Who is worse. Tax or benefit thieves?

[Loubbe]

First of all, tax evasion as stated many times is illegal.

 

Secondly, single mums are entitled to adequate benefits from the state and do not go hungry.

 

Thirdly, you cannot overstate your rent as you need to show a valid signed tenancy agreement.

 

And lastly, housing benefit is a set amount. If you qualify for the full benefit, your rent is not part of the calculation. If you pay more, you have to find the shortfall, if you pay less you pocket the difference.

 

Thank you, your insistance that those who avoid tax are all awarded peerages while those claiming benefits go hungry. This shows you have very little understanding on the subject and are just reacting to headlines and spin.

 

I know not too much about benefit fraud, nor tax evasion/ avoidance

 

But there are regularly stories in the red tops regarding benefit fraudsters claiming disability allowance whilst competing in badminton tournaments or taking skiing holidays...

 

Not too much about those who fiddle their accounts. TV adverts threaten benefit cheats with prison, where are these same threats to those who evade tax?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/10/comment.society

 

Tax evasion costs far more than benefit fraud, it's just that it's easier to intimidate some people than others

[Berberis]

it must be so uplifting for you to beleive that these companies getting away with not paying their dues to the country is fine ?

 

But if its legal that IS fine. Governments close loop holes all the time but they also open them as a way of working tax. This has gone on for generations with successive governments doing the same. Loop holes are a means to attract businesses without overtly offering incentives that would be otherwise illegal under international and EU law.

 

Incidental Loubbe, the Guardian news paper, the last champion of the Labour party also pays no tax in the UK.

 

If the Inland Revenue say they owe no tax, then that is good enough for me.

[wednesday1]

But if its legal that IS fine. Governments close loop holes all the time but they also open them as a way of working tax. This has gone on for generations with successive governments doing the same. Loop holes are a means to attract businesses without overtly offering incentives that would be otherwise illegal under international and EU law.

 

Incidental Loubbe, the Guardian news paper, the last champion of the Labour party also pays no tax in the UK.If the Inland Revenue say they owe no tax, then that is good enough for me.

 

 

 

Do you have a link to this. The Guardian btw supported the Lib Dems at the election. The Mirror is the only Labour supporting daily.

[Cyclone]

Loop holes are accidental, most tax avoidance is just making use of deliberate incentives.

[Berberis]

Do you have a link to this. The Guardian btw supported the Lib Dems at the election. The Mirror is the only Labour supporting daily.

 

The Guardian switched to the Lib Dems for the election that's all as they through the Lib Dems had the best chance.

 

To answer your question, no, it was a comment on a radio 4 program last week I think. They were discussing the Vodafone protests at the time and the remark was made and unchallenged in the debate.

 

The Guardian's tax affairs may be a result of the news papers continued losses, but I am no expert on their taxation or how such large companies can reduce their tax burden.

[Cyclone]

If you don't make a profit, you don't pay any tax, that bit is pretty straight forward.

[Berberis]

Loop holes are accidental, most tax avoidance is just making use of deliberate incentives.

 

That's not what was said on Radio 4 the other day but for the life of me I cant find the program I listened too.

 

The guy said governments are plugging loop holes all the time but also re open them as a means to affect the tax system.

[Berberis]

If you don't make a profit, you don't pay any tax, that bit is pretty straight forward.

 

Taxation for a sole trader is more complicated than that, so I assume its a lot more complicated for a national news paper like The Guardian especially considering they are owned by an even larger media group called "Guardian Media Group plc" which have a number of assets in a number of sectors other then media.

 

Could it be that Vodafone operate in a similar fashion and discount their tax against losses elsewhere?

[ricgem2002]

But if its legal that IS fine. Governments close loop holes all the time but they also open them as a way of working tax. This has gone on for generations with successive governments doing the same. Loop holes are a means to attract businesses without overtly offering incentives that would be otherwise illegal under international and EU law.

 

Incidental Loubbe, the Guardian news paper, the last champion of the Labour party also pays no tax in the UK.

 

If the Inland Revenue say they owe no tax, then that is good enough for me.

so on your basis if this was open to all tax payers who could avoid paying it (how would the country run with more people paying nothing ?)