To think Gary Barlow is worse than a benefits cheat?

[Roshbegosh]

People cheating on benefits do at least need the money .... What he has done is hard to excuse IMO

I know I am entitled to that opinion you big patronizer.

Yes, I do think that's morally pretty crap. Were you expecting me to say, ah, you have me there Niceguy! There was I, loving company directors whilst foolishly thinking Gary Barlow is a twat, and now gosh-darn logic has shown me what a silly I am? .

erm i wasn't trying to catch you out or patronise you. Just pointing out that your point of view is one thing but there are others (myself included) who will see fraud as worse than tax avoidance.

My point is that not all tax avoidance is morally wrong. It sounds like you disagree.

I think it is all morally wrong, and the amount by which it is excusable or understandable is in inverse relationship to the wealth remaining to the person doing it.

I am aware that that is my point of view, and that others have different opinions, so no need to point that out for me

But I think there is something very distasteful about a man as wealthy as that scrabbling around to make sure he doesn't pay a penny more into the pot than he has to. It was hardly the difference between being able to pay his mortgage or not, was it?

Have you never tried to pay less for something? Do you really think there is a moral difference between "scrabbling around" to get a cheaper phone contract/gas supplier/whatever, and paying less tax, if you legally can?

(Though that comparison is unfair to him, as tax is his biggest bill, and it will be concentrated into very few years in his case, so actually there's far more to be gained by minimising it than other household bills.)

I know some people think tax is different to other things, but their position is unlikely to be rationally defensible. They've really just bought into political propaganda and not thought things through.

If his tax scheme had worked, and he'd give the money saved to Oxfam, would he still be distasteful in your eyes? If not, then the issue isn't avoiding tax, it's failing to give away money. What proportion of their money should the wealthy give away to satisfy you?

I think you think the money that equates to "tax avoided" somehow isn't both legally and morally the property of its legal owner.

It suits politicians to try and create a climate where tax avoidance is frowned upon. However anyone, politician or not, who joins in this is attempting to replace rule-of-law with rule-by-witch-hunt.

Exactly Fraidy. Those who are moaning Gary Barlow not paying a penny more in tax than he has to. I wonder how many of them would pay more than the taxman asked for?

I mean most people pay 20% income tax. Those who are feeling so morally superior I assume call HMRC up and ask to pay 21%. It's only an extra 1% right? It's not going to mean the difference between paying their mortgage or not right?

And I assume all those people who are claiming the uniform tax rebate are wicked tax dodgers too right?

That pensioner keeping their savings in an ISA and thus not paying tax on interest. Burn them at the stake.

There is a difference between not ringing up HMRC and offering to pay extra tax, and scrabbling about exploiting every loophole you can in order to pay less tax, though.

Tax planning is legal; lowering your tax burden using ISAs, pension payments, CCVs, investment in bona fide business and so on. Hmrc are happy for you to do this as the law allows and intends for this effect.

Tax avoidance is technically legal in theory as it meets the wording of the law, but the business model will contain something artificial in nature only there to create a tax advantage and not in the course of business. Hmrc never agree these schemes and will attack them through the courts because the artificial nature of the transactions have no economic substance.

GB may have thought he was tax planning but he was tax avoiding. If he set up his own label and promoted new talent with his 60 million rather than ticking the boxes of 10 hours a week on a mostly past it portfolio, it would sound more realistic. He must have known he was ticking boxes to meet the tax scheme and not actively progressing a business, so I think it is right he pays up.

With tax, if it is too good to be true then it usually is.

Do you really think there is a moral difference between "scrabbling around" to get a cheaper phone contract/gas supplier/whatever, and paying less tax, if you legally can?

Er, yes. A significant one.
And what onlylovers says above!

If his tax scheme had worked, and he'd give the money saved to Oxfam, would he still be distasteful in your eyes

Yes. Tax is for everyone, you can't opt to pay for something you think is better instead.

I mean most people pay 20% income tax. Those who are feeling so morally superior I assume call HMRC up and ask to pay 21%. It's only an extra 1% right? It's not going to mean the difference between paying their mortgage or not right?

Daft comparison. I pay what I owe, and don't try to weasel out of it. He wasn't asked to pay any more than he owed.

funnily enough, hmrc never chase pensioners using isas, people paying into pensions, or those paying tax as per their tax code

how much does it cost the govt to chase these scum tax avoiders i wonder? yet more money thrown away.

