Tax avoidance is harming us all.

[truman]

Are you talking legal tax due or "moral" tax..?If profits per employee were reduced do you think companies would employ the same number of people? Genuine question..

 

 

 

 

The fact that the question has to be asked is what is wrong with our society today.

 

Legal and moral tax should be the same thing.

 

And 'profits' should not continually be the bottom line for fantastically wealthy people who already have more money than they know what to do with.

 

Profits equals jobs..or should I say lack of profits equals job losses..I'll ask agian,if profits were lower because of higher taxes would companies still employ the same number of people..?

[Eater Sundae]

Avoidance. From the horse's mouth.

 

"What is tax avoidance?

Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that

serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter – but not the spirit – of the law.

 

Tax avoidance is not the same as tax planning. Tax planning involves using tax reliefs for the purpose for which they were intended. For example, claiming tax relief on capital investment, saving in a tax-exempt ISA or saving for retirement by making contributions to a pension scheme are all legitimate forms of tax planning."

 

That comes back to the Treasury, and Government. It is their responsibility to frame legislation to ensure that they receive the tax they want.

 

It's a bit too glib to say that we didn't intend this means of avoidance, and therefore it is wrong. Pretty much every action will have an unforseen result. it's up to Government to get the legislation right.

[mikem8634]

So do you pay more than your legal obligation?

 

Nope, that is a different question. I was answering this one - if you had the chance to LEGALLY reduce the amount of tax you were paying, would you take it or continue paying full whack out of some sense of social duty?

 

Regarding your question, I don't have a choice. All I can say is if I had the same options to legally minimise my tax bill as the multinationals in question I would not as I deem that to be immoral. I don't believe that any given entity's legal obligation to the tax system should be malleable, fluid or open to the machinations of wizardy accountants.

 

In summary, if I could employ perfectly legal means to reduce my legal obligation below that of the majority and below that which I deem to be fair (which would be any less than everyone else) I would not do it as I perceive that do be an immoral stance and fair taxation to be a social duty.

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 15:31 ----------

 

You can understand why more people are trying to avoid taxes, especially the likes of trades people.

 

They get a poor deal from the state, pay through the nose for everything and when its retirement time are likely to lose everything they've worked for to pay for their own old age.

 

So its understandable that some people will be on the fiddle.

 

Surely you're on a sticky wicket attempting to justify not paying taxes by complaining that there is not enough in the public coffers to care for people in their old age?

[truman]

Nope, that is a different question. I was answering this one - if you had the chance to LEGALLY reduce the amount of tax you were paying, would you take it or continue paying full whack out of some sense of social duty?

 

Regarding your question, I don't have a choice. All I can say is if I had the same options to legally minimise my tax bill as the multinationals in question I would not as I deem that to be immoral. I don't believe that any given entity's legal obligation to the tax system should be malleable, fluid or open to the machinations of wizardy accountants.

 

In summary, if I could employ perfectly legal means to reduce my legal obligation below that of the majority and below that which I deem to be fair (which would be any less than everyone else) I would not do it as I perceive that do be an immoral stance and fair taxation to be a social duty.

 

Hypothetically if the government lowered taxes to a level you thought immoral,what would you do?

[mikem8634]

Hypothetically if the government lowered taxes to a level you thought immoral,what would you do?

 

Ah, that is different. I am not concerned with the specific amount of taxation but the egalitarian dispersal of taxation. If taxes were lowered for everybody then I would not mind beyond our communal ability to pay for services to the standards I would like in a civilised society. I happen to favour the higher (Scandinavian) end of taxation but have no problem with those who favour the opposite so long as it is across the board.

[truman]

Ah, that is different. I am not concerned with the specific amount of taxation but the egalitarian dispersal of taxation. If taxes were lowered for everybody then I would not mind beyond our communal ability to pay for services to the standards I would like in a civilised society. I happen to favour the higher (Scandinavian) end of taxation but have no problem with those who favour the opposite so long as it is across the board.

 

So you'd be happy if everyone,companies included, paid less tax? I'm confused now..what level of tax would you find immoral? Are you actually saying that you only pay your legally obliged amount but want others to pay more?

[BoroB]

Just because a Treasury Minister says something, it doesn't mean he's right. Basically, it's the failings of the Treasury that allows these methods of avoidance to prosper. Of course he's going to blame someone else.

 

But ISA's are not a failing of the Treasury.

 

Eveyone has an ISA allowance that they can use each year to save money and avoid paying tax on interest/income/gains from said savings.

 

Likewise everyone has a personal allowance each year whereby an individual avoids paying tax on the part of their income.

 

These are totally different from the schemes manufactured by individuals/companies to avoid tax

[mikem8634]

So you'd be happy if everyone,companies included, paid less tax? I'm confused now..what level of tax would you find immoral? Are you actually saying that you only pay your legally obliged amount but want others to pay more?

 

No, as I said, I favour the higher end of the taxation spectrum.

 

It is immoral to use tax avoidance to achieve lower taxation obligation in the manner of Starbucks.

 

It is not immoral for a government to lower taxes for everyone even though I would very probable disagree with it.

Edited February 12, 2013 by mikem8634

[Staunton]

It is important that we do not make the mistake of complaining about the conservative led coalition and their apparent fumbling and incompetence in relation to taxation of the corporate sector.

 

The tories are active participants in a global endeavour to undermine tax structures, both in the UK and abroad. They are not failing to collect revenue, they are perpetrating a consistent and energetic project to emancipate big businesses and wealthy individuals from their tax obligations.

 

This leaves a gaping hole in the revenues that are required for a modern democracy to function, an aspect which is then highlighted by those very same tory ideologues to promote an agenda of cuts to the public sector and the privatisation of services, and to justify their corrosive doctrinal demands for deregulation.

[truman]

It is important that we do not make the mistake of complaining about the conservative led coalition and their apparent fumbling and incompetence in relation to taxation of the corporate sector.

 

The tories are active participants in a global endeavour to undermine tax structures, both in the UK and abroad. They are not failing to collect revenue, they are perpetrating a consistent and energetic project to emancipate big businesses and wealthy individuals from their tax obligations.

 

This leaves a gaping hole in the revenues that are required for a modern democracy to function, an aspect which is then highlighted by those very same tory ideologues to promote an agenda of cuts to the public sector and the privatisation of services, and to justify their corrosive doctrinal demands for deregulation.

 

What is the difference now and when Labour were in power? Genuine question (which you'll probably change )

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 15:57 ----------

 

No, as I said, I favour the higher end of the taxation spectrum.

 

It is immoral to use tax avoidance to achieve lower taxation obligation in the manner of Starbucks.

 

It is not immoral for a government to lower taxes for everyone even though I would very probable disagree with it.

 

You may disagree but would you pay more?