Society & Culture2 mins ago
Quote My Mps
Tax Dodgers 'Should Be Named And Shamed'
http://
Where do we start?
http://
Where do we start?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sir.prize. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
According to the BBC they are tax avoidance schemes and so not illegal and neither are they dishonest.
http://
If they dont like it they should change the law or even better simplify and reduce the tax burden so it is not worth avoiding.
Been done in other countries and it does work.
http://
If they dont like it they should change the law or even better simplify and reduce the tax burden so it is not worth avoiding.
Been done in other countries and it does work.
I was tidying my home office out the other day and found a "colour supplement" that the Daily Telegraph produced at the time of the MPs expenses scandal.
It listed every MP, what they had claimed (both good and bad) and highlighted some of the worst offenders.
As I read through it I found my anger begining to rise again (as it had when the scandal first broke).
There were MPs who avoided capital gains tax on houses sold, MPs who switched their "second home" half a dozen times so they could buy new things for different houses, MPs who bought TVs for £2,500 and put them on expenses and much more besides.
Two of the worst MPs, who claimed for mortgage repayments AFTER they had paid off their mortgage, have both since been sent to prison so some were punished.
But overall they should all be ashamed of themselves and have little right to critisize tax dodgers.
p.s. I should point out that the colouir supplement also highlighted the "good" MPs who lived in cheap accomodation, or did not claim many expenses, or did not buy a second home even though they were entitled to and so on. they were not ALL bad (but many were !).
It listed every MP, what they had claimed (both good and bad) and highlighted some of the worst offenders.
As I read through it I found my anger begining to rise again (as it had when the scandal first broke).
There were MPs who avoided capital gains tax on houses sold, MPs who switched their "second home" half a dozen times so they could buy new things for different houses, MPs who bought TVs for £2,500 and put them on expenses and much more besides.
Two of the worst MPs, who claimed for mortgage repayments AFTER they had paid off their mortgage, have both since been sent to prison so some were punished.
But overall they should all be ashamed of themselves and have little right to critisize tax dodgers.
p.s. I should point out that the colouir supplement also highlighted the "good" MPs who lived in cheap accomodation, or did not claim many expenses, or did not buy a second home even though they were entitled to and so on. they were not ALL bad (but many were !).
p.s. The colour supplement did say that at the time the expenses scandal broke MPs were allowed to claim up to £400 a month for food WITHOUT RECEIPTS.
Also up to £250 a month for "other items", also WITHOUT RECEIPTS.
While these figures have been reduced since, can you imagine ANY company allowing employees to claim so much money without receipts.
The tax people would be down on them like a ton of bricks.
MPs seem to think they are living in their own little world where normal rules dont apply.
Also up to £250 a month for "other items", also WITHOUT RECEIPTS.
While these figures have been reduced since, can you imagine ANY company allowing employees to claim so much money without receipts.
The tax people would be down on them like a ton of bricks.
MPs seem to think they are living in their own little world where normal rules dont apply.
All the more reason after all the investigations and the prosecutions (where appropriate) that others outside Parliament should follow suit.
The problem here is not a "politics on envy" thing that the big boys are trying to spin it as.
The problem is a level playing field between big and small companies.
If you're a small start-up don't you think you should have the right to compete on an even basis with the big boys?
Imagine being a small independant coffee shop paying taxes and finding out the Starbucks down the road is paying no tax!
The problem here is not a "politics on envy" thing that the big boys are trying to spin it as.
The problem is a level playing field between big and small companies.
If you're a small start-up don't you think you should have the right to compete on an even basis with the big boys?
Imagine being a small independant coffee shop paying taxes and finding out the Starbucks down the road is paying no tax!
The notion that individuals and organisations that behave in a “morally” unacceptable way should be somehow castigated is the top of a very slippery slope. Who decides what is morally acceptable and what is not? What next? People who are “rich” enough to be able to put the maximum into ISAs each year (a form of tax avoidance) are morally repugnant? There is a creeping acceptance that such denunciations are OK. We have politicians saying that local authorities who propose increases to Council Tax of 1.99% (just short of the 2% that has been decreed that a referendum is needed) are “morally reprehensible”. Why so? The rules say 2%, not 0% or 1.99%.
In just the same way that politicians proudly announce that they are behaving “within the rules” when flipping their properties to avoid tax, so Starbucks, Amazon and Jimmy Carr are all acting “within the rules”. In an economy so heavily taxed as is the UK (with around 50% of GDP being taken in tax) it is no surprise that individuals and organisations are doing all they can to reduce their tax bills. The fact that not everybody can do so is no reason to denounce those than can and do.
Politicians should either change the rules (which they control) or keep quiet.
In just the same way that politicians proudly announce that they are behaving “within the rules” when flipping their properties to avoid tax, so Starbucks, Amazon and Jimmy Carr are all acting “within the rules”. In an economy so heavily taxed as is the UK (with around 50% of GDP being taken in tax) it is no surprise that individuals and organisations are doing all they can to reduce their tax bills. The fact that not everybody can do so is no reason to denounce those than can and do.
Politicians should either change the rules (which they control) or keep quiet.
1 to 11 of 11
