Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
This.
There is a difference between working within the law technically and working within the spirit of the law.
Lords defeat government over tax credits cut
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
This.
There is a difference between working within the law technically and working within the spirit of the law.
Good, I'm glad we have the same definition of loophole.
Technically that wasn't a loophole. It's long been a tax planning tool and has always been aware to HMRC. The government, for whatever reason, chose not to amend the rules, most probably because it was the Tory's and they actually preferred the bankers to do it as it suited their political agenda (I'm guessing).
Don't blame the bankers for that one! I'd happily stake a tenner on George Osborne chuckling away at the thought he could use it to slam Labour's 50% tax rate.
I disagree with your second sentence, and out of courtesy won't post my opinion, especially in writing.
I don't know or care how they justify the salary increase. I was talking about Corporation Tax.
no what Jimmy Carr did is far worse
what those bankers did wasn't a loophole, they still paid their income tax on the full amount - I wonder if people also delayed completing on house purchases when Gordon Brown increased the limits for first time buyers, or people stock up on things or delay purchasing things that are predicted to have an increase or decrease in duty in the budget
a loop hole would be paying themselves with platinum sponge or setting up some offshore fund that makes ridiculous loans to their hairdresser or part time model girlfirends
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
If I sent an e-mail to the payroll dept for the company I work for and said "Don't pay me any salary for the next 18 months, just give it me all after April 1st 2017 when the tax allowance rises to £11k" what do you think they'd say?
Can't you just say your point rather than making strange examples? I understand the concepts, I don't need them explaining through illustrations.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
My point is you said/implied deliberately delaying your income until the tax rate comes down isn't dubious and sensible tax planning. Yet this isn't an option for 99.999% of workers.
My point is that if you make change to your behaviour for the sole reason of paying less tax then you are, IMO, exploiting a "loop hole".
Ok, so I've established your definition of loophole is inconsistent with your own reasoning. Your happy with capital allowances but not happy with deferring/accelerating salaries? This is important because both just use tax law in a normal vanilla way. It also means you need to define what you deem a "loophole" each time you use the word.
It also opens so many questions of the threshold of acceptability? 100% of workers with one job (as an employee) and no other income can't claim capital allowances, but a self-employed individual could if they bought a laptop for business use. But that's ok?
So with next year there being a 1000 pound tax free allowance on savings interest returns is it violating the spirt to change your savings a count from one that pays monthly to one that pays annually so that your payment would come after april next year and so be tax free rather than laying tax each month?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
What possible relevance is that? They'd say no for reasons that have nothing to do with tax.
firstly that that scenario makes no sense and secondly that it is a complete faff for them to do that
a bonus on the other hand is an irregular size payment made annually, some times they get delayed for other reasons - I had a bonus delayed once early in my career by a couple of months as the finance department was in a mess due to a merger... it resulted in me going over the 40% limit that year when I wouldn't have done being a mere junior member of staff and therefore paying more tax than I would have done had they paid the bonus on time - I don't get to claim it back and HMRC didn't gain due to a loophole but by the simple fact that I earned more that year, it was just bad admin by the finance team
your scenario doesn't illustrate anything to support delaying bonuses being a 'loophole'
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 831
- Location
- Yorkshire
If all these ppl on tax credits stopped buying their iPhones, iPads, and Sky TV they wouldn't feel the cut.
What???! Having an iPhone is a human right. Most school children aged 11 and up have them, I've noticed.
Seriously, what are we teaching our children if they all want iPhones? Argh!
Quite apart from the silliness of your example saying "I'd only people gave up X, Y and Z, they wouldn't feel the cut" is inherently nonsensical - giving up X, Y and Z is feeling the cut.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Benn hanging around outside schools watching children have we?
When you find Ian Duncan Smith criticising potential welfare cuts, surely it's time to stop and think again? 
http://gu.com/p/4exq2/sbl
It's almost painful to watch. I don't think George has any good options really.
http://gu.com/p/4exq2/sbl
It's almost painful to watch. I don't think George has any good options really.
Last edited:
you want him to re-think his likely u-turn on tax credits?Yeah sure, why not
I took my nephew to the fireworks on Weds. His mum is getting him an iPhone for xmas. I said, "Why an iPhone?" He says in his class (state school, not private), "90% of them have iPhones".
I put it to him that surely he was an exaggerating. No, he says, everyone he knows has an iPhone. He says he desperately wants one because the other kids think Android, etc, are for poor people. This is a 12 year old in his first year of secondary school.
This, good people, is what our society has done to young people. To be a "normal" child at a state run school, you have to have a £400 phone, minimum.
I was deeply saddened. Can you imagine how entitled many of these kids are going to grow up to be? When you give all these kids £400 phones at age 12?
FFS, I despair of humanity.
Yeah sure, why not
I took my nephew to the fireworks on Weds. His mum is getting him an iPhone for xmas. I said, "Why an iPhone?" He says in his class (state school, not private), "90% of them have iPhones".
I put it to him that surely he was an exaggerating. No, he says, everyone he knows has an iPhone. He says he desperately wants one because the other kids think Android, etc, are for poor people. This is a 12 year old in his first year of secondary school.
This, good people, is what our society has done to young people. To be a "normal" child at a state run school, you have to have a £400 phone, minimum.
I was deeply saddened. Can you imagine how entitled many of these kids are going to grow up to be? When you give all these kids £400 phones at age 12?
FFS, I despair of humanity.
It's nothing that didn't happen when we were at school. Today it's iPhones, yesterday it was Casio watches and tracksuit bottoms. Tomorrow it will be something else.