Why bitch at him for being immoral, no different to a plumber not putting a cash job through the books, bitch at the bleeding government for allowing it to happen!
This is legal is it not?Most people would walk out of Tesco without paying if they could get away with it
[i]Do their arms and legs suddenly drop off when they reach 35 making them unable to get a job and earn a living like the millions of (PAYE) others in this country have to? [/i]
What like those 'retiring' from the Police and Armed Forces? 😉
Who believes the government spend our money wisely.......?
What like those 'retiring' from the Police and Armed Forces?
Now,now that's more like 55 isn't it? And I think you'll find they are all PAYE. And kicking a ball or riding a bike isn't exactly putting your life on the line on a regular basis is it?
Oh and they retire "early" because their respective pension schemes allow them to.Pension contributions are very tax friendly as most sports stars/well paid people are fully aware.It's the avoiding the regular tax on earnings with these types of schemes that annoys most the ordinary tax payers.
And surely he earns most of his money abroad so there is no issues anyway.
But he uses the facilities provided by us here for his family. You want low tax go and live in your tax haven but don't expect the PAYE tax classes to fund your kids schooling, medical care and the other social stuff our taxes go towards.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
[i]Now,now that's more like 55 isn't it? And I think you'll find they are all PAYE.[/i]
Or 43 y/o as per the post on the redundancy in Armed Forces...
And what's PAYE got to do with it?
And what's PAYE got to do with it?
PAYE doesn't afford the opportunity for tax avoidance available to those outside the PAYE system.
Someone famous once said something along the lines of ....it is human nature to pay as little income tax as possible.
And it is, isn't it? The term tax avoidance is being banded about here, but he is paying tax.....a lot of it too. He just doesn't want to pay any more than he has to.
I don't mind well-respected minority sportsmen avoiding tax, provided they've got an Olympic medal ... but if a faceless business that I don't care about (like Starbucks) is avoiding paying, then it's really really bad and they're morally corrupt and generally the most evil thing on the planet
What like those 'retiring' from the Police and Armed Forces?
[i]Now,now that's more like 55 isn't it? And I think you'll find they are all PAYE. And kicking a ball or riding a bike isn't exactly putting your life on the line on a regular basis is it?[/i]
Post olympics, they're doing a big clear out of 50 yr olds, who would like to stay, but earn too much money!
You know junkyard you make a good point but I stand by the point that it's those who set the rules that need a kick up the ar*e
You don't know much about this really, do you?
Here, have a:
[img] 
[/img]
I agree with JY (!).
Tax evasion is morally indefensible IMHO. The less tax paid by these millionaires, the more has to be picked up by us plebs.
They used to say this about footballers.
Do their arms and legs suddenly drop off when they reach 35 making them unable to get a job and earn a living like the millions of (PAYE) others in this country have to?
What can they do though? They can't kick footballs anymore and you can't make money from sleeping with prostitutes. that is all they have known.
The state should look after them (maintaining their standard fo life) if their savings are not enough to sustain them for the rest of their lives. We owe it to them. 😀
To be honest he's probably done what I would do if I ever came into earning lots of money:
1. Hire expensive accountant
2. Get said accountant to suggest how I can legally keep as much money as possible.
3. Sign on the dotted line.
I have no problem with people who work hard and try to keep their earnings from the tax man. People who don't work and take money from the tax man are the ones we should be looking at if we want to reduce the majority's tax bill.
He's just doing what the vast majority of people in his position would do.
Just out of curosity, has everyone on here banging on about it ever paid a tradesman cash, ever bought anything from outside of the EU and wondered how to avoid import duty, ever bought a car on finance with a 'minimum' trade in amount for their old car - all ways of avoiding paying tax on things you want.
Unless you're completley whiter than white, not one person can say a single thing.
He's just doing what the vast majority of people in his position would do.
.....and people who run companies......Amazon, Starbucks, vodafone etc etc that's all fine then? It's what the majority would do, no?
Unless you're completley whiter than white, not one person can say a single thing.
Nobody's whiter than white but all things are not equal. A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.
Wrecker - why not, tax avoidance is tax avoidance. In the same way that stealing is stealing if you're having a moral debate.
Does said tradesman utlisie the NHS, the Police, the Fire Service, does he send his children to a state school? If not, then all is good in your world.
