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!
Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong
Comments
-
Some test cases
(1) you close a bank account after transferring the money to a new identical account. The aim is to get the interest paid in this tax year instead of next year, for tax purposes.
This is avoidance in that the transaction is an unnatural one that wouldn't be carried out for any other purpose except to reduce your contribution to the public purse.
(2) A salary sacrifice scheme where you take a "pay cut" but your employer now pays your pension contributions. The aim is to reduce NI.
(3) A senior civil servant is employed through his personal services company. There is legislation specifically intended to close this loophole, but it's claimed there are loopholes in the legislation. In the absence of test cases, nobody is sure what the law says, though its intention is clear.
Legal, yes. Moral, ? (Many people won't understand the question.)"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Some test cases
(1) you close a bank account after transferring the money to a new identical account. The aim is to get the interest paid in this tax year instead of next year, for tax purposes.
This is avoidance in that the transaction is an unnatural one that wouldn't be carried out for any other purpose except to reduce your contribution to the public purse.
(2) A salary sacrifice scheme where you take a "pay cut" but your employer now pays your pension contributions. The aim is to reduce NI.
(3) A senior civil servant is employed through his personal services company. There is legislation specifically intended to close this loophole, but it's claimed there are loopholes in the legislation. In the absence of test cases, nobody is sure what the law says, though its intention is clear.
Legal, yes. Moral, ? (Many people won't understand the question.)
Thanks pqrdef. That's the sort of thing I was thinking of when I started the thread. Of the three you've quoted, 2 and 3 feel, well, underhand to me. 1 feels less so. Presumably the reason for doing it would be if you had unused allowances this year, or something like that? Shuffling a bit of income to a time when there would be an unused allowance feels to me more like managing tax than avoiding it - and not as big a deal as, for example, paying yourself dividends instead of salary to avoid NI.
But then maybe that's because we all tend to feel that the things we do are OK and the things we don't do are probably not. And I admit having shuffled things from one year to another on occasions - for example timing donations to charity (genuine ones) to be either before or after the end of the tax year according to the effect they would have on my CTC. (Gift-aided donations are deductible when calculating income for CTC purposes.)Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
Part of the problem is that tax law itself is often arbitrary, contradictory or ambiguous, and sometimes by design.
Another part of the problem is that people have different ideas about what is fair when it comes to taxation. Avoiders may feel that they're just avoiding being unfairly penalised.
And then there's the common attitude which denies any moral responsibility and just says, if it's legal, it's OK."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
If the HMRC cannot find a way of stopping this abuse then its because their political masters do not want it to happen.
If necessary we need to have the presumption that all income earned by UK residents must be treated as PAYE unless they meet some specific criteria for exemption. It may be easier to write the criteria to prevent the abuse than to allow it and the say its all too difficult.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
If the HMRC cannot find a way of stopping this abuse then its because their political masters do not want it to happen.
If necessary we need to have the presumption that all income earned by UK residents must be treated as PAYE unless they meet some specific criteria for exemption. It may be easier to write the criteria to prevent the abuse than to allow it and the say its all too difficult.
You have just killed small businesses.0 -
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Two cannibals are eating a comedian. One of them says "do you think this meat tastes a bit funny?"0
-
I really dont get this drama
If theres loopholes, and the government doesnt like people exploiting them, then close them, but all these methods used are available to everyone ,its not like celebrities are getting preferential treatment.
Its not like benefit fraud, benefit fraud requires lying and illegitamacy, tax avoidance is legal
Get your point, but the problem is that in 21st century UK we have created a system where we can tie ourselves in knots because of the vastness of laws and regulation.
If you have the money you can get away with anything these days. But if you are just average you pay 100% what the law says you pay.0 -
I don't understand the drama. If it's illegal then that is wrong, but if it's not then it's fine - nothing to do with 'morals'.
If the government don't like the ways of avoidance then they should close them. I half suspect they don't as MP's are using them as well!0 -
Another part of the problem is that people have different ideas about what is fair when it comes to taxation. Avoiders may feel that they're just avoiding being unfairly penalised.
My personal view is that anyone working in the UK should be paying at least basic rate tax (but should receive any tax-free allowances). I have some sympathy for people on very high rates of tax, but can't see how it is reasonable for anyone to pay tax below that of people on average wages. So if someone is paying 1% tax - as is implied in the Jimmy Carr case though I am only going on newspaper headlines here - that feels very unfair to me.
However...I don't understand the drama. If it's illegal then that is wrong, but if it's not then it's fine - nothing to do with 'morals'.
If the government don't like the ways of avoidance then they should close them. I half suspect they don't as MP's are using them as well!
Wymondham's also right. They need to close the loopholes rather than standing on soapboxes and talking about morals. My sense is that Cameron's on thin ice here, after all, what's good for comedians is probably also good for Tory party donors.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
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
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards