Is being a tax avoider socially unacceptable?

michaels

With parliamentary privildge Ed Millband called the Tory donor a 'dodgy donor' for carrying out tax avoidance. Outside parliament he was only able to repeat the 'avoidance' bit but still claims this vindicated him even though he of course has avoided tax where possible with his inheritance and also with his tax dealings with yvette Cooper around the timing of their marriage and her disposing of her house as a PPR.

Surprisingly the BBC does not seem interested in investigating whether the Millibands or Lord Fink have reduced their tax bills by the most via tax aviodance....

Zxcv_Bnm

Ed Miliband is himself a tax avoider.

Thrugelmir

Gangaweed wrote: »

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.

HMRC challenges tax returns continuously. That's the trouble with media coverage. All noise and lacking in any understanding of an extremely complex matter.

Arrangements such as Starbucks are only illegal if there are other factors in play. Something which is the EU is investigating. Where National Governments have bent rules to their own benefit in colluding with multi national companies.

As far is Starbucks is concerned boycott it. Business will only survive if it has trade.

jamesmorgan

antrobus wrote: »

HMRC has a specific view of what constitutes 'tax avoidance'. They mean some kind of artificial or contrived arrangement. As in "You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay more tax than you have to....But there is a big difference between using tax reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and trying to bend the rules to avoid tax."

Except that is not the government definition of 'tax avoidance', but a 'tax avoidance scheme'. There is a big difference between the two. I could find a hundred definitions of 'tax avoidance'. Most would be similar as from the following examples:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_avoidance.asp
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tax+Avoidance
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tax-avoidance.html

When politicians start to re-define the English language it is not surprising that this causes confusion, and a degree of anger from people who have been accused of wrongdoing for something entirely legal.

thorsoak

Where is the difference in avoiding paying tax and not informing HMRC/DWP of changes in circumstance which might alter rates of benefit?

Two sides of the same coin, imo.

CLAPTON

thorsoak wrote: »

Where is the difference in avoiding paying tax and not informing HMRC/DWP of changes in circumstance which might alter rates of benefit?

Two sides of the same coin, imo.

depends maybe whether the actions are legal?

jayson043

If under whatever scheme (pension, isa) you and society benefits then it's not immoral. You pay into a pension and avoid tax, but you can't get your money until you retire. Society benefits as you can look after yourself in retirement rather than go onto benefits. Where a tax avoidance scheme only benefits yourself and not society then it's immoral. And the rest of us end up paying more tax so the greedy can benefit.

prowla

Some of the big corps may even be our pension funds; I hope mine are doing their level best to avoid paying any tax.

Dr._Shoe

michaels wrote: »

With parliamentary privildge Ed Millband called the Tory donor a 'dodgy donor' for carrying out tax avoidance. Outside parliament he was only able to repeat the 'avoidance' bit but still claims this vindicated him even though he of course has avoided tax where possible with his inheritance and also with his tax dealings with yvette Cooper around the timing of their marriage and her disposing of her house as a PPR.

That's rich bearing in mind that Labour's own fundraiser "only earns" 5K a year!

N1AK

thorsoak wrote: »

Where is the difference in avoiding paying tax and not informing HMRC/DWP of changes in circumstance which might alter rates of benefit?

Two sides of the same coin, imo.

I won't value your opinion very highly then. When someone put money into an ISA they are avoiding paying tax, it is legal. When someone claims benefits they aren't entitled to they are breaking the law.

They're about as equivalent as parking a car in a car park that doesn't charge on Sundays, and ram raiding your local Budgens.