The BBC is after David Cameron….his father had a business that was based offshore…shock horror.
Simon Jenkins in the Guardian says this…
If all of us sold any of our savings traded offshore we would need to sit up all night scanning our pension funds. As the financial pundit James Quarmby told the BBC this morning, millions benefit from offshore funds – and if they do not know, they cannot complain.
And of course he is right.
John Humphrys, who laid into Cameron’s dad for ‘setting up a company to avoid tax’, depsite all the people who actually know what they are talking about saying that wasn’t the case, probably has a BBC pension which profits from offshore investments. Spot the problem? The BBC has a £13 bn pot….how much of that is dirty money?
About the BBC Pension Scheme
Let’s look at some of the BBC’s Top 100 Investments…
How about Amazon…which we all know pays little to no tax.
Imperial tobacco..the BBC trading in lung cancer and death.
Oh what about those oil companies like BP and Shell despite the BBC’s ethical green investment policy?
How about BAE….flogging weapons to Saudi Arabia.
How about the BBC’s investment in Tesla…a car manufacturer who has been getting a lot of BBC coverage recently…indeed on the Today programme this morning. Conflict of interest?
And so on…
But also there are the banks and financial investment companies which of course have vast investments offshore…..HSBC, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Lloyds, Citigroup, BNP Paribas, Bank of Ameirca, Goldman Sachs and many more including many insurance companies.
All have offshore businesses.
How can the BBC set out to denounce Cameron’s dad, and thereby Cameron when their own investments are so questionable on their own terms?
Hypocrisy and cant? Plenty of.
Here’s a story, ironically on the BBC, about a company that the BBC invests in…..
Argentina demands HSBC repay $3.5bn in offshore funds
Not a lot of interest in your posts trying to support the defrauding of the economy by the rich, wherever or whoever they are.
And since I doubt you are posting from the Bahamas or even Cannes, maybe you should ask yourself is this a Britain we want, one were a tiny elite get richer and the rest of us poorer and tricked into blaming it all on the EU, migrants… and the BBC?
That maybe you are a dupe for the elite?
And maybe you are a dupe for the Left, which uses your envy as a lever to gain power.
The point Alan is making is about hypocrisy. The BBC/Guardian/Labour elite axis is up to its collective elbows in tax scams. It is in no position to throw stones.
Ahh yes “the rich” – target of choice for simpletons everywhere.
And I’m not getting poorer. Doing very well thanks to all those Pakistani “migrants” on the treadmill in my cellar.
A friend recently forwarded the following explanation for the education of criminally stupid libtards:
Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the Richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do……. The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said, “Since you are all such good customers, I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20”.
Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men, the paying customers – how could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair – he got 10 times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy always win!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists, labour unions and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics.
Yet another piece of nonsense which has been floating around for years:
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp
There are other applications for that phrase.
LOL..that Snopes piece is about the signature because it has had a few different sign-offs over the years. it is NOTHING to do with the content re taxes…derrr!
Paul Homewood of ‘Not a Lot of People Know That’ fame, points out that Aunty is repeatedly plugging the company 15th (£19.8m) on its Pensions Holdings list:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/bbcs-compromising-investment-in-tesla/