What in heavens name is going on with Dave releasing all this earnings stuff?



Don’t get me wrong, he’s on a decent screw but, it must stress him out. I’m hoping for a huge numbers politicians coming clean & revealing their soul, all there’s been so far is that Jimmy Krankie woman pleading poverty.



Maybe we’ll eventually go down as far as Council Leaders, now that would make me a tad annoyed.

Call me Dave literally can't wait for the 2016 Olympics to bury this current batch of bad news with his sound byte friendly 'Team GB are uniting the nation' guff.

Cant blame them for squirreling money away tax free. If I had some I would do the same. Sod this morality nonsense. The law is all that matters and until that changes stop whining about nothing.



Do we really think a bloke that's been to Eton, Oxbridge, and is now the PM has no money! His salary is his drinking & whoring money.

This whole disclosing tax return stuff is silly. A tax return shows what is declared. It does not, for example, disclose assets held via tax avoidance structures. So what is the point?

Precisely - and that's exactly why he's done it; smoke and mirrors.

He's just following the law of the land. We don't own him. You can't just change the rules on suspicion.

Well it’s getting down to Gideon now, I hope its Boris next, just to have a little bit of balance re the referendum.



I can only hope it filters down to the councils, here’s a little anecdote.



A certain Council were aware of a certain development in the offing, many employees of said Council purchased shares in the said company at a low price, knowing that if the said company were to get the contract the share price would rocket.



Surprisingly the development was approved.



The blokes in Parliament don’t hold a candle to what’s further down the food chain.

Now that is naughty.





Boris issued his return. He's on a nice little earner particularly with the newspaper. Jezza was fined £100 for a late return.



Let's have more of it, Boll0x to privacy

There's a bloke who lives where I grew up, not sure whether he was a councilor or was very well in with one, who made his money buying land and property with a lot of council influence. Often the land or property would never be offered for public sale and funnily enough it was always this same bloke who ended up with it. I seem to think he got done for it but he still looks like he did well for himself.

There a difference between insider trading and Tax avoidance!

Aggressive tax avoidance by the very people standing up to tell us it's 'morally wrong' should be exposed; it's very clear that there are two Britains currently operating side by side - one in which 'ordinary' people work and pay their taxes to subsidise the state which affords them all the benefits of a civilised society, and one in which a ruling elite enjoy all the same societal benefits, but are enabled to pick and choose whether to pay tax, or not.



If you choose to have a career in public life, you must expect to be under scrutiny - it comes with the territory; Dave didn't mind sticking the boot in to Jimmy Carr and Gary Barlow, so he can hardly complain now that boot is on the other foot.

I'm sick of being told evasion is completely different to avoidance like one is very wrong but the other should be applauded as only being morally wrong. Potato potahto and all that.

And so paying taxes is ... err ... [imorally right?[/i



I mean, I don't mind the concept of each of us paying into some kind of central fund for the greater good of the whole, as well as the less fortunate. But if our system of taxation ever functioned in accordance with these aims it's long since abandoned them.



Indeed, I reckon the broad mass of people in this country get about as much benefit out of taxation as "starving Africans" do from the hundreds of millions people donate each year.



If taxation didn't bear the imprimatur of the state it would be labelled a shakedown. Which begs the question - of the many, many crimes and misdemeanours David Cameron could (and more importantly - SHOULD) be kicked out of office for (i.e. his treatment of the paedophile scandal) why on earth are people getting upset about this?



I wouldn't mind so much if I weren't certain that given the same opportunity to evade paying taxes people wouldn't think twice about taking it. Of course, the Guardianistas would have you believe they'd contribute every penny even without the government prodding them - and with all the reverence of someone delivering the Holy Sacrament. And if you believe them you need your head examining.

Of course given a legal opportunity most people would take the not-pay-tax route. That's not the main issue. As for Cameron, sure the family may be avoiding some tax on some trust income but I was frankly surprised at the percentage of tax on "normal" earnings that the disclosed tax return show.



What I think pis=#FFFFFF[size=5.[/sizeses people off most is the scams perpetrated by multi billion pound companies (Vodafone, Starbucks, Amazon & co.) whereby they artificially wipe out profits made in the UK by dodgy agreements to pay licencing fees etc to some Luxembourg counterpart, so the latter is taxed at 1% and the UK company never pays any, or any substantial, corporation tax whatsoever.



I directly blame the government for this. I'm no tax expert but they could do for these companies exactly the same as they could do for any company or taxpayer, look at their figures, and raise an assessment. Then, the taxpayer has to pay. Within 7 days. yes, they can appeal and go through the courts if they want, but they still have to immediately pay up.



If they tok it to court, what you'd then need is a judge who agreed with HMRC that "selling" the rights to your business name for $1 and then paying a $1bn (or whatever) annual licence fee for use of name is entirely a matter for you, and perfectly legal, but it's just that it's plainly an internal transaction between group companies and so we disallow the licence fee payment as a taxable expense. Job done.



It would be a laugh to read some justification as to why any commercial company would ever enter into such risibly uneconomic arrangements, save to wipe out a tax liability, and wiping out tax liabilities doesn't cut it as a qualifying ground to qualify as a legitimate expense.



Instead, we have situations like where Harnett the ex-boss in HMRC has cosy meetings and does sweetheart deals for past and future tax dodges, not even running them past government lawyers, and so Vodafone are sorted for years with little or no tax to pay, and the government has no appetite to set the dodgy deals aside.



Hartnett btw was the guy who agreed a tax deal with HSBC that gave immunity from prosecution for any crimes they might have committed relating to tax fraud in Switzerland. And then retired from HMRC and got a job advising on honesty and standards at ... HSBC.

Wasn't income tax introduced to fund war? Not sure therefore of the morality of tax!

Certainly in the US. Unknown before WW2. There's a very good book on this called The War State by Mike Swanson. Enjoyable too.

Not my words - the words of Dodgy Dave when he condemned people (using the comedian Jimmy Carr as an example) for using an off-shore vehicle to avoid tax.



Whatever the historical justification, or the practical implementation of the system as it stands - it is what it is; and it seems fairly clear that for the super-rich 1% and large companies, it's optional. That can't be right.

Sure, let's just do away with any sense of realism and continue discussing the matter within the safe confines of a fantasy paradigm. I guess the issue is just too big for you. Although since 99% of the guff I've seen written or spoken on this topic demonstrates similar levels of unsophistication and naivete I suppose you are in excellent company.



I'm probably wasting my time but here goes ... regardless of what you or I believe the determining factor of what is "right" in any civilization is Might. Whilst there have been moments in history when the super-rich (corporations are modern concept) have contributed more to the pot - such as under the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, they have never truly bore their full share of the tax burden stretching all the way back into antiquity.



Politicians have ALWAYS talked tough on tax whilst treading very softly because to do otherwise is to court disaster. Just look at the political fallout which tore apart the Roman Republic in the wake of what were some very modest reforms proposed by the Gracchi brothers.



Presidents and prime ministers have been KILLED for merely suggesting tax reforms so what makes you think a little snot like Cameron is going to bully Real Power into coughing up more money when the trend has been in the opposite direction for decades?



These people are [uNOT[/u going to pay their taxes and there's [uNOTHING[/u the Prime Minister can do to change this situation without setting in motion events which will result in him not being Prime Minister any more. Period. Whining about him being unable to achieve the unachievable whilst attaching significance to his criticisms of some comedic non-entity is just symptomatic of the bubbles of self-delusion most people prefer to live within these days.



Before I'd read so much as a word written on what have now come to be known as the "Panama Papers" I said this was a pre-planned operation, Vladimir Putin would be the first individual targeted and there would be very few Westerners implicated which aren't expendable or susceptible to being squeezed (as Cameron clearly is in the run up to key decisions on our relationship with the EU).



This is a media-driven story from start to finish and few if anyone would give a if it weren't for them bombarding us with the idea that we do. Whilst the sums talked about are new (and if you believe them more fool you) Cameron's "dodgy" tax-avoidance has been in the public domain for years without anyone raising so much as a pitchfork.



