Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Or just a pikey landlord who is smug about avoiding paying tax that, by design of the law, he ought to be paying.

I presume the tax situation around owning rental properties was not created in order for the same owners to avoid putting their names on them. Happy to be persuaded otherwise.

And the 'we're all doing it' is the last refuge of the person who knows they're on the losing end. << another fallacious argument, if ya want to go down that road.

Who's avoiding paying what tax?

It doesn't matter who or what name is on the deeds, you still have to pay tax. So you're saying because it's owned by a company you don't pay tax?

You really are clueless little fella.

So you made it clear that you didn't put your name on the rental properties because that would be 'madness', inferring that you should have been, right?

So either you're trolling and deliberately misleading people, or you're a pikey. Basically.

So have you set up the company with the express purpose of avoiding paying some tax? Or are you some rental property investor? 'cos that ain't the same thing.

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

so Tax avoidance costs the UK 2.7 Billion a year .... and there are 29.3 million people in the uk that pay tax ?

so thats like a cost of £92 per person per year ?

..... I am thinking that I save at least £500 a year shopping through Amazon who may or may not avoid tax ...... if this is the case, surely I am better off thanks to tax avoidance than if they close the loop hole ?

According to HMRC it's about £1.7bn pa. So if we closed all the avoidance loopholes we could pay off the national debt in just over 1,000 years. Whoopee.

See info on page 5 of this HMRC report:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655097/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2017.pdf

Going back to this recent leak, wonder how much is at stake and how much relates to the UK? there are a lot of twisted knickers on here before the facts or estimates are out.

I think you're missing the point. It may only be a piffling £1.7bn. Nothing in grand scheme of things. But a great deal to essential services in the community that have either had to shut down or reduce service due to budget cuts.
However I am assuming that those in charge of this money would use it wisely and not blow it on things like I'D card schemes or new IT systems.

This is brilliant. Goo at his near best.

Hang on, didn't he just say he did[i/] want an ID card system?

Slagging off his own ideas...

Blimey - imagine him and Rick in a room together. They could almost make a brain.

rick_chasey

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

dinyull

Since when was it socially acceptable to use pikey?

Asking for a friend.

kingstongraham

I hope all these tax avoidance methods have been disclosed to HMRC. Except Hamilton, as he was just a regular business owner trying to make a buck.

The Mrs Brown's Boys one seems destined to fall foul of the regulations, as even the actor said that none of his "advice" was listened to while he was employed as an consultant to the trust.

I did like that he said he had to Google "tax avoidance".

tangled_metal

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing? I keep coming back here to find a load of pages have passed by.

I've just had a thought of a tax dodge of some relevance to ppl on a cycling forum. With the cycling to work scheme you have a salary sacrifice scheme to "rent" a new bike and /or cycling equipment. Officially you don't own the bike until you pay a lump sum for the nominal worth of the bike after the year or so fixed period of the scheme. The requirement is you use the bike over 50% of your journeys I believe. If you do this you can save up to about 42% for higher tax rate earners or what 25% for basic tax earners (another case of the rich being better off ).

Now I've read on forums of ppl on higher tax rates using it to get a discount on new bikes and kit every year. How many actually follow the letter of the law on this scheme? I bet ppl fall down on the usage and the final payment.

So the question is, how many have cheated the system with this scheme? It's a less well off person's tax evasion surely? If you could scale it up to a £13 million bike and save £3.3 million in the process I bet you would.

I don't know how relevant this example is and I expect others can give better ones, but I think the only difference between LH and the rest of us is that he can afford to do this and we can't. I think a lot of this is down to jealousy masquerading as indignant anger over a fake morality code or fake social justice that thinks these legal schemes shouldn't exist. I would even think some are rich enough to afford social justice. Certainly I expect some of the most indignant are in the higher tax bracket.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

You also seem to be unable to grasp the methodology for doing stuff that you couldn't comprehend doing yourself because it's out of your means so you get all offensive as per your "pikey" comments (plural).

You don't just buy stuff through offshore companies to mitigate tax - as above their are a myriad of reasons.

I'm trying to spell them out in smaller word s for you but I fail to be able to. Maybe you can ask your team leader at the sandwich shop.

People will do what they can to mitigate tax. Some peop,e (like me) just find it easier to pay whatever I have to pay. Sorry if you can't understand or accept this but the people you serve on a daily basis aren't the whole picture.

Matthewfalle

KingstonGraham wrote:

I hope all these tax avoidance methods have been disclosed to HMRC. Except Hamilton, as he was just a regular business owner trying to make a buck.

The Mrs Brown's Boys one seems destined to fall foul of the regulations, as even the actor said that none of his "advice" was listened to while he was employed as an consultant to the trust.

I did like that he said he had to Google "tax avoidance".

They don't have to disclose them. The guys 'n' girls at HMRC are quite clued up about this stuff - they aren't some guy calling Troll on everyone, a bloke who sells sandwiches and Goo all hanging out in a room.

HMRC know exactly what's happening which is why they bust people when they do something they shouldn't be doing.

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

You also seem to be unable to grasp the methodology for doing stuff that you couldn't comprehend doing yourself because it's out of your means so you get all offensive as per your "pikey" comments (plural).

You don't just buy stuff through offshore companies to mitigate tax - as above their are a myriad of reasons.

I'm trying to spell them out in smaller word s for you but I fail to be able to. Maybe you can ask your team leader at the sandwich shop.

People will do what they can to mitigate tax. Some peop,e (like me) just find it easier to pay whatever I have to pay. Sorry if you can't understand or accept this but the people you serve on a daily basis aren't the whole picture.

"there are a myriad of reasons to do this". Well what are they? You can't act all supercilious without spelling that out. That's the whole point of knowing more' spelling it out. Your argument is basically there are loads of reasons I won't tell you, but people do it, so get over it."

As for "people will do what they can to mitigate tax" - that's exactly what I mean. They're obviously cheap.



Spending time & effort finding tax loopholes for people isn't particularly socially constructive. It's like that $1bn cable they drilled from NYC to Chicago so that they could make a trades a few nanoseconds faster. It's pointless but for a weird anachronism of finance.

Tax has a big social utility function, and those who seek to 'mitigate' against the spirit of the law are failing that utility.

Ultimately, I think people who 'mitigate' tax are cheap. Just pay up. Be the responsible citizen.

kingstongraham

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I hope all these tax avoidance methods have been disclosed to HMRC. Except Hamilton, as he was just a regular business owner trying to make a buck.

The Mrs Brown's Boys one seems destined to fall foul of the regulations, as even the actor said that none of his "advice" was listened to while he was employed as an consultant to the trust.

I did like that he said he had to Google "tax avoidance".

They don't have to disclose them. The guys 'n' girls at HMRC are quite clued up about this stuff - they aren't some guy calling Troll on everyone, a bloke who sells sandwiches and Goo all hanging out in a room.

HMRC know exactly what's happening which is why they bust people when they do something they shouldn't be doing.

So what's the box on the tax return for disclosed tax avoidance scheme for? And surely the DOTAS regulations is one reason they know what is going on.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

You also seem to be unable to grasp the methodology for doing stuff that you couldn't comprehend doing yourself because it's out of your means so you get all offensive as per your "pikey" comments (plural).

You don't just buy stuff through offshore companies to mitigate tax - as above their are a myriad of reasons.

I'm trying to spell them out in smaller word s for you but I fail to be able to. Maybe you can ask your team leader at the sandwich shop.

People will do what they can to mitigate tax. Some peop,e (like me) just find it easier to pay whatever I have to pay. Sorry if you can't understand or accept this but the people you serve on a daily basis aren't the whole picture.

"there are a myriad of reasons to do this". Well what are they? You can't act all supercilious without spelling that out. That's the whole point of knowing more' spelling it out. Your argument is basically there are loads of reasons I won't tell you, but people do it, so get over it."

As for "people will do what they can to mitigate tax" - that's exactly what I mean. They're obviously cheap.



Spending time & effort finding tax loopholes for people isn't particularly socially constructive. It's like that $1bn cable they drilled from NYC to Chicago so that they could make a trades a few nanoseconds faster. It's pointless but for a weird anachronism of finance.

Tax has a big social utility function, and those who seek to 'mitigate' against the spirit of the law are failing that utility.

Ultimately, I think people who 'mitigate' tax are cheap. Just pay up. Be the responsible citizen.

Do you actually read anything Rick?

Amongst many, some reasons are

Financing
Estate planning
Tax planning
Keeping things safe if you live in a dodgy country
Confidentiality
Ease of ownership
Divorce protection
Ring fencing


To name buy however many are up there.

Blimey - plus ca change.... viewtopic.php?t=12846532

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

surrey_commuter

Dinyull wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

How about this. We all have to carry ID cards which includes our tax contribution codes etc. So that when the likes of Lewis Hamilton for example, is in need of emergency care ie A&E or assistance from police. They can be cut adrift as they have not contributed to the upkeep of our services.

He's a resident of Monaco.

Or are you saying all visiting holiday makers shouldn't receive police or hospital assistance?

he will still pay tax on his UK earnings which I suspect will be enough to bump Goo in the queue.

Unless you earn over £50k you are very unlikely to be a net contributor to the exchequer. For the first time I find myself agreeing with you that NHS queues should be prioritised by contribution - let's keep the earners fighting fit and in the front line earning money and paying taxes.

chris_bass

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

Did MF and Co sort out the LG plane thing?

Lewis Hamilton is a reputable international businessman who setup a plane chartering business Stealth (IOM) Limited in the Isle Of Man, and leased a plane from a BVI company, Stealth Aviation Limited. This IOM company made a profit by leasing it to TAG Aviation UK Ltd who registered it in their fleet with the name G-LCDH (which by coincidence matches the initials of Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton).

Lewis Hamilton wanted to fly on a private jet sometimes, so decided he wanted to lease a plane. He used his Guernsey based company BRV Limited to find a plane that he could use.

kingstongraham

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the piss otherwise, isn't it?

chris_bass

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

either way you are paying less tax than you could and so you are indirectly killing people with cancer, no?

kingstongraham

Chris Bass wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

either way you are paying less tax than you could and so you are indirectly killing people with cancer, no?

Same every day I don't buy a flat screen TV and pay VAT on it.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

it just has to be a part of your journey so could be to the station

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

it just has to be a part of your journey so could be to the station

Yes, but I also prefer to own my bike myself.

kingstongraham

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

it just has to be a part of your journey so could be to the station

Yes, but I also prefer to own my bike myself.

That's one of the things I don't get about the "loans from overseas trusts you don't control that never get called in" method of tax avoidance. There are risks of either a) not getting your money back or b) getting stuck for the tax anyway because it's blatantly set up solely for the purposes of tax avoidance.

Are the users generally not made aware of this, or just willing to take the risk because there's quite a few quid in it for them?

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

so

are you going to apologise for calling me a pikey twice and a tax dodger then?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

I genuinely think LH's flying arrangements are less fishy than expecting tradesmen to give a cash in hand discount.

More positively, if we want people to be more community-minded, we would be better off harnessing their self interest than just hoping that they are better people.

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

so

are you going to apologise for calling me a pikey twice and a tax dodger then?

Well, you did say he worked in a sandwich shop

Matthewfalle

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

unless you got the voucher and gave it to your wife for her new as she was a cyclist/bought the bike on her behalf.

or friend/family member and bought the bike on her behalf.

but no one would ever do that ......

Matthewfalle

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

so

are you going to apologise for calling me a pikey twice and a tax dodger then?

Well, you did say he worked in a sandwich shop

but he does. he said so.

i've always thought he was an estate agent.

sungod

the problem isn't entities exploiting tax laws to minimize tax

the problem is the tax laws

those who benefit from the situation really don't care about the noise and outrage, perhaps a few clumsy ones will get nailed, panem et circenses, the party will continue

the chances of the uk government addressing the fundamental issues are negligible, and with brexit looming will fall even further, if anything i'd expect things to get worse

surrey_commuter

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What I broadly fail to understand, is why people are so comfortable pushing the boundaries of tax, far beyond the intention of it.

If we're all responsible citizens, we ought to pay the tax in the spirit they were set up.

So the tax break incentive on your pension or isa is specifically set up to encourage people to do that.

The same goes for tax breaks on certain industries, behaviours etc.

When you start setting up funny structures with the explicit and sole attempt to avoid paying it, you're missing the point of it all.

If we all actually avoided tax aggressively, it's be a total nightmare for everyone. It's no co-incidence cracknig down on 'loopholes' and structures blah blah is always mentioned during the budget.

Tax is important, and it's important people pay it.

One person's idea of the spirit of the law will be different from another. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, perfectly decent people who otherwise will worry about returning a library book late, will quite happily indulge in a little light or even pretty heavy evasion given the opportunity. And they are actually breaking the law as opposed to just finding the bendy bits. That being the case, hoping for people to act in the spirit of legislation seems optimistic at best.

Of course taxes are also designed to promote certain policies - ISAs > increased saving; Fuel Duty > burn less - but they only work because people see an advantage in paying less tax. Asking people to ignore that advantage removes the ability of taxes to influence behaviour. Burning petrol for the good of society.

Oh, and look up what pikey means. It is not a synonym for cheap or tight.

Right, but let's be clear here, when it smells fishy, and things like the LH vat dodge, it usually is.

So there's no point shrugging going 'meh, we all do it' we ought to think "christ, that's not the point of it all, let's sort it out!".

That's more my point. The whole social fabric shuts down if people are too self interested, and tax is a classic case in point.

We all can make contextual judgements, and some behaviours look more markedly dodgy than others; specifically when they're designed for the sole purpose to dodge something like VAT.

I just think the "bears sh!t in the woods" argument is so facile and contributes to a broader problem.


So since Matthewfalle finally illustrated the other reasons he set up businesses, rather than the sole purpose to dodge the tax, we now have a bit more context, and can take it as such.

so

are you going to apologise for calling me a pikey twice and a tax dodger then?

or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it

surrey_commuter

Matthewfalle wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Haven't read through all of this, but i assume those who are shocked and appalled by this all pay more tax than they have to?
No NIC wise pension payments, no bike to work scheme, no ISA, etc etc?

I wouldn't get a bike to work unless I was going to ride it to work - taking the wee-wee otherwise, isn't it?

unless you got the voucher and gave it to your wife for her new as she was a cyclist/bought the bike on her behalf.

or friend/family member and bought the bike on her behalf.

but no one would ever do that ......

really?? who could be bothered for a few hundred quid?