Would you scalp George Osborne

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.

That would be fair and I would be happy with that.

We've disagreed on the question of a flat rate before so theres no point going over old ground.

The key phrase is 'taxable income'

Clever people from all social classes employ accountants to minimise this figure. It is entirely legal and moral, however your fellow posters don't seem to grasp this.

UpTheWall

Sketchley wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

@W1, I think you're undermining the validity of your position by banging on about ISAs as tax avoidance. That clearly isn't the type of situation that was being discussed, as has been pointed out succinctly above. Although, I would suggest that anybody with a spare £10,000 to invest on an annual basis arguably amounts to being, if not "rich" then at least "well off".

The whole accounting industry, looking at ways to help people avoid paying tax, is in my opinion morally dubious. If people just paid the tax that they were intended to pay (rather than look for increasingly convoluted ways to avoid paying it) we could have a much simpler and transparent system which would also in all probability end up being a lot fairer. Of course, this will never happen - people are too greedy, and its easy to point to the inherent unfairness of the existing tax system on the rich if they didn't seek to avoid.

Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.

You sound just like George Osborne
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4220838.stm
Mr Osborne says he wants to see the UK moving towards "a simpler tax system which is simple to understand, where there are no loop-holes, where the very rich do not avoid tax by employing expensive accountants".
"I am fully conscious that we may not be able to introduce a pure flat tax, but we may be able to move towards simpler and flatter taxes," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"What I am really talking about is removing a lot of the complexity from the tax system - a lot of the reliefs and exemptions - in return for either a lower rate or a bigger tax allowance.

Just because someone from the tory party describes a policy idea, doesn't make it right or wrong.

Let's listen to the idea rather than the messenger. Double that to the dude who's quoting the bnp

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

Adding words of certainty to your posts such as 'absolutely' does not make it anymore convincing. I for one don't agree with the position. My understanding of an ISA is a vehicle designed by government for people to reduce their tax burden - investing in one and paying less tax is its purpose. Using one is doing what the government wants you to do and they have therefore provided the means to do it. Tax avoidance is using vehicles not created to reduce tax burden to avoid tax. The expertise to do this can be expensive and thus is generally the domain of wealthier individuals.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

Well it could be argued that ISAs were explicitly designed to appeal to a broader range of the population, to replace financial products that could be claimed to be exclusively for the benefit of the middle classes. If that isn't a nod to the fact that its easier for the better off to avoid tax than those on a more subsistence wage then I'm not sure what is. :P

UpTheWall

On a lighter cuts-related note:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 010223185/

UpTheWall

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

Well it could be argued that ISAs were explicitly designed to appeal to a broader range of the population, to replace financial products that could be claimed to be exclusively for the benefit of the middle classes. If that isn't a nod to the fact that its easier for the better off to avoid tax than those on a more subsistence wage then I'm not sure what is. :P

Eh? You don't have to fill your allowance. You could put in a fiver a month if you wanted.

DonDaddyD

UpTheWall wrote:

I do like your policy. A more equitable approach indeed. The same amount across the board; I guess you're implying people wouldn't want to "dodge" so much with such a scheme?

And as for inheritance tax, I agree. Being taxed on income that's already been taxed is quite egregious I think.

People dodge because of things like inheritance tax, which is just a vile, insulting and sickening thing.

I do think people would try to avoid a flat tax rate less. Its easier to monitor, surely. You work, where is your 27% tax then.

DDD - even the most radical right wing Tory MP would not seriously suggest such a radical and regressive tax structure. You are as right wing as they come!

Am I? I seem to drift between the left and right depending on concepts.

But I don't see why I should pay a higher percentage of tax simply because I worked hard to earn more.

I went to school with people who had no intention of working, ever, not in school and not in life. So for my efforts of making something of myself I must now pay more tax to subsidise these people.

Sure if you're disabled and/or unfit to work then I've got no problem with those who seek and rely on benefits. But the bone-idle who have been since Secondary School. I have no patience for those who seem to think society and the hardworking owes them some great debt because they f*cked up their lives.

bigmat

Sketchley wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

@W1, I think you're undermining the validity of your position by banging on about ISAs as tax avoidance. That clearly isn't the type of situation that was being discussed, as has been pointed out succinctly above. Although, I would suggest that anybody with a spare £10,000 to invest on an annual basis arguably amounts to being, if not "rich" then at least "well off".

The whole accounting industry, looking at ways to help people avoid paying tax, is in my opinion morally dubious. If people just paid the tax that they were intended to pay (rather than look for increasingly convoluted ways to avoid paying it) we could have a much simpler and transparent system which would also in all probability end up being a lot fairer. Of course, this will never happen - people are too greedy, and its easy to point to the inherent unfairness of the existing tax system on the rich if they didn't seek to avoid.

Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.

You sound just like George Osborne
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4220838.stm
Mr Osborne says he wants to see the UK moving towards "a simpler tax system which is simple to understand, where there are no loop-holes, where the very rich do not avoid tax by employing expensive accountants".
"I am fully conscious that we may not be able to introduce a pure flat tax, but we may be able to move towards simpler and flatter taxes," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"What I am really talking about is removing a lot of the complexity from the tax system - a lot of the reliefs and exemptions - in return for either a lower rate or a bigger tax allowance.

That's a first! Hopefully I won't now be branded as part of the "loony left"!

secretsam

W1 wrote:

There are also a large number of respected economists who completely agree. Like the IMF.

Technically, the IMF is an organisation not an individual Economist - and the cuts outlined on Weds go considerably beyond those that the IMF felt were necessary.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

We've disagreed on the question of a flat rate before so theres no point going over old ground.

WOAH!

Massive internet naivety alert!

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

We've disagreed on the question of a flat rate before so theres no point going over old ground.

WOAH!

Massive internet naivety alert!

What we have here is failure to communicate. There are some men you just can't reach



So

Free Willy versus Jaws?

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.

That would be fair and I would be happy with that.

We've disagreed on the question of a flat rate before so theres no point going over old ground.

The key phrase is 'taxable income'

Clever people from all social classes employ accountants to minimise this figure. It is entirely legal and moral, however your fellow posters don't seem to grasp this.

I have no issue with anyone who is smart enough to find a loop hole in the tax system to protect their own earnings.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I hate taxes, I don't hate those smart enough or who are brave enough to try and avoid it. There are no morals in business. Biggest shark wins, thems the rules.

secretsam

W1 wrote:

Living off the state as a way of life (either on welfare or by having a non-job in the public sector) is completely unacceptable

I agree that there are probably a small proportion of people being supported by benefits who are genuine 'scroungers', although the vast majority would no doubt prefer the dignity of work if the economics of working were more supportive - eg if child care costs didn't wipe out the difference between working income and benefits. This is something that should have been addressed long ago.

As for the comment about the public sector, I think that this is ill informed, as in my experience, most public servants are dedicated and in many cases extremely hard working, delivering considerably more hours than those for which they are contracted, and doing so in an environment where the culture is such that the public that they serve are positively encouraged to attack them, regardless of how valuable the work is that they deliver.

I'm sure you aren't, for example, including the following essential members of our society as being public sector non-jobs:
-Fire officers
-Police officers
-Nurses & doctors
-Social workers

All of whose jobs will be under threat as a result of the CSR. Bear in mind also that the majority of the deficit as it stands now has nothing to do with the public sector expenditure, but is rather the result of the evil, wasteful state having to bail out the efficient, benevolent private sector banks when they got into the brown stuff. However, what has also been conveniently lost in all the hateful rhetoric against the public sector recently has been that this same expenditure is actually an investment in an asset, which will at a later stage be sold - thereby paying off the debt and possibly making a profit.

BTW - I work in the private sector.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

@W1, I think you're undermining the validity of your position by banging on about ISAs as tax avoidance. That clearly isn't the type of situation that was being discussed, as has been pointed out succinctly above. Although, I would suggest that anybody with a spare £10,000 to invest on an annual basis arguably amounts to being, if not "rich" then at least "well off".

The whole accounting industry, looking at ways to help people avoid paying tax, is in my opinion morally dubious. If people just paid the tax that they were intended to pay (rather than look for increasingly convoluted ways to avoid paying it) we could have a much simpler and transparent system which would also in all probability end up being a lot fairer. Of course, this will never happen - people are too greedy, and its easy to point to the inherent unfairness of the existing tax system on the rich if they didn't seek to avoid.

Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

And drawing a distinctiion between using ISAs and "the type of situtation that is being discussed" (but which remains unspecified) is being disingenous. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance. How much tax is avoided when using ISAs comared to using off-shore accounts for example?

And again what tax someone is supposed to pay will depend on how the tax legistlation is drafted. That's the only "intention" there is, not some moral or "spirit" because that isn't how laws work - that would be completely impossible. It has to be done to the letter, and if it is then there can be no problem with it. If you don't like the result of the drafted legislation then the legislation has to be changed. But it's not the job of the taxpyer to volunteer to pay more tax than the law obliges them to. If you disagree I'd be interested to understand what extra taxes you pay, and why.

The term "morally dubious" infers that tax avoidance may, in some cases, be something that isn't right when viewed from a moral perspective. You can argue semantics about what is or isn't tax avoidance. As Sewinman has said, there is a difference between legislation intended to provide tax breaks for people, and creative accountancy designed to avoid paying tax the legislation intended people to pay. I'm not talking about the legal position. Yes, it may be legal, but I don't think its right. And why should the average man in the street have to pay yet more tax to fund costly legislative changes to close these loopholes?

Not sure what you mean by what "extra" taxes I pay. My tax situation is pretty simple. I earn money. I pay tax on it. I benefit from a small number of tax breaks (pension contributions, childcare vouchers, cycle2work) that were implemented by the government with the intention of people taking advantage of them. I'm not finding any of your "truths" uncomfortable.

secretsam

DonDaddyD wrote:

On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.

Technically, that's actually the most efficient and equitable tax regime - a single tax rate with high personal allowances, meaning many people simply pay little or no tax, but everyone else pays the same proportion. Easier and cheaper to administer, also.

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.

That would be fair and I would be happy with that.

I do like your policy. A more equitable approach indeed. The same amount across the board; I guess you're implying people wouldn't want to "dodge" so much with such a scheme?

Flat tax would probably work, but it's a massive vote loser as it's complex to understnad. No-one has the balls to implement it.

Surely one rate of tax is less complex?

What I meant was that it's a hard sell for a government to introduce - on the face of it, it's tax breaks for the rich and tax increases for the poor.

secretsam

"W1 wrote:

What I meant was that it's a hard sell for a government to introduce - on the face of it, it's tax breaks for the rich and tax increases for the poor.

See my earlier post - not if coupled with high personal allowances and a high rate of tax - higher than the nominal 27% suggested by DDD.

As our American cousins would say, "you do the math" - give a tax-free allowance of (say) £15-20k, then tax at around 40% over that. Lower wage people pay little, the more you earn, the more you pay.

And before anyone says that the principle of paying more tax as you earn more isn't fair, well it's called redistribution and is all about balancing society - provide a decent living wage and you reduce crime, social disorder, problems associated with deprivation such as teenage pregnancy, improve general health, etc. etc. etc. Most political parties in this country subscribe to this view in some way - it's the way that they seek to acheive this goal that differs.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

Adding words of certainty to your posts such as 'absolutely' does not make it anymore convincing. I for one don't agree with the position. My understanding of an ISA is a vehicle designed by government for people to reduce their tax burden - investing in one and paying less tax is its purpose. Using one is doing what the government wants you to do and they have therefore provided the means to do it. Tax avoidance is using vehicles not created to reduce tax burden to avoid tax. The expertise to do this can be expensive and thus is generally the domain of wealthier individuals.

I think it would be helpful if you're more specific about what you mean.

My position is as I have stated above - legislation is drafted by the government, if that legislation provides for tax to be paid, it should be paid. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't. There is no middle ground. That applies to what you consider to be intended tax breaks as much as unintended onces (wahtever they may be). You can't start adding the "spirit" of the law because the whole point of legisltation is that it should be clear, unambiguous and appplicable to all. it's impossible on that basis to try and determine what is "intended" by legisltation if it doesn't actually say it, because where would that end?

You can't side step the fact that if you chose to invest in an ISA you avoid paying tax that would otherwise be payable had you not made that election.

W1

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

@W1, I think you're undermining the validity of your position by banging on about ISAs as tax avoidance. That clearly isn't the type of situation that was being discussed, as has been pointed out succinctly above. Although, I would suggest that anybody with a spare £10,000 to invest on an annual basis arguably amounts to being, if not "rich" then at least "well off".

The whole accounting industry, looking at ways to help people avoid paying tax, is in my opinion morally dubious. If people just paid the tax that they were intended to pay (rather than look for increasingly convoluted ways to avoid paying it) we could have a much simpler and transparent system which would also in all probability end up being a lot fairer. Of course, this will never happen - people are too greedy, and its easy to point to the inherent unfairness of the existing tax system on the rich if they didn't seek to avoid.

Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

And drawing a distinctiion between using ISAs and "the type of situtation that is being discussed" (but which remains unspecified) is being disingenous. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance. How much tax is avoided when using ISAs comared to using off-shore accounts for example?

And again what tax someone is supposed to pay will depend on how the tax legistlation is drafted. That's the only "intention" there is, not some moral or "spirit" because that isn't how laws work - that would be completely impossible. It has to be done to the letter, and if it is then there can be no problem with it. If you don't like the result of the drafted legislation then the legislation has to be changed. But it's not the job of the taxpyer to volunteer to pay more tax than the law obliges them to. If you disagree I'd be interested to understand what extra taxes you pay, and why.

The term "morally dubious" infers that tax avoidance may, in some cases, be something that isn't right when viewed from a moral perspective. You can argue semantics about what is or isn't tax avoidance. As Sewinman has said, there is a difference between legislation intended to provide tax breaks for people, and creative accountancy designed to avoid paying tax the legislation intended people to pay. I'm not talking about the legal position. Yes, it may be legal, but I don't think its right. And why should the average man in the street have to pay yet more tax to fund costly legislative changes to close these loopholes?

Not sure what you mean by what "extra" taxes I pay. My tax situation is pretty simple. I earn money. I pay tax on it. I benefit from a small number of tax breaks (pension contributions, childcare vouchers, cycle2work) that were implemented by the government with the intention of people taking advantage of them. I'm not finding any of your "truths" uncomfortable.

|See my response to Sewinman above - there is no space for designating one man's action as morally dubious. The law should be clear, if it's not then that is the fault of the drafters. There is no difference between you chosing to take advantage of avoiding some tax through the cycle to work scheme than there is to someone paying themselves a dividend rather than a salary as there is less tax to pay on the former than the latter.

"Right" doesn't come into it - it's impossible for people to live under laws that are badly drafted but instead behave in a way that is "right". And who determines that is "right" or not?

It's a hypocritical stance to compain about those who mitigate their tax payments as much as is allowed in law, when you are equally taking advantage of full tax mitigation yourself. Or is that OK because they're the "rich"?

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

We've disagreed on the question of a flat rate before so theres no point going over old ground.

WOAH!

Massive internet naivety alert!

What we have here is failure to communicate. There are some men you just can't reach



So

Free Willy versus Jaws?

I'll send you the Sharktopus series 1 box set. When I'm done with it. There's a ton of stuff waiting to be debated in that.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

Adding words of certainty to your posts such as 'absolutely' does not make it anymore convincing. I for one don't agree with the position. My understanding of an ISA is a vehicle designed by government for people to reduce their tax burden - investing in one and paying less tax is its purpose. Using one is doing what the government wants you to do and they have therefore provided the means to do it. Tax avoidance is using vehicles not created to reduce tax burden to avoid tax. The expertise to do this can be expensive and thus is generally the domain of wealthier individuals.

I think it would be helpful if you're more specific about what you mean.

My position is as I have stated above - legislation is drafted by the government, if that legislation provides for tax to be paid, it should be paid. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't. There is no middle ground. That applies to what you consider to be intended tax breaks as much as unintended onces (wahtever they may be). You can't start adding the "spirit" of the law because the whole point of legisltation is that it should be clear, unambiguous and appplicable to all. it's impossible on that basis to try and determine what is "intended" by legisltation if it doesn't actually say it, because where would that end?

You can't side step the fact that if you chose to invest in an ISA you avoid paying tax that would otherwise be payable had you not made that election.

If you don't use an ISA you are paying tax that you are not required to pay. The purpose of them is to not pay tax, so you are not avoiding anything as its not a requirement to pay on that proportion of annual investments. If you don't use one and invest that amount outside of an ISA structure you are over paying tax. It is tax mitigation.

Tax avoidance is using legislation or legal structures/vehicles to avoid tax when it was not the intention of the legislature or HMRC for it to be used to pay less tax. Perfectly legal, but just not cricket.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

@W1, I think you're undermining the validity of your position by banging on about ISAs as tax avoidance. That clearly isn't the type of situation that was being discussed, as has been pointed out succinctly above. Although, I would suggest that anybody with a spare £10,000 to invest on an annual basis arguably amounts to being, if not "rich" then at least "well off".

The whole accounting industry, looking at ways to help people avoid paying tax, is in my opinion morally dubious. If people just paid the tax that they were intended to pay (rather than look for increasingly convoluted ways to avoid paying it) we could have a much simpler and transparent system which would also in all probability end up being a lot fairer. Of course, this will never happen - people are too greedy, and its easy to point to the inherent unfairness of the existing tax system on the rich if they didn't seek to avoid.

Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

And drawing a distinctiion between using ISAs and "the type of situtation that is being discussed" (but which remains unspecified) is being disingenous. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance. How much tax is avoided when using ISAs comared to using off-shore accounts for example?

And again what tax someone is supposed to pay will depend on how the tax legistlation is drafted. That's the only "intention" there is, not some moral or "spirit" because that isn't how laws work - that would be completely impossible. It has to be done to the letter, and if it is then there can be no problem with it. If you don't like the result of the drafted legislation then the legislation has to be changed. But it's not the job of the taxpyer to volunteer to pay more tax than the law obliges them to. If you disagree I'd be interested to understand what extra taxes you pay, and why.

The term "morally dubious" infers that tax avoidance may, in some cases, be something that isn't right when viewed from a moral perspective. You can argue semantics about what is or isn't tax avoidance. As Sewinman has said, there is a difference between legislation intended to provide tax breaks for people, and creative accountancy designed to avoid paying tax the legislation intended people to pay. I'm not talking about the legal position. Yes, it may be legal, but I don't think its right. And why should the average man in the street have to pay yet more tax to fund costly legislative changes to close these loopholes?

Not sure what you mean by what "extra" taxes I pay. My tax situation is pretty simple. I earn money. I pay tax on it. I benefit from a small number of tax breaks (pension contributions, childcare vouchers, cycle2work) that were implemented by the government with the intention of people taking advantage of them. I'm not finding any of your "truths" uncomfortable.

|See my response to Sewinman above - there is no space for designating one man's action as morally dubious. The law should be clear, if it's not then that is the fault of the drafters. There is no difference between you chosing to take advantage of avoiding some tax through the cycle to work scheme than there is to someone paying themselves a dividend rather than a salary as there is less tax to pay on the former than the latter.

"Right" doesn't come into it - it's impossible for people to live under laws that are badly drafted but instead behave in a way that is "right". And who determines that is "right" or not?

It's a hypocritical stance to compain about those who mitigate their tax payments as much as is allowed in law, when you are equally taking advantage of full tax mitigation yourself. Or is that OK because they're the "rich"?

I disagree with your last two responses. The law is almost never "clear" otherwise there would be little need for lawyers. And the drafters who you purport to blame are constantly chasing their tail as an entire industry has developed around getting their clients to avoid making the payments that the legislation intended they should pay. That is clearly a different situation to the examples you have just provided. Anyway, I'm talking on a hypothetical basis - get rid of the Cycle2Work scheme (boo hoo!) by all means, although I think you're missing the point there (except you aren't, of course, its just easy to spin out your rubbish argument than to actually accept that there might be a valid opinion other than your own). I think the truth is that we are viewing the same situation from a very different perspective, but please don't tell me there is "no space for designating one man's action as morally dubious" because there is, for the reasons I and others have given.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.

Adding words of certainty to your posts such as 'absolutely' does not make it anymore convincing. I for one don't agree with the position. My understanding of an ISA is a vehicle designed by government for people to reduce their tax burden - investing in one and paying less tax is its purpose. Using one is doing what the government wants you to do and they have therefore provided the means to do it. Tax avoidance is using vehicles not created to reduce tax burden to avoid tax. The expertise to do this can be expensive and thus is generally the domain of wealthier individuals.

I think it would be helpful if you're more specific about what you mean.

My position is as I have stated above - legislation is drafted by the government, if that legislation provides for tax to be paid, it should be paid. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't. There is no middle ground. That applies to what you consider to be intended tax breaks as much as unintended onces (wahtever they may be). You can't start adding the "spirit" of the law because the whole point of legisltation is that it should be clear, unambiguous and appplicable to all. it's impossible on that basis to try and determine what is "intended" by legisltation if it doesn't actually say it, because where would that end?

You can't side step the fact that if you chose to invest in an ISA you avoid paying tax that would otherwise be payable had you not made that election.

If you don't use an ISA you are paying tax that you are not required to pay. The purpose of them is to not pay tax, so you are not avoiding anything as its not a requirement to pay on that proportion of annual investments. If you don't use one and invest that amount outside of an ISA structure you are over paying tax. It is tax mitigation.

Tax avoidance is using legislation or legal structures/vehicles to avoid tax when it was not the intention of the legislature or HMRC for it to be used to pay less tax. Perfectly legal, but just not cricket.

Then it's up to HMRC and the legislation to sort it out - it's not for the individual to elect to pay more tax than they are obliged to, any more than it should be considered to be immoral to take advantage of duty free allowances, ISAs and pension contributuions.

Tax avoidance and tax mitigation are exactly the same thing. If the law doesn't oblige you to pay tax, there is no secondary "moral" obligation to voluntarily overpay.

DonDaddyD

I think the ISA = tax avoidance = bad, argument absurd.

It was put in place to give the public the opportunity to save tax free.

You don't win the moral points for choosing not to use one. You just appear more stupid.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think the ISA = tax avoidance = bad, argument absurd.

It was put in place to give the public the opportunity to save tax free.

You don't win the moral points for choosing not to use one. You just appear more stupid.

The same could be said for any and all tax mitigation.

The legislation must be able to be taken at face value.

I don't think using an ISA is "bad" but I don't think any legitimate form of tax mitigation is bad either. If someone isn't obliged to pay the tax by law, but that is what was "intended" then the drafting needs to be tighter. It's no good having some loose concept of "moral" and "immoral" tax mitigation.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

It's no good having some loose concept of "moral" and "immoral" tax mitigation.

Yes it is.

A 'loose' concept allows for the moral tax avoidance and immoral tax evasion. It also allows for tax circumstances to be dealt with both as a generall rule applicable to all and on a case by case basis.

beverick

SecretSam wrote:

W1 wrote:

Living off the state as a way of life (either on welfare or by having a non-job in the public sector) is completely unacceptable

Bear in mind also that the majority of the deficit as it stands now has nothing to do with the public sector expenditure, but is rather the result of the evil, wasteful state having to bail out the efficient, benevolent private sector banks when they got into the brown stuff. However, what has also been conveniently lost in all the hateful rhetoric against the public sector recently has been that this same expenditure is actually an investment in an asset, which will at a later stage be sold - thereby paying off the debt and possibly making a profit.

