We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Is being a tax avoider socially unacceptable?
Comments
-
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're both avoiding tax to the best of their ability. You've simply attached an arbitrary judgement about morality based on approving of one tax avoidance scheme more than another.0 -
Quite apart from their dodgy tax arrangements. I wouldn't patronise Starbucks just because I don't want some barrista calling me by my Christian name.I can afford anything that I want.
Just so long as I don't want much.0 -
They're both avoiding tax to the best of their ability. You've simply attached an arbitrary judgement about morality based on approving of one tax avoidance scheme more than another.
Except using an ISA is doing something the government wants you to do (correctly or otherwise). Sometimes tax policy is designed to influence behaviour. Noone would pretend that the Corporation Tax regime is designed so that Amazon would set up an (non functioning) office in Luxembourg.0 -
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').
Tax is all about legality. I have never knowing paid more tax that the law requires.
I believe that this is true for the vast majority of people.
No idea about yourself but please enlighten us on the matter.
If our tax laws are wrong then we need to change them.
Why are highly elaborate schemes materially different from non highly elaborate schemes?0 -
Tax is all about legality. I have never knowing paid more tax that the law requires.
I believe that this is true for the vast majority of people.
No idea about yourself but please enlighten us on the matter.
I probably DO pay more tax that I absolutely need to. I could have all my savings sitting in ISAs, but I don't. When I filed a tax return in Australia, I didn't claimed for travel and uniform and all the other petty allowances that I was technically entitled to. Which reminds me that in the past, technically, I could claim an allowance against washing uniforms in the UK.
As for the 'vast majority' - well, considering how lax people are over claiming benefits, I'd be very surprised if they were then avoiding every penny of tax possible.0 -
I probably DO pay more tax that I absolutely need to. I could have all my savings sitting in ISAs, but I don't. When I filed a tax return in Australia, I didn't claimed for travel and uniform and all the other petty allowances that I was technically entitled to. Which reminds me that in the past, technically, I could claim an allowance against washing uniforms in the UK.
As for the 'vast majority' - well, considering how lax people are over claiming benefits, I'd be very surprised if they were then avoiding every penny of tax possible.
OK so you are saying because people are lazy and badly organised and can't be bothered, then that makes them /you morally superior.
Well, it doesn't, it simply makes you lazy, badly organised and can't be bothered.0 -
I probably DO pay more tax that I absolutely need to. I could have all my savings sitting in ISAs, but I don't. When I filed a tax return in Australia, I didn't claimed for travel and uniform and all the other petty allowances that I was technically entitled to. Which reminds me that in the past, technically, I could claim an allowance against washing uniforms in the UK.
If you choose to make charitable donations to the government that's up to you but nothing to do with morals.0 -
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.
Overly simplistic...
End of the day, tax avoidance is legal. If you don't like it, change the law...0 -
If you choose to make charitable donations to the government that's up to you but nothing to do with morals.
I actually think it has everything to do with morals. Either you're happy to contribute to the having a functioning society or you believe that we should have a minimal state. That's fine, that's a political and moral position you can take.
Of course, Boots and Amazon are very happy to benefit from government spending, but go out of their way not to contribute.0 -
what would you do if your builder/handyman says "£650 but i'd take £500 for cash"?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards