In the news

Cameron might have sold the shares that are in his name only, whilst waiting for legacy shares or trust-deeds to kick in that aren't actually his yet. i.e will be assigned to him on his mother's death etc.

I'm sure, being the good Tory that he is, he's totally unaware of any circumstance that this might happen, and that his family can reliably account for the remaining 7 million of his father's wealth.

Given he is pretty well off and shortly afterwards received a £200k gift from his mum you could argue that it wasn't material.

You could also argue that the relatively immaterial level (for him) meant that it wouldn't influence his actions or words as a member and so wasn't relevant.

Sure, I certainly see that as possible.

But he seems to have said that there was the possibility of people seeing it as a vested interest. This, to me, makes it look like an open-and-closed case re: paragraph 55.

It's also worth remembering that he did act on these types of trusts in 2013 (after he'd sold his shares). http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

^ this is what I think is the most fucked up, FYI. My cards on the table.

Isn't this all a bit like Geoffrey Robinson? (sorry - very late to the party here... & excuse my ignorance also)

And the key being, "might reasonably".

I don't think you can reasonably think that 30k split (I assume) across multiple assets is going to influence your actions.

Based on the little I know about the matter, from the sounds of it I'd guess ùbér_grùbér is on the money and most of the significant decision making occurred onshore.

But if he specifically proffered that as a reason then I see your argument.

I don't think you can reasonably think that 30k split (I assume) across multiple assets is going to influence your actions.

Fair enough. But Cameron decides. And he sold a profitable investment because he seems to have thought it could be seen as a conflict of interest.

edited

I also think uber's right. And I suspect it may have had something to do with Cameron's actions in 2013. But can't really prove anything - and happily to be proven wrong.

dennis skinner sticks to his guns and gets hoofed out of parliament for the day for his troubles. a vanishingly small part of me thinks that doing so kinda let spamfuck off the hook.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dennis-skinner-thrown-out-of-parliament-for-refusing-to-withdraw-dodgy-dave-jibe-a6979111.html

"Do what you like!"

That's to say: "Go fuck yourselves!"

Chuck Norris can fuck right off.

He's getting a few rounds bought for him tonight in whatever Parliament pub he frequents.

Straight up g. That's a man of conviction and principles right there. Nice to see a real politician speak his mind for once.

Pig-fucker and Gideon looked like a couple of bullies who'd finally taken a slap and didn't quite know how to react to it, cunts.

Didn't like the linked video of him declaring that mp's shouldn't have to publish their affairs too. Presume parliment would pretty different all round if all the financial skeletons came out the cupboard..

Pig-fucker and Gideon looked like a couple of bullies who'd finally taken a slap and didn't quite know how to react to it, cunts.

Dunno man. Looked to me like arrogant, contemptuous smiles. The sort you can only wear if you know you are untouchable.

On expenses ;)

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.

Expenses do not form part of taxable income as they're repaying the MP for things they have already paid for out of their previously taxed pay.

Whether or not the item they've bought should be refunded by the Government is a separate matter. Like the tax avoidance issue, there are plenty of shades of grey as expenses cover a broad range of items:-

• stationery and stamps used to communicate with their constituents
  
• rent for office space, salaries for secretarial staff
  
• mortgage interest or rent for London properties for non-London based MPs
  
• The latest 55" 4K TVs for non-London based MPs London flats/houses so that they are able to "watch the news"
  
• duck houses (with or without moats), etc
  
  

There are ways to scam loads of these things though:-

• buying things at vastly inflated prices from a friend's business (and then getting favours or cash in return)
  
• employing family/friends and either paying them over the odds or even for not working at all
  
• renting properties off family/friends at inflated prices
  
• getting electricity bills expensed but forgetting that the bill also includes one's stables
  
• expensing wholly unnecessary items (duck houses, etc)
  
  

I seem to remember reading an article a few years ago about how Central Purchasing within the HoP was a joke. They'd pay £100 for a box of 2500 sheets of paper because they'd buy one box and have it couriered to the HoP because they needed it RightNow(TM).

"Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost."

Being as both the Tories and New Tories are up to their scrawny necks in this, you have to ask who they'll blame?

Yes, I thought there were round sum meal and accommodation allowances which would normally be taxable but it appears not.

don't seem to recall that pigfucking cunt being asked to leave the HoC when he accused jeremy corbyn of being a 'terrorist sympathiser' a few weeks back.

THe expenses go deeper than that - MPs will switch around which house/flat is declared as their primary residence so that they will e.g. pay small rent on a room in a friend's house, but use the expenses to pay the mortgage on their 5 bedroom Notting Hill town house. Then when it comes to selling, they switch round their primary and secondary residences again so that they won't need to pay CGT.

If they're renting the second property they won't be liable for CGT on their primary property when they sell it anyway since it's not an owned second property. And in this situation they can't expense their primary home mortgage interest anyway, only the rent.

If the other property was owned the expenses used pay the mortgage interest only, not the capital repayment, but yes that was still a nice bonus and was often abused. But it was capped at £24k a year, that's unlikely to cover the interest payments for a 5 bedroom Notting Hill town house. £2k a month interest payment at current interest rates is about £850k of loan.

This all changed in 2010 and now mortgage interest is not paid, only rent. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26952462

Under the new system, MPs were allowed to claim a maximum of £1,450 a month to rent - not buy - a second home. Mortgage assistance was thrown out.

The CGT avoiding loophole (flipping) was closed in April last year: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/29/sell-second-home-capital-gains-tax

Now when selling a house the CGT is calculated on a proportional basis for how much time it was nominated as a primary home and how much it was a secondary home.

https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-selling-home/y/yes/no/no/no

Example: You sell your home and make a gain of £100,000.

You owned the property for 20 years but you lived in another home for
5 (25% of the time). The time you lived away wasn’t during the last 18
months or another period that qualified for relief. This means the
amount you get relief on is reduced by 25% (25% of £100,000, which is
£25,000).

You get relief on £75,000.

Since the gain on a larger home will likely be larger than the gain on the smaller home it's no longer immediately advantageous to nominate the smaller home as primary as it makes for a larger CGT bill when the larger home is eventually sold.

don't seem to recall that pigfucking cunt being asked to leave the HoC when he accused jeremy corbyn of being a 'terrorist sympathiser' a few weeks back.

Because he said it in a committee meeting, not in the chamber. He also phrased it ambiguously enough that he could probably weasel out of it if necessary:-

“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee.

Was he referring to Corbyn as part of a bunch of terrorist sympathisers, or was it Corbyn AND a bunch of terrorist sympathisers?

The weasel-worded mealy-mouthed pig-fucking cunt.

gov.uk/tax-relief-selling-ho­me/y/yes/no/no/no

They totally should have encoded that series of boolean decisions as a bitfield.

Dennis Skinner is such a Legend.

See also: "Crooks".

Ah, well I consider myself thoroughly corrected. Thanks, something to feel a tiny bit less put out about.

Right wing press now going after Corbyn, claiming he has 'thousands' in undeclared earnings from pensions not on his tax declaration.

Could prove an interesting discussion if we find out what everyone hasn't declared on their statements...

While we're all praising Skinner, and I am, unfortunately, the question he posed will remain unanswered.

Frankie Boyle raised a good point, which is: what does publishing your tax return prove if you're not declaring offshore investments to HMRC in the first place?