The morality of avoiding tax

So just to sum up your judgements; you believe that;

It is absolutely fine to help people to avoid paying tax on their cigarettes. But not OK for an accountant to do he same, even though he is obligated to by his profession.

It is absolutely fine to pay tax in a country where the rates are lower. So you will have no concerns about other individuals and businesses doing the same then? Surely,if you belief in a fair society you must accept that we should all be obliged to stick to the same lawful and moral codes.

You come out with the same absolutely pointless statement that you want "fairness". Why do you think that you have the only interpretation of "fairness"? Your fairness will be completely different from mine. Your fairness is that the gap between rich and poor should be reduced. Why? In every society there are some that are happy doing nothing and living off the State, whilst others will be determined to work harder and harder until they drop, in an effort to improve their lifestyle. It is therefore obvious that the tendency will be for the gap to grow larger. Why should that be artificially reduced so that those that do nothing are bailed out by those that work hard. Why is that fair?

It isn't because I don't care, I do. I employ an accountant to keep my tax bill as low as possible, but 5% of my earnings now go to a charitable trust, that benefits charities I believe in.

I think it is unfair that my mother-in-law, other than her state pension, gets not a penny of State help towards anything else because her husband saved all his life to pass a little pension on to her when he died. Yet her brother, didn't save to a pension, p*****d it all up the wall, when he wasn't gambling it away, now gets all sorts of benefits and lives like a lord, going on regular foreign holidays and laughs at my mother-in-law as she struggles to get by.

My taxes are going to him. I don't think that is fair.

Your whole solution is idealistic but with no actual substance. Ideals are fine and laudable to talk about, but they are totally unworkable and unrealistic when it comes to dealing with the millions of individual scenarios.

 

Well that depends on what you mean by fair, we all have a different definition.

 

You are also using that ridiculous word "fair" a word that cannot be argued with, yet has totally different meanings to different people. It is a word that every Union uses when fighting for " a fair days work for a fair days pay" every time they want more holidays, less working hours, or more money. they rarely make their demands public, as they are too embarrassed. It is a word that every politician uses when they have no substance to back up their policies. Fair means nothing unless you explain what you mean by it.

The tax rules are not fair anyway.

Just as an example. An OAP who lives in a larger house passed on to her by her parents. She has saved just enough, via a pension, to live on, but is too old to work. But she doesn't use any public services, no home help, no meals on wheels. Yet, because she lives in a larger house, has to pay a massive Council Tax every year.

In the same street, there is a smaller house, with a mum, dad, and two adult children, all of them working with a combined income of £127,000 pa. They create far more rubbish, regular parties, noise and antisocial behaviour bring police attention every other day. They have regular foreign holidays, drink like fish, gamble, and pay for a drug habit, attracting low-life's to the area, leaving used syringes around their street. Why should they pay a far lower council tax between 4 earners, than an old lady who lives off a meagre pension.

I don't see why I should pay tax on my property rental income when it is overseas. I paid tax when I bought it, at the going rate. I used money that I had earned and paid tax on and I comply with all the local tax rules. The money is in a foreign Country, why should it go towards supporting you? Why should 40% of it's value be snare by the UK government when I die?

The tax system is already unfair. Just because it is Law, doesn't mean that it is fair.

If the Government intend every Company such as Starbucks to pay tax on everything they earn in this Country, then they can change the Law. We will see if the next Labour Government do it, when they get in power in 2015- at the risk of driving out all foreign investment.

 

What part of gift do you not understand? If those cigarettes were duty paid it is I that would have paid it, they benefit my family the same whatever. If this is illegal I would not do it and no I'm not about to check HMRC's website unless I actually plan such a thing. Gifting a carton of ciggies is not quite in the same league as gifting a house.

Yes I am fine about spending money in Europe and paying local rates of duty, I am also fine about fellow Europeans doing the same over here. However I would expect them to pay relevant duties if they exceeded set limits and of course I would expect them to pay their income tax where applicable should they turn a profit.

For your other points you may as well just say 'well everyone else does it' because at the end of the day it just makes you more comfortable blaming others. I don't defend the lazy or the irresponsible as you seem to imply but at the same time I can't in any way, shape or form imagine they are damaging society to anywhere near the extent of the greedy. There are more than enough responsible otherwise hard working people seeking the jobs that they apparently shirk.


BTW this I don't quite believe unless you are saying her private pension is far less than his state handouts? Not that the system is perfect but how would you go about changing it?

"I think it is unfair that my mother-in-law, other than her state pension, gets not a penny of State help towards anything else because her husband saved all his life to pass a little pension on to her when he died. Yet her brother, didn't save to a pension, p*****d it all up the wall, when he wasn't gambling it away, now gets all sorts of benefits and lives like a lord, going on regular foreign holidays and laughs at my mother-in-law as she struggles to get by."

 

Well you seem to have a strange mix of morals. For example, you are happy for Starbucks to avoid paying £m's of UK tax, by paying a far lower tax burden in Holland, yet, you are against individuals using an accountant to avoid paying too much tax.

Strange, but it is to be expected when someone is making judgements based on their moral values, rather than judgements based on the Law.

By the way, I understand what a gift is. I was just surprised to hear that you think it is OK for you to avoid paying UK tax to give your relatives a present. Surely, if you want to give your relatives a present of cigarettes, you should morally buy them in the UK and pay UK tax. One rule for you, and a different one for others! No wonder you prefer to go by your own moral judgement to suit yourself, rather than the Law.

 

I agree totally regarding the council tax, I know a family just like them plus 5 cars and a caravan, the system stinks.
Overseas rental properties stick in my craw more than anything, you really shouldn't have mentioned it.
Starbucks can sod off where they came from and unless the profits earned here are being taxed here so can anyone else. Whoever's in at number 10 won't change my opinion on that. (but obviously you try to imply otherwise)

 

Rubbish, I said no such thing

And you sir are attempting to use a gift of a duty-free carton of fags to justify your own immorality .... don't you just look a bigger fool.

 

Why do overseas rental properties upset you? I have nothing to hide and everything is declared to the authorities. why are you upset? Do you also want the right to decide where I can buy a property?

You say Starbucks should pay tax here on their profits, but you seem to think it is not OK for me to have a property overseas and pay my tax there. Again, because you are making subjective judgements based on your prejudices, rather than the Law, you are coming up with inconsistencies all round. It really is quite laughable.

That is why I raised this issue in the first place. The inconsistencies in the arguments against lawful tax avoidance, is overwhelming.

 

You said:
"Not smoking yourself but buying duty free cigarettes for family gifts? If not forbidden by law is perfectly acceptable to me but selling for profit is not."

I am not trying to justify my morality, I am just pointing out the inconsistencies in yours.

Calm down, no need to give me personal abuse because I have pointed out where your arguments are not consistent.

 

The council tax laws need reform, they're no longer workable I agree. But that is not a reason to stop paying into the system until the system suits you.

You also seem to indicate that a person's character should determine how much tax they pay. You don't seriously believe that?

Inheritance tax exists to increase social mobility and keep the property market flowing and not stagnating in the same hands, and you should be taxed on overseas assets as well, as many people will place their assets elsewhere purely to avoid paying that tax. If you are a British citizen then you should expect to pay British tax.

Changing the tax laws won't drive out investment, and that banner is paraded too often. Britain has a large economy with many people having large amounts of disposable income and companies are always going to want to tap into that. Plus if the international co-operation on tax planned at the G8 goes ahead then you should no longer be able to earn money in a country and pay tax on it in another anymore anyway, rendering the question mute.

As a socialist, I define a fair share as giving as much as you possibly can so that the government can provide the best possible services for all. There is still incentive to become rich as you will still be better off than those on lower incomes, but being on a lower income is not so much of a hardship.

I previously avoided giving a definition of fair as I wanted us to agree that the idea of a fair system was good first before getting into precisely what that entails.

 

Where's your overseas property ZZ?

 

Fair to me is everyone pulling their own weight. No passengers. In all ways. Not only in paying tax, but doing the utmost to generate wealth for themselves and others in the first place.

Too many people put too little effort into life and then expect a free ride.

 

yeah **** the disabled and elderly. If they can't work put them down

 

That's not what he said.

 

I know moog. Poe's law

On a serious note though, no passengers ignores that sometimes people need help and the state should have an obligation to help them. IMHO.

 

But it was you that said, that if you pay more than the tax Laws ask you to, then that is 'fair'. I've just pointed out that the tax system isn't fair.

I'm not sure where I have said that a persons character should dictate the tax they pay. I was referring to to costs to the local authority and police force in dealing with the family in my scenario. Much higher drain on services, yet pay less Council Tax.

I've been dealing in the IHT world for many years and you are the first person I have meant that actually thinks it exists for anything other than to raise money. Which was the original reason for Death Duties back in 1894, I believe, and designed to help the colonial Boar War. But of course, there would be no arguing with a Socialist over whether the equivalent of 40% of a working life should just be handed over to the government, to help fund those that choose to never work at all.

IHT is paid from money that has already been taxed at, for example, 40%. A further tax of 40% on death means that the rate of tax is 74%. The fact that you think that is fully justified in the name of socialism, illustrates why there is no point in arguing the fact with you.

As a socialist, and your belief that you should give everything you possibly can to the government to spend on your behalf, I hope that you aren't wasting it on anything other than Citroen C1, a tiny house, always shop at Aldi, have no luxuries in your house, not even a TV and, that you don't waste any money on anything trivial like watching Watford. If you don't live by your own principles, then you are a hypocrite.

You last paragraph is somewhat daft, as we would both want a fair system, but totally disagree on what is fair, so what is the point?

 

I'll PM you.

 

Sorry for that but I think first you need to explain why you think duty-free is immoral? I personally don't if it is not abused. Let's just call it a little corner of international free-trade that in reality hurts no-one because the quantities involved per capita are both tiny and fixed. However if it were to be abandoned I would not be writing to parliament in protest.

Overseas property ownership is not OK unless you actually live there. If half of America bought every property here, rented it out and sent all the profits home we would be cash rich for 5 minutes before the nation collapsed, Spain is a good example of what can happen in a mild way, they are still suffering over what is probably not more than a couple of percent.

I am also very uncomfortable with buy-to-let as practiced in this country compared to most of Europe, e.g. in Germany landlords do not expect tenants to buy four fifths of their property for them over a 25 year term but traditionally the whole of it is costed over an 80 year span. It is why rents are affordable there and have been the norm for most families for years with no complaint. Only recently has greed set in and durations are shortening but still not close to UK extremes.

 

Again the argument that the money goes to those that don't work. It's unhelpful and fallacious and I won't stand for it. I've already explained how it to an incredible degree, doesn't. Go back and read it.

I never said paying above the tax laws is always fair. I think the tax laws should be different than they are now, but I also think people are obligated to pay their dues in tax in the current system.

You were trying to elicit an emotional response by having a family of heroin users contrasted with an elderly lady. If you want me to take your argument seriously stop using such ridiculous comparisons. I already agree that the current council tax system doesn't work, don't sully your point.

If IHT purely a means of raising revenue then I would agree that there are better ways of making that money. I do however think it serves other purposes as well, like not allowing property to be continually passed down.

I have luxuries. I have advocated in previous posts the use of the Nordic model. You are confusing Socialism with Communism, and it sounds like you're describing Russian Communism in particular. Your many references to my socialist position indicates to me you may need to get over the fact I'm on the left.

My last paragraph is not pointless. There are those who believe, on both the right and the left, we shouldn't live in a "fair" society for a number of reasons. I wanted to clarify that we were at least arguing over what that constituted rather than whether we should have it at all.

 

Leave the teletubbies out of this you canut.

 

The old lady in the house on her own should get 25percent single person discount on her council tax. Yes, it still seems unfair that she is paying more per head than houses with more adult occupants but when Thatcher tried to introduce a Poll Tax we took to the streets to demonstrate against it. So I don't know how you make it fair unless you have a local income tax which the Liberals suggested for years and no-one was interested.

If, as a pensioner, your income is below £145.40 (single person) per week it gets topped up to that amount by the Pension Guarantee Credit. This benefit is a passport to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction. There is also a Saving Credit part of Pension Credit which is supposed to make the system fairer so that if you saved some money to help in your old age you get rewarded for having some savings.

 

People need to take responsibility for their actions. That's the problem I have with socialism, its a cop out. It encourages people not to bother as they know regardless of what they do or don't do 'someone' else will ensure they have a great quality of life.

Yes the state has a responsibility to look after the young, the elderly, the inferm, the sick.

But if you're fit and can work, then ffs work. Do whatever you can and whatever is available: cleaning, shelf stacking, fruit picking, buy a bucket and clean windows. On that basis for those that truly try to help themselves I am 100% behind the state topping up people's income to give them a good quality of life.

What I'm against is the lazy f**kers who don't want to do jobs beneath them; the institutional unemployed who think its ok to have enormous familes and leech off the state; young unmarried mothers who don't have the self control to use a condom and then expect a flat and an income. Why should tax payers support their lifestyles?

For those that are truly unemployed and there are absolutely no jobs whatsoever, then I'd like to see unemployment benefit replaced with a wage paid for local 'social' work that benefits the community.

Thats the country I'd choose.

 

You're invited to Carlostopia but wipe your feet.

 

In fact don't it'll give the single mums something to do.

 

I personally think that old people in big houses need to be put into homes.

 

Socialism is not a cop out. It's a recognition that people are selfish and will not help each other on the scale needed if left to their own devices, and that a state with the resources to do so is in a better position to help the needy.

I repeat, JSA is a tiny part of our welfare budget and the vast majority of claimants are honest, hard working people who are in an unfortunate position. I myself have claimed JSA and I am now lucky enough to be working. That money supported me when I needed it and the suggestion that I was scrounging is insulting at best.

 

Can I be Minister for Gynaecological Studies?

 

I didn't say that buying reduced duty cigarettes is immoral, and you don't either. That is my point. By buying your relatives cigarettes in another country instead of the UK, because you save money, is no different, in principle, to someone buying a property in the same country and paying the tax there as well. Yes it is on a different scale, but that doesn't make one right and the other wrong, unless you can put an acceptable figure on it.

Your property argument is a horrendous generalisation. There is a multitude of reasons why people buy overseas and your are making wild assumptions.

You have no idea why I have an overseas property yet you have already said that it is not OK. The is no arguing with socialist dogma, so I don't think I'll carry on trying.

 

I'd just like to say, don't put me in the same boat with this argument. I agree it doesn't make sense.

 

They are already in one; their own.

I agree with you about your definition of socialism and there is nothing wrong with claiming JSA when you need to but I think you are being disingenuous with your claim that JSA only amounts to 3 percent of the welfare budget. An out of work claimant getting income-based JSA will also be able to get housing benefit and council tax reduction, plus various health benefits like free prescriptions and if they have children there will be Child Tax Credits so looking at JSA in isolation does not give the full cost of unemployment.

 

I stand by my claim, JSA is 3% of the budget. There are people who claim those other benefits and don't receive JSA and JSA claimants who don't get necessarily get other benefits.

I think we all unfortunately know someone who is working the unemployment system. But I'll think you'll agree Afanof that just because a minority abuse exists doesn't mean we should get rid of that support for those that need it.

 

I think that the amount of money wasted on undeserved claimants, is seriously underestimated. This is compounded when added to the public money wasted elsewhere. Any attempts to reduce this waste is thwarted at every turn by the PC brigade, the unions and incompetent management, and politicians that don't have the guts to get things going because they are only concerned with the short term.

If I knew my taxes were being spent more wisely, then I wouldn't be so concerned about paying them.

 

But as Alanof says, JSA is only a small portion of the benefits that go to those that can't or won't work, only about £5billion out of £44billion. State Pension takes up about £75billion.

I think you are wrong about people like me. I don't believe that the sick or disabled shouldn't get help from those in society that can work. It is much of the other crap I disagree with. It is incredible that, even with the massive advances in medical care, the increased spending in the NHS, the amount of people who can't work because of a medical condition seems to have gone up astronomically. How can that happen without dishonesty?

 

It makes sense to me in that on the whole international ownership is under regulated and unwitting damage could possibly happen to whole economies be it ours or someone else's. In this country not just property but banks, businesses, whole industries are heavily in foreign hands or heavily influenced by them and there is nothing to suggest they would be completely honourable should the excreta hit the fan (and I include troubles in their own homelands). I am not really nationalistic but if it came to push and shove I would like us to be able to say "you can go but the money stays here". The same for goes for other nations, I don't see us as special.

Personally I don't necessarily see growth as progress, never have never will but for the nation to go backwards and fall into despair is not a particularly pleasant thought.

 

This is important.

Things that are not implemented correctly or even implemented extremely badly should not be scrapped, they should be worked on. Just because some people cheat the system doesn't mean that the system isn't 100% needed by some people.

Anyway.

I genuinely think that people in and around London that have never lived anywhere else in their life have a different view on this than others, because it's a different world when you're within commutable disatance to London.

Before moving to the north west permanently, whenever I've wanted a job I've got one one way or another. Since moving, it hasn't been simple at all. I relied on JSA and housing benefits for a few months. Without them I would quite literally be on the streets looking for places to stay. Lucky for me of course I have a family back down south that would take me in ut we're not all so lucky.

My point is none of these things are black and white at all. Paying taxes, not paying taxes, well I can understand both sides of the argument. When you can get away with paying less why wouldn't you? I mean what do you, a person on over £100,000 a year say, personally get out of paying a higher percentage of your income in taxes? Very little I'd guess. So I can completely understand it. It's not illegal so what are we going to say to these people? The best we can say is 'yeah but the tax system obviously is inherently more flexible for you, and that's not right'. But that doesn't mean that individual isn't right necessarly. If they recognise that the tax system is broken and don't do anything to vote in someone who will make that system better, then yeah maybe we can say something about them, but really this whole discussion for me at least isn't about those that benefit from the unfair system that governs finance in this country (and across pretty much the whole world), it's about those that may or may not benefit that also can do something real about it.

Anyway, what a depressing thing to start a thread about zztop. Congratulations.