This doesn't look good for Mr Cameron.
Quote:
David Cameron personally intervened in 2013 to weaken an EU drive to reveal the beneficiaries of trusts, creating a possible loophole that other European nations warned could be exploited by tax evaders.
The disclosure of the prime minister’s resistance to opening up trusts to full scrutiny comes as he faces intense pressure to make clear whether his family stands to benefit from offshore assets linked to his late father.
|
It may be a 'private' matter for some, though Jimmy Carr didn't get the same luxury of pleading privacy, but not for the Prime Minister, especially given his rhetoric in public. Needs to come clean and, as those who are fine with the government rifling through our private communications are fond of saying, he should have nothing to fear if he's nothing to hide.
The extremely carefully worded statements seem to indicate there is something to hide. This ignoring that his
Chancellor gave the appearance of defensiveness when pressed on the matter.
If we were as democratic as we like to think we are the political careers of these two would both be in serious jeopardy.
Trusting these two with tax reform is like trusting the cast of Benefits Street with welfare reform.
In other news bears excrete in woods and the
London property market is influenced by laundered cash.
---------- Post added at 10:30 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
That is not even close to being a valid comparison .Beer ,wine, coffee are all legal highs,Cannabis is getting ever closer to being legal ,the point is that legislation changes and evolves as society changes and evolves .]
|
It's a perfectly reasonable comparison if you actually make the comparison intended.
The presumption in law is, or at least will be, that all psychoactive substances are banned unless explicitly permitted.
If the government can operate on that premise for those it seems fair to ask why they can't state that all tax 'efficiencies' are illegal unless explicitly stated otherwise and to ask how someone can support the apparent discrepancy in the treatment of the two.