Failing to register financial or business interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP..

is breaking the law!

Agreed. Has he done that? Evidence would suggest he avoided tax, paid tax on dividends no capital gains. Love to read the report that what he did was illegal. Let's go with Mr. Corbin and throw several million pounds of tax payers money into a pointless enquiry. That is where I want my money to go.

Your position seems somewhat contradictory on this one. You acknowledge that the people who benefit from these slack taxation laws are the ones who (1) wrote those laws, and (2) restrict access to the means of exploiting them, but you are willing to overlook that and, instead, criticise those who seek to bring it to an end. You are a prole after Maggie's heart - there is no such thing as society!

We owned 5000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000. I paid income tax on the dividends.

But ...

Was there a capital gain for which tax would have been required?

There may also be a question as to how the units were originally acquired. If they were a gift or purchased at below market value, there would be taxable income.

Failing to register financial or business interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP..

is breaking the law!

Agreed. Has he done that? Evidence would suggest he avoided tax, paid tax on dividends no capital gains. Love to read the report that what he did was illegal. Let's go with Mr. Corbin and throw several million pounds of tax payers money into a pointless enquiry. That is where I want my money to go.

Your position seems somewhat contradictory on this one. You acknowledge that the people who benefit from these slack taxation laws are the ones who (1) wrote those laws, and (2) restrict access to the means of exploiting them, but you are willing to overlook that and, instead, criticise those who seek to bring it to an end. You are a prole after Maggie's heart - there is no such thing as society!

Accepted. My position has nothing to do with who is in charge. They are invariably the same. Maggie? Good point. Battle of Idiots? Harsh but glad she won. I have no interest in Mr Cameron finances. If they are legal so be it. Political c**p tends to be the norm. In no way saying he is not guilty but would like a tad of proof.

Agreed. Has he done that? Evidence would suggest he avoided tax, paid tax on dividends no capital gains. Love to read the report that what he did was illegal. Let's go with Mr. Corbin and throw several million pounds of tax payers money into a pointless enquiry. That is where I want my money to go.

Your position seems somewhat contradictory on this one. You acknowledge that the people who benefit from these slack taxation laws are the ones who (1) wrote those laws, and (2) restrict access to the means of exploiting them, but you are willing to overlook that and, instead, criticise those who seek to bring it to an end. You are a prole after Maggie's heart - there is no such thing as society!

Accepted. My position has nothing to do with who is in charge. They are invariably the same. Maggie? Good point. Battle of Idiots? Harsh but glad she won. I have no interest in Mr Cameron finances. If they are legal so be it. Political c**p tends to be the norm. In no way saying he is not guilty but would like a tad of proof.

Each to their own, but accepting the status quo is what we have, in general, been doing most of my life and little has changed. I remember how it took direct action such as the poll tax riots to get real change in the country. Sadly, such heroism is lost these days - now people only riot for a new pair of shoes.

Edited April 8, 201610 yr by RuamRudy

This is the same a-hole that is implementing continuing 'austerity measures' on the British people. He should resign effective immediately. Slowly but surely these wealthy and privileged elite are unravelling. Just a bunch of thieves plundering taxpayers money and putting bugger all back.

For wealthy Corporations there are tax cuts from 30% to 17% for the working man and ordinary folk there are 'austerity measures'.

Unbelievable!!!!

This is the same a-hole that is implementing continuing 'austerity measures' on the British people. He should resign effective immediately. Slowly but surely these wealthy and privileged elite are unravelling. Just a bunch of thieves plundering taxpayers money and putting bugger all back.

For wealthy Corporations there are tax cuts from 30% to 17% for the working man and ordinary folk there are 'austerity measures'.

Unbelievable!!!!

Nice post. Could you please provide me with the manifesto of your choice?

I bloody knew it.I knew it when i posted yesterday.he had to be involved.When your old mans doing something like that,it stands to reason that he would want his son to benefit somehow.Is a family thing.Jeremy Corbyn is going to love this.How can he not now stand down? First all the old shit about savings and renting out his house ( i'm just like you)He better have good spin doctors on his team to get him out of this.?

My old dad used to say 'When a political party has been voted into power and has its hands on the public purse,you can bet your life they are showing honesty by explaining where evry penny goes,but you can bet your life,that they have some pennies stashed somewhere else'

Anyone with their own business employs an accountant to find the most economic way to save money on taxes. Generally people don't want to cross the line but instead want to be tax efficient. I have applied that rule for the last 40 odd years.

Considering all the despicable acts committed by the majority of politicians this is very small beer indeed. To expect our politicians to be good upstanding citizens is a bit of a stretch isn't it?

I bloody knew it.I knew it when i posted yesterday.he had to be involved.When your old mans doing something like that,it stands to reason that he would want his son to benefit somehow.Is a family thing.Jeremy Corbyn is going to love this.How can he not now stand down? First all the old shit about savings and renting out his house ( i'm just like you)He better have good spin doctors on his team to get him out of this.?

My old dad used to say 'When a political party has been voted into power and has its hands on the public purse,you can bet your life they are showing honesty by explaining where evry penny goes,but you can bet your life,that they have some pennies stashed somewhere else'

Please explain what you bloody well knew.

We owned 5000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000. I paid income tax on the dividends.

But ...

Was there a capital gain for which tax would have been required?

There may also be a question as to how the units were originally acquired. If they were a gift or purchased at below market value, there would be taxable income.

In the TV interview he said that the amount of profit on the sale was below the threshold for CGT. If I remember correctly (?) at that time the first 10,000 pound of capital gain was tax free. On a 30,000 pound sale he would have been lucky to have had a 10,000 pound profit.

Note: I do not like Cameron, but I do not like witch hunts either.

Not sure if the actual ICIJ link has been posted, but here it is:

http://panamapapers.icij.org/

Not sure if the actual ICIJ link has been posted, but here it is:

http://panamapapers.icij.org/

And what does that prove re David Cameron?

We owned 5000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000. I paid income tax on the dividends.

But ...

Was there a capital gain for which tax would have been required?

There may also be a question as to how the units were originally acquired. If they were a gift or purchased at below market value, there would be taxable income.

In the TV interview he said that the profit was below the threshold for CGT. If I remember correctly (?) at that time the first 10,000 pounds of capital gain was free of tax. He would have been lucky to have made a 10,000 pounds profit on a 30,000 pound sale. And at the time he was not prime minister.

Note: I don’t like Cameron, but I don’t like witch hunts either.

David Cameron said he owned a stake in the the Blairmore investment fund and sold it off for 31,500 pounds (38940 euros) in 2010 before becoming prime minister.

So, he knew it was "morally wrong" (his own quote) to own offshore shares after becoming PM. But whilst being MP, it was "morally ok"?

There's more to come on this story, would you buy a second hand car from this muppet.

Of course. He's well qualified to sell one.

We owned 5000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000. I paid income tax on the dividends.

But ...

Was there a capital gain for which tax would have been required?

There may also be a question as to how the units were originally acquired. If they were a gift or purchased at below market value, there would be taxable income.

In the TV interview he said that the profit was below the threshold for CGT. If I remember correctly (?) at that time the first 10,000 pounds of capital gain was free of tax. He would have been lucky to have made a 10,000 pounds profit on a 30,000 pound sale. And at the time he was not prime minister.

Note: I don’t like Cameron, but I don’t like witch hunts either.

He made 20,000, having bought the shares for some 12,000.

Have you noticed the latest 'spin' from No 10. It was on the Tory minister on question time last night and has been repeated today by at least 2 Tory MP's.

"The delay is because the involvement of the PM's father is distasteful and he has been trying to shield him (his father) from becoming dragged into this as he is dead.Those who seek to involve the dead, who can't defend themselves are really dragging the barrel"

I'm tempted to name one of two people who are dead who have not been protected from criticism (or more). But I'll refrain. .......... fixed it for me...

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares/trusts NOW, then he said, NOW or in the FUTURE (for receiving any future benefit)

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

Edited April 8, 201610 yr by meltingpot2015

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares NOW, then he said, now and in the past.

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

You do understand the question he was asked I suppose? I think not, rant away about it all you like. Things may transpire and prove illegal activity. Untill then should he not be entitled to the "innocent untill proven guilty" that we all like? Public figure different rules? No one has yet managed to post any evidence of illegal activity.

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares NOW, then he said, now and in the past.

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

You do understand the question he was asked I suppose? I think not, rant away about it all you like. Things may transpire and prove illegal activity. Untill then should he not be entitled to the "innocent untill proven guilty" that we all like? Public figure different rules? No one has yet managed to post any evidence of illegal activity.

You haven't read my post properly. He said tax avoidance is morally wrong also. Legality can be skirted round. Actually, that's what he has been going on about with the google dealings etc. He is talking about putting a stop to them, but with the other hand......

The legality of it is up to the Courts. Even if someone IS to post on here damning evidence. Only a Court can decide if someone is guilty. I haven't talked about guilt or innocence, you have inferred it..I read from your other post also you keep going on about guilt/innocence. Perfectly normal defense mechanism.

