Cameron - tax avoidance morally wrong

bankhater_1965

angrypirate wrote: »

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

for gods sake angry pilot , the man nows its goin on and let it go on to his advatage as he and the rest of the millionarre torys have done , ,whilst slamming the so called less well off scoungers , lets face it the mps expenditure only came out from a leak otherwise it would still be goin on today , right or wrong , but the man cannot critacise others at the lower end for the same thing which is what been happening

bankhater_1965

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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?

purley because he slams others for doing this ,but his is doing it himself ,

nicko33

pqrdef wrote: »

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

What is the spirit of the law?
Is it strictly defined somewhere, or is it open to interpretation?

chewmylegoff

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

purley because he slams others for doing this ,but his is doing it himself ,

no, his father was doing it. last time i checked, i am not the same person as my father. unless you are suggesting that the camerons have some kind of borg / hive mind thing going on.

not beyond the realms of possibility of course, but i suspect they are more likely to be reptilian shape shifters than a cybernetic hive mind.

purch

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

purley because he slams others for doing this ,but his is doing it himself ,

But he is not doing this himself.

P.S. Purley is a town in South London near Croydon

bankhater_1965

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no, his father was doing it. last time i checked, i am not the same person as my father. unless you are suggesting that the camerons have some kind of borg / hive mind thing going on.

not beyond the realms of possibility of course, but i suspect they are more likely to be reptilian shape shifters than a cybernetic hive mind.

are you saying he didnt no about it till now ?

bankhater_1965

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

making higher earners pay more in taxes because basically they are the ones that make the mess so they righty should pay more than others , just like it is now , lets also say the rich get rewarded for failure also ! damm right they should be screwed

MDG

The reports and investigations compelled by The Times have been most interesting. I feel they raise a lot of questions that quite rightly, need to be answered.

Firstly, people who state that £100,000 a year salary would make somebody 'rich' and not have to actively seek out ways to avoid paying tax, in my view are wrong. £100,000 a year does not make you rich, far from it, you will live a very similar lifestyle to someone on half that, just have slightly nicer things, maybe a nicer house, a newer car or a more expensive holiday. At that level of income you certainly wouldn't be paying into offshore trusts and schemes such as K2, let's bare in mind here that the fee from the accountants just to enrol in this scheme was circa £40,000. The people involved in these complex schemes are more likely to be earning hundreds of thousands, possibly millions etc.

Secondly, no Member of Parliament should be discussing an individual such as Jimmy Carr's tax affairs. For a politician to attempt to take 'the moral high ground' is quite ridiculous.

Thirdly, something needs to be done and the only way in my view to combat this is to have a complete and thorough reform of HMRC and it's taxation policies and unfortunately, this is not an easy, simple or quick job. As a country, we have to make sure that we are internationally competitive, that we encourage investment and growth, that we attract wealthy individuals to the country who will also make great contributions in indirect taxes and much much more.

So what do we do?

Personally, I agree with the taxation policy that Jersey has, a brief overview would be:

0% Corporation Tax apart from Financial Services which attract a 10% rate

0% Wealth Tax i.e. Inheritance, Capital Gains

20% Income Tax with a similar personal allowance to the United Kingdom

5% VAT/GST Tax

etc etc

More can be read on Jersey's government website, I would post a link but I do not have those privileges seems...

This is all just my opinion and I've enjoyed reading others views too.

bankhater_1965

MDG wrote: »

The reports and investigations compelled by The Times have been most interesting. I feel they raise a lot of questions that quite rightly, need to be answered.

Firstly, people who state that £100,000 a year salary would make somebody 'rich' and not have to actively seek out ways to avoid paying tax, in my view are wrong. £100,000 a year does not make you rich, far from it, you will live a very similar lifestyle to someone on half that, just have slightly nicer things, maybe a nicer house, a newer car or a more expensive holiday. At that level of income you certainly wouldn't be paying into offshore trusts and schemes such as K2, let's bare in mind here that the fee from the accountants just to enrol in this scheme was circa £40,000. The people involved in these complex schemes are more likely to be earning hundreds of thousands, possibly millions etc.

Secondly, no Member of Parliament should be discussing an individual such as Jimmy Carr's tax affairs. For a politician to attempt to take 'the moral high ground' is quite ridiculous.

Thirdly, something needs to be done and the only way in my view to combat this is to have a complete and thorough reform of HMRC and it's taxation policies and unfortunately, this is not an easy, simple or quick job. As a country, we have to make sure that we are internationally competitive, that we encourage investment and growth, that we attract wealthy individuals to the country who will also make great contributions in indirect taxes and much much more.

So what do we do?

Personally, I agree with the taxation policy that Jersey has, a brief overview would be:

0% Corporation Tax apart from Financial Services which attract a 10% rate

0% Wealth Tax i.e. Inheritance, Capital Gains

20% Income Tax with a similar personal allowance to the United Kingdom

5% VAT/GST Tax

etc etc

More can be read on Jersey's government website, I would post a link but I do not have those privileges seems...

This is all just my opinion and I've enjoyed reading others views too.

how can you possibly say that £100,000 salerie isnt well off wealthy or neither rich when the uk national average wage in 2011 was £26,200 ?? this a mere quarter of your £100.000

Generali

purch wrote: »

But he is not doing this himself.

P.S. Purley is a town in South London near Croydon

IIRC, Mr Angry was from Purley.