Not a tax haven.

[notwell]

That's a tiny minority. That says more about them than it does the tax rule

[Gladys]

Yep, they would be bastards no matter what.

[2bees]

yeah, I was just chatting to pops and mrbees about it and that's pretty much what they said too.

 

Muahhaaaa, off to Ellan Vannin with you then Pops bee.

[GaryPotter]

It's disgraceful the way Camerons personal finances are the subject of public debate.

It just shows how stupid people are in a baying mob all this is is "eat the rich". Reading the papers today all he's done is get a perfectly legal gift from his mum (of money he will presumably get anyway) which will be inheritance tax free IF she survives 7 years. She may well kick her clogs yet and he'll have to pay tax on it. All these people baying for blood have no idea what is legal and what isn't. It's pathetic. This sort of thing that happens every day of the week in the UK and HMRC are fine with it I believe so what the hell is people's problem?

[paswt]

Inheritance, because you haven't got enough without your dead relatives money. I'm for 100% inheritance tax, it would save a lot of misery for old people. One family I know of are fighting over their parents stuff (& have been for years) and the parents are still alive, the children could afford the care home fees but argue and nothing is paid, it's really bad. My old neighbour was scared into a home by her greedy daughter 7 years after signing the house over, it's really sinister.

 

Rules are made to be broken, not hearts

 

100% inheritance tax ( i.e. double taxation) bees? lol so the government encourage saving for your old age /pension so that you won't have to depend on the state to support you ( and you pay your own care costs) because the chances are your kids may plead poverty.

 

The bonus for the "state" would be if you died early they would take what you had left , that's a poorer deal than the "mob" would offer .

 

I agree that some families behave appallingly before and after the death of an elderly relative , that's why many older folk lead a frugal life because they want to retain their independence , knowing they can't rely on/don't want to be a burden.

 

IMO foolish they are foolish to dispose of their savings to family , an inheritance is a 'windfall' not a right .

 

I have a sneaking admiration for people who see their relatives for what they are and leave their estate to a charity . Leaving your 'wedge' to the cat's home is the final "screw you" from beyond the grave

Edited April 10, 2016 by paswt

[pongo]

It really isn't about the tax, but the hypocrisy. I do feel sorry for him, because it must be gut-wrenching, but he was quick to denounce and deride others who were exploiting what they thought were legal arrangements.

I like Cameron. People liked Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home. But they very quickly went out of fashion. Very suddenly they came to represent a rich class which had nothing in common with the voters.

 

I believe that the UK is nearing a similar tipping point again. Most people do not make any distinction between evasion and legal avoidance. It all just seems dodgy - any attempt to explain a difference seems like pedantry and is treated with derision. That is understandable, certainly predictable - given that many have been ground down by constant bad news, economic uncertainty and, so called, austerity. The hopeless period post 2008 has been incredibly badly managed. The very wealthy have got even wealthier, often on the back of property speculation, whilst young middle professionals are finding it increasingly impossible to afford to live in the cities where they work.

 

There is a growing sense that everything is broken and that an elite has everything stitched-up - probably tied up somewhere 'offshore'. I am not saying that this is really true. But the message is continually reinforced both by the left and by those on the UKIP side of British politics - in the established media and in the social media (exactly the same as happens here about the IOM govt - the same stupid angry-bloke echo-chamber politics ranting about elites).

 

It's pointless trying to separate the rights and wrongs of this IMO. But it would be really stupid to hope that this is all going to go away and that things are going to go back to how they were before.

Edited April 10, 2016 by pongo

[notwell]

I think you overplay how much people care.

 

The vast majority don't.

[Barrie Stevens]

No one howled with rage when the late Ronnie Corbett sold his £1.3 million London home and reportedly gave cash gifts to the children so that his estate would not have to pay inheritance tax....it was said.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

It really isn't about the tax, but the hypocrisy. I do feel sorry for him, because it must be gut-wrenching, but he was quick to denounce and deride others who were exploiting what they thought were legal arrangements.

I like Cameron. People liked Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home. But they very quickly went out of fashion. Very suddenly they came to represent a rich class which had nothing in common with the voters. I believe that the UK is nearing a similar tipping point again. Most people do not make any distinction between evasion and legal avoidance. It all just seems dodgy - any attempt to explain a difference seems like pedantry and is treated with derision. That is understandable, certainly predictable - given that many have been ground down by constant bad news, economic uncertainty and, so called, austerity. The hopeless period post 2008 has been incredibly badly managed.

Corbin wouldn't have got in if there isn't an element of truth in what you have said. If voters see a place for a traditional socialist donkey jacket wearer in the Micheal Foot model then it is clear that they are unhappy and want to engage with a party that extols traditional labour values and policies. But are we saying that the laws of the land no longer apply and what really matters is someone's morals (whatever they might be)? That is ludicrous. All of what Cameron has done is within the parameters of tax laws drawn up by UK Treasury. Are you and others now saying that despite the fact they could change tax law tomorrow if they wanted that doesn't matter as he has been shown to be 'immoral' in the way he manages his affairs? That's utter nonsense. It's so stupid it defies logic.

 

Maybe they should do the same for homosexuals? It's perfectly legal now but no doubt many people still regard that as immoral behaviour and that's their bigoted problem. It's not for society as a whole to judge behaviours that are completely legal and say that they are immoral just because 'some' people don't like those behaviours.

[notwell]

Tax avoidance is not immoral. It's logical and legal.

 

And anyone would do it given the chance.

[2112]

Tax avoidance is not immoral. It's logical and legal.

 

And anyone would do it given the chance.

Until the banking collapse of 2008 nobody cared less, within reason whether anyone used the IOM to keep their money. However it left the UK short of money and they looked at plugging the gaps in the UK income revenue. The IOM and its constant boasting how successful they were, it's businesses, films and other industries, it got back to UK civil servants - look at the UK/IOM reciprocal health arrangement. The Conservatives got in

2010, and tax avoidance became a very hot topic. It will soon get to the stage that anyone with an offshore bank account will be made to be a social outcast, even if they declare it. Every time Bell, Teare, Skelly and Shimmin open their mouths and start the boasts of growth, growth liken to China, how prosperous the IOM is - the more the UK will sit up and assume the island is encouraging tax avoidance- and other unsavoury activities- even if it is entirely legal

Edited April 10, 2016 by 2112

[pongo]

Are you and others now saying that despite the fact they could change tax law tomorrow if they wanted that doesn't matter as he has been shown to be 'immoral' in the way he manages his affairs? That's utter nonsense. It's so stupid it defies logic

I have repeatedly made very clear that I am not expressing a personal or moral opinion about the rights and wrongs of any of this. My interest is in how the arguments are understood by the general public and in how that is likely to influence trends.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

Are you and others now saying that despite the fact they could change tax law tomorrow if they wanted that doesn't matter as he has been shown to be 'immoral' in the way he manages his affairs? That's utter nonsense. It's so stupid it defies logic

 

I have repeatedly made very clear that I am not expressing a personal or moral opinion about the rights and wrongs of any of this. My interest is in how the arguments are understood by the general public and in how that is likely to influence trends.

I didn't mearn to personalise it but the argument defies all logic. To me this is no different to fox hunting. I get why people don't like it; I really do. They also hate the rich doing stuff just because, well, they hate the rich. But if it's legal to do something it's tough on the people who don't like it. This is turning into some weird class war almost evangelical backlash which ignores the fundamental principle that people like Cameron are only doing what the law allows them to do. The whole debate is boring as its nonsensical. Nobody can bring morality into this as morality is subjective on a person by person basis. It has no place in this argument.

 

If we're going to hold Cameron's morals to account I'd rather do it over the keeping of troops in Afganistan, not over entirely legal things his dad did that have just pissed off a load of anti capitalists.

Edited April 10, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[pongo]

the argument defies all logic

It's not about logic. Much of the public is irrationally angry - on all sides of any debate. You only have to read some of the sweary and aggressive posts on this forum to get a sense of that. Or in the comments under any news article - no matter what the subject.

 

And it is not just the left this time. The anti EU people, another bunch of angry blokes, are enjoying all this just as much.

Edited April 10, 2016 by pongo

[thesultanofsheight]

 

the argument defies all logic

 

It's not about logic. Much of the public is irrationally angry - on all sides of any debate. You only have to read some of the sweary and aggressive posts on this forum to get a sense of that. Or in the comments under any news article - no matter what the subject.

 

And it is not just the left this time. The anti EU people, another bunch of angry blokes, are enjoying all this just as much.

We've gone back to about where we were in 1976-82 politically that's all. We've got a proper Labour Party back (partly anyway), and a whole pile of people who aren't exactly unemployed as they would have been in the late 1970s; but who are certainly in shit pay jobs with no prospects, and who can't get low cost housing, and who can't get out of that rut so they're angry. People get that. We're also getting protest marches and maybe there's a few riots to come yet. But they aren't lawyers and they clearly aren't that well informed if they don't realise that everything that's been done is legal. As long as every person obeys the laws of the land then they can manage the amount of tax they pay (within limits) and the laws allow for that. What is wrong with that? We don't live in a totalitarian country where people's morality or alliances to their government are required to be tested against the total amount of tax they could pay. Sadly these people will believe anything - but it doesn't make it true though.

Edited April 10, 2016 by thesultanofsheight