Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong

bankhater_1965

lvader wrote: »

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.

it still doesnt justify the high sums paid

DiggerUK

On such an issue as how little tax the rich pay, and how much the not so rich pay, we have displayed in this thread the bias of each poster, and an insight in to their morals.
To me, it just seems that while the rich get the pleasure of paying as little tax as they can, the rest of us get the pain of paying all that can be screwed out of us.

I do hope there is a closer look at the tax avoidance schemes of royals, CEO's, Camerons chums, and the rest of that shower in the legislative body who make these laws with loop holes in the first place.

I do hope this story of tax avoidance runs and runs, not a lot of good news about these days, is there.
..._

pqrdef

tomterm8 wrote: »

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

Nicely sidestepped. But this only leads back to the perennial question whether it is the spirit or the letter of the law that should be observed.

pqrdef

DiggerUK wrote: »

I do hope there is a closer look at the tax avoidance schemes of royals, CEO's, Camerons chums, and the rest of that shower in the legislative body who make these laws with loop holes in the first place.

Of course the tax avoidance done by individuals is small-scale compared to that done by major companies. Firms like Vodafone, Barclays and Tesco run schemes that cost the Treasury billions.

bankhater_1965

i reckon guy fawkes had the best idea !

BobQ

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.

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

Legally true but avoidance is not all the same. Parliament expresses through the laws it passes the areas where it regards it is legitimate to avoid tax. Tax avoidance by individuals who have creatively found legal ways to subvert what Parliament intended, may be legal but this does not make the practice morally acceptable. It just means that Parliament has not been clever enough to prevent the avoidance.

I think there should be a strong presumption that only certain avoidance methods are allowed. Other methods should require certification that they meet the spirit of the law not just the letter of it. Without this certification they should be deemed evaision.

bankhater_1965

BobQ wrote: »

Legally true but avoidance is not all the same. Parliament expresses through the laws it passes the areas where it regards it is legitimate to avoid tax. Tax avoidance by indivuals who have creatively found legal ways to subvert what Parliament intended, may be legal but this does not make the practice morally acceptable. It just means that Parliament was not been clever enough to prevent the avoidance.

I think there should be a strong presumption that only certain avoidance methods are allowed. Other methods should require certification that they meet the spirit of the law not just the letter of it. Without this certification they should be deemed evaision.

i think alot of people get annoyed because even though it is true what you say and its legal , why on earth do they apolagise when it comes to light , because its morally wrong and they no it is and also no how the public will react to them !

socrates

The reality is that as society has changed more and more ordinary people have been able to earn large sums of money.

Years ago only the aristocracy were able to rake it in

Once the 'ordinary man' does well for himself and starts to take advantage of loop holes that were reserved for the 'rich' they close them

I remember computer contractors with their Limited Companies and how IR35 legislation affected them

Individuals are replicating what large corporates and the rich do with their tax avoidance - if its within the law then I say good luck to them - after all they have more expendable income to spend and are not running away to become non-resident.

BobQ

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i think alot of people get annoyed because even though it is true what you say and its legal , why on earth do they apolagise when it comes to light , because its morally wrong and they no it is and also no how the public will react to them !

Agreed. Legal methods of tax avoidance like ISAs and Pension Contributions are what Parliament intended. Schemes like K2 are legal by the letter of the law but offend the spirit of it. More importantly they are seen as morally wrong by ordinary tax payers. I think any scheme like this should be regarded as evasion unless the type of scheme is certified by HMRC as being within both the letter and spirit of the law.

The certification of schemes should be on the basis of fairness. For example, if a cleaner has to pay 20% tax it is by definition wrong that creative accountancy enables celebrities to pay less than this amount on a small proportion of their income. The onus should be on the scheme's inventor to show that it is compliant with the spirit of the law.

vivatifosi

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i reckon guy fawkes had the best idea !

But that was then and this is now.

These days it would be rebuilt using the worst possible design on a PFI contract that will bind us into paying for it for the next 250 years. I find the Houses of Parliament quite elegant. Its occupants on the other hand, less so.