Tax Avoidance = Immoral

[AJS-]

It always pisses me off when people say that tax avoidance "costs" the country £Xm a year. No, it doesn't cost anything, it just means you've stolen less money than would have been the case otherwise.

[Pommygranite]

To argue that tax avoidance is 'immoral' is the most ridiculous statement of preaching bullst i've read on here in a long time.

The determination of what level of tax to pay on what elements of earnings, goods and sales is determined by a specific code. Tax avoidance is merely understanding that written code, or rules, and structuring payments and assets in such a way that that they do not fall within those codes. If the code does not require tax to paid in that way then you're not evading any kind of due taxation, you are merely ensuring that you follow the rules.

Avoidance is not illegal and legislation makes specific reference to this in various planning regulations. Therefore you are actively following the law by avoiding tax.

To state it is immoral is like saying you have a moral duty to support the crown in whichever way they would like regardless of sense, purpose or decency.

If you had ten quid in your pocket would you pop it in an envelope and send it voluntarily to HMRC? No you dont, and wouldnt for the pure reason that you are not required to. Tax avoidence is exactly the same way of thinking.

[NoelWatson]

cymtriks said:

BOR said:

I don't think you grasp the difference between paying what you owe, and exploiting loopholes that shouldn't exist, but are impossible to eradicate.

Pay your share.

The loop holes are easy to eradiacate, they only exist because we have an insanely complex tax system full of allowances, different rates, exceptions, penalties,... it goes on and on.

One personal allowance transferable between married couples. One rate of tax on all income.
Similar system for companies.

No more loopholes there.

My point exactly, and it was made much worse by his beloved Labour party

[CaptainSlow]

robsti said:

Ribol said:

robsti said:

Ribol said:

robsti said:

Ribol said:

robsti said:

Ribol said:

If I thought for one second that the money paid in taxes was being used wisely then I would be more than happy to pay my fair share and probably a bit more.

However, whilst whichever moron who is currently at the helm continues to allow money to be wasted (pick your own example, plenty to choose from) I will do whatever I can to pay as little as possible.

I think the only people who are "happy" to pay taxes are those on PAYE and don't have any choice.

People on paye dont pay tax their employer does!

Not strictly true, the employer pays the employer's contribution and pays the employee's part on their behalf by deducting it from their wages.

Sorry I did not explain myself.
Only the self-employed pay tax because if there was no tax the employed would be paid the tax percentage less.
ie if you were being paid 10 pound per hour and there was no tax due then your employer would pay you 7.90 and you would be no worse off!

You mean if the tax system was nothing like it actually is, not entirely sure what that has to do with anything being discussed here.

Sorry I thought the post was about tax avoidance and someone posted that people that are on paye had no choice but to pay tax but they are not paying it the employer is by paying them the tax % over what they would be paid if there was no tax regime!

Sounds like you are digging a bigger hole to me

Depends where the hole is dug if you pay tax or not UAE or Monaco both of which are TAX FREE!

You are forgetting that there is "some" value in paying tax. So if there were no tax you would have to pay for things that previously has been provided free or subsidised, therefore you would be worse off with £7.90. In theory if the government had been spending the tax revenues in a fully efficient manner your employer may actually have to pay you more than £10 if tax was abolished as the new supplier of previously government provided services may not be able to provide the same efficiencies (and if they did the new private sector shareholders may require a return higher on the activities).

[Plotloss]

There you go with that use of efficient though...

Were you aware that in income taxation the revenue collects £160Bn annually?

18.75% of that is gone, just to open the doors, pay the staff and run the computers of the HMRC

The benefits cost is over £170Bn annually.

So income tax is written off with a £40Bn deficit for a start.

Then out of all the other taxes we need to find £40Bn and then, maybe, theres a bit of cash left over to actually improve the country.

So I see it as a bit rich that the government are criticising people for being (tax) efficient...

[CaptainSlow]

hence "in theory"

[Eric Mc]

ewenm said:

The government should simplify the tax system. That would have multiple benefits:

• Fewer "loopholes"
• Cheaper to administer
• If it is perceived as "fairer" then more people might not be motivated to invest time and money in avoiding it.

Part of the reason the system has grown complex is to PREVENT loopholes.

I don't think tax can ever be made cvery simple. Even if the whole system was scrapped and a new much simpler system introduced, within a few short years complexities would begin to creep in again.

[Alex]

I will tell you what is immoral: High tax.

[audidoody]

Paying yourself in dividends doesn't make any difference to the amount of tax you pay. It avoids having to pay N.I. I am sure we all will agree that N.I. is not income tax, not should it ever be regarded as such by the Government.

Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 21st September 10:03

[sidicks]

Eric Mc said:

Part of the reason the system has grown complex is to PREVENT loopholes.

I don't think tax can ever be made cvery simple. Even if the whole system was scrapped and a new much simpler system introduced, within a few short years complexities would begin to creep in again.

