Tax Avoidance: Are they all at it ?

[mattyg]

That's automatically taxed, well mine is every year.

It is but is it declared as an income

 

[elmarko]

Tax avoidance is NOT at the expense of others. What planet are you on

Really now?.

So taxes are not raised or services which others rely on are not cut due to a reduction in tax received? (albeit legally).

That's good to know...

 

[atpbx]

I dont think any government minister should be using the phrases "morally wrong" in conection with anything connected with personal financial gain.

 

[realBabelfish]

A tax returns form is still supposed to be sent. Even if all the numbers are zero. Selling stuff classes as income.

so when i sell my car i need to do it? i thought it was only when trading?

 

[mattyg]

Really now?.

So taxes are not raised or services which others rely on are not cut due to a reduction in tax received? (albeit legally).

That's good to know...

No its because of the amount the country pays out.

Do you think the recession is due to people NOT paying tax.

Our troops being overseas costs way more than closing any tax loopholes would ever generate

 

[elmarko]

It is but is it declared as an income

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/moneytaxandbenefits/taxes/taxonsavingsandinvestments/dg_4015739

If you're a basic rate taxpayer
If you're a basic rate (20 per cent) taxpayer you don't need to take any action. No extra tax is due.

Who cares if it's declared as an income, we are talking about tax avoidance/evasion - for most of the population they are paying the correct amount.

I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

so when i sell my car i need to do it? i thought it was only when trading?

selling is trading.

 

[realBabelfish]

One Is paying thesir share of the tax, the other isn't and by doing so is braking the law.
Do you go nah my payee tax scheme isn't enough and send them a £100 cheque a month? No didn't think so.
Silly opinion is silly, but unfortunately your opinion seems prevalent these days. People pay what they have to, no more. Why would they. They are paying their share the government deems needed, it isn't morally wrong, it isn't illegal.

Just some how media has brainwashed a large percentage of the population.



More liekly you don't have a choice and if you did you would employee an account who's job it is to sort your tax out and do the same as everyone else.

once again in English?

so using a loophole is ok? why is the loophole there? avoiders arent paying their share, they are avoiding paying their share. its just that avoiding is legal (and seemingly encouraged by the rich) and evading is illegal (hard for rich people to be paid in cash)

i think if i was a millionaire i would be so happy i was wealthy i wouldnt mind paying my tax. after all we only apparently need £36k for a family to live well (apparently). at the end of the day maybe some people like to live in society and some people are just out for themselves.

i seem to remember being called childish names in the last thread, that ultimately went quiet when i said i used to work for a charity in my free time, as did my wife. some people just arent out for themselves, some of us like to think of the bigger picture.

people evading tax are forcing NHS cuts, just like people evading. both IMO are immoral.

 

[mattyg]

No, not necessarily. The key word is commerciality.

If a product is bought to sell then any profits on the sale are taxable

 

[realBabelfish]

If you make a profit you do.

I am not sure the new/used has any relevance otherwise all second hand cars salesman would not pay any tax.

as i recall (might be wrong). a car trader buys in to sell. if i sell and old AMP or PC i didnt buy it to trade. it is just surplus to requirements.

 

[Housey]

i think if i was a millionaire i would be so happy i was wealthy i wouldnt mind paying my tax.

Easy to say when you're not, we can all have views about what we might do in a given situation, but does it stand the test when/if we get there, I suggest no more often than not.

 

[Glaucus]

once again in English?

so using a loophole is ok? why is the loophole there? avoiders arent paying their share, they are avoiding paying their share. its just that avoiding is legal (and seemingly encouraged by the rich) and evading is illegal (hard for rich people to be paid in cash)

i think if i was a millionaire i would be so happy i was wealthy i wouldnt mind paying my tax. after all we only apparently need £36k for a family to live well (apparently). at the end of the day maybe some people like to live in society and some people are just out for themselves.

i seem to remember being called childish names in the last thread, that ultimately went quiet when i said i used to work for a charity in my free time, as did my wife. some people just arent out for themselves, some of us like to think of the bigger picture.

people evading tax are forcing NHS cuts, just like people evading. both IMO are immoral.

A loophole? Oh you mean something specifically written in to law. It's not loopholes, they are there for a reason.

No didn't 'think you paid extra than you had to, double standards , because off hatred towards the wealthy.
You should aim that hatred at bettering yourself or at least voicing your opinion to your MP to get the laws changed.

Can you afford luxuries of course you can, Why don't you pay extra tax? After all compared to most people in the world you are a millionaire.

What has giving time to charity got anything to do with it? Have you seen how many wealthy lend there time and money to charity? But no they couldn't be worthy.

 

[Housey]

i seem to remember being called childish names in the last thread, that ultimately went quiet when i said i used to work for a charity in my free time, as did my wife. some people just arent out for themselves, some of us like to think of the bigger picture.

I missed this bit, but what it shows is you believe yourself worthy because you give time to others. If a wealthy person gave cash from their business to a charity to reduce their tax liability what would you think of them?

All I see when I read your posts here is someone who is a little naive.

 

[mattyg]

That's different to what I was replying to.

But yes, there's obvious commerciality there...

Yeah I was clearing up the used car salesman thing

 

[Floogie]

I disagree, these people are legally not paying a tax which they are strictly (within the guidelines) not required to pay as long as they go about it in the right way (i.e. follow the professionally advised schemes).

Many of these schemes are not legal (or illegal) irrespective of whether they are proposed by tax professionals. Let's not give them legitimacy by claiming that is the case. Again, the problem is having enough will and resource to determine the legality of these schemes under legislation that exists here and now.

It is true that I would pay less tax if the rich didn't follow these schemes, but I expect them to do their upmost to pay as little as they can. If they choose not to then that's a bonus for me, not a right.

I don't mind if the rich minimise their tax. However it must be done through the tax instruments as provided by UK law and not by exploiting the unlegislated gaps that exist between it or the inability of HMRC to investigate my avoidance scheme due to chronic underinvestment and poor political will.

If they're evasion schemes then very well, the HMRC should prosecute. They're not evasion though until they break the current legislation (not future legislation).

Again, I refer you back to the fact many of these schemes are breaking existing legislation and they just haven't been investigated yet. Needless to say, further extensive legislation in this area is required nonetheless.

What most people seem to be demanding is a tightening of the current tax system to prevent things like this. Do you not think the government has been doing this on an ongoing basis for many years? They don't want to lose out if they can "avoid" it (see what I did there).

No, I'd disagree the government has been tightening the tax system. It's increased the amount of individual taxes but has been extremely reluctant to close the avenues that many businesses and wealthy indivduals exploit. This is due to parties that are overly representative of these such interests and the prevailing economic orthodoxy.

Also, don't forget there is a huge market for providing tax services in the first place that generates jobs and all the other stuff that the general public seem to love.

Indeed, but I'd wager those jobs are insignificant to those that could be created through closing the tax gap of 35bn (as per HMRC's fudged figures) or 95bn (if you believe the independent analysis).

Do you consider yourself somewhere to the left of Che Guevara?

No, as I'm not simple-minded enough to believe that an effective tax regime has any sole relationship to communism.

 

[OhEsEcks]

I do whatever I can to avoid giving money to the government.

 

[elmarko]

I missed this bit, but what it shows is you believe yourself worthy because you give time to others. If a wealthy person gave cash from their business to a charity to reduce their tax liability what would you think of them?

All I see when I read your posts here is someone who is a little naive.

Somebody donating to a charity to reduce their tax liability isn't the same as spending time doing actual charitable work.

The latter tends to indicate the person has motivations which stretch further than personal financial gain.

 

[Raymond Lin]

No, not necessarily. The key word is commerciality.

That is distinguish with what? By putting it in the ad?

A sale is a sale.
Profit is profit.
Tax is liable on profit as income tax or capital gains.

Income tax isn't exempt from an individual but only applied to a company which I am sure you are aware.

 

[mattyg]

Somebody donating to a charity to reduce their tax liability isn't the same as spending time doing actual charitable work.

The latter tends to indicate the person has motivations which stretch further than personal financial gain.

And the former likes to brag about it.

 

[Glaucus]

The latter tends to indicate the person has motivations which stretch further than personal financial gain.

lol, or they do it to flaunt a superiority complex. Giving time to charity is seldom a noble act. Most people do it for personal gains. Plenty of reserch on it.