Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Hypocrisy should be exposed. Over the last few years he's been very vocal and condemning about the immorality of various people using offshore accounts and avoiding tax, see comments on Jimmy Carr. Yet after a week of hand waving has admitted his father ran such offshore accounts for decades and probably paid for his upbringing with them. This is the person who used to tell us 'we're all in it together', except he's long abandoned that.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Hypocrisy should be exposed. Over the last few years he's been very vocal and condemning about the immorality of various people using offshore accounts and avoiding tax, see comments on Jimmy Carr. Yet after a week of hand waving has admitted his father ran such offshore accounts for decades and probably paid for his upbringing with them. This is the person who used to tell us 'we're all in it together', except he's long abandoned that.
I quite agree. So far there is no indication Cameron doesn't.
He inherited an offshore fund, and closed it down before taking up office and moved the funds into onshore accounts.
the problem is?
Cameron cleaned up his family's act, he actually showed example not hypocrisy.
He said it was an non issue and a private matter, both those statements are true.
It would take a highly trained team of chimps around 15 years to type out the number of exclamation marks fit for my reaction to that statement.
I am not surprised, but you should try a human reaction instead.
i noticed you didn't actually try and challenge the logic I presented to you.
Your not Cameron fans, neither am I, but this is a BS rap.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Yet instead of framing it as having cleaned up his act, he made it look like a dirty secret. He's actually taken something legal and made it look as shifty as possible. Maybe he can't help but be evasive and avoid answering a straight question for a week. Between that and his pro-EU leaflet he's not having a good week.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yet instead of framing it as having cleaned up his act, he made it look like a dirty secret. He's actually taken something legal and made it look as shifty as possible. Maybe he can't help but be evasive and avoid answering a straight question for a week. Between that and his pro-EU leaflet he's not having a good week.
I think there is a position that anything that can be seen in a negative light should be drip fed. I think the PR department fethed up a bit with what is actually negative - Camerons position could have been spun as taking a stand etc.
Now I think about it wasn't Cameron involved with the Tory PR machine before moving up the greasy pole? Surely he must have seen the flak coming.
i noticed you didn't actually try and challenge the logic I presented to you.
If I could find some logic I would have.
The Prime Minister, who has been making all kinds of noises about "offshore tax havens" and "financial transparency", has now admitted to having owned undeclared shares in an offshore shell company. If that isn't in the public interest then nothing is. If he didn't want this to have blown up in his face he should have either made their existence known when he was elected to parliament, or at the very latest when his father's name surfaced with this lovely, lovely leak. This is a "non issue and private matter" that may yet see his resignation (depending on what else crawls out of the woodwork).
It was when many of the ways that are currently legal weren't - not everyone agrees with the way tax law has been loosened and undermined over the years, so why should they suddenly be OK with the results of those changes? Hell, many people think there shouldn't be any legal ways of "reducing your tax liability" at all - Joe Bloke doesn't get to "restructure" anything to avoid forking over his PAYE on every paycheque he earns, he pays the percentage he's told to pay like most people, so why should the law allow the wealthy to decide whether or not they want to pay their dues in-full?
I think you need to read my explanation of the difference between reducing your tax liability legally and tax avoidance. Using an ISA is reducing your tax liability legally that anyone can do. They are put in place to encourage saving. It becomes tax avoidance when Joe Bloke reaches his £15k limit for the year so decides to "loan" his parents, brother and sister £15k each to do with "whatever they want", but must be repaid with an interest rate that strangely exactly matches the ISA rate.
Then there is items like childcare vouchers or cycle to work that are taken pre tax and exempt from BIK. Those are legal ways of reducing your tax liability on PAYE. There are some gray areas that the general public take advantage of, such as selling fixtures and fittings separately to a house that is close to a stamp duty tax band. I'm afraid it is not as simple as you put it.
Really? You're going to pretend "guy who owns his own home valuable enough to worry about stamp duty bands and can afford to save £60K a year" is even remotely reflective of the reality of most people's lives? You sound like that Tory on TV earlier trying to play down Cameron's own little tax avoidance scheme by saying it only involved enough money to buy a car - a car worth £9K more than the average salary.
The only practical avenue normal people(ie, not upper-middle-class professionals that are devising cunning scams around ISAs for the nearly-3-times-the-average-annual-salary in savings they want to make every year) have for reducing their tax burden is the strictly illegal way - taking cash payment and not declaring it to HMRC. You can invite me to read your explanation again if you like, in most cases I see it as a distinction without a difference.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
The Prime Minister, who has been making all kinds of noises about "offshore tax havens" and "financial transparency", has now admitted to having owned undeclared shares in an offshore shell company.
This is correct. You even placed it in the correct format. It was something from his past.
...now take it to his logical conclusion.
- Cameron had benefit of offshore funds set up by his father.
- He then closed down his offshore funds prior to becoming Prime Minister.
- Then he made noises about offshore tax havens and financial transparency.
Nothing remotely wrong with his ethical stance there. it is not a case of 'do as i say not as I do', it is a case of 'do you you would have others do'. Cameron didnt publicise his own cleaning up of offshores account in his family name. He did not need to and it wouldn't serve any good, instead he quietly closed them with no exposure. There is a maturity and integrity in that approach and the left wing press and their apologists are hell bent on twisting that into something it is not.
yet we are still waiting for the same media to deal with real issues of absolute transparent tax fiddling:
Did Prescott resign, was he even called to resign, was his crimes, and I do mean the word crime here get refered to the CPS. Hell no. You cant do that, he's Labour.
i know how was 'only' deputy Prime Minister, but come on. People are reacting to Camerons recorded actions of integrity and evidential non-hypocrisy as if he just shot the dog, raised it from the dead, run it over, raised it as a zombie and shot it again.
Perhaps Cameron's real financial 'crime' is being a member of the wrong party while having possession of a healthy bank account.
The Blairmore scandal? It makes more sense as the MoreBlair scandal.
This is a "non issue and private matter" that may yet see his resignation (depending on what else crawls out of the woodwork).
So because it's Cameron there must be some hidden undeclared dodgy fund somewhere? Where do you get the remotest idea that would be true? If anything Cameron is less likely to have dodgy funds as the leaks have revealed that he has the moral cohesion to set his house in order. Lots of things could crawl out of the woodwork, who is to say it will be Cameron's accounts that hit the press.
Your comment reads as 'no smoke without fire' which is a mental trap of injustice. You can hate Tories as much as you like and wish they will be caught red handed in wrongdoing but accusation doesn't infer guilt. Just because you want there to be dodgy hidden Cameron funds for the press to find doesn't mean there are any, or he is any more likely to actually haver them than anyone else in public office today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yet instead of framing it as having cleaned up his act, he made it look like a dirty secret. He's actually taken something legal and made it look as shifty as possible. Maybe he can't help but be evasive and avoid answering a straight question for a week. Between that and his pro-EU leaflet he's not having a good week.
I can sort of understand this point of view.
However Cameron when cleaning up the account he himself did not set up, his father did. Could have spun it out as 'look at how moral I am, here are my dads dodgy accounts but I am moving it all onshore'. that sort of drumbeating doesnt work and is read in all the wrong ways, it isnt even seen as very moral. The moral methodology to doing something right in our culture is to do it on the quiet without fanfare, a good example is the widows mite analogy and charity. Britsih culture doesnt see fanfare supported cleanups, even on issues not instifgated by ther person doing the clean up as a sign of integrity. Cameron understood and did ehat he needed to do properly.
Cameron has not been able to frame his actions as a cleaning up for the above reasons. Also allowing for the extremes the lefgt wing press are prepared to go it would make no progress anyway. As Cameron's entirely legal actions have already been highlighted as tax evasion, which is thoroughly unfair, and calls have been made linking him to what happened with the Icelandic head of government, who was conducting different financial actions to Cameron via the same banking network. This is for all intent and purpose demanding Cameron resign for no other reason than because his father used the same bank as Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.
This whole episode is a stitch up, and the rabid left insist on demanding that an inflated fabricated account of what is happening is the actual truth and demanding action on it. He is being bullseyed by Labour the same was Saddam Hussein was, with a dodgy dossier of lies, and any recourse to set the matter straight has from day one been shouted down. The hard left don't want 'straight questions' answered, and havern't asked any frankly. They want to control the narrative entirely and an enormous Labour spin machine is in full operation to get it. We haven't seen this in operation on this scale since the late 90's in the run up to the new honest transparent leadership promised by the new honest transparent Tony Blair. And we all know how that one panned out.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/09 01:21:46
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
You can bleat about 'Labour spin' all you like but if it was all above board why didn't he simply say so when he was asked about his father's dubious company in 2012 or even more puzzlingly when the Panama papers were published? It may have generated a newspaper article or 2, maybe even a headline but that's about it.
