Actually, it counts as avoiding paying tax on the interest of income which has already been earned and taxed, rather than avoiding paying tax at all.
Jimmy Carr overcome by grief
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Actually, it counts as avoiding paying tax on the interest of income which has already been earned and taxed, rather than avoiding paying tax at all.
So it's avoiding paying tax.
ISA is exactly the same just ob a smaller scale.
Look all these people saying they would not do it are wrong. If you earn millions and an accountant tells you he can cut your tax bill by some % who wouldn't do it.
Guess all contractors are tax dodgers too when they run their own company? Don't think so
Look all these people saying they would not do it are wrong. If you earn millions and an accountant tells you he can cut your tax bill by some % who wouldn't do it.
Guess all contractors are tax dodgers too when they run their own company? Don't think so
But those systems are available to everyone!
yes if you want to to be an unbelievably pedantic.It still doesn't compare to the tax avoidance described in the OP for a whole host of reasons.
It still doesn't compare to the tax avoidance described in the OP for a whole host of reasons.
if by unbelievably pedantic you mean the reason it was created to encourage saving by letting people avoid tax then sure.
And yes it does.
Indeed, the alternative to not allowing company based abroad to trade here unless they pay all their taxes here would be a very bad thing.
It's just the way international business works, it's not 'nice' or straight forward but it works. You just have to have means and ways of lowering corporation and employee taxes to invite those businesses here.
Explain to me how a government supported scheme with a strict limit on the amount of money per year that can be used to earn tax exempt interest, from earnings which have already had tax deducted from them (in my case, can't speak for the rest of society) is in any way similar to a scheme that sees someone's earnings funnelled off shore before they pay tax only to be 'loaned' back to them and then for the loan to be defaulted upon.
The two are so different it's unreal that you could suggest anyone who uses an ISA is on par with those using the K2 avoidance scheme.
Then where do you draw the line?
I would draw the line at implementing complex techniques that the tax system was never designed to account for.
However, I'm fully aware that while these legal loopholes are in place, there is no reason not to use them.
What I'm saying is that when clever accountants find ways of getting around the system, it's the governments responsibility to close the loopholes.
This to me is blatantly obvious. If a Prime Minister singles you out for comment and you risk being demonised in the media then you sure as hell grovel until you look good again. Anyone who believes he has the slightest shred of remorse or didn't fully know what he was doing is kidding themselves. I imagine he's pretty peed off with the whole situation all in all, especially as many of his fellow celebs will be doing exactly the same and ribbing him for it next time they see him.
Exactly, it is the governments responsibility to draw the line, aka the law.
Everyone else should be entitled to venture as close to that line as they wish.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
So, imagine they accidently changed the law, without realising, that you could kill your next door neighbours cat if the wind blew @ 25mph to the ENE, would you do it?
No, of course you wouldn't, because even though it would be legal you'd know it is wrong.
This "well it's legal" argument is a total crock of ****.
Both are 100% legal ways of reducing your tax expenditure.
About sums it up really.
This is paying tax, not life or death.
Say you have have taxable income of £100,000
Is paying 30% tax on your income immoral?
Or is it 20%?
Or is it 15%?
Or is it 10%?
Drawing the line at any of those point is completely arbitrary, which is why the law is there.
For the record, if you don't take advantage of any tax breaks whatsoever you should be paying 35%
Last edited:
It's not as black and white as this, there are many shades of grey. If there was 100% nothing wrong with it the government wouldn't be trying to close the loophole.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,307
There is nothing wrong with it, the reason they are trying to close the loopholes is because they want more tax money to help reduce the budget deficit.
Considering many countries in the Eurozone are being forced to increase tax rates to try and pay off their debts, I'm surprised more isn't being done to try to force the likes of Luxembourg to stop allowing the rich from around Europe from reducing the amount of tax they should be paying using their banks.
I know enough about PR to know you don't apologise except as a last resort when you don't have a leg to stand on. He's bang to rights and he knows it.