Hsbc

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I expect members of the government to pay the tax they are legally required to.



The law is crystal clear on this. Lord Tomlin (no relation to Gavin as far as I'm aware): "every man is entitled to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate acts is less than it otherwise would be".

I would wager that they invariably pay way more tax than you. I suspect they also work harder, so if anyone is shirking their responsibility to society it would be you....

I have always seen you as someone who would engage in sensible discussion - what has happened? You met me on a train once - how would you have any clue how hard I work or not? What are you basing this on?

 

[South Bank Hank]

At no point did I suggest MPs work for free - I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion.

I didn't say you did and I didn't reach that conclusion. Read it again.

I'm pretty amazed that a case is being made that some rich people swerving as much responsibility as they can towards the NHS, schools, national security, having roads to drive down etc etc as a good thing.

Nor was any such case made. However, I do suggest that, while you continue to dramatically miss the point about every citizen paying what they're legally bound to, you'll continue to be amazed.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I have always seen you as someone who would engage in sensible discussion - what has happened? You met me on a train once - how would you have any clue how hard I work or not? What are you basing this on?

It's a guess, but do you think you work harder than these CEOs running multinational companies?

 

[chapperzUK]

Then you have people, like say a PL footballer or a comedian, who has set up a company that receives his money, pays a wage, but the tax liabilities are a lot lower, just 20% I understand.

All perfectly legal, but fair? I'll let you decide.

I know it might be simplistic, but I wonder why people are allowed to be paid like this. Could not all remuneration payments have tax and national insurance deducted a source in a similar way in which VAT is collected on transactions, with the onus on the individual to claim back overpayments rather than the other way round.

Anyone can do this and it isn't as simple as that. If you have income of over £81,000 in a 12 month period, you will have to start charging VAT and therefore lose a sixth of your income that way although you can claim back VAT on expenses.

Then corporation tax is charged, which can be 20%. The wage you talk about will still be subject to PAYE, including employer's NI. Then if you want to take a dividend out, that will be charged.

What you are proposing is similar to what happens in the construction industry, before a sub-contract is paid they are deducted an amount. If they are a valid constructor, 20% is deducted, but if they are not then 30% is deducted. From my understanding, this is to prevent undeclared income.

This simply can't work with what you are proposing because if a member of the public (i.e. not a business) pays for the services/goods of a business, they can not deduct tax before making a payment.

The problem with this is where do you draw the line. Is having a company take your income ok? What if your income goes over the VAT threshold, is it ok to split the income so neither company goes over? What if just one company is VAT registered and the other isn't? I've got a family member who is unemployed, is it wrong to add them to the payroll to reduce the Corporation tax? It becomes a minefield!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

This is rather going around in circles and I am surprised at the stance some people are taking.

Tax evasion is illegal and we all agree is wrong.

Tax avoidance is not illegal but some of the techniques used are spurious and lots of people see this as to be frowned upon and lots of other people don't. This close to an election the stance tvat politicians take on it will effect the way some people vote.

Not a lot else to it as far as I can see. I think that is a reasonable summation.

 

[South Bank Hank]

I am surprised...

I rest my case...

:winking:

In fairness, the summary is a good stab but it's nothing to do with some people thinking things are spurious and others not. Neil summed it up well as people getting angry without the facts. Why should've assume that every tax avoidance measure is spurious? It isn't.

If it is, THEN it's up to the government to tighten the legislation as all governments have up to now.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I didn't say you did and I didn't reach that conclusion. Read it again.



Nor was any such case made. However, I do suggest that, while you continue to dramatically miss the point about every citizen paying what they're legally bound to, you'll continue to be amazed.

I get legal. And I get reasonable. They need to make sure it looks reasonable or people will judge them harshly.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I rest my case...

:winking:

Lay it down gently so as not to startle me again please.

 

[superblue24]

This is rather going around in circles and I am surprised at the stance some people are taking.

Tax evasion is illegal and we all agree is wrong.

Tax avoidance is not illegal but some of the techniques used are spurious and lots of people see this as to be frowned upon and lots of other people don't. This close to an election the stance tvat politicians take on it will effect the way some people vote.

Not a lot else to it as far as I can see. I think that is a reasonable summation.

But it's not though, is it? People avoid tax all the time....If you ever had an ISA, you've avoided tax, if you've ever paid into a pension, you've avoided tax, if you've claimed tax credits....guess what, you've avoided tax.

There's no point in trying to keep closing down other peoples opinions because it doesn't align with your own.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

But it's not though, is it? People avoid tax all the time....If you ever had an ISA, you've avoided tax, if you've ever paid into a pension, you've avoided tax, if you've claimed tax credits....guess what, you've avoided tax.

There's no point in trying to keep closing down other peoples opinions because it doesn't align with your own.

An ISA is the government's way of encourage you to save

If you are happy for money to keep leaving the country in order to avoid paying tax here then vote Tory and keep smiling - not everyone is so easily pleased.

