As an aside, 12 is reckoned to mean everyone. Hence, 12 disciples of Jesus, 12 tribes of the Jews, and so on.
It's 7 that represents perfection (of God), as in five fish and two loaves feed 5,000.
That was what I was taught, anyway.
That's what I understand too.
7 is man (6) plus God. 6 (just man, no God) is the perfect number of luciferians - (666 etc.).
At the risk of sounding crazy (too late) 44 is my number. It crops up everywhere in my life, often several times a day. Which is why I smile when Jack uses 44 minutes and 44 seconds.
It should also be remarked upon that we haven't got a tax return, we have a summary of one. Even if we did have a tax return it wouldn't be a list of assets. We also haven't got Samantha Cameron's tax return, or assets. I'm sure everyone here thinks even the suggestion that we should see her details is beyond the pale, but married couples are often seen as one economic unit, and transferring of assets and liabilities between spouses to be more tax efficient is standard practice. We have therefore been given less than half the story.
I make no comment on whether the PM should have to reveal any personal financial information, but by revealing what he has, when he has, he has not satiated the public, but teased them with a bit of ankle, then some calf, then some knee etc. We're about up to the garter now with a fair way to go.
Too little too late, trying to give an edited version now just fans the flames, as you say they will have plenty salted away all over the place. Shifty snakeoil salesman hoist by his own petard. Once liars start to forget their previous lies they are done for, the diddy started to believe his own tall tales.
Some pretty dreadful economic data last week on productivity, the balance of trade and industrial production.
The manufacturing output data shows an interesting comparison:
Feb 2011 102.0 Mar 2011 Osborne proclaims the 'March of the Makers' Feb 2016 100.1
In a couple of weeks we'll get to see the government borrowing for all of 2015/16, which will allow us to compare Osborne's borrowing predictions from his 2010 Budget to what he has actually borrowed.
Indeed and productivity remains the big problem but it's masked by the increase in the number of workers. It's so much easier for companies (including local Government) to buy in labour on a short-term basis to solve problems than do the necessary investment.
It's almost luddite - instead of the workers being replaced by machines, investment in new technology is being deferred as it's cheaper to employ more people..
To give more emphasis to the need to improve productivity, Government growth statistics should focus on GDP per head rather than GDP.
Increasing the population to grow GDP does not increase the wealth or well being of individuals.
The fact he is a liar is the issue, Tories may think that is perfectly acceptable but I do not.
Yet you are untroubled by Nicola...
Zoomers may think that is perfectly acceptable but others do not.
Ha Ha Ha , if she is evading tax and lying she should be pilloried. I am not like you Tories I believe in the same rules applying to all. I await any truth you have on Nicola and I will gladly criticise her just the same as I do to your lying Tory hero snakeoil salesman.
A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
Unfair then, unfair now.
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
So when is Nicola Sturgeon publishing her tax returns? She seems oddly hesitant to do so at present.
When are you posting yours. Why would I know or care about when she is posting her tax returns. Have you heard her pontificating on how she would fix UK tax havens, berating duff tax evading comedians etc. She also has not had the benefit of millionaire parents being able to bung her large six figures sums, put her through Eton , Oxford etc. I doubt she will need to worry much about tax avoidance when she shares the approx £70K value of their ex council house with her sister.
Yes, Nicola Sturgeon has pontificated about tax avoidance, and recently:
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
Sorry, is the ministerial salary ON TOP of MPs' pay?
If so it might explain why the coalition lasted all five years.
Yes - MPs get £75K, and ministers a further payment (at cabinet level its around £55-60K less at junior levels) to account for their additional duties
Miss Plato, aye, (hence 40 days and 40 nights of rain, or referendum discussion ).
While we're blathering on about numbers, the human body will shift to a 25 hour clock if in an environment deprived of external stimuli (they did a big psych experiment with some chap who lived in a cave by himself for weeks. He was surprised to be rescued/retrieved 3 days or so earlier than expected because his body clock had lengthened the days).
Some pretty dreadful economic data last week on productivity, the balance of trade and industrial production.
The manufacturing output data shows an interesting comparison:
Feb 2011 102.0 Mar 2011 Osborne proclaims the 'March of the Makers' Feb 2016 100.1
In a couple of weeks we'll get to see the government borrowing for all of 2015/16, which will allow us to compare Osborne's borrowing predictions from his 2010 Budget to what he has actually borrowed.
Indeed and productivity remains the big problem but it's masked by the increase in the number of workers. It's so much easier for companies (including local Government) to buy in labour on a short-term basis to solve problems than do the necessary investment.
It's almost luddite - instead of the workers being replaced by machines, investment in new technology is being deferred as it's cheaper to employ more people..
The replacement of capital investment by low paid workers also lies behind the mediocre GDP per capita and earnings increases.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
I'd assume that his mother or brother are paying the school fees... fairly standard practice and not a gift to Cameron so not disclosable...
Who exactly is currently at Eton? You don't think 145k plus expenses is enough? Whether or not they are envious most people would regard it as a vast salary.
From what I have read so far about Cameron's tax affairs, I do not think this will mean much. I think the public discounted this in their collective heads many moons ago. What does posh people do with their money ? They have an idea.
Regarding tax avoidance: I have always maintained including here on PB that any act specifically passed by Parliament is not tax avoidance. Therefore, those who try to muddy the waters by spuriously claiming that Personnel Allowances, ISA, Pension contributions etc. are tax avoidance measures is garbage. It is deliberately misleading.
Tax avoidance, to me, are those measures undertaken to reduce the tax burden which has not been specifically allowed or prohibited by Parliament. This includes the avoidance of NIC. So waiting 7 years not to pay IHT is not tax avoidance since Parliament laid down this rule. I also do not find anything wrong with his mother giving him £200k. I am surprised it was not more. Maybe, there is more to come out on this one.
I am slightly surprised that Labour did not take up on one of his explanations. His dad chose to invest in offshore funds because it was dollar denominated, i.e. it was not invested in the UK.
That may have been OK for Mr Cameron since as far as we know there was no illegality involved but Cameron, as a politician, should have divested himself of such investments as soon as he thought of being a politician and certainly by the time he became an MP. Again, he appears to be a lazy sort who does not do detail.
But someone who has paid an average of 37% [ assuming that is correct ] on tax is a decent person.
Cameron seems to have done a good thing by becoming a politician and giving up his PR job. He was clearly rubbish in his old job !
As an aside, 12 is reckoned to mean everyone. Hence, 12 disciples of Jesus, 12 tribes of the Jews, and so on.
It's 7 that represents perfection (of God), as in five fish and two loaves feed 5,000.
That was what I was taught, anyway.
That's what I understand too.
7 is man (6) plus God. 6 (just man, no God) is the perfect number of luciferians - (666 etc.).
At the risk of sounding crazy (too late) 44 is my number. It crops up everywhere in my life, often several times a day. Which is why I smile when Jack uses 44 minutes and 44 seconds.
... I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
Not really, Mr. Stodge, I think it is still possible to get 5%, if one is prepared to lock up one's money for a long time. That would mean a capital sum of, what, £60k? If is he is only getting 2% then the capital would be £150k, not excessive for a man from his background, and it certainly doesn't make him what I would call rich.
So it turns on whether you think "Jewishness" is a function of race or religion
Which raises the flip-side to that question: 'Who is an "Arab"'? I really cannot answer what ethnicity is - other to that someone may allude to - and I accept that they 'feel' that they are comfortable being identified through such an association: But how many are Cathergians, slaves, or conquered people?
Labels should be individual; not political point-scoring....
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
I'd assume that his mother or brother are paying the school fees... fairly standard practice and not a gift to Cameron so not disclosable...
American presidential candidates release their tax records and the sky doesn't fall in. As regards David Cameron, it was widely reported when he became leader that he was worth about £30 million, which now seems a wild over-estimate (perhaps from adding in his entire extended family) but the point is that Cameron is now in his second term as Prime Minister despite voters always having known he was worth a few bob. The idea that being rich or "a toff" is an electoral liability has surely been tested to destruction by the success of Cameron, and Boris in London.
