FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should Cameron apologise to Jimmy Carr?

Should Cameron apologise to Jimmy Carr?

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Cameron publically named Jimmy Carr and heavily criticised him for benefiting from tax avoidance seeing as Cameron benefited from his father's offshore tax avoidance. Cameron should apologise to him.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

would be a fake apology anyway. hypocrites cannot apologise and see no wrong in doing things they slag other people off for doing.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

"Cameron publically named Jimmy Carr and heavily criticised him for benefiting from tax avoidance seeing as Cameron benefited from his father's offshore tax avoidance. Cameron should apologise to him. "

Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised."
.

He was sheltering them in the same style companies than Dave's dad set up!, some would argue that's the whole point of bearer share companies

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them"

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ..."

it actually would be. i've gone one further and am training my kids in how to use a guillotine.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

If Cameron made a general statement.. Then no.. But he did specifically name Jimmy Carr. Yes i agree.. Politicians always say one thing then do another. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance.. Why go to the trouble of moving it offshore if it isn't?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ..."
.

No different than letting them watch boxing, only this is punching people for a genuine reason

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ....

No different than letting them watch boxing, only this is punching people for a genuine reason

"
yea! Osbourne at the ringside giving advice

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ....

No different than letting them watch boxing, only this is punching people for a genuine reason

Well according to another thread you think that politicians are better than the general public. So should we just all go around punching people who you think are worse than them? ie pretty much everyone?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised."

It was a legal tax avoidance scheme. Camerons is a legal tax avoidance scheme too.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ...

it actually would be. i've gone one further and am training my kids in how to use a guillotine."

Practical French history?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *carlet_heavenWoman over a year ago

somewhere in the sticks

Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised."

Tax 'avoidance' is perfectly legal! There are people called Tax lawyers who specialise in this sort of advice. Tax 'evasion' however is illegal.

If anything (at all) this is a moral issue NOT a question of someone having broken the law. The lines between avoidance & evasion seem to have become very blurred.

For people with money tax avoidance is necessary, otherwise you may as well stand in the street & hand big wads of cash out to passers by. These people don't deliberately avoid paying tax, they are prudent. If you all had wealth you'd be looking to do the same!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ...

it actually would be. i've gone one further and am training my kids in how to use a guillotine.

Practical French history? "

oui, something like that.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *hechairman18Man over a year ago

Salford Quays , Manchester

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ...

it actually would be. i've gone one further and am training my kids in how to use a guillotine."

As they say,"don't try this at home"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oodmessMan over a year ago

yumsville

he was asked to yesterday, and instead commended him for changing his tax code from that of avoidance to paying the correct one - as Cameron seems to have done at present, paying UK income tax on what he earned from his Panamanian fund.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

He was sheltering them in the same style companies than Dave's dad set up!, some would argue that's the whole point of bearer share companies

Carr has admitted that he joined the scheme for the specific purpose and that was to avoid paying tax. He got an offshore company to "loan" him money rather than pay him wages. The K2 scheme is notorious and you only go in to something like that if you want to skirt the law and risk a high profile HMRC investigation.

There is a huge difference between proactively engaging in a K2 scheme for the purpopse of avoiding paying taxes and investing in offshore Unit Trusts and paying UK taxes on the interest earned.

The great irony here is that HMRC benefits greatly from investors who ARE paying their taxes on income earned offshore because no tax is being taken by the offshore host country, leaving more for HMRC.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oodmessMan over a year ago

yumsville

Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised."

correct. Carr was using avoidance. Cameron has paid full UK tax once he cashed his fund in. Or so the story goes so far...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised.

Tax 'avoidance' is perfectly legal! There are people called Tax lawyers who specialise in this sort of advice. Tax 'evasion' however is illegal.

If anything (at all) this is a moral issue NOT a question of someone having broken the law. The lines between avoidance & evasion seem to have become very blurred.

Suggest you read up on the K2 scheme. It is about as flaky as could be. Here is a summary... You set up an offshore company that has nominee shareholders and nominee directors/secretary but for which you are the "secret" beneficial owner. You then employ yourself as a fee based Consultant and hire yourself out through the offshore company to your existing customers. Your customers pay the offshore company for your services and the offshore company loans you some monjey on a month to month basis because you don't pay tax and NI on a loan. If that little scam has not yet been shutdown by HMRC then it will be very soon.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

It was a legal tax avoidance scheme. Camerons is a legal tax avoidance scheme too."

Google K2

The issue here is "intent."

Carr intended to aggressively avoid declaring and paying tax by means of a scheme that would expose him to scrutiny andf investigation.

Cameron invested in offshore Unit Trusts with the intention of earning interest and declaring the interest and paying tax on it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

It was a legal tax avoidance scheme. Camerons is a legal tax avoidance scheme too.

Google K2

The issue here is "intent."

Carr intended to aggressively avoid declaring and paying tax by means of a scheme that would expose him to scrutiny andf investigation.

Cameron invested in offshore Unit Trusts with the intention of earning interest and declaring the interest and paying tax on it."

But legal. Just like anything that Cameron has done with his gift from his mother is legal. Both are tax avoidance.

Until someone has done something illegal there isn't an issue other than a moral one, which Cameron himself touched on when discussing Jimmy Carrs tax affairs.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

yes he should....if only to give Jimmy Carr yet more material for his act....

but that's the only reason why..

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

It was a legal tax avoidance scheme. Camerons is a legal tax avoidance scheme too.

Google K2

The issue here is "intent."

Carr intended to aggressively avoid declaring and paying tax by means of a scheme that would expose him to scrutiny andf investigation.

Cameron invested in offshore Unit Trusts with the intention of earning interest and declaring the interest and paying tax on it.

But legal. Just like anything that Cameron has done with his gift from his mother is legal. Both are tax avoidance.

Until someone has done something illegal there isn't an issue other than a moral one, which Cameron himself touched on when discussing Jimmy Carrs tax affairs."

Have to agree to disagree. There has NEVER been anything queswtionable about giving your offspring money - be it to buy a car, a deposit on a house or to support them through University. Paris Hilton and the Beckham kids are higher profile examples of kids supported by enormous wealth - this does not make all kids tax avoiders or even under suspicion of tax avoidance. There is a statute in law that brings gifts into inheritance if the "giver" were to die within seven years. The Camerons are very wealthy and so whilst "gifts" of £200,000 may seem like huge sums of money - everything is relative.

The issue at heart is one of intent and this is a principle in English Law. Jimmy Carr set up a K2 tax avoidance scheme and went about wilfully and intentionally of aggressively avoiding tax. There is no suggestion at all being made by anyone other than those whio want to make mischief that the Camerons willfully went about aggressively avoiding tax.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *elvet RopeMan over a year ago

by the big field

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them

Yep that would set a good example for all the kids ...

it actually would be. i've gone one further and am training my kids in how to use a guillotine."

But that would involve capturing them though, surely a sniper rifle would be better?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *mmabluTV/TS over a year ago

upton wirral

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

just to point out that it's not possible to know if anything illegal has taken place just from a self assesment. the only way to find out is a full tax audit by the hmrc so it's not conclusive what cameron has been up to at all. we just have his word for it backed up by his self assessment.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

To be honest, I think if Cameron and Carr where both convicted for murder in the exact same scenario you would say Cameron was innocent so I didn't expect anything else. It is very sweet the loyalty you have for the man.

The point I was making though, both have used tax avoidance that is perfectly legal. It doesn't matter how they get to it, it is still tax avoidance. One can't say the other should have morally not done it while doing it himself . Well they can say it but they will look like a hypocrite.

For the record, I don't care one way or the other who did what and when, I have no allegiance to any political party and I don't think any of them are God who can do no wrong..... I am just pointing out that unless the government change it, everything was legally done.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised."

but he has accepted 2 £100000 'presents' paid to his mum untaxed from his fathers multimillion pound estate while he was PM after altering inheritance tax law. Is that not exactly the same sort of thing or even worse?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

But he has accepted 2 £100000 'presents' paid to his mum untaxed from his fathers multimillion pound estate while he was PM after altering inheritance tax law. Is that not exactly the same sort of thing or even worse?

"No"

And here we have the classic northern forelock tugging working class Tory voter who knows his place and understand that it is his duty to do what his betters tell him to do not do what they do and to defend them no mater what!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

No, but he probably shouldn't book a front-end row seat at JC's next gig

Mr ddc

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *carlet_heavenWoman over a year ago

somewhere in the sticks

It was a legal tax avoidance scheme. Camerons is a legal tax avoidance scheme too.

Google K2

The issue here is "intent."

Carr intended to aggressively avoid declaring and paying tax by means of a scheme that would expose him to scrutiny andf investigation.

Cameron invested in offshore Unit Trusts with the intention of earning interest and declaring the interest and paying tax on it."

I will say it again for those that missed it:

avoidance = legal

evasion = illegal

And just for clarity…its not Google that decides whether something is legal OR the HMRC for that matter…its the justice system. Until a scheme is contested & assessed as illegal…only then does it become illegal !?!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

"Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised.

You are regurgitating stuff that is nothing more than assumption. He got gifts of £200,000 from a family worth tens of millions. That is like me giving a gift of £5,0000. It is all relative.

You are making an accusation that the gift was from his fathers estate but you don't know that and if it were the case, it would be illegal.

Any couple would make sure that their asset holding in life is evenly balanced and if they had children that their Will reflected good tax planning. Cameron (Sr) Will was properly structured so that the offspring received an inheritance that was below the IHT threshold.

The FACT is that David Cameron received a gift of £200,000 from his mother - not his late father. That is an undisputable fact and only conspiracy theorists are linking it to his fathers estate.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised.

correct. Carr was using avoidance. Cameron has paid full UK tax once he cashed his fund in. Or so the story goes so far... "

Well sort of, Cameron paid full UK tax on the proceeds of the final sale, he didn't pay it on income generated on the investment pre sale. And he only sold it so he could become PM.

Yes an apology is due, but doubt it would come and if it does would not be sincere so it's not worth worrying about.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

"Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised.

You are regurgitating stuff that is nothing more than assumption. He got gifts of £200,000 from a family worth tens of millions. That is like me giving a gift of £5,0000. It is all relative.

