Retrospective taxation campaign
Discussion
All, there are 3000 families affected by evil retrospective tax laws. Upto 2008 it was perfectly legal to operate your tax affairs in a particular way - HMRC got the law changed backwards in time and are now asking for back tax of 7 years plus interest !!! This won't happen again due to new rules but for those 3000 families it has been hell and they all face bankruptcy.
Please support the campaign and spread the word:
Sorry we don't allow links asking for donations.
Please support the campaign and spread the word:
Sorry we don't allow links asking for donations.
Edited by Big Al. on Tuesday 24th April 17:54
Hmmm so in order to avoid paying income tax like the vast majority, a load of IT contractors decided to get involved in some convoluted tax avoidance scheme.
Sorry if you are involved in one of these sorts of schemes you work out what you would have normally paid and bank the difference as a contingency.
Have a chat to your dustman or postie who paid more tax and ask them whether they think this is unfair.
Sorry if you are involved in one of these sorts of schemes you work out what you would have normally paid and bank the difference as a contingency.
Have a chat to your dustman or postie who paid more tax and ask them whether they think this is unfair.
standardman said:
Hmmm so in order to avoid paying income tax like the vast majority, a load of IT contractors decided to get involved in some convoluted tax avoidance scheme.
.
Don't be stupid, IF it was lawful at the time then it is hardly fair to backdate the law is it? That is a fairly standard rule of law, it is manifestly unjust to penalise something that was lawful at the time it was undertaken (there are exceptions but they should be few and far between, and tax certainly isn't one of them!)..
Breadvan72 said:
Doncha love the fact that the website for the campaign is itself a big money pump? You have to pay to read the freeloaders' rants. Ah, the smell of Schadenfreude.
Yes that was a bit of a disappointment and I was going to edit my comment above to reflect the fact that I think they'd get more publicity and support if you didn't have to pay what is a significant amount of money to join and support - on facebook and other sites these things are usually free and can generate significant signatures as a result!I doubt that people who were trying to cheese their way out of paying their share of the burden carried by the rest of us who do not hide our money or muck about with tax will attract huge support. Parliament is Sovereign (EU law apart), and if Parliament decides to legislate retrospectively, that is contrary to no principle of the Constitution, provided that the retrospective effect is made absolutely plain. Here, people were manipulating tax rules in a manner never intended by the legislator, and now their anti-social selfishness is catching up with them. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th April 06:09
Some horses can be caught, even after they leg it from the stable. Old Nazis, for example. That's an extreme example, and a pretty nifty Godwin score, but the point is a general one.
Retrospectivity should be rare. It is rare. In the present instance, the law is saying "You lot chose to take the ****. We will now make it absolutely clear, that there is a do not take the **** rule. On one view, that rule was there before, but just to avoid any doubt, we say that you should never have taken the ***. Now, do what all the other good citizens do, and pay your whack."
Retrospectivity should be rare. It is rare. In the present instance, the law is saying "You lot chose to take the ****. We will now make it absolutely clear, that there is a do not take the **** rule. On one view, that rule was there before, but just to avoid any doubt, we say that you should never have taken the ***. Now, do what all the other good citizens do, and pay your whack."
Breadvan72 said:
Some horses can be caught, even after they leg it from the stable. Old Nazis, for example. That's an extreme example, and a pretty nifty Godwin score, but the point is a general one.
Retrospectivity should be rare. It is rare. In the present instance, the law is saying "You lot chose to take the ****. We will now make it absolutely clear, that there is a do not take the **** rule. On one view, that rule was there before, but just to avoid any doubt, we say that you should never have taken the ***. Now, do what all the other good citizens do, and pay your whack."
Yes - this is the reason why they did it.Retrospectivity should be rare. It is rare. In the present instance, the law is saying "You lot chose to take the ****. We will now make it absolutely clear, that there is a do not take the **** rule. On one view, that rule was there before, but just to avoid any doubt, we say that you should never have taken the ***. Now, do what all the other good citizens do, and pay your whack."
Knowing someone - an IT contractor - who did a scheme like this, he knew full well that if he was not paying the full UK tax rate then there is an element of risk involved.
So, he put the amount he saved in low risk investments and waited. Now, he has to pay back, he has the cash, and is no worse off from taking the risk.
In life you assess your risks accordingly, you are happy when you gamble well, but you shouldn't gamble what you can't afford to lose. If these guys have spent the amounts they've saved, and have no assets to sell to make it up, then this is a risk they took.
Elroy Blue said:
People who undertake serial tax avoidance are no better than the feral types who 'legally' receive benefits they have no right too. Both are bleeding the country dry.
How can you legally, whether in inverted commas or not, receive something you are not entitled to ?If someone is not entitled to something and claims it knowing they are not entitled they are commiting an offense and so it is not legal.
Tax avoidance on the other hand IS legal, in fact it is a stupid person who does not avoid tax if at all possible.
