Coalition to Launch TAX Evasion Clampdown

[L00b]

The sensationalist, populist media would have nothing to write about if these 2 different sets of morality didn't exist already - the fact that they exist in the first place is fuelling the divisions between the rich & the poor and the media just add their two penn'orth.

Which are these?

 

'Poor' readily doing extra/side work for cash in hand undeclared on one hand, and 'Rich' readily avoiding any tax liability they are not technically liable for on the other hand?

 

Or the "gotta pay them all" pokémon taxpayers on the one hand, and the "ain't getting a penny off me" tax evaders on the other hand?

 

...

 

Such variable levels of morality have existed since Methuselah at least, that's why taxation is usually made into Law.

All we need is fair do's all around but this brings the next accusation about the politics of envy. The politics of greed ensures that the politics of envy will always exist.

I certainly agree with that, but you're basically asking to change human nature. Tall order, that...

[truman]

Which are these?

 

The 'poor' readily doing extra/side work for cash in hand undeclared on one hand, and the 'rich' readily avoiding any tax liability they are not technically liable for on the other hand?

 

Or the "gotta pay them all" pokémon taxpayers on the one hand, and the "ain't getting a penny off me" tax evaders on the other hand?

 

...

 

Such variable levels of morality have existed since Methuselah at least, that's why taxation is usually made into Law.

 

And avoidance is within that law...

[Greybeard]

And avoidance is within that law...

 

But the law isn't fit for purpose and those with the power to fix it aren't likely to because it leaves them 'quids in'.

 

"The 2008 Tolley's Yellow Tax Handbook now stands at 10,134 pages over four volumes, up from 4,998 pages in two volumes in 1997. This year's edition would have stretched to an estimated 10,900 pages and five volumes if information provider and publisher LexisNexis had not changed the page layout and increased the number of words on each page."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2795711/Tolleys-tax-bible-doubles-in-size-as-legislation-keeps-piling-up.html

[Tony]

Our tax handbook is now reputedly the biggest in the world. Labour also introduced a new law for every day that they were in power for 13 years.

 

And the public sector is carping about 25% cuts? What on earth will they find to do under a different government? Do we have a Ministry of Soduko?

 

[/thread_drift]

[Guest]

Which are these?

 

'Poor' readily doing extra/side work for cash in hand undeclared on one hand, and 'Rich' readily avoiding any tax liability they are not technically liable for on the other hand?

 

Or the "gotta pay them all" pokémon taxpayers on the one hand, and the "ain't getting a penny off me" tax evaders on the other hand?

 

...

 

Such variable levels of morality have existed since Methuselah at least, that's why taxation is usually made into Law.

I certainly agree with that, but you're basically asking to change human nature. Tall order, that...

 

You are making the false assumption that everyone who is poor, is doing work on the side - some do but the majority of people I've known, don't.

 

When I refer to poor, I don't mean only those on benefits - there are many families struggling where the man is on, or only just above, minimum wage - two of them in my family alone. As these people are already working (for a pittance), they are certainly not doing jobs on the side.

[Wildcat]

As posted earlier by Tony, the "loopholes" only exist by virtue of legislation, and are either active (as a result of lobbying - which is not the sole preserve of the have's, by a long shot) or passive (through omission - what is not expressly forbidden may be allowed).

 

The only legislating instrument in the land is the Parliament, aided (downstream) by the Courts. There is little "unintentional" character about loopholes (but if there is, it shows poor due diligence by the legislating bodies and their advisers).

 

If the Gvt is intent on ending Tax Avoidance, then they will have to get Parliament to plug the "loopholes", and/or get the Courts to interpret the Law differently. That last one may prove a bit difficult, since the Magistrature is independent. So, the law may change, and what is legal now may become illegal later, as a result. That does not currently make the "loopholes", nor their use, illegal.

 

Apparently, the clarification was needed. But still appears wasted on you, unfortunately. I'll make it simple (but am certainly not suggesting you are ): the Parliament sets both taxation law and legal loopholes (deliberately or not, that's irrelevant).

 

Now, of course, if the Tax Code was not already dwarfing any reasonably complete Encyclopedia as a result of innumerable this-that-the-other edits, amendements, addendums, etc. then the matter of setting -and, very importantly, collecting- a "fair contribution to society" from all and sundry would be reasonably straightforward, cost-efficient and less prone to (legal/illegal) abuses. At the cost of a fair few civil servant jobs, though.

 

Is this a new technique of debate? Ignore the points I make and repeatedly argue against something I haven't said

 

Can you point to me where I have said Tax Avoidance is illegal?

 

What I have been saying is that Tax Avoidance arises from the exploitation of loopholes. Loopholes unintentionally created through the application of a combination of Laws by clever tax avoidance lawyers to exploit the unintentional consequences of the way those laws combine.

 

And that by making it a public duty to pay not the minimum amount of tax but to make the obligation to pay the right and appropriate amount of tax, Tax avoidance schemes involving the creation of artificial businesses making unnecessary transactions purely for the purpose of avoiding tax would then become illegal and rightly so because such activities are clearly anti-social and unethical.

[Wildcat]

Legislation traditionally works by setting out what isn't allowed. The last 13 years has reversed that somewhat by trying to tell us what we can do but that's only temporary. Meanwhile, if it isn't in the tax book you are allowed to do it. Funny tummy feelings are only allowed in the war-on-terror law books for the time being.

 

Are the Reform Bills in some way not traditional? Magna Carta? Legislation have never been simply about what people can't do. It has always included rights or been used to set up institutions, procedures etc.

 

... and what has that to do with the point of the thread? As to not understanding a word I'll quote this from earlier to make it clear. I'm sure that there is a thread about state ownership somewhere on SF and I'm quite open to a sensible non-ideological discussion on the subject if there isn't.

 

Nothing to do with the thread. It was however a response to an apparently unprovoked attack on the state, initiated by yourself. Your minarchist, capitalist-anarchist views are interesting and perhaps deserve a thread of their own. But when you start raising them as fact, expect them to be challenged.

[Wildcat]

Our tax handbook is now reputedly the biggest in the world. Labour also introduced a new law for every day that they were in power for 13 years.

 

And the public sector is carping about 25% cuts? What on earth will they find to do under a different government? Do we have a Ministry of Soduko?

 

[/thread_drift]

 

And were all these laws to do with financial regulations? You know the topic people complain Gordon Brown was weak on?

 

What have public sector workers got to do with any of this?

 

You appear unable to resist throwing in extremist bizarre comments apparently randomly in to threads. Why don't you just start a thread about Robert Nozick and you can discuss his ideas there without thread-spoiling.

[Greybeard]

Perhaps the final word on this topic should go to Nick Clegg...

 

"Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, has questioned the use of accountants to cut tax bills, suggesting it is "ethically wrong" for the wealthy to take advantage of legal loopholes to reduce their liabilities."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8015212/Nick-Clegg-questions-use-of-accountants-to-cut-tax-bills.html

 

No more ethically wrong than the way he and the whole tribe of MPs fiddled their expenses.

 

What he should be doing is kicking some of the overpaid backsides in the Treasury into doing some mandatory overtime in re-writing the rules and eliminating the loopholes, but I can't see that wimp Danny Alexander having the stomach for it - I've a feeling he's going to need a career outside politics sooner than most of his peers.

[Wildcat]

Perhaps the final word on this topic should go to Nick Clegg...

 

"Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, has questioned the use of accountants to cut tax bills, suggesting it is "ethically wrong" for the wealthy to take advantage of legal loopholes to reduce their liabilities."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8015212/Nick-Clegg-questions-use-of-accountants-to-cut-tax-bills.html

 

No more ethically wrong than the way he and the whole tribe of MPs fiddled their expenses.

 

What he should be doing is kicking some of the overpaid backsides in the Treasury into doing some mandatory overtime in re-writing the rules and eliminating the loopholes, but I can't see that wimp Danny Alexander having the stomach for it - I've a feeling he's going to need a career outside politics sooner than most of his peers.

 

It is not as simple as simply saying that there is a problem with the legislation we need to close the loopholes. They have been doing that and everytime the Accountants and lawyers find another one.

 

The simple solution is to create a legal duty for Tax Compliance and to crack down on tax havens.