Major EU governments shamed into crackdown on tax evasion

[Brigadier]

Has Cameron broken the law?

 

[JohnD]

I don't know. Do you?

Why do you like to claim people who comment are basing their positions on party politics? Typical Tory, eh?

 

[Brigadier]

Read Blighty's post.

 

[JohnD]

Obviously I have, and yours, as well.

Has the oily pig-boy apologised to Jimmy Carr yet?

http://newsthump.com/2012/06/21/jim...-using-search-term-cameron-fortune-tax-haven/

 

[blightymam]

I think your "bastard Tory" comment showed your true colours.
Your viewpoint is based not in fact, but on ideology.
Cameron has broken no law. He is just richer than you.
But then again, so is Tony B. Liar.
Such a quandary.....

I think it's amazing that you can come to such a conclusion about me, a perfect stranger, with one line! I bow to your powers of guesswork.

And yes, it most certainly is a quandary. Oh for a perfect political party

 

[Brigadier]

is your viewpoint based on ideology?

 

[blightymam]

And while Cameron has not broken the law, he gained from his fathers tax avoidance companies. While that is within the letter of the law, there are those who find this immoral. Yes, the set criteria of morals is somewhat personal in a situation like this, and one argument that can never really be settled once and for all but I am allowed to write my opinion on the matter without a lecture from Himmy who somewhat misses the point.

Yes, he can quote as much facts on off-shore accounts as he gets off on, but I will not pay attention to this because I personally see this as a moral issue, not a legal one and quite frankly he's a dullard. I don't know how many times I had to say that I know Cameron didn't break the law, but in normal Himmy fashion, he likes to go reading on the old web for facts then preach back at someone as to why they may be wrong. And boy, how he loves to do that, almost as much as wanting the last word.

As I said, this is a moral issue for me personally, especially when we are told the Tory mantra over and over again 'we are all in this together'. It's about the tax system in this country seeming to only benefit the wealthy, it's about potential lost revenue to this country that has faced years now of cuts to the quality of our lives and our safety. It's not who I politically lean towards (because, quite frankly they're all bastards) and who I vote for is irrelevant to this discussion, nor that these people are more wealthy than I am, it's about morals. I hate to see our NHS diminish, I hate to see vulnerable people suffer even more, I hate to see people lose their jobs. I have seen tax cuts given to the wealthy tho in these times of austerity and I hate that too.

I just think the UK should be better than this.

 

[blightymam]

is your viewpoint based on ideology?

Is that another label you must give me?

 

[Brigadier]

Clarifying your position from "Tory bastard supporters", to "They're all bastards".
I can only respond to what you wrote, which was clear enough.

 

[Nozzle]

This thread is sweet. I need another bag of pop corn.

Nozzle

 

[blightymam]

Clarifying your position from "Tory bastard supporters", to "They're all bastards".
I can only respond to what you wrote, which was clear enough.

But in all honesty, why does it matter who I vote for? Why pick up in it? Does it really matter in this argument, what value does your leap to conclusions bring anyway? I only said it because Himmy kept hero-worshiping Cameron as his responses, and it was ok to be greedy. I was taking the **** Much as the comment about him being on Camerons payroll.

 

[Himaginn]

And while Cameron has not broken the law, he gained from his fathers tax avoidance companies.

If we remove the suspicion part of your comment, we'd have: "And while Cameron has not broken the law, he gained from his fathers companies."
That phrase "tax avoidance" that you added is nothing but your personal political leanings, easily fueled by press and others of similar political persuasion.
So, really, you're just upset because Cameron has inherited some money, and you haven't.

While that is within the letter of the law, there are those who find this immoral.

There's nothing immoral about inheritance, as long as the capital was fairly earned, and due taxes paid.

Yes, the set criteria of morals is somewhat personal in a situation like this,

By jove, I think he's got it!

and one argument that can never really be settled once and for all but I am allowed to write my opinion on the matter without a lecture from Himmy who somewhat misses the point.

Of course you are, and I'm just as much allowed to argue against your opinion, without cries of 'foul' because my argument is more substantiated and credible than yours.

Yes, he can quote as much facts on off-shore accounts as he gets off on, but I will not pay attention to this because I personally see this as a moral issue, not a legal one

So you're openly admitting that your political opinion carries more weight than facts?

and quite frankly he's a dullard.

Care to substantiate that opinion?.....................................Thought not!

I don't know how many times I had to say that I know Cameron didn't break the law, but in normal Himmy fashion, he likes to go reading on the old web for facts then preach back at someone as to why they may be wrong. And boy, how he loves to do that, almost as much as wanting the last word.

I guess you don't take kindly to being proven politically motivated in the face of cold hard facts that disprove your arguments.

As I said, this is a moral issue for me personally,

So you keep saying. Your opinion is a subjective politically motivated opinion, which is turning into a bit of a crusade.

especially when we are told the Tory mantra over and over again 'we are all in this together'.

That's lucky that, 'cos without that phrase there'd be hardly any political argument.

It's about the tax system in this country seeming to only benefit the wealthy, it's about potential lost revenue to this country that has faced years now of cuts to the quality of our lives and our safety. It's not who I politically lean towards (because, quite frankly they're all bastards) and who I vote for is irrelevant to this discussion, nor that these people are more wealthy than I am, it's about morals. I hate to see our NHS diminish, I hate to see vulnerable people suffer even more, I hate to see people lose their jobs. I have seen tax cuts given to the wealthy tho in these times of austerity and I hate that too.

Resort to heartstrings argument again. Because of your feelings about taxes, cuts to quality of lives, safety, wealth, NHS, vulnerable people, etc. this means you must have the moral high ground.
You assume that no-one else shares your concerns.
I care about the same things as you do, but I don't attempt to exploit it to try and gain the moral high ground. Because I care about those things doesn't mean that my argument is right.
You're just trying to move the argument.

I just think the UK should be better than this.

Better than what?

I only said it because Himmy kept hero-worshiping Cameron as his responses, and it was ok to be greedy.

Again, you've invented some cock and bull comment about me and my motives.

I was taking the **** Much as the comment about him being on Camerons payroll.

What you really meant to say was: I was being really silly, now I need to excuse my silly behaviour by inventing a reason for it.

 

[D_Hailsham]

It's estimated that tax havens cost the UK about 7.2bn a year from tax avoidance and evasion (figure obtained by the BBC), but even if that's a overestimate, it's still going to be a huge figure.

It may be a huge figure to you and I, but to the government it's shrapnel.

The total estimated public expenditure for 2016/17 is £772 billion (source: 2016/17 Red Book), so the tax havens cost about 1% or one penny in the pound. Government departments can easily find more than that by improving their efficiency. The problem is, they don't want to - unless they are forced to by having their budgets cut.

Back in the 1970's I worked for a large county council in SE England. The whole country was going through a tough few years, so savings were necessary. I was part of a team instructed by the Chief Executive to go through each Department and help them find savings. The excuses they made were mind boggling - usually of the "we have always done it that way" type. But we stuck to our guns and presented our recommendations to the Councillors. Most of them were accepted and implemented.

 

[blightymam]

It's estimated that tax havens cost the UK about 7.2bn a year from tax avoidance and evasion (figure obtained by the BBC), but even if that's a overestimate, it's still going to be a huge figure.

It may be a huge figure to you and I, but to the government it's shrapnel.

The total estimated public expenditure for 2016/17 is £772 billion (source: 2016/17 Red Book), so the tax havens cost about 1% or one penny in the pound. Government departments can easily find more than that by improving their efficiency. The problem is, they don't want to - unless they are forced to by having their budgets cut.

Back in the 1970's I worked for a large county council in SE England. The whole country was going through a tough few years, so savings were necessary. I was part of a team instructed by the Chief Executive to go through each Department and help them find savings. The excuses they made were mind boggling - usually of the "we have always done it that way" type. But we stuck to our guns and presented our recommendations to the Councillors. Most of them were accepted and implemented.

It's interesting work you did/do - my pop did similar in the 90's - TQM (total quality management), same sort of thing, working out where companies go wrong from the ground up to the management.

I know it's small change in potentially lost revenue, but as asda likes saying, every little helps! Perhaps that 7.2bn a year may just help stop the cuts that the many thousands disabled folk are facing when they change the system soon?

 

[blightymam]

A/ That phrase "tax avoidance" that you added is nothing but your personal political leanings, easily fueled by press and others of similar political persuasion.
B/ So, really, you're just upset because Cameron has inherited some money, and you haven't.


C/There's nothing immoral about inheritance, as long as the capital was fairly earned, and due taxes paid.

D/ By jove, I think he's got it!

E/ Of course you are, and I'm just as much allowed to argue against your opinion, without cries of 'foul' because my argument is more substantiated and credible than yours.


F/ So you're openly admitting that your political opinion carries more weight than facts?

G/ Care to substantiate that opinion?.....................................Thought not!

H/ I guess you don't take kindly to being proven politically motivated in the face of cold hard facts that disprove your arguments.

I/ So you keep saying. Your opinion is a subjective politically motivated opinion, which is turning into a bit of a crusade.

J/ That's lucky that, 'cos without that phrase there'd be hardly any political argument.


K/ Resort to heartstrings argument again. Because of your feelings about taxes, cuts to quality of lives, safety, wealth, NHS, vulnerable people, etc. this means you must have the moral high ground.
You assume that no-one else shares your concerns.
I care about the same things as you do, but I don't attempt to exploit it to try and gain the moral high ground. Because I care about those things doesn't mean that my argument is right.
You're just trying to move the argument.

L/ Better than what?

M/ Again, you've invented some cock and bull comment about me and my motives.

N/ What you really meant to say was: I was being really silly, now I need to excuse my silly behaviour by inventing a reason for it.

A/ So what are my political leanings Himmy? Please tell me who I voted for last election. And I love that you jumped on Brig's bandwagon, trying to use something else to... er, dunno? Prove a point that's not there? Have a dig? I dunno. Just more ramblings tbh, not even originally thought of by you. Is that coz you didn't google it first and then pretend it was your idea?

B/ Urm, did I say I was upset? What on earth you going on about now? Another pointless vain attempt at using Brig's post about money again to have a go? Of course am not upset about his money because its not mine, I never said I was. Stop making stuff up, there's a good boy.

C/ Really. That's your view and you'll change it as you see fit.

D/ I wrote it didn't I? If you were so quick to understand, why did you go at such length and google-spouting at me to try and try and try and change my view then? If you truly understood that then you would see that your efforts, although laborious and dull were a waste of time, other than to fulfill your love of preaching at people while you quickly try and educate yourself via google.
By the way, another nod to your powers of observation, you may find that I am not a he. Check my user name dear chap.

E/ Thats the whole point of trying to discuss with you. You do not discuss, you preach. You need to correct people leaves you very short-sighted and oh my, so dull to converse with. Perhaps if you popped your head out of your arse for a few moments it may help, take in the surroundings a little, breathe some fresh air and you may just learn a thing or two about people.

F/ Where, where have I done that? You seeing stuff that's not there again? It'll be ghosts next.

G/ No need, you do it every time you write on here.

H/ Ah, you do talk some ****** Himmy. Just re-read what you wrote there and try and see you sound like an utter conceited ****. And incorrect one at that.

I/ Really? A crusade? Me? My mum will be proud. And Himmy, please see above, esp the first line.

J/ You mean there is some argument to be had then? You've just admitted it!

K/ Not resorting to the argument, I added to it ages ago as it's part of the argument I had. Bigger picture, that's what's there when you look past googling facts to try and help your own viewpoint. Its fab google, but you have to use it well and remember the first thing you read might not be the correct or only viewpoint.
I do not assume no one else shares my concerns. You do make stuff up you know!
I did not say I took the moral high ground, I did not exploit anything, that's just your way of thinking and taking it.
And yes, I agree entirely, Your line -"Because I care about those things doesn't mean that my argument is right." You are not right. Ha.

L/ If you really have to ask then it's a sad day. I thought you said you cared too? Or is that just a line?

M/ No, you came over as greedy. Thinking tax avoidance is ok coz it's legal is just people being greedy and you agree with them. That's your view, that's fine but no cock and bull, just views. Please Himmy, learn that there are more views out there, not just yours AND THAT'S OK! You do not need to get the whole world and it's mother to agree with you to feel validated. It's ok to disagree with your views.

N/ I do not need to invent anything. I do not need to answer to you, justify myself to you, some silly keyboard warrior. Why would I give a rats?

By the way, this made me smile. In the spirit of you highlighting absolutely everything that anyone ever says for any possible discrepancies, here's one for you that you backtracked on.

What Cameron did was a bit of tax avoidance. I would do the same.

But he wasn't dodging any tax..

Have a nice day.