I don't think that's true. For the majority of Labour's tenure the public sector borrowing requirement has been around £30bn per anum- ie the cost of providing publicly funded services has been £30bn greater each year than the monies available to provide them.

Since 1997 we have been living beyond our means and relying on the wealth of the country to mask the fact that we were having to borrow - and increasingly heavily - to fund public services. GB managed to mask the effect to greater and lesser extents by taxing the oil companies, plundering the pension funds and selling radio spectrum in the early years but, since 2001 we've been on a debt spiral - it's just it took the near collpase of the financial systems to highlight it.

Even without the recession we'd still have a debt of £400m+ and a substantial deficit feeding it.

In the meantime, it has cost a similar amount to keep the banks afloat but, as you say, we will at least get a large percentage of that money back but, in the meantime, the PSBR will still be out of control.

Bob

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's no good having some loose concept of "moral" and "immoral" tax mitigation.

Yes it is.

A 'loose' concept allows for the moral tax avoidance and immoral tax evasion. It also allows for tax circumstances to be dealt with both as a generall rule applicable to all and on a case by case basis.

Tax evasion is illegal, morality doesn't come into it. Avoidance and evasion are completely different concepts (as you no doubt know).

W1

MatHammond wrote:

I disagree with your last two responses. The law is almost never "clear" otherwise there would be little need for lawyers. And the drafters who you purport to blame are constantly chasing their tail as an entire industry has developed around getting their clients to avoid making the payments that the legislation intended they should pay. That is clearly a different situation to the examples you have just provided. Anyway, I'm talking on a hypothetical basis - get rid of the Cycle2Work scheme (boo hoo!) by all means, although I think you're missing the point there (except you aren't, of course, its just easy to spin out your rubbish argument than to actually accept that there might be a valid opinion other than your own). I think the truth is that we are viewing the same situation from a very different perspective, but please don't tell me there is "no space for designating one man's action as morally dubious" because there is, for the reasons I and others have given.

Interesting edit (mod?).

You've completely ignored much of what I've said.

How would you propose to deal with what people should be obliged to pay as taxes unless the law is clear? Should we just leave it to you to determine the right "moral" tax? of course not, that would be as absured as much of what you say above. So there has to be a sysmtem of rules. If there are loopholes then they need to be filled, otherwise the only conclusion is that they were meant to be there (much like an ISA is meant to reduce the tax burden).

As I say, if you volunteer to pay more than you are required to, more fool you. If you don't, and you only pay the minimum you are required to, then you can't complain when others do the same, except on a very highly dubious (and compltely unworkable) "matthammond fair tax test" basis.

Will I need to repeat myself again or do you get it yet?

W1

beverick wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

W1 wrote:

Living off the state as a way of life (either on welfare or by having a non-job in the public sector) is completely unacceptable

Bear in mind also that the majority of the deficit as it stands now has nothing to do with the public sector expenditure, but is rather the result of the evil, wasteful state having to bail out the efficient, benevolent private sector banks when they got into the brown stuff. However, what has also been conveniently lost in all the hateful rhetoric against the public sector recently has been that this same expenditure is actually an investment in an asset, which will at a later stage be sold - thereby paying off the debt and possibly making a profit.

I don't think that's true. For the majority of Labour's tenure the public sector borrowing requirement has been around £30bn per anum- ie the cost of providing publicly funded services has been £30bn greater each year than the monies available to provide them.

Since 1997 we have been living beyond our means and relying on the wealth of the country to mask the fact that we were having to borrow - and increasingly heavily - to fund public services. GB managed to mask the effect to greater and lesser extents by taxing the oil companies, plundering the pension funds and selling radio spectrum in the early years but, since 2001 we've been on a debt spiral - it's just it took the near collpase of the financial systems to highlight it.

Even without the recession we'd still have a debt of £400m+ and a substantial deficit feeding it.

In the meantime, it has cost a similar amount to keep the banks afloat but, as you say, we will at least get a large percentage of that money back but, in the meantime, the PSBR will still be out of control.

Bob

Don't forget selling all the nation's gold at the bottom of the market.