....and the actions of Starbucks, Amazon and Vodafone are OK in yours?
I take it that you don't believe that the rich should pay more tax than the poor?
Tax is not a moral issue it is an issue of law. If you don't break the law you have done nothing wrong. If the laws are not fit for purpose change them.
If I avoid paying tax then I can decide how I spend that money and I can assure you my morals are far superior to this government's. 🙂
A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.
But there's a fair chance there's a thousand trademen doing the same against one millionaire - the figures get very close then maybe?. What you're saying is it's okay to steal something little, but not something big from the shop.
A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.
You mean by that your morals of course. Other morals are available, the role of the law in this case is to remove such variable things as morals out of the equation.
[i]PAYE doesn't afford the opportunity for tax avoidance available to those outside the PAYE system.
[/i]
Only on income/salary earnt within PAYE, and those of us outside PAYE don't get the 'benefits' available to those within - sick pay, holiday pay etc
Tax is a moral issue.
Wealthy individuals and corporations spend millions getting accountants and lawyers to manufacture loopholes to avoid tax. All governments and authorities struggle to close these loopholes in time. It's not acceptable to say it's the "authorities" fault and they need to change the law - it's never that simple. A very good example is EBTs, which have legitimate uses, but have been badly abused by Football Clubs among others (pay enormous "discretionary loans" to employees with 0% tax) - of course they are neither discretionary nor are they ever paid back! This is clearly immoral (it involves blatant lying) and will hopefully soon be ruled illegal.
On the matter of comparing Starbucks to Wiggins to a self employed worker not declaring £100 - all are equally immoral. Morality doesn't discriminate for scale.
Yes, we all tut at the millionaires avoiding tax, whilst posting on here whether we can avoid paying import duty/VAT if we buy those Bombers from the US, or can I drive to Glentress using the company car and claim it back as 'expenses'/tax deductable.
So if it's too hard too make the law work please explain your simple system for morality alignment. 🙂
You make the excellent point that morality doesn't discriminate for scale but many seem to think it does thus showing they have a different morality to you.
On the matter of comparing Starbucks to Wiggins to a self employed worker not declaring £100 - all are equally immoral. Morality doesn't discriminate for scale.
Or more precisely your Morality doesn't.
If there's one thing that history's taught us is the morality's a very fluid concept.
Only on income/salary earnt within PAYE, and those of us outside PAYE don't get the 'benefits' available to those within - sick pay, holiday pay etc
You do get holiday pay, you just divide your earnings by 52 weeks, rather than the actual weeks worked, just as PAYE employees really only get paid for time worked, but the payment is spread over the whole year. The legal entitlement for sick pay is very limited, that's down to contract negotiations.
"You make the excellent point that morality doesn't discriminate for scale but many seem to think it does thus showing they have a different morality to you."
IMHO they don't have a different morality - they either don't understand morality or they are immoral!
I realise that this will get a strong reaction, but you can't just make up morality to suit yourself so that you are always right and only "other people" are wrong!
HMRC don't make the rules; they only enforce (with limited resources and much reduced staff) those that the current Government make for them.
The type of arrangement that Wiggo is accused of is artificial, not a 'real' set of transactions. The purpose of his participation and the purpose of the transactions in question is artificial and that's where the morality issue arises. The scheme has been created to follow a series of legal steps but in a way not intended bu those who wrote the original legislation. That is tax avoidance in a nutshell. Legal, but where planned like this, wrong.
The UK needs a general 'Anti-Avoidance' provision in our tax law, to effectively say that if you set up a transaction or series of transactions in an artificial manner, this is wrong and fails.
Wiggo is a fool if he thinks that any deliberate tax avoidance is acceptable; he will be tainted by this very special form of cheating. And we don't like cheats on bikes.
but you can't just make up morality to suit yourself so that you are always right and only "other people" are wrong!
Isn't that what you've just done? 😕
wrecker - Member
Nobody's whiter than white but all things are not equal. A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.
Can you elaborate, as I fail to see why not?
Especially how do you reconcile this with the categorical statement that...
Tax evasion is morally indefensible IMHO.
Like breaking any law, its either defensible or not. The £150 day/cash point may explain, but why does it condone?
The less tax paid by these millionaires, the more has to be picked up by us plebs.
I understand the sympathies here, but this is quite a long shot from the way tax revenues are structured and collected in the UK in reality, surely?
"but you can't just make up morality to suit yourself so that you are always right and only "other people" are wrong!"
"Isn't that what you've just done?"
Eh, no!
I rest my case that some people have no understanding of morality at all.
Nobody's whiter than white but all things are not equal. A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.
You are quite right, the former is committing tax evasion which is illegal and the latter is partaking of tax avoidance which is not.
Wealthy individuals and corporations spend millions getting accountants and lawyers to manufacture loopholes to avoid tax.
This. I think there's a distinction between running your business tax efficiently (which anyone can do), and putting a great deal of effort into schemes specifically designed to circumvent the rules (availably only to the already wealthy).
Nobody's whiter than white but all things are not equal. A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.Can you elaborate, as I fail to see why not?
think of it like doing 43 in 40 zone at 3 am on an empty road at and doing 120 mph [ in a 30 zone] in rush hour past a school
No shades of grey then either right or wrong not a continuum from ok to absolutely wrong? Just simple right or wrong...you are TJ and I claim my £5Like breaking any law, its either defensible or not.
I understand the sympathies here, but this is quite a long shot from the way tax revenues are structured and collected in the UK in reality, surely?
The fact is we have a defecit and this burden is passed to us all. if they paid what they should that burden would not pass to us or would be reduced and any excess could be shared amongst us.
robbespierre - Member
I rest my case that some people have no understanding of morality at all.
I rest my case that morality, lik intelligence, is subjective.
I think most posts on this thread need an "IMO" suffix.
Even you junkyard, an act is either legal or not, morality has a sliding scale as well as being subjective.
Cynical,
I did IMHO my second post.
My point is - morality isn't subjective to anything like the degree that is being suggested by some people.
"Different" morality is being substituted for immorality (IMHO).
wrecker - Member
Nobody's whiter than white but all things are not equal. A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.Can you elaborate, as I fail to see why not?
I suspect you can. I know you're not stupid.
Especially how do you reconcile this with the categorical statement that...Tax evasion is morally indefensible IMHO.
I've not said either are defensable have I? I've said one is worse than the other. Because it is. There are infinite levels of shitness.
The UK needs a general 'Anti-Avoidance' provision in our tax law, to effectively say that if you set up a transaction or series of transactions in an artificial manner, this is wrong and fails.
We already have that.... any 'tax scheme' that is going to be used has to be reported to HMRC. They then decide whether to allow it to be used, or not.
In the case of these tax schemes, this has been done, and it has been ruled as acceptible by HMRC, if not by (impotent) government rhetoric.
If they don't want people doing it, they should close the loophole. Until they do, it is perfectly legal - morals don't apply.
FWIW, I was offered one of these schemes when I started contracting, and I turned it down - I decided that it sailed a bit too close to the wind for my liking, and I didn't fancy it.
Dave
wrecker - Member
I've not said either are defensable have I? [b]I've said one is worse than the other.[/b] Because it is. There are infinite levels of shitness.
So did mefty get it the right way around then? 😉
on the point of those big businesses, isn't their final tax bill actually decided by haggling about it (over lunch) with HMRCs top bods? Rather than by the more usual method of tax rule book, spreadsheet and a calculator?
The biggest companies have too many lawyers so HMRC have to negotiate a tax bill.
Just surmising what I'd seen in a few documentaries/news stories, please feel free to point out the inaccuracies, but if this is the case then they are paying their tax bills based on bullying, that's pretty flinkin immoral.
Until they do, it is perfectly legal - morals don't apply.
Nah morals still apply.
Even you junkyard, an act is either legal or not, morality has a sliding scale as well as being subjective
I agree that legal is either yes or no- I have not said different, I agree morality is [generally] subjective [ but we can still agree or we would have no laws] and a sliding scale
So did mefty get it the right way around then?
Not in my POV. I was (as you are very aware) taking a moral view, wheras mefty has taking a moral standpoint. He obviously agrees with the govts tax policies.
[i]The fact is we have a defecit and this burden is passed to us all. if they paid what they should that burden would not pass to us or would be reduced and any excess could be shared amongst us. [/i]
Junkyard - 'defecit/deficit' is usually caused by spending too much, not, earning too little... If the Govt (had) spent better (ie, less) we wouldn't be in this mess. 🙄
