May I respectfully suggest to Tory Jeremy Hunt that if the poor "stop having kids they cannot afford" that high earners should stop taking highly paid jobs if they cannot afford the tax?

[HeftyNorks]

All these tax avoidance schemes to help the poor darlings. Or do morals not apply if you are rich enough?

But what does 'social justice' mean?

Isn't that the whole point?

Because some people genuinely do think life is only 'fair' if we can all afford as many children as we want, or we can all afford to live where we choose.

At the end of the day, people are all different, and some people are prepared to work longer hours than others, some people are prepared to take on the high pressure and challenge of top jobs, while others don't.

Maybe some of the legal loopholes for avoiding tax do need closing. Just as the welfare system needs changing. I'm not suggesting things are perfect, but I think some people do feel an awful lot of resentment which is just a waste of energy.

If wealth didn't bring with it privilege, none of us would buy a lottery ticket.

Good point chil1234

I wonder how many people who play the lottery would happily hand back their winnings... after all, they wouldn't have earned it, it would just be pure chance, and a few million would provide a great deal for thousands of other families .....

Another factor to consider is this. If the tax system made it so expensive that all those entrepreneurs who are prepared to risk their own savings in the beginning are taxed to the hilt, they are rich enough to leave this country completely. This would also be so if companies left this country, leaving more lowerpaid people and less jobs. Then the situation would be worse. In the 60% the Govt tried to tax all high earners excessive amounts and they just left the country. (Think of the Beatles song, Taxman) Why do you think so many companies are investing in countries where tax fiddles are so much eaiser than in the UK?

I have just worked out that somebody earning £150,000 will be paying £57,000 in tax each year, enough to support two families on £25,000 per year. To earn that level of money that individual would either have risked their own money in the beginning or worked really hard to get where they are. There are very few tax loops left for people in this category and their pensions will shortly be hit by the latest change the Government is announcing on October 18th.

There is always going to be tax dodges. Brown did close a few and the Tories are upholding these intention to close as many as possible. Therefore the rich are being affected by cuts as well.

But think how much these people bring into the country in terms of wealth generation. I do not fall into the category of being rich or on benefits by the way so I am just trying to take a balanced opinion.

The attitude that 'the poor can have what the rich have'... is not social justice or even all that fair. You've only to look at the explosion in personal debt of the last 10 years to see how that thinking can lead to serious problems.

When it comes to family planning decisions, finance is not the sole concern but it should be in there somewhere. Not only based on finances today but on what might happen over the next 18 years of that child's life. Unless we've got some guaranteed private income source most of us are reliant on someone else for our money and whether that's the state, an employer, or customers if we're self-employed, none of us can take it for granted.

Exactly.

And talking of 'rich and poor', one of my teenage kids has been at work since 8 in a Saturday job, while one is still in bed.

At the end of the month, one will be considerably richer than the other. Or is anyone is seriously suggesting I should make up the shortfall for the other teen, to make it 'fair'? But it wouldn't be fair would it? Because one of my 3 children is, at the moment, pretty lazy and isn't prepared to get out there and compete for those (few) valuable weekend jobs out there. It takes commitment and effort. And I don't think commitment and effort are going to come about through being rewarded for not bothering. They are more likely to come about through my dc realising that you don't get something for nothing.

I am not talking about individuals earning £150000 a year. I am talking about companies who evade hundreds of millions each a year. Allowing them to do that so they don't threaten to leave the country does not make it less morally wrong.

Companies are not 'allowed' to evade tax - it's illegal!

If you mean allowed to avoid tax, through legal means, then I'd ask one simple question:

Would you prefer such companies to move abroad, if it stopped them using legal methods to avoid paying certain elements of tax, even when it meant that overall, the UK would be disadvantaged financially?

Serious question.

It does not make it less morally wrong I agree and sets a poor precedent but it will happen in any country.

I don't know too many companies in this position at the moment but the chain needs to keep profitable companies here. Other companies rely on them. There is a chain. MG Rover assets was sold to a chinese company and a deal was done so that the pension scheme just happened to go into the PPF on the first day it was launched and that allowed the Chinese to buy the rest. This is one of the dodgiest deals I ever saw but the alternative would be to let the company go into administrative and to lose the Chinese investment that is now taking place in that part of Birmingham. Not as good ideally but it has at least kept money coming in to the country.

Companies or individuals who evade tax are committing fraud and there are already people employed to investigate that. Companies or individuals who run their tax affairs within the rules cannot be criticised if they identify ways to pay less tax as a result. e.g. Cash ISAs. Companies or individuals who exploit loopholes in the legislation not strictly meant for the purpose may well be acting immorally in the opinion of some, but not in the opinion of others. Morality, unlike illegality, is very subjective.

I know several people who happily have cash ISAs, yet get their knickers in a twist about the thought of a company using legal ways of paying less tax.

A tad inconsistent to say the least

Morality is only subjective for those who want a reason to excuse their behaviour.

but there is little point have a discussion with people who think morality is subjective and social justice means people want to scrounge off others.

What about the high earner (HE) who puts all their savings account in the name of their spouse to stop paying tax. This is morally wrong because HE should be paying tax on this but is perfectly legal.

Or the MD who employs a spouse to give them an income. This is not the super rich, many smaller companies make just about to live off if the spouse is employed. Again morally wrong but legal.

"Allowing them to do that so they don't threaten to leave the country does not make it less morally wrong."
They do more than that they give them grants and subsidies to attract them here in the first place.

The truth is we don't need as many people as we have in the UK because we cannot employ each and everyone of them, some people are useless in terms of economic value but they are somebody's mother, child, wife, husband so we have to support them and we do with non jobs and benefits.

'Morality is only subjective for those who want a reason to excuse their behaviour.'

Of course morality is subjective! There are some absolutes that nearly every sane person would agree on, eg killing another living person, but on most issues there is a whole spectrum. Eg some people agree with abortion, some don't. Some people happily have sex on a one night stand basis, others would find that morally unacceptable.

It would be interesting to have an answer to my question:

Would you prefer such companies to move abroad, if it stopped them using legal methods to avoid paying certain elements of tax, even when it meant that overall, the UK would be disadvantaged financially?

So, if Company A pays £50 million in tax, and provides employment for several thousand people, but manages to legally avoid paying another £10 million on top of that, you would seriously prefer them to move abroad, taking money and employment out of the UK economy, than allow them to continue to trade here?

Seriously?

Ok, can somebody tell me what should be done with the 'surplus' children that parents who steadfastly refuse to work have?

Answers on a postcard.

Actually, answers typed in the box at the bottom of the screen might be better.

I agree with the proposition that you should not have more children than you can afford. It is madness for society to fund people having masses of children on benefits.

The trouble with raising children on benefits is that being on benefits actually means a certain level of deprivation and inequality. Horrible to raise children in those circumstances and awful for the children in question who miss out on many life-chances because of poverty.

So yay for not subsidising feckless parents to raise multiple children in poverty.

Oh and by the way, I pay my taxes. Without the assistance of any tax avoidance schemes.

I would like to see some money going towards mentoring for children who come from families where parents refuse to work because the benefits are so good. In one area of the Midlands this is now the third generation of non-working families and some work is done with those children but I would like to see the bigger companies doing more to mentor these children through their corporate responsibility and break this cycle. If this was done right it could pay off in the longer term for the country and some of the savings in benefits should go back into these children.

It would also help correct the inbalances in society that we have today. Not all obviously but would be a start.

But what happens when those feckless parent- being feckless and all- have more children despite knowing that they will not get any benefit for them?

How do those children get fed?

Well the phrase 'morality is subjective' is usually trotted out by someone who is defending an immoral action. I wouldn't defend abortion rights by saying 'morality is subjective' I would say it is morally wrong to force women into illegal, dangerous abortions and therefore I support the right to abortion.

you cannot really say it is morally right for tax companies, who are based in this country, to deliberately find ways to avoid paying the kind of taxes that would boost the public services of this country hugely. Selfishness is not morally right in any way.

If you are using a different argument, that those companies basically hold the government in a kind of blackmail, that they will leave if forced to pay tax, then I cannot say that is right. It is certainly morally wrong. Bt yes, that seems to be the situation.

That steadfastly refuse to work ?
Would you count refusing to pay and provide for your children as neglect ?
In the USA they get food stamps, I suspect they are heading our way.
I believe the plan is they will retain the child element of any benefits but lose the adult component so the test is then are they a decent parent, will they go without for the child ?

Are you really telling me that there will be children in this country who are not fed with benefits of £25,000 per year?

Selfishness and greed. They are the motivations for the very rich not paying tax. And I'm talking about companies and individuals who have huge resources. And that is not subjective morality.

What if they refuse to go without for the child?

What if they are not such a decent parent, but would have been an adequate parent were they receiving benefits which enabled them to feed all of their children?