Topic: The Panama Papers 11.5m files leaked.

[JackBauer]

So they can all just shift it to the next tax haven, only this time one we don't have any influence over?

It's a pointless act.

There needs to be simplification of the tax laws, loop holes closed to make it a lot harder (and easier to see/trace) money leaving the country prior to paying the appropriate tax, and it needs to be tackled multi-nationally.

There is already a raft of legislation and regulations on tax information and reporting exchanges. The Cayman Islands for example has such agreements in place with the USA and has signed up to the CRS - any responsible authority can make a request for information and if the request is proper Cayman will comply.

[JackBauer]

The FT is reporting today that in 2013 Cameron personally intervened to weaken an EU drive to reveal the beneficiaries of trusts.

 His line of "I have nothing more to say" suggests he has a fuck of a lot more to hide. I know that when the line of "this won't go away" gets trotted out the issue nearly always goes away relatively quickly, but this mustn't be allowed to be kicked into the long grass.

 This isn't really about tax avoidance. It's about theft and corruption.

Not sure what you're getting at there. Are you suggesting David Cameron is using offshore structures to hide the proceeds of his own theft and corruption?

[west_london_red]

I wonder if it's got anything to do with this

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/06/conservative-party-donors-tax-havens/

Thats the thing, everyone knows that the Tory party is funded by the City and big business and its the City and big business types who do the tax dodging but people either cant or wont make the link that the there is a strong link between the two.

[JackBauer]

If every rich person and Company just paid their taxes it wouldn´t have to be 40%, more like 15-20% tax. And if you live in a country and use their schools, infrastructure, welfare etc and cant fucking afford or to be bothered to pay those 15% you should be sent to prison or deported from the country.

Like a good friend of mine said (who comes from a very rich family, billionaires, but  pays all their personal and company taxes in native Sweden unlike their wealthy friends) "People have yachts, house in the alps, Ferraris etc but they can´t afford to live in Sweden?"

But as someone already mentioned here, if there was only 10% taxes these fuckers would propably try to avoid it anyway. But if everyone could chip in, especially the superrich, the tax rate wouldn´t have to be that high anyway.

I'm afraid it's not really that simple.

By 40%, I presume you're referring to the top rate of income tax? I hate to break this to you but the targets of your anger don't actually receive much, if any, "income", as English tax laws define that term, for the very reason that they want to avoid this high rate. Instead wealth is invested in a multitude of asset classes, from property to hedge funds.

One of the problems is that for many years the tax system in the UK has been biased in favour of taxing income, rather than capital. A property tax, with increased rates for persons beneficially owning multiple properties, would be one way of remedying this, and would also render the act of buying property using offshore companies or structures largely redundant. But it would be monumentally unpopular, especially among those categories of people most likely to vote, and for that reason no government would dare introduce it.

[TravisBickle]

Not sure what you're getting at there. Are you suggesting David Cameron is using offshore structures to hide the proceeds of his own theft and corruption?

 No.

[Trada]

A federal prosecutor in Argentina opened an investigation Thursday into President Mauricio Macri's financial dealings via two offshore firms revealed in the Panama Papers leaks.

[Trada]

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has sent a letter to banks and financial institutions in the UK ordering them to check whether they have done business with the law firm Mossack Fonseca, which is at the centre of the Panama Papers scandal.

The leak of financial papers and emails, which were obtained by the German daily newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung and passed on to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, was the biggest in history with more than 11.5 million individual files released.

The FCA letter, which was sent to around 20 businesses, instructed institutions to carry out their own investigations into their links to the Panama Papers and report back by next week.

"Beyond April 15 we will require updates on any significant issues or relationships identified and a full response, detailing findings, when your investigation is concluded," the letter reads.

It also reminded recipients that any subsidiaries or branches located outside of Britain are still subject to UK rules and regulations when it comes to monitoring client accounts and researching customers.

The leak is said to indicate that more the 500 banks across the world have worked with Mossack Fonseca to set up nearly 15,600 shell companies, which could allow clients to avoid tax by hiding their money abroad.

Earlier this week HSBC, Credit Suisse and the Royal Bank of Scotland-owned Coutts Trustees all publicly denied they were using complex offshore structures to help their customers commit tax avoidance.

Commenting on the letter, which was written on Tuesday but acquired by the Financial Times on Thursday, the FCA said in a statement that it is working closely with "a number of agencies" to ensure that no wrongdoing has taken place.

"As part of our responsibility to ensure the integrity of the UK financial markets we require all authorised firms to have systems and controls in place to mitigate the risk that they might be used to commit financial crime," it said.

"We have also today [Tuesday] published our annual Business Plan which identifies financial crime and anti-money laundering activity as one of our priorities for the year."

The news comes as it is revealed Prime Minister David Cameron wrote a letter of his own to European Council President Herman van Rompuy in 2013, urging him to differentiate between companies and trusts when drafting anti-money laundering rules.

This is despite warnings that the distinction could create a loophole allowing tax dodgers to continue evading their bills.

http://news.sky.com/story/1674403/uk-banks-handed-panama-papers-deadline

[TravisBickle]

Oh. Cameron did own shares in his father's offshore company. Who'd have known? He's normally so straightforward about everything, I'm genuinely flabbergasted.

[Fiasco]

Oh. Cameron did own shares in his father's offshore company. Who'd have known? He's normally so straightforward about everything, I'm genuinely flabbergasted.

So he's straight up lied to the British people? How is his position now tenable? I mean, not that he and his government aren't serial liars anyway but this is different.

c*nt.

[XabiAlonsosBeard]

So he's straight up lied to the British people? How is his position now tenable? I mean, not that he and his government aren't serial liars anyway but this is different.

c*nt.

I've just read his statements and, unfortunately, it doesn't look like he's lied. He's took part in a LOT of semantic gymnastics, but the way his statements have been worded give him a bit of wriggle room on allegations that he's lied.

Either way, his reputation has been damaged by this and his willingness to profit from a scheme that takes money from the UK coffers, while he's asking everybody else to abide by austerity.

[Fiasco]

I've just read his statements and, unfortunately, it doesn't look like he's lied. He's took part in a LOT of semantic gymnastics, but the way his statements have been worded give him a bit of wriggle room on allegations that he's lied.

Either way, his reputation has been damaged by this and his willingness to profit from a scheme that takes money from the UK coffers, while he's asking everybody else to abide by austerity.

He's technically right in that he's said he doesn't currently benefit. But this is a wider issue and he knows it.


He might not have lied in a literal sense but he knows full well that he has deceived the public with his behavior.

[Elmo!]

He's technically right in that he's said he doesn't currently benefit. But this is a wider issue and he knows it.


He might not have lied in a literal sense but he knows full well that he has tried to deceived the public with his behavior.

FTFY

No one was falling for it.

[TravisBickle]

I doubt this will damage him enough to force him out now. But it's pure, bloody red meat for the Eurosceptics who want his head the moment the referendum is over and done with. Really wouldn't be surprised to see the back of him in three months or so now.

 He hasn't lied but he has obfuscated to the extreme and it's quite clear that as always, he has put the truth way way behind his own career interests.

 I know it's a dud comparison in many ways but can you imagine his government's response to a JSA claimant swerving the truth about their financial situation the way Cameron has with this? They'd be absolute toast.

 Saying that, political careers often come to an end as a result of how stories are managed. This has been handled disastrously by No.10 and the story just reinforces the existing negative views of him. He could be finished, though I do massively doubt it.

[XabiAlonsosBeard]

He's technically right in that he's said he doesn't currently benefit. But this is a wider issue and he knows it.


He might not have lied in a literal sense but he knows full well that he has deceived the public with his behavior.

I agree. And while he technically hasn't lied, as such, the fact that he's took about 5 days to clarify the situation is extremely damaging.

I expect that there's a lot more he hasn't revealed too.

[B0151?]

So that's what they meant when they said no government has done more to stop tax avoidance. They withdrew their money.

[Trada]

Edward Snowden ‏@Snowden 2h2 hours ago

Up to the British public, not us. In #Iceland, 10% of all voters were in the streets within 24 hours, and for less.

[Trada]

[TravisBickle]

Edward Snowden ‏@Snowden 2h2 hours ago

Up to the British public, not us. In #Iceland, 10% of all voters were in the streets within 24 hours, and for less.

 Edward Snowden? Nah, he can fuck off and all, mate. He's always championed Ron "tax is theft" Paul and currently hides under the wing of Putin, an out an out kleptocrat. He is the very last person on earth who can lecture anyone on paying their taxes.

 Hypocritical shill he is.

