Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Manuel.

I thought, at the time, that the membership of the EU was expanded too rapidly rather than letting it bed down and some of the political and administration problems to be sorted out.

(I posted such at the time.)

If you go back and have a look at the period, have a look at who was one of the most vociferous members pushing for the expansion.

Also, question what were the probable reasons for wishing the "expansion".

-=====

Immigration to Germany will benefit its economy as it did in the 70 and 80s. Many of the immigrants settle down and integrated into the economy and society remaining there. Some returned to their respective countries.

Immigrants in the 50s, 60s and 70s and since then, has benefitted the UK economy and when you see the second and third generations integrating and providing a large percentage of professionals and skilled labour in the UK again you see the benefit.

Asked your daughter, how many of her colleagues are "second or third generation" immigrants.

But I can still remember the racist chants and obnoxious behaviour of some of the indigenous population.

Many of the postings on this thread remind me of the rants and behaviour over that period.

-=-=-=-=

Not all politicians are crooks, but there are a few too many crooks who are MPs.

.

We could stop BVI being used and it would not change anything. There are lots of other places that are not under our control. Cameron has done nothing wrong. All the necessary taxes were paid. The overseas trust that Cameron had shares in was not set up to avoid tax and it did not. A lot of fuss about nothing.

You sure it's the computer .

Cynic
Just because it may not be easy doen't make it OK.
People worldwide are pissed when they see the greed of the those that have lost their moral compass. We want our politicians to do something.

69866 - times and circumstances change .......

the eu legislature or whatever less polite name you wish to call it, is far too cumbersome and unwieldy ........ more importantly, because it makes it own rules, sets its own salaries and benefits and everything else, it has not the slightest interest (or intent) of upsetting the cosy status quo

Hays
Not true. The UK could clean up a big chunk of off shoring.The overseas trust was set up as a means to avoid taxes if an individual wanted. Many did/do. Dave boy maybe didn't (the jury is still out) but the off shore trust was set up to allow tax avoidance. It was left up to individuals to do it or not. Cameron and others Labour governments before, could close it down. The public will demand it in time.

wil - uk trust rules and laws change regularly ....... for a great many decades and even a century or 3, trusts have been a legit way of shielding family money from the taxman

however, trusts are awkward and expensive to set up and administer and i think are becoming less efficient and therefore less popular
goody goody, you may think

however, there are plenty of other ways of legitimately avoiding the taxman as a great many very ordinary people already do ..... and as outlined in a post of mine a day or two ago

The trust was set up to trade in US stocks after deregulation. It had nothing to do with tax avoidance.

There are are more trusts set up here than abroad to avoid tax. It s very common for well of people to set up trusts in favour of their children and are perfectly legal. You can give any amount to anyone if you survive the gift by 7 years. That is essentially what a trust is.

Panama Papers:

David Cameron's approval ratings drop below Jeremy Corbyn's as he faces inquiry into undeclared stake in offshore trust



David Cameron, pictured in Oxfordshire today, has seen his approval ratings fall below those of Jeremy Corbyn, inset Credit: David Hartley




By Ben Riley-Smith and
Michael Wilkinson
8 April 2016 • 5:33pm


Exclusive: David Cameron's 'hypocrisy' after he ordered all parliamentary candidates to reveal their tax affairs




David Cameron has been accused of “hypocrisy” by Tory MPs after it emerged he ordered all parliamentary candidates to reveal their tax affairs just months after selling off his stake in an offshore trust for £30,000.

The Telegraph has learnt that all of the Conservative Party’s candidates for the 2010 general election were told to reveal private details of their financial situation and promise to pay full UK tax while in Parliament.

The document was circulated in March 2010 – just two months after Mr Cameron has now revealed he sold off a stake of the Bahamas trust set up by his father.

It is not clear whether Mr Cameron, leader of the opposition at the time, filled out the form or detailed the money he had made from the offshore trust at the time.

Three Tory MPs confirmed to this newspaper they signed the declaration with one saying it was made clear not agreeing to do so would be “career-ending”.

It is understood to have been circulated in the wake of a row over Tory donor Lord Ashcroft's "non-domiciled" tax status in the UK.

There is frustration in some quarters about the demand, circulated by Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ), given what is now known about Mr Cameron’s offshore arrangements.

“It is hypocrisy”, said one Tory MP, adding: “What other definition do you have for when you tell people they've got to do one thing and do the exactly opposite yourself."



More:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/panama-papers--david-cameron-admits-he-profited-from-fathers-off/

cynic
I'm not complaining about pensions allowances, sipps, sass, capital gain allowances and such, these are available, transparent and accepted by hmrc. We all know about them and they are legal. Even with these some people have to have more and more and more....

Hays
Uk trusst are set up under hmrc rules. The 7 year inheritance gift is transparent and open to all.
Cameron seniors off shore trust was a facility set up to allow those that wished to avoid uk taxes on the profits made by the trust. The trust paid no uk tax and operated in the Bahamas with a zero corporate tax. The trust operations were controlled by the uk directors. As an off shore company they did not have to inform hmrc who their investors were. They would have a good idea that the clients might take profits back to the uk and not declare capital gain profits. Note. Davy boys capital gains just fell under the allowance. Investors could go to the Bahamas take out profits and do what they wanted, no tax payable. This is a classic tax avoidance scam. And Davey boy knows it. The sort of off shore trust Cameron promised to close down.

Spot on Will,

The fact that their tax rate is lower in the 1st place and secondly shifting some/all of there gains out of the Country is what most reasonable people think is wrong.

If you earn the money within this Country then it's only right that you contribute to the running of it by paying your taxes in it.

No one likes a scrounger.. especially a nasty Tory scrounger.

to my mind, i am somewhat concerned as to why this trust fund was set up in panama in the first place
more importantly, DC should have stood up at the outset and simply told the truth ....... the fallout should then have been minimal, for why should the so-called sins of the father be visited upon the son
i reckon he must have had lousy advice, which he stupidly took

cynic

Lawyers were in Panama. Trust was in Bahamas. Cameron senior knew the lawyers were dodgy as shit and wanted his money somewhere that had some sort of uk connection. But not enough of a connection to pay his taxes. One smart old fucker.

Do you mean the sins shouldn't be, but the profits can be!

I think David Cameron's father should be canonised or something similar, if he was responsible Cameron's birth.

Do you mean the sins shouldn't be, but the profits can be!

I think David Cameron's father should be canonised or something similar, if he was responsible Cameron's birth.

Will
Why should they not go to the Bahamas and do what they want with the money. You only have to pay tax on Monies that you bring back to the UK. That is not a scam.

Depends on the country where you "earn" the "cash", reside, or have benefit from.

-=-===

Guess what?

More of Dodgy Dave's funds are turning up.

-=-==

Try St Helier.

Hays

No problem with people going to Bahamas with the money they have worked for, or from profits they made from investing. A morally responsible person would pay their taxes first. If you have off shored your money, invested in a trust controlled by uk directors taken the profit and not paid tax on it, that's tax avoidance. It is my understanding that even if you spent your profits out of the country you should have declared these profits in the capital gains section of your tax in the uk.

The whole point of off shoring is to avoid tax in your home country. If an African dictator cheats his country out of tax income we are pissed off. We should certainly be pissed if the uk allows Bahamas and Bvi to be a haven for tax avoidance.

If you owned a bar in Spain and lived in the UK, paid tax on the profits in Spain and spent your profits there then would that be fine?