Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

what about it? if you want to give 30% of your income to a cherished charity you can do so, you don't (currently) get taxed on any element of that donation.

if you evade, sorry, wrongfully avoid tax because you can't really afford to (or just don't want to) pay tax on the other 70% of your salary if you give 30% of it away, then yes, that is completely immoral.

it's all very well to say that the 30% is doing some good, but it's really not acceptable to avoid paying any tax and then pick and choose which cause you support.

as a democracy we have voted in successive governments on the basis that we think, e.g. that we should have an NHS and that it should cost a certain level and provide certain services.

if, as an individual decide that, for you, tabitha's donkey sanctuary, or even childline, is more important than having an NHS providing that range of services, then you can vote for whoever offers the closest solution to that, or run for parliament yourself.

however, if you don't get the democratic result you want, it is immoral to subvert that result by refusing to pay tax through some idiotic scheme such as K2, and then giving 30% to the charity instead of paying it over as tax.
...

fwiw, i agree with your viewpoint. Taxation is a collective giving to support the fabric of our society.

I was, however, struck by the views on a documentary recently, by a guy who was the ex-boss of Car Phone Warehouse (I think its that one). He sold up the business and had a net worth into the hundreds of millions.

He actively sought to minimise any tax he pays, and defended his decisions by his charitable activity. It was an interesting interview.

It seems there are people who believe they can contribute to society better than the government can via taxation. They probably wouldn't consider themselves any more immoral than the next person.

The morality argument is subjective at best.

chewmylegoff

MacMickster wrote: »

Whilst I believe that on this occasion he is right, Call me Dave has actually scored a massive own goal with his statement. This will have been pointed out to him in no uncertain terms, which is why he won't now comment on other individuals.

Over the next few months I would expect to see investigations by the press unveiling MPs (just when the expenses scandal has almost run its course) and in particular Conservative party donors who use such schemes to reduce their UK tax liability to almost nil.

Where will his morality argument sit if it turns out that the largest party donors are doing no more than donating taxes which they have avoided?

yes, it was moronic to single out an individual. he could have easily made his point by simply talking about K2 itself and not being drawn on any questions about individuals, or indeed by referring to the arrangements rather than the name of the scheme.

i agree with your last point. i wonder if the tories have ever accepted any money from any non-domiciled donors...oh dear.

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

.......
i say avoiding, because this thing has been registered with HMRC as an avoidance scheme. therefore i think you are technically indemnified from being prosecuted for tax evasion, but if HMRC find that the scheme does not work (and win if challenged by the users) then all that happens is the users have to pay the tax due plus interest, and there isn't a penalty levied. but that might not be right.

Chewmylegoff, what does registration mean? Is it just a self- declaration by the tax specialist that they are using a tax avoidance scheme? Do they have to describe it in any detail to register it? Does registration imply that it passes any HMRC test or signify any approval?

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

Chewmylegoff, what does registration mean? Is it just a self- declaration by the tax specialist that they are using a tax avoidance scheme? Do they have to describe it in any detail to register it? Does registration imply that it passes any HMRC test or signify any approval?

You have to tell them what the scheme consists of, but in respect of something like K2 I imagine the disclosure didn't say that income tax would be avoided by making loans and resigning from the uk company after earning the income. Probably just disclosed the corporate structure.

Disclosing the existence of the scheme doesn't give it any form of approval, hmrc just acknowledge the notification they don't approve the arrangements.

bankhater_1965

and i got screwed for owing a measly £500 out of a £7200 tax bill for self employment !! beggers believe

kabayiri

I don't know if anyone caught Jimmy Carr on his weekly 8 out of 10 cats tv show last night, but he sat there for a solid 30 minutes taking abuse off the other panelists and played everything with a straight bat. At no point did he try and defend his actions or deflect it onto his peers.

Not everyone will agree with this, but he WILL win new friends because of this. His response to an issue of questionable morality is very different to the type of responses we became familiar with from the politicians during the expenses scandal.

I think this saga may still backfire on Mr Cameron and the self appointed Commons Morality Team.

wymondham

pqrdef wrote: »

I said there would be those who didn't understand the question.

But let me ask this. Should you observe the spirit or the letter of the law?

The letter of the law only - there is no 'spirit' - you either break the law or you don't.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Not everyone will agree with this, but he WILL win new friends because of this. His response to an issue of questionable morality is very different to the type of responses we became familiar with from the politicians during the expenses scandal.

Maybe Jimmy Carr has the sense to realise that alienating the very public that pay to see him is business suicide. He may even have a social conscience as well.

Joe_Bloggs

There is a Grauniad article here in which it states that there is a 38 year tax tribunal backlog. Perhaps Mr Carr should wear a Panama hat, move to Monaco, and donate charitably to the Tory party if he wants DC of his back.
J_B.

cottonhead

If there are ways to pay less tax there will always be people who will do it. In a way I dont blame them when every day you see so much money being handed out to people too lazy to work. Also if you stop to look at some of the strange benefits that have been around in the past and still are today, you would be shocked how tax payers money is spent. Personally if I were in a position to pay less tax I would - simply because I dont agree with how the government spend it. Too much public money is wasted and whilst pensioners freeze and go hungry we have layabouts living it up on public funds having never done a days work.
The other point is I strongly dissagree with varying rates of tax. Most wealthy people are wealthy because they have earned their money through hard study or hard work or by making sacrifices and being patient or in Jimmy Carr's case through a talent that people will pay to see. Why should they be penalised for their efforts ? I think tax should be set as a percentage of income - the same percentage for everyone.