Tax Avoidance = Immoral

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

<options>

Or do you think that what you pay is not only to cover your own personal government service requirements?

None of the above. Personally I think there should be an element of contribution going to provision as a safety net for those temporarily in need of it, and of course for those dealt a bum hand in life who cannot work but any civilised society should look after, but that contribution, as described and no more, would require far less tax to fund and would very likely result in less avoidance as well as less evasion.

[Laughingman21]

Eric Mc said:

Do you think that a person's tax bill should equate with the value of services they use

in a week?

in a year?

in a lifetime?

Or do you think that what you opay is not only to cover your own personal government service requirements?

No I don't. I

admit I'm playing devils advocate a bit, but do think that they current media approach of attacking people who contribute a heck of a lot (in cash terms) to this country for not paying enough is wrong.

Surely the waste and inefficiency in how the taxes are spent amount to more than the tax avoided.

[Twincam16]

Eric Mc said:

Laughingman21 said:

Why? I'm sure they don't use anywhere near £250k of public services.

How much do you think they should pay?

Do you think that a person's tax bill should equate with the value of services they use

in a week?

in a year?

in a lifetime?

Or do you think that what you opay is not only to cover your own personal government service requirements?

Also, while the high earner may not be dependent on public services, what about all the people in society they need the services of who in turn are dependent on public services?

Mr. High-Earner may have private healthcare, never use public transport, buys books rather than using libraries, doesn't use his family allowance, sends his kids to fee-paying school, works in the private sector and has a private pension, but that doesn't mean the office junior, the PA, the back-office clerk, the secretary, the middle-manager, the tea-boy etc, on whom he relies, but earn nowhere near enough to do any of those things privately doesn't need them.

So if he refuses to pay his taxes, OK it won't affect him immediately, but it will affect the lives of those who work for him, and have a detrimental effect on their productivity if they're suddenly having to think about making private provision for various services they can't get through the government any more. So they're more stressed, or asking for more money, or having to take more time out to look after their kids - and in turn, his firm will suffer.

Society is an interdependent, symbiotic thing. Yes, you can take issue with how inefficiently the government chooses to run certain aspects of it, but the 'I'm alright Jack, to hell with everyone else, it's their problem, let them sort it out' attitude is exactly the same in spirit as the militant unions of the Seventies who brought the country to its knees.

[turbobloke]

Twincam16 said:

So if he refuses to pay his taxes

That's stretching it a bit.

The issue afaics is that people earning in the top 1% of the population are paying around 30% of all income tax collected, and while some may employ household or other staff well outside the top 1% this doesn't in any way impact on the validity of an unfair tax regime that penalises financial success so heavily while being described by some dreamworld inhabitants as unfair...yet the perceived unfairness ridiculously results in asking more of the high income individuals already paying far more than their fair share, when the present position is in fact the real unfairness as they pay over the odds now - however emotionally unsatisfying or ideologically challenging it may seem to some.

If the tax rate was lower the tax take may well be higher, more money would be left in the hands of high earners who in your example may well hire more staff, and even then with a higher overall tax-take there would be more for those who genuinely need support including those lower-earning staff.

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 25th June 12:44

[Eric Mc]

What would be your ideal tax rate?

What would be your solution to the myriad other taxes, allowances, reliefs, bandings etc that make UK tax so complicated?

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

What would be your ideal tax rate?

Which tax? Income tax? If so, flat rate or top rate? As I can't see UK plc moving to a flat rate system any time soon then I'll answer in terms of top rate (see below also). Based on the evidence from the USA as cited in this or another related thread recently, a top rate of about 25% would fit the bill.

Eric Mc said:

What would be your solution to the myriad other taxes, allowances, reliefs, bandings etc that make UK tax so complicated?

Firstly further reduce the size and reach of the state, and reduce its spending requirement in parallel together with its propensity for red tape.

As to various individual taxes, such as CGT, they should be set no higher than the level at which evidence suggests maximum compliance would occur, and not zero for which there is very likely no data over a sufficient and relatively recent timescale in many cases.

Other taxes, particularly envy taxes unrelated to any service or valid process reason e.g. stamp duty on buying a hice and IHT, these could well be abolished given the smaller size and reach of the state.

Naturally it would take longer than a PH post to go into the full and necessary detail but as you asked, this is the type of approach I would support and which may well increase the overall tax-take compared to today's position for those taxes which are reduced not abolished.

[Eric Mc]

And I would not disagree with any of that.

[Laughingman21]

Twincam16 said:

Also, while the high earner may not be dependent on public services, what about all the people in society they need the services of who in turn are dependent on public services?

Mr. High-Earner may have private healthcare, never use public transport, buys books rather than using libraries, doesn't use his family allowance, sends his kids to fee-paying school, works in the private sector and has a private pension, but that doesn't mean the office junior, the PA, the back-office clerk, the secretary, the middle-manager, the tea-boy etc, on whom he relies, but earn nowhere near enough to do any of those things privately doesn't need them.

So if he refuses to pay his taxes, OK it won't affect him immediately, but it will affect the lives of those who work for him, and have a detrimental effect on their productivity if they're suddenly having to think about making private provision for various services they can't get through the government any more. So they're more stressed, or asking for more money, or having to take more time out to look after their kids - and in turn, his firm will suffer.

Society is an interdependent, symbiotic thing. Yes, you can take issue with how inefficiently the government chooses to run certain aspects of it, but the 'I'm alright Jack, to hell with everyone else, it's their problem, let them sort it out' attitude is exactly the same in spirit as the militant unions of the Seventies who brought the country to its knees.

So as well as paying his employees their salaries, he should also subsidise their public services?

As a counter arguement, why should the back-office clerk not pay a higher rate of tax to pay for the services they need?

[Eric Mc]

Don't forget, they are HIS public services too and he will be making use of them - all the time.

[Twincam16]

Laughingman21 said:

As a counter arguement, why should the back-office clerk not pay a higher rate of tax to pay for the services they need?

Because they can't afford to.

So you have a choice - either cough up or pay him more to compensate. Either way, you will end up paying in some way or another, simply because we live in a society, not a free-for-all.

[Eric Mc]

Too many people think that tax payments should only be paid by people who use tax funded services.

That is not, and it is never, how things work.

And society could not function on a pure pay as you go principle. Look at societies where taxation is poorly developed and see how those who are less well off or at the bottom of the food chain are treated.

[Mr XXXX]

From The Times:

[Twincam16]

Eric Mc said:

Look at societies where taxation is poorly developed and see how those who are less well off or at the bottom of the food chain are treated.

I suspect that many people on this thread, and on the 'pro-avoidance' side of the argument in general, are fully aware of this, and honestly couldn't give a st, because they're 'winners'.

It's an attitude a lot of people stick to right up to the point where they or one of their relatives develops a terminal or life-changing illness, or they get hit by the full force of economic change, and they finally realise the importance of having a bigger pot that the whole of society pays into to get the bigger things we all need out of it, rather than thinking that because they can pay their personal way, everyone else should do and just accept a lower standard of existence with regard to things like health and education as 'punishment' for not being as rich as they are.

And as for the usual 'jealousy' accusations and calls to 'just work harder' - there are all manner of absolutely vital jobs and professions where you can work so hard your face sticks like that, and you won't make any more money. Do they not deserve schools and hospitals, or their streets cleaning and rubbish taking away?

[Eric Mc]

Is that Jimmy Carr in the bottom left?

[Steffan]

Eric Mc said:

Is that Jimmy Carr in the bottom left?

It could well be. Maybe the illustrator had him in mind.

[fido]

Twincam16 said:

I suspect that many people on this thread, and on the 'pro-avoidance' side of the argument in general, are fully aware of this, and honestly couldn't give a st, because they're 'winners'.

It's an attitude a lot of people stick to right up to the point where they or one of their relatives develops a terminal or life-changing illness, or they get hit by the full force of economic change, and they finally realise the importance of having a bigger pot that the whole of society pays into to get the bigger things we all need out of it, rather than thinking that because they can pay their personal way, everyone else should do and just accept a lower standard of existence with regard to things like health and education as 'punishment' for not being as rich as they are.

And as for the usual 'jealousy' accusations and calls to 'just work harder' - there are all manner of absolutely vital jobs and professions where you can work so hard your face sticks like that, and you won't make any more money. Do they not deserve schools and hospitals, or their streets cleaning and rubbish taking away?

And by the same logic, those who expect the state to provide everything regardless of how wasteful it is, at the expense of the taxpayer and future indebted generations are, how can we put this nicely - 'losers'. This is a fantastic country - the schools and hospitals are free, and the streets are cleaned and rubbish collected regularly. It's a shameful some of its occupants are hell-bent on steering it towards fiscal collapse.

[Laughingman21]

Twincam16 said:

I suspect that many people on this thread, and on the 'pro-avoidance' side of the argument in general, are fully aware of this, and honestly couldn't give a st, because they're 'winners'.

It's an attitude a lot of people stick to right up to the point where they or one of their relatives develops a terminal or life-changing illness, or they get hit by the full force of economic change, and they finally realise the importance of having a bigger pot that the whole of society pays into to get the bigger things we all need out of it, rather than thinking that because they can pay their personal way, everyone else should do and just accept a lower standard of existence with regard to things like health and education as 'punishment' for not being as rich as they are.

And as for the usual 'jealousy' accusations and calls to 'just work harder' - there are all manner of absolutely vital jobs and professions where you can work so hard your face sticks like that, and you won't make any more money. Do they not deserve schools and hospitals, or their streets cleaning and rubbish taking away?

I realise from my comments in this thread, I come across on the 'pro-avoidance' side of the argument, but my opinion isn’t that clear-cut. I do agree that for a society to function at it’s best, those ‘with’ need to help those ‘without’. However, what I do feel strange is the attitude that this county takes towards those at the top.

As has been metioned time and again, the top few earners in this country pay a vast proportion of the income tax in this country. Yet rather that getting any appreciation for their contributions, they get hounded for trying to be efficient with their tax contributions. If the option is there to legally pay less tax, why should an individual not take it?

I’m sure most people have used an ISA at some point in the past. This is just another legal method of avoiding tax.

[The Don of Croy]

Twincam16 said:

And as for the usual 'jealousy' accusations and calls to 'just work harder' - there are all manner of absolutely vital jobs and professions where you can work so hard your face sticks like that, and you won't make any more money. Do they not deserve schools and hospitals, or their streets cleaning and rubbish taking away?

But there are jobs - teaching for instance - where the rewards in seeing their pupils understand, employ the knowledge and grow in self esteem, far outweigh any material gains. Imagine seeing that not once a year or month, but maybe once in every class you teach throughout a school - and to get paid to do it!

Or nursing someone, caring for them in a critical situation etc etc

It's not always money, but it does help.

These jobs used to appeal to people over and above any material reward, but today they've become commodotised like everything else. So market rules will come to dominate, and the services will be determined by price...for which we need to make choices with our own money...so we need to keep more of it to be able to choose our suppliers (not monopoly state provision).

[turbobloke]

Twincam16 said:

there are all manner of absolutely vital jobs and professions where you can work so hard your face sticks like that

There are also people most often found outside this mollycoddled country where people already in demanding and important jobs take on another job if there are few or no means of earning more in the first, though there is likely to be less regulation in those instances (not necessarily a bad thing). Some do that here, I'm not claiming none do.

[Steffan]

Unfortunately the UK has slid into being a society over the last forty odd years, where utter selfishness and sole concern with No 1, has become the mantra for a great many individuals.

Exemplified by feckless, reckless, dishonest self serving politicians who are driven by greed, self aggrandisment and the celebrity culture.

I personally consider the feckless benefits scroungers worse than tax avoider's because the tax avoider's have generally made some effort initially to become rich enough to need to avoid tax,. Whereas the feckless benefits scroungers are frequently on the take from the cradle to the grave.

But it is a moot distinction. The culture of selfishness is utterly destructive.