I think these schemes are more than morally iffy, they aren't legal under new regulations. As far as I can see the reason that this particular scheme was not approved was because it involved taking out a loan that was completely out of proportion to the business being carried out in order to generate an artificial loss which could be set against income from other sources, using investment in creative industries and the relevant tax breaks as a front. Had the people involved been able to prove that the scheme was used as intended there wouldn't have been a problem.

It would be a bit like moving your business to a deprived area to get a grant with no intention of employing anybody and upping sticks as soon as the money was in the bank.

There is a clear difference between using a regulation in the way it was intended to be used (e.g. choosing which structure to use when you run your business and complying with the relevant rules) and pretending to have a business just to save tax.

Yanbu

I think that morally, he is just as bad as a benefits cheat.

It has made me look at him and his bandmates (apart from Jason) in a different light. I am no longer a fan.

mercibucket, governments want us to save so they encourage us with ISAs. Governments want us to invest in Venture Capital funds because they want more business startups. So they give investors a tax break. Governments categorically don't want us setting up completely artificial constructs of no merit just to swerve tax.

I am not a total communist...I don't think we should all earn the same....but I don't think having people earn 100 times as much for the same hours is right either....

It's not about how many hours someone works. It's about how valuable their skills or talent are, and how much money those things generate.

If you are lucky enough to have a skill that generates a huge amount of money, then you are entitled to earn that huge amount of money. Your work is worth significantly more than the work of someone who has common skills or no skills.

I think if there's holes in the tax system allowing legal schemes (but a touch immoral) the THAT is the issue. The rest is bollox.

Immorality is not illegal. Sort the system. But that really would affect the politicians and rich business men and women no doubt doing similar so won't happen.

So how much is my work as a research scientist worth to society with respect to the work of the cleaners?

Coz I could easily argue their work is more essential? My skill set is rarer but society needs cleaners more....

It is about how many hours somebody works when it comes to tax. Depending on the relevant regulations you have to work a certain number of hours in a business in order to claim 'sideways relief' - set a loss in one business against other income.

Tax is not straightforward. If you start a business you have to decide whether you want to have a company, be a sole trader, form a partnership or a limited liability partnership. The choice you make will have implications for your tax bill and nobody from hmrc will tell you which to choose or how much tax you should be paying.

None of this has anything to do with this kind of tax avoidance scheme which was not approved because it was found that the business didn't really exist and was manufactured to avoid tax.

If you are lucky enough to have a skill that generates a huge amount of money, then you are entitled to earn that huge amount of money. Your work is worth significantly more than the work of someone who has common skills or no skills
Eh? So if society likes what you do, you deserve to keep more of your money? Whose work is Barlow's worth more than? Mine? Yours? A nurse's? A teachers?
I can't be reading this right, if you're saying he deserves not to pay tax as calculated because some people really like his songs?

YABU - legally and morally

When it comes down to it the argument for rich people paying more tax than poor people is that there isn't much point trying to tax somebody with no money.

Immorality is not illegal.

Exactly and neither is it black or white. Which is ultimately my point.

If we create a tax system that is so complicated and full of holes that a good accountant can help others legally reduce their tax bill. Whose fault is it?

The person who is doing nothing illegal or the person who wrote the crap system?

Also consider the fact that HMRC are only able to chase Barlow & co now because a court ruling has said that they were purposely avoiding paying tax. Before hand it was all opinion. HMRC can and often do lose court cases too.

Just because HMRC say you owe something, doesn't mean you do!

The case with Vodafone years ago was interesting. Vodafone of course was painted as tax dodgers yet those in the know seem to think that if it had gone to court, HMRC stood a good chance of losing. In any event the whole debacle was settled by Vodafone paying £1billion instead of the £8billion HMRC wanted.

So...did Vodafone legally wriggle out of £7billion of tax or did HMRC get £1billion it wasn't entitled to?

I didn't say you get to keep more money, I said that you are entitled to earn more money.

Society does need cleaners, but as you don't have to study or have particularly sought after skills to be able to do a good job of cleaning, it's not work that is worth as much as work done by someone who does need qualifications and skills.

Surely that's obvious?