Instead we have had a string of "no comment" which then mutated into "I own no shares in my father's company" until finally the truth (if it is the whole truth) finally oozes out.
If nothing else this episode shines a light on the PM's lack of judgement. If you have skeletons like these rattling around in the closest and were making all kinds of noises about financial transparency the prudent thing would be to get them properly buried.
A Yougov poll has now put Jeremy Corbyn's approval rating above Dave. Remember when Corbyn was elected as Labour leader and certain people were saying that there was literally no chance he would be PM? Yeah.....
A Yougov poll has now put Jeremy Corbyn's approval rating above Dave. Remember when Corbyn was elected as Labour leader and certain people were saying that there was literally no chance he would be PM? Yeah.....
You can rate above Fred West and Jimmy Saville and still not be seen as leadership material.
I still see this as a PR attempt back firing more than Cameron being hypocritical on tax avoidance. - I would seriously look at my advisors and ask what the fething feth!
Camerons Camelot has greater cracks to plaster over.
Cameron's credibility has been shot down in flames - he's a lame duck PM. The aftermath of the EU referendum (win or lose) was always going to be trouble for him, but the tax haven issue makes him look shifty and unreliable.
If he can't give a straight answer when he has nothing to hide, then people will rightfully wonder what other issues he hasn't been straightforward about.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Cameron didn't set up the accounts, his father did.
Cameron dealt with his association to them which was third party according to the rules for parliamentary standards and did so before taking office.
You can bleat about 'Labour spin' all you like but if it was all above board why didn't he simply say so when he was asked about his father's dubious company in 2012 or even more puzzlingly when the Panama papers were published? It may have generated a newspaper article or 2, maybe even a headline but that's about it.
First I do not bleat, I make reasoned comment.
Second, it is evident that this would not have resulted in a headline or two, as even with disclosure parts of the press have a vested interest in misreportage. If Camerons families legal tax situation is reported as tax evasion then the truth of the matter is not relevant as the truth is not what is being reported on.
Instead we have had a string of "no comment" which then mutated into "I own no shares in my father's company" until finally the truth (if it is the whole truth) finally oozes out.
Case in point. You misrecord what Cameron has actually said and done, wther our of ignorance or spite is not relevant.. He has not said 'no comment' he declared that he had declared to the tax authorities everything that was required by law, and to parliamentary standards everything that was declarable and had nothing to hide. That is not a 'no comment' or even remotely close to it.
Second 'I own no shares in my fathers company is not separate to the truth as you imply, unless to positively know otherwise from hard evidence it is the truth. Cameron like everyone else is entitled to the provision of assumed innocence without evidence of guilt.
A Yougov poll has now put Jeremy Corbyn's approval rating above Dave. Remember when Corbyn was elected as Labour leader and certain people were saying that there was literally no chance he would be PM? Yeah.....
It takers a lot of spin to get this far, and wont last long. Its a meeting of the tides. Personal financial accountability is Corbyns only strong suit, and I do acknowledge it of the man, and at the same time Camedron is being spun out of all proportion as a tax dodger who cant tell the truth, despite more level headed reportage elsewhere in the press. Even so in optimal circumstances Corbyns populartity can only touch over.
This might sound like good news for Corbyn but it isnt if you think about it.
f nothing else this episode shines a light on the PM's lack of judgement. If you have skeletons like these rattling around in the closest and were making all kinds of noises about financial transparency the prudent thing would be to get them properly buried.
The more level headed sections of the press have already past comment on this and tried to move on. It is evident that Cameron had done nothing wrong, so there is no error of judgement. He laso has made no cover up. He had benefit of funds set up by a third person in his own family and decided on his own conscience that he could not associate with that and be Prime Minister. That showed monetary integrity.
Now Tom Watson has changed Labours tune a little made rephrased this affair in wording that is less contradictory to the truth. He speaks of appearance without claim of wrongdoing or expectation of assumption that the Prime Minister has done wrong. He cleverly banks on the public perception that there is something dodgy going on (after having whipped that up of course) without making direct accusation by calling for reassurance.
This is how it is done:
I still see this as a PR attempt back firing more than Cameron being hypocritical on tax avoidance. - I would seriously look at my advisors and ask what the fething feth!
QFT. Though the Tories can't outspin New Labour, and this part of New Labour is definitely still in operation.
It will be a wake up call time on Millbank. The heavily distorted spin machine from the 90's is still at Labours exclusive call.
I am seeing this as Labour playing a hand of poker with two pair. They know they haven't got anything on Cameron on this deal, but they can play the hand, not fold, and continue to add chips. The logical press want to fold and move to the next draw, but the red press want this hand to play on and on and for stakes to rise.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/09 11:04:18
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: Second 'I own no shares in my fathers company is not separate to the truth as you imply
I never implied that, I'm sure it was the literal truth; its what was missed out that is vitally important. Its immaterial that these shares were valued less than the (rather high) bar required before they must legally be declared. Their very nature is incendiary and, while I am sure that Dave hoped that their existence would never be made public, it was always a big risk to not simply declare them publicity in some way. His father's shell company has been under journalistic investigation since at least 2012, he knew this yet did nothing. His lack of forethought and judgement is what has lead him to this extremely damaging situation.
Orlanth wrote: The more level headed sections of the press have already past comment on this and tried to move on.
Even the Torygraph are still running with this story.....
Orlanth wrote: Second 'I own no shares in my fathers company is not separate to the truth as you imply
I never implied that, I'm sure it was the literal truth; its what was missed out that is vitally important. Its immaterial that these shares were valued less than the (rather high) bar required before they must legally be declared. Their very nature is incendiary and, while I am sure that Dave hoped that their existence would never be made public, it was always a big risk to not simply declare them publicity in some way. His father's shell company has been under journalistic investigation since at least 2012, he knew this yet did nothing. His lack of forethought and judgement is what has lead him to this extremely damaging situation.
By 2012 Cameron had already divested himself of the assets legally two years prior. That was forethought and good judgement.
Orlanth wrote: The more level headed sections of the press have already past comment on this and tried to move on.
Even the Torygraph are still running with this story.....
Tried is the operative word.
Mirror and Guardian are trying to spin this out as a resignable offense, even though it wasn't even an offense or even an error, or even Camerons own actions but his fathers. That itself is the news story, not anything Cameron has allegedly done.
Cameron had decided today not to fight the spin machine but to get out of the problem the direct way. The hard left will howl for blood until their throats are hoarse because that is what they do.
Because having a dad, who is now dead, who set up an account, which is now closed, in a bank, that was exposed, to have been used by someone else, in another nations government, to hide money from taxmen, is a real 'error of judgement'.
Cameron should have just refused to pay council tax like Geoff Hoon and John Prescott, and bullied the departments concerned, as that appears to be the honest way to save money on tjhe side.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
By 2012 Cameron had already divested himself of the assets legally two years prior.
Then why not say so at the time? He could easily have admitted to owning the shares when his father was named in the leak and avoided (most of) this yet he was deliberately vague until the truth (as it stands) was dragged out of him. If this was all perfectly legal and morally above board why not instantly admit it?
Is it any wonder why people think that politicians are dishonest?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/09 15:41:28
By 2012 Cameron had already divested himself of the assets legally two years prior.
Then why not say so at the time?
Why should he? I legally divested himself of the portfolio two years prior, there was no story. Hence there was no story at the time.
This is just a spin filled witch hunt.
Ken Livingston is now saying Cameron should go to prison.
“Cameron’s government, for the last six years, has been about a small elite getting richer while the poorer get left behind," the former Mayor of London told Russian news channel RT. “He shouldn’t just resign, he should be sent to prison."
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Because he is the Prime Minster and this sort of thing looks bad especially since he tried to hide it after making all those populist noises about financial transparency? Discounting for a moment the moral argument for doing everything in the open when you are in public office; modern politics are largely driven by appearances and headlines and as such this is a spectacular own goal of his own devising which he really should have seen coming.
No point in continuing this particular line with you as it is becoming circular.
I am very interested in what else is going to be beaten out of the bushes in the coming months.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/09 15:56:44
Because he is the Prime Minster and this sort of thing looks bad especially since he tried to hide it after making all those populist noises about financial transparency? Discounting for a moment the moral argument for doing everything in the open when you are in public office; modern politics are largely driven by appearances and headlines and as such this is a spectacular own goal of his own devising which he really should have seen coming.
He couldn't have seen it coming just as Iceland and Russia didn't see it coming. Furthermore it was different he dealt with the issue PRIOR TO TAKING OFFICE. How many times must the actual facts be presented before they take precedence in your head over the spin.
As you say appearances matter, that rather than actual facts are what is driving the story, and it is evident that facts don't make the hype go away. Cameron has been caught in a trap that wasn't of his own making, of which he divested himself lawfully and ethically. Those are the facts. The appearance is what the mob are howling for, yet it is plain as day that they are howling because of who he is not what is alleged to have happened. The mob doesn't even care it wasn't Cameron who set up the account to begin with, his father did and passed him the assets, long before he was Prime Minister and being likely to become Prime Minister he divested himself of the funds lawfully.
Cameron will survive this, it is however interesting that Labour has set a precedent, there are a lot of skellies cupboards of politics, Cameron thankfully for himself did no actual wrong, if not wrongdoing is somehow a resignable matter, I wonder what actual wrongdoing is like. I find it interesting that the current Labour leadership are starting to backpeddle and leaving this to the mob. There were way too many fingers in pies in the Blair years, ( which was when Ian Cameron set up the funds) if stuff was suddenly to finally come out properly, well.....
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
The whole thing is a running joke that the opposition are setting up for an inadvertent punchline.
Thery are angry because it is becoming evident that Cameron is handling his money legally and shrewdly.
Perhaps the 'crime' here is being competent with money. Why can't Cameron be more like us screams the hard left.
....Let's be glad he is not.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Avoiding tax while refusing to close tax loopholes while telling the disabled, the homeless and the mentally ill that there's no tax money to help them while allowing london to be bought out by plutocrats, tyrants and mafiosos.
Is it a bit clearer why people might be a bit pissed off with Cameron? He's part of who gets to decide that this stuff is legal. A lot of us think it SHOULDN'T be "perfectly legal" and in past statements Cameron has tried to make out that he agrees with us while benefiting from this.
This would all stink less if his government didn't go after the vulnerable at every single opportunity.
Cameron is a scumbag. A scrounger. Thousands of pounds in taxpayer funded expenses for his suits and so on so that he can badmouth the man who claims less than 1% of that and buys his own, modest suits.
Da Boss wrote: Avoiding tax while refusing to close tax loopholes while telling the disabled, the homeless and the mentally ill that there's no tax money to help them while allowing london to be bought out by plutocrats, tyrants and mafiosos.
The big London buyouts were over ten years ago. That was when the Chelskis etc moved in. it wasn't just in London either.
It had happened - therefore it must be Camerons fault, shouldn't cut it.
Is it a bit clearer why people might be a bit pissed off with Cameron? He's part of who gets to decide that this stuff is legal. A lot of us think it SHOULDN'T be "perfectly legal" and in past statements Cameron has tried to make out that he agrees with us while benefiting from this.
The day it isnt perfectly legal is the day the money walks out of the nation never to return. Even Corbyn know this to be true.
Its economic hard reality, its why there is talk about closing the loopholes and there has been by both main parries for decades, but neither will do it.
Also passing monies to avoid inheritence tax is one of the things which is not only legal but shred wise and quite honourable. Your family member is dead, so hand it over, that's the nasty part, not the getting round it by deed of gift. Spreading money about the family to prevent this is mainstream you don't need to have had to been an Eton allumni to do this, most family owned homes are worth enough to be in the bracket..
Cameron is a scumbag. A scrounger. Thousands of pounds in taxpayer funded expenses for his suits and so on so that he can badmouth the man who claims less than 1% of that and buys his own, modest suits.
He isn't a scrounger, and we are still paying for the cosmic feth up which was Gordon Brown and will be for many decades to come.
