Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Moonbiker wrote:

Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.
s.

I'm not so please don't taint me with that brush. I work for a living.

Tarmacing drives?

He's Welsh not Irish, that's where Rick went wrong.
Running brothels. That's what he meant when he said 'properties'.

So Holly isn't so lucky after all is she?

Whaddya mean? She has a whole career in front of her.

mamba80

Robert88 wrote:

What we need is a local income tax instead of a national one. After all if the tax is paid into a pot administered by people who live a few doors away then they'd be a bit more careful what they did with it.

What's more if it was a community with lots of billionaires and the roads were full of potholes, blah, blah, it'd be a bit suspicious, no?

Yep bring on a few more well thought out ideas like that one.......

Stevo_666

Pross wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Moonbiker wrote:

Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.

The view seems to be anyone who doesn't fiddle there tax are idiots, or poor peasants.

That's the impression I am getting on here. Not many have stated that tax avoidance or evasion is UNETHICAL or IMMORAL for our society.

That's because ethics are an individual thing. Tax evasion is wrong and I haven't seen anyone on here say otherwise, it's illegal and therefore there is no grey area. Tax avoidance is legal and in some cases encouraged by the Government itself such as with ISAs, pensions and salary sacrifice schemes. So at which shade of grey should we all become outraged? The ISAs, pensions, salary sacrificing for season tickets / child care vouchers / cycle to work scheme? Claiming a tax rebate for a professional subscription or because you have to clean your work uniform? A Director paying themselves a relatively small salary and then dividends based on company performance? Someone who sets up a load of shell companies for the sole purpose of exploiting tax laws and minimising tax liability? My own level of outrage is somewhere between the last two but is directed more at the law makers who enable it to occur. I don't have an issue with a person who is operating fully within the law that allows this when it should be easy to prevent as I've concluded it's intentional by the law makers to allow it to happen.

I also find the 'pay their fair share' argument an odd one. If someone pays 20% on £500k income then they are still paying 20 times that of someone paying 20% on a £25k income whilst probably using fewer tax payer funded services so there's a reasonable argument that they are already paying their fair share. If, however, they are managing to pay less gross tax (or not a significant amount extra) than the lower paid person then I would agree there's a problem. I've said on similar threads before that when people talk about the rich needing to pay more 'rich' is always someone wealthier than them. I don't see many £30k earners thinking they should have an extra couple of pence on tax for earnings over £20k.

Well put.

robert88

mamba80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

What we need is a local income tax instead of a national one. After all if the tax is paid into a pot administered by people who live a few doors away then they'd be a bit more careful what they did with it.

What's more if it was a community with lots of billionaires and the roads were full of potholes, blah, blah, it'd be a bit suspicious, no?

Yep bring on a few more well thought out ideas like that one.......

Yes, you may have noticed over the years that central government has appropriated more of the tax take unto itself whilst cutting the amount it hands to local authorities. All in the name of austerity and cuts.

robert88

Robert88 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

What we need is a local income tax instead of a national one. After all if the tax is paid into a pot administered by people who live a few doors away then they'd be a bit more careful what they did with it.

What's more if it was a community with lots of billionaires and the roads were full of potholes, blah, blah, it'd be a bit suspicious, no?

Yep bring on a few more well thought out ideas like that one.......

Yes, you too must have noticed over the years that central government has appropriated more of the tax take unto itself whilst cutting the amount it hands to local authorities. All in the name of austerity and cuts.

john80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Moonbiker wrote:

Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.

The view seems to be anyone who doesn't fiddle there tax are idiots, or poor peasants.

That's the impression I am getting on here. Not many have stated that tax avoidance or evasion is UNETHICAL or IMMORAL for our society.

That's because ethics are an individual thing. Tax evasion is wrong and I haven't seen anyone on here say otherwise, it's illegal and therefore there is no grey area. Tax avoidance is legal and in some cases encouraged by the Government itself such as with ISAs, pensions and salary sacrifice schemes. So at which shade of grey should we all become outraged? The ISAs, pensions, salary sacrificing for season tickets / child care vouchers / cycle to work scheme? Claiming a tax rebate for a professional subscription or because you have to clean your work uniform? A Director paying themselves a relatively small salary and then dividends based on company performance? Someone who sets up a load of shell companies for the sole purpose of exploiting tax laws and minimising tax liability? My own level of outrage is somewhere between the last two but is directed more at the law makers who enable it to occur. I don't have an issue with a person who is operating fully within the law that allows this when it should be easy to prevent as I've concluded it's intentional by the law makers to allow it to happen.

I also find the 'pay their fair share' argument an odd one. If someone pays 20% on £500k income then they are still paying 20 times that of someone paying 20% on a £25k income whilst probably using fewer tax payer funded services so there's a reasonable argument that they are already paying their fair share. If, however, they are managing to pay less gross tax (or not a significant amount extra) than the lower paid person then I would agree there's a problem. I've said on similar threads before that when people talk about the rich needing to pay more 'rich' is always someone wealthier than them. I don't see many £30k earners thinking they should have an extra couple of pence on tax for earnings over £20k.

Well put.

I think that most people can see that if everyone paid a similar rate then this is fair. The majority do somewhat lose the plot when they see that they are paying X percent only to find that a richer person is paying X/10 percent. As yes they can see that someone with a wealth of 100 times themselves is paying more tax as a finite number the percentage is important as a point of principle. However there are a lot of other people who believe that someone richer should pay higher percentages and this group have little understanding of human nature or see the futile nature of this.

mamba80

john80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Moonbiker wrote:

Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.

The view seems to be anyone who doesn't fiddle there tax are idiots, or poor peasants.

That's the impression I am getting on here. Not many have stated that tax avoidance or evasion is UNETHICAL or IMMORAL for our society.

That's because ethics are an individual thing. Tax evasion is wrong and I haven't seen anyone on here say otherwise, it's illegal and therefore there is no grey area. Tax avoidance is legal and in some cases encouraged by the Government itself such as with ISAs, pensions and salary sacrifice schemes. So at which shade of grey should we all become outraged? The ISAs, pensions, salary sacrificing for season tickets / child care vouchers / cycle to work scheme? Claiming a tax rebate for a professional subscription or because you have to clean your work uniform? A Director paying themselves a relatively small salary and then dividends based on company performance? Someone who sets up a load of shell companies for the sole purpose of exploiting tax laws and minimising tax liability? My own level of outrage is somewhere between the last two but is directed more at the law makers who enable it to occur. I don't have an issue with a person who is operating fully within the law that allows this when it should be easy to prevent as I've concluded it's intentional by the law makers to allow it to happen.

I also find the 'pay their fair share' argument an odd one. If someone pays 20% on £500k income then they are still paying 20 times that of someone paying 20% on a £25k income whilst probably using fewer tax payer funded services so there's a reasonable argument that they are already paying their fair share. If, however, they are managing to pay less gross tax (or not a significant amount extra) than the lower paid person then I would agree there's a problem. I've said on similar threads before that when people talk about the rich needing to pay more 'rich' is always someone wealthier than them. I don't see many £30k earners thinking they should have an extra couple of pence on tax for earnings over £20k.

Well put.

I think that most people can see that if everyone paid a similar rate then this is fair. The majority do somewhat lose the plot when they see that they are paying X percent only to find that a richer person is paying X/10 percent. As yes they can see that someone with a wealth of 100 times themselves is paying more tax as a finite number the percentage is important as a point of principle. However there are a lot of other people who believe that someone richer should pay higher percentages and this group have little understanding of human nature or see the futile nature of this.

I think in percentage terms the richest have a lower tax burden than the bottom 10%... its not just income tax that hits people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 04331.html

So LH can avoid 3.3m in VAT but if the vast majority of people in the UK bought a 10k new purchase, they pay £2k in VAT and there is no way around that.

i dont give a fcuk what anyone pays in tax, either how much in total or by % BUT the same rules and opportunities MUST apply to the wealthy as well as Mr Avg, thats all.

Pross

But how many 'Mr Averages' buy a jet in the first place? If Hamilton made a £10k purchase in the UK presumably he'd pay the same VAT as the rest of us (if he were a UK resident, I haven't a clue whether non-residents can reclaim the VAT as I see 'tax free shopping' signs in touristy areas) plus he and other rich people are more likely to make such purchases. No system of taxation will be 'fair'.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

I think in percentage terms the richest have a lower tax burden than the bottom 10%... its not just income tax that hits people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 04331.html

So LH can avoid 3.3m in VAT but if the vast majority of people in the UK bought a 10k new purchase, they pay £2k in VAT and there is no way around that.

i dont give a fcuk what anyone pays in tax, either how much in total or by % BUT the same rules and opportunities MUST apply to the wealthy as well as Mr Avg, thats all.

