Guardian continue their Tax Avoidance crusade.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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

Two words come to mind: Bull and !!!!!!

MPs set their own rules, companies work within the rules set by parliament and the Treasury.

Can you spot the big stinking turd here?

JayScottGreenspan

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.

I think there's a slight difference in that MPs have to sign off on their expenses as justified and necessary in order to carry out their parliamentary or constituency work (or some similar such verbiage that I can't seem to find from a quick google).

So clearly anyone submitting an expense claim for a London flat whilst renting out another London flat, or someone submitting a claim for an expensive stone sink, or a pay per view movie (p'rnographic or not) is clearly committing an act of fraud. Lock 'em up, I say.

JayScottGreenspan

Generali wrote: »

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

So if some strange loophole in the law meant killing babies with hammers in Dartmouth on the third Sunday of a February in a leap year were legal, then would an article about such an act be a 'non-story'?

The law can get it wrong, you know.

If Obama and co managed to close a load of loopholes and pay off a chunk of national debt with the proceeds, would that be a 'non-story'?

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I think there's a slight difference in that MPs have to sign off on their expenses as justified and necessary in order to carry out their parliamentary or constituency work (or some similar such verbiage that I can't seem to find from a quick google).

So clearly anyone submitting an expense claim for a London flat whilst renting out another London flat, or someone submitting a claims for a stone sink, or a pay per view movie (p'rnographic or not) is clearly committing an act of fraud. Lock 'em up, I say.

No they are not. They are within the rules. The defence of tax avoidance is that it is the rules. Smith's porno movies are a separate issue, which is why she repaid them.

Both symptoms of the same moral decay.

To Wookster: If you think that companies do not have a say in how tax policy is formulated, you are being naive. You must be aware of how lobbying works.

Wookster

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

To Wookster: If you think that companies do not have a say in how tax policy is formulated, you are being naive. You must be aware of how lobbying works.

LOL

So now you say that Companies set tax laws and MPs set the laws around expenses and seeing that both are operating in line with the rules that the're the same.

That's Nulabour stinky turd for you I guess!

Generali

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

So if some strange loophole in the law meant killing babies with hammers in Dartmouth on the third Sunday of a February in a leap year were legal, then would an article about such an act be a 'non-story'?

No it wouldn't. Clearly that would be a story.

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

If Obama and co managed to close a load of loopholes and pay off a chunk of national debt with the proceeds, would that be a 'non-story'?

I still don't understand what you mean by 'loopholes'. They're just tax laws.

If you pay an extra few quid into your pension so you don't pay 40% tax on your income then that's tax avoidance. It's also just following the rules.

If you save money into an ISA rather than a savings account outside of that tax wrapper then you avoid paying tax on the interest income.

If you save money with some National Savings accounts you avoid tax. How's that for a mixed signal!

Anyone remember the old stories about how loads of celebs in the 1980s were planting pine forestry in the Scottish Highlands and trashing the countryside as a result because of the tax breaks available? That was deliberate Government policy. As soon as someone got upset about it, it went from a tax break to a loophole. How do you differentiate between them?

I guess that you've mostly or only paid tax through the PAYE system from your comments (that's not meant to be dismissive BTW).

Sir_Humphrey

Wookster wrote: »

LOL

So now you say that Companies set tax laws and MPs set the laws around expenses and seeing that both are operating in line with the rules that the're the same.

That's Nulabour stinky turd for you I guess!

Silly boy. I said they have a say. They do not decide. That was the case under the Tories too. Do you have to turn every thread into a boring party-political rant?

To Generali: The difference between a loophole and tax break is that the former is an unintended mistake and the latter is intended policy. I am sure you understand that really.

Wookster

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Silly boy. I said they have a say. They do not decide. That was the case under the Tories too. Do you have to turn every thread into a boring party-political rant?

So you accept now that Companies influence over tax law is quite limited. Therefore my point stands.

Eat humble pie, if the smell of pickpocketing labour turd doesn't put you off.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The difference between a loophole and tax break is that the former is an unintended mistake and the latter is intended policy. I am sure you understand that really.

Well the pine forestry in the Highlands example I quoted was deliberate tax policy but as soon as it was used was derided as a loophole (one which I believe was eventually 'closed').

I think that loopholes are just tax breaks that get used too much for the most part. Ok, there are a few pretty funky schemes around that will avoid certain taxes but by-and-large, my experience is that tax is avoided by applying tax rules in a way that gives you an advantage.

I was a contractor for many years in the investment banks and ran a business to supply my services. That could be seen as tax avoidance (strictly speaking NI avoidance). I asked my accountant for the best way to account for my services and was advised that was it.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

No they are not. They are within the rules. The defence of tax avoidance is that it is the rules. Smith's porno movies are a separate issue, which is why she repaid them.

Both symptoms of the same moral decay.

To Wookster: If you think that companies do not have a say in how tax policy is formulated, you are being naive. You must be aware of how lobbying works.

So a stone sink is justified and necessary expense incurred in order to fulfill parliamentary or constituency duties?

A lot of MPs rented out their London flats and rented new ones on expenses. Are those justified and necessary expenses incurred in order to fulfill parliamentary or constituency duties?

The MPs keep issuing statements saying that these expenses are within the rules. What they mean is that those administrating the expenses were prepared to let it slide, and everyone else was doing it. Nevertheless, signing a document stating that the expenses were necessary in order to perform their duties is, in my view, fraud.