We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tens of thousands face 'bully boy' investigations in new crackdown - The DM
Comments
-
People should pay their taxes within the rules and laws of the land. If you can put money into a pension fund from untaxed income as you can in the UK currently then that is paying tax within the rules, albeit at 0%. If the rules say you can't work cash in hand to prevent yourself from having a tax liability and you do so then you are breaking the rules.
A distinction between avoidance and evasion is unhelpful. Either you break the law or you don't.0 -
-
chewmylegoff wrote: »erm... isn't that the exact distinction between avoidance and evasion? avoidance is just a word for what you're doing when you're paying into your pension scheme at 0% tax.
Yes it is.
It was Mr Clegg that is apparently confused or perhaps (and perhaps more likely) the Daily Mail reporter in the OP's piece.
My opinion also is that the word 'avoidance' is unhelpful as it implies you are a bit shady.
BTW (and this isn't meant to be a criticism of you or anyone else chewmylegoff) is it just me or do increasing numbers of people seem to be posting on here using only lower case?0 -
Yes it is.
It was Mr Clegg that is apparently confused or perhaps (and perhaps more likely) the Daily Mail reporter in the OP's piece.
My opinion also is that the word 'avoidance' is unhelpful as it implies you are a bit shady.
BTW (and this isn't meant to be a criticism of you or anyone else chewmylegoff) is it just me or do increasing numbers of people seem to be posting on here using only lower case?
They didnt confuse anything. They were quite clear saying they would target both.
Funny that I dont think there is any real intention to change the law so those that will be paying will be those with nothing & make a couple of pound at a carboot....Not Again0 -
Can anyone here explain the benefits we taxpayers gain from the widespread use of offshore companies, in all their forms?
They just seem an excuse to pay less tax, or hide your earnings.
Do they have a beneficial purpose to the economy?
They facilitate the existence of other nation's economies with which we do trade. I'm pretty sure that if we attempted to ban them, the other 99% of the world's population would think it rather presumptuous and point out we have no jurisdiction. I suppose we could stop them being used for tax avoidance by banning cross-border trade, but even that might backfire on us somewhat...0 -
-
Yes it is.
It was Mr Clegg that is apparently confused or perhaps (and perhaps more likely) the Daily Mail reporter in the OP's piece.
So no Journalist is misreporting what he said.
Edited to say: He is clearly trying to win the left of his party back by following Labour stanceI'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
Degenerate wrote: »NI is the real win for directors of small limited companies. Payable on salaries, not on dividends.
And when those companies get bigger or need help they have to employ people.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »They didnt confuse anything. They were quite clear saying they would target both.
I don't see how you can target tax avoidance. He seems to be saying he'll target people that follow the rules and those that break the rules.
I think that's the same thing as saying, "I will target everyone" which seems oxymoronic to me.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards