Benefit cheats and tax avoidance/evasion.

[garynortheast]

Interesting article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/welfare-fraud-tax-avoidance

[yorkie_chris]

I don't get this bollox about tax "avoidance" by a load of leftie reporters and do-gooders.

How can you blame someone who gets bumraped at every turn for using legal methods to reduce the amount their ringpiece bleeds?

Blame the system for having holes in it, not the people making legitimate use of them. It's exactly the same as deriding people for legitimate expenses. Nurses get an allowance for washing their uniforms, apparently they should be washed very hot to kill any nasties. Tax avoidance! Shoot them!


How about a fair tax system throughout that doesn't encourage wealth to be spirited away offshore...

[daveyrach]

I read yesterday that the govt pays out over £1million a week in child benefit for children who live abroad. 25000 of which live in Poland followed in second by ROI where only 2000 live. A huge drop!

Edit:
http://news.sky.com/story/1047093/child-benefit-1m-a-week-for-children-abroad

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

[MisterTommyH]

I read yesterday that the govt pays out over £1million a week in child benefit for chicken who live abroad. 25000 of which live in Poland followed in second by ROI where only 2000 live. A huge drop!


Well thats just f***ing outrageous!

All these Cockerels going round thinking they can have as many kids as they want with different partners, move them abroad and the government will look after them!

It's not as if we haven't got enough of our own to look after!

[Luckypants]

I don't get this bollox about tax "avoidance" by a load of leftie reporters and do-gooders.

How can you blame someone who gets bumraped at every turn for using legal methods to reduce the amount their ringpiece bleeds?

Blame the system for having holes in it, not the people making legitimate use of them. It's exactly the same as deriding people for legitimate expenses. Nurses get an allowance for washing their uniforms, apparently they should be washed very hot to kill any nasties. Tax avoidance! Shoot them!


How about a fair tax system throughout that doesn't encourage wealth to be spirited away offshore...Couldn't agree more. Tax avoidance is both legal and common sense. It is just good housekeeping to arrange things so that you pay the legal minimum in tax.

[garynortheast]

Well thats just f***ing outrageous!

All these Cockerels going round thinking they can have as many kids as they want with different partners, move them abroad and the government will look after them!

It's not as if we haven't got enough of our own to look after!

^:smt042:smt042 Had to read that twice Tom. Made oi larf!

[yorkie_chris]

In fact I bet a quid that the editor of the guardian employs an accountant.

F***ing reds...

[Sid Squid]

I don't get this bollox about tax "avoidance" by a load of leftie reporters and do-gooders.

How can you blame someone who gets bumraped at every turn for using legal methods to reduce the amount their ringpiece bleeds?

Blame the system for having holes in it, not the people making legitimate use of them. It's exactly the same as deriding people for legitimate expenses. Nurses get an allowance for washing their uniforms, apparently they should be washed very hot to kill any nasties. Tax avoidance! Shoot them!


How about a fair tax system throughout that doesn't encourage wealth to be spirited away offshore...
Correct. You me and everyone else we know wouldn't pay any bill that we didn't need to, this is no different.

Here's a thought; if the tax system were simpler, we wouldn't need to spend so much on collecting tax as we'd need far far fewer persons to do so. I realise this will be unpopular with fools the who like huge public spending - public spending being the spending that makes the nation nothing.

[daveyrach]

Well thats just f***ing outrageous!

All these Cockerels going round thinking they can have as many kids as they want with different partners, move them abroad and the government will look after them!

It's not as if we haven't got enough of our own to look after!

Edited my post lol. Obv meant Children not chickens

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

[joshwalker094]

I'll be one of those accountants in a year, so send me your money :P

I agree with what's been said, your not going to pay a bill if you don't have to, and if you can legally tax avoid, then why not!

[Spank86]

I dont understand the immorality argument with paying tax. How does the government suddenly get to be the arbiter of morality and whats fair with monetary payments?

Don't beleive it, not when they change the system every year.

[DJ123]

I don't get this bollox about tax "avoidance" by a load of leftie reporters and do-gooders.

How can you blame someone who gets bumraped at every turn for using legal methods to reduce the amount their ringpiece bleeds?

Blame the system for having holes in it, not the people making legitimate use of them. It's exactly the same as deriding people for legitimate expenses. Nurses get an allowance for washing their uniforms, apparently they should be washed very hot to kill any nasties. Tax avoidance! Shoot them!


How about a fair tax system throughout that doesn't encourage wealth to be spirited away offshore...
you mention about being able to claim for washing their uniform. Anyone in a job who has been issued with a uniform can claim money back for washing it.

[yorkie_chris]

you mention about being able to claim for washing their uniform. Anyone in a job who has been issued with a uniform can claim money back for washing it.

It doesn't matter, the point is these leftie idiots would see a nurse as being above criticism. Despite the exact same use of a legal method to avoid income tax on a proportion of their wage.

[Spank86]

Although in that case it's simply untaxable income and the provision exists specifically for uniformed workers to wash work clothes. Not quite the same as finding a loophole which wasn't intended.

[Sid Squid]

Tax is immoral.

[Dicky Ticker]

Self employment=creative accounting

[yorkie_chris]

That's another thing, anyone self employed who has an accountant has doubtless said at some point "oh I didn't know you could claim for that"...

Same thing, smaller scale.

[Specialone]

I agree 100% with yc and what others have said, don't blame taxpayers for exploiting loopholes legally, instead of criticising, close the loopholes.

As I'm self employed, I try to pay as little tax as i can legally, my accountant claims for everything I'm entitled to, it's hard enough running a business so any money saved on tax that I don't have to pay really helps.

I bet all the money the average bloke saves in tax avoidance is still far less than the MPs falsely claimed off tax payers for second homes etc.

[Dicky Ticker]

When I was actively running my business I sat down one day and worked out how much tax I paid to the government in various guises. The result astonished me as I was paying in excess of £750,000 p.a. therfore I have qualms about claiming for anything I can now I am retired

[Spank86]

Tax is immoral.
Only if wages are.


The problem is these loopholes are hard to close, like the comopany paying huge amounts to an offshore subsidiary for use of the name. It's legal but when the amount paid is equal to the companies entire profit meaning they pay no tax it's deffinitely illegal and a fiddle.

Thats like me being able to claim all my wages are used for washing clothes not just £3 worth.

[Sid Squid]

Only if wages are.
I'll try to say this nicely, but that's cobblers.

You can choose whom to sell your labour to, and you may negotiate an amount that suits both parties, it is an entirely voluntary business. Personal taxation is somewhat different, is money demanded with menaces, money removed from you regardless of your assent or agreement in amount, as such those demanding it have a moral duty to take only as much as is utterly utterly necessary to do only that which is demonstrably necessary as the required function of the state.

Does that sound like what happens when your tax is estimated?

Ergo: Tax is immoral.

[Spank86]

Yeah, you failed.

You could move countries to another one but amazingly they all have tax systems. That said you have a wide choice of which one.

Same as jobs, unless you wish to starve in the gutter. And as for negotiating amounts, it's rarely much of a negotiation unless you're being headhunted.

[DJ123]

It doesn't matter, the point is these leftie idiots would see a nurse as being above criticism. Despite the exact same use of a legal method to avoid income tax on a proportion of their wage.

You don't avoid any tax, you claim it back at the end of the tax year as an 'expense'. You can back date a claim for 5 years, if i remember right.

[yorkie_chris]

Fine, you're obviously missing my point entirely.

What about "tax credits", lets consider them as a lump out of your tax bill rather than something that comes back in separately, you don't have to claim them but you do. That makes you just as bad as this dude comrade guardianski is having a moan at, taking money out of the states pocket when you could just leave it there.

[Spank86]

In what way?

Tax credits are there specifically because the government is fixing the tax system.

Tax avoidance schemes are ways of movement money outside of government channels to avoid paying the proper amount of tax.

Given that the Bly arbiter of the proper amount of tax is the government saying tax credits are avoidance is like saying avoidance is no more immoral than cashing a tax rebate check because the revenue service realised they got it wrong.

[punyXpress]

Although in that case it's simply untaxable income and the provision exists specifically for uniformed workers to wash work clothes. Not quite the same as finding a loophole which wasn't intended.
So shouldn't H M Gov do the decent thing and close those 'loopholes' instead of bleating about how unfair it is?
. . as mentioned by specialone

[Spank86]

As mentioned prefiously by me. some of them are almost impossible to close.

Like paying another foreign based company for use of a name. The ability to do that allows franchising which is a bit vital but when abused allows all profits to be off shored to the country of your choice. What do you do? If you say that sort of purchase is still taxable then they'll find something else to trade.

I'm simplifying because I'm not a tax lawyer but the government employs thousands of them who can't close the holes effectively.

[punyXpress]

This bit redacted

I'm simplifying because I'm not a tax lawyer but the government employs thousands of them who can't close the holes effectively.

So, remove them from the system which should result in substantial savings, especially when their assistants, aides and staff go as well.
Increasing tax take is not far removed from reducing expenditure.

[Spank86]

You could do that, only if you did that then millions of small businesses would either stop paying tax or pay the wrong tax.

Not to mention everyone else... Ever got a tax rebate, you wouldn't have done you could have been over or undercharged and there'd be no one to fix it. Loopholes do get closed but its never a quick process unless you want to make things worse.

[Sid Squid]

Yeah, you failed.
Errr... what? In the absence of something useful to say, a daft attempt at a put down doesn't usefully fill the gap. Blindly following the status quo on many matters is the quagmire in which too much shortsighted thinking is bogged down.

BOT:
You could move countries to another one but amazingly they all have tax systems. That said you have a wide choice of which one.
Oh well, you have a killer argument there, not. It doesn't matter where or what system, unless as a payer of tax you are being given the smallest possible bill and the very very best VFM - then that tax is immoral.
Same as jobs, unless you wish to starve in the gutter. And as for negotiating amounts, it's rarely much of a negotiation unless you're being headhunted.
I choose to eat, thus I choose to earn. I choose to ride a motorbike, thus I choose to earn enough to do so. Depending on specific circumstance one has little or no choice over tax payment - big difference.

Negotiation: If they offer and you accept - that's negotiation. Brief certainly, but you are not obliged to accept, and if the offer is not to your liking don't accept - that's negotiation. See the advert in the job centre window and don't like the look of it - don't ring them, even briefer and more internalised negotiation.

Still one thing screams to be heard - you chose.

[Spank86]

failed to say it nicely. It wasn't a put down.

You are given the smallest possible bill for the system we're under. Of course the bill could always be smaller, we could sack everyone who works in the public sector. BUt then you wouldn't get the services. In fact some might argue that the bill is SMALLER than the smallest possible, thats why we're running a deficit.

You choose to earn thus you choose to pay tax. similar link to eating.

[Sid Squid]

Of course the bill could always be smaller, we could sack everyone who works in the public sector.
Personally, a slimmed down in the extreme mechanism of state appeals greatly, but even if that were not done, are you seriously suggesting that tax money is efficiently spent? Really? No, really, really?

But then you wouldn't get the services.
Yeah, course, the sacred cow of all grasps for tax money - public services, We simply don't have time or space here to consider how much, how spectacularly much public money is spent on irrelevances, and that's not even beginning to consider wastage.

In fact some might argue that the bill is SMALLER than the smallest possible, thats why we're running a deficit.
Wha...? Start again? The reason is umpteen years of profligate, out of control public spending, (see above).
PS. If you know someone who holds the view you describe, the words 'economically illiterate' would be suitable.
You choose to earn thus you choose to pay tax.
Restart again; you're actually suggesting they are the same thing? That's a complete non-sequitur.
You are given the smallest possible bill for the system we're under.Well, no, we're not, are we?

[Spank86]

well nothings the same thing, apart from the thing, thats kinda the point. You do however have many choices to make with regards to tax depending on many things such as how much you earn and which government you choose to earn under.


If you think to government is especially bad at managing money then I suspect you don't have a lot of experience with large private companies. They're almost all in a similar boat, there comes a point when their size is both an asset and a hinderance.


Out of control public spending, yes we're spending more on services than we pay in taxation. Oddly though everyone knows theres massive waste and inefficiency nobody seems to know where. Including some of the highest paid management consultants in the incredibly efficient private sector.

I do agree that it might not be a bad idea to lop off some services that are less than necessary, or at least move them to a lower level of govenrment (but then we get to whinging about concil tax)

[EssexDave]

Tax avoidance is allowed because it encourages company growth, provides work to a public service (HMRC), accountants and lawyers. The end result being,they all pay tax, spend their money and pay VAT etc.

You also find it is the companies that create wealth. Starbucks and other large companies employ thousands of people. All of those people have to pay income tax,national insurance, VAT on what they purchase. If you enforce tax rules against companies, and tax them high enough, you end up damaging the economy by restricting growth, job creation.

It is so much better to have companies keep more money, grow larger, employ more people, who will spend more money in companies making them grow....(in theory)

That is the pure and simple reason why lefty public spending and high taxes is a bad thing, and why,generally, we have a very cyclic politically system that will no doubt continue going round and round.

This leads me on to morality. I'm not suggesting that those that need should go without, far from it. I know a lot of people that receive benefits. Should would crippled without, and many (more) would have to pass on the latest iphone or holiday. Why should I (or you) subsidise a life that the majority have to work for and is claiming benefits purely because they are available any more or less moral than paying less tax because the law allows it?

[EssexDave]

Oddly though everyone knows theres massive waste and inefficiency nobody seems to know where. Including some of the highest paid management consultants in the incredibly efficient private sector.



Having worked for a civil service organisation here are a few facts.

Annual Wage bill: £40million
Printer Contract: £4.9 million per year (we had four printer in our office, in our three years, one never worked. normally one was a bit dodgy, one everybody used and the other you just avoided like the plague because it was bound to break). We worked out over a week the time cost to our office of 60 people (due to looming redundancies) and it came to an average of about 2 hours per week per person. e.g. you could have removed 3 working people if the printers worked.

Computer system £82million - work started in 2000 and continued until a release in 2011 (ridiculous wait) The system was supposed to 'cut time on tasks in half' when in fact it doubled it. The system then was 'fixed' over the following 6months to the stage it was nearly as good as the old system from 1994 based on dos. Fantastic.

I could go on, there are numerous examples of waste I could give you from my very limited experience.

[yorkie_chris]

Tax avoidance is allowed because it encourages company growth, provides work to a public service (HMRC), accountants and lawyers. The end result being,they all pay tax, spend their money and pay VAT etc.

You also find it is the companies that create wealth. Starbucks and other large companies employ thousands of people. All of those people have to pay income tax,national insurance, VAT on what they purchase. If you enforce tax rules against companies, and tax them high enough, you end up damaging the economy by restricting growth, job creation.

It is so much better to have companies keep more money, grow larger, employ more people, who will spend more money in companies making them grow....(in theory)

That is the pure and simple reason why lefty public spending and high taxes is a bad thing, and why,generally, we have a very cyclic politically system that will no doubt continue going round and round.

This leads me on to morality. I'm not suggesting that those that need should go without, far from it. I know a lot of people that receive benefits. Should would crippled without, and many (more) would have to pass on the latest iphone or holiday. Why should I (or you) subsidise a life that the majority have to work for and is claiming benefits purely because they are available any more or less moral than paying less tax because the law allows it?

People like coffee. I'd wager people will buy their brews wherever.

Why not find a way to tax these offshore lot to make home-grown businesses more competitive?

Not like starbucks would be a great loss, or amazon...

[Specialone]

The uk is known by a lot of companies worldwide as the cash cow, even if we demanded uk registration rather than off shore, these companies are on to too much of a good thing to consider leaving.

We're one of the few places in the world where retailers can charge stupid prices for goods and 'get' away with it generally, albeit the worm is turning slowly.

[Spank86]

Having worked for a civil service organisation here are a few facts.

Annual Wage bill: £40million
Printer Contract: £4.9 million per year (we had four printer in our office, in our three years, one never worked. normally one was a bit dodgy, one everybody used and the other you just avoided like the plague because it was bound to break). We worked out over a week the time cost to our office of 60 people (due to looming redundancies) and it came to an average of about 2 hours per week per person. e.g. you could have removed 3 working people if the printers worked.

Computer system £82million - work started in 2000 and continued until a release in 2011 (ridiculous wait) The system was supposed to 'cut time on tasks in half' when in fact it doubled it. The system then was 'fixed' over the following 6months to the stage it was nearly as good as the old system from 1994 based on dos. Fantastic.

I could go on, there are numerous examples of waste I could give you from my very limited experience.


Sounds EXACTLY the same as the three private companies I've worked for... Although with the printer situation I believe the onus is usually on you to kick up a stink.

[EssexDave]

Sounds EXACTLY the same as the three private companies I've worked for... Although with the printer situation I believe the onus is usually on you to kick up a stink.


Most of the private firms I've worked for have been pretty much in relation because they can't afford such big hits. (RBS was certainly fantastic when I was there)

We were on the phone to tech guys daily, and to our IT support team. The contract was managed (and I don't think it's my place to name names) but it's clear we got shafted because we didn't know what we were doing during negotiation times.

The guy at the top was then promoted for his 'outstanding work'

[keith_d]

I've seen several people suggest that the government should close the tax loopholes. As it turns out they've been trying to do that for several years. These days if an accounting firm creates a new scheme they have to report it to the revenue before they can put client money into the scheme. This gives the revenue time to try and close the loophole, typically by getting a minor amendment through parliament.

However, from a broader perspective I'd suggest that the (legal) loopholes come from trying to make the tax system do two jobs. Revenue collection and incentivisation. Each time government decides to give a particular activity a tax break it creates a potential loophole for someone to avoid tax by 'investing' in the chosen activity. So, if the government created a huge tax break for investment in forestry, we might see a sudden explosion in 'forestry' companies whose primary interest is tax breaks rather than fire breaks.

If the government really wanted to get rid of tax avoidance the first step should be a massive simplification of the tax system. Remove as many tax breaks as possible and where necessary replace them by explicit grants or tax credits which can be properly managed rather than hidden in obscure paragraphs of complex tax returns.

I can't see it happening though. Too many vested interests.