Reply to: Free laptop? Annoyed.

[AtW]

If I could somehow not pay my monies to the Labour govt robbers in the form of "tax", I would do it everyday with no remorse.

I think Nu Liebor are tax robbers, wasters etc - no problems with that.

I think taxation in the UK is way too high - particularly "high" tax bracket, this encourages tax evasion/avoidance.

What I don't like however is that some people think they are very clever and dodge tax using questionable schemes, it's bad enough Nu Liebor robs taxpayers, but if some "clever" taxpayers start completely avoiding tax like in this scheme then everyone else has to pay more.

Consequently whilst tax dodgers are not the biggest tax robbers compared to Labour, they still tax robbers, so be a little consistent in your views - you can't blame just Labour for tax robbing if you use schemes that pay only 3.5% tax when 40%+ would have been normally due.

[Clippy]

Not only that, George Michael is gay!

Enough.

I'm off for a ride on my Grifter.

[Churchill]

Now why would you spread a vicious rumour like that?

Evil bstrd.

Not only that, George Michael is gay!

[Clippy]

Wham! have split up.

Now why would you spread a vicious rumour like that?

Evil bstrd.

[fullyautomatix]

If I could somehow not pay my monies to the Labour govt robbers in the form of "tax", I would do it everyday with no remorse.

[AtW]

There is nothing wrong with mitigating your tax liability.

Apparently there is - you can get hefty bill with interest to pay, and "hefty scheme fees" probably won't be refunded.

[minestrone]

This could be entertaining.

[Churchill]

I am not jealous.

I don't think I am self-righteous - following common sense and reasonable laws does not make one so.

What I am not though is a tax "avoider" who takes total and utter piss at common sense.

There is nothing wrong with mitigating your tax liability.

[AtW]

You're just jealous - either that or you're self-righteous *****!

I am not jealous.

I don't think I am self-righteous - following common sense and reasonable laws does not make one so.

What I am not though is a tax "avoider" who takes total and utter piss at common sense.

[AtW]

AtW, you make some good points for discussion but let's take those to a new thread.

No mate, I think you've made the best point on here - including hefty scheme fees in argument about tax paid, no wonder HMRC went nuts about it: they got paid less than scheme operators, total and utter piss take.

[Churchill]

So you think those hefty fees should be included in tax paid calculation?








Yes I sure you are right, his take home certainly was below 96.5%, but that's beyond point - the point is that he (according to source I referenced above) paid 3.5% tax. The costs of scheme etc are completely irrelevant to this side of things.

You're just jealous - either that or you're self-righteous *****!

[JaredM]

So you think those hefty fees should be included in tax paid calculation?








Yes I sure you are right, his take home certainly was below 96.5%, but that's beyond point - the point is that he (according to source I referenced above) paid 3.5% tax. The costs of scheme etc are completely irrelevant to this side of things.

AtW, you make some good points for discussion but let's take those to a new thread.

[AtW]

That may be the amount the revenue received but doesn't include the rather hefty fees for the scheme operator.

So you think those hefty fees should be included in tax paid calculation?

Once you include that you'd figure the take-home was 80-85%. All I'm saying is, its unlikely Huitson got to keep the other 96.5% which is what might be incorrectly inferred from what the judge said.

Yes I sure you are right, his take home certainly was below 96.5%, but that's beyond point - the point is that he (according to source I referenced above) paid 3.5% tax. The costs of scheme etc are completely irrelevant to this side of things.

[JaredM]

"The judge said that the overall effect had been to reduce Mr Huitson's tax rate to just 3.5%.""

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm

I don't know if everyone on that scheme paid only 3.5% tax, however your assertion that nobody did so appears to be incorrect.

That may be the amount the revenue received but doesn't include the rather hefty fees for the scheme operator. Once you include that you'd figure the take-home was 80-85%. All I'm saying is, its unlikely Huitson got to keep the other 96.5% which is what might be incorrectly inferred from what the judge said

Edit to add: the only reason at all this matters is because a tax-payer keeping 96.5% is probably more likely to irritate people than if the tax-payer kept 80-85% (a figure they could probably achieve pre-IR35).

[Xenophon]

Let's keep this thread to the point

There is a first time for everything I guess...