RBS Bankers arrested?

rjsterry

So we have one example of lower personal tax rates improving tax income in err, Russia. Anything a bit closer to home and with less of a reputation, and with a more comparable level of public spending (per capita)?

I don't think HMRC would have had five people arrested over a questionable moral approach to tax law - I'd imagine they had reasonable suspicion that tax law had been broken.

HMRC are a law enforcement agency - being a bit 'pick-and-choose' about which laws you want to uphold there W1 :P

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The general point that Stevo is making, which appears to be that we pay too much tax and that this is a problem for society because those who pay the most are upset by this, is BS. Also, repetition of the line that playing with the grey area between tax evasion and tax avoidance is moral, is also BS.

BS

Brilliant argument - it's BS because you want it to be. Who's got his fingers in his ears now

When you start reeling off modern parables that hark back to a golden age of feudalism, I call BS.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

How d'ya think?

I'd be sacked if I didn't.

They don't expect me to be honest.

Ah. So through gritted teeth while biting your tongue. Is such a thing possible :?
I appreciate your honesty here though.

daviesee

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think HMRC would have had five people arrested over a questionable moral approach to tax law - I'd imagine they had reasonable suspicion that tax law had been broken.

Nail on head.
Everything else is just personal opinions and t'internet jibber jabber.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

How d'ya think?

I'd be sacked if I didn't.

They don't expect me to be honest.

Ah. So through gritted teeth while biting your tongue. Is such a thing possible :?
I appreciate your honesty here though.

*shrugs*.

As Greg mentioned, it's not really their fault. They're given the opportunity and take it. I'd probably do the same. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I just don't think they should be given the opportunity.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But to get back to the original point, what some of you are doing here is ignoring a piece of UK law because it doesn't fit in with your views.

So the question has to be asked: do you accept the law of the land? Yes or no.

We're saying the law should be changed if that's the case.

HMRC are clearly taking a dim view of these guys' attempt to pay as little tax as possible.

No they are not taking a dim view of them trying to pay a little tax as possible, they are taking a dim view of them allegedly engaging in tax evasion. Again there is a big difference between Avoidance and Evasion.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But to get back to the original point, what some of you are doing here is ignoring a piece of UK law because it doesn't fit in with your views.

So the question has to be asked: do you accept the law of the land? Yes or no.

We're saying the law should be changed if that's the case.

HMRC are clearly taking a dim view of these guys' attempt to pay as little tax as possible.

No they are not taking a dim view of them trying to pay a little tax as possible, they are taking a dim view of them allegedly engaging in tax evasion. Again there is a big difference between Avoidance and Evasion.

Only in terms of the punishment. The aim is still the same.

MonkeyMonster

Sketchley wrote:

Again there is a big difference between Avoidance and Evasion.

and we're getting caught in a classic internet discussion point of whether the two should be the same - ie illegal.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway.

notsoblue

doublepost

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Again there is a big difference between Avoidance and Evasion.

and we're getting caught in a classic internet discussion point of whether the two should be the same - ie illegal.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway.

Totally pointless discussion point. Lawyers and accountants have no doubt made whole careers (and fortunes) debating the grey areas.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The general point that Stevo is making, which appears to be that we pay too much tax and that this is a problem for society because those who pay the most are upset by this, is BS. Also, repetition of the line that playing with the grey area between tax evasion and tax avoidance is moral, is also BS.

BS

That's not what I read him saying (at least, not in the post you replied to).

The "law" has dealt with the moral point of being tax efficient - it's therefore clearly not "BS", although in your opinion the judgement might be incorrect.

Is it BS that cutting taxes can increase the tax rate?

It was a general response to his recent posts. His pub story was quite frankly insulting. Next he'll be making the case for primae noctis.

The law doesn't dictate my morality. You can't use the example of a case of alleged tax evasion to prove that I should personally accept that tax avoidance is moral, thats BS. Furthermore, surely the Ramsey Principle shows that the government makes a distinction between not having to pay more tax than you're due to, and complex schemes specifically constructed for the means of tax avoidance/evasion?

I have no idea if cutting taxes can increase the tax rate, nobody has given an example of this working elsewhere or modeled how it would achieve that effect. So my default position on it is that the spirit of the tax system in this country is fine, as far as I'm concerned. If it can be proven (convincingly) that reducing tax rates increases government tax revenue, then I'd be an idiot to be against it. But for the moment I'm all for progressive tax system. From each according to their ability and all that...

As an aside, I think people's greedy focus on tax reduction is pretty myopic. Anecdotal evidence I've heard from Danish friends doesn't lead me to think that our societal ills in this country are down to the middle class and the rich being taxed too much. Compared to Brits, the Danes pay a ridiculous amount of tax and they're doing just fine. Better than us, some might argue.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But to get back to the original point, what some of you are doing here is ignoring a piece of UK law because it doesn't fit in with your views.

So the question has to be asked: do you accept the law of the land? Yes or no.

We're saying the law should be changed if that's the case.

HMRC are clearly taking a dim view of these guys' attempt to pay as little tax as possible.

No they are not taking a dim view of them trying to pay a little tax as possible, they are taking a dim view of them allegedly engaging in tax evasion. Again there is a big difference between Avoidance and Evasion.

Only in terms of the punishment. The aim is still the same.

I think you are being a bit blinkered on this Rick. Putting your savings in an ISA rather than a standard savings account is tax avoidance. Taxes are used as carrots as well as sticks - to encourage saving and charitable donations - and on a larger scale, to 'help out' certain sections of the economy. Films are very expensive to make, particularly in this country, so tax breaks help make the UK more competitive. The scheme has worked in that it has got wealthy people to invest in the UK film industry. That is not incompatible with a progressive tax system.

What may not have worked so well is exactly where the money has gone to, and whether the investors have benefitted more than the film industry. Judging by the fact that 5 people have been arrested, HMRC think that some were breaking the rules of the scheme, not just 'exploiting' it.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think HMRC would have had five people arrested over a questionable moral approach to tax law - I'd imagine they had reasonable suspicion that tax law had been broken.

HMRC are a law enforcement agency - being a bit 'pick-and-choose' about which laws you want to uphold there W1 :P

I don't think I am?

HMRC need to act within the law in the course of their enforcement.

If the law has been broken, that is tax evasion.

The law on tax, as previously set out, is that no-one has a moral or legal obligation to pay more tax than they are due.

HMRC are on one side of the coin, taxpayers on the other, judges in the middle.

rick_chasey

I don't think so.

There are rules and tax exemptions, and then there's exploiting said rules, against the spirit of said rules, to reduce your tax bill.

For example, that Student Loans guy who was (legally) paid his income by the state through his business rather than into his bank account, so that he wouldn't be paid the full 50% on his earnings > roughly saving him £40k a year.

That kind of thing should be stamped out.

That's different to ISAs, which the gov't has a rule for explicitly, to help people save.

Same with the films - the tax break was there to help film investment - not for complicated personal income arrangements that reduce their personal tax bill.

There's a distinction between personal income and the rest to be made.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't think so.

There are rules and tax exemptions, and then there's exploiting said rules, against the spirit of said rules, to reduce your tax bill.

For example, that Student Loans guy who was (legally) paid his income by the state through his business rather than into his bank account, so that he wouldn't be paid the full 50% on his earnings > roughly saving him £40k a year.

That kind of thing should be stamped out.

That's different to ISAs, which the gov't has a rule for explicitly, to help people save.

Same with the films - the tax break was there to help film investment - not for complicated personal income arrangements that reduce their personal tax bill.

There's a distinction between personal income and the rest to be made.

There needs to be something in it for the film investor over and above what he could get on another investment, otherwise it wouldn't be much of an incentive.

BTW, that pub story is lovely - nicely contrived for the low tax argument.

Paulie W

Sketchley wrote:

Again there is a big difference between Avoidance and Evasion.

I say "avoision"!

MonkeyMonster

rjsterry wrote:

BTW, that pub story is lovely - nicely contrived for the low tax argument.

Heard it used at uncaged monkeys alla http://robinince.com/ and yes its good to show how misunderstanding leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to riding cyclocross bikes.

sketchley

I'd agree that someone using a tax scheme legally to avoid tax but in way that is not in the spirit of why the scheme was introduced should be stopped and it normally is. If anyone intends to use such a scheme it must be declared to HMRC explaining exactly how it works. HMRC will either accept that it can be used that way legally or they will reject it is they feel it breaks tax law, if both parties disagree it goes to court and ruling is made (see Rangers). Even when HMRC accept the scheme is legal but is not in the spirit they will often change the rules to close the scheme, for example the Film Industry one was changed so that only the film production company could realises the tax efficiency and not the investor.

I think what I am saying is that what you are arguing for already happens, it just frustrating that it's a continuous game played out by both sides in an endless loop. The only way to stop it is to change tax legislation, one option for this is flat tax, another is that HMRC continue to close scheme as they become aware of them.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think HMRC would have had five people arrested over a questionable moral approach to tax law - I'd imagine they had reasonable suspicion that tax law had been broken.

HMRC are a law enforcement agency - being a bit 'pick-and-choose' about which laws you want to uphold there W1 :P

I don't think I am?

HMRC need to act within the law in the course of their enforcement.

If the law has been broken, that is tax evasion.

The law on tax, as previously set out, is that no-one has a moral or legal obligation to pay more tax than they are due.

HMRC are on one side of the coin, taxpayers on the other, judges in the middle.

You said "Well yes of course they are, HMRC want as much "in" as possible, legally or not."

I think that is somewhat at variance with the HMRC's actual remit. Your comment contrasts strongly with your apparent views on the police in, say, the threads on protests - I'm suggesting this is because the police uphold the bits of law you like, and the HMRC uphold the bits of law you don't like.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

I'd agree that someone using a tax scheme legally to avoid tax but in way that is not in the spirit of why the scheme was introduced should be stopped and it normally is. If anyone intends to use such a scheme it must be declared to HMRC explaining exactly how it works. HMRC will either accept that it can be used that way legally or they will reject it is they feel it breaks tax law, if both parties disagree it goes to court and ruling is made (see Rangers). Even when HMRC accept the scheme is legal but is not in the spirit they will often change the rules to close the scheme, for example the Film Industry one was changed so that only the film production company could realises the tax efficiency and not the investor.

I think what I am saying is that what you are arguing for already happens, it just frustrating that it's a continuous game played out by both sides in an endless loop. The only way to stop it is to change tax legislation, one option for this is flat tax, another is that HMRC continue to close scheme as they become aware of them.

For sure.

I don't think HMRC do anywhere near as much as they could to close them down though.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't think so.

There are rules and tax exemptions, and then there's exploiting said rules, against the spirit of said rules, to reduce your tax bill.

For example, that Student Loans guy who was (legally) paid his income by the state through his business rather than into his bank account, so that he wouldn't be paid the full 50% on his earnings > roughly saving him £40k a year.

That kind of thing should be stamped out.

That's different to ISAs, which the gov't has a rule for explicitly, to help people save.

Same with the films - the tax break was there to help film investment - not for complicated personal income arrangements that reduce their personal tax bill.

There's a distinction between personal income and the rest to be made.

We've been through this before.

There is no scope for a "spirit" in tax law, and no obligation (moral or otherwise) to comprehend and agree with a subjective "spirit" at all - because it varies from one person to another. That would mean two identical people would pay different amounts of tax depending on their view of the "spirit" of the law. That is madness.

As usual, people bleat about tax avoidance whilst gladly taking every opportunity to lower their own tax bill.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

I'd agree that someone using a tax scheme legally to avoid tax but in way that is not in the spirit of why the scheme was introduced should be stopped and it normally is. If anyone intends to use such a scheme it must be declared to HMRC explaining exactly how it works. HMRC will either accept that it can be used that way legally or they will reject it is they feel it breaks tax law, if both parties disagree it goes to court and ruling is made (see Rangers). Even when HMRC accept the scheme is legal but is not in the spirit they will often change the rules to close the scheme, for example the Film Industry one was changed so that only the film production company could realises the tax efficiency and not the investor.

I think what I am saying is that what you are arguing for already happens, it just frustrating that it's a continuous game played out by both sides in an endless loop. The only way to stop it is to change tax legislation, one option for this is flat tax, another is that HMRC continue to close scheme as they become aware of them.

For sure.

I don't think HMRC do anywhere near as much as they could to close them down though.

Are you serious?

In other words, you pay your accountant to tell the government how to make you pay more tax. And you still think that's exploiting the rules?

Maybe some "loopholes" are deliberate?

sketchley

Completely Serious

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/aiu/forms-tax-schemes.htm

W1

Sketchley wrote:

Completely Serious

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/aiu/forms-tax-schemes.htm

Sorry, I meant Rick.

If he believes that (a) HMRC are not rigorous enough or that (b) tax rules are set in favour of the tax avoider, he is very much mistaken.

HMRC have the widest powers of any enforcement agency - what they can do is rather scary.