Guardian continue their Tax Avoidance crusade.

tomstickland

See the comments.
Tax avoidance is simply working with the rules to avoid paying more than necessary. It is not fraud.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/tax-havens-benefits-fraud

lostinrates

tomstickland wrote: »

See the comments.
Tax avoidance is simply working with the rules to avoid paying more than necessary. It is not fraud.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/tax-havens-benefits-fraud

Yes, of course. But I'd rather the system was simpler and more transparant. The ''voluntary'' taxes are only ''voluntary'' if ou know how not to pay them, that takes knowledge, or money to pay someone who knows.

Mr_Mumble

Why do, usually incompetent, politicians have such an entitlement complex towards taxpayers' money? With £125bn going to unneeded quangos isn't it about time we stopped rewarding the failure of politicians? Taxpayers should be demanding that every penny required to balance Brown's bodged budgets comes from politician's spending cuts not hard earned wage packets.

tomstickland

They also seem to struggle to see the difference between benefit fraud (spending money we've already paid) versus tax avoidance (trying to avoid paying even more in to the system to be wasted).

Generali

Tax avoidance is just following the tax rules. It's a complete non-story.

donaldtramp

People in glass houses....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/stephen-glover/stephen-glover-the-guardians-coverage-of-tax-is-obsessive-but-not-compulsive-1651589.html

Amazingly, The Guardian was forced to admit, though it did so as quietly as possible, that The Guardian Media Group (GMG) had also practised tax avoidance. In conjunction with Apax partners, GMG had incorporated a new company registered in the Cayman Islands as part of its joint acquisition of part of the publisher Emap. The purpose was to reduce the tax liabilities of employees and executives of Apax. It was entirely legal but as morally questionable, for those who abominate tax avoidance of any kind, as what Tesco and Barclays have done.
The Guardian defended itself by saying that it could not be held responsible for the actions of its parent company. This, if you think about it, is not an honest defence. The Guardian Media Group covers the losses of The Guardian from profitable investments in other publications. Far from being independent and self-standing, the paper is reliant on GMG for its survival, and therefore cannot respectably disassociate itself from GMG's dubious activities.
I suggest that the revelation of its own connection with tax avoidance was deeply embarrassing for the paper, and in particular its editor, Alan Rusbridger, who likes to give an impression of great virtue. His position was that of a teetotal preacher who had been discovered making whisky in his basement. What was fascinating was that he redoubled his exhortations against the evils of drink.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Tax avoidance is morally wrong, exploiting loopholes and creating shell companies to justify paying little or no tax. That the Guardian's owners do it does not negate the validity of the stories they are publishing.

These companies haven't broken the law - that hasn't been the suggestion in any of the articles I have read. Its a name and shame exercise aimed at creating enough of a stink that the loopholes are closed.

Jonbvn

Recently we bought a smaller car to avoid paying too much road tax (and insurance, petrol etc.) We also topped up our ISA's to avoid paying tax on our savings.

Please lock us up now and throw away the key!

(BTW what a stupid article!)

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Tax avoidance is just following the tax rules. It's a complete non-story.

MP's who make money from their second homes allowance are just following their rules. Presumably that is a non-story too?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

lostinrates

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Tax avoidance is morally wrong, exploiting loopholes and creating shell companies to justify paying little or no tax. That the Guardian's owners do it does not negate the validity of the stories they are publishing.

These companies haven't broken the law - that hasn't been the suggestion in any of the articles I have read. Its a name and shame exercise aimed at creating enough of a stink that the loopholes are closed.

I think that concealing money etc is morally wrong, but I don't think understanding the rules and seeing if a lifestyle that fitted in with them is plausible and genuine is so very wrong.. The case law is that it is not considered wrong for anyone to legally arrange their finances in the most tax efficient way. My main issue is that the knowledge of how best to do this is not universal, and is expensive, which effectively makes it less available to people with less.

Entertainer

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

MP's who make money from their second homes allowance are just following their rules. Presumably that is a non-story too?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Except MPs have made numerous public committments to follow the spirit of the rules as well.