Tax Evasion

[crinkleshoes]

I'm quite happy to not be paying UK income tax... but that's because I disapprove of the way they spend it and no matter how I, or anyone, votes... they aren't changing the things I disapprove of anytime soon... like the invasion of foreign countries and massacre of many innocent people under the fraudulent veil of "freedom fighting".

I pay UK national insurance however, so I am paying for my healthcare, state pension and unemployment insurance.

This, I only pay on 55-60% of my salary thanks to the position I am in, where the other 40-45% of my salary is (legally) payable as an expense allowance.

I am also repaying my UK student loan based on this 55-60% figure.

Avoidance/evasion? No... taking what's available legally, yes...

 

[BuffetSlayer]

[cynicsm] Lets face it, tax avoidance allowances were put in place for the rich to syphon off their wealth or for those in power to help their mate from Eaton promote a business and generate some nice backhanders from the tax breaks [/cynicsm]

Avoidance/Evasion is a bit like Tomato/Tamato. Sure, they are legally different, but as I have alluded to in several of my posts over the years - something being legal does not make it right.

That said, I think the government have to play a balancing act in order to attract wealth and investment into the country. Sure it can be seen as a moral double standard, but what about when the benefits of tax avoidance keeps people in work and off the dole? Or it means a greater investment into a region that goes on to help redevelop an area and give it a new lease of life? The lines start to get blurred, and this is an issue that runs deep. Tax law is very complex, and policing it is just too complicated when there are so many grey areas and issues proving XYZ is true or false.

I do not think tax is black and white. I hate paying it, hatte it with a vengeance (mostly due to the Government squandering an awful lot of it), but unfortunately the country has been geared towards taxes for centuries and a taxation regime is the only way for this country to survive without total socioeconomic collapse. I would love to see major reforms though, and a top to bottom remodel of government and local authorities. But it is a tough one because privatisation has so many pit falls, and yet nationalisation has been shown time and time again to lead to inordinate amounts of waste. I don't have the answers, but I do feel it all needs to change in a big way.

But if anything, what I find most reprehensible is the establishment branding people like Jimmy Carr as morally wrong (even though he did nothing illegal AFAIK) yet when the spotlight is on their expenses, for example, they refuse to apologise because what they did was within the rules and not illegal!!

So Jimmy got shamed into publicly apologising by the very same establishment who shamelessley exploited the system for it's members' own ends! You have to laugh at the comedy of the pot vehemently calling the kettle black Then you quickly realise why we have so many problems, and I think the core of a lot of it is a system that is open to corruption. Corruption on a Government scale and corruption on a personal scale.

But, after all said and done this is still one of, if not the best, countries to live in so whilst I begrudge paying the amount of tax I do, I also appreciate what some of that tax brings back to me and in future, my family. Free healthcare, free education, a welfare system should we should fall on hard times, an environment where you can make it and be successful and prosper.

So yes, I sometimes get riled up about the double standards and taxation but, in the end, I have worked hard to carve a life out of this little part of the world and I would much rather tolerate the issues here than live in a place like Colombia, or Somalia, or even parts of Europe. The one thing that helps me keep sight of that is just how decent an awful lot of folk are. I guess it gives me faith that the world is not as big a corrupt cess pit as the Daily Fail and the BBC would have us all believe

 

[elmarko]

If I was in a position to minimise my tax burden/exposure legally and legitimately, I'd do it. Why wouldn't you?

There are plenty of people who are able to avoid paying tax through legal means but choose to pay into the system due to believing in our collective social responsibility & the social contract.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...uding-james-dyson-and-jk-rowling-7873607.html

"I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft’s idea of being a mug" - J.K Rowling

 

[Freefaller]

I'm not saying not to pay, just minimising your exposure if you have a legitimate way of doing so.

Call it greed if you want, but sometimes having that extra few £££ in the bank can make all the difference.

I'm not patriotic enough to France or the UK or another country that I am affiliated with to remain if I decide it is not the place for me. If I were to win the lottery, I'd happily domicile myself somewhere else. I like the UK don't get me wrong, but not enough to want to keep paying into it if I were to leave the country and have no ties to it.

 

[Skidder]

It is everyone's duty to pay the minimum amount of tax they legally are obliged to.

 

[spoffle]

There are plenty of people who are able to avoid paying tax through legal means but choose to pay into the system due to believing in our collective social responsibility & the social contract.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...uding-james-dyson-and-jk-rowling-7873607.html

"I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft’s idea of being a mug" - J.K Rowling

That's all well well and good, but that's a CHOICE that she has chosen to make.

You are also free to avoid tax too, but the wealth JK Rowling has kinda dampens it because you're talking money she'd not notice the absence of anyway.

The money people make is from working by using their precious finite time in life, and no one should try and place social burdens on them to pay an amount of tax that they find acceptable.

So to put it blunty, you simply have no business telling people how much tax they should pay, or trying to suggest the amount they do pay is morally reprehensible, because it's money earned with their life essentially and they can do what they want with it.

If what they do with it legal, then the authorities will leave them alone with regards to their finances.

 

[spoffle]

It is everyone's duty to pay the minimum amount of tax they legally are obliged to.

I strongly agree with this, and I find it amusing that people focus so much on people paying "enough" but state that just because avoidance is legal doesn't mean it's okay, completely ignoring the fact that the whole taxation system is intrinsically linked to the law in the first place, which means morals don't come in to it at all.

 

[elmarko]

That's all well well and good, but that's a CHOICE that she has chosen to make.

You are also free to avoid tax too, but the wealth JK Rowling has kinda dampens it because you're talking money she'd not notice the absence of anyway.

The money people make is from working by using their precious finite time in life, and no one should try and place social burdens on them to pay an amount of tax that they find acceptable.

So to put it blunty, you simply have no business telling people how much tax they should pay, or trying to suggest the amount they do pay is morally reprehensible, because it's money earned with their life essentially and they can do what they want with it.

If what they do with it legal, then the authorities will leave them alone with regards to their finances.

Actually I can say whatever I want on the matter.

It's a matter of subjective moral evaluation, besides I'm not saying that individuals should pay - I'm saying what everybody should pay. I don't base my own morality off the legality of a given action but from the net harmed caused.

The key point being, core services are being cut due to a deficit in taxation (in part caused by lowering core rates, legal avoidance or in some cases evasion). Then something needs to change, we either dismantle the welfare state (a choice which is coupled with it's own consequences) or increase our taxation levels (be that corporate, personal, close loopholes or take other means of income at a different rate). As the former puts an undue burden on those least able to shoulder it I'd always opt for one of option two.

 

[spoffle]

Yet you aren't looking at the people directly responsible for spending the money who often mismanage and squander it.

It has nothing to do with morality at all. This seems to be something have not reel out.

I also didn't say you can't say what you want, I said you have no business doing so. There's quite an important distinction between the two that for some reason, you seem to have overlooked.

 

[elmarko]

Don't get me wrong, the squandering of tax by governments & councils should be very harshly dealt with - I'd advocate significantly more accountability to the tax payer.

I apologise then, by 'you have no business' it seemed to imply I shouldn't be sharing my view on a matter which is clearly subjective & not objective. My mistake if that was not the intention.

 

[RDM]

I avoided tax this morning, I bought a chocolate cake instead of a chocolate biscuit...

 

[spoffle]

Don't get me wrong, the squandering of tax by governments & councils should be very harshly dealt with - I'd advocate significantly more accountability to the tax payer.

I apologise then, by 'you have no business' it seemed to imply I shouldn't be sharing my view on a matter which is clearly subjective & not objective. My mistake if that was not the intention.

Certainly not, I just don't think it's your place to say if people are paying "enough" tax.

Especially since it doesn't really seem to be about a monetary amount with a lot of people, as I fully expect if taxation was lower you or others wouldn't be going out of their way to pay more than they need to, as you don't do that now do you?

 

[Jokester]

Instead of asking for business to pay more vat why not argue the other side? that consumer should pay less vat instead? I always see people coming down on business, saying that they should pay more, instead of demanding that individuals or employees pay less.

The thing is, whether the customer pays the VAT or the company pays the VAT, the money always comes from the customer - it doesn't actually make any difference.

Indeed, i pondered if we should have a dual vat rate, one for homegrown taxpaying companies, and one for those who non-dom to avoid paying any tax here.
It would hurt them, but only to the degree they would all relocate to norn iron after March time for a lolworthy corporate tax rate.
I assume they would use some form of supply and umbrella versioning to avoid the change in the law if one did introduce a proportional vat rate.

I agree with you. Companies that shift their corporation tax to Luxembourg and end up paying less, don't just cut their tax bill, but it also allows them to be more competitive and ultimately price out domestic based companies who have a higher tax burden on them.

 

[dowie]

I agree with you. Companies that shift their corporation tax to Luxembourg and end up paying less, don't just cut their tax bill, but it also allows them to be more competitive and ultimately price out domestic based companies who have a higher tax burden on them.

that can certainly be cracked down upon in cases like Starbucks - it isn't like there won't be others prepared to open coffee shops in their place - they require a physical presence here in order to operate their business so can't just threaten to move jobs overseas....

 

[Von Smallhausen]

It is everyone's duty to pay the minimum amount of tax they legally are obliged to.

Absolutely.

Pipe dream but if I were super wealthy I would pay the minimum amount of tax I had to and would use legal tax avoidance to minimise it.

Monies saved would be donated to good causes be they medical, food banks, philanthropic causes etc.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

that can certainly be cracked down upon in cases like Starbucks - it isn't like there won't be others prepared to open coffee shops in their place - they require a physical presence here in order to operate their business so can't just threaten to move jobs overseas....

Tax avoidance by Starbucks is my secondary dislike of them. My main one is the burnt, bitter creosote they sell and call it coffee.