[Closed] No Wiggo Tax thread then?

What is the difference between a moral standpoint and a moral view?

Actually there are plenty of people who would argue against the "definitive" link between paying taxes and morality. It certainly is far from accepted that there is a hard and fast moral argument that says that people who earn more money, should pay more tax.

You are quite right, the former is committing tax evasion which is illegal and the latter is partaking of tax avoidance which is not.

And you're completely happy about that situation? Isn't it rather 'one rule for the rich, and one rule for everyone else', seeing as these schemes are only available to those who are already very well off?

And I wonder which one costs the exchequer more.

What is the difference between a moral standpoint and a moral view?

cynic-

I think most posts on this thread need an "IMO" suffix.

I would have thought it would be obvious that post on an Internet forum were people opinions.

OK - that's clearer!! Which is where the legal/moral aspects of tax are so interesting. Rawls vs Nozick!!

OK - that's clearer!!

I do believe that the govt are naive to expect everyone to pay the full amount with tax laws so full of holes. It's bloody annoying though. It needs shoring up ASAP. Not wholly confident that the conservatives will bother. I am surprised that Labour did FA about it when in power for all that time. Them fighting for the little man and all. apparently.

The law might not be perfect but it certainly the best system we have got. If the government is going to take money off people they need to set out a clear system by which they will do this and they do this in the form of laws. These are then interpreted by an independent judiciary in the event of unresolvable disputes as to their meaning.

I don't see any alternative way we have as a society of running a tax system. Therefore providing you enter into a transaction which delivers potential tax savings that is not dependent upon anything not being disclosed, then you have met your part of the bargain and the government has no right to pillory you as they have the whip hand, the ability to make law.

Hmm that's pretty disappointing, not saying I wouldn't do something similar if I were a rich business man but it jars a bit with Wiggo's self-publicised image of being 'an ordinary Brit', I guess it has a better ring to it than 'tax-dodging Belgian'. If he's only done it with a small fraction of his income then it does beg the question, 'why?' given the negative publicity it will garner.
I'm not sure about some previous posts saying most of his income will come from overseas - most of his income will be his salary from Sky (presumably paid in the UK) and whatever endorsements he has (I'm guessing stuff like the Fred Perry thing would be in the UK as well). His earnings from races would go into the team pot and mostly go to the other Sky team members.

But wrecker, Labour were very clear about income tax, that is until Darling's political stunt at the end of power!!

Going back to the first page - I cannot see what relevance the time horizon of Wiggo's career has to do with it? If you accept that argument, would you apply equally to some "poor"-old city trader who is burnt out by his mid-thirties? I doubt it somehow!

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.

It is obvious tax avoidance impacts on 2 so the point remains that raised revenue from reduced tax avoidance instantly makes it look like the govt spent better [ in your view] and we now pay less. I n relaity they actually raised more didn't they.
i dont know why you made that point or rolled your eyes the point remains that the governement LOOSE REVENUE due to tax avoidance and we all pick up the tab

Surely the Vodafone example oft-quoted in this thread highlights the key moral question - should the government, via HMRC, [b]allow[/b] Vodafone to withhold the tax they should have legitmately paid?

Personally i think not, but this has happened and over a cosy dinner by all accounts...

Tax avoidance is just another spin to divert us from the real problem in that we are Governed by incompetents.

Incompetents who don't pay or contribute to the nations tax burden, rather add to it, whilst they fiddle their expenses. There are too many of them and they frequently avoid any attempts to reduce their own number.

I wouldn't pay this or the last lot a red cent more than I absolutely need to, as it is paying 20 % VaT, which is more than a lot of us profit from our own businesses and suppresses sales and tax earnings, is bad news.

If I had the organisational skills I'd go about suggesting a Nationwide Tax Strike, then see how long they last with absolutely no revenue from us all. Having a go at Bradley Wiggins is probably some spin monkey in No10 trying to divert attention from George & Co, some of his revenue is genuinely earned overseas, there must be a totally legal reason to divert those earnings offshore, good luck to the fella he's earned it which is more than can be said for the spin merchant or his masters..

allow Vodafone to withhold the tax they should have legitmately paid?

Who says? Private Eye. Now I am a great admirer of Ian Hislop but I wouldn't use him for tax advice, there will have been a dispute over the proper tax treatment and the two parties will have come to a negotiated settlement, like many other taxpayers in the past.

should the government, via HMRC, allow Vodafone to withhold the tax they should have legitmately paid?

Ore perhaps more accurately - should the government have signed up to the European Union tax protocols that allowed Vodafone (and Amazon, and several other large companies) to legally avoid paying the tax that they would have otherwise had to pay, and the government are unable to collect, as we have surrendered our taxation sovereignty to the EU?

Does he pay more tax in the UK than me? - Probably
Does he spend more in the UK? - Probably
Could he swan off abroad and pay a lot less? - Probably.

I which case - well done that man. Proud sponsor of the UK.

A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure[i]

In order to clarify, are you suggesting that high earners should have a different moral code to low earners?

And as a declaration of interest I reduce my tax burden by using a company car...

In order to clarify, are you suggesting that high earners should have a different moral code to low earners?

Not that it's any defence, but I bet he just got offered a portfolio and signed it without being explained the implications.

Last week, Wiggins was criticised for having joined Twofold First Services, a tax partnership which takes advantage of farming tax reliefs. But in the interview in Weekend magazine, Wiggins says: "I had a small investment in Twofold, following guidance from my professional advisers. I had, however, claimed no tax relief of any amount in regard to this investment. Given the concerns raised about it, I have now instructed my advisors to withdraw me from the scheme with immediate effect."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/02/bradley-wiggins-fatherhood-tax