[Closed] The Panama Papers.

Is there actually anything stopping us ordinary mortals doing exactly the same thing to reduce our tax liabilities if we wanted to?

Other than the knowledge and presumably the costs and fees making it uneconomic on the average wage?

the more it turns the public off as clear posturing.

Its been nothing but win and he might reveal some more stuff next week its been that good - one of your worst scribble.

Its really tiresome seeing the usual right wing suspects deny /refusing to accept what the actual issue- he probably did nothing wrong legally. Many find it questionable morally to have made his money in this way, to preach to us all about tax transparency and to claim we are all in it together.
Its really not complicated to grasp though it seems beyond the grasp of the right wing on here even with ad nauseum repetition

That is what Dave did initially and why he had such a bad week - except in the eyes of Ninfan

Is there actually anything stopping us ordinary mortals doing exactly the same thing to reduce our tax liabilities if we wanted to?

We already do. All of our pensions will invest in hedge funds and almost all hedge funds are based abroad - not for tax reasons.

This is a total non-story. Cameron's investment wasn't dubious by any standard at all.

The only reason the poor sod can't deny tax avoidance is because tax avoidance is such a broad term yhat everything you do avoids tax somewhere.

He's done literally nothing wrong at all by investing in this hedge fund and nothing that anyone with a pension doesn't have done by their pension fund as a matter of course.

Many find it questionable morally to have made his money in this way, to preach to us all about tax transparency

What exactly is not transparent?

It was a regulated fund, he declared it on his tax return.

OK its not morally questionable for the richest in our society to actively avoid taxation and their responsibility to society
Its admirable to think only of yourself and that is why Dave has been so highly praised this week and why Starbucks, Google Apple etc are held in such high regard for their tax affairs

MY bad

You can reject the argument but not seeing it takes effort.

nothing that anyone with a pension doesn't have done by their pension fund as a matter of course.

I can assure you my pension "fund" has no investments whatsoever.

These aren't hedge funds in that they rarely if ever "short" the markets. They are simply offshore accounts and trusts (money held by a trustee for a beneficiary).

There is no will to stop tax avoidance as those making the laws are avoiding tax. It requires one line on the income tax form to seriously discourage the use of off-shore secret accounts: "Money and property held overseas". With non declaration leading to automatic taxing at the highest rate plus a penalty and the possibility of a jail term. That's why Cahuzac is in court, simply for not declaring the foreign accounts.

You can reject the argument

I haven't rejected the argument because you haven't made the argument.

Which bit of this hedge fund wasn't transparent?

Which bit of this tax fund are you claiming avoided taxation?

When you explain that people can decide whether to reject it or not.

Please highlight where you think i said it was not transparent

I discussed morality.

As i said avoiding the issue takes effort and you seem determined to put the hard graft in

These aren't hedge funds in that they rarely if ever "short" the markets. They are simply offshore accounts and trusts (money held by a trustee for a beneficiary).

All the evidence I've seen says that this was not a trust. Cite your source, I've cited mine above.

I quoted your words about transparency.

But if you're denying saying either it seems you agree this fund was transparent and did not involve tax avoidance by any reasonable definition.

So which bit of the investment was immoral, and why?

"We owned 5,000 units in Blairmore Investment Trust, which we sold in January 2010. That was worth something like £30,000’,

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/07/david-cameron-had-30000-in-offshore-accounts-5802624/#ixzz45QJflpOn

David Cameron

It's a question of intent.

When Cameron realised he'd win the election he sold up and paid tax. Now what he would have done had he not become prime minister (with a post term earnings capacity of millions a year), do you think he would have sold?

That's doesn't back up what you said, Edukator.

Ed lost the election as he had no Charisma, looked weak under attack from Sturgeon and most of all as Labour had zero economic credibilty

The press, with help from CMD and his chums ruthlessly character assassinated Miliband without mercy. How many times did the bacon sandwich picture get dragged up? To claim these tactics did not affect the result is wrong. I'm not saying he would have won or even been any use as PM but actual policies were put aside to concentrate on playground bullying.

They're going after CMD now so it'll be interesting to see if they call off the dogs at any point.

As you well know, the story is not about Cameron being rich and having some shares and savings

Hmmm, actually that looks exactly what the story is about (minus the shares currently, so it seems)

There is little if any thing exceptional in the tax details other than his "liquidity management" is ultra conservative - still staggered at anyone keeping £300k in a bank. Otherwise remarkably dull.

Of course, there is plenty of inflammatory language and subterfuge but little damning evidence at all. Lots of unsubstantiated BS about morals, hypocrisy etc and yet little substance behind it. A right tease.......

Hence I come back to the original question of why Dave's subterfuge. There's little here to damn any one, so what is really being hidden that justifies the nonsense earlier in the week?

Other than the knowledge and presumably the costs and fees making it uneconomic on the average wage?

I think that's close to the point - just how far from the lives of the ordinary electorate our Masters live, no matter how many times they appear in public in a hard hat or how many times they tell us "we're all in this together".

@chris yes as what he did was illegal - he's a (cosmetic?) surgeon - cash in hand then into swiss account ?

What Cameron's mum did is no different to Ronnie Corbert - cash gift hopefully more than 7yrs before dearh

Corbyn suggested bbc journalists should release tax returns - that would be very interesting lots of swerves available there

just how far from the lives of the ordinary electorate our Masters live

Quite a lot - as always - next?

But jambas - it was a big gift (two of them if I recall correctly) and THATS the point.

I have been out in S Downs since this morning and really hoped to come home to some meat on this story. Unless there is a real nugget waiting to be dug up, we have a rather desperate attempt to create something out of some pretty bland details.

Cmon you investigative journalists - live up to your name. It has to better than this......

Jambs, your Corbett obsession is staying to concern us all.

😆

It's only a pint-sized obsession though kimbers 😉

Just had a BBC news flash that dear Nicola has published her tax return. I hope it's more interesting and shows better financial nous. Their canny with their pounds in Scotland.

Probably has a (little) Corbett Shrine...

@jive why don't you watch The Big Short

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/britons-spending-typical-sunday-giving-2000000-to-their-children-20160410107895

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2016 ]The real reason Jezza + co are putting the boot in[/url]

I had no idea that Corbyn had so much power over Cameron !
All it took was a Skype interview with Tom Watson and a typically dry statement from Corbs and the PM has prostrated himself before the public....

It was a regulated fund, he declared it on his tax return.

we don't know, we haven't seen his tax return.

And there in lies most of Cameron problems. Whoever's advising him needs a hoof in the slats. How does the old spin line go. "say the truth, say it quickly and say it yourself"

he's still managing not to do that, 5 days of the press dragging the unremarkable details out like reluctant wisdom tooth, all the while looking increasing like he has something to hide, and he's still doing it!

"I'll release my tax return" says Dave...well, you haven't you've employed a firm of accountants to do a letter for you.

Cameron is uniquely worried about appearing to be a Eton Tory Toff, and you know, he's not done anything to help himself at all the last 7 days, what a chump.

Beyond just the tax element, back to other questions on the morality of offshore investments:

On top of nuclear weapons and massive toxic waste...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Honeywell is in the consortium that runs the Pantex Plant that assembles all of the nuclear bombs in the United States arsenal. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, successor to the defense products of AlliedSignal, operates the Kansas City Plant which produces and assembles 85 percent of the non-nuclear components of the bombs

Although declining in influence, Honeywell maintains a presence in emerging industries, such as Northern Alberta's oil sands. Honeywell's Plant integrator is currently deployed in some of the most important plant-sites in the Oil Sands (Syncrude, Suncor, and others).

The United States Environmental Protection Agency states that no corporation has been linked to a greater number of Superfund toxic waste sites than has Honeywell.

[img] [/img]

There's also the small matter of some of Honeywell's other defence interests.

During and after the Vietnam Era, Honeywell's defense division produced a number of products, including cluster bombs, missile guidance systems, napalm, and land mines.

[img] [/img]

What other enterprises does Blairmore Holdings support?

All of a sudden MPs are falling over themselves to publish their tax returns,

Well those, that don't employ standard rich person tax minimising techniques,

Poor Osborne's not even gonna get the chance to do a Gordon Brown
Bojos gotta be hoping that all this tax curiosity spotlight can be kept off him untill after the referendum and his leadership challenge

While MacDonald is suddenly getting a bit of public recognition as the voice of the average man (let's hope he keeps the Mao quotes to a minimum)

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/david-cameron-tax-dodging-cover-up-labour ]A good article by Marina Hyde on trickle down tax dodging[/url]

This sums up a lot of Daves problem...

[i]Explaining to Peston that “my dad was a man I love and miss every day”, Cameron admitted that he and his wife had in fact invested in Ian Cameron’s offshore firm Blairmore in 1997, then sold their stake in 2010 for “something like £30,000”. That Cameron’s shifty cover-up has been more damaging than his non-crime is almost too insultingly obvious to state. He will not be assisted by the subconscious dismissiveness in that styling – “something like £30,000”. There is a fine line between fastidious precision and sounding like something north of the average British salary is rather forgettable, and the PM fell on the wrong side of it.[/i]

At least her penultimate paragraph was worth cutting down a tree for. As for the rest...

So Dave statement tomorrow - will we find out what the fuss was about finally?

Of course we won't. There will be further evasion and vague platitudes. At the most basic fundamental level, he just doesn't get it. And he's clearly very, very, very annoyed, as he always is, when anyone has the audacity to question him. Do they not know who he is?

That a shame then, as the accusation are baseless so far.

Frankly you would expect better from a broadsheet that "prat" - your lady friend doesn't seem to realise 😉

On the contrary Thm it's Camerons bs,and waffle that has caused all the deforestation edit

It'll be another angry statement about how he's done nothing bad, and hes gonna be really strict on tax dodgers, [u]and[/u] he's published his tax returns (sort of), oh and labour were really bad and it's all their fault, obvs
but will once again fail to understand that to most of the electorate aggressive avoidance vs evasion vs avoidance......are all the same thing.

Ultimately I think he just doesn't understand that the majority of people in this country will never see the funds that offshore Dave seems to so casually dismiss.
50% of all UK households have less than 1.5k in savings, in fact over a third have £0.
Politics of envy I hear you cry! living with no spare money or especially in debt is tough enough without our uber privileged PM getting all puffy faced and angry because he did 'nothing wrong and has broken no laws'

That he just cannot grasp this is the only reason that this has been such a PR balls up

I quoted your words about transparency.

But if you're denying saying either it seems you agree this fund was transparent and did not involve tax avoidance by any reasonable definition.

So which bit of the investment was immoral, and why?

Even Dave kbow why - that is why he sold them before becoming PM and why he was so evasive in his 5 days of non answers. Ask him if the multiple of answers on here have not led you to understand.

will we find out what the fuss was about finally?

Just seen this on twitter:

Tomorrow Cameron will face MPs for the 1st time since the tax scandal broke. Here are 10 questions needing an answer:

[img] [/img]

also:

Panama Papers. This is the govt official who will lead UK inquiry. You couldn't make it up.

[img] [/img]

I agree with the spirit of most of the questions on the first one but on the second one - it's a big law firm and he quite easily might not have had the slightest clue it was acting for Blairmore. Neither does it necessarily means he GAS about Blairmore's interests. It does illustrate how incestuous that world is, true. Is there a suggestion he knew about the Blairmore advice? I can't read the text on the screenshot

Is there a suggestion he knew about the Blairmore advice?

No, the article is a hatchet job, full of implication without any back up, the guy was seconded to the Treasury in the 90s, can't remember the exact date, then returned to practice before transferring back to the government permanently in 2004. He is a policy guy.

50% of all UK households have less than 1.5k in savings, in fact over a third have £0

@kimbers I keep mentioning Ronnie C as its the most recent relatively high ( 😉 ) profile example of avoiding IHT.

@Edukator - hedge funds not uncommon in UK pension funds, the BT company scheme is pretty active and other pension companies tend to have allocations often branded as "actively managed". For example the very large Californian Teachers scheme was a massive investor until recently but pulled out due to low returns - nothing to do with tax. Pension funds look for tax free investments (inc offshore funds) as they (generally) pay no tax

they have access to the same education, healthcare and welfare support system as those with £100k

Actually in realtiy they do - no amount of private health insurance is going to help you in a life threatening situation, an ex boss sadly passed away from cancer - cared for totally on the nhs. He must have been worth £200m ? Perfect example of the benefis of immigration as he came here from fhe US on a visa before getting his uk passport. I very much doubt his estate paid any inheritance tax

Its really tiresome seeing the usual right wing suspects deny /refusing to accept what the actual issue- he probably did nothing wrong legally. Many find it questionable morally to have made his money in this way, to preach to us all about tax transparency and to claim we are all in it together.
Its really not complicated to grasp though it seems beyond the grasp of the right wing on here even with ad nauseum repetition

That is what Dave did initially and why he had such a bad week - except in the eyes of Ninfan

Junky, I don't think you have got a single element of my point.

The point is that none of this makes any difference - the left are so deeply committed to searching for the 'silver bullet', that sudden revelation that will cause the masses to rise up in consternation and topple Cameron and the evil Tories from government, that they have continued to utterly ignore getting their own house in order and making themselves electable.

Cameron could stand at the dispatch box tomorrow, deep thrusting a pigs head while burning fifty pound notes, while Osborne snorted lines of finest Bolivian from Theresa Mays jubllies, and the Tories would still get reelected in 2015 under their new leader - because Cameron's standing down anyway, and Labour still aren't doing anything to try and [b]win[/b]!

they have access to the same education, healthcare and welfare support system as those with £100k

It's like the Tory party, through its endless benevolence, has delivered us all into a socialist utopia, isn't it?

It is a good job other crimes don't need to be so specifically excluded in law. If burglary didn't specifically describe forcing a wooden door with a yale lock using a stanley screwdriver (with black and yellow handle), then that would be a perfectly reasonable way to manage my widescreen television portfolio. And if they did specify that method then I could use another coloured screwdriver and it would all be perfectly acceptable.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jan/26/postgraduates-poor-oxford-wealth-test ]1,000 postgraduates a year 'too poor' to take up Oxford place[/url]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/aug/03/patients-sue-nhs-access-drugs ]NHS denying access to expensive treatments[/url]

[url= http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/NEWS/207/BENEFIT-CAP-YOUNG-CHILDREN ]Single mothers hit by benefits cap[/url]

they have access to the same education, healthcare and welfare support system as those with £100k

Which is why life expectancy if you are born in Kensington an Chelsea is 85 years and 75 years if you are born in Blackpool

Ultimately I think he just doesn't understand that the majority of people in this country will never see the funds that offshore Dave seems to so casually dismiss.

And....?

Some people are richer than you or me, they are more talented than you or me, they are better looking etc....there it a random distribution of these things at birth. Get over it.....no more than that, deal with it.

50% of all UK households have less than 1.5k in savings, in fact over a third have £0.

Shocking true. Who's fault?

living with no spare money or especially in debt is tough enough

True

without our uber privileged PM getting all puffy faced and angry because he did 'nothing wrong and has broken no laws'

Make not a scrap of different to the previous point. But at least we are getting somewhere ie, "did nothing wrong...." And back to the ultimate sin of all - he is richer than most and his dad was even richer. See below...

That he just cannot grasp [b]this is the only reason [/b]that this has been such a PR balls up

"RESIGN!!!! BURN HIM........"

Butning him is a bit harsh, but if he wants to resign, im cool with that

The front page of the Daily Fail today is priceless. The headline instructs Dave to stop 'grovelling to the politics of envy mob' 😆

So, let's offer a sojourn down fantasy lane for a minute...

Cameron resigns, and the Tories select a new PM (you did realise that this doesn't trigger an election, didn't you?) who was going to be taking over at the next election anyway...

Where does that get you?

Well burn his mother instead - do you know she gave him money? A lot of it in fact.....immoral **

The Torygraph (yes, ok) and Charles Moore (yes, ok - at least up front, sorry TRANSPARENT, with the bias here) get it right

"Once he began, years ago, to play along with the essentially left-wing idea that private money is suspect (c'mon Charles, evil not suspect) and that tax planning and legal (what?) avoidance are immoral (that's better), he was trapped. Now everything he has done in this area (you mean his immoral behaviour?) is made to look dodgy (look, it's an outrage...the b'stard a posh, English c, to coin a phrase)"

Some people are richer than you or me, they are more talented than you or me, they are better looking etc....there it a random distribution of these things at birth. Get over it.....no more than that, deal with it.

And yet they claim to be just like us (well, not you, obvs.) and wear an orange vest to work, and support a football team (West Ham, Aston Villa, whatever) when in fact they are far from just like us, and their wealth gives them power and influence that normal people, will never have - power to change the rules of the game so that they can later claim to have done nothing "illegal".

Indeed and they have access to the same education, healthcare and welfare support system as those with £100k in the bank and the right to apply for social housing too.

And there you betray your complete and utter ignorance of reality, not to mention your underlying hatred of the poor.

And yet they claim to be just like us (well, not you, obvs.) and wear an orange vest to work, and support a football team (West Ham, Aston Villa, whatever) when in fact they are far from just like us,

Burn ' em twice

and their wealth gives them power and influence that normal people, will never have

Much better to have some normal * bloke in high rank boffing his assistant in his office. More people can do that I guess and at least that's not immoral.....

- power to change the rules of the game so that they can later claim to have done nothing "illegal".

So Dr, what did he change that allowed him to claim later to have done nothing illegal and where was the claim false?

* did you know that he (the abnormal one tbc) has three nipples and six fingers too? Burn him...

THM - you're starting to sound a lot like jambaliar. Not a good thing.

And the answers....?

Socialism, brother !

Some people are richer than you or me, they are more talented than you or me, they are better looking

Well we can't redistribute genes but we can redistribute the wealth, assuming it's not kept hidden from the taxman 😉

Was there a question in amongst that sneering condescension ?

no amount of private health insurance is going to help you in a life threatening situation

The clue was in the ? (marks a question apparently) and the introduction "So dr..."

Easy to miss admittedly. And the answers.....?

Kimbers keep it quiet but

Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£60,000 and £15,500 per year respectively) is reduced to four-to-one

They (the ONS) mentioned it once (OK, many times) but I think they got away with it.

Mum's the word, eh

And the answers Dr?

Oh this is joyous new THM, or society has eliminated poverty, homelessness and inequality, truly, now is the time to test upon our great laurels

Oh THU throws in the trickle down effect - unfortunately the whole quote is irrelevent when it relies on [i]taxes[/i]. The tax part of the equation is invalid because the 1% weasels have been squirreling their money offshore to avoid tax. So how can you truly calculate the top fifth of household's income.

It's a bit like seeing a wealthy, tax dodging politican's tax return... guess what it won't show!

Glad you are happy kimbers - personally I would like to see a lot more done especially with education.

What is equally joyous is the rection to strong accusations being challenged. What do they say about the sound of silence?

(dr tbc that's a rhetorical question, no need to answer that one, but the other questions....?

The Guardian has a great piece on what Dave's tax [s]return [/s]summary tells us - oddly accusation free this time. Hmmm......

Whatever happened to proposer investigative journalism? Cmon boys, the guns smoking, earn you keep.....

Not really Darc (where's the photo of Carrington wetting himself?)

In repsonse to

Well we can't redistribute genes but we can redistribute the wealth,

i posted a summary paragraph from the ONS. And the problem (other than not fitting the intended narrative)?

It's a bit like seeing a wealthy, tax dodging politican's tax return... guess what it won't show!

Anything illegal or immoral? Just a thought....

its still smoking.....

Income inequality is pretty much meaningless in this discussion. Right wingers like to bring it up all the time.

As has been shown countless times, we can't be expected to believe the income figures that the wealthy tell us they are earning.

Well get digging DD....cmon the guys an immoral bandit. It cant be that hard to find, enough hours have been spent on the issue so far....

the stake is ready, the tinder primed.....

(is kimbers a RWer too now?)

if we cant trust the income figures (a[b]nd if not he is a criminal[/b] - burn him) why all the fuss to publish - very, very odd?

teamhurtmore - Member

Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households.

How right-wing do you have to be to come out with that little beauty ?

Even the Daily Mail is unconvinced :

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I dont know Erie, ask the ONS. They claim to be "the UK largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK"

Of course like Dave (apparently) they could be fibbing and are simply a bunch of swivvle-eyed RW loonies. Who knows eh?

A massive photo collection of Maggie and quoting the Fail - the Ernie enigma!!! 😉

How on earth can you get an indirect tax rate for the poorest households in the UK of more than the VAT rate of 20%? The only items that I can think of that are taxed above this rate are petrol, cigarettes and alcohol and lets face it booze and fags are totally discretionary and I'm astonished anyone in that income bracket can run a car at all. There are also many, many things that are taxed at a lower rate (rent, food, electricity, gas).

I know it's a very unreliable source (apparently) but the ONS (rabid RWers burn em) explain it as follows

The amount of indirect tax (such as Value Added Tax (VAT), and duties on alcohol and fuel) each household pays [b]is determined by their expenditure rather than their income. [/b] *The richest fifth of households paid just over two and a half times as much indirect tax as the poorest fifth (£9,500 and £3,600 per year, respectively). This reflects greater expenditure on goods and services subject to these taxes by higher income households. However, although richer households pay more in indirect taxes than poorer ones, they pay less as a proportion of their income. This means that indirect taxes increase inequality of income. In 2013/14, the richest fifth of households paid 15% of their disposable income in indirect taxes, [b]while the bottom fifth of households paid the equivalent of 31% of their disposable income.[/b]

* hence it can't be regressive but let's not open that can of worms....

