Tax Avoidance vs. Tax Efficiency - Contractor UK Bulletin Board

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

wendigo100 replied

2 April 2007, 13:46
Originally posted by andy

I bet out of the top 10 richest people in this country only 2 or 3 or maybe less pay their 'fair' share of tax.

Nobody can define what a "fair share" is, so you might as well bet on Chico's second coming.
Leave a comment:
malvolio replied

2 April 2007, 13:44
Originally posted by andy

I bet out of the top 10 richest people in this country only 2 or 3 or maybe less pay their 'fair' share of tax.

Keep up at the back. At least five of them pay no tax at all. The guy that owns Tetrapak actually got a rebate....
Leave a comment:
andy replied

2 April 2007, 13:31
I bet out of the top 10 richest people in this country only 2 or 3 or maybe less pay their 'fair' share of tax.
Leave a comment:
vetran replied

2 April 2007, 13:14
No taxation without representation?

I'll pay my fair amount of tax, tell you what I'll pay the same percentage of tax as Phillip Green who owns BHS 0%. Or maybe I'll be tax negative like the owner of Tetrapak.

Whats fair?? My children don't get school dinners, the single mothers children do? It appears we just made different career choices.
Leave a comment:
threaded replied

2 April 2007, 12:40
Originally posted by Rantor

As an aside, everyone on this site is always at great pains to highlight that tax evasion is illegal, very naughty and absolutley not the type of thing any right-thinking small-business would indulge in. Nope, never.

It is however, perforectly ok to regularly call for the execution or assisanation of our democratically elected representatives?

Does this mean that HMRC monitor this site but that MI5 does not?

I think the another part is that people have this gut feel that the New Lie are not really democratically elected and so are a fair target.
Leave a comment:
wendigo100 replied

2 April 2007, 12:25
Originally posted by Rantor

As an aside, everyone on this site is always at great pains to highlight that tax evasion is illegal, very naughty and absolutley not the type of thing any right-thinking small-business would indulge in. Nope, never.

It is however, perforectly ok to regularly call for the execution or assisanation of our democratically elected representatives?

Does this mean that HMRC monitor this site but that MI5 does not?

No, I think it means we are more frightened of HMRC than of MI5. And with good reason.
Leave a comment:
threaded replied

2 April 2007, 12:24
The New Lie monitor this site. I doubt the two you mention do.
Leave a comment:
Rantor replied

2 April 2007, 12:23
Originally posted by malvolio

No, not declaring all your income is illegal tax evasion and you go to jail. Paying different amounts of tax on the same income by using the existing rules simply means that whoever pays more tax is paying too much. There is no such thing as a Fair Share

As an aside, everyone on this site is always at great pains to highlight that tax evasion is illegal, very naughty and absolutley not the type of thing any right-thinking small-business would indulge in. Nope, never.

It is however, perforectly ok to regularly call for the execution or assisanation of our democratically elected representatives?

Does this mean that HMRC monitor this site but that MI5 does not?
Leave a comment:
Gonzo replied

2 April 2007, 12:20
Originally posted by Denny

Rubbish. Socialism doesn't even recognise money as a legitimate currency.

I wish people would stop misuing the word 'socialist.'

Socialism can legitimately be used to describe a broad array of ideas, all left-wing, but that definately includes '"New" Labour'. I don't think that it is limited only to what Marx wrote.
Leave a comment:
wendigo100 replied

2 April 2007, 12:15
Originally posted by malvolio

No, not declaring all your income is illegal tax evasion and you go to jail. Paying different amounts of tax on the same income by using the existing rules simply means that whoever pays more tax is paying too much. There is no such thing as a Fair Share

Hear hear.

"Fair share" is, as I said before, a concept for the woolly-headed.
Leave a comment:
Rantor replied

2 April 2007, 12:15
Originally posted by Denny

Not paying your fair share is very clear. It actually means that you should pay more than you are actually paying. So, if two self employed people both make x amount and one declares all their income and the other doesn't. The latter is 'not paying their fair share.' Seems clear enough to me.

There are a lot of people who went along with IR35 et al as they deemed it too risky/too much effort to challenge whether they would fall within the scope of these regs - lots and lots of people did this.

Does that mean that those that decided not to play ball with IR35 and consequently paid less tax are not paying their fair share?

Last edited by Rantor; 2 April 2007, 12:17.
Leave a comment:
threaded replied

2 April 2007, 12:14
Originally posted by Denny

Not paying your fair share is very clear. It actually means that you should pay more than you are actually paying. So, if two self employed people both make x amount and one declares all their income and the other doesn't. The latter is 'not paying their fair share.' Seems clear enough to me.

What utter bollox. Just goes to show how much the issue is confused. Someone who does not declare their full income is a tax evader!

Last edited by administrator; 2 April 2007, 12:21. Reason: Please try and keep the discussion nice. Let's leave name calling for use on permies.
Leave a comment:
Denny replied

2 April 2007, 12:13
Originally posted by Gonzo

be paying more, not just absolutely but proportionately more, and that is socialist.

Rubbish. Socialism doesn't even recognise money as a legitimate currency.

I wish people would stop misuing the word 'socialist.'
Leave a comment:
malvolio replied

2 April 2007, 12:12
Not paying your fair share is very clear. It actually means that you should pay more than you are actually paying. So, if two self employed people both make x amount and one declares all their income and the other doesn't. The latter is 'not paying their fair share.' Seems clear enough to me.

No, not declaring all your income is illegal tax evasion and you go to jail. Paying different amounts of tax on the same income by using the existing rules simply means that whoever pays more tax is paying too much. There is no such thing as a Fair Share
Leave a comment:
Gonzo replied

2 April 2007, 12:12
Originally posted by Denny

Not paying your fair share is very clear. It actually means that you should pay more than you are actually paying. So, if two self employed people both make x amount and one declares all their income and the other doesn't. The latter is 'not paying their fair share.' Seems clear enough to me.

It's how this term applies that is muddied, particularly with IR35 issues. It's not the terminology itself that is wrong or socialist or other bollocks you keep spouting off to justify feeding your greedy little heart and, no doubt, the fuel tank in your Porsche.

I think that is a bit harsh Denny. Malvolio has never suggested that tax evasion (which is illegal) is right or anyone should attempt it.

What I object to is that this government is constantly going on about "fairness" by which they mean that the better off should be paying more, not just absolutely but proportionately more, and that is socialist.
Leave a comment: