Panorama and Tax avoidance

[Mungler]

45 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Well, I don't think I've ever read a thread with so many hypothetical story's, with so many vivid and wonderful tails ?

 

I think the thing that really gets people's backs up is the hypocrisy of the government and those with power suggesting that the masses should do the right thing, ie go to work, pay there taxes ect, while they quietly live by a separate set of rules which are either not available or not effective for the masses. Theres nothing like a sense of unfairness and double standards to get people worked up.

 

In a word "Bono"

 

 

[Thunderbird]

Perhaps a small point in the grand scheme of things, but here goes.

I'm not talking about large corporations here but ordinary individuals and business people who for one reason or another manage to get away with paying less tax. Those individuals have more money to spend on themselves, and lo and behold, pay VAT at 20% on what they then go and buy. So the exchequer gets their hands on the cash via another door. 

So if they haven't paid it in income tax, they'll go and pay it on VAT, stamp duty on their more expensive home, etc etc. 

Not a complete answer or a complete argument, but a lot of that 'avoided' tax must trickle in somehow. 

[bluesj]

I have not read all of this thread but I have seen some posts saying "moral obligation" etc, but how far does that obligation go. should someone that gets £1m a year pay a higher percentage  than someone that get £100000 when they don't cost the state any more?

Is it morally wrong that because I live not far from a channel port I can nip across to france stock up with beer and fags and save a few quid  but for someone that lives in Yorkshire can't really do the same too save anything?

[krugerandsmith]

10 hours ago, bluesj said:

I have not read all of this thread but I have seen some posts saying "moral obligation" etc, but how far does that obligation go. should someone that gets £1m a year pay a higher percentage  than someone that get £100000 when they don't cost the state any more?

Is it morally wrong that because I live not far from a channel port I can nip across to france stock up with beer and fags and save a few quid  but for someone that lives in Yorkshire can't really do the same too save anything?

Now we know who's not paying their taxes. 

[Red-dot]

Mobile offshore banking?

[JohnfromUK]

13 hours ago, bluesj said:

 

Is it morally wrong that because I live not far from a channel port I can nip across to france stock up with beer and fags and save a few quid  but for someone that lives in Yorkshire can't really do the same too save anything?

Not at all - all entirely legal and not a 'small print' area if it is for your own use, but it would be wrong if you brought back lorry loads to pass/sell on to others.  (If you sell it it is in fact I think illegal).

Where it gets morally questionable is when people use the small print, and legal twists and turns (tax havens, long strings of shell companies, offshore trusts, paying by 'loans' rather than PAYE etc.) to intentionally avoid paying tax.

Its a grey area ........ because the laws are not clear or straightforward .......

[panoma1]

13 hours ago, bluesj said:

 

Is it morally wrong that because I live not far from a channel port I can nip across to france stock up with beer and fags and save a few quid  but for someone that lives in Yorkshire can't really do the same too save anything?

Not at all because what you describe is legal, morally defensible and open to everyone!

[Jaymo]

2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Not at all because what you describe is legal, morally defensible and open to everyone!

Same as the original Topic.............

It just takes a little bit of an Investment of your time- that’s all 

[panoma1]

28 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

Same as the original Topic.............

It just takes a little bit of an Investment of your time- that’s all 

Nothing of the sort! Try hiding your income in an offshore tax haven, when your Income Tax and National Insurance has already been deducted at source under PAYE.

Tax avoidance can only morally acceptable, if it is open to everyone, and it's not!

[Nial]

6 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Nothing of the sort! Try hiding your income in an offshore tax haven, when your Income Tax and National Insurance has already been deducted at source under PAYE.

Tax avoidance can only morally acceptable, if it is open to everyone, and it's not!

It is, we are all subject to the same laws.

?

[ferguson_tom]

4 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Nothing of the sort! Try hiding your income in an offshore tax haven, when your Income Tax and National Insurance has already been deducted at source under PAYE.

Tax avoidance can only morally acceptable, if it is open to everyone, and it's not!

Self employment is open to everyone so therefore tax avoidance schemes are as well.

[JohnfromUK]

39 minutes ago, ferguson_tom said:

Self employment is open to everyone so therefore tax avoidance schemes are as well.

Firstly self employment may be 'open to everyone', but it isn't suitable or feasible for many people, for whom employment remains the only practical option.  In the UK, only about 15% of the working total are self employed.

Tax avoidance schemes are often technically available, but not economically feasible for anyone on average incomes.  Setting up with a firm like Appleby to have the necessary offshore registered companies, trusts etc. will not come cheap ......... and cost more than any saving it may make unless the sums involved are large.

Therefore tax avoidance is not (in a real world) open to everyone.  In practice it is only available to those with very large sums of tax to avoid.  Of the 15% self employed, only a small percentage will have sufficient income for avoidance measures to be economically viable.  That is why Panoma is quite correct in his view that it is not available to all.

[CharlieT]

20 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

 

20 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

Therefore tax avoidance is not (in a real world) open to everyone.  In practice it is only available to those with very large sums of tax to avoid.  Of the 15% self employed, only a small percentage will have sufficient income for avoidance measures to be economically viable.  That is why Panoma is quite correct in his view that it is not available to all.

It is open to everyone, just because it's not cost viable to some does not make it morally wrong for those fortunate enough to do so.

However, I would suggest that everyone who has a private pension benefits from offshore investments, that's in excess of 10m people in the private sector alone.

[panoma1]

11 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

 

It is open to everyone, just because it's not cost viable to some does not make it morally wrong for those fortunate enough to do so.

However, I would suggest that everyone who has a private pension benefits from offshore investments, that's in excess of 10m people in the private sector alone.

Yes, in the same way as a private education is open to everyone! And anyone can benefit from the doors such an education opens!.....In theory maybe..... in practise it really isn't!

 

As for a private Individuals pension benefitting from offshore investments, most members would not even know how their pensions were managed, who was managing them and where their tax paid pension money was being invested.........whereas the large corporations and wealthy individuals would know full well (and if they didn't could pay someone to know!) where their untaxed money could be placed, and directly employ a professional firm to minimise and avoid any tax liabilities and otherwise "manage" their money.

The moral issue is the difference is between unknowingly and knowingly doing something, and can be compared with unintentionally running someone down on a zebra crossing and intentionally doing so!

[Flashman]

The green-eyed envy monsters rear their heads when discussing such matters as tax planning.

[panoma1]

36 minutes ago, Flashman said:

The green-eyed envy monsters rear their heads when discussing such matters as tax planning.

Yep! that's about as relevant a comment as calling anyone who voices concern over uncontrolled immigration a racist! 

[Flashman]

3 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Yep! that's about as relevant a comment as calling anyone who voices concern over uncontrolled immigration a racist! 

Give over - public school and tax planning in the same answer.

It must be difficult to type with that chip on your shoulder. 

[panoma1]

17 minutes ago, Flashman said:

Give over - public school and tax planning in the same answer.

It must be difficult to type with that chip on your shoulder. 

I don't think so! Highlighting the similarities between the chance of an ordinary joe being able to get into a public school and the chance an ordinary joe "legally" avoiding his Tax responsibilities is in my opinion, entirely reasonable.

I have no chip on either shoulder, but accusing someone who speaks out in condemnation of Tax evasion and avoidance as jealous, is akin to accusing someone who speaks out against uncontrolled immigration as a racist....there is a name for both!

[Bigbob]

All the greedy barstools with a £1 want another one to keep it company there never happy and yet the poor working man will see his taxes rise and his pleasures rise every budget to keep the country afloat  

[jam1e]

On 11/6/2017 at 16:44, ferguson_tom said:

Moral obligation, are you lot being serious? Sorry but all you Noble warriors on your white steeds are nothing more than jealous of the rich. No one feels a moral obligation to pay tax and its quite simple the more you earn the more the government try to shaft you every which way they can.

Honestly if i was a millionaire i would be doing exactly the same thing. I would have no problem sleeping at night and if i did i would just have to drive 10 minutes down the road to the council estate to see how well my money is being spent because its so moral for people not to work and live off the state!

