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

[Dolph]

I agree, not in all cases no, but I do believe so in this example....and at the end of the day the basis of law has arisen from morality.

Because even as the Government have described it, tax avoidance measures are given within the system to help and incentivise people/companies for all manner of reasons. These are supposed to be used within the normal scope of the business. But when systems are set up with no relevance to the running of the business, solely for tax avoidance then I do believe this is wrong. Maybe I shouldn't be an accountant eh?

I know liberals complain about the left policies of progressive taxation - why should you pay more tax when you earn more, it should be a flat rate tax (Not that I personally agree with this) but even so, can anyone explain why it is ok that when you hit the status of 'super-rich' you should pay less tax (as a %) than the lower earners?

Especially in todays climate, where its well known the country is broke, Don't you think we should all just man up and pay our fair share?

Its not like they cant afford it.

I can see no reason why anyone should pay different proportions of tax on income to others, whether that is greater or smaller than the average.

That's why I support negative income tax as the appropriate way to run the taxation system, as it fulfills both progressiveness and tax fairness due to the structure.

 

[Freakbro]

I can see no reason why anyone should pay different proportions of tax on income to others, whether that is greater or smaller than the average.

I know you don't. I don't mind though

That's why I support negative income tax as the appropriate way to run the taxation system, as it fulfills both progressiveness and tax fairness due to the structure.

I like the Negative Income tax system as well, but until we have it we can still ***** and moan about the system we have and how its abused by the people at the top

 

[Dolph]

I know you don't. I don't mind though



I like the Negative Income tax system as well, but until we have it we can still ***** and moan about the system we have and how its abused by the people at the top

Only if we can also continue moaning about those abusing the productive economy through their non-productive employment or benefit scrounging

 

[Freakbro]

Only if we can also continue moaning about those abusing the productive economy through their non-productive employment or benefit scrounging

If the same people moaned about both, then I would agree!

But its generally polarised so that each side only points out the errors in the other and defends their own side. Thats the hypocrisy I dont like.

 

[RDM]

I agree, not in all cases no, but I do believe so in this example....and at the end of the day the basis of law has arisen from morality.

Not really, where is the moral issue within taxation? Tax really isn't an issue of morality. Paying taxes doesn't make you a moral person. Am I less moral than I was 2 years ago due to being a student now and not paying income tax anymore?

Because even as the Government have described it, tax avoidance measures are given within the system to help and incentivise people/companies for all manner of reasons. These are supposed to be used within the normal scope of the business. But when systems are set up with no relevance to the running of the business, solely for tax avoidance then I do believe this is wrong. Maybe I shouldn't be an accountant eh?

However you wrong you may feel it is, can you define why it is morally wrong? If you are going to throw around words such as "immoral" then you should really back it up with reasons why.

I know liberals complain about the left policies of progressive taxation - why should you pay more tax when you earn more, it should be a flat rate tax (Not that I personally agree with this) but even so, can anyone explain why it is ok that when you hit the status of 'super-rich' you should pay less tax (as a %) than the lower earners?

Especially in todays climate, where its well known the country is broke, Don't you think we should all just man up and pay our fair share?

Its not like they cant afford it.

That is a bit of a silly argument, I am sure many people could afford to pay more tax, does that mean they are being immoral by not doing so? Then we have the problem of what a "fair share" is. Sadly it tends to be used to mean "someone else paying more and me paying less".

The OP mentioned Vodafone as one of the "tax dodging" companies, it is far from clear that Vodafone has done anything wrong or immoral and is meant to have one of the more transparent tax policies in business. The settlement with HMRC was something in the region of £1.4bn, is that a fair amount? If not, how are you defining fair?

 

[Scrutinize]

A lot of this is down to perceptions and not facts or the law.

People see the word ‘Avoidance’ and get the wrong idea.

If it was called ‘managing your tax liabilities’ or ‘tax relief’ or ‘tax reduction’ no one would get up in arms about it, especially since 99% of people don’t understand what it entails anyway and just see headline names.

 

[Dolph]

If the same people moaned about both, then I would agree!

But its generally polarised so that each side only points out the errors in the other and defends their own side. Thats the hypocrisy I dont like.

I tend to moan about the root cause of both, namely the government (past and present).

I don't generally see people objecting to (for example) government crackdowns on tax avoidance. I can't see any in this thread. (defence of avoidance within the current code should not be confused with rejecting changes in the current code).

I do, however, see many people objecting to the government trying to address the problems of the current welfare state.

 

[Freakbro]

Not really, where is the moral issue within taxation? Tax really isn't an issue of morality. Paying taxes doesn't make you a moral person. However you wrong you may feel it is, can you define why it is morally wrong? If you are going to throw around words such as "immoral" then you should really back it up with reasons why.

Because paying tax is a social responsibility and thus actively avoiding that responsibility beyond what society intends to permit can be viewed as immoral.

Remember we are talking about avoidance. Tax evasion is illegal, would you also say that is not immoral because it is just about tax?

Eg: So if your name is Harry Redknapp and you've opened a bank account in your dogs name in an overseas bank to squirrel away a couple hundred thousand and not pay tax on it, is that not immoral?

immoral - not adhering to ethical or moral principles

So what we are talking about is not all of tax avoidance, just where it has been manipulated beyond what was intended and what is seen as fair. Now, I cannot give you a hard line of where 'fair' is, that is decided by society.

Am I less moral than I was 2 years ago due to being a student now and not paying income tax anymore?

Of course not! You are not paying income tax, because you have no 'income'. Thats just logical

 

[Freakbro]

I do, however, see many people objecting to the government trying to address the problems of the current welfare state.

Mainly because it's felt there is a disproportionate 'addressing' of the issues.

The welfare bill is HUGE, that is a fact.

We are struggling to cope with the cost of the welfare, fact.

It's all the fault of the tiny minority of people who are generationally unemployed. Daily Mail Headline.

You know the issue is far more complex than that. I agree with a lot of your ideas and solutions, it's just some solutions that arise from your extreme political ideology that I find waaaay out there

 

[Nitefly]

That doesn't really answer the question, though to be fair you aren't actually one of the people saying it is immoral.

Why is reducing the amount of tax you pay immoral? Especially when a lot of the companies mentioned are still contributing significant amounts of money to the UK tax coffers.

I'm not against anyone making 'tactical' use of any governing rules that cover an activity within a designated area - that is to simply take advantage of what has been presented for you (as is mainly the case with tax evasion). However I am less sure about avoiding those rules entirely (which is distinctly different from the aformentioned 'tactical use') when a company is, practically speaking, commited to carrying out that same activity within that same designated area.

They are playing the game which the rule book is intended to cover but sidestep it completely. That to me is less legitimate.