Is being a tax avoider socially unacceptable?

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

You seem to say you have never been in a position to have to make a choice about deliberately paying more tax than you need, but are pompous and self righteous to know you would always pay more that legally necessary.

I am choosing to assume that having failed to effectively manage their finances for years, they are now choosing to claim it was a moral stand

I especially like how, in addition to the rest of the nonsense, they are busy congratulating someone who they find the actions of 'repugnant' for hypocritically criticizing others for doing the same things. I never realized blinkers came in that size!

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

You seem to say you have never been in a position to have to make a choice about deliberately paying more tax than you need, but are pompous and self righteous to know you would always pay more that legally necessary.

The exercise as far as I can see is not to pay the appropriate level of tax but to get away with paying the least amount.
Play mind games with yourself if you like to justify such immoral behaviour but don't expect me to join in.

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

The exercise as far as I can see is not to pay the appropriate level of tax but to get away with paying the least amount.
Play mind games with yourself if you like to justify such immoral behaviour but don't expect me to join in.

the object is to obey the law.

please tell me, what the appropriate level of tax is exactly ; is it determined in a holy book somewhere or is it described in a law somewhere?

prowla

Tromking wrote: »

The exercise as far as I can see is not to pay the appropriate level of tax but to get away with paying the least amount.
Play mind games with yourself if you like to justify such immoral behaviour but don't expect me to join in.

The appropriate level of tax is the (legal) least amount.

Nobody has an obligation or duty to pay more.

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

I understand Ed and Yvette also timed the disposal of her property to make sure there was no CGT liability...nothing to do with tax avoidance of course though.

You mean she sold the property when she stopped living there?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

You mean she sold the property when she stopped living there?

No, it means they recognised the tax loop hole that involves the difference between married couples and two lovers and how cgt is applied to their properties.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

No, it means they recognised the tax loop hole that involves the difference between married couples and two lovers and how cgt is applied to their properties.

Ah, so they did what many lovers do when they get married? That is truly outrageous:)

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Ah, so they did what many lovers do when they get married? That is truly outrageous:)

absolutely ; they did whatever people do to avoid tax : often this is not legal as one would probably have lied about their principle actual place of residence but is a way that has become totally acceptable to everyone that believes it's accept to reduce one's tax bill in an aggressive manner

I have no problem with legal reduction of tax to the absolute minimum or illegal methods that HMRC condone.

hjd

michaels wrote: »

I understand Ed and Yvette also timed the disposal of her property to make sure there was no CGT liability...nothing to do with tax avoidance of course though.

Ed Miliband is married to Justine Thornton.
Ed Balls is married to Yvette Cooper.
I don't think any of the tax avoidance involved the use of someone else's spouse..

wotsthat

Tromking wrote: »

When you're talking about the moral imperative to pay tax, evasion and avoidance are the same thing.

So immorality is doing something the government have made illegal or something they meant to make illegal but were too inept to do so.

I think we need to beware of letting politicians be the arbiters of morality.