[Closed] Richest 'British' sportsperson...

I have a UK passport and have lived overseas where the tax regime is different to the UK. My tax was based on the regime where I lived. Should I have given up my passport while resident in those countries ? After all getting those jobs required a UK state funded Uni education.

But that is neither the law nor the intention of the law,

It will be when I'm in charge.

Does this also include all non-domiciled British passport holders who pay local taxes in the country they currently live in

Yes, but you can fill in the correct form before you leave and pay the tax you missed out paying while out of the country - heck if you might even get a refund.

Should I have given up my passport while resident in those countries

More seriously my comments were aimed at individuals who are resident in another country simply to avoid UK tax rates on their income.

Marko

Correct - I paid local tax and was 100% legit

But if someone chooses to live somewhere because it has lower tax as opposed to no tax, is that still a problem? At what point do we need to start frothing?

Of course, Monaco is not tax free. They just do not charge tax in income, they raise it by other means. So we come down to the distinction being the type of tax paid to?

Not really so straightforward is it?

At what point do we need to start frothing?

How about the point at which if everyone made the same decision, the system would collapse.

No, at that point there would be no system as no one would live here. Solve the congestion problem though wouldn't it,

If everybody took the option to pay no income tax, we would have African levels of governance, infrastructure and law and order. The roads would crumble and companies like Mercedes would collapse.

Why should we allow the wealthiest, those who benefit most from the structure of our society to opt out of paying for it.

It isn't as if these tax haven's have become centres for innovation or educational excellence. They offer nothing over than their low tax status, they are parasitic states and should be ostracised by other nations.

Well the one example under consideration that has zero tax on income, quickly falsifies that idea. Roads are spectacular but a merc might be considered a little downmarket mind...

Well the one example under consideration that has zero tax on income, quickly falsifies that idea. Roads are spectacular but a merc might be considered a little downmarket mind...

No it doesn't, Monaco generates very little wealth in itself, it just grabs it from other nations. It is totally reliant on the success of other economies with higher tax, for it's own success.

Well how does it pay for all those nice roads then?

Shall we ostracise the Irish next?

I assume you were legitimately working abroad and were not just resident to avoid UK tax? No problem there, but see above and fill in form TD112/86c before you leave.

But if someone chooses to live somewhere because it has lower tax as opposed to no tax, is that still a problem? At what point do we need to start frothing?

No problem, just pay the difference you should have paid when you return to the UK.

But as I say my comments are aimed at the wealthy tax dodgers who take everything and contribute nothing. I'll invoice Mr Hamilton and his mates for all the health care and education they had whilst growing up later.

Marko

Well how does it pay for all those nice roads then?

By offering extremely low tax rates to rich individuals so they can avoid paying tax in the countries where they make their money. By being a small area that benefits from the protection of France and the EU while avoiding making a fair contribution.

How would the world pay for infrastructure and governance if everyone could opt for such low tax levels?

Again it has excellent public health, transport, social services, infrastructure and has a major impact in the economy if Les Alps Maritime.

So presumably, OK?

Yes all paid for by it's base of manufacturing industry, it universities lead the world in technical innovation and supporting it's science and industry sectors. And not by being a low tax parasite sucking in wealth from other countries.

I repeat

How would the world pay for infrastructure and governance if everyone could opt for such low tax levels?

You can out money into ISAs, use tax advantage of pensions or even move abroad - your choice.

Indeed, but as I said earlier I dont think the two are comparable in any sensible way and the question of the op wasnt about legality it was about a matter of personal ethics/morals. Some of us think what LH and others do is not right and not what we would do were we lucky enough to be multi millionairs. The whole idea of ISA's being tax avoidance is flawed and so is the idea that LH has done anything illegal. I just think less of him for it, not that he will give a shit of course.

Tourism, services, commerce and manufacturing actually. So I repeat, rather well.

Let's hope we don't roll LH out when we go for English independence then 😉

Unable to answerer the question then.

Tourism

Tax avoidance tourism ?

Aggressive tax avoidance as morally repugnant THM, as well you know. And yet you consistently defend it on here.

That is the answer - those are the main sectors to the economy. They raise tax by different means and they have excellent infrastructure and public services. So the argument falls over under basic scrutiny.

Go and tell the 50k or so of folk who arrive in Monaco for their employment and ask if they are a parasite or not.

At least AA is being a little more honest.

No tourism, Ernie, very different. My old Mum went there are a tourist and was hardly avoiding tax, nor was my SIL who joined her.

Evidence for the latter claim?

They raise tax by different means and they have excellent infrastructure and public services.

The UK amd Monaco are so vastly different in terms of economies that its daft to compare the two.

That is the answer

It's not the answer to any question I asked. I will remind you again to help you out.

How would the world pay for infrastructure and governance if everyone could opt for such low tax levels?

Ok - fair cop missed the word "world"

By other means. We have one example up above.

Not tax avoidance tourism ? I thought it might be a bit like the health tourism that right-wingers are always banging on about.

Evidence for the latter claim?

That you consistently defend aggressive tax avoidance? You're doing it now.

As already pointed out your example is reliant on the success of the higher tax economies in Europe. It does not stand alone as a successfully economy.

No, just debunking false arguments. Different thing.

I think less of LH because he behaves like at arse quite often. He is perfectly entitled to do what he wants with his life if it is legal. None of my business. I would hate to live in Monaco personally - feels like a rich man's prison! I would rather pay UK taxes and have free right of movement here than be stuck there.

Ask the RWers on the other point.

So THM you think tax avoidance is wrong then and you never defend it and you are not right wing ?

😆

You are AS and I claim your currency as a shared asset

From the RWers at HRMC (to repeat)

You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can save tax.....

Very simple really. Evasion on the other hand, is an altogether different matter.

Monaco is popularly among peripatetic earners such as motor racing drivers, tennis players and cyclists because they work in a number of countries, and actually spend remarkably little time at home. Tax regimes, including the UK, have rules in place to tax a portion of sportsmen's (and artists') income based on time spent in the country. So LH will still pay tax here because of the UK grand prix. The regime is apparently responsible for Usain Bolt not coming to UK athletic events because the appearance fee can never cover the tax charge on his sponsorship income. We had to set aside the regime for the Olympics.

teamhurtmore - Member

You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can save tax.....

Very simple really. Evasion on the other hand, is an altogether different matter.

I'm talking about aggressive tax avoidance being morally repugnant and yet you defending it.

Not about whether it's legal or not.

Ok Ernie, I am as guilty as HRMC. Lock us all up!

My libertarian instincts lead me to let LH do what he wants to. He trades off limited access to UK with not paying taxes her. I do the opposite but that doesn't make me morally superior (or inferior). I have just made a different choice. And since I believe that true wealth is having the things that money cannot buy, I believe that I have the better deal.

The green eyed monster is never far away!!

The green eyed monster is never far away!!

He's just over there in the corner reading the book of lazy insults.

Ok Ernie, I am as guilty as HRMC. Lock us all up!

I take it you mean HMRC. Why are you attempting to position yourself with HMRC - have you got some evidence that like you they think that aggressive tax avoidance is morally justified and should be defended?

.

The green eyed monster is never far away!!

What's that suppose to mean.....that anyone who considers extreme forms of tax avoidance morally indefensible is motivated by "jealousy"?

HMRC (correct) have clear policies on tax and residency. So yes, we agree. He is committing no crime. But others feel they have the moral right to determine what he should or should not do. brilliant.

The whole idea of ISA's being tax avoidance is flawed

If you're relying on the HMRC definitions, then the idea that what LH does is tax avoidance is also flawed. I assumed we were using tax avoidance in the more common sense (ie a way of avoiding paying tax) when I brought up ISAs, given that living in a different country certainly doesn't fall under any other definition.

But as I say my comments are aimed at the wealthy tax dodgers who take everything and contribute nothing. I'll invoice Mr Hamilton and his mates for all the health care and education they had whilst growing up later.

Do you really want to go there? Apart from it involving the sort of flawed reasoning the right wingers usually come out with, I suspect you'll actually find he's due a rather large refund.