Move Along, Nothing to see here!!

William Hill latest betting odds.

For the first time David Cameron is favourite to stand down as Tory Leader before Jeremy Corbyn does so as Labour leader.

William Hill have cut their odds from 11/10 to 4/5 (stake 5 for profit of four)for Cameron to go first, and make Corbyn Evens (stake 1 for profit of 1) from 4/6.

William Hill have also cut their odds for David Cameron to resign as PM during 2016 from 3/1 to 2/1 - after winning the General Election in 2015 he was as long as 16/1 to quit this year.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/apr/08/cameron-offshore-tax-panama-resign-hypocrisy-labour-accuses-cameron-of-hypocrisy-after-he-admits-profiting-from-offshore-trust-politics-live

As I said in an earlier post. His position is now untenable and he will be gone shortly

Politics can be a rough tough game!

I have not read of anyone saying that whatever Cameron did/or did not do was illegal.

Leave the man alone.

I don't understand the issue

This was not an offshore trust (used for squirrelling away money)

Many companies are registered off shore because the of business friendly company rules

I think probably all hedge funds are registered off shore for that reason

I bet most if not all pension funds have investments in offshore companies

So, can someone explain to me what is the nature of the problem?

Politics can be a rough tough game!

I have not read of anyone saying that whatever Cameron did/or did not do was illegal.

Leave the man alone.

You hi-so eh............

No but neither am I an ill educated 'working class' ignoramus !

The witch hunt is on. He will probably have to go. Long live Boris Johnson. House of cards.

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares NOW, then he said, now and in the past.

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

You do understand the question he was asked I suppose? I think not, rant away about it all you like. Things may transpire and prove illegal activity. Untill then should he not be entitled to the "innocent untill proven guilty" that we all like? Public figure different rules? No one has yet managed to post any evidence of illegal activity.

You are correct. He is innocent until proven guilty over his business dealings.

Where he is guilty beyond any doubt is his public lying on at least 4 occasions. He is also guilty of getting Downing street to release public information statements that were also full of lies.

All of that is now in the public domain and there is no getting away from it.

Perhaps you think that this is acceptable behaviour from a Prime Minister. I certainly do not. If it was up to me, a full team of financial specialists would be investigating every single one of them to include the HofL.

I thought he said a few days ago he had no involvement????

politician talk.. He had no "involvement" he just owned the shares!

The income on which he declared and paid tax on.

Capital gains tax is assessed when the assets are disposed of.

It's hard to keep track. First he said he did not hold any shares NOW, then he said, now and in the past.

Then again, there was another "clarification" by Cameron's spokesperson “To be clear, the prime minister, his wife and their children do not benefit from any offshore funds. The prime minister owns no shares,”

News is certainly coming in dribs and drabs, without letting the cat out of the bag!.

Anyway, isn't the problem with these complex financial instruments (or the genius, if you happen to make use of them and don't think they are illegal/morally wrong - whilst being Prime Minister or not) that they do not need to be "owned" by immediate family?

It's only a film, but for anyone interested I thoroughly recommend the film "the wolf of wall street". For Cameron though there may be another twist in the tale.

You do understand the question he was asked I suppose? I think not, rant away about it all you like. Things may transpire and prove illegal activity. Untill then should he not be entitled to the "innocent untill proven guilty" that we all like? Public figure different rules? No one has yet managed to post any evidence of illegal activity.

You are correct. He is innocent until proven guilty over his business dealings.

Where he is guilty beyond any doubt is his public lying on at least 4 occasions. He is also guilty of getting Downing street to release public information statements that were also full of lies.

All of that is now in the public domain and there is no getting away from it.

Perhaps you think that this is acceptable behaviour from a Prime Minister. I certainly do not. If it was up to me, a full team of financial specialists would be investigating every single one of them to include the HofL.

You are very certain about his lies. Please post the questions asked and his replies. Not a fan of him but an agenda is being played out. Will not be called a coup because "we" are a western democracy. Not mutch better than every western poster here that moans on an hourly basis about "third world countries".

The witch hunt is on. He will probably have to go. Long live Boris Johnson. House of cards.

Boris isn't any better.

For British posters who are upset here is the phone number for HMRC, feel free to contact them and ask to pay more tax. Top your phone up before you do because you will have to listen to 10 minutes of music first.

+441355359022

Only 10 mins - you must be lucky.

And don't forget all those recorded messages apologizing for your long wait.

And of course, you'll be charged a premium.