MSE News: Over half would do a Jimmy Carr on tax, or worse

Former_MSE_Helen · 6 July 2012 at 9:08AM

"Over half of taxpayers would try every trick in the book to wriggle out of tax, or even break the law, our poll shows..."

Read the full story:
Over half would do a Jimmy Carr on tax, or worse

JimmyTheWig · 6 July 2012 at 9:52AM

I think what the poll was missing was income.
If I earned what Jimmy Carr earned then I would be able to afford to pay my full share and I would think that fair. Therefore I would not need to avoid taxes in these ways.
But in my real life where money is tight then of course I would reduce my tax bill if I could.

If other people feel similarly it is difficult to know what these answers represent.

LizzyH_2 · 6 July 2012 at 10:54AM

Someone made a very good point on the BBC last week (I forget who it was). No one is under any legal, ethical or moral obligation to pay any more tax than is necessary. The Government is not a charity. There are plenty of those we can support using our spare cash, should we choose to.

I own a limited company so I pay less tax than I would if I was PAYE. Every year, I sit down with my accountant, and we discuss my expenses. He makes calculations to ensure I pay no more than is necessary within the current law. This is not illegal. It's sensible.

As a result, I compromise job security, sick pay, pension, etc. because I am not an employee. Horses for courses, as it were.

I don't think the amount anyone earns is relevant. The principle should remain regardless.

System · 6 July 2012 at 11:12AM

But "is necessary" is the key point. There are plenty of ways to avoid tax, using legislation in the way it was intended. Eg pension relief, gift aid or capital allowances etc. Where I have a problem is exploiting gaps in legislation to artificially reduce tax liabilities.

Legality can't be own only guide when (subjectively) deciding the "right" course of action. Sooner or later the loopholes are closed either by testing the legislation in the courts or rewriting the law as necessary. On the day it happens its hard to say its the wrong thing to do today but right yesterday.

Gordon_the_Moron · 6 July 2012 at 11:15AM

I don't think what Jimmy Carr did should be legal but it is, so it is the system at fault not him!

I have an ISA, is that unethical as it is avoiding tax?

I stooze, is that unethical as its costing the bank (partly public owned!) money?

lkate · 6 July 2012 at 11:26AM

You sort of wonder how they don't have enough money considering everything that is taxed.
Inheritance Tax
Stamp Duty
Insurance Premium Tax
Airport Tax
Capital Gains Tax
National Insurance
Income tax
Fuel duty tax
VAT
Council tax
Car tax
Fuel Tax on utilities
Tax on Savings & Investments
TV license
Corporation Tax.
National Insurance paid by employers
Stamp Duty Land Tax.
Stamp Duty Reserve Tax.

I'm sure there are more stealth taxes some where. Feel free to add. I actually wonder how much the average person pays in tax over a year when you consider all of these things.

As a driver.... I feel like a massive cash cow. "Oh lets increase fuel duty"... Yeah thanks. If it went to trying to find greener solutions and technologies that could replace cars it wouldn't bother me so much and the argument of "you're environmentally unfriendly though" would work.

System · 6 July 2012 at 11:27AM

Gordon_the_Moron wrote: »

I don't think what Jimmy Carr did should be legal but it is, so it is the system at fault not him!

I have an ISA, is that unethical as it is avoiding tax?

I stooze, is that unethical as its costing the bank (partly public owned!) money?

I wouldn't class ISA as unethical as that account works in exactly the way the law intended. The purpose of the legislation was to create a tax free savings account - within specified limits. No exploitation of loopholes no artificial transaction or disguising what is clearly income ( in the commonly accepted sense) as an interest free loan with no obligation to repay.

BTwhistleblower · 6 July 2012 at 11:48AM

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I think what the poll was missing was income.
If I earned what Jimmy Carr earned then I would be able to afford to pay my full share and I would think that fair. Therefore I would not need to avoid taxes in these ways.
But in my real life where money is tight then of course I would reduce my tax bill if I could.

If other people feel similarly it is difficult to know what these answers represent.

Here's the catch - it's probably only worthwile for people earning on Jimmy Carr's level to make use of these schemes. People who might benefit most from a bit of tax reduction, i.e. the 'squeezed middle' are probably not in a position to pay the 'advisors' and 'management' fees that usually come with these arrangements.

Taiko · 6 July 2012 at 11:48AM

Over half say they would do it or worse. The remainder are lying.

BTwhistleblower · 6 July 2012 at 11:53AM

:mad:

Gordon_the_Moron wrote: »

I don't think what Jimmy Carr did should be legal but it is, so it is the system at fault not him!

I have an ISA, is that unethical as it is avoiding tax?

I stooze, is that unethical as its costing the bank (partly public owned!) money?

Ethical? what about all the 'global' and 'multinationals' that avoid paying billions by registering outside the UK?

There is a clear double standard at work - individuals, especially public figures, are softer targets than corporations with legions of lawyers and accountants who just give HMRC the finger.

m5rcc · 6 July 2012 at 11:58AM

One would happy to pay their "fair share" of tax if it was spent prudently. Sadly it is not and therefore I choose not to pay tax. Period.

MSE News: Over half would do a Jimmy Carr on tax, or worse

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free