When you take into account benefits received they will be net recipients.

Anyone who is registered for VAT can buy something for business purposes and claim the VAT back.

Same tax laws apply to us as long as we are UK resident. And on tat note, the old tax parable is relevant here:

"Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

rick_chasey

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/20 ... 1dd40c56d3

beer is not a metaphor for tax fairness

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/10/31/beer-is-not-a-metaphor-for-tax-fairness/#731dd40c56d3

beer is not a metaphor for what Rick defines as tax fairness

FTFY.

rick_chasey

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/11/1/649084/-

rick_chasey

You wonder what all those economists are doing modelling different tax models to the nth degree, when all they needed was a group of guys going to the pub analogy.

:roll:

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

You wonder what all those economists are doing modelling different tax models to the nth degree, when all they needed was a group of guys going to the pub analogy.

:roll:

I'm trying to keep it simple for people like you who don't really understand the subject very well.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I think in percentage terms the richest have a lower tax burden than the bottom 10%... its not just income tax that hits people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 04331.html

So LH can avoid 3.3m in VAT but if the vast majority of people in the UK bought a 10k new purchase, they pay £2k in VAT and there is no way around that.

i dont give a fcuk what anyone pays in tax, either how much in total or by % BUT the same rules and opportunities MUST apply to the wealthy as well as Mr Avg, thats all.

When you take into account benefits received they will be net recipients.

Anyone who is registered for VAT can buy something for business purposes and claim the VAT back.

Same tax laws apply to us as long as we are UK resident. And on tat note, the old tax parable is relevant here:

"Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

No it fcuking well isnt and you know it. utterly simplistic,you yourself have said that banks wont move many workers as London offers soooo much more.. schools, culture, history, dining, 5% tax or close a few loop holes wont make londons millionaires suddenly move to Frankfurt... brexit might though!

You have to be self employed to be vat registered and have a decent turn-over, not open to the vast majority who r on PAYE regardless, when my mate tried to get his KTM450 as a business purchase as he used it to travel about the lanes to price jobs, he was told no chance as a enduro bike is clearly a leisure purchase! just like a jet!

many poorer people dont get back a cent in working benefits as they dont have kids or pay rent.

rick_chasey

Ooooor, you've found an example where people have simplified it in a very specific way in order to suit their own persuasion.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ooooor, you've found an example where people have simplified it in a very specific way in order to suit their own persuasion.

The point about individuals going abroad and businesses locating where the environment is amenable to them is very relevant. Your simplistic idea of fairness would actually drive tax revenue down.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

No it fcuking well isnt and you know it. utterly simplistic,you yourself have said that banks wont move many workers as London offers soooo much more.. schools, culture, history, dining, 5% tax or close a few loop holes wont make londons millionaires suddenly move to Frankfurt... brexit might though!

You have to be self employed to be vat registered and have a decent turn-over, not open to the vast majority who r on PAYE regardless, when my mate tried to get his KTM450 as a business purchase as he used it to travel about the lanes to price jobs, he was told no chance as a enduro bike is clearly a leisure purchase! just like a jet!

many poorer people dont get back a cent in working benefits as they dont have kids or pay rent.

Nice rant, and conveniently free of fact or evidence. Your point is what?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ooooor, you've found an example where people have simplified it in a very specific way in order to suit their own persuasion.

The point about individuals going abroad and businesses locating where the environment is amenable to them is very relevant. Your simplistic idea of fairness would actually drive tax revenue down.

What, that tax being paid as it is intended is good?

That structures like the LH airplane one aren’t value additive to society?

I’m not saying tax everyone. I’m saying that in an ideal world people should pay tax as it is intended and we ought to call people out who go long lengths to avoid it in elaborate ways which serve no purpose other than to avoid it.


What’s that got to do with the pub example?

There’s plenty of stuff that’s legal but sh!tty. It’s a good thing we call those sh!tty things out.

Matthewfalle

Ooooh - I go out for one night to price up some tarmacing and I see that there is a whole new page of stuff here.

What's been occurring bud? Anything I need to know, see.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/10/31/beer-is-not-a-metaphor-for-tax-fairness/#731dd40c56d3

beer is not a metaphor for what Rick defines as tax fairness

FTFY.

Turns out the author of that article might even know as much as you about tax

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Burman

Leonard "Len" E. Burman (born 1953, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is a nationally recognized economist, tax policy expert, and writer who currently serves as the Robert C. Pozen Director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ooooor, you've found an example where people have simplified it in a very specific way in order to suit their own persuasion.

The point about individuals going abroad and businesses locating where the environment is amenable to them is very relevant. Your simplistic idea of fairness would actually drive tax revenue down.

What, that tax being paid as it is intended is good?

That structures like the LH airplane one aren’t value additive to society?

I’m not saying tax everyone. I’m saying that in an ideal world people should pay tax as it is intended and we ought to call people out who go long lengths to avoid it in elaborate ways which serve no purpose other than to avoid it.


What’s that got to do with the pub example?

There’s plenty of stuff that’s legal but sh!tty. It’s a good thing we call those sh!tty things out.

Go back to my first post in the thread. Still the case.

If its legal then legislate it away. You can't have a properly functioning tax system where you do something that is legal but anyone can come along and say 'Oh but in my opinion, you're not paying enough'. Imagine going past a speed camera on a stretch of road: the speed limit is 50mph and you're doing 49mph. A week later you get a letter saying you're getting fined because, although you were under the speed limit, in the opinion of the bloke checking the camera records you were going too fast...

As a judge has said recently in a tax case, morality has no place in this court room.

You are playing the role of the bloke checking the speed camera records.

On the pub example, think about it. If more people thought that levels were reasonable and fair in their view, tax havens would be less popular. There would be less domestic avoidance. And I might not be so busy. On that note would you also call out tax inspectors who make large and unjustified assessments on companies, threaten to make their lives hell and drag them through years of expensive litigation to force a settlement? Works both ways.

As for the LH example, its not even UK tax. IOM is a separate jurisdiction.

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You wonder what all those economists are doing modelling different tax models to the nth degree, when all they needed was a group of guys going to the pub analogy.

:roll:

I'm trying to keep it simple for people like you who don't really understand the subject very well.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

No it fcuking well isnt and you know it. utterly simplistic,you yourself have said that banks wont move many workers as London offers soooo much more.. schools, culture, history, dining, 5% tax or close a few loop holes wont make londons millionaires suddenly move to Frankfurt... brexit might though!

You have to be self employed to be vat registered and have a decent turn-over, not open to the vast majority who r on PAYE regardless, when my mate tried to get his KTM450 as a business purchase as he used it to travel about the lanes to price jobs, he was told no chance as a enduro bike is clearly a leisure purchase! just like a jet!

many poorer people dont get back a cent in working benefits as they dont have kids or pay rent.

Nice rant, and conveniently free of fact or evidence. Your point is what?

So you re found out and then standard retort..... come on it s getting boring.

Are you denying that for the vast majority on PAYE claiming back VAT is nt an option? or that to be VAT registered your vat taxable turn over is 85k in any 12month period...... or that living at home and having no children means no working benefits......

Your early post (posts?) were the one free of facts or evidence.

rick_chasey

I think we all agree it's nigh on impossible to write tax laws which people don't exploit just for the purposes of avoiding.

That doesn't mean said avoiding is an ideal state of affairs.

Or is that what you're saying stevo? That it's good people do that kind of thing?

Is it ideal or not?

It's quite challenging to create a functioning tax system as it is.

https://www.economist.com/news/finance- ... inequality

There is some advantage to redistributed income (up to a point). Fair bit of evidence to suggest that heavy inequality impairs growth. So there’s a decent economic case for redistribution, beyond the broader functioning society idea that those who can shoulder more of the burden ought to. You’d probably help to carry the shopping for someone who is struggling with it; it’s the same idea. You could say it’s their fault for not looking after their own health enough and not conditioning their muscles enough. Or that they were frivolous with their spending and so couldn’t afford to buy a car. But chances are, you’d help.

The problem with the kind avoidance in these papers is that it’s the kind of avoidance that is only really available to people who are already well within the top half a percent of people in terms of wealth; it’s an economies of scale thing. I’d argue that if it were available to more or less anyone, everyone would get on and do it, and it would immediately be shut down. The problem is is that the numbers involved are usually pretty big.

And as for the whole ‘someone on £500k pays more tax than someone on £30k so what’s fair’; I didn’t quite realise the cost of everything rose with your own earnings…!

mr_goo

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ooooor, you've found an example where people have simplified it in a very specific way in order to suit their own persuasion.

The point about individuals going abroad and businesses locating where the environment is amenable to them is very relevant. Your simplistic idea of fairness would actually drive tax revenue down.

What, that tax being paid as it is intended is good?

That structures like the LH airplane one aren’t value additive to society?

I’m not saying tax everyone. I’m saying that in an ideal world people should pay tax as it is intended and we ought to call people out who go long lengths to avoid it in elaborate ways which serve no purpose other than to avoid it.


What’s that got to do with the pub example?

There’s plenty of stuff that’s legal but sh!tty. It’s a good thing we call those sh!tty things out.

Go back to my first post in the thread. Still the case.

If its legal then legislate it away. You can't have a properly functioning tax system where you do something that is legal but anyone can come along and say 'Oh but in my opinion, you're not paying enough'. Imagine going past a speed camera on a stretch of road: the speed limit is 50mph and you're doing 49mph. A week later you get a letter saying you're getting fined because, although you were under the speed limit, in the opinion of the bloke checking the camera records you were going too fast...

As a judge has said recently in a tax case, morality has no place in this court room.

You are playing the role of the bloke checking the speed camera records.

On the pub example, think about it. If more people thought that levels were reasonable and fair in their view, tax havens would be less popular. There would be less domestic avoidance. And I might not be so busy. On that note would you also call out tax inspectors who make large and unjustified assessments on companies, threaten to make their lives hell and drag them through years of expensive litigation to force a settlement? Works both ways.

As for the LH example, its not even UK tax. IOM is a separate jurisdiction.

Who was that judge?
Murder is morally wrong. Is he or are you now saying that we should just throw ethics and morals out the window and live in an anarchic and chaotic state. Most of our basic laws have a basis traced back to the 10 commandments, which if you ignore the fact they came from a religious text, are actually a set of rules to live by a decent set of ethics and morals. So I think that answer from your judge is b0ll0x.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

And as for the whole ‘someone on £500k pays more tax than someone on £30k so what’s fair’; I didn’t quite realise the cost of everything rose with your own earnings…!

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make there. You seem to have almost quoted something I wrote earlier but I said someone paying 20% of £500k pays significantly more tax than someone paying 20% of £25k. Are you disputing that? Or are you suggesting that everyone should have the same level of disposable income irrespective of income?

I'm not keen on people who earn huge amounts managing to pay very small amounts of tax by using loopholes but as I've said before in many cases it seems to be not just legal but encouraged and as MF has said there are often other reasons for the scheme that also result in avoidance e.g. a footballer my set themselves up as a company as they employ others and get image rights etc. or more commonly self-employed people setting themselves up as limited companies gives them tax benefits but separates professional and personal liabilities.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

No it fcuking well isnt and you know it. utterly simplistic,you yourself have said that banks wont move many workers as London offers soooo much more.. schools, culture, history, dining, 5% tax or close a few loop holes wont make londons millionaires suddenly move to Frankfurt... brexit might though!

You have to be self employed to be vat registered and have a decent turn-over, not open to the vast majority who r on PAYE regardless, when my mate tried to get his KTM450 as a business purchase as he used it to travel about the lanes to price jobs, he was told no chance as a enduro bike is clearly a leisure purchase! just like a jet!

many poorer people dont get back a cent in working benefits as they dont have kids or pay rent.

Nice rant, and conveniently free of fact or evidence. Your point is what?

So you re found out and then standard retort..... come on it s getting boring.

Are you denying that for the vast majority on PAYE claiming back VAT is nt an option? or that to be VAT registered your vat taxable turn over is 85k in any 12month period...... or that living at home and having no children means no working benefits......

Your early post (posts?) were the one free of facts or evidence.

Bloody hell Mamba, you're right. I don't have kids and don't pay rent and don't get a cent. I am outraged. You are right, all tax breaks and benefits should be available to everyone.
I am writing to my MP forthwith.

Oh, hang on a minute. I've just realised they are, you just have to meet the criteria, likewise convoluted tax saving schemes. You have to have a level of wealth to make the exercise worth while, otherwise it isn't viable.

When your mate tried to claim for his motorbike, did he make clear the percentage of private/business use, as I believe LH did, or did he just try to evade tax?

Must say, I am quite surprised at you trying to defend your mate's tax evasion?

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

... or that to be VAT registered your vat taxable turn over is 85k in any 12month period....

Not true. Above £85k you are required to be VAT registered, but you can be VAT registered below the legal requirement.

BelgianBeerGeek

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/10/31/beer-is-not-a-metaphor-for-tax-fairness/#731dd40c56d3

beer is not a metaphor for tax fairness

Damn right. Have you seen how in tax you pay on a pint?