Tax avoiders should be named and shamed

[vetran]

This is "General", right? I didn't think I needed a reference.

No they are not transparent but you can look at The Register of Member's Interests and see that most MPs are business people just like us. It's no stretch of the imagination to think that many of them are quite legally structuring their tax affairs in such a way that they pay less tax.

If they were to change the law to counter this "immoral" tax avoidance then a good number of MPs and their friends in business could also be hit very hard.

Have no problem with those that arrange their affairs via a LTD in the accepted way. MP's get concessions that are at odds with most employees & Directors
1.greater than 2 years subsistance.
2.Home furnishings etc tax free.
3. greater than 2 years travel to place of work

etc.

A number of their business interests are as a direct result of their political career. How would hire Gordon Brown or the Millibands if they didn't have political interest?

Combine that with large multinationals offshoring tax & jobs aided by our government I think its just a smokescreen to avoid coming clean.

[Platypus]

So you're defending the government now?

And how is it not sneaking when you phone up to dob them in without them knowing who did it?

So how is it not theft if they're taking benefits that they're not entitled to?

Perhaps you wouldn't "sneakily dob in" a burglar you saw breaking into a neighbours house by phoning the police?

[d000hg]

Do you run a limited company and claim expenses?

Do you have an ISA?

Do you or have you ever had a pension?

Why do I feel you're inadvertently agreeing with me? The government make it clear ISAs et al are moral in their eyes.

The whole point of the phrase "tax avoidance" is that you have to have a 'default' amount of tax to pay, on which you then exercise avoidance. My argument is that as a contractor, the 'default' is NOT to take everything as a salary in the first place, that that is deliberately organising things to pay more.

[d000hg]

So how is it not theft if they're taking benefits that they're not entitled to?

Because legally it isn't theft, but benefit fraud? A totally separate crime.

[Platypus]

Because legally it isn't theft, but benefit fraud? A totally separate crime.

meh. semantics

[KentPhilip]

Why do I feel you're inadvertently agreeing with me? The government make it clear ISAs et al are moral in their eyes.

The whole point of the phrase "tax avoidance" is that you have to have a 'default' amount of tax to pay, on which you then exercise avoidance. My argument is that as a contractor, the 'default' is NOT to take everything as a salary in the first place, that that is deliberately organising things to pay more.

I think the issue is what tax the government "intends" you to pay.
In the case of an ISA, the government intends you to take that tax break.
In the case of a limited company with lots of employees that runs essentially independently from you the director and shareholder, i.e. is a machine you have created, the government intends you to take profits as a dividend from what has become an investment rather than a job.
But if you are just working for a client and the only way profit is generated is if you the director do some work, then the government sees you as an employee and intends you to pay employee taxes (NI).

The government only sees it as tax avoidance if you creatively and legally game the rules so that you pay less tax. i.e. that wasn't what government wanted you to do.

I still think all tax avoidance is right though. Keep the b*ggers mits off my cash.

[LatteLiberal]

Read an article (I am not SAS so won't pretend they are my original ideas), it said there are trillions of dollars/pounds of avoided tax. The best way to solve it would be to lower taxes across the board and make tax system simpler, the lower the tax the more people will stop trying to avoid it and therefor the more will be paid. Then the focus can be put on the few who still try and avoid/evade.

[The Spartan]

That makes some sense, say for instance it was a 8% across the board I believe people would think well it's only 8% and wouldn't avoid it.

It seems the more you earn the more you are penalized (unless you have an army of accountants) that is not a great incentive to do well. Over 42k you lose 40% of what you earn how is that fair to anyone?

[Mich the Tester]

Read an article (I am not SAS so won't pretend they are my original ideas), it said there are trillions of dollars/pounds of avoided tax. The best way to solve it would be to lower taxes across the board and make tax system simpler, the lower the tax the more people will stop trying to avoid it and therefor the more will be paid. Then the focus can be put on the few who still try and avoid/evade.

Agreed, and this must also involve an examination of what government is for; how have we reached the point that taxes of over 50% in many European countries are needed to finance the state's outgoings?

[DodgyAgent]

Read an article (I am not SAS so won't pretend they are my original ideas), it said there are trillions of dollars/pounds of avoided tax. The best way to solve it would be to lower taxes across the board and make tax system simpler, the lower the tax the more people will stop trying to avoid it and therefor the more will be paid. Then the focus can be put on the few who still try and avoid/evade.

They would then have to lay off thousands of people who work in the tax industry. Public sector workers working alongside KPMG tax specialists pulling swedes and picking strawberries ... just imagine