Tax Avoidance = Immoral
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
crankedup said:
A business that is already viable should not be gifted more tax payers money via tax breaks, why should they and where is the line in the sand drawn?
A tax break isn't gifting tax payers money, it's allowing the business to hang on to more of what they make.One has to excuse Thatchers 'gift' to Delorean, due diligence is required in depth.
crankedup said:
AstonZagato said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
It is a re-balance in the economy that imo would be good for the U.K. in the long term. Less dependence upon the financial sector that continues a fairly substantial input of tax in favour of the balance toward those sectors previously mentioned. NOT suggesting a deliberate wind down of the financial sector should be sought, that would be a nonsense, rather other industries be granted further assistance toward growth.
Subsidies? Hope not.Tax breaks? Possibly, but not restricted.
Are you saying he is wrong?
But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
AstonZagato said:
crankedup said:
AstonZagato said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
It is a re-balance in the economy that imo would be good for the U.K. in the long term. Less dependence upon the financial sector that continues a fairly substantial input of tax in favour of the balance toward those sectors previously mentioned. NOT suggesting a deliberate wind down of the financial sector should be sought, that would be a nonsense, rather other industries be granted further assistance toward growth.
Subsidies? Hope not.Tax breaks? Possibly, but not restricted.
Are you saying he is wrong?
But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
Never in my lifetime has a Social and wealth divide ever appeared to be as wide as at present. Personally, it makes no difference to me in my life, just the sense of injustice being played out.
AstonZagato said:
Miliband has studious avoided giving any context as to what avoidance measures are "moral" and "immoral" for a very good reason. It would expose the internal inconsistency in his position - the man on the street uses avoidance measures all the time (it is, to quote Fink "normal"). Trying to brand some forms of avoidance as immoral requires one to create black and white out of shades of grey and he (and all governments) doesn't know where to draw the line. If they did, they would simply outlaw the current perfectly legal avoidance measures to which they object and turn them at a stroke into evasion (which has always been immoral and illegal).
But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
Absolutely spot on.But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
fblm said:
AstonZagato said:
Miliband has studious avoided giving any context as to what avoidance measures are "moral" and "immoral" for a very good reason. It would expose the internal inconsistency in his position - the man on the street uses avoidance measures all the time (it is, to quote Fink "normal"). Trying to brand some forms of avoidance as immoral requires one to create black and white out of shades of grey and he (and all governments) doesn't know where to draw the line. If they did, they would simply outlaw the current perfectly legal avoidance measures to which they object and turn them at a stroke into evasion (which has always been immoral and illegal).
But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
Absolutely spot on.But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
I heard Martin Lewis on 5 Live a couple of days ago, when he said he was surprised at the severity of the negative response to his suggestion of moving savings into the name of your partner, if your partner is a basic rate tax payer but you are high rate, to lessen the burden of tax on interest
He suggested that in his opinion, this fell into the realm of 'legitimate tax planning' (which in his opinion is fine) rather than tax avoidance such as moving funds offshore (which he thinks is immoral and against the spirit of the law). But he said the public comments disagreed with him and thought it immoral. In fairness, Lewis' stance was he will bow to the majority decision if he has to and he welcomes feedback
The reality IMO is that moving savings between a couple is not immoral but it is tax avoidance and as you state, which tax avoidance measures we are being encouraged to deem immoral and which are OK seems more based on whether the avoider is 'rich' than any more sensible grounds. I can't see the difference between moving money offshore to avoid tax or moving it into your partner's name and arguably, I see the latter as worse than the former
NicD said:
edh said:
??
Of course, quite right, this is what should be in the quote:'But tax incentives are immoral for anyone to use, or so Ed Milliband keeps telling us?
Are you saying he is wrong?'
btw I'd be amazed if you can find a quote from Miliband that says "tax incentives are immoral for anyone to use"
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
It is a re-balance in the economy that imo would be good for the U.K. in the long term. Less dependence upon the financial sector that continues a fairly substantial input of tax in favour of the balance toward those sectors previously mentioned. NOT suggesting a deliberate wind down of the financial sector should be sought, that would be a nonsense, rather other industries be granted further assistance toward growth.
Subsidies? Hope not.Tax breaks? Possibly, but not restricted.
Go back to Old Labour for more traditional equivalents that were little better.
In general tax breaks tend to support viable industries as whatever corptax is due is paid on (any) profit, rather than prop up already-bankrupt forays into politicised wishful thinking. Tax incentives can also help established businesses and have the advantage of being more rapid in delivery and impact. Left-leaning administrations will like subsidies as they facilitate greater interference in corporate decision-making and can support regional redistribution of political favours.
Yes it's one viewpoint but with a rational basis - tax breaks please, leave the subsidies underneath the money tree and wait for it to fruit.
crankedup said:
(Eco windpower subsidies come direct from the energy consumers)
Redistribution of wealth from pensioners to landowners, very left wing and progressive and fair and...lethal.crankedup said:
What is wrong with a 'start-up' to get a young business off the ground?
It depends, but as a general response, a tax break would help.crankedup said:
obviously the business plans would need to pass muster.
More red tape, more nonjobs, more cost, more bad decisions, lovely.crankedup said:
We need new young business to start and grow creating new employment.
Indeed, we are in violent agreement 
crankedup said:
Throwing money into viable business seems to me to be an ill judged scenario.
Sure, throw it at non-viable businesses and waste it instead.Better still don't throw it at all, use tax breaks and forget subsidies.
crankedup said:
Recognition that all political parties need to promote good business start ups with an eye toward long term property of business and the U.K.
Promote good businesses and not bad ones? Tell DECC about that.Beyond that, show me a government that can tell which start-ups will thrive and which will fail. Thee people you speak of need help with mortgage application forms (but not expenses claims).
A great article by Dan Hannan MEP:
http://www.capx.co/in-praise-of-tax-avoidance/
http://www.capx.co/in-praise-of-tax-avoidance/
Dan Hannan said:
Those politicians who complain about “aggressive tax avoidance” have the solution in their hands. A flat tax would make impossible most of the items I listed at the outset; and, as revenues rose and rates fell, emigration, outsourcing and the establishment of offshore accounts would become purposeless. I understand that some Leftists would rather have a redistributive tax system than an efficient one. Fine, but if that’s your view, please stop moaning about tax avoidance: it’s your system that creates it.
Alex said:
A great article by Dan Hannan MEP:
http://www.capx.co/in-praise-of-tax-avoidance/
http://www.capx.co/in-praise-of-tax-avoidance/
Dan Hannan said:
Those politicians who complain about “aggressive tax avoidance” have the solution in their hands. A flat tax would make impossible most of the items I listed at the outset; and, as revenues rose and rates fell, emigration, outsourcing and the establishment of offshore accounts would become purposeless. I understand that some Leftists would rather have a redistributive tax system than an efficient one. Fine, but if that’s your view, please stop moaning about tax avoidance: it’s your system that creates it.
turbobloke said:
Alex said:
A great article by Dan Hannan MEP:
http://www.capx.co/in-praise-of-tax-avoidance/
http://www.capx.co/in-praise-of-tax-avoidance/
Dan Hannan said:
Those politicians who complain about “aggressive tax avoidance” have the solution in their hands. A flat tax would make impossible most of the items I listed at the outset; and, as revenues rose and rates fell, emigration, outsourcing and the establishment of offshore accounts would become purposeless. I understand that some Leftists would rather have a redistributive tax system than an efficient one. Fine, but if that’s your view, please stop moaning about tax avoidance: it’s your system that creates it.
The other thing that the politicians completely ignore of course is that closing the loopholes is by far the easiest way to stop avoidance, not moaning about those who use the loopholes. Although I accept not all loopholes are easily closeable (eg partners tax allowance)
Now PWC are being accused of "tax avoidance on an industrial scale" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...
Morons.
Morons.
McClure said:
Now PWC are being accused of "tax avoidance on an industrial scale" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...
Morons.
Morons.
They should come clean.....and plead guilty given there's no crime and no sentence as tax avoidance is, whodathunkit, entirely lawful.
edh said:
NicD said:
edh said:
??
Of course, quite right, this is what should be in the quote:'But tax incentives are immoral for anyone to use, or so Ed Milliband keeps telling us?
Are you saying he is wrong?'
btw I'd be amazed if you can find a quote from Miliband that says "tax incentives are immoral for anyone to use"
fblm said:
AstonZagato said:
Miliband has studious avoided giving any context as to what avoidance measures are "moral" and "immoral" for a very good reason. It would expose the internal inconsistency in his position - the man on the street uses avoidance measures all the time (it is, to quote Fink "normal"). Trying to brand some forms of avoidance as immoral requires one to create black and white out of shades of grey and he (and all governments) doesn't know where to draw the line. If they did, they would simply outlaw the current perfectly legal avoidance measures to which they object and turn them at a stroke into evasion (which has always been immoral and illegal).
But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
Absolutely spot on.But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
The deed of variation might have reduced IHT but left them open to higher CGT. As it is I believe its likely with current house prices and the fact you can now legally roll the unused allowance they will end up with a higher tax bill than if they had not used the deed.
I doubt the Film Finance schemes will have increase investment in UK films very much if at all.
fblm said:
AstonZagato said:
Miliband has studious avoided giving any context as to what avoidance measures are "moral" and "immoral" for a very good reason. It would expose the internal inconsistency in his position - the man on the street uses avoidance measures all the time (it is, to quote Fink "normal"). Trying to brand some forms of avoidance as immoral requires one to create black and white out of shades of grey and he (and all governments) doesn't know where to draw the line. If they did, they would simply outlaw the current perfectly legal avoidance measures to which they object and turn them at a stroke into evasion (which has always been immoral and illegal).
But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
Absolutely spot on.But this campaign isn't about morality or legality, it is about cheap electioneering and lazy politics - creating an "us" versus "them", where an attempt can be made to demonise a group of people who have done nothing other than reduce their tax bill using perfectly legal measures, put in place by the government in order to create a certain type of behaviour (save for pensions, invest in films, invest in start ups). It is the work of a few moments for a government to close these schemes down. They chose not to because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (and fear the law of unintended consequences of abandoning them).
In fact, the avoidance the Miliband family indulged in (the Deed of Variation) could be argued to be more immoral than the film partnership as its sole purpose was to reduce IHT. At least film partnerships (the current bete noir) can be argued to have channelled investment into British films.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff