Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?

[speling bee]

You're deliberately masking your earnings, you are deliberately paying yourself minimum wage, you are deliberately avoiding NIC's, you have made your wife a shareholder to minimise tax, not as she takes a risk, for we know she doesn't.

But you have the temerity to call it fair?

I believe that's tulipe, as I do the same, and know precisely it is all done to minimise my outgoings, and maximise my earnigns. Whether it is 2/5%, or 20%, it's still minimising your obligations, and masking your true obligations.

You;re trying to justify to yourself, that you are paying a fair amount, but we all know it isn't.

I think you have identified the point of disagreement.

[Old Hack]

For the reasons I explained above, I do not think Ltd's and offshore vehicles are equivalent.

Morally, or legally?

[speling bee]

Morally, or legally?

Both, although the latter by retrospective legislation.

[vetran]

For the reasons I explained above, I do not think Ltd's and offshore vehicles are equivalent.

sorry there was NO difference with them legally.

Money has no morals.

Apparently because you are not paying the FAIR (i.e. what the court of public opinion decides) amount of tax neither do you.

[speling bee]

sorry there was NO difference with them legally.

Money has no morals.

Apparently because you are not paying the FAIR (i.e. what the court of public opinion decides) amount of tax neither do you.

Back to my original post.

If morality is irreleant then there should be no complaint that retrospective legislation is unfair. As long as it is legal, then what's the problem?

[Old Hack]

sorry there was NO difference with them legally.

Money has no morals.

Apparently because you are not paying the FAIR (i.e. what the court of public opinion decides) amount of tax neither do you.

This is the funny bit, if he was tested, by HMRC, they'd argue he wasn;t paying himself a fair wage. Also, if the Mortgage people come a sniffing, there's an argument you're being economical with the true in your earnings. I have seen this happen.

The trouble is, SB's pay is dictated not by fairness, but what he thinks he can get away with; everything else is abhorrent.

[speling bee]

This is the funny bit, if he was tested, by HMRC, they'd argue he wasn;t paying himself a fair wage. Also, if the Mortgage people come a sniffing, there's an argument you're being economical with the true in your earnings. I have seen this happen.

The trouble is, SB's pay is dictated not by fairness, but what he thinks he can get away with; everything else is abhorrent.

HMRC can argue what they want. I am confident that I would prevail at a tribunal.

The key figures to me ar 3 ro 5% and 30%. I can see a difference there.

[cailin maith]

For the reasons I explained above, I do not think Ltd's and offshore vehicles are equivalent.

Of course you don't.

Because you think you have the moral highground.

I'm pretty sure if HMRC said Divs were immoral and retrospectively changed the legislation, there would be uproar.

Morals should not come into this.

[Old Hack]

Back to my original post.

If morality is irreleant then there should be no complaint that retrospective legislation is unfair. As long as it is legal, then what's the problem?

So you'd be happy if it the purported legislation was applied on your earnings, retrospecitively?

[Old Hack]

Gig length has no bearing on IR35.

Why would it?

Are you serious Robinho?