Is being a tax avoider socially unacceptable?

jjlandlord

If it is legal and it saves tax then they will do it. We would do it.

It is not a question of 'honesty'.

We live in a free society based on the rule of law. HMRC, police, CPS can only go after someone if they broke the law.

Obviously, as individuals we are free to not to give money to any company we think is not being 'honest'.

CLAPTON

toby3000 wrote: »

I sometimes think that the reason we have loopholes is because of lawmakers underestimate the sheer dishonesty of multinationals. Is it legal for Starbucks UK to pay massive sums of money to another Starbucks company for the right to call itself Starbucks? Apparently so. Is it honest? No, not really, and I think any normal person can understand that.

One thing I do find bizarre is the idea that these tax dodgers are going to leave the UK. Who do Amazon and Boots think they're kidding? And who cares if they leave? I know it's different with manufacturers, but they actually don't seem to come up.

Could you explain why you think it is dishonest, given they are obeying the existing laws of the UK.
You may of course consider the existing laws of the UK should change : many would agree with you.

Gangaweed

Ed is very quiet on his own tax avoidance... Getting married only after his partner sold her house so she could claim capital gains tax exemption on her principal primary residence.

A little bit hypocritical on Eds part if you ask me.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

The majority of Britons do not have the chance to fiddle their taxes; it is removed before they even sniff it via PAYE and NI. But it's this vast swathe of the population who shop at Boots, Amazon etc and who these companies need for reliable profit.

TopShop makes its millions from teenagers spending birthday/Christmas money on skinny jeans and women in their twenties treating themselves to a going out top or uncomfortable heels from the few quid left over when they've paid rent/bills/travel/food out of their wages (at about 30 you realise what rubbish quality their wares are for the price, and either go for Primark tat which is at least cheap, or upgrade to a better fabric/cut). All this wife's name/Monaco residing but still wanting to influence British politics nonsense is just giving a massive finger to those who actually fund their lifestyle. I would be embarrassed to live like that.

Gangaweed

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Exactly - and I honestly fail to comprehend how on earth this can be linked in any way to someone having an ISA or a pension.

They are similar because they are both tax avoidance not evasion.

However, HMRC have not tested Starbucks arrangements in court therefore it may yet be struck down. This is the gripe with HMRC - they don't test these arrangements and appear to accept them.

CLAPTON

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

The majority of Britons do not have the chance to fiddle their taxes; it is removed before they even sniff it via PAYE and NI. But it's this vast swathe of the population who shop at Boots, Amazon etc and who these companies need for reliable profit.

TopShop makes its millions from teenagers spending birthday/Christmas money on skinny jeans and women in their twenties treating themselves to a going out top or uncomfortable heels from the few quid left over when they've paid rent/bills/travel/food out of their wages (at about 30 you realise what rubbish quality their wares are for the price, and either go for Primark tat which is at least cheap, or upgrade to a better fabric/cut). All this wife's name/Monaco residing but still wanting to influence British politics nonsense is just giving a massive finger to those who actually fund their lifestyle. I would be embarrassed to live like that.

you have quite a disdain and even dislike for most of the female UK population; I trust your own spending meets my high standards

27col

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

its utter nonsense. people should do all they can to avoid paying tax and be lauded for it. there are rules, and if you play within the rules, good for you.

why do I have a moral duty to keep some layabout stella drinking scumbag up north in beer and with a roof over his head??? then he'll go on to have 10 kids with 10 different women who will all want their sprogs housed, fed, educated, only for them to be the next generation of scrounging scum.

pay as little tax as possible - it is YOUR money. It isn't for do good Govts to take it off you and spend on scummers.

Don't beat about the bush, horse. Say what you think!

Graham_Devon

Gangaweed wrote: »

They are similar because they are both tax avoidance not evasion.

Yer, about as similar as a Ford Ka is to an Boeing 747.

They are both methods of transport, afterall. But there are VAST differences between the two of them.

toby3000

CLAPTON wrote: »

Could you explain why you think it is dishonest, given they are obeying the existing laws of the UK.
You may of course consider the existing laws of the UK should change : many would agree with you.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's honest. Everyone knows that Starbucks wouldn't have stayed operating in the UK for 17 years without making a profit, so it's dishonest to claim that they weren't.

It's exactly the same as it being dishonest (but not illegal) for MPs to come up with highly elaborate schemes to gain more expenses. Most people can recognise that something can be dishonest without being technically illegal (I guess we get into the notion of 'the spirit of the law').

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, about as similar as a Ford Ka is to an Boeing 747.

They are both methods of transport, afterall. But there are VAST differences between the two of them.

very well put,
they are not only both vehicles, they are both cars, they both have engines and the same number of wheels, gears boxes and both can travel at the legal UK speed limit.
in every way functional very similar
I believe one is a bit more expensive than the other but that's common with lots of functionally similar products