You are making an accusation that the gift was from his fathers estate but you don't know that and if it were the case, it would be illegal.

The FACT is that David Cameron received a gift of £200,000 from his mother - not his late father. That is an undisputable fact and only conspiracy theorists are linking it to his fathers estate. "

it will only be undisputable fact if the HMRC conduct a full audit of his financial affairs. untill then there is only his word backed up by an assessment he made himself.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There is no one better than me son. You just have a warped view of the way things are and should be

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

How do we know that he hasn't apologised?

He may have apologised privately, which would be a more sincere gesture.

Equally, he may not have done.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

it will only be undisputable fact if the HMRC conduct a full audit of his financial affairs. untill then there is only his word backed up by an assessment he made himself."

How can it be from his Fathers Estate? His father had been dead for a year and the Executor of his fathers Will had long since made the disbursements. Are we suggesting that Cameron also got the Executor to slip him £200,000 a year down the road? Where from?

It would be a criminal audit, not an HMRC audit.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Absolutely not. Carr used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme in order to minimise his tax exposure. Cameron held Unit Trusts in a Company that was established offshore and he paid all his taxes.

The difference being that Carr had the intention of sheltering his tax liability from HMRC and that is why he was criticised.

Tax 'avoidance' is perfectly legal! There are people called Tax lawyers who specialise in this sort of advice. Tax 'evasion' however is illegal.

If anything (at all) this is a moral issue NOT a question of someone having broken the law. The lines between avoidance & evasion seem to have become very blurred.

Sensible post alert......

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

it would be pretty churlish to decry someone very publically and then appologise for it in private to be fair.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

it will only be undisputable fact if the HMRC conduct a full audit of his financial affairs. untill then there is only his word backed up by an assessment he made himself.

It would be a criminal audit, not an HMRC audit. "

you ask questions which nobody will know the answer to unless there is an audit. kind of proves the point really

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

it will only be undisputable fact if the HMRC conduct a full audit of his financial affairs. untill then there is only his word backed up by an assessment he made himself.

It would be a criminal audit, not an HMRC audit.

you ask questions which nobody will know the answer to unless there is an audit. kind of proves the point really"

Thank about what you are suggesting. His father was long dead, the Executor had disbursed on the Will and that is the end of that. How can the money have come from his fathers eastate? you are suggesting that bthe Prime Minister was involved in a criminal fraud that would have included all his family and the Executor of his fathers Will... Are you sure?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

it will only be undisputable fact if the HMRC conduct a full audit of his financial affairs. untill then there is only his word backed up by an assessment he made himself.

It would be a criminal audit, not an HMRC audit.

you ask questions which nobody will know the answer to unless there is an audit. kind of proves the point really

re-read my comments .... i'm suggesting nothing.

i'm merely pointing out that there is no clarity unless a audit is carried out.

and just to pre-empt you i'm not suggesting an audit should be carried out either.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He was sheltering them in the same style companies than Dave's dad set up!, some would argue that's the whole point of bearer share companies

There is a huge difference between proactively engaging in a K2 scheme for the purpopse of avoiding paying taxes and investing in offshore Unit Trusts and paying UK taxes on the interest earned.

Sensible post alert 2.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He was sheltering them in the same style companies than Dave's dad set up!, some would argue that's the whole point of bearer share companies

There is a huge difference between proactively engaging in a K2 scheme for the purpopse of avoiding paying taxes and investing in offshore Unit Trusts and paying UK taxes on the interest earned.

Sensible post alert 2."
.

Dave's dads company was for all intense and purposes... Jimmy carrs tax avoidance scheme.

Your trading bearer shares, passing your money along from one individual to another in a country that allows great secrecy as to who those individuals were.

The shares were talking about were Dave shares in his dad's company!.

The money that went through that company is a totally different matter, nobody knows where it came from and where it went too.... That's the whole purpose of what his company did

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He was sheltering them in the same style companies than Dave's dad set up!, some would argue that's the whole point of bearer share companies

There is a huge difference between proactively engaging in a K2 scheme for the purpopse of avoiding paying taxes and investing in offshore Unit Trusts and paying UK taxes on the interest earned.

Sensible post alert 2..

Dave's dads company was for all intense and purposes... Jimmy carrs tax avoidance scheme.

Your trading bearer shares, passing your money along from one individual to another in a country that allows great secrecy as to who those individuals were.

The shares were talking about were Dave shares in his dad's company!.

The money that went through that company is a totally different matter, nobody knows where it came from and where it went too.... That's the whole purpose of what his company did"

So the fact that Jimmy Carr admitted his was a naughty K2 scheme and the Camerons scheme was totally different (and wholly legal) has no relevance then?

But then again, I'm not surprised you can't see the difference.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They should fight it out in the ring. A big Pay Per View extravaganza for charity.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"He says one thing and does the other, it's standard actions for most politicans!.

I think Jimmy carr should just twat him at the next celebrity/political swaray!.

It would be the best learning curve for politicans if more members of the public just twatted them"

Careful, some of them hit back, remember 2 jabs Prescott.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I bet Jimmy would love this lol

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic