Would you scalp George Osborne

notsoblue

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.

Is anyone actually arguing that ISAs are bad?

bigmat

W1 wrote:

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?

That was me with the edit - after reflection I decided the previous version was a bit unnecessary. Apologies for that. I can't decide whether you have misread my posts or are deliberately ignoring the bits you can't validly argue against. The tax system is a bit "chicken and egg". It has become extremely complicated in an increasingly desperate attempt to get tax revenue, which in my opinion is in no small part due to the tax evasion methods being utilised by large parts of the tax paying population. Do people do this because the system is unfair? Or has the system become so complex as a result of people's tax avoidance? What is clear is that a whole industry has developed around it and that is, in my view, "morally dubious".

What I have said is that in my opinion it would be preferable to have a simpler system, with fewer opportunities for tax avoidance. I'm not sure in what way this is inconsistent with your own position? What you are "required" to pay is, in my opinion, what was intended when the legislation was drafted, not the minimum that is possible by using extremely intelligent (and wasted) minds to come up with clever ways to play the system. As I have said, we clearly have diametriclaly opposed views on this (I'm getting the impression you may have a vested interest?) but please don't suggest my views are "absurd" just because you disagree with them.

davmaggs

I thought that I'd chip in the fact that all avoidance schemes have to reported to HMRC, so they are aware of them and they can choose whether to close them.

Sometimes as much as it pains us PAYE gimps HMG has to take a pragmatic decision and not close the loop holes. Many big name firms started leaving the UK during GBs tenure and billions of pounds in revenue went to other countries. Admittedly this excuse could be overplayed, but on large sums of money it becomes worthwhile to move nation.

Personally I would tax the word "fair" and "unfair" along with "progressive" at £1 a time to raise funds. These meaningless terms are thrown about as they are nice and nebulous.

bigmat

davmaggs wrote:

Personally I would tax the word "fair" and "unfair" along with "progressive" at £1 a time to raise funds. These meaningless terms are thrown about as they are nice and nebulous.

Agreed - that's £3 you owe for starters!

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

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.

They consistently do close the loop holes, but there is an entire profession dedicated to finding new ones. If you wish to ignore your moral compass for your own gain and exploit a lack of law until government to tell you what not to do - then so be it, but it seems a sad state of affairs and to my mind not very British.

motdoc

Hi,
I'm a GP and i don't think the NHS should be ring fenced.
We piss loads of money away.
I blame the patients.

tailwindhome

Sewinman wrote:

They consistently do close the loop holes, but there is an entire profession dedicated to finding new ones. If you wish to ignore your moral compass for your own gain and exploit a lack of law until government to tell you what not to do - then so be it, but it seems a sad state of affairs and to my mind not very British.

I think you'll find that the ethical integrity of the British accounting profession is held in very high regard throughout the world.

Sewinman

TailWindHome wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

They consistently do close the loop holes, but there is an entire profession dedicated to finding new ones. If you wish to ignore your moral compass for your own gain and exploit a lack of law until government to tell you what not to do - then so be it, but it seems a sad state of affairs and to my mind not very British.

I think you'll find that the ethical integrity of the British accounting profession is held in very high regard throughout the world.

Oh that is alright then, sorry. Silly me.

tailwindhome

There's some fella calling himself Sewingman over on the Johnny Foreigner thread complaining about generalisations based on nationality.

Any relation?

Sewinman

TailWindHome wrote:

There's some fella calling himself Sewingman over on the Johnny Foreigner thread complaining about generalisations based on nationality.

Any relation?

I will grant you that small victory, touche.

W1

MatHammond wrote:

What I have said is that in my opinion it would be preferable to have a simpler system, with fewer opportunities for tax avoidance. I'm not sure in what way this is inconsistent with your own position? What you are "required" to pay is, in my opinion, what was intended when the legislation was drafted, not the minimum that is possible by using extremely intelligent (and wasted) minds to come up with clever ways to play the system. As I have said, we clearly have diametriclaly opposed views on this (I'm getting the impression you may have a vested interest?) but please don't suggest my views are "absurd" just because you disagree with them.

I agree that a simpler system is preferable. I think tax mitigation specialists and the government are somewhat both to blame but it is, I agree, a "chicken and egg" scenario. But without poorly considered legislation and ambiguous drafting you wouldn't have loopholes. And, as pointed out above, these loopholes have to be declared to HMRC by law - so, in effect, you are paying your expensive accountants to tell HMRC how to get more tax out of you (i.e. to do their job properly).

