1 Tax free month a year
Comments
-
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:
True. But the rich have more influence on that system than the poor. Besides, its the attitude of deference to the rich that I find irritating. Its hypocritical. Someone wilfully being a drain the state when they don't need be to is not paying their dues. The same way anyone who avoids taxes is not paying their dues. Both groups are deserving of criticism, but some people just empathise with the tax avoiders. I guess because its better to aspire to being a tax dodger than a benefit scrounger.W1 wrote:But in both cases the real criticism has to be faced toward the system that allows such possibilities to arise.
That's the whole point though - even avoiding tax you are paying "your dues" i.e. what you are due to pay. Just because you aren't voluntarily paying more, doesn't make you ripe for criticism.
And you know my view of the "influence" on the system in relation to the poor - they appear remarkably well represented, hence why benefits have become less of the safety-net, and more of a lifestyle for some.
And most people are "tax dodgers" - even you, I would suggest Mr Blue. And if you aren't, that is your (voluntary) choice. But frankly I'd rather give money to charity than voluntarily give it to the state.
W1, the problem with your argument is that the opportunities to avoid tax increase the wealthier you get. For most ordinary working people, yes there are ISAs for savings and small investments, but there is no way round the PAYE system. But once the majority of your income is "earned" outside this system, and you can afford, say, for your wife to live in Monaco, you never need pay UK taxes again.
Saying "it's legal so there's nothing wrong with it" misses the point. Just because it's legal doesn't make it fair or just.0 -
Canny Jock wrote:W1 wrote:
But frankly I'd rather give money to charity than voluntarily give it to the state.
That's interesting. Do you actually mean that you would go out of your way to avoid paying tax, but then donate what you would have paid to charity? I don't quite agree with doing that but I would admire you for your principles.
I believe in paying the tax that you should, and I don't go out of my way to exploit loopholes which I maybe could. I find the attitude of people who do the opposite selfish, with the usual arguments about it only being wasted, or unfair because others get away with it/claim benefits etc. ridiculous and pathetic excuses.
I'm with Warren Buffet on this one.
So am I selfish because I have an ISA?0 -
You either have taxes and a large benefit system
or you have massive crime and segregation (South Africa with armed guards sitting on chairs on the lawn next to the public footpath for instance).
So we pay high taxes and have 'relative' safety and crime or suffer the above.Peter0 -
HebdenBiker wrote:Canny Jock wrote:
That's interesting. Do you actually mean that you would go out of your way to avoid paying tax, but then donate what you would have paid to charity? I don't quite agree with doing that but I would admire you for your principles.W1 wrote:
But frankly I'd rather give money to charity than voluntarily give it to the state.
I believe in paying the tax that you should, and I don't go out of my way to exploit loopholes which I maybe could. I find the attitude of people who do the opposite selfish, with the usual arguments about it only being wasted, or unfair because others get away with it/claim benefits etc. ridiculous and pathetic excuses.
I'm with Warren Buffet on this one.
So am I selfish because I have an ISA?
No, didn't explain myself very well. I agree with your previous post, an ISA is available to everyone who can save.0 -
I'm not sure I buy that argument completely. Anyone can be self employed under a limited company and (for example) deduct questionable expenses against their business, or take advantage of lower tax rates for dividends than income tax. In any event, you are supposing that those not on PAYE are automatically richer than paid employees, which again is not the case.HebdenBiker wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:
True. But the rich have more influence on that system than the poor. Besides, its the attitude of deference to the rich that I find irritating. Its hypocritical. Someone wilfully being a drain the state when they don't need be to is not paying their dues. The same way anyone who avoids taxes is not paying their dues. Both groups are deserving of criticism, but some people just empathise with the tax avoiders. I guess because its better to aspire to being a tax dodger than a benefit scrounger.W1 wrote:But in both cases the real criticism has to be faced toward the system that allows such possibilities to arise.
That's the whole point though - even avoiding tax you are paying "your dues" i.e. what you are due to pay. Just because you aren't voluntarily paying more, doesn't make you ripe for criticism.
And you know my view of the "influence" on the system in relation to the poor - they appear remarkably well represented, hence why benefits have become less of the safety-net, and more of a lifestyle for some.
And most people are "tax dodgers" - even you, I would suggest Mr Blue. And if you aren't, that is your (voluntary) choice. But frankly I'd rather give money to charity than voluntarily give it to the state.
W1, the problem with your argument is that the opportunities to avoid tax increase the wealthier you get. For most ordinary working people, yes there are ISAs for savings and small investments, but there is no way round the PAYE system. But once the majority of your income is "earned" outside this system, and you can afford, say, for your wife to live in Monaco, you never need pay UK taxes again.
Saying "it's legal so there's nothing wrong with it" misses the point. Just because it's legal doesn't make it fair or just.
Sure, there are some examples of very, very wealthy people structuring their affairs in such a way as to pay a disproporionate amount of tax - but the principle remains the same - you aren't going to volunteer to pay more tax than you are legally obliged to pay, so why should they?0 -
What I meant was that if I was going to voluntarily give money to anyone, it wouldn't be the government.Canny Jock wrote:HebdenBiker wrote:Canny Jock wrote:
That's interesting. Do you actually mean that you would go out of your way to avoid paying tax, but then donate what you would have paid to charity? I don't quite agree with doing that but I would admire you for your principles.W1 wrote:
But frankly I'd rather give money to charity than voluntarily give it to the state.
I believe in paying the tax that you should, and I don't go out of my way to exploit loopholes which I maybe could. I find the attitude of people who do the opposite selfish, with the usual arguments about it only being wasted, or unfair because others get away with it/claim benefits etc. ridiculous and pathetic excuses.
I'm with Warren Buffet on this one.
So am I selfish because I have an ISA?
No, didn't explain myself very well. I agree with your previous post, an ISA is available to everyone who can save.0 -
You aren't giving it to the government. The government dictates how it is collected and redistributed on behalf of the general public. This debate has been done before I think, but for me it still comes down to whether people are going with or against the spirit of the relevant tax legislation. With ISA's, bikes for work etc the schemes have been introduced in order for people to take advantage, usually with policy reasons behind them e.g. getting people to save, exercise etc. Some of the more complicated tax avoidance measures seem to me to be attempts to "outwit" HMRC and avoid paying the amount of tax that you are supposed to. Whilst it may be legal, it isn't morally acceptable in my opinion and not something I would ever want to partake in - even if the result is that my tax bill is not as low is it technically could be. I'm sure plenty will disagree with my approach though!0
-
There is no space for the loose term of "spirit" in the law. You have a right to know and understand your obligations to the letter. Otherwise one person's "spirit" may be totally at odds with another. Ditto "supposed". How are you to know what your liability is "supposed" to be, if it doesn't say so?BigMat wrote:You aren't giving it to the government. The government dictates how it is collected and redistributed on behalf of the general public. This debate has been done before I think, but for me it still comes down to whether people are going with or against the spirit of the relevant tax legislation. With ISA's, bikes for work etc the schemes have been introduced in order for people to take advantage, usually with policy reasons behind them e.g. getting people to save, exercise etc. Some of the more complicated tax avoidance measures seem to me to be attempts to "outwit" HMRC and avoid paying the amount of tax that you are supposed to. Whilst it may be legal, it isn't morally acceptable in my opinion and not something I would ever want to partake in - even if the result is that my tax bill is not as low is it technically could be. I'm sure plenty will disagree with my approach though!
What if the criminal law was the same? It would be bonkers.
The principle is exactly the same whether you are using off-shore trusts to avoid income tax, or sticking your savings into and ISA rather than a taxabale bank account - taking a positive step, motivated only by a reduction in your tax liability. That is tax avoidance, and it is hypocritical to complain about tax avoidance based solely on the basis of scale.0 -
W1 wrote:
There is no space for the loose term of "spirit" in the law. You have a right to know and understand your obligations to the letter. Otherwise one person's "spirit" may be totally at odds with another. Ditto "supposed". How are you to know what your liability is "supposed" to be, if it doesn't say so?BigMat wrote:You aren't giving it to the government. The government dictates how it is collected and redistributed on behalf of the general public. This debate has been done before I think, but for me it still comes down to whether people are going with or against the spirit of the relevant tax legislation. With ISA's, bikes for work etc the schemes have been introduced in order for people to take advantage, usually with policy reasons behind them e.g. getting people to save, exercise etc. Some of the more complicated tax avoidance measures seem to me to be attempts to "outwit" HMRC and avoid paying the amount of tax that you are supposed to. Whilst it may be legal, it isn't morally acceptable in my opinion and not something I would ever want to partake in - even if the result is that my tax bill is not as low is it technically could be. I'm sure plenty will disagree with my approach though!
What if the criminal law was the same? It would be bonkers.
The principle is exactly the same whether you are using off-shore trusts to avoid income tax, or sticking your savings into and ISA rather than a taxabale bank account - taking a positive step, motivated only by a reduction in your tax liability. That is tax avoidance, and it is hypocritical to complain about tax avoidance based solely on the basis of scale.
The law in this country tends not to be so black and white that you can just look everything up in a book and know the answer. Apologies if that is stating the obvious. There is plenty of space for the "loose" term of "spirit of the law" if the exercise is one of taking a subjective view of the morality of tax avoidance. People's opinions will vary, I was just explaining my own. You seem to be confusing what somebody is legally entitled to do with what is morally right and proper to do. The latter will always be a subjective test.
Your last paragraph only makes sense if you completely ignore what I (and others) have said. I made no mention of scale whatsoever and can't quite see why I am being a hypocrite :? .0 -
Tax law is perfectly capable of being black and white. And if it isn't, that is the fault of the law, not those complying with it. Although there is capacity to consider the "spirit" of the law if you're looking at morality, it has no place in the enforcement or drafting of the law. As you say, people's opinions will vary - but there should be no place for opinion in relation to something that is as logical as tax calculations should be.BigMat wrote:W1 wrote:
There is no space for the loose term of "spirit" in the law. You have a right to know and understand your obligations to the letter. Otherwise one person's "spirit" may be totally at odds with another. Ditto "supposed". How are you to know what your liability is "supposed" to be, if it doesn't say so?BigMat wrote:You aren't giving it to the government. The government dictates how it is collected and redistributed on behalf of the general public. This debate has been done before I think, but for me it still comes down to whether people are going with or against the spirit of the relevant tax legislation. With ISA's, bikes for work etc the schemes have been introduced in order for people to take advantage, usually with policy reasons behind them e.g. getting people to save, exercise etc. Some of the more complicated tax avoidance measures seem to me to be attempts to "outwit" HMRC and avoid paying the amount of tax that you are supposed to. Whilst it may be legal, it isn't morally acceptable in my opinion and not something I would ever want to partake in - even if the result is that my tax bill is not as low is it technically could be. I'm sure plenty will disagree with my approach though!
What if the criminal law was the same? It would be bonkers.
The principle is exactly the same whether you are using off-shore trusts to avoid income tax, or sticking your savings into and ISA rather than a taxabale bank account - taking a positive step, motivated only by a reduction in your tax liability. That is tax avoidance, and it is hypocritical to complain about tax avoidance based solely on the basis of scale.
The law in this country tends not to be so black and white that you can just look everything up in a book and know the answer. Apologies if that is stating the obvious. There is plenty of space for the "loose" term of "spirit of the law" if the exercise is one of taking a subjective view of the morality of tax avoidance. People's opinions will vary, I was just explaining my own. You seem to be confusing what somebody is legally entitled to do with what is morally right and proper to do. The latter will always be a subjective test.
Your last paragraph only makes sense if you completely ignore what I (and others) have said. I made no mention of scale whatsoever and can't quite see why I am being a hypocrite :? .
Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.0 -
W1 wrote:
Tax law is perfectly capable of being black and white. And if it isn't, that is the fault of the law, not those complying with it. Although there is capacity to consider the "spirit" of the law if you're looking at morality, it has no place in the enforcement or drafting of the law. As you say, people's opinions will vary - but there should be no place for opinion in relation to something that is as logical as tax calculations should be.BigMat wrote:W1 wrote:
There is no space for the loose term of "spirit" in the law. You have a right to know and understand your obligations to the letter. Otherwise one person's "spirit" may be totally at odds with another. Ditto "supposed". How are you to know what your liability is "supposed" to be, if it doesn't say so?BigMat wrote:You aren't giving it to the government. The government dictates how it is collected and redistributed on behalf of the general public. This debate has been done before I think, but for me it still comes down to whether people are going with or against the spirit of the relevant tax legislation. With ISA's, bikes for work etc the schemes have been introduced in order for people to take advantage, usually with policy reasons behind them e.g. getting people to save, exercise etc. Some of the more complicated tax avoidance measures seem to me to be attempts to "outwit" HMRC and avoid paying the amount of tax that you are supposed to. Whilst it may be legal, it isn't morally acceptable in my opinion and not something I would ever want to partake in - even if the result is that my tax bill is not as low is it technically could be. I'm sure plenty will disagree with my approach though!
What if the criminal law was the same? It would be bonkers.
The principle is exactly the same whether you are using off-shore trusts to avoid income tax, or sticking your savings into and ISA rather than a taxabale bank account - taking a positive step, motivated only by a reduction in your tax liability. That is tax avoidance, and it is hypocritical to complain about tax avoidance based solely on the basis of scale.
The law in this country tends not to be so black and white that you can just look everything up in a book and know the answer. Apologies if that is stating the obvious. There is plenty of space for the "loose" term of "spirit of the law" if the exercise is one of taking a subjective view of the morality of tax avoidance. People's opinions will vary, I was just explaining my own. You seem to be confusing what somebody is legally entitled to do with what is morally right and proper to do. The latter will always be a subjective test.
Your last paragraph only makes sense if you completely ignore what I (and others) have said. I made no mention of scale whatsoever and can't quite see why I am being a hypocrite :? .
Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.
I got no ISA - result!
0 -
Thats bollocks. Most people don't save enough, government introduces things like ISA's to encourage them to save. Its social engineering. This is quite different to people playing shenanigans with their residency and remuneration so they pay as little tax as possible.W1 wrote:Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Thats bollocks. Most people don't save enough, government introduces things like ISA's to encourage them to save. Its social engineering. This is quite different to people playing shenanigans with their residency and remuneration so they pay as little tax as possible.W1 wrote:Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.
He's clearly an intelligent guy, I'm pretty sure he knows this really...0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Thats bollocks. Most people don't save enough, government introduces things like ISA's to encourage them to save. Its social engineering. This is quite different to people playing shenanigans with their residency and remuneration so they pay as little tax as possible.W1 wrote:Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.
In principle they are exactly the same.0 -
BigMat wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Thats bollocks. Most people don't save enough, government introduces things like ISA's to encourage them to save. Its social engineering. This is quite different to people playing shenanigans with their residency and remuneration so they pay as little tax as possible.W1 wrote:Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.
He's clearly an intelligent guy, I'm pretty sure he knows this really...
Must be the cognitive dissonance that makes him so grumpy then...0 -
Did you get that from wikipedia?notsoblue wrote:BigMat wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Thats bollocks. Most people don't save enough, government introduces things like ISA's to encourage them to save. Its social engineering. This is quite different to people playing shenanigans with their residency and remuneration so they pay as little tax as possible.W1 wrote:Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.
