Stop Funding Hate

Jezza99

I guess it might be difficult for you, if don't understand the difference between tax avoidance and evasion.

Jezza99

How odd that you would equate legally retaining as much of your hard earned income as possible, with gaming the benefits system to maximise the amount of other people's hard earned you can trouser.

I guess that's where our "moral compasses" diverge.


Not their customers though.

Bl4ckGryph0n

I am I am misunderstanding as it comes across like you have just added a new undocumented distinction. So it is ok as long as you don’t pay someone else for the advice? How peculiar.
I gladly take that wager. Thank you very much. When it’s a legal entitlement I have no issue with that, why would I? Then again considering the distinction you introduced above I’m not surprised that you seem to expect behaviour from other akin to your own levels of stated hypocracy.

I must admit that I keep on being surprised that this is so difficult for people to comprehend.

rancidpunk

Both perfectly legal. Both take advantage of exploits that ultimately lessen the government's pot. I'm not having a go at either by the way, it's down to the government and HMRC to close any loopholes that weren't intended to be taken advantage of.

Any evidence?

Yes you are, you are. There's a difference between government sanctioned ways of investing money and exploits that were never intended to be used. It's quite simple and clearly written in my response, it's just that you tend to need an accountant to find the exploits and I don't think they work pro bono.

Where have I stated any hypocrisy? I can just as easily go back to ignoring you when you start making personal digs, I really can't be bothered with that crap again.

Ruperts slippers

We don't have any influential far right policies, politics or politicians, we just have a comparative handful of people using social media to present ideas that are rejected by 99% of the British population.

As for the tax issue, people really need to learn the difference between revenue and actual taxable income, the tax breaks are there to encourage the entity to survive, grow and expand, they're an incentive. The key word is product, wealthy people produce 'something' of value for us all to benefit from. However despite enabling 50% of the population to live in relative comfort by creating paid work and the government providing income redistribution in the form of tax credits (from tax receipts), some people claim it's still not fair.
And as for the infrastructure argument, the rich paid for the roads, governments don't have any money.

Bl4ckGryph0n

You are drawing an distinction that doesn’t exist in law and rules. That is why there is the hypocracy. And it’s not a personal dig, it is a clear and document observation @rancidpunk   

Equal measures for all, no distinctions. It is perfectly ok to utilise a financial advisor to inform yourself of possibilities.

Jezza99

I think he's implying that it's somehow "not fair" that some people can afford to pay accountants, while others can't.

Jezza99

I might well ask that same question in reverse.

Interesting though that most of the "responses" received by Paperchase were anonymous. Hardly the behaviour of respectable middle class Paperchase customers.

Still, maybe they were getting ready to join chief luvvie Emma Thompson on the "Nazanine" march in Hampstead. She had Pneumonia don't ya know, she exposed herself to the elements like a true heroine. Not that she pointed that out at all

Toko Black

Why, because people like you have one opinion or definition of what you consider good or bad based on the legal status of it, while others have different opinions and definitions*.
Ignore the VAT thing - I was trying to come up with a very simple ethical situation that everyone could relate to and understand and replace them with business and individual tax strategies that for ethical follow the spirit of the law while for unethical only follow the letter and not the spirit.

* definitions that are not necessarily legal or dictionary definitions, but instead what they mean and are 'trying' to say is lost in bickering over those definitions.

It is clear that some people say 'avoidance' when they actually mean the subset of 'avoidance' that is not following the spirit of the law.
Some people say 'evasion' when they actually mean the subset of 'avoidance' that is not following the spirit of the law.
I myself have been caught out using the word evasion when I should said avoidance not in the spirit of the law in the past .... because that is what my personal feeling is - that being legal avoidance not in the spirit of the law is simply evasion people can currently get away with.

There are others on here and out there in the world that do take the position of amoral or even moral avoidance of tax - ergo they either don't see any ethical issues with any form of avoidance and even those that see it as their moral duty to themselves and their family to avoid or even evade as much tax as possible for political or ideological reasons.
... and those that simple think it's sensible to accrue as much money as possible and pay as little tax as legally possible even if they know it's dodgy because their personal greed is more powerful than their social conscience.

KiLLiNG-TiME

Your absolutely right thank goodness.

I will bow out of this thread but i will quote HMRC from 2011/2012

"Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended," said a spokesman for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC)

Tax avoidance currently costs the taxpayer £4bn a year, according to the latest figures from HMRC.

That is very nearly as much as illegal tax evasion, which costs £5.1bn.

Together, they account for about a quarter of the £35bn that is lost to the Treasury every year, otherwise known as the "tax gap".

That quite a lot of ££ that our so called society as a whole doesn't befit from.

Tax avoidance: What are the rules?

Enjoy your Sunday everybody.