I dont liike austerity, but it became necessary after the squanderfest that placed the UK into spiraling foreign debt.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Cameron overlooked one of the golden lessons of politics: the cover up is always worse than the crime.
What crime? What cover up? He has commited no crime. There is no cover up either.
With everyone getting exited you only need to imply a crime and point to silence as cover-up. Waiting days to say something has probably damaged him worse than having a non-active offshore company. Thus, the "cover-up" is worse than the "crime".
Nicola Sturgeon has joined Scotland's other party leaders in publishing her tax returns amid calls for transparency over politicians' personal finances.
Prime Minister David Cameron published a summary of his taxes after criticism in the wake of the Panama tax leak.
Scottish Labour's Kezia Dugdale released her returns on Saturday, and was followed by Tory Ruth Davidson.
SNP leader Ms Sturgeon and Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems then published their documents the following day.
Minus pension contributions, which are not taxable, each opposition leader was paid over £52,000 for their work as an MSP. Each paid just over £10,000 in tax.
For her role as First Minister, again minus pension contributions, Ms Sturgeon was paid more than £104,000, and paid over £31,000 in tax.
'Palpable anger'
Ms Dugdale was the first of the Scottish party leaders to publish her returns, saying she had "nothing to hide".
The figures showed Ms Dugdale had paid £734.40 in tax for earnings from her Daily Record newspaper column despite donating the full annual fee of £5450 to the Motor Neuron Disease Scotland charity.
Ms Dugdale said: "There is an obligation on all of us who seek to serve the public to be transparent.
"Not since the MPs expenses scandal has there been such palpable anger at the sense of unfairness at the heart of our society.
"Politicians need to not only play by the rules, they need to be seen to be playing by the rules."
Kezia speech
Image caption
Ms Dugdale said there was an obligation on public servants to be transparent
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, who published her returns shortly after Ms Dugdale, also made charitable donations from her income without claiming relief.
Ms Davidson has repeatedly defended Mr Cameron over his tax affairs, saying the prime minister has been "very clear" about his finances.
Scottish Lib Dem leader Mr Rennie, who published his returns on Sunday, noted: "Compared with certain other party leaders my tax returns are rather dull, but here they are anyway."
As Ms Sturgeon published her returns, the SNP said both she and her predecessor Alex Salmond had forgone over £20,000 in pay since 2009 through a system which sees minister put money from their own pay packets towards public spending.
Ms Sturgeon said: "There should be a presumption that if you earn money in this country, you should pay tax on that in this country.
"I'm going to continue to argue very strongly for reform of tax avoidance."
But why didnt she do this before!!!! WHAT DOES SHE HAVE TO HIDE PRIOR TO 2014!!!
She has a tax return to publish!!! What about those of us who pay no tax becuase we fall under the thresholds for paying PAYE!!!! Elitist fether!
Why did they have to wait for a scandal before publishing their returns!!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/10 15:08:49
I reckon it should be common practice. In fact it'd be quite interesting if tax returns were public information.
I guess that might put richer people at risk of crime.
Corbyn was calling for all MPs to publish their tax and financial details. I'm pretty sure there'll be some pretty dodgy dealings on the Labour side too, but I know who I'd be betting will come out the worst out of the two parties.
Da Boss wrote: I reckon it should be common practice. In fact it'd be quite interesting if tax returns were public information.
I guess that might put richer people at risk of crime.
Corbyn was calling for all MPs to publish their tax and financial details. I'm pretty sure there'll be some pretty dodgy dealings on the Labour side too, but I know who I'd be betting will come out the worst out of the two parties.
Corbyn may have pushed but I reckon its honors even for sliminess out of dodgy dealings between red and blue. Tories have the better headline grabbing problems but labour are much more sinister in their back room dealings and brown envelopes of cash.
Mr. Burning wrote: Tories have the better headline grabbing problems but labour are much more sinister in their back room dealings and brown envelopes of cash.
Mr. Burning wrote: Tories have the better headline grabbing problems but labour are much more sinister in their back room dealings and brown envelopes of cash.
Good luck quantifying that.
Recent history shows us that Labour were rotten to the core. The current crop of Labour MP's are better but old habits die hard and their associations are still questionable. They don't have to show anything but it'll be close if both the cabinet and its shadow produce their tax returns and information about donations and financial dealings.