I don't think most people are much bothered by wealth per se, but it carries with it an obligation (in politicians) to recognise that not everyone is wealthy and so one should (1) be frank about one's wealth and (2) try to establish a more level playing field for people who aren't that fortunate.
I quite like Trump's line on corporate tax breaks, for instance. "There are plenty of unfair tax breaks for big companies, I should know, I've used them myself. If I'm elected, I'll know how to get rid of them." Whether he means it or not, who knows, but it is superficially both honest and credible.
If such unfair tax breaks exist (and who doubts it, really?), few expect wealthy businessmen not to have exploited them, but saying so openly and promising to fix them sounds pretty good. Cameron has made two errors: being slow to be frank about himself, and to denounce tax avoidance (sic) and then to do very little to stop it.
Japanese telly is doing Cameron's tax haven problems. They just mentioned that Britain has 20% VAT and everyone made a horrified face.
What's the VAT there?
8%. It's called Consumption Tax (消費税) rather than VAT because the Americans brought in a VAT after the war and it was unpopular, but it walks and talks like VAT.
It's supposed to go up to 10% but Abe has decided he wants to win another election first.
The nice thing about it at the moment is that it's nice and simple, unlike the British one with all its amazing different levels and zero-rates. Unfortunately their coalition partner Koumeitou, which is backed by Soka Gakkai which is like a Buddhist version of Scientology, is insisting that they make it complicated.
We had 10 per cent originally, cut to 8 per cent by Labour. Despite the parties' different reputations on tax, it is invariably Labour that reduces VAT and Conservatives who increase it.
I've actually proposed something for CEO's of big companies. Instead of giving them a big bonus for that year's performance immediately, hold the bonus in an escrow account and release it over a set period - say ten years. The amount of that bonus they get each year depends on how well the company does that year.
It makes them think of the longer term rather than the immediate, and encourages them to ensure any successors are capable.
You'd almost think that I lost money through a firm where the management made terrible short-term decisions that gave them big fat bonuses, but hurt the company terribly after they left. But that would never happen ...
Isn't that the logic behind share options with a distant maturity as a bonus? If you look after the long term then years later the shares should be higher and the option is a good bonus. If you don't look after the long term then years later the shares won't be higher and the bonus is worthless.
Yes, although options are only one form of bonus.
IME the vesting dates for senior bods can be very different to those for the plebs on the shop floor. In one case I know, the vesting date for a tranche of shares was in a few weeks for the senior management, a couple of years for the workers. They sat on fat profits from the options, but by the time the workers' options vested they'd run the company into the ground.
Not that I'm bitter or anything ...
Happened to me too. What is worse is the company went bust because its financial reserves were used in a vain attempt to prop up an unrelated American company the directors had invested in.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
I'd assume that his mother or brother are paying the school fees... fairly standard practice and not a gift to Cameron so not disclosable...
Who exactly is currently at Eton? You don't think 145k plus expenses is enough? Whether or not they are envious most people would regard it as a vast salary.
It is a fine salary. For the job of leading the country it is certainly not outrageous, nor is 1 million of 6 years. Of course people will disagree about what would be a suitable salary, but at its current level there cannot be that many who think it is too high, not when so many people in much less visible or important jobs get a great deal more.
Japanese telly is doing Cameron's tax haven problems. They just mentioned that Britain has 20% VAT and everyone made a horrified face.
What's the VAT there?
8%. It's called Consumption Tax (消費税) rather than VAT because the Americans brought in a VAT after the war and it was unpopular, but it walks and talks like VAT.
It's supposed to go up to 10% but Abe has decided he wants to win another election first.
The nice thing about it at the moment is that it's nice and simple, unlike the British one with all its amazing different levels and zero-rates. Unfortunately their coalition partner Koumeitou, which is backed by Soka Gakkai which is like a Buddhist version of Scientology, is insisting that they make it complicated.
We had 10 per cent originally, cut to 8 per cent by Labour. Despite the parties' different reputations on tax, it is invariably Labour that reduces VAT and Conservatives who increase it.
The Tories are right on this one, it's a really good tax: Cheap to collect and hard to avoid.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
I'd assume that his mother or brother are paying the school fees... fairly standard practice and not a gift to Cameron so not disclosable...
Who exactly is currently at Eton? You don't think 145k plus expenses is enough? Whether or not they are envious most people would regard it as a vast salary.
They could pay it easily out of the £100K rent income, but no doubt Charles would call that "pin money".
As an aside, 12 is reckoned to mean everyone. Hence, 12 disciples of Jesus, 12 tribes of the Jews, and so on.
It's 7 that represents perfection (of God), as in five fish and two loaves feed 5,000.
That was what I was taught, anyway.
That's what I understand too.
7 is man (6) plus God. 6 (just man, no God) is the perfect number of luciferians - (666 etc.).
At the risk of sounding crazy (too late) 44 is my number. It crops up everywhere in my life, often several times a day. Which is why I smile when Jack uses 44 minutes and 44 seconds.
You are not deflecting from the known Bad Un who has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Keep shouting "look a squirrel" it may work in the end.
... I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
Not really, Mr. Stodge, I think it is still possible to get 5%, if one is prepared to lock up one's money for a long time. That would mean a capital sum of, what, £60k? If is he is only getting 2% then the capital would be £150k, not excessive for a man from his background, and it certainly doesn't make him what I would call rich.
Agreed. With his PM's salary and the rental income and limitations currently on what they can spend on [ they cannot go on a cruise ], he [ and with Samantha's income ] could be saving a hell of a lot of money.
Ha. I don't agree with him, but he cannot be argued to merely being partisan against the PM with that, and it is bound to garner some internal opposition and some press pushback, so I have to accept he believes it just is a good idea.
What about financial journalists? Preston was not political correspondent at the BBC but often commented on politics.
Miss Plato, aye, (hence 40 days and 40 nights of rain, or referendum discussion ).
While we're blathering on about numbers, the human body will shift to a 25 hour clock if in an environment deprived of external stimuli (they did a big psych experiment with some chap who lived in a cave by himself for weeks. He was surprised to be rescued/retrieved 3 days or so earlier than expected because his body clock had lengthened the days).
Mr. 1983, I think 44 is Nico Rosberg's F1 number.
You'd be amazed how common it is in popular culture. I believe there was even a film out about it recently that I saw a billboard for.
Japanese telly is doing Cameron's tax haven problems. They just mentioned that Britain has 20% VAT and everyone made a horrified face.
What's the VAT there?
8%. It's called Consumption Tax (消費税) rather than VAT because the Americans brought in a VAT after the war and it was unpopular, but it walks and talks like VAT.
It's supposed to go up to 10% but Abe has decided he wants to win another election first.
The nice thing about it at the moment is that it's nice and simple, unlike the British one with all its amazing different levels and zero-rates. Unfortunately their coalition partner Koumeitou, which is backed by Soka Gakkai which is like a Buddhist version of Scientology, is insisting that they make it complicated.
We had 10 per cent originally, cut to 8 per cent by Labour. Despite the parties' different reputations on tax, it is invariably Labour that reduces VAT and Conservatives who increase it.
The Tories are right on this one, it's a really good tax: Cheap to collect and hard to avoid.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
David, you are having a laugh surely , "very able clever guy" should surely be "spiv coins it in"
You're seriously suggesting that someone who got a first at Oxford, had the skills to win the leadership of his party, make the Coalition work for 5 years and then win an election outright would not have been capable of earning more than £200K a year?
Clearly he did not do that purely out of altruism. He did it because he believed he would be rather good at it and it would make him an important person. But arguing that he has been in this for the money or out of greed is frankly ridiculous.
David, he may have got a first at Oxford, I will not go int o how that could easily be achieved , but is not very bright. He thinks he can lie through his teeth with platitudes for the plebs and then is found to have feet of clay. Like lots of these rich clowns they get their positions not through personal talent or skills but by their connections. Of course he would have been given a nice earner by some chum of his Dad's or wife's family. The fact he is a liar is the issue, Tories may think that is perfectly acceptable but I do not.
'The real problem with all this is that it reminds us how privileged Cameron is. We knew it, of course, but went along with his 'Call me Dave' meme. He seemed a decent enough leftist Tory, especially when kept in place by Clegg. (NB, no Josias he didn't win two elections.) What we didn't enquire about we put on the back burner. We knew he was wealthy but lacked details to annoy us.
200k gifts from Mummy and 300k inheritance from Daddy are a long way from most people's livelihoods. On top of shielding himself from tax, despite having pledged to stop that sort of antic, just makes him even more remote from us ordinary folk.'
Can you please remind us how much inheritance tax was paid on the £ 5 million estate of Tony Benn ?
After all his spent his entire political life telling us how unfair and disgusting inherited wealth was.
I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?
He was born Jewish but baptised (at about 17) Anglican.
So it turns on whether you think "Jewishness" is a function of race or religion
Jewish identifies as both a "race" and "religion", although the "race" part shares many ethnic markers with palestinians who wouldn't really call themselves "Jewish". I guess Ed has ethnic markers from the Levant http://newobserveronline.com/race-or-religion-jewish-genes-identified/ at any rate. A few nationalities double as nationality/ethnicity , one is "chinese", though strictly "Han" is correct. "Japanese" is strictly correct for both.
Japanese telly is doing Cameron's tax haven problems. They just mentioned that Britain has 20% VAT and everyone made a horrified face.
What's the VAT there?
8%. It's called Consumption Tax (消費税) rather than VAT because the Americans brought in a VAT after the war and it was unpopular, but it walks and talks like VAT.
It's supposed to go up to 10% but Abe has decided he wants to win another election first.
The nice thing about it at the moment is that it's nice and simple, unlike the British one with all its amazing different levels and zero-rates. Unfortunately their coalition partner Koumeitou, which is backed by Soka Gakkai which is like a Buddhist version of Scientology, is insisting that they make it complicated.
We had 10 per cent originally, cut to 8 per cent by Labour. Despite the parties' different reputations on tax, it is invariably Labour that reduces VAT and Conservatives who increase it.
The Tories are right on this one, it's a really good tax: Cheap to collect and hard to avoid.
But regressive.
Right, you have to make up for that with other taxes and benefits.
Lol, now you are down to listening to TUBA. The man gave someone a phone number you imbecile, how desperate can you people get. You would think you would be ashamed of how stupid and useless you are and be hiding your heads in shame, but no fighting like ferrets in a sack for some losers list seats just to get your grubby mitts on the cash.
Isobel Oakeshott is on SP, 1 or 2 pb tories stated her career was over after she wrote about a pig.
Well, shoddy journalism doesn't ruin everyone's careers. Personally I was just more irritated at her phony annoyance that people were focusing in the pig story and not paying attention to the rest of her presumably excellent work, as if she had not thought the most sensational and offensive detail would lead all the headlines. It was so disingenuous I find it hard to respect her in fact.
As an aside, 12 is reckoned to mean everyone. Hence, 12 disciples of Jesus, 12 tribes of the Jews, and so on.
It's 7 that represents perfection (of God), as in five fish and two loaves feed 5,000.
That was what I was taught, anyway.
That's what I understand too.
7 is man (6) plus God. 6 (just man, no God) is the perfect number of luciferians - (666 etc.).
At the risk of sounding crazy (too late) 44 is my number. It crops up everywhere in my life, often several times a day. Which is why I smile when Jack uses 44 minutes and 44 seconds.
54 46 was my number.
44 in there too. I've googled it in the past, and apparently it refers to an angelic presence watching over you, which I like.
Mine is often several 4's preceded by a one, but I suppose long digit numbers are often preceded by a one. My old university matriculation number was 14444.
As an aside, 12 is reckoned to mean everyone. Hence, 12 disciples of Jesus, 12 tribes of the Jews, and so on.
It's 7 that represents perfection (of God), as in five fish and two loaves feed 5,000.
That was what I was taught, anyway.
That's what I understand too.
7 is man (6) plus God. 6 (just man, no God) is the perfect number of luciferians - (666 etc.).
At the risk of sounding crazy (too late) 44 is my number. It crops up everywhere in my life, often several times a day. Which is why I smile when Jack uses 44 minutes and 44 seconds.
You would probably feel uncomfortable in parts of the Far East, which suffer from tetraphobia, because the word for 4 sounds like the word for death. Hotel rooms, even entire hotel floors try to avoid the number 4...
... I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
Not really, Mr. Stodge, I think it is still possible to get 5%, if one is prepared to lock up one's money for a long time. That would mean a capital sum of, what, £60k? If is he is only getting 2% then the capital would be £150k, not excessive for a man from his background, and it certainly doesn't make him what I would call rich.
Agreed. With his PM's salary and the rental income and limitations currently on what they can spend on [ they cannot go on a cruise ], he [ and with Samantha's income ] could be saving a hell of a lot of money.
Rent on their house is north of £400K for the period he has had free luxury board and lodging at public expense. Given he gets everything paid for he will not have had to dip his hand in to his pocket. His previous gifts etc and the wedge his wife will have means he could easily have millions on deposit in one guise or another. His wife will get her first £10K of interest tax free and I bet she will be paying tax on more than that. How will the poor dears survive till he coins in more multi-millions from his memoirs.
Isobel Oakeshott is on SP, 1 or 2 pb tories stated her career was over after she wrote about a pig.
Well, shoddy journalism doesn't ruin everyone's careers. Personally I was just more irritated at her phony annoyance that people were focusing in the pig story and not paying attention to the rest of her presumably excellent work, as if she had not thought the most sensational and offensive detail would lead all the headlines. It was so disingenuous I find it hard to respect her in fact.
Well yes, the pb tories point was that by attacking Dave she was finished. I didn't read it.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
David, you are having a laugh surely , "very able clever guy" should surely be "spiv coins it in"
You're seriously suggesting that someone who got a first at Oxford, had the skills to win the leadership of his party, make the Coalition work for 5 years and then win an election outright would not have been capable of earning more than £200K a year?
Clearly he did not do that purely out of altruism. He did it because he believed he would be rather good at it and it would make him an important person. But arguing that he has been in this for the money or out of greed is frankly ridiculous.
David, he may have got a first at Oxford, I will not go int o how that could easily be achieved , but is not very bright. He thinks he can lie through his teeth with platitudes for the plebs and then is found to have feet of clay. Like lots of these rich clowns they get their positions not through personal talent or skills but by their connections. Of course he would have been given a nice earner by some chum of his Dad's or wife's family. The fact he is a liar is the issue, Tories may think that is perfectly acceptable but I do not.
'The real problem with all this is that it reminds us how privileged Cameron is. We knew it, of course, but went along with his 'Call me Dave' meme. He seemed a decent enough leftist Tory, especially when kept in place by Clegg. (NB, no Josias he didn't win two elections.) What we didn't enquire about we put on the back burner. We knew he was wealthy but lacked details to annoy us.
200k gifts from Mummy and 300k inheritance from Daddy are a long way from most people's livelihoods. On top of shielding himself from tax, despite having pledged to stop that sort of antic, just makes him even more remote from us ordinary folk.'
Can you please remind us how much inheritance tax was paid on the £ 5 million estate of Tony Benn ?
After all his spent his entire political life telling us how unfair and disgusting inherited wealth was.
How much did Hilary inherit from Daddy ?
Are you stupid , who cares. We are talking about another cheating rat at present , just because previous cheating rats of politicians have done it does not exonerate Cameron.
Interesting to see Corbyn today - he'll never be an electric speaker, partly because he only does explanatory answers rather than "yes" and "no", but he's got much better at avoiding bear-traps and sticking to the key message he wants to make and tying it in to the general agenda of public service funding. He's had some good advice, I suspect.
