Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong

pqrdef

wotsthat wrote: »

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

Do you think they don't try?

The_White_Horse

there is nothing immoral at all about using legal schemes to avoid paying tax.

what is morally repugnant is smug Guardian reading media lefties like Jimmy Carr going on and on about "nasty tories" and "fat cat bankers", when they are doing it themselves.

MacMickster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

I completely disagree with you on this.

Form a political party which says that it will reduce the rate of tax to 5%, but will scrap the NHS, free schooling, pensions etc as a result and see how many votes it gets. I suspect (and hope) that the 99% would not vote for it.

Taxation is the price for a civilised society. It disgusts me that those who benefit most from the advantages of UK society then try to avoid paying their dues which enable that society to continue to provide opportunity to others, whilst looking after the vulnerable.

The government, of whatever colour, generally closes these avoidance loopholes in the budget after they become aware of them (and occasionally with emergency legislation) but the problem with enacting urgent legislation is that it is difficult to fully study the interaction of that new legislation with existing law, so often unintentionally creates more loopholes than it closes.

angrypirate

The_White_Horse wrote: »

there is nothing immoral at all about using legal schemes to avoid paying tax.

Just because something is legal doesnt mean to say its immoral. Id say its pretty damn immoral to refuse to pay into the system but then take out of it.

wotsthat

pqrdef wrote: »

Do you think they don't try?

If it takes !!!!!! journalists to point out these things then the government hasn't tried anywhere near hard enough.

I thought tax accountants now had to report loopholes they were using direct to HMRC?

pqrdef

Suppose a government decides to introduce death duties. Initially, they just take a percentage of the estates of rich dead people.

Well that's easy enough to "avoid" - give the money away before you die, and the government won't get their hands on it.

To start with, nobody has a problem with this. There's a downside to giving your money away. Many people are inexplicably reluctant to do it even when the downside is minimal.

People might even perceive that there is merit in giving their money away instead of sitting on it, and might regard the tax as an incentive.

But eventually the government comes to feel that it is losing too much "legitimate" revenue as a result of people giving their money away for no other reason than tax. So this is now called a loophole. New legislation is brought in to catch gifts made before death.

But there are exemptions for "legitimate" gifts - the ones the government thinks people might ordinarily and reasonably want to make for reasons other than tax.

Now, people can still avoid tax the same way as before, by giving the money away. But they have to do it in more contrived ways. Gifts which are only being made for reasons of tax have to be disguised as legitimate gifts.

Notice that the same gift may or may not be "tax avoidance" depending on the intention behind it. Laws and courts are bad at dealing with intention, although they pretend they can. But morality is about what your conscience should say no to, and your conscience knows what you're up to.

The_White_Horse

angrypirate wrote: »

Just because something is legal doesnt mean to say its immoral. Id say its pretty damn immoral to refuse to pay into the system but then take out of it.

who says they are taking out of it. doesn't it lesson the immorality if you send your kids (if you have any) to private school and have private health care?

anyway, someone paying 1% on 3.3m is probably paying far more than someone on £20k paying 20% aren't they?

morality is subjective. this person has still paid £33k (1% of 3.3m) whilst someone on £20k has only paid a few thousand. Why should the person who has actually paid more, feel guilty???

I don't see any reason why people that earn more should pay a higher percentage. the percentage should be fixed and you will pay more simply because you earn more.

making higher earners pay a higher percentage rate is pure and simple discrimination and is no more acceptable than saying blacks should pay a higher rate or jews should pay a higher rate. Just because the Gaurdian reading lefties say it is ok, doesn't mean it is. It is ABSOLUTELY wrong, in every way.

Generali

Linda_D wrote: »

Hypocrite morally wrong Cameron

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

Ezekiel 18:

“Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

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.

purch

Maybe not hypocritical, but rather brave.

It is not as if the fact that Cameron's father used these schemes to avoid tax is not in the public domain.

CLAPTON

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.

Cameron has accepted the riches that flow from his father's actions.