KARATE DAVE Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 thats as maybe be! but until that day its legal, quite how they would "backdate" illegality remains to be seen as these schemes in the first place were sanctioned by the revenue. if they do have to pay back anything then i am sure they are in a position to do so and would probably say well we tried ...bad luck better luck next time and so the game goes on! i would say nearly everyone in all walks of life have at some time defrauded the tax man wether its cash in hand payments to tradesmen, cash to shopkeepers, undeclared income etc etc...its a game and we all play it ...just some people paint themselves whiter than white:suspect: agreed, with relish. and seeing as the topic has moved on to the usage and availability of services, the suggestion has been made that a normal and a wealthy family pay their tax pro-rata to their earnings at 30% ish, but that is also unfair as the family paying lower tax may use the services more. where is the value in that? If I had a healthy family and earned £200,000 ayear but never really used the nhs or police or fire, and the family on £25,000 a year were constantly on to the police, in the doctors or setting their chip pan on fire, would I have the right to be disgruntled? Tax is tax, and should be paid fairly, and evenly. not over expanded to the wealthy just because theyve got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 thats as maybe be! but until that day its legal, quite how they would "backdate" illegality remains to be seen as these schemes in the first place were sanctioned by the revenue. if they do have to pay back anything then i am sure they are in a position to do so and would probably say well we tried ...bad luck better luck next time and so the game goes on! i would say nearly everyone in all walks of life have at some time defrauded the tax man wether its cash in hand payments to tradesmen, cash to shopkeepers, undeclared income etc etc...its a game and we all play it ...just some people paint themselves whiter than white:suspect: No, more likely they would be registered with HMRC. Registration is not approval. Once registered HMRC can close down the scheme if it deems it to be illegal. It could be possible for a scheme to operate for a time before HMRC closes it down, e.g. by a change to legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Yes, and yes. as for the tax man a-coming, well I think I could be wealthy enough to pay him, and with no other worries, as isnt wasnt illegal when I did it. It might have been illegal when you did it. Not all schemes registered with HMRC turn out to be legal. Most strain the boundries of the law to the limits and some schemes cross the line into illegality, i.e. evasion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 No, more likely they would be registered with HMRC. Registration is not approval. Once registered HMRC can close down the scheme if it deems it to be illegal. It could be possible for a scheme to operate for a time before HMRC closes it down, e.g. by a change to legislation. i very much doubt that any scheme "registered" with HM Revenue was not looked at immediatly by the back room boys, just because they close the loophole doesnt mean it was illegal the Revenue just move the goal posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 i very much doubt that any scheme "registered" with HM Revenue was not looked at immediatly by the back room boys, just because they close the loophole doesnt mean it was illegal the Revenue just move the goal posts. Registration does not equal HMRC approval. End of story. HMRC can investigate any scheme at any time and close it down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 as for the tax man a-coming, well I think I could be wealthy enough to pay him, Those shares in Apple that you invested all you're redundancy money in came in handy then didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 You've hit the nail on the head there MrSmith. VAT would be the great equaller for us all. It is almost impossible to avoid VAT. Generally that's true, but if you really wish to avoid VAT then you can buy many things that are not subject to it such as second hand goods, including cars. So, if you choose to buy a nearly new car privately rather than an unregistered one, you have denied the treasury of a sizable sum. Same with many services, there are many individual tradesman who do not have to be registered for VAT so do not have to charge it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARATE DAVE Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Those shares in Apple that you invested all you're redundancy money in came in handy then didn't they? im talking hypothetical stan. I wish I did have his money. I still think id like to try and keep hold of most of it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Given it the Times & Sunday Times doing the present investigative work that has brought this to light, id wager that Murdoch is fully trying to expose the cabinet, no doubt because he believes they fubared him by allowing the Leveson enquiry. Quite hypocritically, i believe the Murdoch empire uses over 270 tax havens. You just couldnt make it up.... As I understand it News International doesn't pay a penny in tax in the UK and never has despite it's millions in turnover and profits. Politicians have always been too gutless to take them on and make them pay for fear of what Murdoch might do to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 You've hit the nail on the head there MrSmith. VAT would be the great equaller for us all. It is almost impossible to avoid VAT. VAT is a regressive tax. It doesn't equalise anything. Every attempt I've ever seen to prove that it isn't regressive could be picked apart in minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.