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?

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!

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?

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.

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 ).

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