Plain Packaged Cigarettes: Is it a charter for counterfeiters ?

[PeteMorris]

Can you find any evidence to back that up? You seem very good at making bold statements and claims, but I've no reason to believe a single word you've posted.

 

What? Evidence to show the rich people in this country are far more guilty of tax availdance than us mere mortals?

 

Which cotton wool coated world do you live in?

[Uptowngirl]

We shall see in due course. But that's not the point of the thread anyway!

 

It's just as daft to say why should we care about the welfare of the users of the drug trafficking trade? Maybe you don't, but you should!!!

 

To be honest I clearly show more concern than you do. Putting out harmless fakes to deter custommers from buying fake goods that could do them harm seems a pretty good way of looking after their welfare. Isn't that better than to condone buying fake products regardless of the health consequences.

[Uptowngirl]

What? Evidence to show the rich people in this country are far more guilty of tax availdance than us mere mortals?

 

Which cotton wool coated world do you live in?

 

You seem to be shifting the goal posts here. I minute ago it was people in the government who have mysteriously now become rich people. I think you are out of your depth in a debate.

[PeteMorris]

To be honest I clearly show more concern than you do. Putting out harmless fakes to deter custommers from buying fake goods that could do them harm seems a pretty good way of looking after their welfare. Isn't that better than to condone buying fake products regardless of the health consequences.

 

:huh: Errrr...where did I say I condone it?

 

Can you explain how the government would distribute harmless fake cigarettes?

[PeteMorris]

You seem to be shifting the goal posts here. I minute ago it was people in the government who have mysteriously now become rich people. I think you are out of your depth in a debate.

 

I don't think so! It's more like you (no doubt and anti-smoker) come in and rant, cos you don't like smokers.

 

If it hasn't escaped your notice, a good portion of the members of government are 'rich' people.

 

I think it is you who is way out of your depth!

[Uptowngirl]

I don't think so! It's more like you (no doubt and anti-smoker) come in and rant, cos you don't like smokers.

 

If it hasn't escaped your notice, a good portion of the members of government are 'rich' people.

 

I think it is you who is way out of your depth!

 

I dare say that a good proportion of Sheffield Forum members are also rich people. Not all live on T'Cross. There are also a good number of forum members who advocate EVADING TAX through illegal smuggling and buying blackmarket goods cash in hand.

Tax avoidance isn't illegal. It is positively encouraged throuh ISAs etc. It is tax evasion that is illegal, ie through buying blackmarket goods.

[taxman]

Tax avoidance isn't illegal. It is positively encouraged throuh ISAs etc.

 

Putting money into an ISA isn't tax avoidance. David Gauke made that quite clear a few weeks ago in his speech at the Policy Exchange, differentiating between legitimate use of reliefs and artificial avoidance measures.

 

"For those not immersed in matters relating to tax, the debate on tax avoidance can be a confusing one, not least because the term ‘tax avoidance’ can be used somewhat loosely.

Legitimate use of reliefs is not tax avoidance:

Claiming capital reliefs on investment is not tax avoidance – when those reliefs were introduced precisely to encourage the investment in question.

Claiming reliefs against double taxation is not tax avoidance – when the alternative would be taxpayers paying tax twice on the same income.

Claiming back tax on legitimate charitable donations is not tax avoidance – any more than ticking the ‘gift aid’ box is.

Not paying tax on your pension contributions is not tax avoidance.

Taking out a tax free ISA is not tax avoidance.

Clearly, the examples I have listed represent perfectly reasonable tax planning – making use of reliefs for the purpose they were intended, and ensuring one pays only what one is liable for.

Now I would hope this would be obvious to anyone who understands the purpose of reliefs. Yet some estimates of the tax gap count use of these reliefs as ‘avoidance’.

That is what avoidance is not. But artificial structures that aggressively exploit reliefs contrary to parliament’s intended purpose through contrived, artificial schemes fall very clearly into the definition of avoidance."

[shanes teeth]

If there is no branding at all on the pack,how will you know what brand you have bought until you taste it? Presumably different brands and strengths will still be available.

[fake]

And branding plays a big part in why they see it as cool - studies have already shown that plain packaging is less likely to attract young smokers.

 

Er, no as they have been no studies. Its just someone's idea that it may deter them but there is no real evidence at all just guesswork. That's why people are awaiting the results of what will happen in Australia and if it indeed does what some expect.

 

Truth is the packaging is not important when it comes to sales with young people who this is mean to be targeted at.

[caparo]

Putting money into an ISA isn't tax avoidance. David Gauke made that quite clear a few weeks ago in his speech at the Policy Exchange, differentiating between legitimate use of reliefs and artificial avoidance measures.

 

"For those not immersed in matters relating to tax, the debate on tax avoidance can be a confusing one, not least because the term ‘tax avoidance’ can be used somewhat loosely.

Legitimate use of reliefs is not tax avoidance:

Claiming capital reliefs on investment is not tax avoidance – when those reliefs were introduced precisely to encourage the investment in question.

Claiming reliefs against double taxation is not tax avoidance – when the alternative would be taxpayers paying tax twice on the same income.

Claiming back tax on legitimate charitable donations is not tax avoidance – any more than ticking the ‘gift aid’ box is.

Not paying tax on your pension contributions is not tax avoidance.

Taking out a tax free ISA is not tax avoidance.

Clearly, the examples I have listed represent perfectly reasonable tax planning – making use of reliefs for the purpose they were intended, and ensuring one pays only what one is liable for.

Now I would hope this would be obvious to anyone who understands the purpose of reliefs. Yet some estimates of the tax gap count use of these reliefs as ‘avoidance’.

That is what avoidance is not. But artificial structures that aggressively exploit reliefs contrary to parliament’s intended purpose through contrived, artificial schemes fall very clearly into the definition of avoidance."

 

 

Isn't tax avoidance simply not buying cigarettes and tax evasion buying them from an illegal supplier?

 

I'm sure a taxman could tell us.