Donate SIGN UP

People Being Lambasted For Reducing Their Tax Burden.

Avatar Image
Deskdiary | 08:47 Tue 07th Nov 2017 | News
83 Answers
Why all the pious posturing from the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell?

Is it now a crime in this country to save money?

As it stands the people named in the Paradise Papers have done nothing wrong - they have saved money through entirely legitimate means, so bloody good luck to them.

There is not a single tax payer in the UK who, if offered a completely legitimate way to pay £50 tax rather than £100, wouldn't grasp it with both hands (if they say they wouldn't they are either liars or there's something wrong with them) so I really don't see the difference.

As is usual when we're talking about people who have so much more money than most, this boils down to jealousy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41886607
Gravatar

Answers

41 to 60 of 83rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Avatar Image
My neighbour told me he was buying a smaller car because he'd pay less road tax and spend much less on petrol, most of which is tax of course. He said he was going to put the money he made on selling his old car into a tax efficient ISA. Immoral tax-dodging scumbag or what?
11:59 Tue 07th Nov 2017
//I should have mentioned that I really see no connection at all to the EU hierarchy//

Have a "look" at the source.........then ask yourself why?

Most of us are familiar with the phenomenon of some atheists being incrementally inclined toward "more and better" atheism, and then (also gradually) coming to see themselves superior to the rest.
Khandro, what does atheism have to do with this?
n. See KARL 10:14
Naomi, Karl was drawing a parallel between religion and how we feel about taxation. With some validity. It may not be illegal but many see it as a sin to avoid taxation.
as far as Corbyn and McDonnell go, if they have a plan to reduce tax avoidance, I have no problem with them criticising the current loopholes. That's what an oppoistion should do.

What used to irritate me was the likes of Cameron and Osborne expressing their outrage when they were the only people in a position to do something about it but preferred not to. (Didn't Cameron senior have money in Panama?)

It's the "if" in your question that raises questions. These schemes are on offer only to people with a lot of money to pay their accountants. If I were an accountant I'd be preparing schemes in which lots of low-rate taxpayers could be bundled together to take advantage of the same opportunities.
My neighbour told me he was buying a smaller car because he'd pay less road tax and spend much less on petrol, most of which is tax of course. He said he was going to put the money he made on selling his old car into a tax efficient ISA.

Immoral tax-dodging scumbag or what?
//Sqad, I don't expect anyone to care what it looks like to me. But if it looks dodgy to me , it may also look dodgy to a tax inspector//
Given your recent answers on Tax on this site lets hope not Eddie!

Anyway it has been looked at it is not illegal, morally wrong yes but illegal no!!
There is nothing wrong with people being astute with their finances, but all those people in the Paradise fund are filthy rich individuals. It is not financial acuity - it is avaricious selfishness. It is always the honest and decent workers who carry the burden of providing public service responsibility. Those tax-avoiders should be ashamed of themselves.
Khandro, I read Karl’s post, but I’m not entirely sure that you and I understood it in the same way - hence my question to you.

Islay, //Anyway it has been looked at it is not illegal, morally wrong yes but illegal no!!//

I don’t see why it is morally wrong. Those people are paying tax in the UK - and probably far more than most people – therefore they are paying more than their fair share, as OG puts it. What’s morally wrong about that?
I feel it is morally wrong Naomi as they are not paying all they should.
But as it is not illegal there is nothing one can do about it.
“Possibly the NHS should start asking for proof that you have paid your legitimately required income tax before giving free treatment?”

But these people have paid their legitimately required income tax, Eddie. They have found ways to reduce their tax bill. I do the same (though not on such a scale because I haven’t got so much income).

The BBC is not in a particularly strong position to bleat on about these “immoral” schemes. It is on record as paying a number of people who, by any other definition, are their employees, via production companies where those concerned are often the only employee.

There’s no “morality” involved with tax. You pay what’s due and you don’t pay what isn’t due. What’s due is determined by Parliament and collected by HMRC. Every person and company has an absolute duty to reduce their tax bill to the minimum required. For its part the government has an absolute duty to spend the very minimum amount necessary to keep going the services and facilities for which it is responsible (which it spectacularly fails to do year after year). This leaves more money for people to spend themselves. Figures announced yesterday disclosed that (despite all these “tax dodgers”) the tax take in the UK has risen to a 50 year high of over 34% of GDP. That means more than one pound of every three earned is spent by the government. That is far too much and we all have a duty to reduce the sum that the government is given for it to waste. For that reason alone I applaud those who are the subject of these disclosures for doing more than their fair share to tackle that problem.
"...all those people in the Paradise fund are filthy rich individuals."

Why is "filthy" used to describe richness?
Islay, //I feel it is morally wrong Naomi as they are not paying all they should. //

How much more should they be paying?
I know I've made the point already, but it really does seem silly to bang on about "legitimacy" when so many of the people caught up in this (like Ashcroft) have hugely significant political influence and have used that influence to define what is legal in their favour. There is a power dynamic here that doesn't apply to someone switching cars.
naomi, sigh!
In my view if the money was earned in the UK then the full amount of tax should be paid on it.
All a bit pointless as tax avoidance does not affect 99 % of us.
I saw an artical about a tax avoidance company that said it's services were only for the 0.01 % of the population who are classed as super rich. It even admitted only the super rich could afford its fees!
By the way does AB members support for tax avoidance include cash in hand payments to tradesmen to avoid VAT?
Eddie just because you pay someone cash in hand does not mean that they are avoiding paying the correct VAT and Tax on it.
// All a bit pointless as tax avoidance does not affect 99 % of us. //

On the contrary. It affects most of us, and most of us do it. The rich just do it on a bigger scale and have more options on how to do it.
// just because you pay someone cash in hand does not mean that they are avoiding paying the correct VAT and Tax on it.//

If they take the cash and don't give you receipt, I think you can be pretty sure they don't

41 to 60 of 83rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

People Being Lambasted For Reducing Their Tax Burden.

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.