To think all tax avoiders should be sought out and punished

[cdtaylornats]

Especially those who cheat on VAT or income tax by paying or accepting cash in hand.

[RockyRoadster]

They are tax evaders, not tax avoiders.

[tappitytaptap]

So people who have ISAs then?

[Foxyloxy1plus1]

How would you tackle that?

[StrapOnDodo]

Just to be clear, cash in hand undeclared is tax evasion, which is illegal.

Tax avoidance is legal, such as putting money in an ISA or buying duty free in the past.

[AuntieStella]

Tax evasion is already a crime, and happy for those who go in for it to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.

Minimising your tax liability by entirely legal means should not be pursued.

Simplifying the tax code might be a good thing to do as well.

[SimpleSimonThePieMan]

BIG difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance!

[Birdsgottafly]

I'd like the politicians who put in false expenses, to be jailed, as big benefit cheats are, especially if they could have lived well, without cheating the system, which is what the positions and tax evaders, do.

It'll never happen, though.

[LittleMisslovesspiders]

Tax avoidance is not illegal. Tax evasion is.

Maybe you should learn the difference?

[Chlobee87]

I think it depends on whether it's tax avoidance or not paying tax that is legally owed. I.e. not declaring earnings in order to avoid tax (like the cash in hand situation) is illegal and should be punished. But as far as tax avoidance schemes (e.g. people using loopholes in the law to benefit financially) I think the fault lies purely with the government for writing poor legislation. If you want people to pay X amount of tax, then you need to make it the law and ensure there are no loopholes for people to slip through. It's not morally correct to try and pay what you know is really a disproportionately small amount of tax when you are super rich, but the law is the law. It's black and white. It's not an emotional decision. The government need to tighten up the loopholes and accept responsibility.

[BlueJug]

And all those who buy a bottle of cheap plonk in the Duty Free?

First there is a difference between avoidance and evasion. You may feel that both should be punished even though one is legal, (see ISA and Duty Free)

Second impossible to police

(If you give your neighbour £20 to babysit do you expect her to pay income tax and Nat Ins on that? Or a tenner to the lad who who clears your garden of weeds? )

You are right that as a society we should make sure that taxes are paid though. It is not as easy as it seems however.

(By the way would you be a benefit basher too or is it ok to cheat if you are also claiming?)

[BlueJug]

Sorry = x-post - slow typist.
Better points made by other pp's

[Chlobee87]

Maybe you should learn the difference?

Wow. How rude.

[LittleMisslovesspiders]

Wow. How rude.

No it isn't. Tax avoidance is not illegal. Are you wanting to stop Duty Free. ISA etc?

Your thread says tax avoidance.

Tax evasion is illegal which is what cash in hand is if they don't declare it.

[SouthWestmom]

Oh dear op, maybe start a thread where you understand the issues?

Avoidance v evasion

Cash in hand - perfectly acceptable. You need to declare it as part of your income though.

Bandwagon much?

[80sMum]

Nothing wrong with a bit of tax avoidance! Everyone does that, don't they? Why would anyone give money to the treasury that they don't have to?

[LittleMisslovesspiders]

*The thread

[Chlobee87]

LittleMiss I'm not disagreeing with your point, but saying "maybe you should learn the difference" is rude. I suspect (and hope) that you wouldn't say this to somebody in real life, and that's because it is rude. Forums are such a great way to share ideas and sometimes (gently) correct people but IMO it's often spoiled by the few who seem to take delight in making other people feel small for using wrong terminology or not being as up to speed with a topic.

[LittleMisslovesspiders]

I don't belive it is rude. If you are going to start quite a goady thread then imo you need to have your facts correct.

It isn't just slightly wrong terminology it is the difference between something being illegal and not.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[ReallyTired]

I think that the inland revenue is right to be pragmatic. It would cost more money than it would bring in to chase every case of paying cash in hand. They do enforce tax payment where is practical. The teenager who baby sits for £20 is unlikely to be earning more than th threshold.

I feel that it's fairer to concentate on th likes of Google, Amazon or Starbucks who do not pay their fair share of tax.

[RandyMagnum]

Yeah, I'll echo the comments, learn the difference between avoidance and evasion.

[TheDuchessOfArbroathsHat]

Yep - I'm with LittleMiss. Learn the correct terminology if you're going to start a GF thread.

[notamummy10]

Tax Avoidance is legal, why do you think Starbucks is getting away with paying the minimum rate for tax? And why you can buy from Duty Free at airports?

[BarbarianMum]

I agree with littlemiss too. I would support firmer action being taken against tax evaders but tax avoidance -no!

[ReallyTired]

Tax avoidance is matter of designing the system to minimise loop holes. A country has to decide what are legitimate tax breaks and close other loopholes.

[2016namechangecomingalong]

Does that include all the 'normal' people who just put a bit of their personal fuel through the company or an Apple Watch maybe?? These things are often on a lot smaller scale that people think.

I am an accountant and have lost count of the number of blinking Apple watches people have tried to claim for through their businesses. (Usually bought in December and a sport lavender bought when the sole director is a man in his 40s, wife's Xmas present anyone??) One even described it as a 'hands free device'! They usually seem a bit grumpy when I tell them I have disallowed it for tax!

These are what you would consider normal people though. They wouldn't consider themselves tax evaders even though that is what they are trying to do.