It does seem a bit bizarre condemning him for this, given that (unlike people doing things more accurately described as tax avoidance) he doesn't benefit from any facilities provided by the UK, most of his money is earned outside the UK, his employers (who employ lots of people in the UK and generate lots of income for the treasury in many different ways) derive the vast majority of their income from outside the UK and he doesn't actually spend much time wherever he describes as home.

you're relying on the HMRC definitions, then the idea that what LH does is tax avoidance is also flawed

Yes thats what I've said a number of times already. I just think what he has done is morally questionable and not what I would do in his place.

But others feel they have the moral right to determine what he should or should not do

Do you really want to go there?

Well I give you JK Rowling:

‘I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles

‘A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall.

‘I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism . . .'

If more of the super rich tax exiles had that attitude the world would be a better place - and I can't stand Harry Potter!
Marko

AA - Indeed you have, many others haven't accepted the point.

AA - Indeed you have, many others haven't accepted the point.

Havent they? Where?

But others feel they have the moral right to determine what he should or should not do

I've not noticed this either just people giving their opinion that they dont like what he has done.

He is committing no crime.

You're banging on about it being legal THM, as if that's the only consideration that matters.

Obviously in your immoral world everything and anything goes as long as it's legal.

But clearly the purpose of this thread was to discuss the moral aspects of this situation, as the comment in the the original post points out : [i]" My moral compass would not allow me to do this, I would want to give something back".[/i] Not whether it was legal or not.

And it is only by discussing moral aspects of situations that laws are changed or introduced. Perhaps you feel that society has reached a moral pinnacle and no further discussions are now needed?

But others feel they have the moral right to determine what he should or should not do. brilliant.

You think there is something wrong with that?

You think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, was wrong to state in one of his budget speeches to Parliament : [i]"aggressive tax avoidance as morally repugnant"[/i]

Or does that perhaps suggest that the problem still needs addressing?

Instead of making depressingly predictable comments about "the green eyed monster" how about recognising the problem which George Osborne has identified and not making silly accusations of jealousy?

Yes thats what I've said a number of times already

My apologies for suggesting you thought otherwise. His actions are therefore neither tax evasion or tax avoidance, simply "organising his finance to minimise tax", hence directly equivalent to an ISA.

You think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, was wrong to state in one of his budget speeches to Parliament : "aggressive tax avoidance as morally repugnant"

I certainly don't think that was wrong, but most of us don't believe LH is engaged in aggressive tax avoidance.

What would call aggressive tax avoidance then aracer? Moving your domicile to another country seems like an extreme form of tax avoidance to me.

And who is [i]"most of us"[/i] btw ? On how many people's behalf are you speaking?

Do you really want to go there?

Well I give you JK Rowling:

Which has what relevance to:

I'll invoice Mr Hamilton and his mates for all the health care and education they had whilst growing up later.

His actions are therefore neither tax evasion or tax avoidance, simply "organising his finance to minimise tax", hence directly equivalent to an ISA.

If you think paying into an isa is equivalent to a person earning tens of millions a year moving to Monaco then good luck to you. I dont think its in anyway sensible to suggest they are equivalent. My moral compass is more than happy to pay into an isa whilst I wouldnt move abroad to avoid tax as I think its wrong.

What would call aggressive tax avoidance then aracer?

The HMRC definition of tax avoidance was posted earlier, I'd suggest not things which don't come under that.

So moving to Monaco wasn't for tax avoidance purposes then?

Or it was but it's just a fairly standard thing which people tend to do to minimize their tax bills?

Which one is it?

If you think paying into an isa is equivalent to a person earning tens of millions a year moving to Monaco

Since neither are tax evasion or tax avoidance, would you like to provide some other defitintions of ways of saving tax so we can differentiate?

What could be more aggressive in terms of tax avoidance to the UK govt than leaving the country? I think the consenus is either he is or he is but i dont really care or he is but on a technicality via HMRC rules he is not

We all know he left to pay less tax and you are only debating what we call this from what i can see.
*I assumed we were using tax avoidance in the more common sense (ie a way of avoiding paying tax)

Its pretty clear this is why he moved and why you dont wish to call this tax avoidance is a pin dance i have little interest in

You dont avoid paying tax by paying into an isa. It is tax free, like riding a bike on the roads doesnt mean cyclists avoid road tax. I have now repeated all the points I've already posted so have very little else tk say. If you think paying into an isa is equivalent to moving to a tax haven good for you fella, I dont.

He has not in the tax sense moved his domicile. He has become non resident. Under UK law you have to become both not resident and not ordinarily resident to escape tax on your income. The latter looks at things over a longer term (3 to 4 years) so you can't just flit off for a year and get all your income paid then.

HMRC says tax avoidance as doing stuff that is outside both the law and the [u]intention [/u] of the law. There has never been any intent by parliament to tax on a citizenship basis and we never intended to tax non residents (who are only not ordinarily resident) . It can't therefore in their terms be described as tax avoidance, let alone aggressive tax avoidance.

You can call it unpatriotic tax planning, greedy etc, but it ain't tax avoidance as HMRC defines it.

did he do it to pay less tax?

If the answer is yes then he did it to avoid tax.

[ hence why you added[editted] the last sentence and caveat to say as HMRC defines it]

You dont avoid paying tax by paying into an isa. It is tax free

😆 whereas investing your money in something that isn't an ISA isn't tax free. I hope JY is enjoying you dancing on pins!

like riding a bike on the roads doesnt mean cyclists avoid road tax.

maybe not, but driving a group A car could quite reasonably be described as avoiding tax.

JY - the issue is that if you describe it as tax avoidance, then so is the list I posted earlier (at the time I assumed like you that we were using the common definition - I'm no more interested than you in arguing about the definition of tax avoidance)

I hope JY is enjoying you dancing on pins!

I think to comapre that to LH is to compare chalk and cheese

Well of course he's not avoiding tax, I'm sure he's perfectly willing to pay all the taxes that he is due to pay in Monaco.

However I'm also sure that most people are fully aware as to why he went to Monaco - to avoid paying taxes.

Use HMRC definition v the ordinary man in the street definition

Legal v moral

It really depends what you want to talk about. But it's clear what the topic of discussion behind this thread was, ie, whether it was morally acceptable, not whether it was legal.

whether it was morally acceptable, not whether it was legal

but it is not merely legal, it is also within the spirit of the law. This is an important point because it helps identify where the fault lies i.e the system itself or some external factor.

Sometimes the govt uses taxation policy to encourage behaviour and an ISA is one example as is the car.

Which government? It seems the Monaco government also uses taxation policy to encourage behaviour 😉

But it's clear what the topic of discussion behind this thread was, ie, whether it was morally acceptable, not whether it was legal.

We covered that one in about the second post. I'm fairly sure everybody agrees it isn't tax evasion (illegal), we're simply arguing about where it falls on the scale of legal methods of avoiding paying tax. The important point there is that it is not exploiting a loophole, hence it's not what Gideon was talking about.

"But it's clear what the topic of discussion behind this thread was, ie, whether it was morally acceptable, not whether it was legal."

We covered that one in about the second post.

Yes of course, it was such a simple question, and these sort of threads don't usually extend beyond about two posts.

So what was the consensus that was reached in just two posts...... it is morally acceptable?

The second post said "Yawn".

😀

I find it slightly amusing/hypocritical when certain posters on here try to say they can't see the difference between owning an ISA and upping sticks and moving to Monaco soley to avoid paying tax, as its just varying degrees of the same thing...

...yet the same posters argue voraciously that buying an expensive car is immoral, a blatent show of greed, and is in no way similar to buying an 8k bike...

At least be consistent with your socialist principles...

Perhaps he just moved there because the sun shines more?

The Gov't encourages us to use ISAs as want us to save for our futures so helps the country. Moving to a tax haven doesn't help the country much so they don't encourage that.

and is in no way similar to buying an 8k bike...

At least be consistent with your socialist principles...

Buying "an 8k bike" is the same as moving to Monaco to avoid pay tax? In what way?

And who's got an 8k bike? My most expensive bike is my road bike which would probably cost somewhere in the region of about 3.5k to replace like for like, I would seriously struggle to spend 8k on a bike even if I put my mind to it.

I would like to remain consistent with my socialist principles tpbiker so any clues would be gratefully received.

as its just varying degrees of the same thing...

ernie...that wasn't even remotely aimed at you fella...

Buying "an 8k bike" is the same as moving to Monaco to avoid pay tax? In what way?

Its not...

Yes in the same way that punching someone who breaks into your house or stabbing them ten times and then standing there watching them bleed to death is just varying degrees of the same thing [ self defence].

Junkyard....well yes, I'd argue they are very different as well, as is having an ISA and moving to a tax free haven. I'm not sure if for once we are agreeing on something 🙂

Its not...

Fair enough. I just assumed that throwing in the "8k bike" into a debate about someone moving to Monaco to avoid pay taxes meant that it was in some way connected. But I happy to agree that it bears no relevance.

ernie...that wasn't even remotely aimed at you fella...

That's cheered me up no end. I would hate anyone to question my socialist principles 😛

...yet the same posters argue voraciously that buying an expensive car is immoral, a blatent show of greed, and is in no way similar to buying an 8k bike...

Still holding a grudge about that? Though your bike is getting more expensive - it was originally £1500 wheels, then a £5k bike (I suspect ernie might just about manage to spend that much).

Though that discussion was about extravagance, in which case it seems clear that spending £5k is different to spending £60k, whilst this one is about principles where the amount is irrelevant.

At least be consistent with your socialist principles...

😆 - I'd love to see the reaction of other posters on this thread if I claimed to be one of those. Though congratulations on noticing my lack of consistent political stance, given I don't tend to base my opinions on a fixed political position.

You are Nick Clegg and I demand a meaningless pledge 😉

You dont avoid paying tax by paying into an isa.

What do you do then? And why is the amount you can out into the ISA limited and the rest liable to tax? Are the Gov and HMRC complete muppets?!?

You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can save tax, for example by saving in a tax-free ISA,

Obviously not, as they could hardly be clearer could they?

Though congratulations on noticing my lack of consistent political stance, given I don't tend to base my opinions on a fixed political position.

And good for you. Sad when people feel compelled to frame everything thought the predetermined prism of a group of random political people. How dull that must be!

Hi, this is true, because someone called Dave/Nick/Ed/Nige says it is. And I believe every word too. 😉

I don't tend to base my opinions on a fixed political position.

I've long noticed how you're all over the place politically aracer - you think that's a good thing?

Although obviously not socialist.

Have you considered a career in New Labour - home of the ideological airheads?

I hold no grudge at all. But since you have picked up that that was aimed at you aracer...

I just find it strange that some people seem to condone this type of 'tax avoidance' (or whatever you want to call it), whilst at the same time thinking its immoral that someone should spend their hard earned on a flash car.

As for my stance on it, I'd love to be rich and be able to afford luxury items. But with wealth come the (IMO) moral obligation to not try to avoid paying tax on your earnings. That in my eyes is just pure greed.

Sad when people feel compelled to frame everything thought the predetermined prism of a group of random political people. How dull that must be!

Unlike you THM who is still struggling to decide whether to vote Labour after spending the last 5 years slagging them off.

I just find it strange that some people seem to condone this type of 'tax avoidance' (or whatever you want to call it), whilst at the same time thinking its immoral that someone should spend their hard earned on a flash car.

I don't think I said anything about it being immoral spending money on a car, I simply disputed your assertion that £1500 bike wheels were just as extravagant as a £60k car. Which as ernie pointed out has no relation at all to this discussion.

Ernie are you Derren Brown? You seem to love saying what others are thinking.

I am perfectly happy with my vote thanks and the reason. And great to make my own mind up. Not that this has anything to do with making moral accusations about someone else's business.

And great to make my own mind up.

You get huge satisfaction in deciding to vote Tory at every election? Good for you!

I don't think I said anything about it being immoral spending money on a car'

ok fair enough, i stand corrected. You said it was 60 times more ludicrous spending money on a car than on a stupidly expensive set of wheels. Not something i agree with, but admittedly not the same at all, and i agree isn't relevant to this discussion.

C'mon Ernie make you mind up...am I voting Labour or Tory?

Do,you not get any pleasure from exercising your democratic right? That must be a little sad.

Wasn't it immoral to buy a very expensive car, but moral to ride a bike over it? 😉 it's only a laff.

Sad when people feel compelled to frame everything thought the predetermined prism of a group of random political people. How dull that must be!