UK peas -David Cameron

At this moment, I'm more annoyed about his decision to spend £9m on leaflets saying we should stay in the EU. What a total waste of money.

Resign? 

From the reports I have read he's done nothing wrong.  He and his wife owned shares in a trust fund belonging to his late father (who died in 2010)  from 1997 to 2010 when he sold them.This was before he became Prime Minister. Tax was paid on the dividends during this time and as the profit he made on the sale was actually less than the  tax allowance on capital gains at the time ( 2010) he owed no CGT on the sale. So I see no reason for him to resign.

Can't see that it has anything to do with the EU referendum.

No law has been broken and it has bugger all to do with the EU referendum.

Yes, all of that above!

I agree, and I don't like him, but I don't think this is going to be the issue we could use to get him out of office.

It's taken him all week but now he's released 6 years' worth of tax details, which actually I think is the right thing to do and I think ALL politicians should be able to stand up to that kind of scrutiny.

I like Jimmy Carr's stance on the issue.  

I don't really agree that he's been dissembling to be honest. He was originally asked a question when the Panama Papers were first published whether he had any shares...... obviously someone somewhere thought they had hit the jackpot when they found the name Cameron on the list!! He answered honestly that he didn't. He does not have any shares now and has not had any since 2010. I can understand why he answered the way he did originally and in piecemeal. If the original question had been......" Have you ever had or have you benefited from any shares through a trust or investment in your own name or that of your father through his business interests in Panama"  then. and only then. could it be said that he did not answer truthfully or avoided giving out the correct information . To me it smacks of asking simple questions  bit by bit and expecting an extended answer to each one and turning everything he said, out of context, to suit ones own agenda.
So he's super wealthy, so are millions of others and in many cases far wealthier than he is IMO. His wife and her wealth shouldn't be in the equation at all IMO. There are many on the opposite political fence to him or her that are far wealthier.

Legally he has done nothing wrong and he can't be responsible for the actions of his father whatever they were at the time, his father is not here to defend himself. Whether his father did or didn't pay tax...who knows? His father was a stockbroker so it stands to reason that he would use the tax laws of this country to his best advantage in the same way  everyone that has any savings or investments would do so whether it was £100 or 1 million.That has nothing to do with the son or his wife.

I don't like this kind of mud slinging politics and intrusion into someones private life, financial or otherwise whichever party they represent when it's not based on hard evidence. It's the politics of envy IMO.

Typical of what happens in the U.S. (and elsewhere), the Labour party seems to try to be using this to go on a witch hunt. Now I see they are asking for his tax returns even before 2010. I have no dog in this race, but if I were Cameron I'd tell them all to go take a hike.

He hasn't done anything wrong. He has inherited from his father. He didn't invest any money in Panama himself. Greatest "reaching" headline today "...could potentially avoid inheritance tax" on money his mother gave him, again within the law, nothing shady, using information freely available to all of us. Talk about trying to find something wrong.

Also the £9m is for 4 publications nationwide, 2 of which will be neutral & anti-EU. The thing I'm hearing most in discussion with friends etc is a complete lack of knowledge, so it seems like a good plan to me.

But who would willingly pay tax that they didn't need to pay? The family have done nothing wrong. If his mother dies within 7 years of the gift then inheritance tax will become due on the £200,000 she gifted him which she is legally allowed to do. This is not dodgy tax avoidance, this is knowing how the system works & working within it. My family are nowhere near as wealthy as them but you'd better believe that as dh & I own a house with my parents we have checked where we stand re inheritance tax etc. We've ensured that we won't have to pay inheritance tax on their share of our home when they die & they have taken steps to ensure that we will not have IT to pay. Once again, we are not talking about anywhere near the amounts Cameron has, just a large uk home & savings but we've all familiarised ourselves with the law & made arrangements in accordance with it for the best outcome for us.

Suspicious of what? He's admitted he received it and unless his mother dies within 7 years of giving it to him then there is no inheritance tax to pay on it. That is the tax law and has been for years, way before David Cameron became PM. Millions of people do this every year maybe not to the value of £200,000 but very many families give regular gifts away to make the value of the persons estate less on death. They most certainly need to consider it if anyone lives in the South of England where ordinary family homes have rocketed in value,some far higher than £325,000. Add that  to a small amount of savings then you've gone over the threshold.

I haven't read anyone getting all worked up about what Tony Ben did that I linked in my previous post and that was 5  million so you have to ask what actually is their agenda. Whatever it is it seems to have backfired as they haven't found anything untoward to nail him for! While they're at it, maybe they'll also find time to ask Tony Blair about his tax returns. I bet he and his wife are far wealthier than David Cameron is.

O/T, but why are you peaing in the middle of the night gar?