Agree with that.....

I would say the amount of "Tax" paid through fuel duty is immoral! But that isn't going to change! 

[ferguson_tom]

8 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

Therefore tax avoidance is not (in a real world) open to everyone.  In practice it is only available to those with very large sums of tax to avoid.  Of the 15% self employed, only a small percentage will have sufficient income for avoidance measures to be economically viable.  That is why Panoma is quite correct in his view that it is not available to all.

I don't know anyone who is self employed who doesn't pay less income tax than a person with the same gross income but payed by a company under PAYE, if they do they have a terrible accountant. Maybe the offshore company thing isn't financially viable for everyone but there a plenty of legal tax avoidance measures used by people on considerably lower incomes. Dont see newspaper reports on the builder whos tax avoidance has cost the "working man" a few grand and how it's immoral that everyone else has to pay more tax to make up for it. Reason being is because everyone would do the same thing in his position, but a millionaire using tax avoidance is for some reason wrong and cause of outrage.

I am sure if 99% of those who are upset about it somehow were able to earn these large sums of money they would be looking at similar schemes or at least involved in some sort of avoidance. 

[JohnfromUK]

6 hours ago, ferguson_tom said:

I don't know anyone who is self employed who doesn't pay less income tax than a person with the same gross income but payed by a company under PAYE, if they do they have a terrible accountant. Maybe the offshore company thing isn't financially viable for everyone but there a plenty of legal tax avoidance measures used by people on considerably lower incomes. Dont see newspaper reports on the builder whos tax avoidance has cost the "working man" a few grand and how it's immoral that everyone else has to pay more tax to make up for it. Reason being is because everyone would do the same thing in his position, but a millionaire using tax avoidance is for some reason wrong and cause of outrage.

I am sure if 99% of those who are upset about it somehow were able to earn these large sums of money they would be looking at similar schemes or at least involved in some sort of avoidance. 

Agreed the self employed pay less income tax - but they get less security, have higher risks, responsibilities and costs.  Makes sense.  I don't know what you consider 'avoidance' by self employed people on lower incomes?  If you are thinking normal 'allowances' (e.g. phone, computer/IT, car/mileage, workwear etc.) - I don't see these as avoidance. 

The avoidance that I don't agree with are the offshore registered shell companies, trusts, that cost many thousands £ to set up and are there for no purpose than avoiding tax ....... to save many tens, or hundreds of thousands £ in tax.

The problem is the expensive avoidance schemes that are (economically) only open to the very wealthy should not exist under a fair system.  If 'basic' rate taxpayers pay 20%, and higher rate 40%, it is not sensible that very high earners pay a significantly lower rate, or no tax at all.

[norfolk dumpling]

On QT last night Krustie Allmouth was correct in pointing out that the great majority of us would pay cash to save VAT. And what does that become. I shared s/d thatched properties with a senior copper - now even more senior - and he got us a deal on a big bill for re-rigging, tidying up and netting our (combined) large house. Tax avoidance?? I'm sure our only motivation is the envy of the wealthy.............

[JohnfromUK]

17 minutes ago, norfolk dumpling said:

On QT last night Krustie Allmouth was correct in pointing out that the great majority of us would pay cash to save VAT. And what does that become. I shared s/d thatched properties with a senior copper - now even more senior - and he got us a deal on a big bill for re-rigging, tidying up and netting our (combined) large house. Tax avoidance?? I'm sure our only motivation is the envy of the wealthy.............

I don't believe you have done anything wrong in paying in cash.  The recipient of that cash may have done something wrong if he/she didn't declare that income (for both VAT and business/income tax/NI purposes).  That would be evasion - which is illegal, not avoidance, which is legal.

[Scully]

I suppose the reaction of those ‘door stepped’ is an indication of how they regard how wrong ( or not ) it is.

I would have preferred an accused to  face their accuser and ask them ‘ is that illegal?’ instead of hiding in the toilet. 

When Ken Dodd was done for tax evasion everyone laughed; when Jimmy Carr etc were accosted for tax avoidance everyone was outraged. 

Funny old world.