HMRC firing off some "warning shots"

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

There is nothing immoral about avoiding tax.

It is every free-thinking citizens duty to avoid as much tax as possible.

Government is the least efficient and worst allocator of capital there is. This is one of those points where - were I so inclined - I could finish this sentence with FACT!

There is more benefit to the economy and your fellow man by paying less tax and spending your money. Therefore it is immoral to NOT try and reduce your tax bill.

You didn't notice the tongue in cheek then Prozak? I will always advise people not to use avoidance schemes because the penalties if you are caught far outway the benefits but there is no way I would give morality as an argument in a discussion about tax

[Higgs Boson]

It may not be illegal Brillo but it is 'immoral' - something which seems to be causing much consternation amongst our oh so whiter than white politicians

Can you explain what you mean by "immoral"?

[prozak]

Which offshore scheme do you represent then?

Unlike many of the posters here with vested interests (offshore schemes, umbrellas, accountants) I post here to help my fellow small business owners understand their obligations and work their way through the minefields of FUD (that is sometimes posted by the afore mentioned people with vested interests)

I try and not be too condescending to people who clearly have trouble with comprehension skills, are short of a few brain cells or clearly just like to make snide remarks. But sometimes I fail.

[prozak]

You didn't notice the tongue in cheek then Prozak? I will always advise people not to use avoidance schemes because the penalties if you are caught far outway the benefits but there is no way I would give morality as an argument in a discussion about tax

No I missed that.
I think most of us missed that.

[formant]

Quite! In Hong Kong (I think) the higher the earnings, the lower the tax rate so you may pay say 30% for the first 100k but then 25% for the next 100k and so on - makes much more sense than our system of penalising people for success

To me that makes just as little sense. I'm for an equal rate for all with a higher tax exempt threshold/lower earnings limit (so those who work all benefit to the same extent). I think the bigger issue in the UK is that our welfare system only supports those at the very bottom (who are likely to stay there anyway). In Germany, if you lose your job you get benefits at (a more complex calculation that works out at) roughly 70% of your prior monthly earnings for 6-12 months (depending on how long you've been employed before). That's 6-12 months during which you aren't going to lose your house and get into debt while you try and find something new. And that's independent of your partner's income. Thereafter you're on standard benefits which even without housing benefit and all are still more livable than here. A tax funded welfare system should be a safety-net for everyone.

Here, even if you've been on 100k pa you get 71 quid a week for a maximum of 6 months on contributions based JSA - which is kind of a joke. You can only 'live' off benefits if nobody in your household works and you also get housing benefit and the likes. So yeah, no wonder people feel a bit cheated by our tax system. I'd be a lot happier to pay if I knew it would actually do a bit more for me if I needed it to. :-/

[The Spartan]

Quite! In Hong Kong (I think) the higher the earnings, the lower the tax rate so you may pay say 30% for the first 100k but then 25% for the next 100k and so on - makes much more sense than our system of penalising people for success

See that sounds much better, whilst I wouldn't be entirely happy with it I think 30% is enough and that would include NI as well.

Anymore than that and it is severely extracting the urine at least in my view anyway

[BrilloPad]

I thought we were talking about tax - how the hell did you get onto totty??????????

You mentioned morality - you little minx.....

They are sending letters telling people that because they are LEGALLY involved in avoidance schemes HMRC is going to pay them more attention.

Maybe they should tell people that they will lie about the facts, including to Paliament, and retrospectively change the law to cover their mistakes.

[northernladuk]

Just because the law hasn't been fixed to plug a loop hole that people are using purposely and aggresively to do the wrong thing means that it is 'legal' but doesn't mean it is right.

[Higgs Boson]

Just because the law hasn't been fixed to plug a loop hole that people are using purposely and aggresively to do the wrong thing means that it is 'legal' but doesn't mean it is right.

And who are you to make that judgement? This is the same comment that LisaContractorUmbrella made, are you the same person?

[NotAllThere]

...So HMRC is spending money telling people they are already guilty as they will soon retrospectively change the law to make sure they are...

FTFY