Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?

[Old Hack]

No need to apologise. But you should realise that s58 doesn't just affect the 3,000 families. It matters to all of us who contribute our fair share, have to compete (as the OP said) with those who can undercut us, those people who will lose their jobs and house because of the public deficit etc.

What's a fair share SB? Do you set this? Is it arbitary? Or do you pay it at 95% of gross, as per IR35? Pay what you consider yourself to be a fair wage and divi the rest up? Or low pay and large dividends?

I am genuinely interested.

[d000hg]

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.

Regardless of the rest of this debate, that seems a particularly ludicrous assertion.

[Old Hack]

But I think it raises a few points. People are on this site stating they pay the right amount of tax, or their fair share; I'd be very interested in what this figure was, and how it was arrived at.

[speling bee]

Thats totally uncalled for mate, totally.

I earn £4800 a year, as does my wife, and we take the rest in dividends. Is this immoral? No, it's tax management, and legal. I have operated under the rules of the land, and paid what I have been asked to pay, according to the laws set in parliament.

But you know, when parliament coems in, say in 3 years time, and states that they have changed their position on incorporated Small businesses, and, in fact, have decided that they will be taxed at 100% of their gross, and state they will apply this retrospectively from 2002. Is that cool with you?

It's the thin edge of the wedge for me, and as far as you bilge, your bilious post, well that just stinks of outright hostile jealousy.

Parliament could in theory legislate for almost anything, retrospectively or not, and we may well not be cool with many of those things. But just because they may do something wrong in the future does not mean that what they are doing now is wrong. Of course you may think that what they are doing now is wrong in itself, in which case fair enough. But the tin end of the wedge is when they have started doing things that are wrong, not when they might do them in the future.

Unless as BP says, something unlawful has taken place.

[BrilloPad]

No need to apologise. But you should realise that s58 doesn't just affect the 3,000 families. It matters to all of us who contribute our fair share, have to compete (as the OP said) with those who can undercut us, those people who will lose their jobs and house because of the public deficit etc.

But what is a fair share?

I read your earlier post about the chap in the health service. It hurts. I also have a friend who goes round collecting food tins to handout to those who cannot afford food. As non bankers they don't get millions handed over to them.

And equally I could have been born in some famine ridden country.

But looking at the wider picture the more you earn the less tax you pay. There needs to be a total change in the tax system. I would prefer more property based taxes. There must be a better way than the current one.

[BrilloPad]

Regardless of the rest of this debate, that seems a particularly ludicrous assertion.

Well it was said by some judge at some point. Do you think people should pay more than their due?

[Old Hack]

Parliament could in theory legislate for almost anything, retrospectively or not, and we may well not be cool with many of those things. But just because they may do something wrong in the future does not mean that what they are doing now is wrong. Of course you may think that what they are doing now is wrong in itself, in which case fair enough. But the tin end of the wedge is when they have started doing things that are wrong, not when they might do them in the future.

Unless as BP says, something unlawful has taken place.

What's a fair share SB, please, in the interest of making the argument complete, let us know what is a fair share, and how you got to that figure.

As for illegal, I believe charging tax retrospectively is illegal, and I am sure were it pushed far enough it would be found thus. You'll not find law coming this year against the tax dodgers like Starbucks and Amazon, that is applied retrospectively, as it wouldn't pass a good test of law.

Now, what is a fair share?

[speling bee]

What's a fair share SB? Do you set this? Is it arbitary? Or do you pay it at 95% of gross, as per IR35? Pay what you consider yourself to be a fair wage and divi the rest up? Or low pay and large dividends?

I am genuinely interested.

I pay minimum wage, my Ltd pays CT on the profit, I take divis up to the upper rate limit. My wife takes some divis. The rest sits in the Ltd account. At some point I will close the company down. I plan my taxes, as does anyone with an ISA etc. etc.

I figure probably 30% of my daily rate goes out in direct tax.


What is a fair share is an interesting question. I don't know where the line is drawn, but I know which side of the line 3% or 5% is on.

However, we are told (and I think this is what is behind your 'Do you set this?' question) that morality / fairness is irrelevant. It is the law that matters.

Fair enough. Now it is the law that more tax is coughed up. If it is the law that matters and morality is irrelevant then we should hear no complaints about whether it is fair or not to introduce retrospective legislation. What matters is, was the legislation legal? Even if HMRC acted illegally in advising Parliament, I am not sure I understand how that could render primary legislation illegal. Maybe the expectation is that HMRC will be found to act illegally,prompting a repeal of legislation.

[d000hg]

Well it was said by some judge at some point. Do you think people should pay more than their due?

I think people are responsible for organising their tax affairs however they wish, not morally obligated to pay as little as possible. It is not my duty to utilise loopholes, it is my choice.

[Old Hack]

I pay minimum wage, my Ltd pays CT on the profit, I take divis up to the upper rate limit. My wife takes some divis. The rest sits in the Ltd account. At some point I will close the company down. I plan my taxes, as does anyone with an ISA etc. etc.

I figure probably 30% of my daily rate goes out in direct tax.


What is a fair share is an interesting question. I don't know where the line is drawn, but I know which side of the line 3% or 5% is on.

However, we are told (and I think this is what is behind your 'Do you set this?' question) that morality / fairness is irrelevant. It is the law that matters.

Fair enough. Now it is the law that more tax is coughed up. If it is the law that matters and morality is irrelevant then we should hear no complaints about whether it is fair or not to introduce retrospective legislation. What matters is, was the legislation legal? Even if HMRC acted illegally in advising Parliament, I am not sure I understand how that could render primary legislation illegal. Maybe the expectation is that HMRC will be found to act illegally,prompting a repeal of legislation.

So a fair share is paying yourself, a skilled IT contractor, minimum wage? What would you say your wage would be in permie dom?

You're paying minimum wage to avoid paying more NI I suppose? That saves a good 11%

I don't think you've thought through the morality issue personally, if you're choosing to avoid paying NI tax at the correct level. Legal, yes, Moral?

It's a fine line, so I am amazed you've got involved in the argument, to be honest