The real story here is NOT how much Cameron and his old man managed to fleece HMRC out of - it's WHY has he suddenly become a target NOW when any journalist worth his salt could have pursued the question to some satisfactory resolution years ago but didn't.

Ahh, so it's all yet another conspiracy theory...?



You're clearly very bright, but when you start a post with an assertion that I'm too stupid to understand what you're about to say, the rest of your ramblings just take on the form of white noise; which they largely are, albeit with a veneer of coherence, however sneering.



On the subject of fantasy paradigms - is it possible for any discussion about current affairs to take place, without your dismissing their value because a secret world order controls everything, and everyone but you is too brainwashed or stupid to see the truth? I thought you had your own protected platform for this nonsense, which no one else is allowed to post in, other than to agree with your monological ranting?

What exactly do you want me to say? If you don't already know that the super-rich wield more power than David Cameron can even comprehend then it would seem I'm right and if you do why make the comment in the first place? I see such schizophrenia all the time (Facebook is just full of it) and to say that it is F-R-U-S-T-R-A-T-I-N-G is an understatement.







If I'm living in a fantasy paradigm then it would seem it offered me some pretty accurate foreknowledge of who would be targeted in the wake of the Panama Papers release. If your paradigm yielded deeper insights then maybe I'll start thinking about changing mine...

The fact that Putin has confirmed the details in the Panama papers are correct suggests to me they are correct.



Being correct, they implicate who they implicate. I don't readily see why the Süddeutsche Zeitung would have it in for Putin, but if I were them, and I did, then I'd just release those bits of info that related to the Russians.



And i don't think there's much chance of the Panama papers destabilising Rssia, any more than they destabilised the UK. What would surprise me would be if there were any people who would be surprised at revelations about offshore money concealment and/or tax dodging by the super-rich. They may have been good at hiding it, but surely we all knew they all do it?

Whether the contents of the Panama Papers are accurate or not really isn't relevant to my point. The contents of the Pentagon Papers (note the phraseology) were largely accurate. I expect much of the stuff published by Wikileaks & Ed Snowden is similarly accurate.



This doesn't change the fact that ALL OF THEM were operations designed to achieve certain aims. Whether Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange & Ed Snowden were active participants or unwitting dupes in these operations I really can't say. The truth is such participation isn't necessary for operational success.

panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/

panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/

One point of clarification: When I said Vladimir Putin was the "primary target" of certainly the Guardian's first hit piece I'm saying so within the context of intelligence operations - which must always be considered on multiple levels.



The goal here is not to "destabilise Russia" (at least not directly but I won't pursue this line of reasoning because it gets very complicated very quickly). I certainly don't think Putin lost a wink of sleep over the release of the Panama Papers and I doubt the Russian people learned anything they didn't already know.



You have to separate the primary target of the story (Putin) from the primary target of the operation - YOU.

Your completely misplaced sense of intellectual superiority has blinded you to what was being said. I didn't express any naivety about the existence of tax-dodging, nor did I suggest that David Cameron should crusade against it now that the Panama Papers have created a dialogue; I merely commented on the hypocrisy of the situation, in that the very people who benefit most from such inequity are the people charged with creating the rules and systems that allow it to happen. That outside forces are at work when those decisions are made is patently obvious - but since I don't feel the need to demonstrate a superior understanding of every issue (even when I don't have one) it felt like unnecessary clutter; you could learn from that.



Unlike your nihilistic approach, in which everything is pointless and everyone (except you) is stupid - I think it's positive that people who might not have any real insight into what a beneficiary trust or an off-shore holding might do, are actually having a dialogue about it and asking questions; isn't that how change is created, rather than sitting in front of your computer in your underpants, shaking your first at Facebook posts and spotting patterns and conspiracies in all the events that happen around the world? I'll give you that there might even be a little naïveté in that, but what the heck, I'm an idealist; knowledge is power - but it helps if the knowledge is based on facts, as opposed to paranoid delusions.