Guardian continue their Tax Avoidance crusade.

Generali

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.

Not so much a non-story as the rules are bad. People also (rightly or wrongly) demand a higher standard of behaviour from their elected representatives than they expect from themselves or those around them.

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.

What about ISAs and pensions? They're tax avoidance schemes.

Sir_Humphrey

Entertainer wrote: »

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

So if the MPs had said "we want to milk the system", then that would be okay?

Generali has nailed it: The system for MPs expenses has loopholes that need to be closed. The tax system has loopholes that have to be closed. The two issues reflect precisely the same moral situation.

It is often said that in a democracy that the rulers reflect the ruled. This thread neatly demonstrates that saying. It is also interesting to see that moral relativism is now the viewpoint of the conservative (small c).

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

So if the MPs had said "we want to milk the system", then that would be okay?

Generali has nailed it: The system for MPs expenses has loopholes that need to be closed. The tax system has loopholes that have to be closed. The two issues reflect precisely the same moral situation.

It is often said that in a democracy that the rulers reflect the ruled. This thread neatly demonstrates that saying. It is also interesting to see that moral relativism is now the viewpoint of the conservative (small c).

The trouble with the tax system is it's waaaaay too complicated - it always was but now it's getting out of hand.

Tax should be simple enough that the average taxpayer can understand it if they can be bothered to read the book. If the number of allowances for this and that and tax breaks for certain industries and so on were gotten rid of you could probably end a lot of tax avoidance and at the same time cut taxes (or borrowing) substantially.

Similarly, it makes sense to me just to pay MPs a flat rate. It's not like there are many of them - 646 right now I believe. Pay them £250,000pa and it comes to £161,500,000. Just that, a flat rate. If you're the PM or a lowly back bencher you get the same. Why not? People don't go into politics for the money in the UK by-and-large. That way you could probably get rid of a dozen pay clerks, an HR person to look after them, 2 auditors and a couple of sub-committees. It'd pay for itself!

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

What about ISAs and pensions? They're tax avoidance schemes.

Set up by the government specifically not to pay tax.

Wookster

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.

As usual you're missing the point here. There is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance is working within the tax regime to minimise your tax liability. Tax evasion is breaking the rules.

How is this different to Labour MPs raping the tax payer? Well, companies engaged in tax avoidance work within a set of rules that Parliament & The Treasury (i.e. a third party) set. MPs vote on the regulations relating to their own expenses, those regulations being different (i.e. less cumbersome) to the requirements of individuals and companies (e.g. MPs can claim expenses without receipts, other entities cannot).

Check your facts Rochdale.

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Set up by the government specifically not to pay tax.

Right. So are all other tax avoidance schemes. Governments write tax rules, tax payers pay tax under those rules.

Entertainer

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

So if the MPs had said "we want to milk the system", then that would be okay?

Actually yes.

I would be delighted if they said that. Then we wouldn't have had ten years of Tony Blair preaching and lecturing us "whiter than white, purer than pure" with all its awful consequences.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

Right. So are all other tax avoidance schemes. Governments write tax rules, tax payers pay tax under those rules.

No. ISAs are set up specifically to have zero tax. The tactics used by companies as printed in the Guardian exploit loopholes (intended and unintended) to avoid paying tax that the company knows would be due to be paid otherwise.

When they set up a "headquarters" in a tax haven and continue operating in the UK as before - complete with all the senior management that should be at their "headquarters" they're not following any established rules allowing them to do that - they're going through as many convoluted steps they can to find a way of legally not paying tax.

Yes, they're not breaking the law. But its as morally crooked as MPs claiming vast expenses within the rules.

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Yes, they're not breaking the law. But its as morally crooked as MPs claiming vast expenses within the rules.

So you're saying that companies that follow the tax rules as they stand are behaving immorally? I don't really understand your point.

Surely you either follow the rules as they are currently formulated or you don't. If you do then you've behaved morally, if you don't then you've behaved immorally.

I'm not sure where MP's expenses come into it really.

Conrad

Lets hope they turn thier guns on some high profile leftist types such as Bono and Geldof, rather than reach for the easy targets - Bankers and businessmen.

Also does anyone know what expenses people like the Dimbleby's claim for all those 'Any Questions' and 'Question time'. I find it ironic rich people like them and Paxman have the temerity to debate Banker bonuses and MP's expenses when I bet they claim masses out of BBC (my) money.