# Panama Papers



## chippa1909 (Apr 3, 2016)

Things are about to get very interesting about why austerity is being forced on billions of people worldwide, while the rich hide their assets.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 3, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			Things are about to get very interesting about why austerity is being forced on billions of people worldwide, while the rich hide their assets.
		
Click to expand...

I fail to see the relationship between Government Austerity measures to rectify State overspending and the way some companies are registered in places like BVI, Jersey , Isle of Mann etc.    OK, some dodgy states and individuals must be taking advantage of such institutions but it's hardly the reason countries like the UK have such a massive National Debt.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 3, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			I fail to see the relationship between Government Austerity measures to rectify State overspending and the way some companies are registered in places like BVI, Jersey , Isle of Mann etc.    OK, some dodgy states and individuals must be taking advantage of such institutions but it's hardly the reason countries like the UK have such a massive National Debt.
		
Click to expand...

Well if it's any members of the current government it doesn't actually back up the "all in it together" shout.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 3, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Well if it's any members of the current government it doesn't actually back up the "all in it together" shout.
		
Click to expand...

'All in it together' doesn't mean we are all poor.   Offshore business is nothing new and is not illegal as long as it's not money laundering.     Many very rich people around the world put their money away for many reasons and not all illegal.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 3, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			'All in it together' doesn't mean we are all poor.   Offshore business is nothing new and is not illegal as long as it's not money laundering.     Many very rich people around the world put their money away for many reasons and not all illegal.
		
Click to expand...

Never said anything about it being illegal, but if it's for "legal" tax avoidance, then morally it stinks.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 3, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Never said anything about it being illegal, but if it's for "legal" tax avoidance, then morally it stinks.
		
Click to expand...

Do you pay more tax than you need to?   ISAs are a way of avoiding tax legally.  Do they morally stink?


----------



## Ethan (Apr 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Do you pay more tax than you need to?   ISAs are a way of avoiding tax legally.  Do they morally stink?
		
Click to expand...

That is an intentionally pig-headed comment. You know well that an ISA, whatever the pitiful interest rate, is not a means of tax avoidance. Nor is having a personal allowance, or putting money into a pension. They don't morally stink, although as good value investments they are pretty rubbish. 

As for the 'all in it together', it was clear that that is a line intended to make the peasants believe the wealthy, who benefitted from the economic boom and caused the inevitable economic crash, were paying their share. It is obvious they are not, and are in many cases benefitting even more from the so-called austerity.

It is also brass necked of Gideon to make sanctimonious comments about Google or Starbucks avoiding tax when his family company, from which he benefits, pays no corporation tax on its profits due to offshoring. He is a lying hypocrite. And the media support the line, because the big media companies, including the Daily Mail, are all offshored too. 

It is amazing how often gullible people vote against their economic interests. The Tories have never ever cared about working people. They despise the gullible peasants and only care about their own political class.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 4, 2016)

There is a massive difference between paying more tax than you need to and avoiding paying any at all. 
As has been proven by these disclosures.


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Do you pay more tax than you need to?
		
Click to expand...


Yep... Because if all those that are in a position to and do make all necessary arrangements to avoid their 'share' divvied up... Then we'd all only be paying about 10%... Even the despots....


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 4, 2016)

I have a feeling after tonight's panorama programme this will really kick off.
The papers were originally released to contacts in Germany who passed them on worldwide inc Panorama. Would think that tonight's programme could be a bit bespoke to dodgy going on within Britain. It could well be squeaky bum time for a few people, and as we speak a few phone calls may well be taking place.


----------



## Wildrover (Apr 4, 2016)

As long as no laws have been broken I don't have a problem with it, I'd do it if I had that kind of money. I pay my share of tax but if there was a scheme that saved me money and was legal, sign me up. Makes me laugh when people get on their high horse about companies like Starbucks avoiding tax. If they aren't breaking the law, just working the system, then it's the system that needs fixing, they aren't running a charity.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 4, 2016)

Wildrover said:



			As long as no laws have been broken I don't have a problem with it, I'd do it if I had that kind of money. I pay my share of tax but if there was a scheme that saved me money and was legal, sign me up. Makes me laugh when people get on their high horse about companies like Starbucks avoiding tax. If they aren't breaking the law, just working the system, then it's the system that needs fixing, they aren't running a charity.
		
Click to expand...

Surely there's a line between greed and fairness though?
If the people running the system are the same ones using it, not likely to get fixed is it!


----------



## Wildrover (Apr 4, 2016)

I would reduce the taxes for the super rich. It's better imho to tax them say 10% of their massive fortunes than 40-60% so they go elsewhere. 10% of millions/billions is better than 40% of nothing. Indeed more rich people would come here and we end up with a lot more tax revenue. Alas the PC brigade and Comrade Corbyn won't have any common sense like that. Similar to the link below.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/138011-tax-system-explained-beer-2/


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 4, 2016)

Wildrover said:



			I would reduce the taxes for the super rich. It's better imho to tax them say 10% of their massive fortunes than 40-60% so they go elsewhere. 10% of millions/billions is better than 40% of nothing. Indeed more rich people would come here and we end up with a lot more tax revenue. Alas the PC brigade and Comrade Corbyn won't have any common sense like that. Similar to the link below.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/138011-tax-system-explained-beer-2/

Click to expand...

As much as the good Homer in my head agrees with what you say. Bad Homer is shouting louder that these people would sooner not pay 1% never mind 10%


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2016)

Ethan said:



			That is an intentionally pig-headed comment. You know well that an ISA, whatever the pitiful interest rate, is not a means of tax avoidance. Nor is having a personal allowance, or putting money into a pension. They don't morally stink, although as good value investments they are pretty rubbish. 

As for the 'all in it together', it was clear that that is a line intended to make the peasants believe the wealthy, who benefitted from the economic boom and caused the inevitable economic crash, were paying their share. It is obvious they are not, and are in many cases benefitting even more from the so-called austerity.

It is also brass necked of Gideon to make sanctimonious comments about Google or Starbucks avoiding tax when his family company, from which he benefits, pays no corporation tax on its profits due to offshoring. He is a lying hypocrite. And the media support the line, because the big media companies, including the Daily Mail, are all offshored too. 

It is amazing how often gullible people vote against their economic interests. The Tories have never ever cared about working people. They despise the gullible peasants and only care about their own political class.
		
Click to expand...

Good rant Comrade!     Lets despise the wealth creators, close down their sweat houses, put them away in Gulags so that they cannot employ anyone, nationalise the industries and create a single Socialist State with Jezza as El Magnificento .   That's a new concept that will create a fresh new era.

Wait a minute


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Good rant Comrade!     Lets despise the wealth creators, close down their sweat houses, put them away in Gulags so that they cannot employ anyone, nationalise the industries and create a single Socialist State with Jezza as El Magnificento .   That's a new concept that will create a fresh new era.Wait a minute 

Click to expand...

Fair enough (although you appear to have Socialism and Communism mixed up), but we shouldn't fall at the feet of the "Wealth Creators" either. We don't have to accept the dodgy practices, scams and hidden deals, just to pander to a group who appear to find themselves above the law.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 4, 2016)

Interesting to see Dave Cameron's father has been a user of the Law Firm involved's services - presumably for avoidance (as opposed to evasion) of UK tax! I wonder how much criticism there will be for that! Especially from the likes of the Daily Mail (Wail?) whose owner is a non-dom - thus avoids UK Tax!

@Socket Perhaps these 2 links would refresh your memory , though I'm inclined to think it doesn't need refreshing! 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism

Seems to me UK (like most countries) is a fairly well balanced mix of Capitalism and Socialism with both Labour and Tory governments instigating policies that would naturally sit in the opposite party's camp! Communism - as defined - doesn't get a sniff!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			'All in it together' doesn't mean we are all poor.   Offshore business is nothing new and is not illegal as long as it's not money laundering.     Many very rich people around the world put their money away for many reasons and not all illegal.
		
Click to expand...

All in it together means the poor are all in it together.  The poor lose a little but it can mean a lot.  The better off might lose a little more than a little - but it still makes very little difference to them.  The wealthy hide their money somewhere else and so lose zilch.  So please let's not pretend that we are all in it together - and where we are is where the bankers put us - and most of them are in the 'losing zilch' category.  Sweet.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 4, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Surely there's a line between greed and fairness though?
If the people running the system are the same ones using it, not likely to get fixed is it!
		
Click to expand...

And spiritually and ethically there is a very big difference between doing what you can and want to do - and doing what is right to do.  As an individual even if I don't always want to do what is right, and that what is best for me may not be what is right, I try and always do the former.  Many wealthy individuals and tax avoiding companies don't seem to particularly care about doing what is right - they just do what they want and what they can do - as long as it is to their own pecuniary benefit.


----------



## Del_Boy (Apr 4, 2016)

Ethan said:



			That is an intentionally pig-headed comment. You know well that an ISA, whatever the pitiful interest rate, is not a means of tax avoidance. Nor is having a personal allowance, or putting money into a pension. They don't morally stink, although as good value investments they are pretty rubbish. 

As for the 'all in it together', it was clear that that is a line intended to make the peasants believe the wealthy, who benefitted from the economic boom and caused the inevitable economic crash, were paying their share. It is obvious they are not, and are in many cases benefitting even more from the so-called austerity.

It is also brass necked of Gideon to make sanctimonious comments about Google or Starbucks avoiding tax when his family company, from which he benefits, pays no corporation tax on its profits due to offshoring. He is a lying hypocrite. And the media support the line, because the big media companies, including the Daily Mail, are all offshored too. 

It is amazing how often gullible people vote against their economic interests. The Tories have never ever cared about working people. They despise the gullible peasants and only care about their own political class.
		
Click to expand...

Tory till I die, I'm Tory till I die
I know I am I sure I am I'm Tory till I die.
Blue Army Blue Army


----------



## Del_Boy (Apr 4, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			All in it together means the poor are all in it together.  The poor lose a little but it can mean a lot.  The better off might lose a little more than a little - but it still makes very little difference to them.  The wealthy hide their money somewhere else and so lose zilch.  So please let's not pretend that we are all in it together - and where we are is where the bankers put us - and most of them are in the 'losing zilch' category.  Sweet.
		
Click to expand...

How are you defining poor?  Where does it prove that most of the bankers are in the losing zilch?


----------



## Del_Boy (Apr 4, 2016)

Wildrover said:



			As long as no laws have been broken I don't have a problem with it, I'd do it if I had that kind of money. I pay my share of tax but if there was a scheme that saved me money and was legal, sign me up. Makes me laugh when people get on their high horse about companies like Starbucks avoiding tax. If they aren't breaking the law, just working the system, then it's the system that needs fixing, they aren't running a charity.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 4, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			Exactly
		
Click to expand...

For myself, I'm more concerned with the fact that the people who should be looking to close these loopholes are actually exploiting them. There is a huge conflict of interest, and if the Media have the stones, then this could turn into another scandal like the recent expenses furore. Governments have fallen for less.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 4, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And spiritually and ethically there is a very big difference between doing what you can and want to do - and doing what is right to do.  As an individual even if I don't always want to do what is right, and that what is best for me may not be what is right, I try and always do the former.  Many wealthy individuals and tax avoiding companies don't seem to particularly care about doing what is right - they just do what they want and what they can do - as long as it is to their own pecuniary benefit.
		
Click to expand...

Bit idealistic of you - and rather daft imo!

Publicly owned Companies (and their Directors) are actually legally compelled to act in certain ways - which may not be your 'right' way! There are, of course, other ways in which they can help 'the community'!

And Wildrover is spot on!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 4, 2016)

Del_Boy said:



			How are you defining poor?  Where does it prove that most of the bankers are in the losing zilch?
		
Click to expand...

I don't have a definition of poor - but you are of the poorer of society when a small monetary change in your income can have a major and often painful effect on your lifestyle.  

Some bankers that screwed our economy may have lost their jobs and may still be out of work - but not many I might suggest.  Some might not get paid quite so much as they did - but as their remunerations were often obscene and more than they could spend in any case - their loss is not theirs - it is a loss to their bank account and I suggest that not many will have lost that much from their lifestyle - certainly not enough to actually hurt.  Unlike those at the bottom - the poor, poorer, poorest - for whom the pain of such as a benefit cut or loss of hours actually does really matter.


----------



## Jensen (Apr 4, 2016)

Reminds me of the Jimmy Carr situation. What he did to reduce tax was not illegal, otherwise he would've ended up in Nick. It was more like creative accountancy and was well with in the laws, although immoral nevertheless it was legal. To stop this happening the Goverment need to amend the laws.
If any of us had the chance to pay less tax then I'm sure we'd be tempted


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 4, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Bit idealistic of you - and rather daft imo!

Publicly owned Companies (and their Directors) are actually legally compelled to act in certain ways - which may not be your 'right' way! There are, of course, other ways in which they can help 'the community'!

And Wildrover is spot on!
		
Click to expand...

There is nothing daft about doing what is right even although that may not be to your optimal benefit.  Besides.  Doing the right thing helps preserve my peace of mind - and having that is worth a lot more of the small benefits I might get out of doing what seems on the surface to be what is 'best' for me.

And yes - you are right - I do appreciate that there is conflict between companies doing 'what is right' and 'maximising shareholder value' - something the boards of PLCs must strive to do.


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 4, 2016)

Jensen said:



			Reminds me of the Jimmy Carr situation. What he did to reduce tax was not illegal, otherwise he would've ended up in Nick. It was more like creative accountancy and was well with in the laws, although immoral nevertheless it was legal. To stop this happening the Goverment need to amend the laws.
If any of us had the chance to pay less tax then I'm sure we'd be tempted
		
Click to expand...

But, if members of the Government (and their families) are directly benefitting from these Laws, then how can we trust them to change them?


----------



## Del_Boy (Apr 4, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I don't have a definition of poor - but you are of the poorer of society when a small monetary change in your income can have a major and often painful effect on your lifestyle.  

Some bankers that screwed our economy may have lost their jobs and may still be out of work - but not many I might suggest.  Some might not get paid quite so much as they did - but as their remunerations were often obscene and more than they could spend in any case - their loss is not theirs - it is a loss to their bank account and I suggest that not many will have lost that much from their lifestyle - certainly not enough to actually hurt.  Unlike those at the bottom - the poor, poorer, poorest - for whom the pain of such as a benefit cut or loss of hours actually does really matter.
		
Click to expand...

just because someone earned shed loads it doesn't mean a cut in income won't affect them.  99.9% of the world I guess would certainly take an obscene salary if they were offered it.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Apr 4, 2016)

Wildrover said:



			As long as no laws have been broken I don't have a problem with it, I'd do it if I had that kind of money. I pay my share of tax but if there was a scheme that saved me money and was legal, sign me up. Makes me laugh when people get on their high horse about companies like Starbucks avoiding tax. If they aren't breaking the law, just working the system, then it's the system that needs fixing, they aren't running a charity.
		
Click to expand...




Del_Boy said:



			Exactly
		
Click to expand...

And who has created this system?  Oh yeah, that'll be the rich people avoiding the taxâ€¦â€¦â€¦ 



bluewolf said:



			For myself, I'm more concerned with the fact that the people who should be looking to close these loopholes are actually exploiting them. There is a huge conflict of interest, and if the Media have the stones, then this could turn into another scandal like the recent expenses furore. Governments have fallen for less.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.  



Wildrover said:



			I would reduce the taxes for the super rich. It's better imho to tax them say 10% of their massive fortunes than 40-60% so they go elsewhere. 10% of millions/billions is better than 40% of nothing. Indeed more rich people would come here and we end up with a lot more tax revenue. Alas the PC brigade and Comrade Corbyn won't have any common sense like that. Similar to the link below.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/138011-tax-system-explained-beer-2/

Click to expand...

If you honestly believe that maybe I could sell you London Bridge at the same time?  :rofl:



Tashyboy said:



			As much as the good Homer in my head agrees with what you say. Bad Homer is shouting louder that these people would sooner not pay 1% never mind 10%
		
Click to expand...

Again, spot on.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Fair enough (although you appear to have Socialism and Communism mixed up), but we shouldn't fall at the feet of the "Wealth Creators" either. We don't have to accept the dodgy practices, scams and hidden deals, just to pander to a group who appear to find themselves above the law.
		
Click to expand...

I dont have Socialism and Communism mixed up.  My tongue in cheek comments were a reaction to the rather paranoid comments about the wicked rich and how the proletariat are all numpties for falling for their lies.  Bit rich from an upper middle class armchair warrior.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			...My tongue in cheek comments...
		
Click to expand...

Very often difficult to tell when you are posting 'tongue in cheek' and when it's in 'serious' mode. I suspect that it's often (t least bordering on) the latter, but with a convenient get-out of being able to claim it's the former!

Perhaps you should use Smiley's!  :rofl:


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Very often difficult to tell when you are posting 'tongue in cheek' and when it's in 'serious' mode. I suspect that it's often (t least bordering on) the latter, but with a convenient get-out of being able to claim it's the former!

Perhaps you should use Smiley's!  :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Wondered how long before you came along 

Problem with smilies is that some people tend to overuse them and it makes them appear a bit shallow and oddball


----------



## chippa1909 (Apr 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Wondered how long before you came along 

Problem with smilies is that some people tend to overuse them and it makes them appear a bit shallow and oddball
		
Click to expand...

As opposed to not using them and people knowing you're a bit shallow and oddball.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 4, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			As opposed to not using them and people knowing you're a bit shallow and oddball. 

Click to expand...

 Anyway, back to Panama Papers :fore:


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 4, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



 Anyway, back to Panama Papers :fore:
		
Click to expand...

:thup:


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 4, 2016)

Anyone watched the Panorama report?


----------



## chippa1909 (Apr 4, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Anyone watched the Panorama report?
		
Click to expand...

Panorama was lightweight in my opinion, focussing on Iceland and Putin ( and Putins cellist friend), but not even a mention of HSBC (perhaps not surprising given that the head of BBC is a director of HSBC.


----------



## bluewolf (Apr 4, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			Panorama was lightweight in my opinion, focussing on Iceland and Putin ( and Putins cellist friend), but not even a mention of HSBC (perhaps not surprising given that the head of BBC is a director of HSBC.
		
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that if you want to follow this story, you'll have to follow the Guardian or the Independant. A bit like the expenses scandal, this could be a long, slow burner.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 5, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			I strongly suspect that if you want to follow this story, you'll have to follow the Guardian or the Independant. A bit like the expenses scandal, this could be a long, slow burner.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely a story that won't be going away and I agree that this could be the tip of a very large iceberg


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 5, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			Panorama was lightweight in my opinion, focussing on Iceland and Putin ( and Putins cellist friend), but not even a mention of HSBC (perhaps not surprising given that the head of BBC is a director of HSBC.
		
Click to expand...

Usual double standards from the BBC.
It looks like Putin and the Icelandic president's accounts shown on the programme were held in the British Virgin Isles and not Panama.
BBC headquarters in Scotland are owned by a Cayman Islands company.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 5, 2016)

From listening to the experts it's clear that tackling the Offshore Tax Haven issue is not something the UK can do by itself - it needs to be coordinated with as many interested countries working very closely together - harmonising their approach - in fact working together with the rest of Europe would seem to be a good place to be. And what a financial benefit to the UK exchequer might come out of it.  But oh dear - some wish to extract ourselves from such a cross-Europe grouping.  

Never mind - once out I'm sure BoJo will be able to grasp the detail and intricacies of all of this and sort it out. Good old BoJo. Just the man for that job...


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			From listening to the experts it's clear that tackling the Offshore Tax Haven issue is not something the UK can do by itself - it needs to be coordinated with as many interested countries working very closely together - harmonising their approach - in fact working together with the rest of Europe would seem to be a good place to be. And what a financial benefit to the UK exchequer might come out of it.  But oh dear - some wish to extract ourselves from such a cross-Europe grouping.  

Never mind - once out I'm sure BoJo will be able to grasp the detail and intricacies of all of this and sort it out. Good old BoJo. Just the man for that job...
		
Click to expand...

Are you honestly suggesting that EU countries are good at squeezing tax out of their people?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 5, 2016)

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/230025-panama-tax-evasion/

List of Who's Was. [8th post]


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 5, 2016)

Saw the panorama programme and the company covered from the proceeds of the bricks Matt robbery and the company knew all about it. Seems the first casualty was the Icelandic primeminister.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 5, 2016)

As an aside, over half of the world's shipping is under a flag of convenience, like Panama and Liberia, allowing shipping companies to avoid no end of costs and taxes.


