Should Gary Barlow return his OBE?

[Castiel]

How can you be avoiding a tax that legally you should not pay?

In this thread the discussion revolves around the legal reduction of an individuals tax liability...

Using the word avoid in the context you have done, if Muon is to be believed, an example: You can 'avoid' paying as much income tax by claiming for expenses relating to your business.

If you are talking about Tax Avoidance, as in the legal and/or literal term, then Tax Avoidance is the legal minimising of your tax liability.

Both are legitimate in the context of the law.

 

[Castiel]

You mention in your opening post methods of avoidance Castiel, this is not avoidance, it is evasion.

Indeed, you are correct. I was however, only illustrating that such practices regarding individuals tax liabilities are commonplace, and it does also illustrate the difference in how I used the word 'avoids' rather than the term 'tax avoidance' that Kitch9 used and Muon is making such as fuss about. I used it in a way that doesn't, or at least shouldn't imply a specific defined terminology other than the general usage of the word, like 'avoiding a car accident, or avoiding a rainstorm'....but, yes you are correct insofar that the evasion implied in the example is out of place.

 

[estebanrey]

Both are legitimate in the context of the law.

Define "legitimate" because there is a difference between "the law says I can I..." and "the law doesn't say I can't...." and most forms of avoidance fall into the latter category.

There is no law that says I can't fart in a crowded lift but that doesn't mean that farting in lifts is "legitimate" per se.

IMO, if you imagine a tax free world and then assume how someone would do their accounting in it then look at how they do it in the real world then any difference in set up is tax avoidance and is a pro-active attempt at paying less than you morally should.

 

[Pudney]

Define "legitimate" because there is a difference between "the law says I can I..." and "the law doesn't say I can't...." and most forms of avoidance fall into the latter category.

Do they really?

 

[Castiel]

Define "legitimate"

Err...did you not read the post prior to this one?

LEGITIMATE: conforming to the law or to rules.

Do they really?

Tax reliefs are, by definition, legitimate..if they are proven to be contrived then HMRC is able to dispute and claim unpaid tax. For example, the wife tells me common ways the wealthy used to avoid inheritance tax is to insure their lives and hold that in trust for their children, income taxes etc by employing relatives, especially spouses therefore avoiding tax that way on so on...all of which are legitimate ways of mitigating tax liabilities.

Estebanrey is about to go on to a moral question, which by definition is subjective and no doubt he will make sweeping judgements and so on..

 

[muon]

The chap I replied to used the term 'Tax Avoidance' it has a specific definition, both legally and in common usage...Muon is attempting to extricate himself through a semantic argument...which is pointless, because in either case my answer is valid as it was based on the concept of legitimacy in the legal context, as that was the way in which it was applied by kitch9.

It wasn't really your post I was responding to, I accepted your point that you understood the poster and wasn't necessarily trying to correct them on that.

twoblacklines picked up on your post and said

This. A lot of people don't understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

...

My point was there is no real need to understand the difference between the words. Most people don't need to know the legal difference and don't know.

Everyone will understand the conceptual difference from illegal tax reduction and legal tax reduction (or at least what they believe is or should be legal/illegal).

When they say tax avoidance the response shouldn't be, oh you don't know the difference between the legal definition of two words. It is a largely moot point.

 

[easyrider]

There is no law that says I can't fart in a crowded lift but that doesn't mean that farting in lifts is "legitimate" per se.

I'm sorry...Just made me lol

 

[Bear]

I would personally.

As a Christian, I believe in doing what is morally right.

As they say, money is the root of all evil...

Isn't it "the love of money is the root of all evil" in which case the meaning changes some what.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Isn't it "the love of money is the root of all evil" in which case the meaning changes some what.

And if AlecR had money and he could legitimately hire one of his own family which would he choose:
Pay tax or legitimately hire one of his own?

I think he will answer pay tax though which would be morally wrong.
Ooh, I went there.

 

[kitch9]

Define "legitimate" because there is a difference between "the law says I can I..." and "the law doesn't say I can't...." and most forms of avoidance fall into the latter category.

There is no law that says I can't fart in a crowded lift but that doesn't mean that farting in lifts is "legitimate" per se.

IMO, if you imagine a tax free world and then assume how someone would do their accounting in it then look at how they do it in the real world then any difference in set up is tax avoidance and is a pro-active attempt at paying less than you morally should.

Tax is a legal obligation not a moral one, jesus. Pay what you owe, not a penny more and let the tax inspectors do their job.

 

[kinobestew123]

Tax is a legal obligation not a moral one.

Exactly!

You know what would be great? If everyone just paid what they LEGALLY owe in taxes and then if they felt they had anything extra to give, they could give it to organisations specifically set up to receive such funds and put them to good use. This way, the tax amounts received are the legally owed amount and the other amounts given are what people feel morally obliged to give on top.

Oh wait...that's what a Charity is.

 

[scorza]

Tax is a legal obligation not a moral one, jesus. Pay what you owe, not a penny more and let the tax inspectors do their job.

Massive facepalm No-one has said otherwise, the debate is about how you define what you owe. UK income should be taxed in the UK and frankly people should be happy to pay it in gratitude at the UK for facilitating their level on income.

 

[Richdog]

Massive facepalm No-one has said otherwise, the debate is about how you define what you owe. UK income should be taxed in the UK.

Actually many people have said otherwise, unless you have been selectively reading the posts in the thread.

The legality of it is pretty cut and dry... you pay what you are legally obliged to, nothing more nothing less. That's generally what laws are for, defining how to do something.

and frankly people should be happy to pay it in gratitude at the UK for facilitating their level on income

lolwhut?

 

[estebanrey]

Err...did you not read the post prior to this one?

Yes but I was subtly disagreeing with it. You said legitimacy is "conforming" to the rules whereas I'd say most tax avoidance is justified because it doesn't "contravene" any laws which is different.

A 'spirit' to every law exists and not following that spirit is the point I'm trying to make, it's not as simple as saying "Well he isn't technically breaking any laws so we cannot criticism him".

Tax reliefs are, by definition, legitimate..if they are proven to be contrived then HMRC is able to dispute and claim unpaid tax. For example, the wife tells me common ways the wealthy used to avoid inheritance tax is to insure their lives and hold that in trust for their children, income taxes etc by employing relatives, especially spouses therefore avoiding tax that way on so on...all of which are legitimate ways of mitigating tax liabilities.

But would they do any of that if there were no inheritance tax laws? If not then they are breaking the spirit of the tax laws, which is how it then becomes a moral question for me.

Estebanrey is about to go on to a moral question, which by definition is subjective and no doubt he will make sweeping judgements and so on..

Please don't put words in mouth. Morality is subjective but as I'm about to say for a third time there is a more objective way of telling if someone is playing the game in the right spirit which is [again] if their finances are set up in any way in which it wouldn't be if there was no tax laws then that is just not, IMO, cricket.

Tax is a legal obligation not a moral one, jesus. Pay what you owe, not a penny more and let the tax inspectors do their job.

A short-sighted view. Without tax there would be no roads, schools, hospitals, education, national defense or do you think these things are paid for by magic beans?

Can you imagine a parent saying "Spending money on my children is not a moral obligation just a legal one" as if they wished they could let them starve and only don't because the law tells them not to? I see paying tax as principally the same, you do it to support the society around you.

 

[elmarko]

I'm not understanding this 'morally right' attitude.
You will not be breaking any laws, either your money goes to helping benefit scroungers or you buy a new toy.
It's nothing to do with morals.

Or alternatively the money goes towards cancer patients & disability.

It's a bias line of reasoning that only recognises the negative aspects which tax funds (wars, benefits scroungers) & ignores the things which account for a significantly larger portion (pensions & tax credits for low income families) - along with the more obvious examples which most agree with such as help for the disabled.

 

[TwsT]

what a pointless thread.

got your panties in quite a twist OP GJ.

 

[scorza]

Actually many people have said otherwise, unless you have been selectively reading the posts in the thread.

The legality of it is pretty cut and dry... you pay what you are legally obliged to, nothing more nothing less. That's generally what laws are for, defining how to do something.



lolwhut?

Please provide a link to a post suggesting people should pay more than they are legally required to? Ignoring the fact it's not possible to do that currently.

 

[Richdog]

Please provide a link to a post suggesting people should pay more than they are legally required to? Ignoring the fact it's not possible to do that currently.

In that case your post was very badly worded. You responded to someone eho said: "Tax is a legal obligation not a moral one", and replied with: "No-one has said otherwise". You weren't specific about which part you were replying to, and many people have openly said this issue is also a moral obligation, so it was a natural assumption on my part.

A short-sighted view. Without tax there would be no roads, schools, hospitals, education, national defense or do you think these things are paid for by magic beans?

Can you imagine a parent saying "Spending money on my children is not a moral obligation just a legal one" as if they wished they could let them starve and only don't because the law tells them not to? I see paying tax as principally the same, you do it to support the society around you.

No, a realistic view. The legal tax limit is already set, and the government has then indicated that this is how much they need to provide us with what we need. If you pay that legal limit, then your civil and moral obligation ends.

 

[Basher]

So has Elton John. But he pays his Tax.

Fact is...what your saying is....If I give to charity Its ok to avoid tax?

BS post

Yes. It's also ok to avoid tax if you don't give to charity.

You're confusing this with evasion, which is wrong.

 

[platypus]

He should probably return his OBE on taste and decency grounds.

Nothing to do with his taxes though.