[i]Yeah, but the problem is that this is disproportionately a trick of the wealthy, which means that those who can't escape tax, ie generally the less well paid, suffer more. Legal it may be, morally justifiable, more often than not, it ain't. [/i]
The less well paid don't suffer more, as they pay less tax and often none when you take credits/benefits into account.
If you believe that whether Jimmy Carr and the like avoid/pay tax has any bearing on yours or anyone elses tax bill, you've been suckered in.
Lets take forced marriage as an example. As a society we have deemed these to be morally wrong though ,one would assume, the perpetrators dont agree. Do we just shrug as say it's just a personal thing?
If you believe the the amount of money the tax system generates has no bearing on how much they tax us they you are the one suckered in. Tax avoidance leads to us paying more tax to compensate - the government has a spending bill of they get more they need to charge less tax. If everyone stopped smoking [ lets call this tax avoidance 😉 ] is your argument the government would not increase tax elsewhere so they still get the same overall money?
As the whole point of them avoiding tax is to pay a lower percentage of their income I am sure the most succesfull manage to get well under the lowest income tax rate. By less well off i assume the poster meant folk who were not millionaires not those who pay no net tax [who are the poorest in our society].
Even net gainers from the system could be better off if we say reduced VAT as a result of the increased money raised by the reduction/ceasing of avoidance.
If tax avoidance reduced and the govt got more as a result i am sure the govt would reduce tax further .I find it quote unlikely that a Tory govt would increase spending on the public sector though I do accept the tax cuts may only benefit the better off in society - I am sure the Libdems would target the poor though.
It is just not true to suggest that we dont pay for this avoidance or that it has no impact on my or anyone else tax rate.
they pay themselves a small salary which they are taxed on then make up there wages by paying themselves dividends which is tax free,
No it's not tax free. By paying a dividend you avoid paying employee's and employer's NI. However, you will have paid corporation tax on company profits which reduces the amount of dividend you can pay, then if you are a higher rate tax payer then you will have to pay a further 25%, lower tax rate earners don't pay any extra, this is why if you can you have your partner as director and split the shares so the dividend maximises your tax saving...
Also, it's not the preserve of the wealthy, more the preserve of the self employed.
Plenty of employee avoidance wheezes (EBTs anyone?) but largely the better off get better avoidance advice so it is more available and worthwhile to the wealthy. It's simply wrong and the Govts job to create statute that is easily defensible. That said the private avoidance sector possibly pays more than the public sector....
We have a law that allows abortion, to a certain point during pregnancy. Therefore we, as a society, have imposed a moral consensus on that issue, which takes account of all the many personal morals expressed. We can also impose a moral consensus on tax dodging.
And indeed, the K2 scheme that Carr was involved with, was not illegal, therefore, as you say, we as a society, have imposed a moral consensus on that issue, which takes account of all the many personal morals expressed.
Not that I agree with it mind....
And indeed, the K2 scheme that Carr was involved with, was not illegal, therefore, as you say, we as a society, have imposed a moral consensus on that issue, which takes account of all the many personal morals expressed.
I take your point, but have we? Who was even aware of K2 until this week? I certainly wasn't. Tax dodging generally may have been in the public domain, but I think more and more the hypocracies of a system which benefits the rich only are becoming evident, and becoming a moral, as well as financial, issue.
but I think more and more the hypocracies of a system which benefits the rich only are becoming evident,
We're there Channel Island based tax dodging systems that helped the poor too?
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT-free_imports_from_the_Channel_Islands ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT-free_imports_from_the_Channel_Islands[/url]
😕 I think this is the greater hypocrisy.
"It has now emerged that Sir Chris Hoy, Britain's multiple Olympic gold medal winning cyclist, has also received a loan from his own company.
The latest accounts of Hoy's Trackstars Ltd state: "At 30 June 2011 Sir Chris Hoy owed the company £324,771"
which he then explained as he took a loan from the company to buy some property which he has paid back in full
daily fail looking for a story in nothing ahead of the olympics imo
jimmy carr owes is dad a couple of hundred quid that his dad leant him when he was starting out his career in comedy. his dad has got the hump and gone to the papers. surely thats what parents are for? another non story making headlines.
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=250364871
So it appears the was some truth in the 'he should have donated to the Tories, if he wanted to keep his name out of the press' story.
From the MSN article
A spokesman for Hadid told the paper she paid 3.5 per cent, not two.
Oh so that's ok then!
jimmy carr owes is dad a couple of hundred quid that his dad leant him when he was starting out his career in comedy. his dad has got the hump and gone to the papers. surely thats what parents are for? another non story making headlines.
Really? I thought Carr came to comedy from a decent marketing job at Shell/other oil company?
[img] 
[/img]