Chief Secretary to the Treasury says tax avoidance is wrong . . . sometimes . . .

Stockhausen, you have well and truly out trolled yourself this time.

Have you signed up to some kind of service where you get this propaganda emailed to you daily.

Not only that but you have shown that you do not understand this subject.
 
stockhausen said:
Lawyers and accountants specialising in assisting the rich avoid paying their fair share of tax should spend time sewing mailbags and avoiding the showers ;)
Click to expand...
You think that my accountant should go to prison for advising me on how best to minimise my tax liability and make my income more tax efficient...?

Do you think I should go to prison for paying into a pension, using an ISA or a NS&I savings bond?

You're an idiot. And no, that isn't a personal attack - it is a statement of fact.

Wikipedia said:
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
Click to expand...
 
Nitefly said:
Surely he will be salaried and will be paying his own income tax?
Click to expand...

It seems that his "salary" is actually paid to a limited company, who will no doubt forward it on to him after reducing the tax liability.

Scrutinize said:
Have you signed up to some kind of service where you get this propaganda emailed to you daily.
Click to expand...

I believe it's called "the news". You should try reading it one day.
 
Nitefly said:
It's a waste of money if institutions funded by tax are looking to increase their ability to stick to budgets by paying 3rd parties to help avoid tax - it means less money will be availible to those institutions in the first place and the only really winner is the 3rd party.

That's as far as I understand, I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

This makes perfect sense to me. Although, technically avoiding more tax if you manage to save more money than you spend, it will likely help the public sector companies/organisations budget. Despite the fact that long term it willl be negative.

E.g. Government says they can have £500m this year. By spending £5 on working out how to best avoid tax they get to keep £50m more. Company therefore has an increase in its budget of £50m this year, despite the fact that the money it's taxed goes straight back into it's budget. It's just government beaureacracy(sp?)that encourages this I think.


Apart from that. For everyone curious, tax avoidance is fine, evasion is illegal.

kd
 
King Damager said:
This makes perfect sense to me. Although, technically avoiding more tax if you manage to save more money than you spend, it will likely help the public sector companies/organisations budget. Despite the fact that long term it willl be negative.
Click to expand...

It will help the individual organisation by increasing the usable funds from their budget.

BUT, what will also happen is that overall if you take the public sector as a whole there will be less money available and some is effectively being diverted to private companies.
 
Pudney said:
It will help the individual organisation by increasing the usable funds from their budget.

BUT, what will also happen is that overall if you take the public sector as a whole there will be less money available and some is effectively being diverted to private companies.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, absolutely. But the individual organisation will care about the individual organisation, because there isn't a correct reward scheme to stop people avoiding..

kd
 
You forgot Ed Milliband of your list of known tax avoiders, and the guardian media group...
 
Remember, Tax avoidance is fine, no matter how much moaning lefties squeal about it.

In the words of Lord Tomlin, in the House of Lords in IR v Duke of Westminster 1936 “every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less that it otherwise would. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.
Click to expand...
 
Hatter The Mad said:
You think that my accountant should go to prison for advising me on how best to minimise my tax liability and make my income more tax efficient...?

Do you think I should go to prison for paying into a pension, using an ISA or a NS&I savings bond?

You're an idiot. And no, that isn't a personal attack - it is a statement of fact.
Click to expand...
Frankly if you are daft enough to be paying an accountant to advise you to have a pension, invest in ISAs or a NS&I savings bond you really aren't competent to be bandying around words like "idiot"; you should start with something simple like cat, sat or mat :p


Here you go, perhaps the ConDems should consider introducing AND enforcing something along the lines of:
A tax arrangement will be illegal when it is not expressly included in the allowances and:
  • it will, or might be expected to, enable any person to obtain a tax advantage
  • that tax advantage is, or might be expected to be, the main benefit or one of the main benefits of the arrangement
Click to expand...
That would be a nice start to cutting down on tax dodgers :)
 
stockhausen said:
Frankly if you are daft enough to be paying an accountant to advise you to have a pension, invest in ISAs or a NS&I savings bond you really aren't competent to be bandying around words like "idiot"; you should start with something simple like cat, sat or mat :p


Here you go, perhaps the ConDems should consider introducing AND enforcing something along the lines of:That would be a nice start to cutting down on tax dodgers :)
Click to expand...

What would that be combatting? I honestly don't think you understand the tax system.
 
A tax arrangement will be illegal when it is not expressly included in the allowances and:
  • it will, or might be expected to, enable any person to obtain a tax advantage
  • that tax advantage is, or might be expected to be, the main benefit or one of the main benefits of the arrangement
Click to expand...

Please no. That would be 'extreme pornography' all over again. We need laws precise enough that you can tell if you're breaking them. Anything else gives the government license to go after anyone they happen to dislike.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
You think that my accountant should go to prison for advising me on how best to minimise my tax liability and make my income more tax efficient...?

Do you think I should go to prison for paying into a pension, using an ISA or a NS&I savings bond?

You're an idiot. And no, that isn't a personal attack - it is a statement of fact.
Click to expand...


His post is brought about by this in the news today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16854187

Which if you agree with is frankly reprehensible ... I can understand various tax incentives for private business and perhaps some ways of limiting tax liability yes fine but we are talking basic income tax and NI for a person employed in the public sector..... in saying that there is possibly more to this story but u need to login on the Exaro website...
 
Dolph said:
You forgot Ed Milliband of your list of known tax avoiders, and the guardian media group...
Click to expand...

apparently it's also fine to jump in bed with tax "dodgers" if you're a lib dem :p


remember him having "vote for change, vote lib dem" or something similar in every post for a while?


Who knows we may never of had this government if it wasn't for Stockhausen's diligent campaigning.
 
Ban him. Please ban him. I can't stand reading his nonsense, yet I can't help myself either. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom