Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?

[Robinho]

Genius-boy strikes again.

Thanks

[Robinho]

Seems a fitting time to push forward the Land Value Tax again.

Hopefully people are coming round to the genium of such a system.

[BrilloPad]

Lucozade and Brillo, what I don't get in all of this is:

You seem to say that it doesn't matter whether your tax arrangements were immoral, as long as they were legal.

Then, when retrospective legislation is introduced to correct this perceived moral outrage, you seem to object that the retrospective nature of this legislation is immoral, even if it is legal.

I am not, for once, trying to cause trouble. But why would my MP want to help you out when you present a moral argument, when your base position is that morality doesn't matter, just the law?

When I got divorced I had to suffer the law even though it was completely immoral.

It is the duty of every citizen to arrange their tax affairs so that they pay the least tax. In effect, avoidance is a duty.

Retrospective legislation is only legal in a handful of countries in the world. Parliament was misled by HMRC. You should be directing any ire at HMRC. They are the ones who are immoral.

[speling bee]

Some would say that the retrospective legislation was introduced by illegal means, i.e. by misleading parliament. Protocols were not followed and as others have said no warnings were given. In fact HMRC couldn't give warnings because it was a perfectly legal scheme to use. Instead of giving some test cases time of day at a Tax Tribunal, which was initially promised, HMRC went for retrospective law changes. They knew they wouldn't win!

It's easier to defend HMRC when your not sitting with a £120,000 tax bill for working within the law. But a bitter pill to swallow surely if you can see that 3000 families are potentially going to be ruined whilst Amazon, Google, Facebook and Starbucks can continue to operate within their perfectly legal tax schemes without fear.

Big companies don't lie awake at night wondering how they are ever going to pay the big bill. I on the other hand do and the worry and stress this has caused me since 2008 has only made me stronger to fight it to the bitter end.

Retrospective taxation is unjust and has no place in a democratic society.

Various governments have brought in windfall taxes before on large companies. They are essentially retrospective in thie nature as they are based on past profits.

But I think you are probably right about Starbucks etc. I doubt they will be caught retrospectively, even though it would be good IMO to see a windfall tax based on retrospective 'deemed profits'. But there is nothing illegal about you being caught and them not being caught. The diffence is a moral one - about fairness.

I was thinking about this all after a chat to a friend the other day. He is being made redundant from his voluntary sector, public sector funded job. He works with people with learning disabilities and/or mental health problems on wages that none of us would get out of bed for - and he's never complained about it because that is his choice. But cuts have to be made and he finds himself on the end of it and is unsure how he will pay his mortgage, although he's the kind of guy who will find work if there is work to be had. I can't help wondering why he should lose his job and house due to the public debt, while those who found a way to pay miniscule tax get away with it. Peehaps I'm being unfair.

But if the retrospective legislation is illegal - as has been suggested although I'm not quite clear how - then I do think it should be strenuously resisted.

[speling bee]

When I got divorced I had to suffer the law even though it was completely immoral.

It is the duty of every citizen to arrange their tax affairs so that they pay the least tax. In effect, avoidance is a duty.

Retrospective legislation is only legal in a handful of countries in the world. Parliament was misled by HMRC. You should be directing any ire at HMRC. They are the ones who are immoral.

Don't you start trying to be civil now.

[speling bee]

Seems a fitting time to push forward the Land Value Tax again.

Hopefully people are coming round to the genium of such a system.

I'm largely in favour of it. If only you could explain it!

[BrilloPad]

Don't you start trying to be civil now.

Cretin. HTH. BIDI.

[Robinho]

I'm largely in favour of it. If only you could explain it!

I have explained it!

It doesn't really need much explanation it's so fooking simple - the clue's in the name. Even SAS probably understands it.

[speling bee]

I have explained it!

It doesn't really need much explanation it's so fooking simple - the clue's in the name. Even SAS probably understands it.

Not as simple as you.

[Robinho]

Oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh!