Paradise Papers

Moby

Jon_B wrote: »

I don’t think anybody here is suggesting they don’t? Not sure you really understand legal tax avoidance.

You don’t really start to think about it til you get to higher rate. I put as much as I can into a pension that I can get by to reduce my tax burden.

Think of it this way - I’ll be less reliant on the state pension.

Besides, it’s not only income tax that you pay. VAT, fuel duty, beer duty, stamp duty, etc etc. The amount I pay in tax every year is obscene.

There shouldn't be any such thing as legal tax avoidance......and before anyone starts on ISA's, pensions etc don't bother, they are not the same as what Apple does, Louis Hamilton etc. There is no moral equivalence between ISA's and the tax avoidance vehicles being exposed.

MobileSaver

Moby wrote: »

The winds of change are in the air and the attitudes towards tax which regrettably dominate on these forums are gradually changing in wider society.

I really don't think many people care that much. Tax avoidance is a bit of salacious gossip for a day or two but it's not something that you, I or most people will ever have to worry about and so is quickly forgotten.

It is still, however, quite funny that it transpires the Labour Party HQ is owned by an offshore trust... so it is being reported that Labour are transferring £1m a year out of the UK to a tax exempt Jersey trust fund! :rotfl:

fewgroats

For all their money, there does seem a lack of new builds on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, no new marinas, stuff like that.

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

...ISAs and pension schemes were specifically created within the legislation as a mechanism for people to save money. The reduced tax is there as an incentive to ensure people provide for the own future. Although one might minimize the amount of tax they pay over their lifetime, it isn't regarded by the government (or accounting profession) as tax avoidance.

Speaking as a member of the accounting profession I would disagree.

There is a type of tax avoidance of which governments approve of because they can control it.

There is a type of tax avoidance of which governments don't approve of because they can't control it.

ISAs and pensions are an example of the former, Setting up subsidiaries on sundry sun-drenched islands with low tax rates is an example of the latter.

Nick_C

Different people use the "avoidance" term to mean different things.

It used to be the case that avoidance simply meant legal measures and evasion meant illegal ones.

This new distinction of "contrary to the intentions of the legislature" is used on the UK government website, and is obviously intended to distinguish between things like ISAs and complex schemes used by the super rich.

But really there is no difference. Either its legal or it isn't. And if it's legal but the Government don't like it, then they have to change the law.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

There shouldn't be any such thing as legal tax avoidance......

But there is.

What are you going to do about it?

Here is one impassioned attack on the Conservative government's record ...

They have failed to act against offshore trusts, abuse of non-domicile and non-resident taxation facilities, privatised utilities and their tax arrangements, and abuse of corporation and capital gains tax.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1994-11-30/Debate-3.html

... from 1994.

Spoken by Gordon Brown, later Chancellor and PM. Why didn't he fix the problem?

antrobus

Nick_C wrote: »

..But really there is no difference. Either its legal or it isn't. And if it's legal but the Government don't like it, then they have to change the law.

Basically, yes.

Moral indignation gets you nowhere.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

antrobus wrote: »

Moral indignation gets you nowhere.

Au contraire. If you have an Oxbridge degree and some family connections, it gets you an £80k a year gig at The Guardian.

michaels

Moby wrote: »

There shouldn't be any such thing as legal tax avoidance......and before anyone starts on ISA's, pensions etc don't bother, they are not the same as what Apple does, Louis Hamilton etc. There is no moral equivalence between ISA's and the tax avoidance vehicles being exposed.

So not only does one have to obey the law but one also has to obey the unwritten intention of the law as understood by....who? when? Perhaps Moby has some insight into both what the lawmakers were intending when every law was passed since the birth of UK parliaments plus also an understanding of how any changes in society since the laws were passed now mean they 'should' be interpreted at this moment in time but I suspect that the rest of us don't have this vast historical and current social knowledge.

westernpromise

MobileSaver wrote: »

If there are people in this country having to use food banks to feed themselves and their children then presumably the "morally appropriate amount" is everything you earn except for what you need to survive?

"Morally appropriate" always means that other people should pay more. Nobody ever volunteers to pay more themselves, nor does anyone ever suggest that the 44% of people who pay NO income tax should pull their fingers and contribute something.

This would look too much like spite and envy from the idle if it were put thus, so the spiteful and envious idle instead dress greed and entitlement up as a deeply moral position so that they can applaud themselves while demanding more of other people's money and contributing roughly nothing themselves.

The bad news for such people is that no matter what happens they'll die poor.