Cameron Family Membership

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 45306
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby Mick F » 30 Mar 2012, 4:51pm

ianr1950 wrote:
Mick F wrote:Who will pay for his membership fee?

He's paid 24/7 to do his job 24/7. If he's not being PM, he's shirking and I'd like a refund on my taxes.


No different to being in HM Forces then.
Exactly!

How can he "entertain guests" in his "private" flat in No10?
His "private" flat is paid for by we taxpayers - no doubt the chefs and the food is too - he's paid 24/7 to be our PM, so how can anything be at "his expense" in No10?

So now he gets a "free" CTC membership. :evil:
Mick F. Cornwall

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby Edwards » 30 Mar 2012, 5:02pm

thirdcrank wrote:
Edwards wrote:Thanks Gaz. The whole thing just appealed to my sense of humor. Thirdcranks post made me smile and I thought of somebody in the Ivory Towers thinking how to use Cameron for advertising.
As TC said he can not win, so why not make fun of him.


That's probably it. They've sent him a CTC jumper.


So why has this not made it into the Times Cycling Campaign. Maybe Ivory Towers need somebody to explain that a promotion gimmick has to be carried on and the press pursued with even more gimmicks.
Why has there been nothing mentioned about the presentation of the Jersey?

The total cost would be less than £100 for both of those and the advertising if it was pushed enough to get on the TV would cost thousands.

I do not care how rich he is if he can be used for something useful.

Is this another opportunity missed?
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby Steady rider » 30 Mar 2012, 6:41pm

For Cameron, whose combined wealth with wife Samantha has been estimated at £30million, the ministerial pay cut means he will be £7500 a year worse off. He will receive a ministerial salary of £142,500 on top of his MP's pay of £64,766.
2010 report

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... -22257470/

How the £30 million is made up and if any is income producing could be of interest. If it returned 5% - 10% on investment, £1.5 - £3 million. Add on to this possibly £200+ if the above report is accurate. Total income could be £1.7 to £3.2+ million per year.

Speculating that is income is about £2.5 million, this could be £2.35 million at the old rate of 50%, £1.175 million payable and at 45% rate £1.0575 million, a net gain of £117500. My guess is that Cameron has made a good profit or will make a good profit from the tax cut. The public would only know if he published his tax return. He has probably reduced the effective income of some pensioner cyclists and has free membership to the CTC, while pocketing £100k. My sums may need some attention.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 45306
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby Mick F » 30 Mar 2012, 9:07pm

HIS sums need some attention, not yours.
Mick F. Cornwall

thelawnet
Posts: 2078
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby thelawnet » 31 Mar 2012, 12:11am

Steady rider wrote:
For Cameron, whose combined wealth with wife Samantha has been estimated at £30million, the ministerial pay cut means he will be £7500 a year worse off. He will receive a ministerial salary of £142,500 on top of his MP's pay of £64,766.
2010 report

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... -22257470/

How the £30 million is made up and if any is income producing could be of interest. If it returned 5% - 10% on investment, £1.5 - £3 million. Add on to this possibly £200+ if the above report is accurate. Total income could be £1.7 to £3.2+ million per year.

Speculating that is income is about £2.5 million, this could be £2.35 million at the old rate of 50%, £1.175 million payable and at 45% rate £1.0575 million, a net gain of £117500. My guess is that Cameron has made a good profit or will make a good profit from the tax cut. The public would only know if he published his tax return. He has probably reduced the effective income of some pensioner cyclists and has free membership to the CTC, while pocketing £100k. My sums may need some attention.


Nonsense from beginning to end.

Firstly it is simply untrue that David and Samantha Cameron are worth £30 million.

The £30 million figure originates from Sunday Times richlist compiler, Philip Beresford. I don't think these 'Rich Lists' are terribly reliable, I know an oil company director who has a £36 million stake in the firm, £4 million of houses, and so on, and he's not even on the list. It's no secret either, it was published in the national press.

That aside, what Mr. Beresford actually said was:"I put the combined family wealth of David and Samantha Cameron at £30million plus. But the key phrase is "family wealth"

Adding later "That calculation has been coming back to haunt me ever since I made it. It does not refer to David and Samantha Cameron alone. It refers to the considerable wealth of their wider families.

They are classic London upper-middle class, comfortably off."