 

[Benfleet A1]

But it's not though, is it? People avoid tax all the time....If you ever had an ISA, you've avoided tax, if you've ever paid into a pension, you've avoided tax, if you've claimed tax credits....guess what, you've avoided tax.

There's no point in trying to keep closing down other peoples opinions because it doesn't align with your own.

I'm no expert on this and have often disagreed with Another Surrey Shrimper on a bundle of topics but I have to say, I think he is fighting his corner quite well. At least he is consistent.

 

[superblue24]

I'm no expert on this and have often disagreed with Another Surrey Shrimper on a bundle of topics but I have to say, I think he is fighting his corner quite well. At least he is consistent.

Can't really agree with that. Seems like anyone putting forward a sensible contribution have their valid (and often researched) points ignored and redirected into the same repetitive undercurrent which is basically that Another Surrey Shrimper thinks its wrong, so everyone else should.

Maybe Barna has hacked his account......Although the lack of links to The Guardian fails to support this theory.

 

[superblue24]

An ISA is the government's way of encourage you to save

If you are happy for money to keep leaving the country in order to avoid paying tax here then vote Tory and keep smiling - not everyone is so easily pleased.

But it is still tax avoidance. It seems like you only have a problem with tax avoidance for those that earn more, but for the middle classes (of which I am part of and hold an ISA), it's OK to commit the same "offense"

Maybe if high earners didn't have to part with half of their income, they might be less inclined to go through the hassle of setting up an Offshore account

 

[rigsby]

Never has so much been avoided by so few.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

But it is still tax avoidance. It seems like you only have a problem with tax avoidance for those that earn more, but for the middle classes (of which I am part of and hold an ISA), it's OK to commit the same "offense"

Maybe if high earners didn't have to part with half of their income, they might be less inclined to go through the hassle of setting up an Offshore account

No, I have clearly stated there are some types that are reasonable and some types that are unreasonable.
If you use schemes set up by the government to encourage savings or you claim for expenses related to your work that is reasonable. If you set up a company in Belize to channel money through despite having no markets there - that is unreasonable. A clear distinction - not what suits me or doesn't suit me, just logic.

My techiques of debate on here have also been very reasonable as Genial has pointed out and I hope you would recognise that.

 

[Benfleet A1]

No, I have clearly stated there are some types that are reasonable and some types that are unreasonable.
If you use schemes set up by the government to encourage savings or you claim for expenses related to your work that is reasonable. If you set up a company in Belize to channel money through despite having no markets there - that is unreasonable. A clear distinction - not what suits me or doesn't suit me, just logic.

My techiques of debate on here have also been very reasonable as Genial has pointed out and I hope you would recognise that.

Lets not go mad now. :winking:

 

[superblue24]

No, I have clearly stated there are some types that are reasonable and some types that are unreasonable.
If you use schemes set up by the government to encourage savings or you claim for expenses related to your work that is reasonable. If you set up a company in Belize to channel money through despite having no markets there - that is unreasonable. A clear distinction - not what suits me or doesn't suit me, just logic.

My techiques of debate on here have also been very reasonable as Genial has pointed out and I hope you would recognise that.

Sorry, I don't have time to respond to your lengthy post.....

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Lets not go mad now. :winking:

You constructed a PowerPoint presentation explaining my reasonableness and set it up in Speakers Corner Hyde Park and then condensed it into bullet points and sent it to the letters page of the Telegraph - don't deny these cold hard facts.

 

[Cricko]

Can't really agree with that. Seems like anyone putting forward a sensible contribution have their valid (and often researched) points ignored and redirected into the same repetitive undercurrent which is basically that Another Surrey Shrimper thinks its wrong, so everyone else should.

Maybe Barna has hacked his account......Although the lack of links to The Guardian fails to support this theory.

It might be wise to debate the thread title rather than a person who has contributed and added discussion within it.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion whether you agree with it or not....#just saying

 

[superblue24]

It might be wise to debate the thread title rather than a person who has contributed and added discussion within it.

Depends on the content. It becomes tiresome when people don't research facts properly and don't read what other "contributors" write and choose to instead railroad the discussion in whichever direction suits them.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion whether you agree with it or not....#just saying

I don't disagree with that at all. But I don't think I'm the one guilty of trying to stop people have an opinion. Below is an example of the "theme" of the response I've been seeing throughout the thread in reply to anyone who disagrees with what *** has written. Whilst it looks fairly innocuous on the face of it, there is a continuous undercurrent of disapproval designed to make people feel guilty about their stance. Passive Aggressive I think it's called.

An ISA is the government's way of encourage you to save

If you are happy for money to keep leaving the country in order to avoid paying tax here then vote Tory and keep smiling - not everyone is so easily pleased.

I guess I'm not surprised you're calling me out. You lefties have to stick together, right?