Forum Topic

It's your duty to AVOID paying tax LAWFULLY

I am starting to get sick and tired of Government ministers (Lib Dems actually), the Labour Party and jealous tax payers who constantly attack those that can lawfully avoid paying tax on their income. It's a ludicrous state of being when somehow it has become an inalienable moral duty to give the state, or politicians, your hard earn fruits of your labour! How mad have we become?Danny Alexander has said that millionaires who use lawful schemes to avoid income tax are the ‘moral equivalent of benefit cheats'.What a fool. What's the difference between a multimillionaire and a benefit recipient - one contributes to society the other takes from it. To make any connection shows how morally bankrupt the Lib Dems truly are.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161852/Jimmy-Carr-Stars-avoid-tax-better-benefit-cheats-says-Danny-Alexander.html#ixzz1yK8cbZtPWe all know the state is absolutely crap at managing and running anything properly. It is management heavy, stuck in its old ways and dominated by Unions. The state education system fails hundreds of thousands every year, the health service kills thousands every year, we have an over weight police force, a prison system not fit for purpose and we engaged in an illegal war costing billions. We make U-turns on aircraft carriers that cost £250 million, we make constant changes to IT systems costing billions that are then abandoned. We pay the feckless to not work, we have created a culture where an estimated 600,000 in England alone are "super obese" - that's worse than morbid - a gluttonous drain on the public purse. All paid for by those millionaires who pay their "fair share". The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax - tell me, how is that not paying your fair share?I say it's your duty to pay what you HAVE too and no more. If you can lawfully avoid tax it's your duty to do so.

Cllr Benjamin Dennehy ● 5066d34 Comments

Under the self certification system which most self employed have to use, it is very easy to pay too much tax.Being self employed means no proper pension, holiday or sick pay, health package, insurance, not even a pen provided.Everything has to be provided by themselves. If you are a very small sole trader, you won't be VAT registered so you can't get that back. You can if you volunteer but it is a day lost in doing admin, so not unusually, to make an effective living as a sole trader, a six or seven day week is pretty much mandatory.Until the mid 1990s, freelancing was higher paid than those doing the same job on staff and in PAYE This is in very many fields is all but a memory. Freelancers are now paid up to 40% less. The rates are generally the same per day as a staffer but their benefits  add up to quite a lot when broken down to a per day figureUnless you have a good accountant or are very good at these things, you won't know what you are entitled to claim or how much.But so many legitimate areas have been closed off that it leaves most freelances way short of their staff counterparts. Even then there are weird anomoliesMPs for example often do the Self certification. The inland revenue gives them a 93p per mile petrol allowance. No-one else gets this. I gather that this is now being increased...for politicians only. and they are allowed a huge allowance on Oyster cards too.

Michael Brandt ● 5064d

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

Amy Brookes ● 5064d

Yes, wrong use of words so clearly I'm not a tax lawyer!!I meant inheritance tax and in particular protecting parents who live in their home and the next generations.

Michael Brandt ● 5064d

A 1000 individuals were using that scheme and it is estimated there are around 2000 similar schemes yet to be investigated to confirm their legality. There are also those that are signed off as legal and not being legally challenged.I still feel that if the system were fairer all round and that governments  did not tolerate clever avoidance schemes, then we might have a better and fairer society.But for a company director to pay less tax than the lowest paid member of staff, and for companies like Northern and Shell to spirit taxable profits abroad rather than pay their staff properly and then filter the money into the accounts of just a few directors is plain greed and wrong whatever the law says.

Michael Brandt ● 5064d

Re  If the law allows you to minimise       xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    I don't think it is a question of the law allowing but ways found around the law(s) by devious persons. And let none of us be too moralistic about tax avoidance, as we are all guilty about it,even if indirectly. How many times has a tradesperson said to most if not all of us the cost is xwz if paid in cash but xyz++ if by other means, and I am sure, we opt for the cash price if able to do so.  We in the process have allowed the tradesperson to avoid paying tax at least in the form of VAT but we also  have avoided paying that, so we are tax avoiders.

Tony Price ● 5064d

If you are employed you will be on PAYE and you are stuck with it, nothing you can do.  If you are not PAYE and working, for example, self employed, then other factors come into play.Most working people will be PAYE, there are far more employed people paying PAYE than self employed.Self employed people will often employ an Accountant to deal with the money side of things, it is an Accountants job to reduce the outgoings and thus increase the revenue for the client.  In much the same way as it is a criminal Lawyers job to get the minimum sentance for a defendant in a court, regardless of if the person is guilty or not.There has been no "cheating" going on, everything was totally legal.  This "Jersey scheme" will be one of many that operate out of the Channel Islands, once again, all legit.This kind of thing has been going on for years and is always used by those with lots of money to decrease a tax liability. In fact, just what was it that Dave C's dad used to do?Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as individuals, we pay tax on our income but companies pay tax only on profits?

Amy Brookes ● 5064d

I find the idea that everyone would cheat on their taxes if they could get away with it very cynical. We're not Greek.Lots of people who could use schemes like these choose not to. The Jersey scheme that Jimmy Carr was using has a few hundred customers, at most that means lots of people who could benefit from it don't.

Susan Kelly ● 5064d

And both currently legal tax free schemes i.e. up to the nil rate band on IHT of £325,000 or £650,000 if not used.  Although, capital gains on one's principal residence could  unfortunately be considered at some future time.  Many countries,if not most, already have a cap.gain tax on homes (principal as well as second.)  Keep our fingers crossed that is not necessary. The exclusion is not written in stone.

Charles Campbell ● 5064d

I don't, if you got 100 people in a room and told them you can either pay 30% tax or 1% tax, which one do you think they will choose?

Amy Brookes ● 5064d

'Everyone would do the same as Carr if they had the chance'Rather a sweeping statement. I bet there are plenty of people who wouldn't.

Susan Kelly ● 5064d

You seem a bit confused, Michael. There are no Capital Gains payable on your main dwelling. Do you mean Capital Transfer Tax, better known as Death Duties? Even then, a couple can pass £650,000 to their heirs free of tax, which would cover most ex-council houses, even in Ealing.

Susan Kelly ● 5064d

Re  Governments don’t create wealth? Hitler built autobahns and Germany benefitted hugely.            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    revealing example to use

Tony Price ● 5064d

But in the overall chamber pot of local politics there is a different story to tell.

George Knox ● 5064d

You confused me with Cllr Wall. I have never behaved in an uncivilised manner in the chamber. Check public records.

Cllr Benjamin Dennehy ● 5064d

It's interesting that the Government through HMRC will persue capital gains tax which is now due on even ex-council housing and prevent modest homes being passed from generation to generation - stunting for many, the chance to remain in their home town. For many younger locals this is slim unless they are big earners.Older residents get sick from worry over the spectre of all they have worked for and payed tax on being lost in capital gains on what would be low value homes anywhere else in the UK.Yet far too many, like Mr Carr and those in well paid occupations are able to use means to hide money, lots of money.But it is legal.The real guilty are those who have allowed this to happen and also legislate to squeeze the easy pickings of modest and honest taxpayers.It's time for a big rethink and a fairer system for all.

Michael Brandt ● 5064d

That is just the point in this thread. I take note of people whom I trust. For instance I would not take note of a maverick or extremist or both if I needed professional advice. And it follows that I would not waste my time by adapting my views about the law or how it is used or abused or the moral arguments for having the law changed, by listening to an elected representative who can no longer offer reliability but only liability. He has created a sinecure for himself now and should stop wasting my tax payer’s money. But we know he swayed by the sin of greed – so probably he will continue to take the shilling until he is flung onto the pavement at the next election..

George Knox ● 5064d

Perhaps if the politicians weren't so two-faced and corrupt (we have had recent examples of competitions and dinners funded for the benefit of both local and national politicians based in Ealing) AND COULD BEHAVE THEMSELVES IN A CIVILISED FASHION IN A COUNCIL MEETING (unlike you Cllr) I might take note of what you and your colleagues say.

Eberharh A. Thomson ● 5064d

Well if it takes the spotlight off the politicians, then that's good for them isn't it?Everyone would do the same as Carr if they had the chance and lets face it, he's not broken the law.Big Boy Dave C is only annoyed because Carr isn't one of his cronies and he's not making on the deal.  Now please can someone tell me what Dave's late father did for a living?

Amy Brookes ● 5064d

Is it true that Carr and that elderly group Take That could be arrested for single-handedly causing the recession in the UK?

Charles Campbell ● 5064d

There's some brilliantly entertaining stuff on this thread. BD seems to have started his own personal British equivalent of the Tea Party in the USA. Rather than quietly fading away at the next local elections, as his ex-colleagues no doubt hope, I trust that he will be aiming to continue as an independent (or Tea Party or UKIP perhaps)councillor and will give those who agree with these sort of views a chance to vote for him.

Paul Conlan ● 5065d

The issue in hand is lawful tax avoidance - I don't have an issue with it, you do, hence the debate.Can it be made any clearer?

Cllr Benjamin Dennehy ● 5065d

And there's nothing like a maverick 'look at me jumping type' who focuses more on self promotion rather than the issues in hand.Suggest you get a new role now that you have been excluded from your party.

George Knox ● 5065d

George,There's nothing more enjoyable than stirring up socialists, they come out with some ludicrous, illogical statements, much like their ideology!I wouldn't mind a roll about now, lunch time.

Cllr Benjamin Dennehy ● 5065d

Mr Dennehy Frankly I have not read such an outpouring of unmitigated tripe for a long time.Perhaps you would like to start a private prosecution for criminal theft by the state.Governments don’t create wealth? Hitler built autobahns and Germany benefitted hugely.Now Mr Carr is reported as having departed from his tax scam. Paying a couple of percent tax on his earnings instead of 50% was wildly disproportionate. That is why its sticks in the craw.Whether or not people support the Conservatives or Socialists is one thing, but the extremists who peddle disproportionate attitudes for which you have become infamous on the record are the reason why the parties with whom they are affiliated lose credibility.You need a rigorous common sense test.

George Knox ● 5065d

Hilarious! Nice one.Just the right balance of the raving right-wing 'maverick' stuff, flakey reasoning and just plain wrong-headedness.The clever parody is slightly let down by the spelling however as I'm sure Cllr Dennehy would never confuse a role with a 'roll'.

Steve Lee ● 5065d

George,When you see a sale sign saying "NO VAT" do you voluntarily pay the extra 20% because not too would be morally wrong?Tax is theft by the state, legitimised racketeering. Tax has a perfectly valid roll in society but its implementation and use must be for the benefit of all.Governments do not create wealth, they only take it from those that do.How is it morally wrong to only pay that which the law says you do? If the law allows you to minimise and reduce then you are doing nothing wrong.The idea that tax is moral is absurd. In fact in all societies where tax is low, giving to charity is higher. I would trust a group of volunteers with decent hearts over civil servants any day!I am a right wing Tory and proud to be!

Cllr Benjamin Dennehy ● 5065d

Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it morally right. It's an easy trap to fall into. We need more detail here. What steps did Carr take to avoid paying his fair share of tax. People criticised Ken Livingstone for reducing his tax bill. Some of the same people now seem to defend Carr for doing the same thing.

Mark Stevens ● 5065d

Councillor Dennehy masquerades as a maverick right wing Tory type who thinks there is a duty to avoid tax. How can Mr blind Greed know about duty?PM disagrees. Chancellor disagrees. Secretary of State to the Treasury disagrees. Opposition leader says “change the law to prevent that tax avoidance happening”. Quite a lot of the public disagree.I reckon BD could just be in a minority. He should resign and stop wasting tax payer’s money.

George Knox ● 5065d

AndyNot having a go but I think this is tax avoidance is totally wrong. Forget whether its strictly lawful or not, if thats your definition we`re never going to agree. In simple terms, any money you make is taxed, this goes into a big pot, and is spent helping build a good country. If you channel any money you get your hands on so that you don`t pay the tax you are supposed to it shows how little you care about the rest society. If you don`t agree with the way the Government spends your tax this is a totally different issue. You should carry on paying it whilst trying to change governments actions - by voting, campaigning, lobbying, whatever. Thats how a democracy works. People who are just out to grab all they can, then shut up shop and say i`m alright jack are the being very selfish,Hope i`ve been nice enough, just giving you a different opinion :)

Tom Clifford ● 5065d

By the way, "it's morally wrong to publicly lambaste those who avoid tax while doing it yourself" applies to this Carr character (whoever he is) but also to the Murdoch-owned parent company of the Newspaper which apparently outed him.

M. Duley ● 5065d

Not sure if your view is antagonistic, but it's a bit ignorant.Certainly there is nothing legally wrong with legally avoiding tax, but can't you see how it's morally wrong to publicly lambaste those who avoid tax while doing it yourself?And how is criticising somebody for such hypocrisy "envy"?The privileged son and beneficiary of a tax avoider, David Cameron, leader of the political party which just suspended councillor Dennehy, seems to think that tax avoidance schemes are "quite frankly morally wrong": http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron

M. Duley ● 5065d

and governments ARE jam-packed with people with law degrees - so how come they can't write the laws without the loopholes they complain about?

Philippa Bond ● 5065d

There is nothing wrong, morally or legally, in a person minimising the tax he/she pays through whatever legal mechanism they choose.  Likewise - and conversely - there is nothing wrong, morally or legally, in any person contributing to the treasury's coffers over and above the tax figure for which the person is legally bound.The public ranting (as appearing to exist on Twitter and other sources) condemning anybody for minimising their tax burden is driven by envy, pure and simple.  From a moral standpoint, if any individual feels the treasury is such a worthy recipient of his/her money, as far as I am aware there is nothing to stop he/she from making voluntary financial contributions into the treasury's coffers over and above his/her legal requirement.It's not my intention to be antagonistic, that's just the way I see it.  If my view is askew, perhaps somebody could (gently) put me right.

Andy Horridge ● 5065d

Hats off to whoever is masquerading as Cllr Dennehy here. Who said satire was dead?

Steve Lee ● 5066d