He's clearly an intelligent guy, I'm pretty sure he knows this really...
Must be the cognitive dissonance that makes him so grumpy then...
The thing is, of all those people who avoided tax by using ISAs instead paid tax on their investments, the sum would dwarf the amount of tax avoidance of a few super-wealthy individuals.0 -
W1 wrote:
Did you get that from wikipedia?notsoblue wrote:BigMat wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Thats bollocks. Most people don't save enough, government introduces things like ISA's to encourage them to save. Its social engineering. This is quite different to people playing shenanigans with their residency and remuneration so they pay as little tax as possible.W1 wrote:Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.
He's clearly an intelligent guy, I'm pretty sure he knows this really...
Must be the cognitive dissonance that makes him so grumpy then...
The thing is, of all those people who avoided tax by using ISAs instead paid tax on their investments, the sum would dwarf the amount of tax avoidance of a few super-wealthy individuals.
Yes, but then we'd have millions of people with less disposable income to put into the economy, as opposed to a handful of people who can't afford the gold tap option on their foreign bought yachts. I'd be interested to see your stats on this by the way, whenever I've looked at ISA's I've concluded that the available saving as so piddling that its not worth bothering with (although that probably says something about the level of my savings
) 0 -
If I get a chance I will take a look, but no stats to hand, it's a hunch. I doubt reliable stats even exist.BigMat wrote:W1 wrote:
Did you get that from wikipedia?notsoblue wrote:BigMat wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Thats bollocks. Most people don't save enough, government introduces things like ISA's to encourage them to save. Its social engineering. This is quite different to people playing shenanigans with their residency and remuneration so they pay as little tax as possible.W1 wrote:Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.
He's clearly an intelligent guy, I'm pretty sure he knows this really...
Must be the cognitive dissonance that makes him so grumpy then...
The thing is, of all those people who avoided tax by using ISAs instead paid tax on their investments, the sum would dwarf the amount of tax avoidance of a few super-wealthy individuals.
Yes, but then we'd have millions of people with less disposable income to put into the economy, as opposed to a handful of people who can't afford the gold tap option on their foreign bought yachts. I'd be interested to see your stats on this by the way, whenever I've looked at ISA's I've concluded that the available saving as so piddling that its not worth bothering with (although that probably says something about the level of my savings )
Don't forget that the tax savings are cumulative, so a small saving compounded year on year (if possible) can be a significant saving.0 -
Nope, I did a psychology module during my state funded time at university, actually. Thats ROI for you.W1 wrote:
Did you get that from wikipedia?notsoblue wrote:BigMat wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Thats bollocks. Most people don't save enough, government introduces things like ISA's to encourage them to save. Its social engineering. This is quite different to people playing shenanigans with their residency and remuneration so they pay as little tax as possible.W1 wrote:Detaching this from your personal opinion, my point still stands - if you use an ISA, you are in no position to criticise others' use of tax avoidance measures too.
He's clearly an intelligent guy, I'm pretty sure he knows this really...
Must be the cognitive dissonance that makes him so grumpy then...
The thing is, of all those people who avoided tax by using ISAs instead paid tax on their investments, the sum would dwarf the amount of tax avoidance of a few super-wealthy individuals.0 -
W1 wrote:The thing is, of all those people who avoided tax by using ISAs instead paid tax on their investments, the sum would dwarf the amount of tax avoidance of a few super-wealthy individuals.
ISAs? Really?
If you put 10k in an ISA @ 4%, you'd save £80/year in tax.
On the share side, everyone has 7k capital gains allowance anyway, so you'd need to rack up a number of years and some good increase in investments to ever get anywhere near benefiting from being within an ISA.
FTSE still nearly 20% below the 2000 peak. Somewhere near 40% in real terms.
0
