Are you as morally outraged by people who exploit mis-prices or online vouchers?
Jimmy Carr overcome by grief
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Are you as morally outraged by people who exploit mis-prices or online vouchers?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Go Cameron, go!
I would have thought that it was clear very early in this thread that what Jimmy Carr is doing is not illegal; HMRC may well be unable to stop it; the suggestion, expressed by our Dear Leader is that it is "morally repugnant". Jimmy Car seems to have apologised and acknowledged that he made a "terrible error of judgement", is "no longer involved" in this particular scheme and will in future conduct his financial affairs much more responsibly.
A quite surprising number of people here seem to accept this analysis - e.g. Tunney, but there are others. Perhaps there are fewer selfish, greedy, Thatcherite individuals on this forum than I had realised
The point is that none of the Thatcher, New Labour or ConDem Governments have in the past shown any inclination to plug the bizarre loopholes that are exploited by the rich and by companies such as Vodafone, Boots, Tesco, RBS, HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and others to dodge taxes that any reasonable person would expect them to pay.
It may be that for whatever reason, Cameron and his merry band of millionaire chums will now actually do something about this morally repugnant tax dodging - if so, he will have my wholehearted support.
I would have thought that it was clear very early in this thread that what Jimmy Carr is doing is not illegal; HMRC may well be unable to stop it; the suggestion, expressed by our Dear Leader is that it is "morally repugnant". Jimmy Car seems to have apologised and acknowledged that he made a "terrible error of judgement", is "no longer involved" in this particular scheme and will in future conduct his financial affairs much more responsibly.
A quite surprising number of people here seem to accept this analysis - e.g. Tunney, but there are others. Perhaps there are fewer selfish, greedy, Thatcherite individuals on this forum than I had realised
The point is that none of the Thatcher, New Labour or ConDem Governments have in the past shown any inclination to plug the bizarre loopholes that are exploited by the rich and by companies such as Vodafone, Boots, Tesco, RBS, HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and others to dodge taxes that any reasonable person would expect them to pay.
It may be that for whatever reason, Cameron and his merry band of millionaire chums will now actually do something about this morally repugnant tax dodging - if so, he will have my wholehearted support.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Vouchers aren't depriving the country of the required finances to provide for essential services and help create fair, just and stable society - finances that other members of society have no choice (or means of avoidance) to contribute towards
I tell you what I am enjoying though - Tories criticising Tories
Last edited by a moderator:
If you asked me "can I **** on your lawn" and I said yes, would that make it acceptable? I might be happy with it, but society in general would have issues with it.
The "it's legal" argument is a non starter as far as I'm concerned. We should be focusing on intent, and if someone intends to pay less tax than anyone else who doesn't have access to these "schemes" then that's clearly unnaceptable.
Yes, I accept HMRC have the main role in closing these loopholes or not approving these schemes but people/business should be policing themselves and not relying on government to do it for them. How very liberal of me
But everyone has access to tax-avoidance schemes. There is, quite literally, zero difference in the eyes of HMRC between putting your savings in an ISA and a K2-like arrangement. Both are legal, reviewed and signed-off by HMRC. I've yet to hear a reasoned argument for why they're any different.
I'm also confused about this double-standards issue that seems to be going on. Thousands of people each year go to Europe to buy wine, beer, cigarettes etc. for the sole reason that they're cheaper - they don't have to pay UK tax. Their very intention is to avoid paying UK tax. Isn't that *exactly the same* as what Carr et al are supposed to have done? Is that unacceptable to you?
As I mentioned before, there's a lot of self-employed / sole traders who prefer to be payed in cash because it lets them keep the income hidden from HMRC. I'd argue that since this is actually illegal, why don't we have even more moral outrage about this? Is it because it's mainly carried out by the perceived 'working class' (plumbers, builders, electricians, etc.)?
Or would I be right in assuming that the faux-moral outrage here is because the fact that the person doing the tax avoiding happens to be rich, whereas people who hop across the channel for cheap booze are just 'one of the rest of us, sticking it to the government'?
What would be intersting is to compare the amount of revenue lost by HMRC to cash-in-hand work, booze-cruises etc. to the estimated £68bn lost through tax avoidance schemes.
I don't think it's to do with the fact that the person is rich; therefore people are jealous; therefore they attack them.
It's more to do with the fact that because they are rich, the amount the treasury loses through their avoidance would be the equivalent of say 10 'normal' people paying by cash...
This can of course be countered by the old "yes but the amount they actually pay is the equivalent of 10 'normal' people so it balances out" but not everyone will see it this way.
Meh. People just hate the wealthy....... For being wealthy!
