UKMT April 2016: David Cameron's P19 Form

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT April 2016: David Cameron's P19 Form

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Prince John posted:

gently caress me. That just makes Osborne's bending over so much more pointless. Go for the jugular Corbyn!

"Osborne blocked EU-led tariffs to stop Chinese dumping of steel - now China taxes OUR steel."

I think you'll find we're only in this mess due to the previous Labour government.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2016 17:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 08:28

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Malcolm XML posted:

Port talbot also has a 2 bil unfunded pension liability

So many big companies have ridiculous pension deficits. My parents generation had university grants, social housing, and ridiculous pension promises. The next generation are being forced to mortgage their lives to get a degree and work for companies that are pouring money into the pensions of people who voted for the government that's loving them over because all the good social stuff their parents/grandparents got are now "unaffordable luxuries".

# ¿ Apr 1, 2016 20:43

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

LemonDrizzle posted:

To be fair, the old final salary schemes were never affordable; people just deluded themselves for a few decades until reality asserted itself.

Yep and we can't can't downgrade those pensions because reasons we just have to gently caress over everyone else instead.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2016 21:14

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Oberleutnant posted:

I've never seen anything like that, but I know one member of the nobility recommend (in 1845, first year of the famine in Ireland) that the starving poor mix curry powder with water, which will warm them up and allow them to sleep happily on an empty stomach.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2016 21:53

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Praseodymi posted:

DOING SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING. TOUGH DECISIONS ETC.

It's strange how the government seems to try the same poo poo solutions to every problem. There was an Adam Curtis (?) documentary which drew parallels between our handling of the global financial crisis and Afghanistan, ie. rather than attempt to solve the systemic corruption that led to the problem, try to prop it up and hope it fixes itself.

This is a government that will cure your broken ankle by amputating it and then prescribing homeopathic pills to fight the resulting infection.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2016 22:23

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

TACD posted:

'Best course of action' is relative and assumes an interest in governance. The Tories are just interested in raking in short-term profits (or a guarantee of future profits), don't start thinking they actually give a poo poo about what happens to the country.

In other news:
Jeremy Corbyn mobbed by supporters during Bristol walkabout
Corbyn still hasn't learned that a 'serious' leader should be listening to the concerns of the media and ignoring the people, not the other way round. This is bad for Corbyn.

Brutal.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2016 16:33

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I thought Glastonbury was all rich future Tories but not Tory until I realise I'm useless and need the privilege and inheritance like Zac Goldsmith these days?

# ¿ Apr 3, 2016 23:23

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Quote-Unquote posted:

There's a billboard on my way to work that just appeared the other day with the words 'THE TRUTH' and 'It's illegal to use a legal name'.

A quick Google shows that this is the catchphrase of some idiot libertarian/sovereign citizen types that reckon we all have names on our birth certificates that are the property of the crown, and because we register to vote with our 'legal names' means all voting is fraudulent so there is no legitimate government anywhere in the world.

Is this a new thing that lolbertarians are bleeding into the real world and aren't just confined to the internet? Never encountered this sort of insanity in the wild before.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever?

# ¿ Apr 4, 2016 10:29

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Fans posted:

So it's the London Mayoral tomorrow and I live in Wales and have thus heard pretty much gently caress all about it beyond Sadiq Khan is a Muslim and Goldsmith is very keen to point that out, but he's not saying anything in particular he's just saying.

Going from the bookies Sadiq Khan has it in the bag but what I'm really curious about is why is this bad for Corbyn?

How is it in May so far?

# ¿ Apr 4, 2016 18:21

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Chocolate Teapot posted:

It's the point of origin for the on-going "[A positive thing for Labour] would be bad for Corbyn because..." joke in the thread

Nah this goes back to before the Oldham West and Royton by-election at least.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2016 19:06

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Crameltonian posted:

Don't forget that a Sadiq Khan win would expose the failings of Jeremy Corbyn, according to the Guardian. Somehow.

Yes we all remember that Khan was the choice of the ~~Blairite~~ moderate serious centre of the Labour party. Tessa who you say?

# ¿ Apr 4, 2016 21:08

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Oberleutnant posted:

the gently caress

# ¿ Apr 4, 2016 22:29

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I really hope that this Panama thing drags out for as long as possible in the runup to the local elections. Oh god imagine if another large offshore bank suffered a similar leak.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2016 22:04

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Cabinet posted:

You know when you all joke about "this is bad for Corbyn because..."

Well

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/717460847585574913

Either that was a typo or Pissflaps works for LBC.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2016 22:46

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Not Operator posted:

To be fair, its not like anyone inherits money or anything. It was probably thrown into the ocean when Ian Cameron died.

Considering the elevation of most tax havens suddenly global warming and rising sea levels seems a good idea.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2016 18:01

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I find TinTower's posts about the NUS more boring than the coconut post offensive.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2016 20:38

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Extreme0 posted:

To be fair. The coconut post was interesting for the fact that TinTower was an idiot for saying such.

Liberal Democrat with an interest in student politics is an idiot shocker!

Anyway let us celebrate the fact that haranguing David Cameron about his family's tax affairs has taken over from sniping at Corbyn as the media's preferred sport!

forkboy84 posted:

...
Anyway, more important than UKMT posters & their casual racism, there is an interesting article on the New Statesman website. It's by Sazia Awan, former Tory parliamentary candidate who attacks Zac Goldsmith's campaign for London Mayor. Especially criticising the shameful divisive element of the campaign, focusing on Sadiq Khan's religion. Not exactly news, but interesting that he's being openly attacked for it from within his own party.

...

Why is the font size on New Statesman so huge? Is it just me?

Oh my god:

Shazia Awan posted:

Let me be clear, I have met some of my closest friends through the Conservative party. The problems we all knew about were at the grassroots. I never encountered them from those at the heart of leading the party forward until now.

And, pray tell, you never stopped to think about the policies that you were having to put forward to attract the votes of such scum?

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Apr 6, 2016

# ¿ Apr 6, 2016 21:26

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Noxville posted:

I'm a little surprised it's actually legal for the government to spend public money campaigning on political issues.

Given that everything the government does is inherently political.....

edit: I guess the distinction here is that it's not party political?

# ¿ Apr 6, 2016 22:19

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Zephro posted:

Cameron's tax affairs are terrible for Corbyn. I think he'll have to resign over it.

Brutal. Yet another masterful political set piece from George Osborne.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 09:06

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Oberleutnant posted:

There's always more and it's always worse

Mossack Fonseca is only the 4th largest firm of it's kind.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 10:13

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I propose we allow Essex and Kent to secede from the UK.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 12:42

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

dispatch_async posted:

George Osborne 'stealth tax' could cost half a million workers �1,000 each

Also, lol:

https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/718039660346417152

https://twitter.com/bbcmartynoates/status/718040551778553857

https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/718040113213808640

This is bad for Corbyn.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 12:47

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

madey posted:

So any UK citizen paid tax on their income from the trust but the trust does not pay corporation tax to the UK. Does anyone know if being based out of the Caribbean was vital to the work the trust did and/or if that is an acceptable business practice to pursue?

Can't have been that vital given that they decided to move to Ireland because Ham Cam was going to be PM.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 19:12

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I don't see how Corbyn can survive this Panama scandal.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 22:20

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Spangly A posted:

who steps up? Gideon's getting shanked as a side order to the Panama issue, Gove has the bar not taking cases, Hunt stepping up would send the NHS over the edge into full on strikes, May reeks of incompetence and has no real public image, Goldsmith is busy sabotaging his career in London, IDS just resigned

oh god

no

do we live in the same country? I honestly reckon half the public couldn't identify May out of a lineup.

Also she's as evil Thatcher with none of the groundswell support.

The Tories have achieved the complete breakdown of the British state. Mission accomplished??

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 22:24

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I think I should move back to Scotland.

# ¿ Apr 9, 2016 19:35

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

tentish klown posted:

He didn't defraud the government out of anything, it was all legal and above-board.
As this guy here points out: https://www.facebook.com/rob1972/videos/10154110453578000/

Yes, yes. David Cameron did not commit a crime and paid his tax.

But:

quote:

David Cameron�s father ran an offshore fund that avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small army of Bahamas residents � including a part-time bishop � to sign its paperwork.

Hmm.

quote:

"After reviewing the files, Richard Brooks, a Private Eye journalist and former HMRC tax inspector, said: �If HMRC had seen the papers they would have had some very serious questions. The clear intention for Blairmore was to avoid becoming UK tax resident and the test for this, even in 2006, is the location of the central management and control."

Well that's not an issue, the company was clearly not being run from the UK!

quote:

Incorporated in Panama but based in the Bahamas, the fund retained up to 50 Caribbean officers each year. Their job was to sign paperwork and fill roles such as treasurer and secretary.

Oh wait!

quote:

In reality, according to the documents, big investment decisions appear to have been taken in the UK. Strategy was seemingly discussed in London where the investment management firm Smith & Williamson and five of the directors including Cameron were based.

Minutes from a 2001 directors� meeting in the Bahamas say: �Mr Cameron concluded by stating that the company�s investment team � met regularly to discuss stock picks and strategy and that he was pleased with the teamwork over the past 18 months.�

A key decision was taken in 2005 to replace the bearer shares with traditional shares where the owners are named in a register. A series of emails that year between Mossack Fonseca and the fund�s London lawyers suggest the decision was taken not at one of the regular offshore board meetings, but apparently at a board meeting in London.

Details, details! Don't bother me with det..

quote:

... The clear intention for Blairmore was to avoid becoming UK tax resident and the test for this, even in 2006, is the location of the central management and control.

So Cameron Sr. et al were only carrying out a deception (i.e. fraud) to avoid tax.

David Cameron (allegedly) benefited from the proceeds of crime.

Yup. Nothing to see here. Move along.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 00:12

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

tentish klown posted:

Jesus gently caress, he didn't steal 30k. At best, *his father's firm* should have paid some tax on transactions made on that 30k.
Since 1984, funds in the UK haven't been annually taxed.
The only purpose the fund serves is to treat any profits as capital gains in one lump sum on selling the shares, rather than as annual income over that time.
I suggest you guys read this before proceeding.

I don't mind bashing Cameron for being a hypocrite over the Jimmy Carr tax stuff when this is of a similar ilk, but can we get the facts straight? Or is this too right-wing-talking-point for you all?

He's also voluntarily decided to negate the �20k of prime ministers income tax allowance for 4 years in a row. I suppose that doesn't go anywhere towards making things better though, does it? You know, handing over �32k straight to the public purse.

Why don't you address the point I made in my reply to you two pages ago?

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 17:28

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

tentish klown posted:

I did, it's in the first paragraph. The sins of the father are not those of the son, unfortunately for your witch-hunt.

...

Actually the proceeds of crime act disagrees with you. If an investigation can demonstrate that Blairmore's central management and control was in London (which the Panama papers suggest) then they were guilty of tax evasion; which is a crime. Saying daddy did it and pleading ignorance doesn't mean he or any other member of his family are entitled to keep the money after the fact. At best the Camerons probably owe an awful lot of tax that Blairmore evaded (note: this is not the same as capital gains on the investments - we're talking about the company's liability here, which propagates through the money Cam. Sr. made). At worst Cameron knew that Blairmore was really run by the guys in London and is therefore complicit in the tax evasion.

Do I think we're going to get that investigation? No. Not when it's the Prime Minister's family involved. But there's nothing to see here? Get real klown.

http://www.jonathan-fisher.co.uk/Latest-News/when-criminal-property-is-not-criminal.html

quote:

A mother and two daughters were convicted of transferring criminal property contrary to section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), in circumstances where the property constituted untaxed profits of a security business operated by their husband and father. Although HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) could calculate the amount of unpaid tax for each year, the indictment contained a single charge alleging that �multiple occasions between � 2003 and � 2008 they converted and transferred criminal property, namely payments and bank deposits � suspecting that the said property represented in whole or in part � [the husband and father�s] benefit from cheating the public revenue�.

On appeal, the mother and daughters argued that the charge gave the jury a false impression, because it suggested that the totality of the payments and bank deposits represented benefit from criminal property when in fact this was not the case. The amount of unpaid tax withheld from HMRC represented a fraction of the legitimately earned business profits.

Unsurprisingly, the Court of Appeal rejected this argument. In doing so, the Court brought into sharp focus the difference between �benefit from criminal conduct� and �criminal property�. Although property is defined as criminal property where it constitutes a person�s benefit from criminal conduct, section 340(3)(a) of POCA also stipulates that property is criminal property where it represents a person�s benefit from criminal conduct �in whole or part�. As the Court explained, although the value of the criminal benefit is the amount of the unpaid tax, the criminal property is the entirety of the undeclared turnover and not merely the tax due, �because the benefit is represented in part by that sum� (at paragraph 27).

The law seems pretty clear on this.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 10, 2016

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 18:30

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Zephro posted:

Anyone know what this supar sekret story that's been published by a Scottish paper but not any English ones is? Apparently they can't refer to it online so you can only read it in the paper copies.

Rich couple have sex with a 3rd party and then sape out a super injunction to prevent 3rd party talking about it. You can find out who it is pretty quick just googling it's not actually exciting at all.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2016 19:15

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Nobody else seems to have struggled with this.

This time last year Ed Milliband was still Labour leader and the thought of becoming leader of the opposition wouldn't have even entered Corbyn's mind. Why would we expect him to have made special effort to retain a copy of what is probably a very dull document?

This is really grasping at straws.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 14:43

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Tigey posted:

Why do I have trouble believing that his 'Other sources of income and gains' is really zero...

For the tax year 2014/15.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 15:43

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

So retaining copies of important documents is 'obsessive'. I see.

Do you print out important emails too?

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 16:13

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Why would I do that?

You don't seem to think that trusting a 3rd party with your data is sensible.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 16:20

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I don't think HMRC advertise themselves as a data storage service unless you know better?

They store your tax returns.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 17:11

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

OK, but I don't think HMRC advertise themselves as a data storage service unless you know better?

What's that got to do with anything?

The point is that HMRC retains this data. Therefore it's not unreasonable for someone with dull financial affairs to not worry about it.

I do my self assessment online and I certainly don't "retain" a copy myself.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 17:54

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

You compared HMRC to email service providers, suggesting it's hypocritical to not store data solely with the former if I'm prepared to do so with the latter.

The comparison doesn't work because only the latter would promote themselves as a data storage service.

No they don't? Google expressly doesn't accept liability for losing data in Gmail in its T&Cs.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 18:07

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

Ford don't guarantee your car will never break so I guess they're not a car company either.

Jesus loving christ. You people.

You're the idiot who doesn't accept that there's a reasonable expectation that HMRC will retain tax records.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 18:22

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Pissflaps posted:

I'm certain they do. Just not on behalf of those submitting them. Not bothering to keep your own copies of important documents is loving stupid.

What is the circumstance you think you'd need a copy of your tax return and would be unable to get a copy from HMRC?

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 18:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 08:28

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Tesseraction posted:

Plaid Cymru on the up and up

Not really; they're within the margin of error of their 2011 result. It's UKIP that are on the up...

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 18:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT April 2016: David Cameron's P19 Form

«‹›3 »