MSE News: Over half would do a Jimmy Carr on tax, or worse

System

thewad wrote: »

All this has done is bring it to the mind of the general public...
John

And put a few more artificial tax avoidance schemes on to HMRC's radar so they can get them shut down a little quicker.

lulabelle1

thewad wrote: »

Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is not illegal and in fact everyone should do it.
Why is everyone making a fuss over someone who's managed to maximise his profits and minimise his tax bill legally.
First rule of business I thought.
All this has done is bring it to the mind of the general public so now more people will be looking to do it who didn't know about it before.

John

I totally agree with you......

HMRC know perfectly well about ALL of the legal tax avoidance schemes as the companies that run the schemes have to notify HMRC of the details when they set them up.

System

lulabelle1 wrote: »

I totally agree with you......

HMRC know perfectly well about ALL of the legal tax avoidance schemes as the companies that run the schemes have to notify HMRC of the details when they set them up.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/vision-strategy.htm

While its right to say schemes have to disclose what they are doing - there's an entire industry dreaming up these little wheezes. HMRC shut schemes down regularly, but it takes time and resources.

thewad

If they're not illegal why are they shutting them down?
As I said earlier there is absolutely nothing wrong with avoidance, it makes perfect business sense and is good practice....why pay more than you need too?

John

Pennywise

It would be far better if the legislation was properly thought through and drafted correctly in the first place. Some of the legislation coming out is pretty shoddy and vague to say the least. There was a time when prospective legislation was reviewed in Parliament by MPs who knew what they were doing. Nowadays, it seems that legislation is merely "nodded through" on instruction of the whips with the least possible scrutiny of experts. Just think how much time, costs, efforts and energy could be saved if they did the job properly in the first place rather than having to back-track and change things afterwards when flaws are found.

patman99

If you disagree with Tax avoidance, then you will not be shopping in Tesco (they set up a Cayman Island base company, then transferred all of their property freeholds to it and rented them back. Avoiding over £495m of Tax every year) or Boots (conveniently registered in Switzerland to avoid UK Tax).

System

thewad wrote: »

If they're not illegal why are they shutting them down?
As I said earlier there is absolutely nothing wrong with avoidance, it makes perfect business sense and is good practice....why pay more than you need too?

John

In some cases, the schemes that have been closed have exploited loopholes which have perverted the original intention of the legislation. Once the legislation has been amended the loopholes have been closed. At that point the scheme is no longer legal.

In other cases, the courts have found the transactions forming the tax avoidance scheme did not have the effect described by the scheme's architects. In this scenario the scheme was never strictly legal - but had only run because the existing legislation had not been tested in the courts.

By its very nature the tax avoidance industry is incredibly complex, and not something I can do justice in a brief forum post.

Pennywise wrote: »

It would be far better if the legislation was properly thought through and drafted correctly in the first place. Some of the legislation coming out is pretty shoddy and vague to say the least. There was a time when prospective legislation was reviewed in Parliament by MPs who knew what they were doing. Nowadays, it seems that legislation is merely "nodded through" on instruction of the whips with the least possible scrutiny of experts. Just think how much time, costs, efforts and energy could be saved if they did the job properly in the first place rather than having to back-track and change things afterwards when flaws are found.

Indeed

anewman

Tax avoidance is why we all pay so much tax on petrol. The common retort to "reduce tax on petrol!" is "what tax would you like to see rise in its place?" The answer is easy, end tax avoidance and you could reduce tax on fuel to 0p per litre, and still be better off.

Thrugelmir

patman99 wrote: »

If you disagree with Tax avoidance, then you will not be shopping in Tesco (they set up a Cayman Island base company, then transferred all of their property freeholds to it and rented them back. Avoiding over £495m of Tax every year) or Boots (conveniently registered in Switzerland to avoid UK Tax).

or US companies that base themselves in Eire..........

Apple pays an effective rate of 2.5% Corporation tax in the UK on over £2 billion of sales. People put the product before their own welfare it seems.

John_Pierpoint

lkate wrote: »

You sort of wonder how they don't have enough money considering everything that is taxed.
Inheritance Tax
Stamp Duty
Insurance Premium Tax
Airport Tax
Capital Gains Tax
National Insurance
Income tax
Fuel duty tax
VAT
Council tax
Car tax
Fuel Tax on utilities
Tax on Savings & Investments
TV license
Corporation Tax.
National Insurance paid by employers
Stamp Duty Land Tax.
Stamp Duty Reserve Tax.

I'm sure there are more stealth taxes some where. Feel free to add. I actually wonder how much the average person pays in tax over a year when you consider all of these things.

As a driver.... I feel like a massive cash cow. "Oh lets increase fuel duty"... Yeah thanks. If it went to trying to find greener solutions and technologies that could replace cars it wouldn't bother me so much and the argument of "you're environmentally unfriendly though" would work.

Nearly half the GDP is being funnelled through the government spending machine, back in the "Swinging 60s" it was a bit over 25% of a much smaller figure.
Where is it all going?
Are we getting value for money?

This means that by definition roughly half the population is beholden to the Government for its subsistence.

So in future surveys like this can we have a break-down by source of income too.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.