BN66/S58 update

[d000hg]

Building or using artificial structures that otherwise have no economic sense and whose sole purpose is to avoid tax should, in my view, be classed as tax evasion.

I have no problem with that, and I agree with you. BUT until it IS classed as evasion, it is legal.
You have no moral duty to pay beyond what the law states. You have a moral duty to obey the law.

[vetran]

don't worry AtW is going to pay all our Tax. The rest of the businesses can legally avoid as much as they like.

Still makes retrospective law wrong.

[AtW]

You pay PAYE for staff. you don't need to pay PAYE for directors and assuming they are shareholders it makes economic sense to pay them from profits as it costs the company far less to pay a director £40k via dividends than via PAYE.

Well, I am a director and I am on decent PAYE.

You make this assumption that director owns most or big part of business, that's highly unusual in companies where all or some directors are hired managers to run the business on behalf of shareholders.

Either way dividends only dodge NICs, since directors are shafted anyway when it comes to social security it seems reasonably fair.

[d000hg]

You'd think all these people lecturing on how important morality is would have a view on the morality of changing laws retrospectively. Back in 2000 or whenever this was going on, the "your fair share of tax" rhetoric nonsense didn't even exist AFAIK.

[AtW]

don't worry AtW is going to pay all our Tax. The rest of the businesses can legally avoid as much as they like.

Just doing my bit for ...

[AtW]

the "your fair share of tax" rhetoric nonsense didn't even exist AFAIK.

You are fined one credit for a violation of the Written Morality Statute.

[NotAllThere]

I think it's an irregular verb:

I pay the right amount of tax
You are a tax-avoiding scumbag
He is serving three years in Wormwood Scrubs for tax evasion.

When it comes to IR35, if they'd arranged it so that contractors didn't pay ERNIC, then that would have been "fair enough". That would put us, tax wise, on pretty much the same playing fields as permies.

If governments don't want loopholes, they should get decent legislation written.

[tomtomagain]

Real risk-taking entrepreneurs who create value for the economy have a reasonable case to argue that they should pay a lower tax rate to compensate for the hundreds of hours they put in and the jobs they have created.

Why should someone on a 6 - 12 month contract expect to be able to pay a few % when the majority of the population are paying 35%?

There is very little risk in contracting and the daily rate is compensation for that risk.

If you think you don't need what the state provides you then think again.

Actually if you don't think you need what the state provides you then I suggest going to some place in the world where there is no effective state. I've worked in West Africa and believe me you'd soon change your view on the UK government if you had to spend a stint out there.

[d000hg]

Real risk-taking entrepreneurs who create value for the economy have a reasonable case to argue that they should pay a lower tax rate to compensate for the hundreds of hours they put in and the jobs they have created.

The profits should be compensation enough.

Why should someone on a 6 - 12 month contract expect to be able to pay a few % when the majority of the population are paying 35%?

They shouldn't, the government should prevent such situations.

There is very little risk in contracting and the daily rate is compensation for that risk.

Very true.

If you think you don't need what the state provides you then think again.

Actually if you don't think you need what the state provides you then I suggest going to some place in the world where there is no effective state. I've worked in West Africa and believe me you'd soon change your view on the UK government if you had to spend a stint out there.

Agreed. But I'm not sure anyone expressed their views on UK government here in that context.

[AtW]

If governments don't want loopholes, they should get decent legislation written.

Ok, so following your logic then programmers should write software without any security holes and it's their fault if they create security holes that hackers can take advantage of to steal money - hackers are therefore completely immune?

Not in most countries they not - they might find a hole and exploit it, but that would get them new friend - Bubba in a cushy cell for two. Same thing should be used in tax legislation - those who exploit loopholes are no better than hackers stealing money who exploit security holes.