Major EU governments shamed into crackdown on tax evasion

[noseall]

What Cameron did was a bit of tax avoidance. I would do the same.

But he wasn't dodging any tax..

Which is precisely what Amazon, Google and all the other large corporate dodgers were doing. The stance from the tory party was that whilst legal it was immoral and unfair and gave rousing 'chest out' speeches, condemning the practice.

You can almost taste the irony.

 

[Himaginn]

I've taken the liberty of extracting a little quote from your response:

Just more ramblings tbh,

Then I've quoted your whole response, in totality.
I was going to respond to your points, but as they're purely and simply rants and ramblings, and there's not an iota of substantive argument there to counter, just purely offensive insults.
I will apologise, however for getting your gender wrong. I should have quoted Professor Higgins in his original: "By jove, I think she's got it!"
I don't study a person's profile before responding.

So what are my political leanings Himmy? Please tell me who I voted for last election. And I love that you jumped on Brig's bandwagon, trying to use something else to... er, dunno? Prove a point that's not there? Have a dig? I dunno. Just more ramblings tbh, not even originally thought of by you. Is that coz you didn't google it first and then pretend it was your idea?
Urm, did I say I was upset? What on earth you going on about now? Another pointless vain attempt at using Brig's post about money again to have a go? Of course am not upset about his money because its not mine, I never said I was. Stop making stuff up, there's a good boy.
Really. That's your view and you'll change it as you see fit.
I wrote it didn't I? If you were so quick to understand, why did you go at such length and google-spouting at me to try and try and try and change my view then? If you truly understood that then you would see that your efforts, although laborious and dull were a waste of time, other than to fulfill your love of preaching at people while you quickly try and educate yourself via google.By the way, another nod to your powers of observation, you may find that I am not a he. Check my user name dear chap.
Thats the whole point of trying to discuss with you. You do not discuss, you preach. You need to correct people leaves you very short-sighted and oh my, so dull to converse with. Perhaps if you popped your head out of your arse for a few moments it may help, take in the surroundings a little, breathe some fresh air and you may just learn a thing or two about people.
So you're openly admitting that your political opinion carries more weight than facts?
Where, where have I done that? You seeing stuff that's not there again? It'll be ghosts next.
No need, you do it every time you write on here.
Ah, you do talk some ****** Himmy. Just re-read what you wrote there and try and see you sound like an utter conceited ****. And incorrect one at that.
Really? A crusade? Me? My mum will be proud. And Himmy, please see above, esp the first line.
You mean there is some argument to be had then? You've just admitted it!
Not resorting to the argument, I added to it ages ago as it's part of the argument I had. Bigger picture, that's what's there when you look past googling facts to try and help your own viewpoint. Its fab google, but you have to use it well and remember the first thing you read might not be the correct or only viewpoint.
I do not assume no one else shares my concerns. You do make stuff up you know!
I did not say I took the moral high ground, I did not exploit anything, that's just your way of thinking and taking it.
And yes, I agree entirely, Your line -"Because I care about those things doesn't mean that my argument is right." You are not right. Ha.
If you really have to ask then it's a sad day. I thought you said you cared too? Or is that just a line?
No, you came over as greedy. Thinking tax avoidance is ok coz it's legal is just people being greedy and you agree with them. That's your view, that's fine but no cock and bull, just views. Please Himmy, learn that there are more views out there, not just yours AND THAT'S OK! You do not need to get the whole world and it's mother to agree with you to feel validated. It's ok to disagree with your views.
I do not need to invent anything. I do not need to answer to you, justify myself to you, some silly keyboard warrior. Why would I give a rats?

By the way, this made me smile. In the spirit of you highlighting absolutely everything that anyone ever says for any possible discrepancies, here's one for you that you backtracked on.

What Cameron did was a bit of tax avoidance. I would do the same.

But he wasn't dodging any tax.

I will correct you on that little misrepresentation however:
The whole quote was:

Tax avoidance - yes, we all do it. Who owns a classic car, and voluntarily pays the road tax? Who doesn't claim tax allowances, or voluntarily ignores them? Who pays inheritance tax on less than the allowable limit? Who pays CGT on less than is needed to? Who doesn't return from France stocked up with booze, and fuel? If the system has loopholes built in, people will use them to avoid paying tax. It's obvious init?
If there was still a window tax, we'd all be fully employed bricking up windows!
What Cameron did was a bit of tax avoidance. I would do the same. It was sensible to sell his shares just before the £10k CGT limit was reached. Whether he did it because he was about to be PM, or to avoid CGT, to me is irrelevant. It was sensible to do so at that time.

It was obvious, at the time, that I was referring to the strategy of reduction of tax payable, similar to buying a smaller or less-polluting car to pay less tax. I did confuse the issue a little by referring to tax allowances, but I later qualified my use of the phrase "tax avoidance" to differentiate it from the use of tax allowances. Therefore illustrating that Cameron (Junior) did not avoid any tax due. Unless you include selling his shares just before the CGT allowance threshold was reached, but that's sensible private financial management.

But he wasn't dodging any tax. He was just using the CGT allowance, exactly the same allowance that is available to us all.
So he wasn't dodging or avoiding any tax payment. There was simply no tax payment due on that amount!

 

[JohnD]

So he wasn't dodging or avoiding any tax payment.

We don't actually know that. We only happen to know the bits he's told us, dribbled out reluctantly after he was exposed. The whole idea of a secret offshore trust is to try to prevent people finding out about it, as I'm sure Mr Putin would agree.

Remind me, did he include this secret overseas trust in the register of members' interests?

I still haven't seen him apologise to Jimmy Carr. Do you think he will?

 

[blightymam]

I was going to respond to your points, but as they're purely and simply rants and ramblings, and there's not an iota of substantive argument there to counter, just purely offensive insults.

Actually there was quite a lot of things I wrote where I pulled you up on your statement presumptions about me.
But I guess you don't like to be called up on those (although you love to do that to others) so you're just going to dismiss them because that's another of your foibles when asked for proof.
And yeah, there was a few insults. Sorry if you now get precious about it, you dish it out but can't take it hey?

 

[Himaginn]

What Cameron did was a bit of tax avoidance.

Sorry, noseall, just to clarify, this was my quote, not blightymam's. Although it was quoted in isolation from the rest of the quote, which I've included below, so it appeared bland and consenting to Cameron's tax avoidance, by him utilising tax allowances. I've included the rest of my relevant comment's to illustrate that a) I was using tax avoidance in a rather loose way, which may have caused confusion, and b) there was no tax avoidance, in the strict or legal sense of the phrase.
Perhaps I should have prefaced my comment with 'If what Cameron did was a bit of tax avoidance.'

Tax avoidance - yes, we all do it. Who owns a classic car, and voluntarily pays the road tax? Who doesn't claim tax allowances, or voluntarily ignores them? Who pays inheritance tax on less than the allowable limit? Who pays CGT on less than is needed to? Who doesn't return from France stocked up with booze, and fuel? If the system has loopholes built in, people will use them to avoid paying tax. It's obvious init?
If there was still a window tax, we'd all be fully employed bricking up windows!

What Cameron did was a bit of tax avoidance. I would do the same. It was sensible to sell his shares just before the £10k CGT limit was reached. Whether he did it because he was about to be PM, or to avoid CGT, to me is irrelevant. It was sensible to do so at that time.

I did later try to qualify my use of tax avoidance to show that I was using the phrase loosely:

But he (Cameron) wasn't dodging any tax. He was just using the CGT allowance, exactly the same allowance that is available to us all.
So he wasn't dodging or avoiding any tax payment. There was simply no tax payment due on that amount!

Which is precisely what Amazon, Google and all the other large corporate dodgers were doing. The stance from the tory party was that whilst legal it was immoral and unfair and gave rousing 'chest out' speeches, condemning the practice.

You can almost taste the irony.

Blightymam brought up the question of tax evasion from the likes of Google, Amazon, etc. in an attempt to combine tax avoidance (as in using allowances, using less-polluting cars, etc) and tax evasion/avoidance (as in exploiting internal invoices to shift costs and incomes between nations) and this was my response at the time:

This is a completely different kettle of fish. This is about multi-national companies moving money around, exploiting internal invoices to misrepresent profit and loss within the companies to evade tax. There's no supposition or suspicion about this form of tax avoidance and EU and other countries are taking steps to eradicate this. I fully support the actions and inter-actions of countries to facilitate the proper tax payments.

I know you've been on holidays, so I'll make some allowances, but not like tax allowances, don't take it as responsibility avoidance! And definitely not as evasion!

 

[Himaginn]

So he wasn't dodging or avoiding any tax payment.

We don't actually know that.

The taxman will know, and he has published his tax returns. This allows investigative journalists to do what they do best - investigate.

We only happen to know the bits he's told us, dribbled out reluctantly after he was exposed.

Including his tax returns.

The whole idea of a secret offshore trust is to try to prevent people finding out about it,

Sorry, John, but there are more reasons for off-shore accounts than merely secrecy. See my response to blightymam.
In fact blightymam's assumption was that tax evasion was the sole reason for off-shore accounts.

Remind me, did he include this secret overseas trust in the register of members' interests?

It wasn't his, it was his father's. And it wouldn't have been secret any longer if he had. Sorry, couldn't resist that one!

I still haven't seen him apologise to Jimmy Carr. Do you think he will?

Does he need to?

 

[Himaginn]

I was going to respond to your points, but as they're purely and simply rants and ramblings, and there's not an iota of substantive argument there to counter, just purely offensive insults.

Actually there was quite a lot of things I wrote where I pulled you up on your statement presumptions about me.

What? Like asking me to guess which political party you voted for? Or asking me why I'm trying to change your mind? I'm not. It's a discussion. You present your opinion, and I'll present a counter argument. We're not trying to change each others opinions.

But I guess you don't like to be called up on those (although you love to do that to others) so you're just going to dismiss them because that's another of your foibles when asked for proof.

Those? What is "those"? There was nothing to counter-argue against. How can I counter your assumption that I know which political party you voted for. It'd be like trying to argue that your assumption is mistaken about my assumption.
"You assume too much." (Neimoidian Nute to the Queen) Star Wars. Perhaps I should add: "I have a bad feeling about this." (Obi-Wan)

And yeah, there was a few insults. Sorry if you now get precious about it, you dish it out but can't take it hey?

I don't mind if you insult me. It illustrates your poor grasp of your argument, or even lack of argument. But I do like to point it out.

 

[blightymam]

 

[blightymam]

I was going to respond to your points, but as they're purely and simply rants and ramblings, and there's not an iota of substantive argument there to counter, just purely offensive insults.

Actually there was quite a lot of things I wrote where I pulled you up on your statement presumptions about me.

What? Like asking me to guess which political party you voted for? Or asking me why I'm trying to change your mind? I'm not. It's a discussion. You present your opinion, and I'll present a counter argument. We're not trying to change each others opinions.

But I guess you don't like to be called up on those (although you love to do that to others) so you're just going to dismiss them because that's another of your foibles when asked for proof.

Those? What is "those"? There was nothing to counter-argue against. How can I counter your assumption that I know which political party you voted for. It'd be like trying to argue that your assumption is mistaken about my assumption.
"You assume too much." (Neimoidian Nute to the Queen) Star Wars. Perhaps I should add: "I have a bad feeling about this." (Obi-Wan)

And yeah, there was a few insults. Sorry if you now get precious about it, you dish it out but can't take it hey?

I don't mind if you insult me. It illustrates your poor grasp of your argument, or even lack of argument. But I do like to point it out.

Then why did you - YOU - bring my political leanings into the argument? Why did you write a whole lot of presumptions about me, like I was jealous about money? These are all your points, not mine and I have asked you to substantiate them, something you say you do with proof. So put your money where your mouth is please.

 

[blightymam]

What I dislike about this forum, mostly, and to me, it's the main criticism, is the resorting to offensive, or patently untrue accusations.
I know I'm guilty of name-calling and insults from time-to-time such as banter, and silly name-calling, like dullard, idiot, brainless, clown, and other such relatively harmless insults.

So then to quote you just now, does this apply to you?
It illustrates your poor grasp of your argument, or even lack of argument. But I do like to point it out.

But when replies are vague, meaningless, inaccurate, or based on untruths, misconceptions, etc, then they do fall into the category of being inadequate, etc.

 

[Himaginn]

What I dislike about this forum, mostly, and to me, it's the main criticism, is the resorting to offensive, or patently untrue accusations.
I know I'm guilty of name-calling and insults from time-to-time such as banter, and silly name-calling, like dullard, idiot, brainless, clown, and other such relatively harmless insults.

So then to quote you just now, does this apply to you?
It illustrates your poor grasp of your argument, or even lack of argument. But I do like to point it out.

But when replies are vague, meaningless, inaccurate, or based on untruths, misconceptions, etc, then they do fall into the category of being inadequate, etc.

You've obviously got too much time on your hands. (another assumption Which you'll accuse me of, later.)
I'll come back to your comments later. No time now.

 

[blightymam]

You've obviously got too much time on your hands. (another assumption Which you'll accuse me of, later.)
I'll come back to your comments later. No time now.

Oh the irony! You are king of long posts and google-quoting - and quoting from old posts. Oh my, so so funny!

 

[Himaginn]

Then why did you - YOU - bring my political leanings into the argument? Why did you write a whole lot of presumptions about me, like I was jealous about money?

This is getting rather tedious.
I say something, you misinterpret it and misquote it.
What I said was:

If we remove the suspicion part of your comment, we'd have: "And while Cameron has not broken the law, he gained from his fathers companies."
That phrase "tax avoidance" that you added is nothing but your personal political leanings, easily fueled by press and others of similar political persuasion.
So, really, you're just upset because Cameron has inherited some money, and you haven't.

That's not "a whole lot of assumptions"!
You have political leanings, we all do. I wasn't trying to guess your particular leanings, and I don't care which way you lean.
You're obviously not a Cameron supporter, but what other colour supporter you are is immaterial. it's obvious you don't support Cameron, and you've exploited the opportunity to air your grievances about him. That's a political argument.
I didn't say you were jealous, I said you were upset because Cameron inherited some money. Upset, angry, annoyed, on a crusade - what's the difference?

It wasn't an ad hominem argument, it was merely an attempt to put your complaint into perspective. Yours is/was a politically motivated complaint.
You're upset about it. We get it.

These are all your points, not mine and I have asked you to substantiate them, something you say you do with proof. So put your money where your mouth is please.

"These are all my points." All two of 'em, and then you manage to misinterpret and misquote just those two.
Your comments demonstrate your emotions. Your politically motivated complaints demonstrate your anti-Cameron feelings. That's sufficient proof.

So I'll come back to an earlier comment:

You're just trying to move the argument.

 

[Himaginn]

What I dislike about this forum, mostly, and to me, it's the main criticism, is the resorting to offensive, or patently untrue accusations.
I know I'm guilty of name-calling and insults from time-to-time such as banter, and silly name-calling, like dullard, idiot, brainless, clown, and other such relatively harmless insults.

So then to quote you just now, does this apply to you?
It illustrates your poor grasp of your argument, or even lack of argument. But I do like to point it out.

But when replies are vague, meaningless, inaccurate, or based on untruths, misconceptions, etc, then they do fall into the category of being inadequate, etc.

Is this relevant here?
It has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic or argument.
It's purely and simply an ad hominem argument. Again you're trying to shift the discussion.
Moreover, it's not very precise what you are trying to say. It's a bit mumbo jumbo'ish.

I stand by those comments.

 

[blightymam]

So one can criticise the one faction, for their actions, without being in support of the other faction.
If I criticise the BNP, it doesn't mean that I'm a liberal, or indeed any other political creed, it means exactly what it says on the tin, I'm critical of who I say I'm critical of! A denial or criticism of one action, belief or emotion does not necessarily infer the opposite.

Chortle.