What would the reaction be if it wasn't published

People got very agitated, it even made the news. He promised to do so ages ago and now they are all it....ok not all, there's a few sweaty politicians out there including front benchers I would imagine

I dont know Erie, ask the ONS. They claim to be "the UK largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK"

Yeah based on the information provided by the ONS you appear to have come to the conclusion that the current arrangements are rather fair.

Based on exactly the same information from the ONS the Daily Mail has come to the conclusion that the current arrangements are rather unfair to poor people.

The Daily Mail headline was :

[b][i]Poorest families see a bigger slice of their income taken by the taxman than the richest people in Britain[/i][/b]

http://www.****/news/article-3143197/Poorest-families-bigger-slice-income-taken-taxman-richest-people-Britain.html#ixzz45VYcrC6O

@kimbers et al we have duscussed the income inequality andnpoverty issue numerous times. There will always be poverty not least as campaigners define if as a percentage of median income so as the Tories pointed out if you put up pensions poverty goes up. What we can be certain of is you'd much rather be poor in UK than India, you'd probably rather be poor in UK than middle class in India. That brings me to income inequality as the un/low skilled worker is competing against a someone from India for work - that is globalisation of manufacturing and in increasingly services.

@dd once you become very wealthy income, which is upon which most tax systems are based, is not easily measured and is not the same as net worth. Even if you fhink about joe piblic they could buy Apple shares at say $5 15 years ago and if they don't sell them pay no tax despite them being worth $100 now. What we do know is that the wealthy pay the majority of taxes and they pay a higher proportion of their [b]income[/b] than do the poor/middle class. Too much of this debate lumps in the wealthy with the ultra rich and evdn definitions of rich vary widely.

Corbyn made the wild and inaccurate statement on Marr show that the ri h don't pay their taxes, well the truth is as a group they do. They pay what is due based on the law and we should recognise that countires compete with each ofher to offer attractive tax regines for them so we should not be surprised if thry take up those offers

We know you like to make things up about what people say Ernie to create an argument, but I made no conclusion. Just quoted (a very unreliable source admittedly) in respond to kimbers point that we can redistribute income and wealth. But if you want a conclusion - deep breath - yes we can and - another one - we do. And exhale.....

I dont read the Fail I'm afraid so can't comment on the quality of their analysis, but most economists are savvy enough to look at the whole tax and benefits system. Who knows, there may be some conclusions in that - I will let you tell my what my conclusion will be....

Two Fail quotes in a row, you must be itching with the photos... 😉

still an amusing interlude before the next Dave instalment. When's the ground breaking next statement due? Will they televise it?

See the mods have been busy...

Previous post went something like this:

why all the fuss to publish?

What would the reaction be if it wasn't published?

You seem to forget this is a small part of a much larger issue:

[b]For years, the records show, Mossack Fonseca has earned money creating shell companies that have been used by suspected financiers of terrorists and war criminals in the Middle East; drug kings and queens from Mexico, Guatemala and Eastern Europe; nuclear weapons proliferators in Iran and North Korea, and arms dealers in southern Africa.[/b]

Money itself isn't that evil, but the things people invest it in often are:
[url= ]
Here is a pic of a 9 year old landmine victim[/url]

in the bigger picture, that image is tame... who funds and authorizes such enterprises?

Politics of Envy?

teamhurtmore - Member

Wwi know you like to make things up about what people say Ernie

Oh yeah I forgot that you claim to be "politically neutral", my mistake.

stolen from ?@Jason_Spacey...
Dulux have introduced a new 'David Cameron's Face' range to their colour chart
[img] [/img]

The amount of indirect tax (such as Value Added Tax (VAT), and duties on alcohol and fuel) each household pays is determined by their expenditure rather than their income

Just to be clear the calculation first determines the amount of indirect tax paid is based on what is spent which will include the spending of benefits. This tax is then calculated as a percentage of income excluding benefits? If that is the case then that is just a perverse calculation. Never mind right wing/left wing it's just bad maths!

Awful picture JHJ but I lack the mental agility to link that to the agitation over the delay in Dave publishing his tax [s]return [/s] summary

But I disagree, it seems money really is the root of all evil. There's a thread about it somewhereii

Sorry Ernie, your seem a little confused. No mention of political neutrality here. What you did claim was

you appear to have come to the conclusion that the current arrangements are rather fair

Happy to be pointed to where I concluded that and to ignore

personally I would like to see a lot more done

Still where would be without fabrication? This thread wouldn't exist for starters.....

Dave has his say . . . .