The Rich According to the Guardian

[Judy1234]

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/04/workandcareers.executivesalaries

she's like an 18 year old student marxist isn't she? we all know she'll be married with a mortgage and a private sector job, and flirting with voting for the lib dems in 15 years, but she's damned if she can see it

What's wrong with tax avoidance? Tax evasion is illegal.
There are many arguments that support the avoidance of tax - I run my own business and I would much prefer to invest in my business than pay all my profit into the revenue. That way I can go on being in business and not go on benefits, or heaven forbid, work for someone else!

Our last business employed over 20 people and we worked 7 day weeks, pretty much all year, and only took a week's hols, at xmas and in the summer. We had over half a million in turnover, and some years we made a profit, some not - but we offset our losses against our business and only paid minimal income tax (as we didn't have a big personal incomes). We paid VAT and corporation tax, and we provided employment.

Tax evasion is illegal - tax avoidance makes perfect sense to me, if you want to keep on contributing to the economy and employing people, and not go tits up.

well you know what they say

"If you're not a Socialist at 20 you've no heart, and if you're still a Socialist at 40, you've no brains".

Best to attack the issue/view not the person?

or "If you are not a Socialist at 20 you have no heart and if you are still a Socialist at 40 you have no money"

zazen, step away from the keyboard
honestly we've all been saying the same in words of one syllable, in a million different ways, and she Just Doesn't Get It

I suspect she is a 40 yr old socialist

Nothing wrong with having some social(ist) ideals? I still meet/work with many people who ONLY care about their bank and nothing else.

I've just read the thread from the start and I think there has been some progression in Dittany's views actually.

She did start out with all rich people being bad, this view being based upon having been a secretary for a banker in Canary Wharf, who had the temerity to use his airmiles for paying for carhire (this was a sign of meanness apparently).

But her last post said this:

"What we all should be aiming for is tax compliance not tax avoidance. Tax compliance still allows us to invest in pensions and claim all the tax allowances that the government offers us without creating schemes to cheat the Exchequer what it is owed (even if the schemes are legal)."

Which I think is recognition that tax reliefs and allowances exist and that it is not immoral to use them. Is that not progress?

Telling lies? Charming.

I'd like to see you substantiate that!!!

Anyway, I have given up, really and truly given up. I am now going to join Swedes howling at the moon. It really is the only rational response.

got anytime to debate that Boris Johnson thing before bedtime

Bloody hell this thread has become surprisingly vicious. Not sure why so many people on here have felt the need to attack dittany quite so personally.

In principle I agree with you dittany and I am in awe at your stamina reading through this thread. In practice though, nobody is ever going to pay more tax than they can legally get away with (especially those with the "I don't need infrastructure" mentality), so I don't think this is ever going to be a fruitful line of argument. If we feel some people are not paying enough tax in proportion to their income, there is only one way to make them pay more and that is by making it illegal not to do so.

Tough Daddy. Yes I think BJ was utterly wrong regarding Venezuela, and yes I think it deserves its own thread.

On the general subject of Finance: anybody bought shares yesterday (Friday) in the slight surge on the back on the fall in oil price? Do you believe the mkt that we are turning the corner?

IorekByrnison- thanks for response. I will be the protagonist bright and early tomorrow

I distrust posts that are in inverted commas without identifying the source. I am also concerned that what you have written is defamatory, although this concern may be misplaced as defamation is not my field.

I am not sure whether or not this scheme is abusive because the scheme mechanics have not been explained in that article, and it does not show how the rise in the share price (which generated the windfall) was engineered.

If the shares are quoted and the price rise was produced by the operation of the market then they just got lucky. If it was produced artificially in some way then it must be the product of an avoidance scheme.

By the way, contingent fees are quite usual and not in any way an indication of wrongdoing.

Oops i am officially stepping away from the computer PPH - time to hit the hay, and plot my nefarious business moves!
Good luck all!

dittany. Lay off quattro. She's my best mate (after Tough Daddy ) because she called my post "brilliant".

In the charity-share example (which I am taking at face value, I don't know the case) can you clarify if your ire is aimed at Vantis etc (who were doing their job) or the dolts in the Treasury (who clearly weren't doing their job) who drew up the legislation that allowed this to happen?

well puts on tin hat having worked as a tax consultant for a few years (and a few years ago) I can say that - yes, we did used to put on our thiniking hats and come up with ways our clients could legitimately avoid tax.

But once you spend lots of time with HMRC, well, they know what they're doing and we know what we're doing. They have power - they are judge and jury at the initial stages, until you actually start getting past the commissioners to court (which you don't do very often because the fees are too much and the client wouldn't bear it) and we have low cunning and lots of clever people reading the legislation to see how best to structure businesses to minimise the tax bill. The Vantis thing is quite an extreme example -mostly it was just making sure cos were claiming everything they could be (there are lots of little tax benefits your average businessman doesn't have the time to look through).

Well, won't witter on too much - but I can't say I feel desperately sorry for the Revenue. They give as good as they get!!