Guardian continue their Tax Avoidance crusade.

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I agree it is wrong and an abuse of the rules. I am simply pointing out the moral equivalence of that bad behaviour and that of companies.

To Nick Mason. Silly boy is a euphemism "x is talking b0llux" which whilst still rude is not crude like the latter. In the case of Wookster in that case I claim fair comment.

The difference between a tax break and a loophole is completely obvious, so stop these pathetic obfuscations.

Silly boy.

Generali

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Wonder what would happen if I put a load of !!!!!! or expensive fixtures and fittings down as tax deductible on my tax return.

Would it be approved by the inland revenue? If they subsequently smelt a fish, would they just let me pay it back? Or would I be prosecuted?

Lock 'em up, I say!

If you put in a couple of !!!!!! vids then you'd not go to prison.

If you put down a load of expensive fittings for your office (as you can under the rules AIUI - I put down a quite nice desk on mine a few years back) then you'd be fine.

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

A loophole is an unintended gap in the law.

Check out what Barclay's Structured Capital Markets division was up to:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Barclays_Bank_gags_Guardian_over_leaked_memos_detailing_offshore_tax_scam,_16_Mar_2009
It's an absolute disgrace.

If there was an easy way for the lawmakers to stop this soprt of thing, they would. Quite different from ISAs, which were specifically legislated for.

You may call it an unintended gap in the law. It's not how the term is used by newspapers for example. The forestry example was definitely not unintended. It was definitely described as a loophole.

This was a part of the policy being undone:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1461068.stm

harryhound

Real wealth is created mainly by business. The public sectors of health and education also create wealth, though increasingly the actual creation is being sub contracted to the private sector.. Most of the rest of government spending is just redistribution and waste of other peoples wealth.

So yes there is a moral difference between defending the wealth you have created and excessively and fraudulently claiming benefits from those who created the wealth.

I suppose there is a higher than normal ratio of redistributors and wasters amongst the Guardian readership.

These people used to be called public SERVANTS but I don't think they consider that they are SERVANTS of the tax payers any more. The power crazed ones in Westminster certainly don't think like that anymore.

donaldtramp

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.

Nope it doesn't negate the stories, it just shows you the lengths they will go to sell papers.
Quite willing to sell papers condemning and slating everyone else, whilst quietly working the EXACT SAME FIDDLE!!!

What does that say about the Guardian?
They also have very carefully made sure that all articles published on their website about these tax loopholes are "pre-moderated". Wouldn't want anyone else to see how two faced they are being, would we?

Unbelievable! How can you trust anything they write?

martinisfab

Tax avoidance in the UK is sickening and the government allows it to keep their chums in the City happy. Virgin, for example, only pay around 11% tax. Richard Branson portrays himself as a champion of the people, but he uses every tax avoidance loophole around, such as registering his companies abroad, to avoid paying tax and so avoid having to contribute to the education of children and welfare of elderly people in this country.

wymondham

martinisfab wrote: »

Tax avoidance in the UK is sickening and the government allows it to keep their chums in the City happy. Virgin, for example, only pay around 11% tax. Richard Branson portrays himself as a champion of the people, but he uses every tax avoidance loophole around, such as registering his companies abroad, to avoid paying tax and so avoid having to contribute to the education of children and welfare of elderly people in this country.

If he is not breaking any law then he's not doing anything wrong (ignore morals, as money and morals don't mix!!). He did'nt get rich by paying out unnecersarily - he is just a very good businessman who knows how the 'system' works. He's always had an 'interesting' relationship with the taxman! (did'nt he go to prison in the early days?).

If you were told you had a £100 tax bill, but if you did something quite simple and legal you would not have to pay it - which would you do?

I must admit seeing how tax money is spent these day with the recent massive wastes, I would certainly do anything I can to pay less tax - I think I can spend it more wisely than a politician!

donaldtramp

martinisfab wrote: »

Tax avoidance in the UK is sickening and the government allows it to keep their chums in the City happy. Virgin, for example, only pay around 11% tax. Richard Branson portrays himself as a champion of the people, but he uses every tax avoidance loophole around, such as registering his companies abroad, to avoid paying tax and so avoid having to contribute to the education of children and welfare of elderly people in this country.

Totally agree with you. This recession was caused by greed at the top and bottom of our society. The greedy at the top took far too much and the people at the bottom bought things they couldn't afford. Or were too lazy to bother getting a job in the first place and lived off the backs of everyone else.

And the very people who did no wrong, the hard working, are going to pay to sort the mess out. Unbelievable.

Thrugelmir

martinisfab wrote: »

Tax avoidance in the UK is sickening and the government allows it to keep their chums in the City happy. Virgin, for example, only pay around 11% tax. Richard Branson portrays himself as a champion of the people, but he uses every tax avoidance loophole around, such as registering his companies abroad, to avoid paying tax and so avoid having to contribute to the education of children and welfare of elderly people in this country.

and how many citizens of this country work for "cash in hand", or ask for a discount if they pay in cash ?

Nobody likes paying tax.

As for Richard Branson , his Virgin empire makes a sizable contribution in terms of tax in one form or another. I'm sure everything else is within the rules.

Maybe if we weren't taxed so heavily in such an underhand way by the labour government over the past years. The need for legitimate avoidance wouldn't be such a profitable pastime for tax advisors.

lostinrates

donaldtramp wrote: »

Totally agree with you. This recession was caused by greed at the top and bottom of our society. The greedy at the top took far too much and the people at the bottom bought things they couldn't afford. Or were too lazy to bother getting a job in the first place and lived off the backs of everyone else.

And the very people who did no wrong, the hard working, are going to pay to sort the mess out. Unbelievable.

I started a thread once on where people perceived the 'top', 'bottom' and 'middle' earners to be. It became really interesting.

icefall

lostinrates wrote: »

I started a thread once on where people perceived the 'top', 'bottom' and 'middle' earners to be. It became really interesting.

Do you have a link for it at all?