Nope

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.

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.

Why would you pay tax over and above what you're legally required to? Unless you are unbelievably stupid.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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