In the news

Just to back up a little, if I purchase a bike for (say) 100% of my annual salary, less pension and NI contributions via the cycle to work scheme, do I end up as a Cabinet Minister?

Amazing alligator news, from a highly reputable news source:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/04/08/video-released-customer-throwing-alligator-through-wendys-drive-thru/

The alligators have been busy invading the tabloids:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/horrifying-moment-man-kayak-attacked-7721069

This does not, disappointingly, contain much by way of alligator news:

http://www.alligator.org/news/

Ironically

«raison d'être»

Le circonflexe is now illegal in France.

You will all be guillotined.

Pretty sure they outlawed the use of the guillotine in the early eighties.

May you be shrugged at in a particularly indifferent manner.

Pretty sure they outlawed the use of the guillotine in the early eighties.

fûckîng pêdânt

your a pedant

I remember McDonnell publishing his now, obviously caused less of a ripple at the time. I assume all of the expenses must be dealt with outside of the salary, etc and just recharged.

In theory the shareholding didn't need to be declared on the HoP register, according to the rules it's only shareholdings over £70k http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmcode/1076/107604.htm Paragraph 51.

Part of the trouble with this story and the ability for one side to claim it's a huge issue and the other to claim it's blown out of proportion is the crap reporting.

It doesn't sell newspapers sadly but a bit less conflating tax avoidance with evasion, leaping into headlines whether knowing the rules, etc would make it a bit easier to understand and work out what the problems are.

It's similar to the pig episode where the newspapers all concentrated on the pig (entertaining admittedly) but virtually ignored the Lord Ashcroft non-dom status issue.

as yer man Barry Obama said recently: "The problem isn’t necessarily that companies are engaging in illegal activity, but what’s legal in the first place."

Surely proper reporting will invoke a TL:DR from most? ;)

It seems Cameron hasn't actually published his tax return. Only an "accountant certified" summary. Is that the same thing?

so it's been heavily redacted? Quelle Suprise.

/eagerly awaits correction of french homework

In theory the shareholding didn't need to be declared on the HoP register, according to the rules it's only shareholdings over £70k publications.parliament.uk/pa­/cm201516/cmcode/1076/107604.htm Paragraph 51.

Read 55.

Any relevant financial interest or material benefit which does not clearly fall into one of the other categories, including any shareholding which falls below the relevant threshold, or any other financial asset, including an asset held in trust, if the Member nevertheless considers that it meets the test of relevance; in other words, that it might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions or words as a Member...

It was relevant enough that he sold it when he became PM, but not relevant enough that he declared it while an MP.

As a shareholder of a fund held offshore, he would surely have had an input in where the fund was held.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

I haven't really kept track of this story. But any time I hear anything about it there seems to be a consistent stream of mixed terminology. Almost to the point of rendering it all meaningless.

For example if he was a beneficial shareholder of a company properly operating offshore, then no, he probably wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been able to excersise any control - and definitely not over where it's domiciled.

I think the whole saga is quite interesting conceptually. What is comes back to is people not liking his handling of it. Which is odd. Shouldn't everyone be worried about the substance?

My ultimate 2p is why would you base a company in Panama if you're from the UK? If you need offshore services why not Jersey (or similar), with a rock solid regulatory system a short flight away in the same time zone?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515628/Chancellor_tax_return.pdf

Gideon makes more than the average national salary by sitting on his arse letting property income roll in.

I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with the rich, but that said we should definitely eat them.

He needs to get a better bank account, only £3 interest in the whole year on that salary? The man's being diddled.

That's a weak argument.

Even if he still had the shareholding, what about that might reasonably by him or others to influence his actions as an MP or PM?

He's definitely paying more tax than he needs to.

Either being diddled or clever enough to realise that there is sod all point having lots of money in a savings account at the moment.

He should probably look into 'optimising' his taxable assets

That's a weak retort considering that Cameron himself explained that this was the reason he sold the shares.

he said he sold up before entering Downing Street “because I didn’t want anyone to say you have other agendas or vested interests”.

Owning bearer shares in an off-shore trust run by his father could be benign. But the requirement isn't that they "possibly be benign" but "that it might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions or words as a Member."

He has next to no savings? Must have a similar problem to me, scrubbing along at the end of the month waiting for payday...

The main issue of contention with Blairmore tax-wise is that it's a shell company for business decisions and activities that are actually being made in the UK.

As such, all revenues should be subject to UK domiciled tax rates, not just any income made by the rich tossers taking advantage of ex-colonial banana republics to rinse cash from the UK public.