to think that 100% of MNers probably avoid tax?

[TravellingToad]

Just watching a frustrating debate on TV about a man who has legally taken advantage of a loophole permitted by the government in order to reduce his tax bill. Some people in the debate are on their high horse.

Now it occurs to me that unless you voluntarily hand back your tax allowance (roughly £10,000 per person) you are in no position to squawk about other people avoiding tax.

The £10,000 tax allowance is a legal tax avoidance loophole permitted by the government that means that you can assign £10,000 a year of your income and pay NO tax on it. 99.9% of people i'm sure grab it with open arms.

Anyone here voluntarily pay the tax instead of accepting the avoidance scheme? Anyone of you phone your accountant and say "I don't want to use that loophole thanks please donate the tax to the government instead" No? thought not.

I expect i'm about to get leapt on now with cries of "oh its so different though because he's so rich and I only earn £20k a year" but where do you draw the line? To the homeless person on the street you are rich beyond their wildest dreams, just as gary barlow seems to you. At what point does it become one rule for you and one for anyone richer than you?

Let the slaughter begin!

Read what Renart said.

How the fuck can the £10,000 tax allowance be a loophole or tax avoidance when it's impossible to pay tax on that first £10,000 earned.

Get it?

You can't pay tax on it, because it's part of the system.

You can't give up your right to the tax allowance. The system isn't built that way. Therefore it's not possible for anyone to pay tax on that £10,000.

Hardly a loophole or tax avoidance.

Next time someone says it's the govts fault for creating loopholes, the avoiders are just doing what we all would do, show them this. From Richard Murphy (tax justice campaigner):

Governments don’t create loopholes. They never have and will. But all words have uncertain meaning and when you have a great many words you end up with uncertain outcomes. The immoral seek to abuse that uncertainty to free-ride the tax system at cost to the rest of society. But that’s not government’s fault. That’s the fault of the avoider and those who help them

(From the link posted earlier)

insertrandomnamehere - it is not a false analogy and you have failed to explain why you believe it to be so.

There are several bitter comments on here along the lines of "he's rich so he can pay it".

That's shortsighted left-wing nonsense. The sort of thinking that results in people like Barlow paying no tax whatsoever because they simply base themselves in Monaco/Caribbean/Isle of Man.

It's the sort of left-wing thinking that has left the country (and its government) completely skint. So now that they've spent all their money - and borrowed more than they could ever hope to pay back - they're on the scrounge for anything they can find. Hence all the Google/Amazon/Starbucks tax crap recently. Don't even get me started on that.

Actually, thanks to a ridiculous "OMG, this person has possibly multiple earnings sources" tax code, I've paid about £30-40 I shouldn't have on my tiny income, this year. I should really work out how to claim that back without sitting on a premium rate phone line for half a day, listening to instructions about how to find the phone number that got me on that line, in the first place.

Left wing thinking, my arse.

Gary Barlow is an absolute disgrace. I will be thinking twice when the next superstar invites me to donate to charity. What a sour taste this leaves.

beaksnout - at last someone has called me left wing. I think not. we all have to pay for goods and services provided by the state. instead of paying for what we consume we pay according to what we can afford. this is basic economics as practiced across the world. if you don't tax people according to what they earn then how else do you suggest we do it then. by what they consume? so the elderly parent with lots of medical needs should pay more than a fit 30 something at the peak of his earnings power. think it through people - you cant have free services unless someone pays. that someone has to be the person earning proportionally more.

insertrandomnamehere - it is not a false analogy and you have failed to explain why you believe it to be so.

Your analogy was two people going on holiday, one earns 250k, the other 25k, you would expect then both to pay the same.

Well I'd argue that if the two were friends or family, the one with 10 times income does have a moral duty to pay more. If rather than a holiday, we're talking about life saving medical treatment then even more so. Scale it up to the size if a country and I think it benefits us all to act like a big family that takes care of each other.

*There are several bitter comments on here along the lines of "he's rich so he can pay it".

That's shortsighted left-wing nonsense. The sort of thinking that results in people like Barlow paying no tax whatsoever because they simply base themselves in Monaco/Caribbean/Isle of Man.*

Evidence? People like living in the UK. London had more billionaires than any other city in the world (70). The argument that they'd leave if tax was increased us rubbish.

Especially as, as we have seen, they can get round it anyway..

It's the sort of left-wing thinking that has left the country (and its government) completely skint. So now that they've spent all their money - and borrowed more than they could ever hope to pay back - they're on the scrounge for anything they can find. Hence all the Google/Amazon/Starbucks tax crap recently. Don't even get me started on that.
Right, the country is skint because all the billionaires left?

Yep, don't get me started either. Starbucks make no profit in the UK apparently, they have outlets here as a public service. Part of their corporate social responsibility..

Ignoring multi millionaires and avoidance/evasion etc - just looking at whether things are morally right or wrong...
A couple one is a SAHP, the other is self employed/has own business.
Long unsocialable hours/working away etc means the business 'owner' needs the SAHP to do all the child care, looking after the house etc (the SAHM could only work limited hours and if the children were ill etc it would always be the SAHP taking the time off)..and also the SAHP helps in the business occasionally - does a bit of admin or covering for a doc appt or even just offering advice and support ...
The income from the business iis £30k pa ...directly for the business the SAHP does a tenth of the work hours so they should get paid £3k pa and the 'owner' £27kpa .. the SAHP pays no tax and the 'owner' pays tax after their allowance on £17k

Or do you 'pay' the SAHP £10k pa and the 'owner' £20k pa - so the the SAHP still pays no tax and the 'owner' pays tax on £10k .

(bear in mind the SAHP couldn't claim JSA if they were looking for a job...the business owner's income as a couple would be taken into account ...)

or do you make it an official partnership? (Share the tax burden etc)

Which would you do?
If you did the second two - avoiding paying tax - would that be morally right or wrong?
...and do you know how the HMRC would view this?

I'm no expert on tax laws myself but.......fucking hell.....

Also, OP have you seen ISA rates lately? Hardly a big fat money spinner for the vast majority of us!

Poll tax? Where the heck have you been Sigmund?

Haha! you're a dick.

The first £10K of anything anyone earns is tax free no matter what.

Setting up a fictitious business with the sole purpose of avoiding tax is completely different. It's dishonest as the business has no other purpose than to avoid tax.

It is not illegal because of business tax laws (and thats where you draw comparisons to non-illegal £10K tax allowance for our average UK citizen) but FFS the whole premise of the FAKE BUSINESS is questionable.

The thing is its not possible for us MNers to just not pay tax on the first £10K and then squirrel the next £10K into a second "business" and any subsequent £10K into other businesses because we're just too small and not fucking powerful enough

How shitty of you to try and compare that with MNers who are just going about their lives, earning a living.

DICK.

YABvvvvvvU and deluded to think 100% of MNers avoid tax. Have this...

I suggest you take 15 minutes reading HMRC's guidance that explains the difference between tax planning and tax avoidance and come back when you understand the bare basics. Actually, no, don't come back.

Utter drivel [hmmm]

Ourye Excellent point about ISA's. What's the point unless their earning you so much money that they're tax free. I put my dc's savings in an ISA thingy for them, it made them doodly squat!

Spot the dickhead on the dance floor.

You can't pay tax on your firsts£10k no matter how hard you try.

Unless you then invent companies for the sole purpose of avoiding tax on any subsequent earnings you are behaving entirely within the law.

What an ass OP

I spend a lot of money on books which do not pay VAT which I could spend on other pleasures which do: OP does that make me a tax avoider?

Nobody "chooses" not to pay tax on the allowance, it just is.

It's like saying you've chosen not to pay 100% tax on your earnings, and instead will just pay the 20% that the government request.

Don't get your point op.

The tax free allowance is part of the taxing system that the government intends for us to pay. So if you define this as a loophole, then surely paying anything less than 100% in your definition is a loophole? Because after that tax allowance, the government asks us to pay 20%. We could be paying more! What a loophole! Do you see how silly that sounds?

Oh dammit, sorry EminyBob, you made exactly the same point but better!

mummymeister - you say the system only work if we are taxed on what we earn, not what we consume?

Actually, we are taxed not only when we earn, but also when we spend (VAT), save (CGT), live in a house (Council Tax), drive (road tax and fuel duty), buy a house (stamp duty) and, for those that own a business (even one employing hundreds of people, all of whom pay tax) if you make a profit then you can hand over 20% of it in corporation tax.

If, somehow, after paying all that tax you manage to squirrel some away........ the government swoop in when you die and claim to be entitled to 40% of your assets!!!! Now THAT is immoral. The government have a bloody cheek trying to take the moral high ground.

But back to income - yes, we should be taxed when we earn in order to pay for infrastructure and services. I can get on board with a flat rate of tax for everyone - 20% or thereabouts. Nobody should pay more than that. If you make millions of pounds every year, you'll pay much more tax than someone on an average wage.

But try to see if from Gary Barlow's point of view: despite the avoidance scheme, he will have paid millions of pounds in tax over the years whilst watching the government piss money away like there was no tomorrow. He wont be a drain on services when he's older because he'll have the money for private healthcare. His children will no doubt be privately educated. He probably thought "hang on, I've paid more than enough tax this year - more than 99% of people pay in a lifetime - and I can legally avoid paying more".

It's a no-brainer, and as I said earlier, the government have a bloody cheek trying to take the moral high ground. The government are the biggest bunch of thieving parasites you'll find anywhere.

insertrandomnamehere - what an appalling, wretched sense of entitlement you have. If you were on holiday with a friend who earned more money than you did, you think they'd have a duty to pay more than you?

That is sickening and oh so bitter.

The way I look at it, I'm not taking out some insurance policy through some company in Gilbralter just in case HMRC decide my £10,000 personal allowance or ISA contributions weren't actually allowable. There's an easy way to spot the difference.

Beaksnout: Gary doesn't get to decide when he's paid enough tax though. The (elected) government sets tax rates and part of our democratic society is that we follow the rules.