Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong

wotsthat

I participate in a tax avoidance scheme - it's called a pension. I'm arranging my finances so that I receive a 40% tax rebate on contributions and pay only 20% tax when I take money out.

David Cameron has made a mistake - morals shouldn't really come into it - to me this seems like sensible tax planning but to others it will be morally repugnant. Why should anyone think they are the judge of other people's morals?

If the tax system has been designed so as to allow avoidance that, with hindsight, the authorities didn't intend then they just need closing. There's no point preaching from the pulpit when it's discovered that private tax accountants are in a different league to those employed by the government.

MacMickster

wotsthat wrote: »

I participate in a tax avoidance scheme - it's called a pension. I'm arranging my finances so that I receive a 40% tax rebate on contributions and pay only 20% tax when I take money out.

But this tax avoidance scheme does not frustrate the intentions of government. Tax relief on pension contributions has been specifically legislated for to encourage a desirable behaviour (contributing to a pension scheme).

This is very different to exploiting unintended loopholes in legislation to produce a perverse result.

pqrdef

MacMickster wrote: »

It is, however, the complexity of tax legislation in this country which allows this to happen.

It's the nature of the beast. Start with trying to define "income". The more complex the rules, the more devious the tax accountants have to be, and the more contrived and artificial their schemes have to become.

Beyond a certain point it starts to look like cheating.

But a simplified law doesn't make tax avoidance harder. It just makes it easier for more people to avoid more tax with less artificiality, so people are less likely to see anything wrong in it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MacMickster wrote: »

But this tax avoidance scheme does not frustrate the intentions of government.

Many people would view frustrating the intentions of government as their moral obligation, in all sorts of areas.

Yet they're not pilloried for it.

Some people may view the current spending priorities of government as morally wrong, and be wholly indignant they are forced to pay for it through taxation. Those people may view it as their moral obligation to legally minimise the tax they pay.

Legal tax avoidance (as opposed to illegal tax evasion) is not something that can or should be morally judged.

If the government wishes to close tax avoidance schemes that you view as loopholes, but others view as legitimate exemptions, it can do so at any time.

This is very different to exploiting unintended loopholes in legislation to produce a perverse result.

This whole argument smacks of the politics of envy.

Paying more than you legally have to is not smart, it's not required, it is in fact a voluntary donation.

And lets be honest, as was pointed out in yesterdays radio 4 debate on this very topic, if everyone in the UK were able to walk into a booth and pick whether to pay 5% tax or 50% tax, 99% of us would choose 5%.

People are not annoyed that these loopholes exist.... They're annoyed that these loopholes exist and they can't personally take advantage of them.

System

Jimmy Carr is using his advantage of wealth to pay sneaky little people to use TRICKS to not pay what he has to pay.

No, Jummy Carr is using sneaky little people to go through the fine print of taxation law to find out how tax can be saved legally

wotsthat

MacMickster wrote: »

But this tax avoidance scheme does not frustrate the intentions of government. Tax relief on pension contributions has been specifically legislated for to encourage a desirable behaviour (contributing to a pension scheme).

This is very different to exploiting unintended loopholes in legislation to produce a perverse result.

If it frustrates the intentions of the government then they should take action rather than delivering a sermon.

Or, and this would be better, design the tax system so that tax loopholes aren't there in the first place.

What strikes me as a little odd is that Gary Barlow participated in a very similar scheme but didn't seem to have his morals questioned by the Prime Minister. I wonder why?

angrypirate

Linda_D wrote: »

Hypocrite morally wrong Cameron

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

Because he should be held responsible for what his dad did? Christ, Cameron was a kid when this all happened.

quantic

The government cannot be seen to publicly support these loop holes, but they clearly do otherwise they would be closed. The end?

chewmylegoff

Linda_D wrote: »

Hypocrite morally wrong Cameron

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

why does that make cameron a hypocrite. surely we are not responsible for the past actions of our parents. if my dad murdered someone, and i said i thought murder was wrong, would that make me a hypocrite?

antrobus

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

.. show us their earnings and then show us their tax bill and we will make our own mind up.
..

I believe it's the case that Norway make all tax records public.

I seem to recall that Polly Toynbee once wrote an article in which she argued that we should do the same here. Someone then pointed out to her that perhaps she should lead the way and post a copy of her own tax records on the Guardian website. For some reason she failed to take up the challenge.