising their tax liability for their shareholders. Unlike David Cameron who tells blatant lies to the public for a few extra votes. It comes down to weather people people want honest or dishonest polititions. Obviously the Cameron family see no problem with aggressive tax avoidance so he should explain what he thinks the benefits are. I do laugh when people start portraying the left as some some sort of communists when the right often complain about aggressive tax avoidance to curry political favour.

[super_realist]

Honest politicians are like hens teeth or rocking horse poo. No one expects or demands honest politicians, they are simply looking for a rod to beat a politician with that they don't like while at the same time ignoring their own hypocrisy on tax avoidance.

Cameron doesn't have to explain the benefits.

[McLaren]

Most people with a fair amount of wealth have worked damned hard for it

[super_realist]

What do you consider to be "wealthy" in terms of income Mac, and do you see wealth as being a bad thing?

[McLaren]

Super

I am not sure working hard is unique to those who are better off. Most people work pretty hard and don't end up well off.

I don't see wealth as a bad thing but I don't see any reason for it to be concentrated. I have clearly benefited from it myself and I can assure you I haven't worked all that hard.

[super_realist]

It seems though Mac that there is something which is tangibly unpalatable about being in a position where you are considered wealthy as opposed to working hard and not being paid what is considered a good salary.

Endeavour of course doesn't mean you deserve to be wealthy because of how much you do. You could get two people who work hard, one a stock broker, one in McDonalds.
The thing that annoys me is that the Stockbroker is somehow seen as a bad person and that he somehow owes less wealthy people some of the fruits of his labour.

As for your own wealth, I thought you considered yourself a relative pauper.

[McLaren]

Super

I assume when most people object to those who are wealthy they are actually objecting to the lack of opportunities afforded to those who do not start life in more prosperous circumstances.  I am sure you were aware in school that some kids were always going to go to Uni and others weren't, and even in a Scottish state School the divide was clearly wealth.  

Most evidence shows that even in the UK very few people manage to move out of the socio economic group in which they start life.  And it is this that people feel is unfair.  I agree that seeming to just attack those that are wealthy is not the best way to articulate the argument but it isn't exactly difficult to see where people are coming from.  Add to this that it is usually those at the top that govern the country and keep the status quo and again it isn't hard to see why the "them and us" type language is used.

Super, as for my own wealth it just proves how unequal society is and that those who get a slightly better start have things much easier.  I might not have created all that much wealth but I had a cushy upbringing and continue to reap the rewards of having better opportunities than those less well off at every stage of life.

[super_realist]

The trouble I have is that people think the world owes them a living and the resulting wealth.

Everyone has opportunity to work hard, get an education, follow a career and if they want, be wealthy. It's not the fault of the already wealthy, if others don't achieve that which is who seems to get the blame for it.


If you grow up on a council estate, no reason why you can't get a good job.

[McLaren]

Super

Your last post demonstrates that you have not bothered to look at the evidence. It is not true that regardless of background you have every opportunity to be "wealthy". The odds for those from some backgrounds getting an education, good job, owning a house etc are really pretty bad compared to those from more privileged backgrounds.

[pedro]

That maybe correct mac, but who is to blame for that? The rich?

[super_realist]

I wasn't talking about the "odds" though Mac, I was talking about the opportunity.

School qualifications are not handed out on the basis of your parents wealth. I know plenty people who came from poor backgrounds at my school and have succeeded, many of them a lot more wealthy than I am (although I'm not from a wealthy background either, but have done ok)

Regardless, it still isn't the responsibility of those who have become wealthy to subsidise those who haven't. We don't live in CCCP.

[McLaren]

Pedro

Who is to blame?

Well who do you think has set the policies which perpetuate inequality? I am not sure exactly, but if you can answer that question then you know who to "blame".

[super_realist]

Why not blame ordinary people for not entering politics and attempting to change it?

[Sponsored content]