We can close all the loopholes we want. They'll still be hated
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Actually I don't agree with it, no. I'd like to see the import allowances reduced massively.
I don't agree with cash in hand either. I pay cash for a lot of things, but it's nothing to do with trying to get it cheaper or avoid tax - I just happen to have a fair bit of cash with me most of the time. If I thought a business wasn't going to put the "cash" through the books then I'd happilly let HMRC know, the same as I'd shop a benefit cheat or a crook.
You'd be wrong
Meh. People just hate the wealthy....... For being wealthy!
We can close all the loopholes we want. They'll still be hated
Wrong - I like Dame Stephanie Shirley, John Barnado, John Howard, Warren Buffet, William Booth, Bill gates etc.
What I don't like is the wealthy who do nothing meaningful with thier wealth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Meh. People just hate the wealthy....... For being wealthy!
We can close all the loopholes we want. They'll still be hated
I don't think it's as simple as that which is why I hate the "you're just jealous" response when these things are discussed.
I can only speak for myself, but I would like to think that I judge a person based on their words and actions before I judge them on their wealth, race or sexual orientation.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
In which case, why not just close the loopholes, since it will not in any way alter the level of hate?Meh. People just hate the wealthy....... For being wealthy!
We can close all the loopholes we want. They'll still be hated
ps - I think that your analysis is a load of spheres.
If I thought a business wasn't going to put the "cash" through the books then I'd happilly let HMRC know, the same as I'd shop a benefit cheat or a crook.
Cool.
Fair enough. Would be interesting to see the numbers on what costs the country more though for the following:
Tax evasion
Corporate Tax avoidance
Individual Tax avoidance as a result of tax accountant / careful planning (e.g. K2)
Individual Tax avoiding as a result of things you don't need a tax accountant for, booze cruises, ISAs, etc.
Maybe once the numbers are in, we'll know where to point the pitchforks.
So why are HMRC investigating K2 and similarly schemes? Surely that would be a waste of resources if they were totally above board?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I concur - you can't implement a fair system without subjecting everyone or everything to the same level of analysis.
I think it's commonly accepted though that as you increase your wealth, more avoidance schemes become available - even things like ISA's aren't available to be utilised by the less well off. How many people on minimum wage can get the full benefit of ISA's? I think this is where Dolphs negative tax scenario would be of benefit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Yes - HMRC have quite obviously made a mistake and need to correct it but just because someone has made a mistake though doesn't mean you should automatically go out of your way to exploit it.
Time for a facetious analogy - it's like in BF3 getting on one of Tehran Highways overpasses with the MAV exploit. If you did it on most servers before it was patched out you'd be greeted by the admins ban hammer, never mind how much you protested "but it's Dice's fault for not fixing it" or "but the game lets you do it".
Presumably two reasons.
1) They're seeing if what's actually implemented is actually what was proposed to them by the tax accountants and what they signed off on.
2) The govt jumped onto the HMRC and said "look into this! Find something illegal!"
There's nothing special about tax avoidance schemes on that basis. The more you increase your wealth, the more options for cars, houses, holidays become available to you. People on minimum wage don't get the full benefits of an ISA for the same reasons they don't get the full benefits of the zero-rated tax on a brand new hybrid car. They can't afford it.
Last edited:
To be fair they have closed some, and they say they're going to close more. They didn't have it in their manifesto, and it's been in the last year that they've picked up on it.
It isn't as simple as saying "Thou shalt not dodge thy taxes" and it's done. Every loophole uses a scheme which avoids tax by forcing tax law to treat it as an exception. However it is of course very possible to close down these schemes.
Part of the reason is we have a ludicrously complicated tax system. However government has nothing to gain by scrapping it and writing it all again, not unless there's cross party support - which there isn't. In lieu of that all they can do is try to be as dynamic as possible, and shut down these schemes as quickly as they appear. At the moment the schemes are being so widely used because it's been the case that there's always a new wheeze to try. Close them down and close the new ones fast and it'll be an industry that vanishes.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I'm not an expert on VAT or tax in general. However, I believe that there is a clause in the VAT legislation along the lines of "Any unusual business activity the only purpose of which is to avoid a liability to VAT will be deemed illegal." This essentially gives HMRC the opportunity to change the rules on-the-hoof - sounds entirely reasonable to me
As I understand it HMRC staff are horrendously overworked and inexperienced. I have no doubt that they are assessed on the basis of results. Chasing a rich tax dodger is likely to be much more expensive, trickier and riskier than going after yer average Joe who can't afford an expensive Accountant and Barrister specialising in tax avoidance.
One can but dream