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

YABU, Barlow already pays a fortune in tax, benefit cheats are parasites.

"NOBODY needs to earn more than 100K a year. Anything you earn over that should go straight to the government....."
Ridiculous. I hope no-one like you ever gets into government. Luckily we have democracy so it's very unlikely to happen.

tuscon im with you what a stupid thing to say.

mnetters drive me mad with their commy leftism

The difference is that the government intend people to pay less tax if they contribute to a pension scheme and they want people to benefit from childcare vouchers. This is tax planning in line with the government's intentions. You are actually purchasing childcare and you are actually saving money into a pension scheme.

The kind of scheme Barlow was involved in was set up purely as a way to avoid paying tax without any economic logic to the transactions beyond saving tax.

In future this kind if scheme will be caught under changed rules.

merry, indeed. There is a qualitative difference.

But then again I'm probably a commy leftie.

NOBODY needs to earn more than 100K a year. Anything you earn over that should go straight to the government.....

Ha ha ha ha..that's worked so well in communist states!

And why 100k and why should you earn 40k? Who get to decide these arbitrary figures? How would you feel if some state body told you you should earn minimum wage and live in a tent?

merry - that's not correct. The salary sacrifice pension scheme (and other flexible benefit arrangements) were not instigated by the government at all.

Childcare vouchers were - in 1989. However, given the sentiment on this thread, there is a school of thought that it is not appropriate for individuals to obtain a tax advantage at all. Rather, all tax should go to the state and then be disbursed as the state sees fit. That being the case, I still presume that there are certain posters who would not use a childcare voucher scheme - particularly as employers save the NIC that they would have paid on the gross salary that has essentially been swapped for the vouchers

Saying that the rich should pay more tax is one thing. Saying that no-one should earn over £100,000 and any money earnt beyond that belongs to the government is another thing entirely.

www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/sal-sac-question-and-answers.htm

No, salary sacrifice schemes are not designed by the government - they are simply a remuneration agreement between an employer and an employee.

The point is that you do actually have to contribute to a pension scheme to get the tax benefits of contributing to a pension scheme. The government doesn't care if you are paid £8000 + £2000 pension or £10000. However, if £2000 is paid into your pension scheme they don't have a problem with you saving tax on it. This isn't aggressively avoiding tax because you are actually contributing to a pension, the same as you would be if you didn't have any choice in the matter.

If the government want to change the law so that pension contributions aren't deducted when calculating how much child benefit you should receive that is up to them. I presume they didn't decide this because they want you to pay into your pension.

Tax is not straightforward, mainly because it is impossible to legislate fairly for every situation. However, this kind of scheme is clearly a scam and would be recognised as such under more recent legislation.

("this kind of scheme" as in schemes used by Chris Moyles/Gary Barlow and thin gummy comedian, not salary sacrifice schemes).

I agree that the idea that there is a set fair amount of tax that everybody should know they should pay is a bit bonkers.

On the other hand though, the idea that there is set amount of state support that everybody should get over their life time is also a little bit bonkers.

"thingummy" not "thin gummy"

I avoid tax by living in a tax free country and keeping money offshore. I however wouldn't expect NHS treatment and was called la-di-da by a GP receptionist when I explained I am non resident and needed a private appointment despite my insurance covering it. I work with mainly Indian and Sri lank an men. Nearly all have family in the UK but generally illegal taxi drivers and hotel workers. They say no point in it otherwise because it is a waste of money. Great.

Benefit cheats are taking money earned by someone else whereas tax avoidance is just people wanting to keep their own money.

We pay our tax fair and square but as soon as a few loose ends are tied up we're going elsewhere. I'd rather have a higher cost of living and no featherbed state than pay the astronomical amount of money that we do every year to whichever inept government is in at the time.

See you when you start missing the NHS then, Marcus!

It's pure greed. Nothing else. I'm disgusted.

It will take more than a million love songs Gary...

Sorry, no one has used that one yet so I thought I would.

I'm currently very frustrated with the NHS for plenty of reasons and yes, we have private cover as a family.

YABU

Tax avoidance is legal and there are different levels of morality. For example sticking your savings into an ISA and opening an account in your husbands name and putting some money into that is tax avoidance. Are those people tax dodgers and worse than benefit cheats? Of course not.

At the other end of the scale there are the schemes that clever accountants have come up with that are entirely legal but morally iffy. But everyones morals are different.

Benefit cheats are breaking the law. There is a clear line here and they are the wrong side of it.

The law isn't the ultimate arbiter of what is 'moral' though, in my opinion. I think that morally, what Gary Barlow did is worse than benefit fraud, whether legal or not.

why do you think that original.

is it cause he has money and you don't.

typical hating of the well off on here

Lolll ProfessorD

I'm bemused by the prospect that paying more money to the government is somehow "moral". If I could divert half my tax bill to a worthwhile charity (say, Oxfam/Christian Aid or similar) that is perfectly transparent in its operations, I would.

The government funds a lot of good things, yes, but it also funds a lot of things that I disagree with and a few that are absolutely silly. That's the nature of government.

Did I say anything about how much money I had or wanted?

Before I found out about this, I didn't much care for the man, what with the shit music and the supporting the Tories.

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?

Everyone who earns enough has to pay tax.

We have all had that moment of looking at a pay slip and thinking, what the fuck? Where has all my money gone?

But Gary Barlow was always going to be left with a fair old whack, wasn't he? He just thought he'd rather have more. As I say - distasteful.

I think that morally, what Gary Barlow did is worse than benefit fraud, whether legal or not.

And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. Others may disagree.

Personally I would say wilfully defrauding the government is always worse than arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay.

What about company directors who choose to pay themselves via a dividend so they pay only 20% corporation tax rather than paying themselves the money via salary and paying 40% (+ NI). Is that morally repugnant too?