David Cameron's father was a stockbroker and estate agent and was worth £10m+. He died in 2010. BUT, his wife, Cameron's father, is still alive, and Cameron has 3 siblings, so while it's possible some money was passed to him on the death of his father, it's also possible that there wasn't.

Sam Cam's family are loaded but there's no reason at all to suppose that any of the money has gone to her (of course she will have had every possible privilege growing up)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... money.html

The Cameron's do own two houses, the one in London had £600k spent on improving it, and I don't see any reason to suppose that they have significant assets beyondthese. The London set plough their wealth into housing, where it attracts no tax on the substantial capital growth it has enjoyed.

As for Cameron's salary, the journalist who wrote that article is either setting out to deceive, or he's just clueless.

An MP's salary was:
2005: £59,095
2006: £59,686
2007: £61,181
2008: £63,291
2009: £64,766
2010: £65,738
2011: £65,738
2012: £65,738

On top of which the Prime Minister's salary entitlement was:
2005: £124,837
2006: £126,085
2007: £128,174
2008: £130,959
2009: £132,923
2010: £132,923
2011: £132,923
2012: £132,923

However the actual total amount paid was cut to £150,000 by Gordon Brown in 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... meron.html

This was cut by Cameron himsef to £142,500 also in 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... sters.html

The Daily Record comment about £142,500 on top of the MP's salary is just wrong. It should be £132,923 on top of the MP's salary, however he actually gets paid £142,500 INCLUDING his MP's salary.

Moving on, the idea that anyone 'worth' £30 million would be able to generate 10% on every penny of it in the current economy is laughable, and moreover, while 5% on £30 million would be possible, nobody with that much cash would be stupid enough to subject it all to income tax at 50%, when the capital gains tax rate is 10% for Entrepeneur's Relief (on up to £10 million life time), or 28% at the highest. Certainly, at a bare minimum, if you had £30 million of liquid assets, you would expect a great deal of your return to come from capital growth, and not income.

Quite apart from this of course, there is the fact that the Camerons are not actually worth £30 million, and whatever they ARE worth, they have no reason at all to generate income to be taxed at the highest rate of tax in a generation when they have no need for the money, and it can just remain inside a more tax-efficient vehicle.

The tax arrangements of Ken Livingstone should prove instructive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... cheme.html

He earned £758,000 in income, which he paid into a personal services company. Once there, the money is taxed at an effective rate of under 20% (taking into account allowable deductions, which would not legally be deductable if Mr. Livingstone was classed as self-employed). Any money taken out is tax-free within the basic-rate allowance, and 25% is payable of the divdend up to the £150k allowance, with 36.1% payable of the dividend above that.

With £250k left in the company at the end of the last year, it is quite evident that Mr. Livingstone and his wife were happy to pay the 40% tax rate but baulked at 50%, leaving surplus cash (which they don't need for their expenses here and now today) in the company pending either leaner times or lower tax rates.

We know what Cameron earns from his job, and with all the PM's perks, as I said he has no need at all for any more income, so there woud be no point in him exposing the yield from whatever assets he does have to 50% income tax as it is both unnecessary and incredibly stupid.

The people who are paying 50% tax are those with very high salaries, paid by regular PAYE. The PM does not fall into this category. People who are asset rich (which the Camerons are to an extent, in terms of their two houses, but to the tune of a few million, not £30m) have a very high degree of control over the amount of income they actually receive. The amount of dividends paid out to £150k+ earners went from £9.6b in 2008 to £17.2b in 2009, and then down to only £4.7b in 2010. This reflects the decision of those with personal assets to pay out retained cash from their investment vehicles/personal companies at the 40% rate in 2009, in order to avoid tax in 2010.

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby Steady rider » 31 Mar 2012, 11:27am

Informative, thanks,

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby thirdcrank » 31 Mar 2012, 1:44pm

thelawnet wrote: ... BUT, his wife, Cameron's father, is still alive,...
This was the point where I found my concentration wandering off.

We might summarise by saying that he pickled in privilege, in much the same way as gherkins are picked in vinegar.

thelawnet
Posts: 2078
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby thelawnet » 31 Mar 2012, 2:03pm

thirdcrank wrote:
thelawnet wrote: ... BUT, his wife, Cameron's father, is still alive,...
This was the point where I found my concentration wandering off.

We might summarise by saying that he pickled in privilege, in much the same way as gherkins are picked in vinegar.


You can pickle gherkins in brine too.

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby Steady rider » 31 Mar 2012, 3:49pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... money.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... chdog.html

You can never be sure how accurate press reports are but on first viewing the second links raises some issues.

thelawnet
Posts: 2078
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby thelawnet » 31 Mar 2012, 4:12pm

Steady rider wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191155/Claims-David-Cameron-30m-fortune-sit-uneasily-taxpayers-So-truth-money.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... chdog.html

You can never be sure how accurate press reports are but on first viewing the second links raises some issues.


Friend of mine bought a new-build on an estate with small gardens, he also bought the neighbouring woodland for not much, which he used to extent his own garden and then sold a strip to one of the neighbours for about £25k. Quite a good deal, not sure if it complies with planning laws though.

Slightly different spin on the story here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -home.html

One thing I would say is that if David Cameron did have a lot of cash floating around, he could have just bought the house himself, taken the garden, and then either sold it on, or just left it empty.

He's pretty slimy and ghastly, but I really don't think he's got pots and pots of cash.

reohn2
Posts: 34352
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby reohn2 » 1 Apr 2012, 12:20am

thelawnet wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:
thelawnet wrote: ... BUT, his wife, Cameron's father, is still alive,...
This was the point where I found my concentration wandering off.

We might summarise by saying that he pickled in privilege, in much the same way as gherkins are picked in vinegar.


You can pickle gherkins in brine too.


You can pickle down my back and tell me its raining too,but it doesn't mean I believe you.
The Camerons and similarly most of the top politrickians aren't exactly on their uppers,and look after their own "class".
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Edwards
Posts: 5978
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby Edwards » 1 Apr 2012, 8:33am

thelawnet wrote:He's pretty slimy and ghastly, but I really don't think he's got pots and pots of cash.


He has got a lot more than the people on benefits. universal credit the dole and so many others. Yet he is still given free accommodation car meals and a pension that he has taken away for others.
If he set a decent financial example it would not be so bad.

So if a new charity can make him look bad I like it.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby Steady rider » 1 Apr 2012, 9:07am

We know he failed to declare a land deal with a party donor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... chdog.html

We know he accepts up to £250k to have dinner, not a bribe but an incitement to discriminate in favour of his guest. It is not really ethical or appropriate or professional for a PM or MP to behave like this. All MPs could follow the same example and cover up bribes as invited dinner guests, not bribes to them as individual perhaps but to their party and fostering a system of access if money is changed hands.

It sounds like corruption, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

In economy, corruption is payment for services or material which the recipient is not due, under law.

As a charity the first priority for the CTC should be helping those in need. Giving the Cameron's family membership is not acting as a charity.

Considering the above issues it was a mistake for the CTC to award free family membership but most members would wish them well in any cycling they do.

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby SilverBadge » 15 Apr 2012, 7:32pm

thelawnet wrote:We know what Cameron earns from his job, and with all the PM's perks, as I said he has no need at all for any more income, so there woud be no point in him exposing the yield from whatever assets he does have to 50% income tax as it is both unnecessary and incredibly stupid.

The people who are paying 50% tax are those with very high salaries, paid by regular PAYE. The PM does not fall into this category. People who are asset rich (which the Camerons are to an extent, in terms of their two houses, but to the tune of a few million, not £30m) have a very high degree of control over the amount of income they actually receive. The amount of dividends paid out to £150k+ earners went from £9.6b in 2008 to £17.2b in 2009, and then down to only £4.7b in 2010. This reflects the decision of those with personal assets to pay out retained cash from their investment vehicles/personal companies at the 40% rate in 2009, in order to avoid tax in 2010.
So in short, if he has other income above that of PM and above the £150,000 thtreshold (plenty of MPs and ministers do) he won't be benefitting from the drop in the 50% rate of tax because he's already avoiding it? Is George Osborne shocked?

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cameron Family Membership

Postby thirdcrank » 15 Apr 2012, 8:53pm

On the other hand, it seems another recently retired PM just saved up all his Nectar points, Tesco Clubcard etc and found the ran to millions of £££.

(And the other one has bells on, as they say. :roll: )