Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong

BobQ

socrates wrote: »

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.

Its true that the aristocracy have done this for years but this issue should be about the fairness of whatever avoidance methods are used. It has nothing to do with ordinary people getting rich.

A self employed plumber is expected to pay tax on all of his income. Alright he is allowed to deduct expenses for transport, tools of the trade and so on. True he can get away with paying less tax than a plumber on PAYE but he also takes more business risk. He can push the boundaries of the expenses he can claim but HMRC will investigate if he takes too many liberties. This is not about this type of legal avaoidance. Its about very well paid people paying vast sums of money to get around tax laws and pay less tax than the ordinary tax payer while shielding behind the defence "its all legal". Well Jimmy Carr now seems to realise that this is not a defence he is content to stand behind. Others are more than content to stay quiet and pay far less tax than the secretaries they employ.

socrates

We are not talking about plumbers who earn £80k pa

We are talking about people who are earning the kind of money that JC is earning - in relative terms £3m is probably equivalent to what the gentry used to earn - how many of their schemes were closed back in the day

Specialist IT contractors were earning £150k (how much would that be in todays money) back in the late 90's - I should know I was placing them in their jobs - it was OK for the city boys to have their loopholes but as soon as the ordinary guy who had an aptitude with computers started taking advantage using the same schemes - its gets shut down by the government - coincidence?

qetu1357

pqrdef wrote: »

For those confused, bemused or amused by the concept of morality, some more dilemmas:

(1) Do you put foreign coins in vending machines? Parking meters?

(2) You go to a village fete or carol concert. Somebody is collecting an entrance fee, but there's no security and it's easy to walk in without paying. Do you?

(3) You see an opportunity to get into a football match without paying. Do you?

(4) You see an opportunity to travel on a bus or train without paying. Do you?

(5) More generally, many things depend on a degree of trust. If somebody trusts you, do you try to honour that, or do you say "more fool them" and try to exploit the situation?

(6) Should the State be able to trust us to pay what our democratically elected Parliament decides is our fair share?

All No for me.

Linda_D_2

Generali wrote: »

Ezekiel 18:


To put it another way, in what way is Cameron responsible for the tax arrangements of his father? Where would that responsibility end: parts of the Bible identify the 3rd or 4th generation.

Did that money go to a local dog charity? No, the hypocrite Cameron received the money in an inheritance.

BobQ

socrates wrote: »

We are not talking about plumbers who earn £80k pa

We are talking about people who are earning the kind of money that JC is earning - in relative terms £3m is probably equivalent to what the gentry used to earn - how many of their schemes were closed back in the day

Specialist IT contractors were earning £150k (how much would that be in todays money) back in the late 90's - I should know I was placing them in their jobs - it was OK for the city boys to have their loopholes but as soon as the ordinary guy who had an aptitude with computers started taking advantage using the same schemes - its gets shut down by the government - coincidence?

Do you never read the posts you comment on? I WAS speaking about celebrities like Carr. YOU commented about ordinary people as you do here again (by the way those earning £150K in the 90s are not ordinary by most people's standards).

It really does not matter who is exploiting loopholes. They need to be stopped. My point is if you cannot close the loopholes we must stop them being exploited in another way.

You may be correct that Governments choose to close some loopholes and not others, but I do not care if its the landed gentry, Mr Carr, an IT consultant, a banker or a plumber. None should allowed to manipulate the system in such an unfair way.

socrates

BobQ wrote: »

Do you never read the posts you comment on? I WAS speaking about celebrities like Carr. YOU commented about ordinary people as you do here again (by the way those earning £150K in the 90s are not ordinary by most people's standards).

It really does not matter who is exploiting loopholes. They need to be stopped. My point is if you cannot close the loopholes we must stop them being exploited in another way.

You may be correct that Governments choose to close some loopholes and not others, but I do not care if its the landed gentry, Mr Carr, an IT consultant, a banker or a plumber. None should allowed to manipulate the system in such an unfair way.

But that is the exact point - Jimmy Carr is an ordinary person who in this day and age can earn ridiculous money by being funny - in the old days he could not

The computer contractors were ordinary guys who happened to have the right skills and were in the right place at the right time

You are confusing the term ordinary people and linking it to earnings

Neither of these types got a huge inheritance or land given to them, or wealth that was created off the backs of others.

Lets talk about lottery millionaires - ordinary people who get lucky - even though some of them get more money than they could ever spend - do you think when advisors tell them how to minimize tax they say ' no that's ok I will pay my fair share because its immoral' ?

Most people when it comes to income they have EARNED will do everything in their power to preserve it

Anyway we will agree to disagree

The_J

Just came on here to see if people were still claiming it's illegal. Not going to read the posts because I don't like to get a dose of retardation before bed, it keeps me up laughing.

Even the BBC, the most left wing organisation in the world, agree it's legal. Hell, the Government are creating legislation to enable this type of tax avoidance for firms.

Some of you people are just so !!!!ing stupid. I hate that the internet gives you a mouthpiece, to think in the past you would have just been seen and not heard. Glorious days.

DiggerUK

The_J wrote: »

.....Some of you people are just so !!!!ing stupid. I hate that the internet gives you a mouthpiece, to think in the past you would have just been seen and not heard....

You view a lot of people as stupid it seems. Quite how that makes a point that empowers your opinion, passes me by.

What the internet does do, is give an opportunity for those who disagree with you to be heard. Something you, and some of our 'other posters' with mail order brides, can't handle.

Perhaps you have more empathy with your clients, than the cleaners they employ.

Sweet dreams.
..._

heathcote123

LydiaJ wrote: »

David Cameron has said that while tax management (putting money in ISAs & pensions etc) is fine, tax avoidance schemes that exploit loopholes in the tax law are morally wrong, although admittedly not illegal.

Video here.

If that's the case, where do you draw the line? Making yourself into a company and paying yourself dividends instead of a salary, so as not to pay NI? Making sure you spend enough days offshore not to be liable for domestic UK taxes?

Danny Alexander says tax avoidance is morally equivalent to benefit fraud. But where's the line there? Making sure you work exactly 16 hours/week to maximise the tax credits?

A challenge for everyone - how long can we keep this thread as a civilised debate before it descends into a slanging match? Please?

Isn't it strange that those that live on the proceeds of taxes seem to find it so morally despicable to dodge them.

I'd say sending people to prison for not handing over half their wages in order to prop up bonus-paying failed banks, give to african despots and go to war in whereveristan is a bit morally wrong as well.

And how come 'the rich' are getting all the stick here? when was the last time anyone used a tradesman that didn't 'prefer cash'?

seven-day-weekend

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I would love to see a database out there of money earned and tax paid. whether it is a footballer, rock star, movie star, businessman, London city boy, if you earn 1 million, you pay £250,000 as the norm.

If they do not pay this rough equation(say 20/25%) and end up paying well less then 10% and then come out with all this " Ehhh, Mmmm, well I used the law you know"
We will make our own judgements on the rights and wrongs of his avoidence, example I will turning the TV off now when I see Jimmy Carr, and will never watch him at another comedy Gig like I have done in the past.


I do not want to see the rich stuffed in the UK, I would actually like to see their top band reduced. But from the poorest to the richest, good and bad I want to see ALL pay their 20/25% tax

Yes, so do I. Although I have to say i never DID watch Jimmy Carr, so can't turn him off:)).