----------



## chippa1909 (Apr 5, 2016)

It's worth remembering that this is just ONE law firm in ONE tax haven. So really only the tip of the iceberg's tip.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 5, 2016)

We should pay less tax and be able to decide more how we spend our hard earned money. So much is squandered by Government as if it's their money, not ours.

This little poem puts much into perspective for me.


â€œTax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which heâ€™s fed.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you wonâ€™t be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
Heâ€™s good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which heâ€™s laid.

When heâ€™s gone,
Do not relax,
Itâ€™s time to apply
The inheritance tax.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 6, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Are you honestly suggesting that EU countries are good at squeezing tax out of their people?
		
Click to expand...

I have read it suggested that if you are going to coordinate activity between different countries in order to address tax haven issues it would be much better done in organised cooperative groups - such as the EU.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 6, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



*We should pay less tax and be able to decide more how we spend our hard earned money.* So much is squandered by Government as if it's their money, not ours.
		
Click to expand...

Well you will as long as you are OK and are happy to walk the streets surrounded by squalor and deprivation when there is no money for centrally funded services


----------



## delc (Apr 6, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			We should pay less tax and be able to decide more how we spend our hard earned money. So much is squandered by Government as if it's their money, not ours.

This little poem puts much into perspective for me.


â€œTax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which heâ€™s fed.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you wonâ€™t be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
Heâ€™s good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which heâ€™s laid.

When heâ€™s gone,
Do not relax,
Itâ€™s time to apply
The inheritance tax.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly right! I don't mind paying tax if it's prudently spent in the National interests, rather than lining the pockets of corrupt politicians in false expenses claims, etc!


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 6, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well you will as long as you are OK and are happy to walk the streets surrounded by squalor and deprivation when there is no money for centrally funded services
		
Click to expand...

Thats exaggerating the point!   I didn't say pay no tax, I said pay less.       If I want to support India's space program or build up of warships then I would prefer to make that decision my self, if I want to help people in Africa get clean drinking water I will also decide that on my own.    I am quite capable of selecting a refuse company to empty my waste bin and if I could keep some more of my money I may have decided which school my kids went to.    We are taxed a silly amount and the reason is that it creates the gravy train for the state to wallow in.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 6, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Thats exaggerating the point!   I didn't say pay no tax, I said pay less.       If I want to support India's space program or build up of warships then I would prefer to make that decision my self, if I want to help people in Africa get clean drinking water I will also decide that on my own.    I am quite capable of selecting a refuse company to empty my waste bin and if I could keep some more of my money I may have decided which school my kids went to.    We are taxed a silly amount and the reason is that it creates the gravy train for the state to wallow in.
		
Click to expand...

That is indeed it seems a commonly held point of view in this country,  but we look to Iceland for a contrast - they force their PM out because they believe that paying your taxes in full is a moral duty rather than just a legal commitment.  And it seems that in this country with those who have more, the less they feel inclined towards moral duty, and they justify their actions through legalistic argument and semantics around avoidance and evasion, legitimate financial planning or unlawful activity.  And so it goes.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 6, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			That is indeed it seems a commonly held point of view in this country,  but we look to Iceland for a contrast - they force their PM out because they believe that paying your taxes in full is a moral duty rather than just a legal commitment.  And it seems that in this country with those who have more, the less they feel inclined towards moral duty, and they justify their actions through legalistic argument and semantics around avoidance and evasion, legitimate financial planning or unlawful activity.  And so it goes.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is, you seem to be changing the goal posts, I don't believe anyone here is suggesting people should not pay their fair rate of tax.  My point is that we pay too much tax and it's not good for the creation of wealth, jobs, business and freedom of choice.    Large amounts of tax payers money is squandered and wasted by the state and this IMO is just as bad as people avoiding tax.


----------



## vkurup (Apr 7, 2016)

Isnt it a bit funny that there are no Americans exposed in these papers?


----------



## chippa1909 (Apr 7, 2016)

Oops. Here's Cameron's fifth statement on the matter in four days.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/201...-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers

Seems that Dave's been economical with the truth.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 7, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			Oops. Here's Cameron's fifth statement on the matter in four days.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/201...-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers

Seems that Dave's been economical with the truth.
		
Click to expand...

Didn't Cameron say the other day that he hadn't benefited from the fund set up by his father? And now he admits to having held shares in the company but he sold them before he became PM. Quite aside from the fact that he did benefit from it through any inheritance from his father, if he has lied and as now seems certain then surely

And this post isn't from a Labour supporter looking to bash the Tory's for any reason going it's from someone that voted Conservative at the last election.


----------



## chippa1909 (Apr 7, 2016)

ColchesterFC said:



			Didn't Cameron say the other day that he hadn't benefited from the fund set up by his father? And now he admits to having held shares in the company but he sold them before he became PM. Quite aside from the fact that he did benefit from it through any inheritance from his father, if he has lied and as now seems certain then surely

And this post isn't from a Labour supporter looking to bash the Tory's for any reason going it's from someone that voted Conservative at the last election.
		
Click to expand...

Yup. We'll see if the press treat Cameron's lying as seriously as Corbyn not wearing a tie.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 7, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			Yup. We'll see if the press treat Cameron's lying as seriously as Corbyn not wearing a tie.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it's not as serious. You're allowed to lie to the plebs as long as you look smart and statesmanlike while you're doing it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 7, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			Yup. We'll see if the press treat Cameron's lying as seriously as Corbyn not wearing a tie.
		
Click to expand...

Cant stand a scruffy liar.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 7, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Cant stand a scruffy liar.
		
Click to expand...

Give them their due, the tories have such a better class of liar.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 7, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Give them their due, the tories have such a better class of liar.
		
Click to expand...

True, true.  If you are telling porkies then don't look like it.


----------



## freddielong (Apr 8, 2016)

The thing that winds me up about this story is its all about offshore Tax Havens because their were 8 companies in the Isle of Man mentioned their were also 148 companies in England (London) but no one is talking about them as it's not a story.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 8, 2016)

Breaking news

http://newsthump.com/2016/04/07/dav...cot-to-lead-inquiry-into-familys-tax-affairs/


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 8, 2016)

These politicians - they just don't learn. Cameron - by not being as open at the outset about the situation as he now has been all that has happened is that we end up suspicious and thinking he still hasn't told us everything.  Might think that anyway if he'd told us at the outset what we know now - but at least by his behaviour we'd have less ground for suspicion.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 9, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			These politicians - they just don't learn. Cameron - by not being as open at the outset about the situation as he now has been all that has happened is that we end up suspicious and thinking he still hasn't told us everything.  Might think that anyway if he'd told us at the outset what we know now - but at least by his behaviour we'd have less ground for suspicion.
		
Click to expand...

Very consistent of him actually.  He has adopted the exact same policy with his EU approach but you are content with that as it suits your own agenda.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 9, 2016)

Good cartoon.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/under-his-hat/#comments


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 9, 2016)

Cameron taken the step of releasing financial records for last six years tonight


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 9, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Cameron taken the step of releasing financial records for last six years tonight
		
Click to expand...

I wonder what's in his financial records from seven years ago that he doesn't want people to see? Or is that just me being cynical?


----------



## freddielong (Apr 10, 2016)

ColchesterFC said:



			I wonder what's in his financial records from seven years ago that he doesn't want people to see? Or is that just me being cynical?
		
Click to expand...

You only have to keep records for 6 years.


----------



## drdel (Apr 10, 2016)

I suspect most of us would avoid paying any more tax than necessary and its nowt new. It causes tensions and always will as Cameron is finding out. 

The average person is too busy keeping their heads above water whereas the 'rich' have the opportunity to grow their wealth at a disproportionate rate. This is pushing the price of housing higher as more property is bought by wealthy investors forcing the average wage earner to rent.

Having said that most of these havens also hide illegal money and thus provide shelter to criminality. However as the majority of the political 'rule' makers are in the same club I can't see any real chance of change.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 10, 2016)

The hypocrisy of it all. Jezzer having a go at call me Dav over his tax affairs.

Politicians make the rules on tax and Jezzer and his mob made no effort to do anything about it whilst in power now he moans because others use the system to their benefit. I can understand why the man on the street might be hacked off but not a politician.

Intresting to see Red Ken is in on the act as well.


----------