What is "intended" by the legislation must be reflected in that legislation. That is just a pragmatic fact. Short of going to Hansard to carefully consider every law that's introduced there is no other way to obey the law unless the legislation itself puts into effect the intended consequences. If it doesn't, then that is not the fault of the person complying with the letter of the law - it's the fault of the drafting.

Whilst your views are not absurd, the concept of looking at the intention in preference to what the law actually says is just not realistic. Nor should people have to.

Unless the law is clear, it's impossible to know what you are required to actually pay, be that too much or too little.

My only vested interest is that I do not pay any more tax than I am obliged to - and from the sounds of it, that's the same for you too? And there really is nothing wrong or immoral with that.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

They consistently do close the loop holes, but there is an entire profession dedicated to finding new ones. If you wish to ignore your moral compass for your own gain and exploit a lack of law until government to tell you what not to do - then so be it, but it seems a sad state of affairs and to my mind not very British.

The problem is, I'm not sure where "moral compass" lies compared to voluntarily over-paying tax, or not making use of perfectly legal (whether intended or not) ways to mitigate the taxes you pay? Or again, is this just something for the "rich" and not (say) about buying duty free booze at the airport rather than fully taxed stuff at Tesco?

bigmat

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

What I have said is that in my opinion it would be preferable to have a simpler system, with fewer opportunities for tax avoidance. I'm not sure in what way this is inconsistent with your own position? What you are "required" to pay is, in my opinion, what was intended when the legislation was drafted, not the minimum that is possible by using extremely intelligent (and wasted) minds to come up with clever ways to play the system. As I have said, we clearly have diametriclaly opposed views on this (I'm getting the impression you may have a vested interest?) but please don't suggest my views are "absurd" just because you disagree with them.

I agree that a simpler system is preferable. I think tax mitigation specialists and the government are somewhat both to blame but it is, I agree, a "chicken and egg" scenario. But without poorly considered legislation and ambiguous drafting you wouldn't have loopholes. And, as pointed out above, these loopholes have to be declared to HMRC by law - so, in effect, you are paying your expensive accountants to tell HMRC how to get more tax out of you (i.e. to do their job properly).

What is "intended" by the legislation must be reflected in that legislation. That is just a pragmatic fact. Short of going to Hansard to carefully consider every law that's introduced there is no other way to obey the law unless the legislation itself puts into effect the intended consequences. If it doesn't, then that is not the fault of the person complying with the letter of the law - it's the fault of the drafting.

Whilst your views are not absurd, the concept of looking at the intention in preference to what the law actually says is just not realistic. Nor should people have to.

Unless the law is clear, it's impossible to know what you are required to actually pay, be that too much or too little.

My only vested interest is that I do not pay any more tax than I am obliged to - and from the sounds of it, that's the same for you too? And there really is nothing wrong or immoral with that.

Yep, like I said at the outset its a Utopian scenario I was proposing. Do we broadly agree? That's a relief...

W1

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

What I have said is that in my opinion it would be preferable to have a simpler system, with fewer opportunities for tax avoidance. I'm not sure in what way this is inconsistent with your own position? What you are "required" to pay is, in my opinion, what was intended when the legislation was drafted, not the minimum that is possible by using extremely intelligent (and wasted) minds to come up with clever ways to play the system. As I have said, we clearly have diametriclaly opposed views on this (I'm getting the impression you may have a vested interest?) but please don't suggest my views are "absurd" just because you disagree with them.

I agree that a simpler system is preferable. I think tax mitigation specialists and the government are somewhat both to blame but it is, I agree, a "chicken and egg" scenario. But without poorly considered legislation and ambiguous drafting you wouldn't have loopholes. And, as pointed out above, these loopholes have to be declared to HMRC by law - so, in effect, you are paying your expensive accountants to tell HMRC how to get more tax out of you (i.e. to do their job properly).

What is "intended" by the legislation must be reflected in that legislation. That is just a pragmatic fact. Short of going to Hansard to carefully consider every law that's introduced there is no other way to obey the law unless the legislation itself puts into effect the intended consequences. If it doesn't, then that is not the fault of the person complying with the letter of the law - it's the fault of the drafting.

Whilst your views are not absurd, the concept of looking at the intention in preference to what the law actually says is just not realistic. Nor should people have to.

Unless the law is clear, it's impossible to know what you are required to actually pay, be that too much or too little.

My only vested interest is that I do not pay any more tax than I am obliged to - and from the sounds of it, that's the same for you too? And there really is nothing wrong or immoral with that.

Yep, like I said at the outset its a Utopian scenario I was proposing. Do we broadly agree? That's a relief...

Just in tiem for beer o'clock....

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

They consistently do close the loop holes, but there is an entire profession dedicated to finding new ones. If you wish to ignore your moral compass for your own gain and exploit a lack of law until government to tell you what not to do - then so be it, but it seems a sad state of affairs and to my mind not very British.

The problem is, I'm not sure where "moral compass" lies compared to voluntarily over-paying tax, or not making use of perfectly legal (whether intended or not) ways to mitigate the taxes you pay? Or again, is this just something for the "rich" and not (say) about buying duty free booze at the airport rather than fully taxed stuff at Tesco?

I am starting to view this as futile argument - it is pretty clear why you can't see where the moral line is!

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

They consistently do close the loop holes, but there is an entire profession dedicated to finding new ones. If you wish to ignore your moral compass for your own gain and exploit a lack of law until government to tell you what not to do - then so be it, but it seems a sad state of affairs and to my mind not very British.

The problem is, I'm not sure where "moral compass" lies compared to voluntarily over-paying tax, or not making use of perfectly legal (whether intended or not) ways to mitigate the taxes you pay? Or again, is this just something for the "rich" and not (say) about buying duty free booze at the airport rather than fully taxed stuff at Tesco?

I am starting to view this as futile argument - it is pretty clear why you can't see where the moral line is!

And it's equally clear that you can't tell either!

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

They consistently do close the loop holes, but there is an entire profession dedicated to finding new ones. If you wish to ignore your moral compass for your own gain and exploit a lack of law until government to tell you what not to do - then so be it, but it seems a sad state of affairs and to my mind not very British.

The problem is, I'm not sure where "moral compass" lies compared to voluntarily over-paying tax, or not making use of perfectly legal (whether intended or not) ways to mitigate the taxes you pay? Or again, is this just something for the "rich" and not (say) about buying duty free booze at the airport rather than fully taxed stuff at Tesco?

I am starting to view this as futile argument - it is pretty clear why you can't see where the moral line is!

And it's equally clear that you can't tell either!

Bizarre, as I thought I had made it pretty clear - intended use fine, unitended use not. Basically - don't be a clever Dick.

waddlie

You know, I've never heard a white person say "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

I wonder why that is.

Jay dubbleU

Yes - scalp him, behead him, slice the top off his skull and eat his brains with a blunt spoon *:twisted:


*nothing personal - I'd do the same for any politician

*or banker

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

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.

Wait a minute

There's a SERIES?

Stevo_666

Drat - got busy saving my employer loads of tax and missed a great argument W1 has been spot on all the way through.

The 'moral obligation' to pay more tax is a transparent and rather pathetic way of governments trying to put pressure on people and companies to stump up more money because they can't write the tax rules properly. In any other situation where you pay money to another party for something there is no moral obligation to pay more. Imagine getting a quote from a builder and when you try to negotiate him down on price, he says that's immoral

Funny how so many people are sucked into this tax morality concept, although I suspect a lot of others support it because it helps keeps them in a job. Wonder how many people supporting that view on this thread are public servants or quangocrats etc?

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

Drat - got busy saving my employer loads of tax and missed a great argument W1 has been spot on all the way through.

The 'moral obligation' to pay more tax is a transparent and rather pathetic way of governments trying to put pressure on people and companies to stump up more money because they can't write the tax rules properly. In any other situation where you pay money to another party for something there is no moral obligation to pay more. Imagine getting a quote from a builder and when you try to negotiate him down on price, he says that's immoral

In my view its more like trying to negotiate on the cost of a job a family member has done for you. But then that illustrates to me just how different your view of society is to mine. We'll never agree.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Funny how so many people are sucked into this tax morality concept, although I suspect a lot of others support it becuase it helps keeps them in a job. Wonder how many people supporting that view view on this thread are public servants or quangocrats etc?

I'm neither. But now you mention it, given your implied employment, I can see why you'd not want to dwell too much on the morality of tax fiddling.

Stevo_666

notsoblue wrote:

In my view its more like trying to negotiate on the cost of a job a family member has done for you. But then that illustrates to me just how different your view of society is to mine. We'll never agree.

You're making a few assumptions about my views here. But there's more to society than just paying over cash.

notsoblue wrote:

I'm neither. But now you mention it, given your implied employment, I can see why you'd not want to dwell too much on the morality of tax fiddling.

You still don't get it. Avoidance is not fiddling and case law supports the taxpayers right to order his affairs so the taxman can't take more than is legally necessary. Tax is about rules: the only 'morality' in tax is whether you pay what you are legally obliged to do as has been said a few times before in this thread.

In any event, I don't really care for self-appointed moral guardians like you telling us what is acceptable or not. So off you trot now and pay more tax than you need to, since it makes you such a good citizen

bigmat

Stevo 666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

In my view its more like trying to negotiate on the cost of a job a family member has done for you. But then that illustrates to me just how different your view of society is to mine. We'll never agree.

You're making a few assumptions about my views here. But there's more to society than just paying over cash.

notsoblue wrote:

I'm neither. But now you mention it, given your implied employment, I can see why you'd not want to dwell too much on the morality of tax fiddling.

You still don't get it. Avoidance is not fiddling and case law supports the taxpayers right to order his affairs so the taxman can't take more than is legally necessary. Tax is about rules: the only 'morality' in tax is whether you pay what you are legally obliged to do as has been said a few times before in this thread.

In any event, I don't really care for self-appointed moral guardians like you telling us what is acceptable or not. So off you trot now and pay more tax than you need to, since it makes you such a good citizen

I'd happily pay more tax if it meant better public services and a fairer society. I find the aim of manipulating the rules to pay as little as possible as morally dubious. It's not a question of paying "more than I have to", its a question of paying "as much as I'm supposed to".

Stevo_666

MatHammond wrote:

[Bangs head gently against brick wall]

Mat, read my point about moral guardians again. What you're supposed to pay in tax is written in the law: the law allows you choices about how to order your tax affairs. Therefore any person or company who orders their tax affairs in line with the law is paying as much tax as they are supposed to. There is no other way of determining how much you're 'supposed' to pay. If you don't like the fact that some people or companies pay less than you think they should, lobby to change the law.

However you're free to send a cheque to the Inland Revenue for tax you don't owe. I prefer to give my voluntary extra contributions to charity, at least that way I have some say over what that money gets spent on.

As for simply chucking more money at the State to make things 'fairer' (see also comments earlier in this thread - life ain't fair) or provide better services, well I wouldn't want to deprive DDD of a new 14 page epic thread . But that one's very open for debate after the efforts of the last administration.

NGale

at the moment Jake could quite happily hit cousin George repeatedly with a shovel after the past week and what he's done to the RN.

as for me, basically I'm screwed, cost of living gone up, taxes essentially gone up, fuel gone up and my wages gone down

tailwindhome

NGale wrote:

at the moment Jake could quite happily hit cousin George repeatedly with a shovel after the past week and what he's done to the RN.

He voted for them.

NGale

he did and he would admit to that, but then lets face it Labour would have most likely have done the same. All as bad as each other at the moment.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

Bizarre, as I thought I had made it pretty clear - intended use fine, unitended use not. Basically - don't be a clever Dick.

Do you have any examples where you haven't structured your own affairs to be as tax efficient as possible? I.e. not taking advantage of every and all tax saving and mitigation?

How do you know what was "intended" by the law, if the law itself doesn't say so?

Making any large purchases before the VAT rise?

Undertaken any inheritance tax planning (or benefitted from others doing so)?

Bought any duty free booze?

Use C2W to buy a bike you don't commute on?

As I said earlier, the law itself needs to reflect the intentions behind it, unless you trawl Hansard for every decision you make to ensure that what you're doing is within the "spirit" of the law. How are you supposed to know what is "intended" by the law unless the law iteself makes that clear?

It seems very easy to castigate those who appear to pay less tax than you think they ought to, it's less easy to come up with examples where you pay more tax than you are obliged to yourself.....

Do you have any examples of these immoral typres where you would have not done what they (legally) did?

The Rookie

NGale wrote:

. All as bad as each other at the moment.

Or as good? The deficit is unsustainable, that is clear fact, no-one seems to dispute that, its how much you cut and from where is the only question, it's easy to complain about specific cuts but to do that in a reasoned manner, try telling me where you would cut it from instead, otherwise all you say is just hot air.

I think the new initiative to effectively (rather than Labours £2K/week ineffective one) cap housing benefit is a great move, although no doubt there will be a handful of specific cases that make it to the press where there is an issue.

Simon