The full text of what I responded to was "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." Apology accepted.
Should Gary Barlow return his OBE?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
The full text of what I responded to was "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." Apology accepted.
I hereby formally apologise for your badly-written and decidedly unclear post. Just that one though, not all the other ones.
Massive facepalmNo-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.
You define what you owe on the basis of what the law says you owe. If the law makers are unhappy with their laws they should change them and allow the electorate decide if their changes are justified come election time.
Facepalm all you want, its black and white. It doesn't get more simple. Earn your money, deduct all you legally can, including the sharing of any liabilities with any legal partners and pay tax on that net earning.
My last VAT payment was in the region of £30k.
I made sure it was the minimum allowed, I even claimed VAT back on my dry cleaning.
As is your right. You can claim the same in many other countries too.
I am amazed by how financially clueless some of you people seem to be. How do you think people make money? By worrying about claiming back VAT they are OWED, just in case people think they are tight?
If you said that to someone like Richard Branson or Alan Sugar they would laugh in your face. They got to where they are precisely by knowing about every penny they spend, and knowing every penny they are owed, without any childish notions about how it could be perceived.
Seriously, comments like that are truly laughable.
Last edited:
No it is not tight.
Its a legitimate business expense in the eyes of the law, if I don't claim it back the treasury will get the VAT paid twice as the dry cleaner will also pay the VAT content on the transaction.
I work hard for my money, I am entitled to only pay what I am required to by law. I've had numerous VAT inspections and always receive a clean bill of health I don't feel morally obligated to anything in the slightest.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Which is fine, I have no problem with the various tax schemes in place, my problem is when people/companies define themselves in a specific way purely to take advantage of them when they weren't the inteded benefactor.
If your work involves you needing to dry clean your clothes then it is right you don't pay double and the VAT is paid by your customers and not you. But if it isn't, and you go set up a dry cleaning company to "offset" your tax liability against your main business then that is when I think morality comes into it.
Last edited:
Yeah, lets take an example and run with it... we have gone from someone claiming back VAT on their dry cleaning, to someone setting up a dry cleaning company to offset tax liability.
You never cease to amuse in your quest to appear as comically sanctimonious as humanly possible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I am explaining my position as unlike most of here it isn't black and white. What is your problem?
The reason I said this is because Gary Barlow is using a scheme of tax avoidance, but the papers make out it is tax evasion to get everyone riled up. Most people don't know the difference between the two terms when it comes to tax law, and are blind to what the papers and some of the public are trying to make out.
There is a strong difference between entertaining clients on the company card instead of using your own personal debit card to pay for their meal, and claiming you have taken less revenue and therefore taxable profit than your company has, like these builders who say "pay me in cash in hand and I will do it cheaper", this is tax evasion and this is what you go to prison for.
I am explaining my position as unlike most of here it isn't black and white. What is your problem?
There is no problem if HMRC inspectors deem it as legal. Jimmy Carr or Barlow have not been prosecuted because what they did was legal in the eys of the law, end of.
If the law makers have a problem it is they who need to correct the issue going forward not the individual just working to the rules they set.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So people have no responsibility to play by the spirit of the game then? IMO, people should carry out their affairs as if no tax system existed and then pay what is demanded of them, not set themselves up as companies, employ themselves as minimum wage staff then take the rest in shares and other crud like that. Why would anyone do that except for the sole purpose of avoiding tax?
For no reason whatsoever, no one is claiming any different
Avoiding tax is legal and a perfectly sensible measure.
What planet do you live on? Serious question, as your posts are just getting increasingly more exaggerated in their philanphropic and idealistic naievety.
It's like you've just come out university full of hope of how the world is going to work, but have yet to experience real-life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I don't regard paying your fair share of tax as "philanthropic", it's called paying into a society you massively benefit from.
I'm sorry if I think people should just go about their business honestly an not re-create themselves into something they're not so they can pay less tax than everyone who earns much, much less than them.
Last edited:
There's nothing philanphropic (sic) or idealistic about expecting income earned in the UK to be subject to UK taxation laws. The argument is more complex that legal=fine, illegal=not fine. It's OK to admit this may be too subtle for you.
Of course people who can't claim VAT back on things like dry cleaning don't work hard for their money.