Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
Don't think you've read my post Hugh.
|
So he should have said earlier in the week that he had paid all his tax and not committed any illegal acts?
So he's been hypocritical by selling his shares before he became PM, three years before he sent the letter to the EU.
The thing is, people like Tom Watson are comparing apples and anchovies, and deliberately conflating two different things to create a cloud of confusion and smear.
Quote:
Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson said Mr Cameron could not be blamed for his father's actions but had not been "entirely straight with the British people about what his own financial arrangements were".
"That wouldn't be so bad if he hadn't also been lecturing very prominent people about their own tax arrangements, some he called morally wrong for being invested in similar schemes," he said.
|
Jimmy Carr's (and others) schemes were to avoid paying tax on dividends and earnings, whilst it has been shown that any dividends and earnings from Blairmore shares were taxed in the country of the share-owners' residence, in Mr. Cameron's case, the UK. But let's not let facts get in the way of a witch-hunt.
Regarding the letter to the EU, here is the actual information, rather than Tom Watson's twisted version of it - context is all.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e7c0a20-f...#axzz45EpVDNix
Quote:
In the letter, seen by the Financial Times, Mr Cameron said: “It is clearly important we recognise the important differences between companies and trusts. This means that the solution for addressing the potential misuse of companies, such as central public registries, may well not be appropriate generally.”
Britain has emerged as the strongest European rival to Switzerland for private banking and wealth management, administering £1.2tn of assets, according to Deloitte. The sector contributed £3.2bn to the economy, according to 2014 estimates from the British Bankers’ Association.
A senior government source said that Mr Cameron’s letter reflected official advice that creating a central registry for trusts would have been complex and would have distracted from the main objective of shining a light on the ownership of shell companies.
“It would have slowed down the process because of the different types of trust involved,” the official said. “They are sometimes used to protect vulnerable people, so that would have been an extra complication.
“As the directive went through we reached a position where trusts which generate tax consequences had to demonstrate their ownership to HM Revenue & Customs.”
|
btw, your inverted snobbery is showing with phrases like 'inbred public schoolboy' - I am sure you would be the first up in arms if someone called you a common inbred working-class oik, but it's OK to do the reverse.