• This topic has 108 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by grum.
Viewing 29 posts - 81 through 109 (of 109 total)
  • No Wiggo Tax thread then?
  • Junkyard
    Free 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?
    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

    Like breaking any law, its either defensible or not.

    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 £5

    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.

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    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.

    robbespierre
    Free Member

    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).

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    wrecker
    Free Member

    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.

    alfabus
    Free Member

    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

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    wrecker – Member
    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.

    So did mefty get it the right way around then? 😉

    D0NK
    Full Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    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

    wrecker
    Free Member

    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.

    br
    Free Member

    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.

    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. 🙄

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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.

    grum
    Free Member

    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.

    wrecker
    Free Member

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

    Typo. I meant mefty was taking a legal standpoint. I don’t have as much confidence in the law as he.

    stevewhyte
    Free Member

    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.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

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

    wrecker
    Free Member

    OK – that’s clearer!!

    Ha. I wondered who you were quoting as it didn’t make sense. It was me! 😀

    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.

    mefty
    Free Member

    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.

    FuzzyWuzzy
    Full Member

    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.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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
    Free Member

    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 technically caused by a differenece in what you spend and what you earn – you can blame either and the govt can influence both
    1. Spend less
    2 Earn [ tax] more

    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

    fuzzhead
    Free Member

    Surely the Vodafone example oft-quoted in this thread highlights the key moral question – should the government, via HMRC, allow 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…

    igrf
    Free Member

    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..

    mefty
    Free Member

    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.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    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?

    oliverd1981
    Free Member

    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.

    fandango
    Free Member

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

    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…

    wrecker
    Free Member

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

    No. That hasn’t even been suggested 🙄

    djglover
    Free Member

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

    grum
    Free Member

    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

Viewing 29 posts - 81 through 109 (of 109 total)

The topic ‘No Wiggo Tax thread then?’ is closed to new replies.