It’s a vicious circle, the more convoluted the tax rules, the more complex the schemes devised to reduce tax. This then requires ever more complex rules to close the loopholes that are being exploited etc.

As has been stated previously, a simplified structure would be much cheaper to administer and would present fewer opportunities (or desire!) for avoidance / evasion.


Sidicks

[Plotloss]

audidoody said:

Paying yourself in dividends doesn't make any difference to the amount of tax you pay. It avoids having to pay N.I. I am sure we all will agree that N.I. is not income tax, not should it ever be regarded as such by the Government.

Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 21st September 10:03

Doesn't that depend on the size of the divvy?

[JonRB]

I don't smoke. However, smoking is heavily taxed. Clearly I am an immoral tax evader because I am not paying this tax by choosing not to smoke.

FFS

[Jinx]

Eric Mc said:

Part of the reason the system has grown complex is to PREVENT loopholes.

I don't think tax can ever be made cvery simple. Even if the whole system was scrapped and a new much simpler system introduced, within a few short years complexities would begin to creep in again.

Not if you abolished taxation all together? Income tax was introduced to fund the war against Napolean, I'm pretty damn sure that finished awhile back.

[Engineer1]

This is total bks as in effect it is saying shopping around is immoral, as buying a cheaper item is a form of tax avoidance, two identical computers one at £400 the other at £600, not buying the £600 is immoral as you have paid less VAT on the £400 than on the £600. Buying a car that falls into a lower VED band is immoral, widening it to day to day examples shows how daft the statement is.

[Eric Mc]

Jinx said:

Eric Mc said:

Part of the reason the system has grown complex is to PREVENT loopholes.

I don't think tax can ever be made cvery simple. Even if the whole system was scrapped and a new much simpler system introduced, within a few short years complexities would begin to creep in again.

Not if you abolished taxation all together? Income tax was introduced to fund the war against Napolean, I'm pretty damn sure that finished awhile back.

Income Tax isn't the only tax (not by a long shot) and it certainly wasn't the only tax in 1800 either. It was introduced to fund the war against Napoleon and abolished when that war ended. However, it was re-introduced later in the 19th Century as the British government decided that it needed to fund things other than wars.

[plasticpig]

Plotloss said:

There you go with that use of efficient though...

Were you aware that in income taxation the revenue collects £160Bn annually?

18.75% of that is gone, just to open the doors, pay the staff and run the computers of the HMRC

The benefits cost is over £170Bn annually.

So income tax is written off with a £40Bn deficit for a start.

Then out of all the other taxes we need to find £40Bn and then, maybe, theres a bit of cash left over to actually improve the country.

So I see it as a bit rich that the government are criticising people for being (tax) efficient...

You have the wrong figures. Your 18.75& includes the AME budget. That's shelling out for Tax credits. The total operating costs for HMRC were 16.5bn in 2009-10. The total tax collected was 430bn. So the operating costs are less than 4%

Edited by plasticpig on Tuesday 21st September 10:59

[audidoody]

Plotloss said:

audidoody said:

Paying yourself in dividends doesn't make any difference to the amount of tax you pay. It avoids having to pay N.I. I am sure we all will agree that N.I. is not income tax, not should it ever be regarded as such by the Government.

Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 21st September 10:03

Doesn't that depend on the size of the divvy?

Nope - as little or as much as you like - as long as they come out of audited profit

[emicen]

If I was given the choice of paying an accountant £500 in fees to save me £500 in tax or just pay it, I'd hire the accountant.

Thats not tax evasion, its avoidance. Although I seem to recall them trying to make it that they could tax you not on the actual law, but on the spirit of the law?

I am utterly fed up of the way this country is being run. It is like a horde of petulent, spoilt children and the only way to actually make them listen is to stop their pocket money.

Signing all the petitions in the world wont make any difference, thats just like giving them lines.

[DonkeyApple]

emicen said:

If I was given the choice of paying an accountant £500 in fees to save me £500 in tax or just pay it, I'd hire the accountant.

Thats not tax evasion, its avoidance. Although I seem to recall them trying to make it that they could tax you not on the actual law, but on the spirit of the law?

I am utterly fed up of the way this country is being run. It is like a horde of petulent, spoilt children and the only way to actually make them listen is to stop their pocket money.

Signing all the petitions in the world wont make any difference, thats just like giving them lines.

I'm sure that a poll of all MPs would highlight that they agree 100% with you.

The problem is that like the direcotrs of a limited company they have to listen, entertain and keep happy the largest shareholders. In the case of the UK this is an enormous group of hopeless, fkwitted losers.

[Disco_Dale]

Tax evaders are as bad as benefit fraudsters, 2 sides of the same coin.
I hope the government are serious about this, but I fear it's just the tories throwing the libdems a bone.

After all, the tories wouldn't want to upset all their tax evading mates, would they?