As an aside, 12 is reckoned to mean everyone. Hence, 12 disciples of Jesus, 12 tribes of the Jews, and so on.
It's 7 that represents perfection (of God), as in five fish and two loaves feed 5,000.
That was what I was taught, anyway.
That's what I understand too.
7 is man (6) plus God. 6 (just man, no God) is the perfect number of luciferians - (666 etc.).
At the risk of sounding crazy (too late) 44 is my number. It crops up everywhere in my life, often several times a day. Which is why I smile when Jack uses 44 minutes and 44 seconds.
You would probably feel uncomfortable in parts of the Far East, which suffer from tetraphobia, because the word for 4 sounds like the word for death. Hotel rooms, even entire hotel floors try to avoid the number 4...
On the contrary, I don't mind not seeing it, I just often do. Very interesting fact though. There are four points on the compass, four points on a cross. It's a very significant number.
... I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
Not really, Mr. Stodge, I think it is still possible to get 5%, if one is prepared to lock up one's money for a long time. That would mean a capital sum of, what, £60k? If is he is only getting 2% then the capital would be £150k, not excessive for a man from his background, and it certainly doesn't make him what I would call rich.
Agreed. With his PM's salary and the rental income and limitations currently on what they can spend on [ they cannot go on a cruise ], he [ and with Samantha's income ] could be saving a hell of a lot of money.
Rent on their house is north of £400K for the period he has had free luxury board and lodging at public expense. Given he gets everything paid for he will not have had to dip his hand in to his pocket. His previous gifts etc and the wedge his wife will have means he could easily have millions on deposit in one guise or another. His wife will get her first £10K of interest tax free and I bet she will be paying tax on more than that. How will the poor dears survive till he coins in more multi-millions from his memoirs.
How many houses in London has rent above £33000 pm ? Even in Belgravia, Knightsbridge etc.
Now living in a 2 room apartment. Poor sods. No wonder Samantha wants out of this miserable existence.
Isobel Oakeshott is on SP, 1 or 2 pb tories stated her career was over after she wrote about a pig.
Well, shoddy journalism doesn't ruin everyone's careers. Personally I was just more irritated at her phony annoyance that people were focusing in the pig story and not paying attention to the rest of her presumably excellent work, as if she had not thought the most sensational and offensive detail would lead all the headlines. It was so disingenuous I find it hard to respect her in fact.
Chris Huhme might wonder about the quality of her journalism.
Isobel Oakeshott is on SP, 1 or 2 pb tories stated her career was over after she wrote about a pig.
Well, shoddy journalism doesn't ruin everyone's careers. Personally I was just more irritated at her phony annoyance that people were focusing in the pig story and not paying attention to the rest of her presumably excellent work, as if she had not thought the most sensational and offensive detail would lead all the headlines. It was so disingenuous I find it hard to respect her in fact.
Well yes, the pb tories point was that by attacking Dave she was finished. I didn't read it.
I think Dave and chums' ability to end or hamper careers is waning. Because Dave won't be in position that long whatever happens, and also because it's been used too much in the EUref. The Chambers of Commerce thing being one of the last examples I think we'll see. The ebbing of Prime Ministerial sway is well underway, hence the threat from a poster downthread that Faisal Islam's journalistic career will be ruined over this issue look very hollow.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
I'd assume that his mother or brother are paying the school fees... fairly standard practice and not a gift to Cameron so not disclosable...
Who exactly is currently at Eton? You don't think 145k plus expenses is enough? Whether or not they are envious most people would regard it as a vast salary.
The character of the school body has changed, unfortunately, although the wider community is fighting back with some success.
It's around 30% talented kids on full or partial bursaries (King's Scholars, other academic bursaries, the American Fellowships, music scholarships, art scholarships etc) including children of teachers in a number of private schools with whom they have reciprocal arrangements
Around 50% are the wider Eton community - paying full fees - who are mainly British or Irish together with some commonwealth kids (when I was there my year had 2 Indian princelings, 1 Nigerian chief, 1 Ghanaian chief, while Dippy (Nepal) was there with my brother).
Around 20% are assorted Chinese, Russian and eastern European oligarchs kids. This is a reducing number - it was up to 30% at one point, but the wider community didn't think this was a good thing long term for the School, so put a lot of pressure on the Provost to change things which, to his credit, he has done
The annual fees are around £30,000 + expenses, paid out of taxed income - i.e. >£50,000 per year in pre-tax income - per child
... I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
Not really, Mr. Stodge, I think it is still possible to get 5%, if one is prepared to lock up one's money for a long time. That would mean a capital sum of, what, £60k? If is he is only getting 2% then the capital would be £150k, not excessive for a man from his background, and it certainly doesn't make him what I would call rich.
Agreed. With his PM's salary and the rental income and limitations currently on what they can spend on [ they cannot go on a cruise ], he [ and with Samantha's income ] could be saving a hell of a lot of money.
Rent on their house is north of £400K for the period he has had free luxury board and lodging at public expense. Given he gets everything paid for he will not have had to dip his hand in to his pocket. His previous gifts etc and the wedge his wife will have means he could easily have millions on deposit in one guise or another. His wife will get her first £10K of interest tax free and I bet she will be paying tax on more than that. How will the poor dears survive till he coins in more multi-millions from his memoirs.
How many houses in London has rent above £33000 pm ? Even in Belgravia, Knightsbridge etc.
Now living in a 2 room apartment. Poor sods. No wonder Samantha wants out of this miserable existence.
Their current flat is in quite a desirable location and they're away a lot of the time. They could easily be making £33000 a month renting it out on AirBNB.
You're serious...? ly suggesting that someone who got a first at Oxford, had the skills to win the leadership of his party, make the Coalition work for 5 years and then win an election outright would not have been capable of earning more than £200K a year?
Clearly he did not do that purely out of altruism. He did it because he believed he would be rather good at it and it would make him an important person. But arguing that he has been in this for the money or out of greed is frankly ridiculous.
Ha. I don't agree with him, but he cannot be argued to merely being partisan against the PM with that, and it is bound to garner some internal opposition and some press pushback, so I have to accept he believes it just is a good idea.
What about financial journalists? Preston was not political correspondent at the BBC but often commented on politics.
You can't really draw a line between political and non-political, unless you include the 3am girls....all BBC auto-cuties are political as soon as they ask a question of a politician.
Isobel Oakeshott is on SP, 1 or 2 pb tories stated her career was over after she wrote about a pig.
Well, shoddy journalism doesn't ruin everyone's careers. Personally I was just more irritated at her phony annoyance that people were focusing in the pig story and not paying attention to the rest of her presumably excellent work, as if she had not thought the most sensational and offensive detail would lead all the headlines. It was so disingenuous I find it hard to respect her in fact.
Izzy Oskeshott is now employed by Dacre of The Daily Wail to attack Cameron. Dacre is unhappy he didn't get a peerage from Dave.
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
I'd assume that his mother or brother are paying the school fees... fairly standard practice and not a gift to Cameron so not disclosable...
Who exactly is currently at Eton? You don't think 145k plus expenses is enough? Whether or not they are envious most people would regard it as a vast salary.
They could pay it easily out of the £100K rent income, but no doubt Charles would call that "pin money".
You seem to have this strange obsession with me.
I'm well paid, enjoy what I do, and have a house with a socking great mortgage. Not too different to most professionals in London I suspect.
I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?
He was born Jewish but baptised (at about 17) Anglican.
So it turns on whether you think "Jewishness" is a function of race or religion
Jewish identifies as both a "race" and "religion", although the "race" part shares many ethnic markers with palestinians who wouldn't really call themselves "Jewish". I guess Ed has ethnic markers from the Levant http://newobserveronline.com/race-or-religion-jewish-genes-identified/ at any rate. A few nationalities double as nationality/ethnicity , one is "chinese", though strictly "Han" is correct. "Japanese" is strictly correct for both.
... I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
Not really, Mr. Stodge, I think it is still possible to get 5%, if one is prepared to lock up one's money for a long time. That would mean a capital sum of, what, £60k? If is he is only getting 2% then the capital would be £150k, not excessive for a man from his background, and it certainly doesn't make him what I would call rich.
Agreed. With his PM's salary and the rental income and limitations currently on what they can spend on [ they cannot go on a cruise ], he [ and with Samantha's income ] could be saving a hell of a lot of money.
Rent on their house is north of £400K for the period he has had free luxury board and lodging at public expense. Given he gets everything paid for he will not have had to dip his hand in to his pocket. His previous gifts etc and the wedge his wife will have means he could easily have millions on deposit in one guise or another. His wife will get her first £10K of interest tax free and I bet she will be paying tax on more than that. How will the poor dears survive till he coins in more multi-millions from his memoirs.
How many houses in London has rent above £33000 pm ? Even in Belgravia, Knightsbridge etc.
Now living in a 2 room apartment. Poor sods. No wonder Samantha wants out of this miserable existence.
I think it was £1,800 per week (you've added together several years). The Mail estimates this is a £3.3m house based on rental yields - I think they've got their numbers wrong, but it's probably £2.5m
Obviously a lot, but entirely accounted for by location. In terms of rooms/size/layout it's probably a pretty average house.
I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
You should probably be looking at P2P, where very significant interest (>10%) is available, especially as losses are now tax-allowable...
I'll probably generate 8x Cameron's interest this year.
I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
You should probably be looking at P2P, where very significant interest (>10%) is available, especially as losses are now tax-allowable...
I'll probable generate 8x Cameron's interest this year.
The £300,000 from his Fathers estate at 1% would generate the £3,000
It should also be remarked upon that we haven't got a tax return, we have a summary of one. Even if we did have a tax return it wouldn't be a list of assets. We also haven't got Samantha Cameron's tax return, or assets. I'm sure everyone here thinks even the suggestion that we should see her details is beyond the pale, but married couples are often seen as one economic unit, and transferring of assets and liabilities between spouses to be more tax efficient is standard practice. We have therefore been given less than half the story.
I make no comment on whether the PM should have to reveal any personal financial information, but by revealing what he has, when he has, he has not satiated the public, but teased them with a bit of ankle, then some calf, then some knee etc. We're about up to the garter now with a fair way to go.
The press and public will never be "satiated".
The comment about Samantha Cameron is a typically vicious one from a kipper-type.
It should also be remarked upon that we haven't got a tax return, we have a summary of one. Even if we did have a tax return it wouldn't be a list of assets. We also haven't got Samantha Cameron's tax return, or assets. I'm sure everyone here thinks even the suggestion that we should see her details is beyond the pale, but married couples are often seen as one economic unit, and transferring of assets and liabilities between spouses to be more tax efficient is standard practice. We have therefore been given less than half the story.
I make no comment on whether the PM should have to reveal any personal financial information, but by revealing what he has, when he has, he has not satiated the public, but teased them with a bit of ankle, then some calf, then some knee etc. We're about up to the garter now with a fair way to go.
The press and public will never be "satiated".
The comment about Samantha Cameron is a typically vicious one from a kipper-type.
From what I have read so far about Cameron's tax affairs, I do not think this will mean much. I think the public discounted this in their collective heads many moons ago. What does posh people do with their money ? They have an idea.
Regarding tax avoidance: I have always maintained including here on PB that any act specifically passed by Parliament is not tax avoidance. Therefore, those who try to muddy the waters by spuriously claiming that Personnel Allowances, ISA, Pension contributions etc. are tax avoidance measures is garbage. It is deliberately misleading.
Tax avoidance, to me, are those measures undertaken to reduce the tax burden which has not been specifically allowed or prohibited by Parliament. This includes the avoidance of NIC. So waiting 7 years not to pay IHT is not tax avoidance since Parliament laid down this rule. I also do not find anything wrong with his mother giving him £200k. I am surprised it was not more. Maybe, there is more to come out on this one.
I am slightly surprised that Labour did not take up on one of his explanations. His dad chose to invest in offshore funds because it was dollar denominated, i.e. it was not invested in the UK.
That may have been OK for Mr Cameron since as far as we know there was no illegality involved but Cameron, as a politician, should have divested himself of such investments as soon as he thought of being a politician and certainly by the time he became an MP. Again, he appears to be a lazy sort who does not do detail.
But someone who has paid an average of 37% [ assuming that is correct ] on tax is a decent person.
Cameron seems to have done a good thing by becoming a politician and giving up his PR job. He was clearly rubbish in his old job !
I think that's broadly fair. Deeds of Variation are clearly intended by Parliament, because iHMRC provides advice on drafting them.
It should also be remarked upon that we haven't got a tax return, we have a summary of one. Even if we did have a tax return it wouldn't be a list of assets. We also haven't got Samantha Cameron's tax return, or assets. I'm sure everyone here thinks even the suggestion that we should see her details is beyond the pale, but married couples are often seen as one economic unit, and transferring of assets and liabilities between spouses to be more tax efficient is standard practice. We have therefore been given less than half the story.
I make no comment on whether the PM should have to reveal any personal financial information, but by revealing what he has, when he has, he has not satiated the public, but teased them with a bit of ankle, then some calf, then some knee etc. We're about up to the garter now with a fair way to go.
The press and public will never be "satiated".
The comment about Samantha Cameron is a typically vicious one from a kipper-type.
I'm confused, what's vicious about it?
I do not see it as vicious but I do not see why Samantha Cameron should publish her tax return
'Are you stupid , who cares. We are talking about another cheating rat at present , just because previous cheating rats of politicians have done it does not exonerate Cameron.'
Alex Salmond's 'hypocrisy' of using firm to save tax - Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Politics › SNP 6 Feb 2016 - Alex Salmond MP unveils a painting of himself at The National Gallery of ... of more than £120,000 through a new “personal service company
"200k gifts from Mummy and 300k inheritance from Daddy" will become the norm for inheritances from anyone who owns their own London home at their death, in many cases you can double those figures albeit with IHT deductions.
I also thought the £3,000 income from savings was enlightening. With most savings accounts paying almost nothing in interest, to garner that kind of income must mean there's a pretty big starting number.
You should probably be looking at P2P, where very significant interest (>10%) is available, especially as losses are now tax-allowable...
And an Innovative Finance ISA coming shortly, soon to be £20k...
Isobel Oakeshott is on SP, 1 or 2 pb tories stated her career was over after she wrote about a pig.
Well, shoddy journalism doesn't ruin everyone's careers. Personally I was just more irritated at her phony annoyance that people were focusing in the pig story and not paying attention to the rest of her presumably excellent work, as if she had not thought the most sensational and offensive detail would lead all the headlines. It was so disingenuous I find it hard to respect her in fact.
Again, the furious overreaction of CCHQ and its followers to a non-story about student pranks, especially given David Cameron's acknowledged membership of the Bullingdon, made me wonder if this was a dead cat covering up a significant revelation somewhere else in the book -- but when I saw its size, I decided life was too short to plough through it in search of clues whose significance might pass me by in any case.
So today's scandalous headline boils down to bloke we knew is from a rich family, is rich...well blow me down.
I think rather more embarrassing for Dave is compared to his mates Alex James, Jezza Clarkson etc he ain't actually that well off.
What's embarrassing is the way this story was handled - especially that first disclosure about '£30,000 from shares' and 'a property that we rent', that made Dave's finances out to be the equivalent of a provincial estate agent.
Now every subsequent 'revelation' about Dave's stash is going to add to this meme that he has the contents of King Solomon's mines squirreled away. And I believe there will be more to come, otherwise he wouldn't have given this 'summary' thing out, rather a full return.
So today's scandalous headline boils down to bloke we knew is from a rich family, is rich...well blow me down.
I think rather more embarrassing for Dave is compared to his mates Alex James, Jezza Clarkson etc he ain't actually that well off.
What's embarrassing is the way this story was handled - especially that first disclosure about '£30,000 from shares' and 'a property that we rent', that made Dave's finances out to be the equivalent of a provincial estate agent.
Now every subsequent 'revelation' about Dave's stash is going to add to this meme that he has the contents of King Solomon's mines squirreled away. And I believe there will be more to come, otherwise he wouldn't have given this 'summary' thing out, rather a full return.
No doubt the handling is terrible. Boris dealing with this when Red Ken pushed him was the way to do, yes unsurprisingly I earn a lot of money and I pay a lot of tax on it, and nobody blinked an eyelid.
Said this all week, I not sure Cameron personally has it "squirreled" away, but said from the outset, I bet the family have arranged everything properly knowing he was very likely to be PM. Again in that respect, not exactly different from what most sensible people.
Cameron is not a cheating rat. He just uses the system that is loaded up for the wealthy.
I am reminded of the MP expenses scam- when most MP's were scrabbling around trying to claim some cash back on TV's and porn, duck ponds and whatnot to make up the short fall in their salaries, Cameron could simply nominate his constituency home as his main home, and claim the whole 50k annually against his huge mortgage, which I guess he still does. Therefore he never needed to sully himself with the grubbiness of putting in invoices- he just got his secretary to present his mortgage statement- and so stayed well above the fray.
What I don't get about Cameron is how he can so clearly say that the 200k gifted by his mum the year after his dad died was not about paying inheritance tax. I mean that is just such a big, huge porky pie that takes us all for morons.
He needn't say anything more about this gift. Rich people use tax efficiencies, especially when inheritance is concerned. That is why people gift to the children when they are alive- they hope to live more than the 7 years so their children don't pay the death tax.
My major problem with all this, is that the biggest asset to the YES, remain campaign is unravelling before our eyes, digging himself into a quagmire all of his own making.
Cameron is morphing back into that shifty, unlikeable, snake oil salesman that he was once caricatured as...the huskies, the chauffeur with his shoes, the hug a hoody- it's all coming back. And you know why it is coming back? Because as Frank Booth said here, Cameron is a cynical shit who doesn't believe in anything, or words to that effect. Cameron cannot escape what he actually is.
And because of Cameron's ultimate cynicism- the EU vote that he didn't want, only given as a platitude to UKIP wavering voters, and never intended to enact because he never believed he would win a majority, Cameron's ultimate cynicism is going to lead the UK to leave the EU with disastrous consequences for Britain and for the EU. Well done DC you tosser.
It should also be remarked upon that we haven't got a tax return, we have a summary of one. Even if we did have a tax return it wouldn't be a list of assets. We also haven't got Samantha Cameron's tax return, or assets. I'm sure everyone here thinks even the suggestion that we should see her details is beyond the pale, but married couples are often seen as one economic unit, and transferring of assets and liabilities between spouses to be more tax efficient is standard practice. We have therefore been given less than half the story.
I make no comment on whether the PM should have to reveal any personal financial information, but by revealing what he has, when he has, he has not satiated the public, but teased them with a bit of ankle, then some calf, then some knee etc. We're about up to the garter now with a fair way to go.
The press and public will never be "satiated".
The comment about Samantha Cameron is a typically vicious one from a kipper-type.
I'm confused, what's vicious about it?
I do not see it as vicious but I do not see why Samantha Cameron should publish her tax return
I agree, and I don't see why Cameron should publish his either. But he has, seemingly in order to close this story down by 'bringing it all out into the open'. But of course it hasn't brought it all out, any more than any half of a spousal arrangement doing so would do. Equally with the Sam Cam thing though is the fact it's not a full tax return.
So today's scandalous headline boils down to bloke we knew is from a rich family, is rich...well blow me down.
I think rather more embarrassing for Dave is compared to his mates Alex James, Jezza Clarkson etc he ain't actually that well off.
What's embarrassing is the way this story was handled - especially that first disclosure about '£30,000 from shares' and 'a property that we rent', that made Dave's finances out to be the equivalent of a provincial estate agent.
Now every subsequent 'revelation' about Dave's stash is going to add to this meme that he has the contents of King Solomon's mines squirreled away. And I believe there will be more to come, otherwise he wouldn't have given this 'summary' thing out, rather a full return.
I would think it is very unlikely - these figures have been certified by the Accountant and the declaration of the 2 x £100,000 gifts from his Mother were not actually required to be declared, certainly not on his tax return
This whole tax debate now is getting thoroughly nasty and spiteful. The rest of the world must be laughing their socks off at the state this country still gets itself into when it comes to rich people, wealth in general. This is going to backfire on a lot of those "class warriors."
It was interesting to see Andrew Marr break out in a sweat when it was suggested he publish his tax returns. Equally, Angus Robertson on Murnaghan, who was desperately trying to get George Osborne in the frame. He was asked was he going to publish his tax returns and his reply was "if anyone was interested" but looked decidedly uncomfortable. Apparently he doesn't even have an ISA!!!!! Be very careful what you wish for!
Very impressed, once again, with Dominic Raab on Murghan and equally Penny Mordaunt on Sunday Politics, despite Andrew Neil's constant interruptions.
I couldn't manage to listen to all of Katie Hopkins phone-in on LBC but the first question was "why does this country have a chip on it's shoulder about wealth"? A very interesting question no one else has asked.
This whole tax debate now is getting thoroughly nasty and spiteful. The rest of the world must be laughing their socks off at the state this country still gets itself into when it comes to rich people, wealth in general. This is going to backfire on a lot of those "class warriors."
It was interesting to see Andrew Marr break out in a sweat when it was suggested he publish his tax returns. Equally, Angus Robertson on Murnaghan, who was desperately trying to get George Osborne in the frame. He was asked was he going to publish his tax returns and his reply was "if anyone was interested" but looked decidedly uncomfortable. Apparently he doesn't even have an ISA!!!!! Be very careful what you wish for!
Very impressed, once again, with Dominic Raab on Murghan and equally Penny Mordaunt on Sunday Politics, despite Andrew Neil's constant interruptions.
I couldn't manage to listen to all of Katie Hopkins phone-in on LBC but the first question was "why does this country have a chip on it's shoulder about wealth"? A very interesting question no one else has asked.
No BBC "talent" wants anybody looking at their remuneration package or financial planning. They are experts at tax efficiency aided and abetted for many many years by their employer, sorry contractor of their services.
If auto-cuties get £100k+ a year, you can bet your bottom dollar Marr etc make a serious wedge every year with presenting, personal appearances, books, articles etc.
And the BBC do their nut anytime anybody suggest some transparency..oh no no we couldn't possibly tell anybody how much the talent earn here.
So today's scandalous headline boils down to bloke we knew is from a rich family, is rich...well blow me down.
I think rather more embarrassing for Dave is compared to his mates Alex James, Jezza Clarkson etc he ain't actually that well off.
What's embarrassing is the way this story was handled - especially that first disclosure about '£30,000 from shares' and 'a property that we rent', that made Dave's finances out to be the equivalent of a provincial estate agent.
Now every subsequent 'revelation' about Dave's stash is going to add to this meme that he has the contents of King Solomon's mines squirreled away. And I believe there will be more to come, otherwise he wouldn't have given this 'summary' thing out, rather a full return.
I would think it is very unlikely - these figures have been certified by the Accountant and the declaration of the 2 x £100,000 gifts from his Mother were not actually required to be declared, certainly not on his tax return
Correct. He obviously doesn't want to go through what Miliband had to go through.
Any person (Cameron's mother, for example) has a common law right to dispose of their property as they see fit (provided they have capacity, and are not intending to defeat lawful creditors, etc.)
So today's scandalous headline boils down to bloke we knew is from a rich family, is rich...well blow me down.
I think rather more embarrassing for Dave is compared to his mates Alex James, Jezza Clarkson etc he ain't actually that well off.
