The Fading Distinction Between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion

[SpontaneousOrder]

https://mises.org/library/legal-tax-...nce-extinct-uk

[BrilloPad]

A very interesting read.

I do wish the government would spend their time closing loopholes. Stopping companies charging for branding(like starbucks) would be a good start.

[Goatfell]

I do wish the government would spend their time closing loopholes.

All that tends to happen is that in closing one they open two more. They give the impression of incompetency, but I've a sneaking suspicion that they're not.

[BrilloPad]

All that tends to happen is that in closing one they open two more. They give the impression of incompetency, but I've a sneaking suspicion that they're not.

Indeed. They could start by simplifying the rules so they are harder to get round.

[WordIsBond]

If tax avoidance is bad....

ISAs should be illegal.

So also pension contributions.

So also energy-efficient cars (less VAT and fuel duty).

So also low-emissions cars (less road tax).

So also voting against Labour.

[PerfectStorm]

A very interesting read.

I do wish the government would spend their time closing loopholes. Stopping companies charging for branding(like starbucks) would be a good start.

I've had a thought about this.

Is there any good reason why we couldn't tax lightly on turnover, rather than profit?

For example, why are businesses allowed to discount expenses when calculating tax (yeah I know, hear me out! )

An individual doesn't get to offset the cost of their rent against their income, so why can a business?

How about a much lower, progressive tax on turnover? If you spend more than you take then tough tits, you're out. But big earners would pay more and there'd be no way around it.

[BrilloPad]

I've had a thought about this.

Is there any good reason why we couldn't tax lightly on turnover, rather than profit?

For example, why are businesses allowed to discount expenses when calculating tax (yeah I know, hear me out! )

An individual doesn't get to offset the cost of their rent against their income, so why can a business?

How about a much lower, progressive tax on turnover? If you spend more than you take then tough tits, you're out. But big earners would pay more and there'd be no way around it.

I would agrre with that.

I am also in favour of a tax on property.

[Acme Thunderer]

I've had a thought about this.


How about a much lower, progressive tax on turnover? If you spend more than you take then tough tits, you're out. But big earners would pay more and there'd be no way around it.

What about people that have high genuine expenses. I know someone that sells Outboard Engines that start at £5000 yet he gets less than £100 mark-up from the manufacturer. A tax on turnover would kill his business overnight.

[jmo21]

ISAs should be illegal.

So also pension contributions.

that old chestnut.

There is a world of difference between using a tax advantage that has been specifically designed, versus a loophole that, while currently legal, they will eventually close.

[WordIsBond]

Is there any good reason why we couldn't tax lightly on turnover, rather than profit?

We do. Any tax on turnover is always eventually going to be included in the price (one way or another) and so paid by the end purchaser. VAT is ultimately a tax on turnover with the one bit of sanity that you can recover what you've paid, or it would blow inflation into the stratosphere.

Simplifying taxes and reducing deductions in exchange for lower rates would be good for almost everyone but accountants and lawyers. Since people keep electing lawyers, for some reason that never happens.