[johnny74]

I doubt this will damage him enough to force him out now. But it's pure, bloody red meat for the Eurosceptics who want his head the moment the referendum is over and done with. Really wouldn't be surprised to see the back of him in three months or so now.

 

I think this is the end for him. Not because of the nature of what he's done but because almost the entirety of the media has come out against him. He is the biggest weapon in the pro-EU vote. Get him out and Boris in and the eurosceptics win the referendum but the Tory party lose the next election. Possibly.

[TravisBickle]

I think this is the end for him. Not because of the nature of what he's done but because almost the entirety of the media has come out against him. He is the biggest weapon in the pro-EU vote. Get him out and Boris in and the eurosceptics win the referendum but the Tory party lose the next election. Possibly.

 The beginning of the end was the last budget. This is just finishing him off now I think.

 He threw the Eurosceptic obsessives in his party a bone by giving them this fucking referendum in the first place and now they're chewing his leg off. This has just given them more and more blood. Cameron has survived worse than this but that was with his own party largely behind him. Now the future of the country is the future of the Tory Party.

 As for your last line, I'd agree - if Labour jibbed the frauds currently in charge. History tells us that no matter how low they go (think Poll Tax low), the public won't kick the Tories out without a similar looking Labour alternative. But I'll leave that there.

[Trada]

[TepidT2O]

This Cameron thing...

It will mean nothing to those who voted for him.....

Why?  Well, a couple of reasons.  Firstly, I'm pretty sure that they'd already guessed that he was a privileged toff who came from a family of privileged toffs. As such, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that his supporters will not be the least bit surprised that his family had a company based off shore.  That's what you expect of toffs...isn't it?

Secondly, this isn't an illegal act.  It's avoiding tax , not evading tax .... So, maybe to you and I that's little moral difference... But legally there's a huge difference.. And the moral difference is probably less concerning if you voted for him knowing that he was up to toff tricks anyway.

It's a lode that is worth continuing to mine though, as it is harming his party, but I suspect will come to little in the end.

[west_london_red]

Theres much more to this I would say. You don't set up these kinds of trusts unless the money involved in substantial and so far all we know is that he inherited Ł300k (just under the inheritance tax threshold at the time coincidently, and I very much doubt that's all the multi millionaire Ian Cameron left his son) which isnt enough to justify the lengths his father went to to hide the money and Ł30k is pocket change to people like the Cameron family.

[TepidT2O]

Theres much more to this I would say. You don't set up these kinds of trusts unless the money involved in substantial and so far all we know is that he inherited Ł300k (just under the inheritance tax threshold at the time coincidently, and I very much doubt that's all the multi millionaire Ian Cameron left his son) which isnt enough to justify the lengths his father went to to hide the money and Ł30k is pocket change to people like the Cameron family.

I suspect it is all... He's just handled it all so damned badly ....

I assume the rest of the money got left to his mother...

It's no coincidence that Ł300k was just under the inheritance tax threshold, the will will have been written that way...

Anyway., one point it does make is this...

The tories say that they are for people who help themselves... So what do they do?  They cut inheritance tax... The one tax that requires you to do NOTHING to generate your own money... Funny world isn't it...

[CraigDS]

Theres much more to this I would say. You don't set up these kinds of trusts unless the money involved in substantial and so far all we know is that he inherited Ł300k (just under the inheritance tax threshold at the time coincidently, and I very much doubt that's all the multi millionaire Ian Cameron left his son) which isnt enough to justify the lengths his father went to to hide the money and Ł30k is pocket change to people like the Cameron family.

I imagine most went to his wife, Cameron's mum, and then he and his brothers and sisters (quick Google says he has 3 siblings) probably got a certain amount, and I'd also imagine any grandkids may have got some put in trust for them until they come of age. That's a typical set up anyway.

Let's not forget Inheritance Tax is calculated on the value of the estate that is left, not on each individuals portion of that estate. There are some other taxes you may pay on your part though depending what is inherited.

[goalrushatgoodison]

He's technically right in that he's said he doesn't currently benefit. But this is a wider issue and he knows it.


He might not have lied in a literal sense but he knows full well that he has deceived the public with his behavior.

to be honest mate, and I haven't really being following this story and certainly didn't hear Cameron's statement when he first released it but if I heard somebody saying that he doesn't currently do something and won't in the future I would automatically presume that they did in the past. Anybody who's ever been involved in communications or even managing a customer information service would recognise that. I'm amazed that nobody asked him at the time if he had benefitted in the past ( that's if nobody did actually ask). That statement was much more about what he didn't say than what he did.

[west_london_red]

The tories say that they are for people who help themselves... So what do they do?  They cut inheritance tax... The one tax that requires you to do NOTHING to generate your own money... Funny world isn't it...

In a sane housing market I would agree with you, but when my parents 3 bed semi detached in a very working class area with high crime rates and its own flight path is worth half a million quid something had to be done (obviously not doing anything to actually pull back housing costs as then our 'economic recovery' would stall). But that's probably a different conversation and I need to go and wash my mouth out with soap as I think I just defended the Tories...

[TepidT2O]

In a sane housing market I would agree with you, but when my parents 3 bed semi detached in a very working class area with high crime rates and its own flight path is worth half a million quid something had to be done (obviously not doing anything to actually pull back housing costs as then our 'economic recovery' would stall). But that's probably a different conversation and I need to go and wash my mouth out with soap as I think I just defended the Tories...

Ahh so it's ok for you to avoid tax, but not Cameron?

We have to be very careful here...

ISAs are tax avoidance
Buying duty free is tax avoidance
Off shore tax havens are tax avoidance...

All are legal.

[CraigDS]

We have to be very careful here...

ISAs are tax avoidance
Buying duty free is tax avoidance
Off shore tax havens are tax avoidance...

All are legal.

There is a fair bit of difference between the first two and the latter, as they are set up to ultimately benefit the UK economy, where as the latter (other than maybe increasing the disposable income of the people using them) doesn't really do so at all as come about through loop holes in the system.

[Trada]

So Cameron's shares weren't written into the book of members interests

[Trada]

So its the 2nd reading if the financial bill on Monday should be fun.

[B0151?]

We have to be very careful here...

Cameron wasn't when he made a point of calling Jimmy Carr's use of it immoral, was he?

[TepidT2O]

Cameron wasn't when he made a point of calling Jimmy Carr's use of it immoral, was he?

oh I quite agree...

[Jonny-B]

So Cameron's shares weren't written into the book of members interests

Because the rules specifically said they shouldn't be.

53. Members should not register under this category:
a)  Holdings in collective investment vehicles such as unit trusts, investment companies with variable capital (ICVCs) and investment trusts;
b)  Assets held in blind trusts;[48]
c)  Pensions (except for property held for self-invested personal pensions).

There are many many reasons for giving him a shitkicking over this but that is not one.

[Mad Max]

Cameron wakes up to this every morning

 

[Trada]

Love the fact that even the house of cards official twitter is trolling Cameron.

House of Cards ‏@HouseofCards

The road to power is paved with hypocrisy and casualties.

House of Cards added,
The Independent @Independent
David Cameron claimed to be a champion of transparency over offshore tax dodging. Now we know the truth

[B0151?]

oh I quite agree...

I feel similarly to you in that I don't think it's the worst thing.

But it just shows him up as the hypocritical lying bastard he is.

My exact thoughts at the time he was slamming Jimmy Carr was that he's being a hypocritical c*nt here, as much as I want everyone to pay their taxes. I feel very much that if you're going to call someone immoral for tax avoidance then it's absolutely correct people question your position when it's revealed you used to partake in the same thing.

[west_london_red]

Ahh so it's ok for you to avoid tax, but not Cameron?

We have to be very careful here...

ISAs are tax avoidance
Buying duty free is tax avoidance
Off shore tax havens are tax avoidance...

All are legal.

Sorry, they might be legal but they are not the same. There is a huge difference between passively paying less tax because a tax rate has been decreased or a threshold increased and proactively moving your money abroad, creating companies and financial entities solely to avoid taxes. They are a million miles apart morally and that's what this whole debate is about surely, not about whats legal and illegal but what is morally right and wrong.

[TepidT2O]

Sorry, they might be legal but they are not the same. There is a huge difference between passively paying less tax because a tax rate has been decreased or a threshold increased and proactively moving your money abroad, creating companies and financial entities solely to avoid taxes. They are a million miles apart morally and that's what this whole debate is about surely, not about whats legal and illegal but what is morally right and wrong.

I tend to agree with you, but I raise the issue because the issue of tax avoidance is far more complex than it first seems...

[Redman0151]

I don't usually do the whole share of facebook thing, but this tickled me