System 'players', which is worse

[Dr Jekyll]

0000 said:

And the other points?

The public sector outfit can apply whatever policies they want to the individual. Of course they may want someone who works through a personal service company specifically so that they can apply different polices.

Working though a personal service company does not make them any less accountable, though it does mean they can be got rid of without redundancy pay or unfair dismissal cases.

There is no reason why they should be any less dedicated than a PAYE employee, it's purely a paperwork difference.

[rohrl]

Pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other.

I have no objection at all to people using normal everyday measures to reasonably limit their tax exposure, ISA's, paying into pensions and the like, but when it gets into the realm of clever-dickery and clearly breaches the intent of the legislation that's no better than cheating the benefit system IMO.

[AJS-]

I don't really have any problem with either.

I don't feel we have a moral obligation to pay tax or that the government has any moral authority to collect it at the present levels, it's just something we do because it's expedient, and they do because they can.

As for benefit scroungers, I blame the people who put the rotten system in place to begin with. You can't go doling out free money and then be surprised when people take it.

[andy_s]

Non-tax payers still pay tax in the form of vat, they still inject money into the system, they tend not t rely so much on tax-paid services. Net injection - positive.
People taking money out of the system reinject some as vat, but this is just recycling. They tend to rely more on free services. Net injection - negative.

[wolves_wanderer]

AJS- said:

I don't really have any problem with either.

I don't feel we have a moral obligation to pay tax or that the government has any moral authority to collect it at the present levels, it's just something we do because it's expedient, and they do because they can.

As for benefit scroungers, I blame the people who put the rotten system in place to begin with. You can't go doling out free money and then be surprised when people take it.

I agree with this. I would far rather save my blame for the people who run the game than the people who play the game.

[alock]

Anyone who is a hypocrite. That might be a lefty/socialist who is happy claiming a huge salary for themselves. It might be someone on benefits complaining about a fat-cat banker avoiding tax.

I can respect anyone's beliefs if they are consistent and live their lives to them.

[anonymous-user]

They are all wrong, morally. Both are taking advantage of the British population. PH too often sees the rich company owner as being some kind of feudal overlord who we should all bow to. Phillip Green for example benefits greatly from access to the British retail market, the British disposable income and the British workforce. He doesn't just magic up jobs and wealth out of thin air! We need people like him but he also needs people like us! So I say if he wants to trade here, take British citizenship and all the benefits that go along with that then he should play the tax game in a moral way.

[ringram]

Dr Jekyll said:

0000 said:

I think it's a bit crap when the full time head of a public sector organisation is a the head of a different company.

Why?

To me this is a clear case for IR35 enforcement.

"What is IR35? IR35 was brought about by the government to ensure small companies especially contractors and freelancers, operate their own limited companies in a right and proper manner with the same level of risk, responsibility, liability and control that other directors of limited companies accept, when they manage their own businesses. You will most definitely be caught by IR35 and found to be inside if you have the same level of risk, responsibility, liability and control as a permanent member of staff."

[Dr Jekyll]

ringram said:

To me this is a clear case for IR35 enforcement.

"What is IR35? IR35 was brought about by the government to ensure small companies especially contractors and freelancers, operate their own limited companies in a right and proper manner with the same level of risk, responsibility, liability and control that other directors of limited companies accept, when they manage their own businesses. You will most definitely be caught by IR35 and found to be inside if you have the same level of risk, responsibility, liability and control as a permanent member of staff."

Is there any reason to think IR35 isn't being enforced?

[glazbagun]

AndrewW-G said:

Both are immoral, yet legal. However the wealthy person paying accountants to legally reduce their tax bill, is far more likely to be employing others and pouring thousands into the economy, than the workshy layabout.

Is that true, though? Surely the guy who blows 100% of his benefits on clothes, beer, fags and Sky TV is putting everything he get's back into the economy. In a sense, giving local scum benefits is a roundabout way of subsidising the local consumer economy.

With the tax avoider, what he saves may go into buying a nice new Jag every three years, or expanfing his business and employing someone; but it could equally go into his foreign owned bank account, never to see Britain again, or on a foreign built car, providing only a few servicing jobs at garages.

Without comparing morality, how much of £100000 of unemployment benefit is recycled in the economy compared with the same sum of tax savings?

[andy_s]

glazbagun said:

Is that true, though? Surely the guy who blows 100% of his benefits on clothes, beer, fags and Sky TV is putting everything he get's back into the economy. In a sense, giving local scum benefits is a roundabout way of subsidising the local consumer economy.

With the tax avoider, what he saves may go into buying a nice new Jag every three years, or expanfing his business and employing someone; but it could equally go into his foreign owned bank account, never to see Britain again, or on a foreign built car, providing only a few servicing jobs at garages.

Without comparing morality, how much of £100000 of unemployment benefit is recycled in the economy compared with the same sum of tax savings?

It depends on what is saved and what is spent rather than on whether they pay tax twice or only once.

If they flee the UK then net income to UK is zero; if they stay in UK and don't pay tax then they have a house, car(s), maids, butlers, jewels and fine wines; all in a way trickling money back into the economy. The savings are the part that doesn't get recycled - yet; if they retire to Benidorm then their money has gone, but so to with the money of the blue-rinsed retirees over there in their thousands, but it's an interesting question.

[sinizter]

PoleDriver said:

Those who earn £100k+, pay some tax but manage to evade the full amount they are deemed to be able to afford.

Why would they pay any more tax than they absolutely have to (which, IMO is already punitive in this country) ... And who exactly deems what they can afford ?

As far as I am concerned, I don't care whether I earn £1,000 or £1M, I will never pay more than the absolutely minimum tax that is required by the state.

If I want to contribute more for any cause, I will choose the cause, and choose how much I want to contribute. I won't be letting the Government spend it on multi-generation benefit spongers.

If the system is rotten from the inside out, people working it to their best cannot really be blamed. Only the cretins who put it in place can be.

[AndrewW-G]

glazbagun said:

AndrewW-G said:

Both are immoral, yet legal. However the wealthy person paying accountants to legally reduce their tax bill, is far more likely to be employing others and pouring thousands into the economy, than the workshy layabout.

Is that true, though? Surely the guy who blows 100% of his benefits on clothes, beer, fags and Sky TV is putting everything he get's back into the economy. In a sense, giving local scum benefits is a roundabout way of subsidising the local consumer economy.

With the tax avoider, what he saves may go into buying a nice new Jag every three years, or expanfing his business and employing someone; but it could equally go into his foreign owned bank account, never to see Britain again, or on a foreign built car, providing only a few servicing jobs at garages.

Without comparing morality, how much of £100000 of unemployment benefit is recycled in the economy compared with the same sum of tax savings?

Good point:

Let’s say that our fictitious unemployed bod gets £100 in “income” that can be spent, per week (assuming, rent is paid by the local authority) that person can put a maximum of £5200 per year back into the UK economy.
It’s more than likely that our fictitious, tax avoiding bod, spends more than that in the UK per month, assuming that they are living in a decent location, paying council tax, paying the accountancy firm responsible for their tax savings, employ a cleaner, go out to dinner a couple of times a week, buy their clothes and other personal goods in the UK, pay for the use of a car (owned, rented, or maybe even simply employ a driver with car on an as needed basis)


Obviously, there are people working in the UK, who live very frugally and squirrel their money away in foreign accounts, waiting for the day when they have made enough to leave, just as there are people in the UK who work “cash in hand” whilst claiming benefits. . . .but I’d still suggest that the millionaire, utilising all the available options to reduce their tax bill, is more of a benefit to the UK, than the habitually unemployed bod

[LimaDelta]

I fall into your loosely defined first category. I Earn a reasonable amount, but paid via an offshore account outside of the PAYE system (all perfectly legal thank you). I still pay a higher than average council tax, VED, VAT on almost everything I buy, and CGT on my (non-tax free) savings and investments, but no income tax or NI. My total tax liability is still probably higher than the 'average' tax payer, yet I have private health care, a private pension, have never claimed anything from the DSS or whatever it is now, and when TangoDelta is a little older, he will be going to a private fee-paying school.

I fail to see how anyone can see that as worse than some 3rd or 4th generation unemployable layabout completely incapable of living without the generous state handouts of this country. I know some people are found unemployed through no fault of their own, and I'm sure everyone on here will agree that they are not the problem here, but the one's who have no intention of ever working or even trying to find work.

I'm glad to see that the poll results reflect common sense.

[12gauge]

One claims benefits to overcome the effects of govt theft, the other tries to prevent the actual action of govt theft.

Both are to be applauded IMO.

[Countdown]

People are selfish. Everybody wants the most "out" for the least "in" - regardless of personal incomes and assets.

If it's an element of State expenditure which benefits them personally then the old "I've always paid my taxes" excuse is trotted out.

If it's not something which they would use (Housing, JSA, DSA) it's "Why should I pay for that bunch of freeloaders".

Edited by Countdown on Sunday 6th May 13:51

[crankedup]

You missed the third option : wealthy individuals that steal money from the average workers pocket'.

[0000]

crankedup said:

You missed the third option : wealthy individuals that steal money from the average workers pocket'.

How does that work?

[NightRunner]

crankedup said:

You missed the third option : wealthy individuals that steal money from the average workers pocket'.

Here we go again...

[PoleDriver]

0000 said:

crankedup said:

You missed the third option : wealthy individuals that steal money from the average workers pocket'.

How does that work?

Please explain.