Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong

bankhater_1965

lvader wrote: »

Everything he said is true, Labour created growth through encouraging private borrowing and extreme increases in government spending. Gordon Brown said he put the end to boom and bust and infact created on the of biggest ever.

thats how things will always be when either labour or torys gain power ( i do not vote either) , its been proven , but not to blame the banks for any of the mess is complete and utter rubbish and the banks have failed down to there greed for big bonuses ,and rightly so , they should have been left to rot just as there are doing now to small business by not borrowing but are encouraged to , just as the statement says in the previos post the labour party encouraged the banks , the banks are still doing what they want and this goverment is letting them get away with it still,, very hypercritical if you ask me ,

pqrdef

tomterm8 wrote: »

Danny Alexander is being a moron. Benefit fraud is where you break the law in order to obtain an advantage. Tax evasion is where you break the law in order to obtain an advantage. Both of these things are morally equivalent.

British Citizens in law and long practice are not obliged legally to arrange their affairs in the way that makes them pay most tax. Neither is obeying the law and paying the minimum amount of tax you are legally required to pay immoral. It is just good business sense.

So are things illegal because they're wrong, or are things wrong because they're illegal? Is there no notion of right and wrong that stands above and outside the law? If there isn't, how do we decide what laws to make? Are the laws just arbitrary, and if they are, why should we respect them?

tomterm8 wrote: »

People can and should carry out tax avoidance. There is nothing dishonest or illegal about acting to minimise your tax.

So is it OK to describe your income as a loan, even when you know it isn't really?

lvader

The tendency for Torys is smaller more lean public services coupled with less taxation. Not always achievable and the UK public seem to like big government but I think it's fair to say we wouldn't have seen the same levels of public spending increases under a Tory government compared to Labour.

tomterm8

pqrdef wrote: »

So are things illegal because they're wrong, or are things wrong because they're illegal? Is there no notion of right and wrong that stands above and outside the law? If there isn't, how do we decide what laws to make? Are the laws just arbitrary, and if they are, why should we respect them?


So is it OK to describe your income as a loan, even when you know it isn't really?

Your moral duty is simply to pay the legal taxes you are required to pay by law. Other than that you are not required to arrange your affairs to require you to pay more taxes.

Taxation is not arbitrary. It is established by parliament which expresses the settled will of the people of Britain.

bankhater_1965

lvader wrote: »

The tendency for Torys is smaller more lean public services coupled with less taxation. Not always achievable and the UK public seem to like big government but I think it's fair to say we wouldn't have seen the same levels of public spending increases under a Tory government compared to Labour.

agree , but not to blame the banks for the mess we are in is utter rubbish , these people have been given very large sums of money to lend , they have decided not to as this is seen as to big of a risk , but took massive risks under the labour party as the other posts suggests as they were told , haha as if this really happend not,,the banks will protect there bonuses and invest in what brings them the best return regardless of taxpayers money given to then for soley lending to businesses for growth .these people need to rot as so many have through there monsterous greed and risk taking to finance there yuppy lifestyles

grizzly1911

lvader wrote: »

The tendency for Torys is smaller more lean public services coupled with less taxation. Not always achievable and the UK public seem to like big government but I think it's fair to say we wouldn't have seen the same levels of public spending increases under a Tory government compared to Labour.

The vast majority of government spend isn't discretionary. It is spending they are locked into .

The degree of spend largely follows the economic barometer.

We are slowly in decline gathering less in through real trade and tax income is falling. Has been for decades, yes we have had some false peaks along the way but they have one offs noit to be repeated.

The tories would have still continued spending on the back of those false peaks. They would also have let the banks run free.

Shaving bits of the police or NHS does little for the overall bill. Privitisation makes little difference to the bill to the taxpayer it's just the recipients are different.

lvader

I have worked for banks , computer industry and more recently in the healthcare industry, personally I have found corporate greed to be everywhere. Nothing special about banks in that respect. It used to be the case that as long as a company made profits then job lay offs didn't really happen. Now they wouldn't think twice about laying off people if they thought they thought it would improve the bottom line regardless of how much money they make.

bankhater_1965

lvader wrote: »

I have worked for banks , computer industry and more recently in the healthcare industry, personally I have found corporate greed to be everywhere. Nothing special about banks in that respect. It used to be the case that as long as a company made profits then job lay offs didn't really happen. Now they wouldn't think twice about laying off people if they thought they thought it would improve the bottom line regardless of how much money they make.

i dout any other industry today pays millions of £s for failure of a company chairman , also no other industry i reckon would dare get away with such taxpayers money given to them for a purpose what it is ment for set out by the goverment and intensionaly fail to carry out , once again these people are one sighted greed to fuel there yuppy lifestyles which is now financed mostly by the british taxpayer , these people have no remorse and the goverment is still letting the banks run free to do what they want

lvader

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The vast majority of government spend isn't discretionary. It is spending they are locked into .

The degree of spend largely follows the economic barometer.

We are slowly in decline gathering less in through real trade and tax income is falling. Has been for decades, yes we have had some false peaks along the way but they have one offs noit to be repeated.

The tories would have still continued spending on the back of those false peaks. They would also have let the banks run free.

Shaving bits of the police or NHS does little for the overall bill. Privitisation makes little difference to the bill to the taxpayer it's just the recipients are different.

There was a very clear policy under the last Labour government to increase public spending. It nearly doubled in the last 10 years of Labour, this at a time of very low inflation so a big increase in real terms. While the Torys often spoke of matching spending I don't think we would have seen these levels of increases with a Tory government. It's not in their makeup to do so.

lvader

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i dout any other industry today pays millions of £s for failure of a company chairman , also no other industry i reckon would dare get away with such taxpayers money given to them for a purpose what it is ment for set out by the goverment , once again these people are one sighted greed to fuel there yuppy lifestyles which is now financed mostly by the british taxpayer , these people have no remorse

In the company I work for paying off failed VPs is a common occurance. It's too costly to get into litigation when they want to fire someone senior so they pay them to leave.