You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > More tax avoiders...
November 11 2026 1.18pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

More tax avoiders...


Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 18 Feb 15 9.38am

Quote matt_himself at 18 Feb 2015 5.36am

Quote nickgusset at 17 Feb 2015 9.31pm

Quote matt_himself at 17 Feb 2015 7.56pm

If Apple put out a press release saying it was a political conspiracy and all their tax affairs are in order, does anyone reckon that Gusset would believe that or continue to label them ask 'cunds'?

However, reliable and trustworthy Unite are, of course, right because they say they are.


I thought you weren't bothering with me any more?

As it is, unite are under an investigation. If found that they need to pay, I hope they do.
As for apple, starbucks and other 'supercorporations'...Can you see them coughing up?

BTW Matt, when are you going to make your response about academies? You promised you would only 2 weeks ago. Or perhaps actually you think I might be right but can't bring yourself to admit it.

I never think you're right because you just regurgitate whatever suits you instead of thinking about things.

Now, jog on.


So no answer then. That's fine.

 
CamberleyE6gle Flag 18 Feb 15 12.24pm

Yes but no one pays tax on the first 10k. ISA's hardly deal with millions of pounds per individual. This isn't what the thread is about.
However the bloke from Camberley seems to think that because pensions have tax breaks to encourage more to save for the future, that makes it ok for Starbucks to claim they aren't making any money whilst diverting monies here there and everywhere so as not to pay tax. Tax which could fund hospitals to heal the sick or housing so that ex servicemen (supposedly our boys and heroes) can live somewhere other than the street.

Incorrect. The tax allowance on income steadily diminishes over £100k and is zero by £150k. Although you didn't answer the question I think we can safely assume you take advantage of tax breaks offered to all and therefore you are a tax avoider which is your right and perfectly legal for which you nor anyone else can be criticised. Just as it is for companies to do the same, provided it doesn't become tax evasion. Given that you don't seem to like that can you advise us where the line should be between tax avoidance measures that are acceptable and tax avoidance measures that are not acceptable to you and how that is justified?

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 18 Feb 15 3.16pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 12.24pm

Yes but no one pays tax on the first 10k. ISA's hardly deal with millions of pounds per individual. This isn't what the thread is about.
However the bloke from Camberley seems to think that because pensions have tax breaks to encourage more to save for the future, that makes it ok for Starbucks to claim they aren't making any money whilst diverting monies here there and everywhere so as not to pay tax. Tax which could fund hospitals to heal the sick or housing so that ex servicemen (supposedly our boys and heroes) can live somewhere other than the street.

Incorrect. The tax allowance on income steadily diminishes over £100k and is zero by £150k. Although you didn't answer the question I think we can safely assume you take advantage of tax breaks offered to all and therefore you are a tax avoider which is your right and perfectly legal for which you nor anyone else can be criticised. Just as it is for companies to do the same, provided it doesn't become tax evasion. Given that you don't seem to like that can you advise us where the line should be between tax avoidance measures that are acceptable and tax avoidance measures that are not acceptable to you and how that is justified?


What's the figure for unpaid tax? Is it about £34 billion? I hardly think that money for ISA's, tax breaks through earnings and pensions is the issue here.
You say that what companies and very rich are doing to 'avoid' paying tax through using savvy accountants is because loopholes are being exploited. There was a story circulating that some very very rich people are actually paying less tax than their cleaners! Whether this is true or not I don't know.
What you don't say is whether this is agreeable or not.

My argument is that the government of the day (and previous ones too) are not doing enough to stop these loopholes nor enough to stop the avoidance of tax being paid on goods and services provided here because the money is being 'moved' elsewhere.

 
CamberleyE6gle Flag 18 Feb 15 3.27pm

If the £34bn you refer to is through legal avoidance measures then its not payable so there is no shortfall. If its through evasion that's a different story and HRMC must chase that down.

As for your scenario, the principle is very simple under the law of this land. If the wealthy individual is avoiding tax and paying less than his cleaner through legitimate means then we can't complain about him/her however unfair it may seem. What we could complain about is the law that enables him/her to do so. In my view the tax code has become too complex under successive governments which creates many gaps or loopholes. We all use them to a different extent and there is no moral or legal requirement for anyone to pay a penny more than the law requires. Simples!

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 18 Feb 15 3.33pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 3.27pm

If the £34bn you refer to is through legal avoidance measures then its not payable so there is no shortfall. If its through evasion that's a different story and HRMC must chase that down.

As for your scenario, the principle is very simple under the law of this land. If the wealthy individual is avoiding tax and paying less than his cleaner through legitimate means then we can't complain about him/her however unfair it may seem. What we could complain about is the law that enables him/her to do so. In my view the tax code has become too complex under successive governments which creates many gaps or loopholes. We all use them to a different extent and there is no moral or legal requirement for anyone to pay a penny more than the law requires. Simples!


Do you agree then that it is morally right that someone wealthy can 'get away' with paying less tax than their cleaner?
It's all well and good saying it's within the law, but shrugging ones shoulders and saying good luck to them doesn't solve the problem.

As for the 34billion. That's the tax gap between what should be paid and what is paid.

 
npn Flag Crowborough 18 Feb 15 3.40pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Feb 2015 3.33pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 3.27pm

If the £34bn you refer to is through legal avoidance measures then its not payable so there is no shortfall. If its through evasion that's a different story and HRMC must chase that down.

As for your scenario, the principle is very simple under the law of this land. If the wealthy individual is avoiding tax and paying less than his cleaner through legitimate means then we can't complain about him/her however unfair it may seem. What we could complain about is the law that enables him/her to do so. In my view the tax code has become too complex under successive governments which creates many gaps or loopholes. We all use them to a different extent and there is no moral or legal requirement for anyone to pay a penny more than the law requires. Simples!


Do you agree then that it is morally right that someone wealthy can 'get away' with paying less tax than their cleaner?
It's all well and good saying it's within the law, but shrugging ones shoulders and saying good luck to them doesn't solve the problem.

As for the 34billion. That's the tax gap between what should be paid and what is paid.


You're right, it doesn't. What solves the problem is legislation to close the loopholes.

I don't think morality comes into tax - you are liable to pay x amount, based on use of whatever offset factors you can legally apply. If you look at your tax return and supporting documentation, it highlights areas where you can offset various items against your tax bill - is it immoral to use those too?

I'd also argue that it can't be 'right' that a top footballer gets paid multiple million pounds for kicking a bag of air about, in the same way as thousands of people up and down the country do every weekend while actually paying for the privilege - but are those footballers actually doing anything wrong? Do you think they should be saying "£200K a week is far too much, just give me a couple of grand and spend the rest on the ground staff"? It may be a wonderful gesture, but surely you cannot criticise them for not making it?

 
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards robdave2k Flag 20 Feb 15 3.41pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Feb 2015 3.33pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 3.27pm

If the £34bn you refer to is through legal avoidance measures then its not payable so there is no shortfall. If its through evasion that's a different story and HRMC must chase that down.

As for your scenario, the principle is very simple under the law of this land. If the wealthy individual is avoiding tax and paying less than his cleaner through legitimate means then we can't complain about him/her however unfair it may seem. What we could complain about is the law that enables him/her to do so. In my view the tax code has become too complex under successive governments which creates many gaps or loopholes. We all use them to a different extent and there is no moral or legal requirement for anyone to pay a penny more than the law requires. Simples!


Do you agree then that it is morally right that someone wealthy can 'get away' with paying less tax than their cleaner?
It's all well and good saying it's within the law, but shrugging ones shoulders and saying good luck to them doesn't solve the problem.

As for the 34billion. That's the tax gap between what should be paid and what is paid.

"Every man is entitled, if he can, to arrange his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then, however unappreciative the commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increase tax."
(IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC1 (HL)

 
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards robdave2k Flag 20 Feb 15 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Feb 2015 3.16pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 12.24pm

Yes but no one pays tax on the first 10k. ISA's hardly deal with millions of pounds per individual. This isn't what the thread is about.
However the bloke from Camberley seems to think that because pensions have tax breaks to encourage more to save for the future, that makes it ok for Starbucks to claim they aren't making any money whilst diverting monies here there and everywhere so as not to pay tax. Tax which could fund hospitals to heal the sick or housing so that ex servicemen (supposedly our boys and heroes) can live somewhere other than the street.

Incorrect. The tax allowance on income steadily diminishes over £100k and is zero by £150k. Although you didn't answer the question I think we can safely assume you take advantage of tax breaks offered to all and therefore you are a tax avoider which is your right and perfectly legal for which you nor anyone else can be criticised. Just as it is for companies to do the same, provided it doesn't become tax evasion. Given that you don't seem to like that can you advise us where the line should be between tax avoidance measures that are acceptable and tax avoidance measures that are not acceptable to you and how that is justified?


What's the figure for unpaid tax? Is it about £34 billion? I hardly think that money for ISA's, tax breaks through earnings and pensions is the issue here.
You say that what companies and very rich are doing to 'avoid' paying tax through using savvy accountants is because loopholes are being exploited. There was a story circulating that some very very rich people are actually paying less tax than their cleaners! Whether this is true or not I don't know.
What you don't say is whether this is agreeable or not.

My argument is that the government of the day (and previous ones too) are not doing enough to stop these loopholes nor enough to stop the avoidance of tax being paid on goods and services provided here because the money is being 'moved' elsewhere.

Nick, quite agree with the sentiments - but sitting in public sector bubble saying "they should do this" is never going to change anything.

The skills lie in the private sector - why would you work for HMRC for £50k per year when you can earn far more working for the other side. HMRC introduced a number of counteraction mechanisms last year, most of which were ill thought out. I deal with HMRC on a daily basis and the issue is the way legitimate tax payers are targeted, but HMRC has a finite resource to work with.

If you want to change the laws - like any organisation they should take the right advice and pay the right people to help close those loopholes.

Accountants get a bad rap, it isn't accountants that design these schemes - it is Tax Barristers. Accountants have a duty to work within the laws to provide for their clients.

I wouldn't want a teacher to push their feelings on a subject onto a child because they feel that way, in the same way and accountant should not entertain tax evasion.

The scary thing with the tax avoidance is a lot of it doesn't work, but HMRC are too slow or ill prepared to get things into court and then compound the problem will ill thought out, vote winning responses that will take even longer to get through.

Also bear in mind what they do to the rich, will eventually filter to the poor. If they attack the people who can afford to defend themselves, then there is nothing to stop this filtering down the chain. Guilty until proven innocent is how HMRC seem to operate these days.

The system is broken, and the only way to fix it is for the powers that be to engage the right specialists and listen to what the accounting profession is telling them about what is wrong!

I pay my tax, i've no interest in seeing my clients evade it.

 
TUX Flag redhill 20 Feb 15 5.16pm

Quote robdave2k at 20 Feb 2015 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Feb 2015 3.16pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 12.24pm

Yes but no one pays tax on the first 10k. ISA's hardly deal with millions of pounds per individual. This isn't what the thread is about.
However the bloke from Camberley seems to think that because pensions have tax breaks to encourage more to save for the future, that makes it ok for Starbucks to claim they aren't making any money whilst diverting monies here there and everywhere so as not to pay tax. Tax which could fund hospitals to heal the sick or housing so that ex servicemen (supposedly our boys and heroes) can live somewhere other than the street.

Incorrect. The tax allowance on income steadily diminishes over £100k and is zero by £150k. Although you didn't answer the question I think we can safely assume you take advantage of tax breaks offered to all and therefore you are a tax avoider which is your right and perfectly legal for which you nor anyone else can be criticised. Just as it is for companies to do the same, provided it doesn't become tax evasion. Given that you don't seem to like that can you advise us where the line should be between tax avoidance measures that are acceptable and tax avoidance measures that are not acceptable to you and how that is justified?


What's the figure for unpaid tax? Is it about £34 billion? I hardly think that money for ISA's, tax breaks through earnings and pensions is the issue here.
You say that what companies and very rich are doing to 'avoid' paying tax through using savvy accountants is because loopholes are being exploited. There was a story circulating that some very very rich people are actually paying less tax than their cleaners! Whether this is true or not I don't know.
What you don't say is whether this is agreeable or not.

My argument is that the government of the day (and previous ones too) are not doing enough to stop these loopholes nor enough to stop the avoidance of tax being paid on goods and services provided here because the money is being 'moved' elsewhere.

Nick, quite agree with the sentiments - but sitting in public sector bubble saying "they should do this" is never going to change anything.

The skills lie in the private sector - why would you work for HMRC for £50k per year when you can earn far more working for the other side. HMRC introduced a number of counteraction mechanisms last year, most of which were ill thought out. I deal with HMRC on a daily basis and the issue is the way legitimate tax payers are targeted, but HMRC has a finite resource to work with.

If you want to change the laws - like any organisation they should take the right advice and pay the right people to help close those loopholes.

Accountants get a bad rap, it isn't accountants that design these schemes - it is Tax Barristers. Accountants have a duty to work within the laws to provide for their clients.

I wouldn't want a teacher to push their feelings on a subject onto a child because they feel that way, in the same way and accountant should not entertain tax evasion.

The scary thing with the tax avoidance is a lot of it doesn't work, but HMRC are too slow or ill prepared to get things into court and then compound the problem will ill thought out, vote winning responses that will take even longer to get through.

Also bear in mind what they do to the rich, will eventually filter to the poor. If they attack the people who can afford to defend themselves, then there is nothing to stop this filtering down the chain. Guilty until proven innocent is how HMRC seem to operate these days.

The system is broken, and the only way to fix it is for the powers that be to engage the right specialists and listen to what the accounting profession is telling them about what is wrong!

I pay my tax, i've no interest in seeing my clients evade it.

It's already 'filtered down' but this time the rich are richer.
Go figure.

Edit: As for HMRC having ''finite resources''.............If they utilised their resources wisely they'd spend less on catching the odd minnow or two and go land themselves a whale.
But they won't because that's not what the powers that be want.
Just an observation.

Edited by TUX (20 Feb 2015 5.21pm)

 
chris123 Flag hove actually 20 Feb 15 6.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Feb 2015 3.33pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 3.27pm

If the £34bn you refer to is through legal avoidance measures then its not payable so there is no shortfall. If its through evasion that's a different story and HRMC must chase that down.

As for your scenario, the principle is very simple under the law of this land. If the wealthy individual is avoiding tax and paying less than his cleaner through legitimate means then we can't complain about him/her however unfair it may seem. What we could complain about is the law that enables him/her to do so. In my view the tax code has become too complex under successive governments which creates many gaps or loopholes. We all use them to a different extent and there is no moral or legal requirement for anyone to pay a penny more than the law requires. Simples!


Do you agree then that it is morally right that someone wealthy can 'get away' with paying less tax than their cleaner?
It's all well and good saying it's within the law, but shrugging ones shoulders and saying good luck to them doesn't solve the problem.

As for the 34billion. That's the tax gap between what should be paid and what is paid.


When Warren Buffet made a similar point some time ago it was misreported by some as being less tax as an absolute sum, rather than the more accurate lower percentage. So it's not getting away with less tax than their cleaners, it's getting away with paying a lower percentage, or 17.7% in Warren Buffets case (US tax law allows the offset of charitable donations, of which WB is a significant ).

 
chris123 Flag hove actually 20 Feb 15 6.35pm

Quote chris123 at 20 Feb 2015 6.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Feb 2015 3.33pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 3.27pm

If the £34bn you refer to is through legal avoidance measures then its not payable so there is no shortfall. If its through evasion that's a different story and HRMC must chase that down.

As for your scenario, the principle is very simple under the law of this land. If the wealthy individual is avoiding tax and paying less than his cleaner through legitimate means then we can't complain about him/her however unfair it may seem. What we could complain about is the law that enables him/her to do so. In my view the tax code has become too complex under successive governments which creates many gaps or loopholes. We all use them to a different extent and there is no moral or legal requirement for anyone to pay a penny more than the law requires. Simples!


Do you agree then that it is morally right that someone wealthy can 'get away' with paying less tax than their cleaner?
It's all well and good saying it's within the law, but shrugging ones shoulders and saying good luck to them doesn't solve the problem.

As for the 34billion. That's the tax gap between what should be paid and what is paid.


When Warren Buffett made a similar point some time ago it was misreported by some as being less tax as an absolute sum, rather than the more accurate lower percentage. So it's not getting away with less tax than their cleaners, it's getting away with paying a lower percentage, or 17.7% in Warren Buffetts case (US tax law allows the offset of charitable donations, of which WB is a significant ).


 
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards robdave2k Flag 20 Feb 15 9.44pm

Quote TUX at 20 Feb 2015 5.16pm

Quote robdave2k at 20 Feb 2015 3.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 18 Feb 2015 3.16pm

Quote CamberleyE6gle at 18 Feb 2015 12.24pm

Yes but no one pays tax on the first 10k. ISA's hardly deal with millions of pounds per individual. This isn't what the thread is about.
However the bloke from Camberley seems to think that because pensions have tax breaks to encourage more to save for the future, that makes it ok for Starbucks to claim they aren't making any money whilst diverting monies here there and everywhere so as not to pay tax. Tax which could fund hospitals to heal the sick or housing so that ex servicemen (supposedly our boys and heroes) can live somewhere other than the street.

Incorrect. The tax allowance on income steadily diminishes over £100k and is zero by £150k. Although you didn't answer the question I think we can safely assume you take advantage of tax breaks offered to all and therefore you are a tax avoider which is your right and perfectly legal for which you nor anyone else can be criticised. Just as it is for companies to do the same, provided it doesn't become tax evasion. Given that you don't seem to like that can you advise us where the line should be between tax avoidance measures that are acceptable and tax avoidance measures that are not acceptable to you and how that is justified?


What's the figure for unpaid tax? Is it about £34 billion? I hardly think that money for ISA's, tax breaks through earnings and pensions is the issue here.
You say that what companies and very rich are doing to 'avoid' paying tax through using savvy accountants is because loopholes are being exploited. There was a story circulating that some very very rich people are actually paying less tax than their cleaners! Whether this is true or not I don't know.
What you don't say is whether this is agreeable or not.

My argument is that the government of the day (and previous ones too) are not doing enough to stop these loopholes nor enough to stop the avoidance of tax being paid on goods and services provided here because the money is being 'moved' elsewhere.

Nick, quite agree with the sentiments - but sitting in public sector bubble saying "they should do this" is never going to change anything.

The skills lie in the private sector - why would you work for HMRC for £50k per year when you can earn far more working for the other side. HMRC introduced a number of counteraction mechanisms last year, most of which were ill thought out. I deal with HMRC on a daily basis and the issue is the way legitimate tax payers are targeted, but HMRC has a finite resource to work with.

If you want to change the laws - like any organisation they should take the right advice and pay the right people to help close those loopholes.

Accountants get a bad rap, it isn't accountants that design these schemes - it is Tax Barristers. Accountants have a duty to work within the laws to provide for their clients.

I wouldn't want a teacher to push their feelings on a subject onto a child because they feel that way, in the same way and accountant should not entertain tax evasion.

The scary thing with the tax avoidance is a lot of it doesn't work, but HMRC are too slow or ill prepared to get things into court and then compound the problem will ill thought out, vote winning responses that will take even longer to get through.

Also bear in mind what they do to the rich, will eventually filter to the poor. If they attack the people who can afford to defend themselves, then there is nothing to stop this filtering down the chain. Guilty until proven innocent is how HMRC seem to operate these days.

The system is broken, and the only way to fix it is for the powers that be to engage the right specialists and listen to what the accounting profession is telling them about what is wrong!

I pay my tax, i've no interest in seeing my clients evade it.

It's already 'filtered down' but this time the rich are richer.
Go figure.

Edit: As for HMRC having ''finite resources''.............If they utilised their resources wisely they'd spend less on catching the odd minnow or two and go land themselves a whale.
But they won't because that's not what the powers that be want.
Just an observation.

Edited by TUX (20 Feb 2015 5.21pm)


Couldn't agree more, but pay peanuts, get monkeys.


 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Feb 15 7.09pm

[Link]

Former public prosecutor says HSBC should face charges. Why I wonder doesn't Osbourn think the same?

 
topcat Flag Holmesdale / Surbiton 23 Feb 15 9.53am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2015 7.09pm

[Link]

Former public prosecutor says HSBC should face charges. Why I wonder doesn't Osbourn think the same?

Was this reported in the Telegraph?

 

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hoof Hearted 23 Feb 15 10.28am

Another act of hypocrisy (by probably everyone on here I'd wager) is to pay builders/plumbers/electricians/workmen cash, to get a job done cheaper and avoid paying VAT.

.. and how many people let out rooms and don't declare that income?

It all adds up and doesn't help our economy.

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 23 Feb 15 12.33pm

Quote topcat at 23 Feb 2015 9.53am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2015 7.09pm

[Link]

Former public prosecutor says HSBC should face charges. Why I wonder doesn't Osbourn think the same?

Was this reported in the Telegraph?

I don't know. Why don't you have a look.

 
Pussay Patrol Flag 23 Feb 15 1.42pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Feb 2015 10.28am

Another act of hypocrisy (by probably everyone on here I'd wager) is to pay builders/plumbers/electricians/workmen cash, to get a job done cheaper and avoid paying VAT.

.. and how many people let out rooms and don't declare that income?

It all adds up and doesn't help our economy.

Actually small traders don't have to charge or declare VAT if their business earns under the the VAT threshold. So small time one man bands like window cleaners or odd job men for example won't charge it.

 

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
chris123 Flag hove actually 23 Feb 15 6.56pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Feb 2015 10.28am

Another act of hypocrisy (by probably everyone on here I'd wager) is to pay builders/plumbers/electricians/workmen cash, to get a job done cheaper and avoid paying VAT.

.. and how many people let out rooms and don't declare that income?

It all adds up and doesn't help our economy.


If you rent out a room for less than £80 a week you are exempt.

 
Hoof Hearted 24 Feb 15 11.35am

Quote Pussay Patrol at 23 Feb 2015 1.42pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Feb 2015 10.28am

Another act of hypocrisy (by probably everyone on here I'd wager) is to pay builders/plumbers/electricians/workmen cash, to get a job done cheaper and avoid paying VAT.

.. and how many people let out rooms and don't declare that income?

It all adds up and doesn't help our economy.

Actually small traders don't have to charge or declare VAT if their business earns under the the VAT threshold. So small time one man bands like window cleaners or odd job men for example won't charge it.


Okay... but paying them cash gives them the opportunity to not declare earnings and avoid income tax.

 
Hoof Hearted 24 Feb 15 11.37am

Quote chris123 at 23 Feb 2015 6.56pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Feb 2015 10.28am

Another act of hypocrisy (by probably everyone on here I'd wager) is to pay builders/plumbers/electricians/workmen cash, to get a job done cheaper and avoid paying VAT.

.. and how many people let out rooms and don't declare that income?

It all adds up and doesn't help our economy.


If you rent out a room for less than £80 a week you are exempt.


How many rooms in London are let out for less than £80 a week?

 
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > More tax avoiders...