Just my opinion of course.
I'm an evil tax avoider and I'm worried i might suffer from retrospective taxation. Currently I avoid paying tax at all on my first 10k earnings via the 'tax code' loophole. Plus I avoid tax on all the profits from investments in my ISA using the loophole whereby ISAs are tax-free investments.
What other evil tax avoiding schemes are we collectively exploiting to the detriment of our fellows?
SM
What other evil tax avoiding schemes are we collectively exploiting to the detriment of our fellows?
SM
By the way I'm sick to the back teeth of reading reams of bullcrap from the 'blame the rich' bridage.
Most so-called rich people pay vast amounts of tax per annum, way more than most of the moaners are paying. Where where the moaners when the country's economy was being driven into the ground by the previous administration screwing up pensions, selling our gold, bloating the public sector to scandalous proportions?
And where's the hatred for serial job-dogders with a 'bad back' and those recklessly having kids they can't afford and expecting everyone else to pay for them?
The time has come to stop pointing the finger at the so-called 'rich' and getting on with working together to get us out of the mire we've been dropped into.
SM
Most so-called rich people pay vast amounts of tax per annum, way more than most of the moaners are paying. Where where the moaners when the country's economy was being driven into the ground by the previous administration screwing up pensions, selling our gold, bloating the public sector to scandalous proportions?
And where's the hatred for serial job-dogders with a 'bad back' and those recklessly having kids they can't afford and expecting everyone else to pay for them?
The time has come to stop pointing the finger at the so-called 'rich' and getting on with working together to get us out of the mire we've been dropped into.
SM
Edited by supermono on Tuesday 24th April 11:37
Many of the very rich pay little tax. The underclass pays no tax and lives on benefits and/or petty crime. Some of those take the **** and scam the system. The cost of the scams is hard to evaluate, but it is probably less than the cost of tax scams. Others just live on a pittance in a world of ignorance and social stagnation. The squeezed middle pays a lot of tax . My marginal tax rate on a chunky but not footballer sized six figure income is 58%. I say, OK, as I earn lots and have lefty principles, so I don't mind paying my share. I wish that some of my rich clients in the City would do a bit more to help me and others like me pay the expenses of the State.
Breadvan72 said:
...On one view, that rule was there before...
That would be my take on it. I don't see it as a retrospective law, per se. The people who continued to use the 'loophole' when it's lawfulness was not certain chose to take that route. They could have gone down a different route, just in case it was not lawful.I disagree with retrospective legislation but don't think this is an example - rather, the government tested a scheme that people were exploiting in the knowledge that there was a risk it could backfire so no sympathy here. And if they didn't know that they need to have a word with their advisers.
A better example of retrospective taxation might be the one where the government put RFL costs up a LOT on older cars that people already owned, then justified it by saying the principle of increasing motoring taxes had already been established.
A better example of retrospective taxation might be the one where the government put RFL costs up a LOT on older cars that people already owned, then justified it by saying the principle of increasing motoring taxes had already been established.
The link in the OP I don't think is an example of retrospective taxation. I think it is an example of "you tried your luck and didn't get caught back then, but now we have caught you we are clobbering you for the lot" taxation.
I had 2 guys come to my office to pitch a scheme to me where I would pay 0% tax. Yes ZERO. In return for this I would pay them 8% of my income and they would set up a convoluted system of accounts and companies based in Isle of Man, Switzerland and a salary sacrifice into a company share scheme of a company worth £0 and therefore avoid the tax.
It was more complex than that but either way I asked what the outcome would be if the Revenue clamped down on this. They said they would fight it in court. I then asked if they lost who would be liable for the unpaid tax, interest and fine. I would. I would therefore be royally fked and facing a much higher tax bill than before and out of 8% gross that I'd paid them and probably face bankruptcy. I therefore told them to foxtrot oscar.
Anyone who did a similar scheme and didn't foresee the revenue clamping down on them in times of austerity when the country is broke is an idiot and they deserve everything that grets thrown at them.
I had 2 guys come to my office to pitch a scheme to me where I would pay 0% tax. Yes ZERO. In return for this I would pay them 8% of my income and they would set up a convoluted system of accounts and companies based in Isle of Man, Switzerland and a salary sacrifice into a company share scheme of a company worth £0 and therefore avoid the tax.
It was more complex than that but either way I asked what the outcome would be if the Revenue clamped down on this. They said they would fight it in court. I then asked if they lost who would be liable for the unpaid tax, interest and fine. I would. I would therefore be royally f
ked and facing a much higher tax bill than before and out of 8% gross that I'd paid them and probably face bankruptcy. I therefore told them to foxtrot oscar.Anyone who did a similar scheme and didn't foresee the revenue clamping down on them in times of austerity when the country is broke is an idiot and they deserve everything that grets thrown at them.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff