Tax Avoidance = Immoral
Discussion
Apparently
Then if you feel like getting a little angry at some socialists, read Pesto's Blog
In my opinion, what a load of b
ks.
(and I don't think some people grasp the difference between avoidance and evasion).
Then if you feel like getting a little angry at some socialists, read Pesto's Blog
In my opinion, what a load of b
ks.(and I don't think some people grasp the difference between avoidance and evasion).
strudel said:
Apparently
Then if you feel like getting a little angry at some socialists, read Pesto's Blog
In my opinion, what a load of bks.
(and I don't think some people grasp the difference between avoidance and evasion).
In my opinion, who cares what this man thinks?Then if you feel like getting a little angry at some socialists, read Pesto's Blog
In my opinion, what a load of b
ks.(and I don't think some people grasp the difference between avoidance and evasion).
Used to know a guy who avoided paying tax - used to brag that he hadn't paid any income tax for 20 years. Offshore everything, paid himself with offshore loans, expensed everything through a myriad of companies that he would then fold. (apparently)
He also moaned the loudest about the state of schools, hospitals, the unemployed, lazy/poor people, road surfaces, politics...
Greed does funny things to people.
He also moaned the loudest about the state of schools, hospitals, the unemployed, lazy/poor people, road surfaces, politics...
Greed does funny things to people.
Immoral...? Don't make me laugh. There's absolutely nothing wrong with tax avoidance. Frankly, those that can't be bothered to educate themselves on how to best mitigate taxation or change their lifestyle accordingly really have no authority to complain to those that do. It's a personal choice and a choice that is entirely legal and above board.
Tax avoidance is exactly the same as any other form of intelligent cost saving. The Government merely wishes to bully people into paying more tax.
Tax avoidance is exactly the same as any other form of intelligent cost saving. The Government merely wishes to bully people into paying more tax.
From an email doing the rounds said:
I'd like to make you a business offer.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labour – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly a third of whatever you make in the business each year. A third seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's a third of your profits. And you know what, just to make it more attractive, if you choose to pay yourself an income instead of keeping the money in the business I'll take up to half instead of only a third. Well, you know that growing businesses need an incentive for investment, so that seems like a good deal.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 33% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 28% of whatever the increased capital value of the business is at that time.
I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 33% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 28% slice of the business.
Oh... and one more thing...
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees... I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 40% of your entire estate over about 250k.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur... if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public... you'll end up paying me more than 70% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me... but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with lawsuits funded by an infinite pool of money - amusingly enough, that's a pool you contribute to - and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? Because that's the offer the state gives its entrepreneurs.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labour – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly a third of whatever you make in the business each year. A third seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's a third of your profits. And you know what, just to make it more attractive, if you choose to pay yourself an income instead of keeping the money in the business I'll take up to half instead of only a third. Well, you know that growing businesses need an incentive for investment, so that seems like a good deal.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 33% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 28% of whatever the increased capital value of the business is at that time.
I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 33% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 28% slice of the business.
Oh... and one more thing...
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees... I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 40% of your entire estate over about 250k.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur... if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public... you'll end up paying me more than 70% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me... but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with lawsuits funded by an infinite pool of money - amusingly enough, that's a pool you contribute to - and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? Because that's the offer the state gives its entrepreneurs.
Tax avoidance = get busy with it, perfectly legal, morally it's only wrong to a certain type of leftist moneygrabbing wastrel, e.g. Gordon Brown.
The notion of a loophole is playing with words, the actual concept is not paying tax you are not legally obliged to pay. It will help encourage small government with less waste. In the current climate practising the art of managing better on less is good for politicians as well as real workers.
My suggestion to outraged submarxists is to pay a bit more tax than necessary, perhaps a lot more, voluntarily. Then both left and right can feel morally happy as the left pay more than they need so inducing a state of ideological bliss while the rest of us pay only what we must and not a penny more, equally blissful.
The notion of a loophole is playing with words, the actual concept is not paying tax you are not legally obliged to pay. It will help encourage small government with less waste. In the current climate practising the art of managing better on less is good for politicians as well as real workers.
My suggestion to outraged submarxists is to pay a bit more tax than necessary, perhaps a lot more, voluntarily. Then both left and right can feel morally happy as the left pay more than they need so inducing a state of ideological bliss while the rest of us pay only what we must and not a penny more, equally blissful.
Eric Mc said:
TuxRacer said:
Sounds like I should close my ISA accounts if tax avoidance is immoral.
fkwits.
Exactly.f
kwits.The government actually creates secific tax avoidance measures to encourage certain topes of behaviour - such as saving or paying into a pension.
k you anyway!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff