Re Occupy the Stock Exchange
Comments
-
W1 wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:I have no problem with people protesting and getting things changed. I have a problem with people scrounging off the state so they can do nothing but whinge about how life is so unfair.
You're quite happy to assume that the people protesting are jobless hippies scrounging off the state or spoiled brat teenagers to devalue what they're actually protesting about.
If that's the case, don't you think it devalues what they're protesting about? It's laughable for people who live off the hard work of others to complain about other people's wealth or income.
Do you think the majority have full time jobs and just camp out at nights or on weekends? That the "professional protesters" have a form of income from work? Or do you think, one way or another, they're being funded by someone else?
You may be shocked to hear that I have always 'paid my way' and worked yet plan to attend more protests.
You may also want to consider the fact that the cost of tax evasion by the rich dwarfs the amount claimed illegally in welfare payments. If we spent at least as much cracking down on tax evasion as we do on 'scroungers' this would be a step in the right direction.
Excellent, I hope you have a jolly time. I have also attended protests and I would never wish to have the right to protest prevented- I find the restrictions on protests at Parliament square unacceptable.
What I object to is people who contribute nothing bleating about those who are paying for them to have the time to sit around in tents all day.
.
The point of my post is that as a 'protester' I do contribute and do not, as you eloquently put it, sit around in a tent all day taking handouts."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
AidanR wrote:@W1
The tax evasion vs benefit fraud thing... well let's face it, they're trying to tackle both. Good on them.
Protesters - don't tar them all with the same brush to suit your prejudices. Last Saturday I met tons of people with jobs. One agreeable Liverpudlian chap I was talking to was planning on camping, but only 'til Thursday because that was how much time he could take off work. Yes, he cared enough about an issue that instead of going on holiday he was protesting.
The point about tax evasion is that it's a greater problem than benefit fraud, yet government spends more on trying to tackle benefit fraud.
Agree with your second point."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:The point of my post is that as a 'protester' I do contribute and do not, as you eloquently put it, sit around in a tent all day taking handouts.
Max this morning
He sells poetry in a yogurt breeding commune you fascists
Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
That's fine so long as he declares it on his tax return
Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
Greg T wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:The point of my post is that as a 'protester' I do contribute and do not, as you eloquently put it, sit around in a tent all day taking handouts.
Max this morning
He sells poetry in a yogurt breeding commune you fascists
"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
jds_1981 wrote:W1 wrote:
Not at all, I'm all for people arranging their tax affairs to reduce the amount they have to pay (although I never joined the C2W scheme as it appeared too much like a great big dodgy evasion scheme set up by HMRC with clarity like mud).
Apologies - when this topic has been raised before, those types of arguments were raised. Clearly not by you though!0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:The point about tax evasion is that it's a greater problem than benefit fraud, yet government spends more on trying to tackle benefit fraud.
& the government should probably spend more on tax evasion. I suspect it isn't as clear cut as you think though. tax matters are a hard area to tackle than the singular 'claiming too much'.
I've not had time to read the linked hmrc document yet but think evasion much harder to quantify. For instance, look at all of the court cases around IR35 & the long court battles around whether avoidance schemes are legal or not.
I suspect a lot of the money supposedly 'lost' to evasion is actually in a much greyer areaFCN 9 || FCN 50 -
AidanR wrote:@W1
To equate highly aggressive tax avoidance schemes with ISAs is utterly absurd. To define tax avoidance this broadly strips it of all meaning. You can't say that the law should be perfect, because it never has been, never will be and never could have been. There will always be unintended effects but there's a big difference between someone taking Entrepreneurs' Relief and not reinvesting it (their right, though the intention of the relief is [at least partially] to encourage reinvestment) and a team of sharp minds working out complicated ways to subvert a piece of legislation so they can sell this cunning wheeze to wealth folk. Somewhere in the middle definitions will get a bit hazy. So what? Welcome to the world.
The tax evasion vs benefit fraud thing... well let's face it, they're trying to tackle both. Good on them.
Protesters - don't tar them all with the same brush to suit your prejudices. Last Saturday I met tons of people with jobs. One agreeable Liverpudlian chap I was talking to was planning on camping, but only 'til Thursday because that was how much time he could take off work. Yes, he cared enough about an issue that instead of going on holiday he was protesting.
There are plenty of grey areas - what I am saying is that it is not for the tax payer to determine that he should be paying more tax than he thinks he should if the law isn't clear. It's up to HMRC and eventually the courts to actually determine the law. Comparing ISAs to intricate, complex off-shore tax arrangements is disingenuous because they are two extremets. However the basic principle is the same - you opt for the more tax efficient path. We all do it. There are obviously grey "personal" tax areas too - C2Wbikes that are never used to cycle to work? Duty free booze runs to france etc etc.
As to the protestors, as I say I have no problem with protests unless I'm paying for them to be there. I have no problem with the chap you cite, but let's not pretend he is the rule rather than the exception.0 -
jds_1981 wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:The point about tax evasion is that it's a greater problem than benefit fraud, yet government spends more on trying to tackle benefit fraud.
& the government should probably spend more on tax evasion. I suspect it isn't as clear cut as you think though. tax matters are a hard area to tackle than the singular 'claiming too much'.
I've not had time to read the linked hmrc document yet but think evasion much harder to quantify. For instance, look at all of the court cases around IR35 & the long court battles around whether avoidance schemes are legal or not.
I suspect a lot of the money supposedly 'lost' to evasion is actually in a much greyer area
Tax evasion is defined as 'The illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax.'
Tax avoidance is 'the minimization of tax liability by lawful methods'
I don't see how 'not paying enough' (with reference to evasion) is any 'greyer' than 'claiming too much.' (benefit fraud)."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:The point of my post is that as a 'protester' I do contribute and do not, as you eloquently put it, sit around in a tent all day taking handouts.
And, as I say, I hope you have a fun time.
I have no doubt that the make-up of the protest is different at weekends - but I wonder how those who are spending day after day living in a tent at St Pauls are managing to hold down a job at the same time. I presume that, largely, they aren't.0 -
W1 wrote:
but let's not pretend he is the rule rather than the exception.
C'mon, source?!"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:jds_1981 wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:The point about tax evasion is that it's a greater problem than benefit fraud, yet government spends more on trying to tackle benefit fraud.
& the government should probably spend more on tax evasion. I suspect it isn't as clear cut as you think though. tax matters are a hard area to tackle than the singular 'claiming too much'.
I've not had time to read the linked hmrc document yet but think evasion much harder to quantify. For instance, look at all of the court cases around IR35 & the long court battles around whether avoidance schemes are legal or not.
I suspect a lot of the money supposedly 'lost' to evasion is actually in a much greyer area
Tax evasion is defined as 'The illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax.'
Tax avoidance is 'the minimization of tax liability by lawful methods'
I don't see how 'not paying enough' (with reference to evasion) is any 'greyer' than 'claiming too much.' (benefit fraud).
The only difference is that taking money out of the system needs to include the cost of collection in the first place (i.e. the actual "cost" is more). Not paying in enough doesn't have the same additional cost.0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:
Do you really think that the majority of the protesters are heading off to work in the morning? Because when I've gone past at 8:30 there are very few people out and about. Maybe they've all gone to work already?
I suppose the ones with their heads chained to fences at Dale Farm also unlocked themselves each day to head to the office?0 -
@W1
He was the rule when people were out in their thousands, now that it's just the campers he is probably the exception, yes. But of course you can't tell just by looking! Also, there are a lack of jobs kicking around at the moment. Why shouldn't someone who can't find a job protest against the system?
I'm not saying tax avoidance isn't ubiquitous, but that doesn't make it right. Personally I believe that we should be guided not just by the letter of the law, but by our moral judgement. There are many things that we could do as they are legal, but that we shouldn't do, like cheating on a spouse. I'd argue that laws are there to help enforce our collective moral and societal system*. If we could do without the law, great, but at the other extreme it shouldn't replace our morals.
*I don't know much about the philosophy of law, so this may not be an accepted definitionBike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
W1 wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:
Do you really think that the majority of the protesters are heading off to work in the morning? Because when I've gone past at 8:30 there are very few people out and about. Maybe they've all gone to work already?
I suppose the ones with their heads chained to fences at Dale Farm also unlocked themselves each day to head to the office?
It's amazing how you have the ability to know so much about people you have never met!
Perhaps the tax office will offer you a job "That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
AidanR wrote:@W1
He was the rule when people were out in their thousands, now that it's just the campers he is probably the exception, yes. But of course you can't tell just by looking! Also, there are a lack of jobs kicking around at the moment. Why shouldn't someone who can't find a job protest against the system?
I'm not saying tax avoidance isn't ubiquitous, but that doesn't make it right. Personally I believe that we should be guided not just by the letter of the law, but by our moral judgement. There are many things that we could do as they are legal, but that we shouldn't do, like cheating on a spouse. I'd argue that laws are there to help enforce our collective moral and societal system*. If we could do without the law, great, but at the other extreme it shouldn't replace our morals.
*I don't know much about the philosophy of law, so this may not be an accepted definition
You can't rely on people to have the same morals, and therefore you can't rely on people to use their "moral judgement" in relation to tax, because you would find people paying wildly different amounts for the same income etc. So you need the law to set the benchmar. Personally, I - and the courts - have no problem with tax avoidance, because the law has an obligation to be clear so that people are aware of their responsibilities. It is not up to the tax payer to volunteer more than they owe - in that way, everyone is treated the same for the same circumstances. Those who wish to contribute more, on a moral basis, obviously have the ability to do so via charitable donations etc.0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:W1 wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:
Do you really think that the majority of the protesters are heading off to work in the morning? Because when I've gone past at 8:30 there are very few people out and about. Maybe they've all gone to work already?
I suppose the ones with their heads chained to fences at Dale Farm also unlocked themselves each day to head to the office?
It's amazing how you have the ability to know so much about people you have never met!
Perhaps the tax office will offer you a job
Am I wrong?0 -
We can't know! So we probably shouldn't speculate.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0
-
W1 wrote:Personally, I - and the courts - have no problem with tax avoidance, because the law has an obligation to be clear so that people are aware of their responsibilities.
That's not the whole story. Those who come up with tax avoidance schemes have a responsibility to pro-actively inform the government about whatever the latest wheeze they've discovered for helping their clients evade the spirit, while sticking to the letter of the law.0 -
AidanR wrote:We can't know! So we probably shouldn't speculate.
Beat me there, but yeah."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
ooermissus wrote:W1 wrote:Personally, I - and the courts - have no problem with tax avoidance, because the law has an obligation to be clear so that people are aware of their responsibilities.
That's not the whole story. Those who come up with tax avoidance schemes have a responsibility to pro-actively inform the government about whatever the latest wheeze they've discovered for helping their clients evade the spirit, while sticking to the letter of the law.
In addition to that, a general anti-avoidance rule is being considered whereby such schemes have to be pre-approved by HMRC. Not sure it'll happen, though.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
Pufftmw wrote:
That is a shame. Perhaps they'll let them into Paternoster Square now? :twisted:Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:Tax evasion is defined as 'The illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax.'
Tax avoidance is 'the minimization of tax liability by lawful methods'
I don't see how 'not paying enough' (with reference to evasion) is any 'greyer' than 'claiming too much.' (benefit fraud).
The point I was trying to make is that there are long courts cases over what tax reduction methods fall into which camp & that I suspect that HMRC overstates the amount of tax it loses to tax evasion - do a quick google for "hmrc loses tax case" & you'll see it thinks it should be getting more tax then the courts do...FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
ooermissus wrote:W1 wrote:Personally, I - and the courts - have no problem with tax avoidance, because the law has an obligation to be clear so that people are aware of their responsibilities.
That's not the whole story. Those who come up with tax avoidance schemes have a responsibility to pro-actively inform the government about whatever the latest wheeze they've discovered for helping their clients evade the spirit, while sticking to the letter of the law.
That makes them even less objectionable, not more objectionable!
If HMRC can't be arsed to shut something down when provided with evidence, on a plate, of what it is, what on earth is the "moral compass" argument for not continuing to engage in the tax avoidance scheme?0 -
They often do. This is a relatively new thing and leads to anti-avoidance provisions that shut things down. Doesn't negate the moral argument. It costs HMRC time and money to go around closing loopholes only because people insist on exploiting themBike lover and part-time cyclist.0
-
AidanR wrote:They often do. This is a relatively new thing and leads to anti-avoidance provisions that shut things down. Doesn't negate the moral argument. It costs HMRC time and money to go around closing loopholes only because people insist on exploiting them
I don't believe it is that recent - at least four years?FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
Something along those lines. Recent is an imprecise word!Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0
-
Greg66 wrote:ooermissus wrote:W1 wrote:Personally, I - and the courts - have no problem with tax avoidance, because the law has an obligation to be clear so that people are aware of their responsibilities.
That's not the whole story. Those who come up with tax avoidance schemes have a responsibility to pro-actively inform the government about whatever the latest wheeze they've discovered for helping their clients evade the spirit, while sticking to the letter of the law.
That makes them even less objectionable, not more objectionable!
If HMRC can't be arsed to shut something down when provided with evidence, on a plate, of what it is, what on earth is the "moral compass" argument for not continuing to engage in the tax avoidance scheme?
Ah yes, I'd forgotten that - you pay your snazzy accounts a fortune to save you some tax. Then, funded by your money, your accounts have to tell the enemy their plans, so they can stop you doing it. So in effect you're paying accounts to do HMRC's job for them. Terrific.0