What's embarrassing is the way this story was handled - especially that first disclosure about '£30,000 from shares' and 'a property that we rent', that made Dave's finances out to be the equivalent of a provincial estate agent.
Now every subsequent 'revelation' about Dave's stash is going to add to this meme that he has the contents of King Solomon's mines squirreled away. And I believe there will be more to come, otherwise he wouldn't have given this 'summary' thing out, rather a full return.
No doubt the handling is terrible. Boris dealing with this when Red Ken pushed him was the way to do, yes unsurprisingly I earn a lot of money and I pay a lot of tax on it, and nobody blinked an eyelid.
Said this all week, I not sure Cameron personally has it "squirreled" away, but said from the outset, I bet the family have arranged everything properly knowing he was very likely to be PM. Again in that respect, not exactly different from what most sensible people.
So today's scandalous headline boils down to bloke we knew is from a rich family, is rich...well blow me down.
I think rather more embarrassing for Dave is compared to his mates Alex James, Jezza Clarkson etc he ain't actually that well off.
What's embarrassing is the way this story was handled - especially that first disclosure about '£30,000 from shares' and 'a property that we rent', that made Dave's finances out to be the equivalent of a provincial estate agent.
Now every subsequent 'revelation' about Dave's stash is going to add to this meme that he has the contents of King Solomon's mines squirreled away. And I believe there will be more to come, otherwise he wouldn't have given this 'summary' thing out, rather a full return.
I would think it is very unlikely - these figures have been certified by the Accountant and the declaration of the 2 x £100,000 gifts from his Mother were not actually required to be declared, certainly not on his tax return
We'll see, but I think the reason for your prediction is your loyalty to No. 10. I can't see any logic in the assumption that this information is going to kill this story.
So today's scandalous headline boils down to bloke we knew is from a rich family, is rich...well blow me down.
I think rather more embarrassing for Dave is compared to his mates Alex James, Jezza Clarkson etc he ain't actually that well off.
What's embarrassing is the way this story was handled - especially that first disclosure about '£30,000 from shares' and 'a property that we rent', that made Dave's finances out to be the equivalent of a provincial estate agent.
Now every subsequent 'revelation' about Dave's stash is going to add to this meme that he has the contents of King Solomon's mines squirreled away. And I believe there will be more to come, otherwise he wouldn't have given this 'summary' thing out, rather a full return.
No doubt the handling is terrible. Boris dealing with this when Red Ken pushed him was the way to do, yes unsurprisingly I earn a lot of money and I pay a lot of tax on it, and nobody blinked an eyelid.
Said this all week, I not sure Cameron personally has it "squirreled" away, but said from the outset, I bet the family have arranged everything properly knowing he was very likely to be PM. Again in that respect, not exactly different from what most sensible people.
Zac Goldsmith did it a couple of weeks ago and I can't even remember the figures it was that uninteresting and had so little coverage.
This whole tax debate now is getting thoroughly nasty and spiteful. The rest of the world must be laughing their socks off at the state this country still gets itself into when it comes to rich people, wealth in general. This is going to backfire on a lot of those "class warriors."
It was interesting to see Andrew Marr break out in a sweat when it was suggested he publish his tax returns. Equally, Angus Robertson on Murnaghan, who was desperately trying to get George Osborne in the frame. He was asked was he going to publish his tax returns and his reply was "if anyone was interested" but looked decidedly uncomfortable. Apparently he doesn't even have an ISA!!!!! Be very careful what you wish for!
Very impressed, once again, with Dominic Raab on Murghan and equally Penny Mordaunt on Sunday Politics, despite Andrew Neil's constant interruptions.
I couldn't manage to listen to all of Katie Hopkins phone-in on LBC but the first question was "why does this country have a chip on it's shoulder about wealth"? A very interesting question no one else has asked.
I don't think you get it. This story is not about the rich thing. It is about Cameron's cack handedness, evasiveness, half truths which take us all for idiots. We all know Cameron is wealthy- we got used to it, and voted him in.
OGH is barking up the wrong tree when he says the background of the next leader is important. It's not- what is important is their ability to win an election.
This week reminds me of Brown's terrible election that never was week- when Brown moved from hero to zero. And again self inflicted- a position it is almost impossible to recover from as Brown proved. Credibility takes a lot to build up, but as Brown and Cameron is now showing, you can blow it at the blink of an eye.
As a lefty I wouldn't normally be bothered and would take some satisfaction from all this. But I am not because we have the EU vote in June- and Remains greatest asset has just turned into a major liability.
This whole tax debate now is getting thoroughly nasty and spiteful. The rest of the world must be laughing their socks off at the state this country still gets itself into when it comes to rich people, wealth in general. This is going to backfire on a lot of those "class warriors."
It was interesting to see Andrew Marr break out in a sweat when it was suggested he publish his tax returns. Equally, Angus Robertson on Murnaghan, who was desperately trying to get George Osborne in the frame. He was asked was he going to publish his tax returns and his reply was "if anyone was interested" but looked decidedly uncomfortable. Apparently he doesn't even have an ISA!!!!! Be very careful what you wish for!
Very impressed, once again, with Dominic Raab on Murghan and equally Penny Mordaunt on Sunday Politics, despite Andrew Neil's constant interruptions.
I couldn't manage to listen to all of Katie Hopkins phone-in on LBC but the first question was "why does this country have a chip on it's shoulder about wealth"? A very interesting question no one else has asked.
This whole tax debate now is getting thoroughly nasty and spiteful. The rest of the world must be laughing their socks off at the state this country still gets itself into when it comes to rich people, wealth in general. This is going to backfire on a lot of those "class warriors."
Iceland just ditched their Prime Minister and Japanese telly was just doing shocked faces over the extent of British use of tax havens (admittedly less shocked than over the 20% VAT rate) so I don't think your guess about the rest of the world's response is right.
Comments
7 is man (6) plus God. 6 (just man, no God) is the perfect number of luciferians - (666 etc.).
At the risk of sounding crazy (too late) 44 is my number. It crops up everywhere in my life, often several times a day. Which is why I smile when Jack uses 44 minutes and 44 seconds.
Once liars start to forget their previous lies they are done for, the diddy started to believe his own tall tales.
Increasing the population to grow GDP does not increase the wealth or well being of individuals.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13201727.Sturgeon_demands_zero_tolerance_on_obscene_and_despicable_tax_avoidance/
I'm in favour of universal disclosure of tax returns.
While we're blathering on about numbers, the human body will shift to a 25 hour clock if in an environment deprived of external stimuli (they did a big psych experiment with some chap who lived in a cave by himself for weeks. He was surprised to be rescued/retrieved 3 days or so earlier than expected because his body clock had lengthened the days).
Mr. 1983, I think 44 is Nico Rosberg's F1 number.
Regarding tax avoidance: I have always maintained including here on PB that any act specifically passed by Parliament is not tax avoidance. Therefore, those who try to muddy the waters by spuriously claiming that Personnel Allowances, ISA, Pension contributions etc. are tax avoidance measures is garbage. It is deliberately misleading.
Tax avoidance, to me, are those measures undertaken to reduce the tax burden which has not been specifically allowed or prohibited by Parliament. This includes the avoidance of NIC. So waiting 7 years not to pay IHT is not tax avoidance since Parliament laid down this rule. I also do not find anything wrong with his mother giving him £200k. I am surprised it was not more. Maybe, there is more to come out on this one.
I am slightly surprised that Labour did not take up on one of his explanations. His dad chose to invest in offshore funds because it was dollar denominated, i.e. it was not invested in the UK.
That may have been OK for Mr Cameron since as far as we know there was no illegality involved but Cameron, as a politician, should have divested himself of such investments as soon as he thought of being a politician and certainly by the time he became an MP. Again, he appears to be a lazy sort who does not do detail.
But someone who has paid an average of 37% [ assuming that is correct ] on tax is a decent person.
Cameron seems to have done a good thing by becoming a politician and giving up his PR job. He was clearly rubbish in his old job !
Labels should be individual; not political point-scoring....
:except-plastic-danes-and-yorkshiremen:
I quite like Trump's line on corporate tax breaks, for instance. "There are plenty of unfair tax breaks for big companies, I should know, I've used them myself. If I'm elected, I'll know how to get rid of them." Whether he means it or not, who knows, but it is superficially both honest and credible.
If such unfair tax breaks exist (and who doubts it, really?), few expect wealthy businessmen not to have exploited them, but saying so openly and promising to fix them sounds pretty good. Cameron has made two errors: being slow to be frank about himself, and to denounce tax avoidance (sic) and then to do very little to stop it.
@Jamin2g: SkyNews asks to look at Nicola Sturgeon's tax returns, she says everything but yes. https://t.co/PxZfGe0MJu
Good day to all.
What about financial journalists? Preston was not political correspondent at the BBC but often commented on politics.
'The real problem with all this is that it reminds us how privileged Cameron is. We knew it, of course, but went along with his 'Call me Dave' meme. He seemed a decent enough leftist Tory, especially when kept in place by Clegg. (NB, no Josias he didn't win two elections.) What we didn't enquire about we put on the back burner. We knew he was wealthy but lacked details to annoy us.
200k gifts from Mummy and 300k inheritance from Daddy are a long way from most people's livelihoods. On top of shielding himself from tax, despite having pledged to stop that sort of antic, just makes him even more remote from us ordinary folk.'
Can you please remind us how much inheritance tax was paid on the £ 5 million estate of Tony Benn ?
After all his spent his entire political life telling us how unfair and disgusting inherited wealth was.
How much did Hilary inherit from Daddy ?
A few nationalities double as nationality/ethnicity , one is "chinese", though strictly "Han" is correct. "Japanese" is strictly correct for both.
From another source:
"Jewish/atheist" is fine to use as http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html the "Jewish" marker is strong enough
I'd say Ed was on solid enough ground here.
Mine is often several 4's preceded by a one, but I suppose long digit numbers are often preceded by a one. My old university matriculation number was 14444.
How will the poor dears survive till he coins in more multi-millions from his memoirs.
Now living in a 2 room apartment. Poor sods. No wonder Samantha wants out of this miserable existence.
One day the Zoomers on here will catch up...
It's around 30% talented kids on full or partial bursaries (King's Scholars, other academic bursaries, the American Fellowships, music scholarships, art scholarships etc) including children of teachers in a number of private schools with whom they have reciprocal arrangements
Around 50% are the wider Eton community - paying full fees - who are mainly British or Irish together with some commonwealth kids (when I was there my year had 2 Indian princelings, 1 Nigerian chief, 1 Ghanaian chief, while Dippy (Nepal) was there with my brother).
Around 20% are assorted Chinese, Russian and eastern European oligarchs kids. This is a reducing number - it was up to 30% at one point, but the wider community didn't think this was a good thing long term for the School, so put a lot of pressure on the Provost to change things which, to his credit, he has done
The annual fees are around £30,000 + expenses, paid out of taxed income - i.e. >£50,000 per year in pre-tax income - per child
I'm well paid, enjoy what I do, and have a house with a socking great mortgage. Not too different to most professionals in London I suspect.
Obviously a lot, but entirely accounted for by location. In terms of rooms/size/layout it's probably a pretty average house.
I'll probably generate 8x Cameron's interest this year.
The comment about Samantha Cameron is a typically vicious one from a kipper-type.
I think rather more embarrassing for Dave is compared to his mates Alex James, Jezza Clarkson etc he ain't actually that well off.
'Are you stupid , who cares. We are talking about another cheating rat at present , just because previous cheating rats of politicians have done it does not exonerate Cameron.'
Alex Salmond's 'hypocrisy' of using firm to save tax - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Politics › SNP
6 Feb 2016 - Alex Salmond MP unveils a painting of himself at The National Gallery of ... of more than £120,000 through a new “personal service company
Mr. Pulpstar, misread that at first. Thought it said ISIS initially, which would serve the lunatics right
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/04/michael-fabricant-the-seven-psychological-flaws-of-remain-campaigners.html
Now every subsequent 'revelation' about Dave's stash is going to add to this meme that he has the contents of King Solomon's mines squirreled away. And I believe there will be more to come, otherwise he wouldn't have given this 'summary' thing out, rather a full return.
Said this all week, I not sure Cameron personally has it "squirreled" away, but said from the outset, I bet the family have arranged everything properly knowing he was very likely to be PM. Again in that respect, not exactly different from what most sensible people.
I am reminded of the MP expenses scam- when most MP's were scrabbling around trying to claim some cash back on TV's and porn, duck ponds and whatnot to make up the short fall in their salaries, Cameron could simply nominate his constituency home as his main home, and claim the whole 50k annually against his huge mortgage, which I guess he still does. Therefore he never needed to sully himself with the grubbiness of putting in invoices- he just got his secretary to present his mortgage statement- and so stayed well above the fray.
What I don't get about Cameron is how he can so clearly say that the 200k gifted by his mum the year after his dad died was not about paying inheritance tax. I mean that is just such a big, huge porky pie that takes us all for morons.
He needn't say anything more about this gift. Rich people use tax efficiencies, especially when inheritance is concerned. That is why people gift to the children when they are alive- they hope to live more than the 7 years so their children don't pay the death tax.
My major problem with all this, is that the biggest asset to the YES, remain campaign is unravelling before our eyes, digging himself into a quagmire all of his own making.
Cameron is morphing back into that shifty, unlikeable, snake oil salesman that he was once caricatured as...the huskies, the chauffeur with his shoes, the hug a hoody- it's all coming back. And you know why it is coming back? Because as Frank Booth said here, Cameron is a cynical shit who doesn't believe in anything, or words to that effect. Cameron cannot escape what he actually is.
And because of Cameron's ultimate cynicism- the EU vote that he didn't want, only given as a platitude to UKIP wavering voters, and never intended to enact because he never believed he would win a majority, Cameron's ultimate cynicism is going to lead the UK to leave the EU with disastrous consequences for Britain and for the EU. Well done DC you tosser.
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/719113799643590656
It was interesting to see Andrew Marr break out in a sweat when it was suggested he publish his tax returns. Equally, Angus Robertson on Murnaghan, who was desperately trying to get George Osborne in the frame. He was asked was he going to publish his tax returns and his reply was "if anyone was interested" but looked decidedly uncomfortable. Apparently he doesn't even have an ISA!!!!! Be very careful what you wish for!
Very impressed, once again, with Dominic Raab on Murghan and equally Penny Mordaunt on Sunday Politics, despite Andrew Neil's constant interruptions.
I couldn't manage to listen to all of Katie Hopkins phone-in on LBC but the first question was "why does this country have a chip on it's shoulder about wealth"? A very interesting question no one else has asked.
If auto-cuties get £100k+ a year, you can bet your bottom dollar Marr etc make a serious wedge every year with presenting, personal appearances, books, articles etc.
And the BBC do their nut anytime anybody suggest some transparency..oh no no we couldn't possibly tell anybody how much the talent earn here.
Any person (Cameron's mother, for example) has a common law right to dispose of their property as they see fit (provided they have capacity, and are not intending to defeat lawful creditors, etc.)
Cameron should've done exactly the same, the rest is fall out history.
Katie is great on the radio, she took a Corbynista off at the knees
OGH is barking up the wrong tree when he says the background of the next leader is important. It's not- what is important is their ability to win an election.
This week reminds me of Brown's terrible election that never was week- when Brown moved from hero to zero. And again self inflicted- a position it is almost impossible to recover from as Brown proved. Credibility takes a lot to build up, but as Brown and Cameron is now showing, you can blow it at the blink of an eye.
As a lefty I wouldn't normally be bothered and would take some satisfaction from all this. But I am not because we have the EU vote in June- and Remains greatest asset has just turned into a major liability.