No more cuts needed - IF we tax fairly

[breadandbutterfly]

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/20/inland-revenue-sweetheart-tax-deals

HMRC hid 'sweetheart' tax deals for big business, MPs say

HMRC accused of lacking fairness and transparency over corporate tax settlements 'kept from scrutiny'

"Hodge told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "At a time when it's hugely important that we maximise the revenue that comes in, when it's absolutely imperative that everybody is treated equally in front of the law, whoever they are, however big or small they are, I think it's very, very important that the public are satisfied that there's equity here, and that HMRC are working on our behalf to maximise revenue that ought to come in to the Treasury."

The MPs found that owing to a "mistake", admitted by HMRC, Goldman paid up to £20m less tax than had been due on its bonus payments. Vodafone settled a long dispute by paying £1.25bn, but the committee heard allegations that the tax bill should have been £6bn or more.

The committee hearings found that two undisclosed firms had struck similar deals, and suspect that there may be other questionable deals among £25bn of outstanding unresolved tax bills. "

MrPants you are either a wind up merchant or one deluded foamer. your posts are so much parodistic right wing flim flam based on a distorted topsy turvy world view it's unreal. "tax aviodance" is legal? ah well that's alright then. I've heard in some lands it's legal to stone your adulterous wife. a govt beholden to corporate interests makes laws that favour their paymasters. my use of the adjective "criminal" to describe these tax dodging antics was a widely perceived moral judgement otherwise I'd have used the substantive "a crime". the cuts are illegit as they're ideologically motivated to roll back the welfare state.

I'll keep up the good work and you keep yer pants up, Mister. your cheeks are showing.

I'd forgotten about Cinnabar's great post on the Vodafone tax issue and it sounds to me like HMRC are in a very weak position and perhaps it's for this reason that the government decided to take £1 billion rather than go to court and more than likely losing £7 billion and opening up a HUGE loophole for many other companies to take.

Tabloid, you sound just like some of the other posters like Glasnost and Ttosca who seem to have disappeared or v. quiet nowadays. Are you a namechanger? Neither of them needed to use little things like facts and figures to form a coherent argument for their 'debates' and simply resorted to personal insults and attacks instead.

Noone disputes tax which is due is collected. What is often in dispute is how much tax is owed.

The problem with the 'tax the rich' argument is that there simply isn't enough rich people around to pay for the deficit.

At the end of the day, we are where we are. It's cut now or cut more later. Will the poor suffer? Yes. Is there another realistic choice? No.

If anyone has a sensible and realistic plan which can tackle the deficit without affecting the poor then I'm sure the government would love to hear it, as would we all. Until then it's cut now on our terms or cut more later when someone else is deciding.

I suppose it comes down to deciding who we consider 'rich' MrsMicawber.

If we consider anyone paying higher rate tax, so earning over £150k, to be rich then this represents just 1% of the population or a little over 300,000 people.

So, aside from the fact that this group already pays 24% of the entire income tax take, you could tax them until they squeak and it still wouldn't be enough to solve our problems.

tabloidhysteria "your posts are so much parodistic right wing flim flam based on a distorted topsy turvy world view it's unreal. "tax aviodance" is legal? ah well that's alright then."

Yes, I'll repeat for those at the back, tax avoidance is perfectly legal. It is the right of every man, woman or business in this country to order their affairs so that they minimise their exposure to tax. If you don't understand this, may I suggest a brief chat with an accountant?

However you dress up the issue semantically there is a possibility that Vodafone have already complied with the letter of the law - whether you personally dislike the law is irrelevant. I dislike many laws but I've still got to abide by them - under those circumstances, throwing words around such as 'criminal' is just stupid. I maintain that it's best to wait for the result of the ongoing investigation before passing judgement - you seem convinced of Vodafone's guilt already.

"the cuts are illegit as they're ideologically motivated to roll back the welfare state."

Once again, you are the one that comes across as a ?frother?. Firstly, the country is sailing perilously close to bankruptcy and, despite the best efforts of the government; we are still borrowing money faster than we are paying it back. If nothing is done, one day we will go bust just like Greece. Making cuts is therefore not illegitimate; it is the responsible thing to do. Whether they are ideologically motivated doesn't matter.

MrsMicawber "Why is 'tax the poor' any more viable than 'tax the rich'? There is more in the pot with rich people."

And the rich already pay disproportionally more.

absolutely nothing to retort to MrPants as his mindset is so fatally, philosophically skewed to the neoliberal right that's ruining our globe as to reject reasoned debate. you can't reason with a fundamentalist.

may I suggest a brief chat with analytical thinking and not knee jerk foaming? better to be a frother than a fundamentalist foamer. good day.

I see Tabloid you've not answered my question about name changing. Given that and the fact you've not come up with any proposal and merely hurling insults at anyone with an opposing view, I suspect you are a Glasnost/Ttosca and merely a name changer.

fundamentalists are also paranoid.

you've made me view all those cheerleaders you seem to have in a new light though niceguy. you accuse others of masquerading as others as you probably do just that. explains why your vacuous right wing tabloid fluff seems to garner support from some. MrPants is you then. anyone agreeing with you is you. ta dah.

get back to patronising the wimmin.

tabloidhysteria "you can't reason with a fundamentalist."

Nor can you reason with a pillock who consistently denies facts that are self-evident .

hurling insults such as pillock, bollocks, utter rubbish Mr nice guy? i suggest you have a chat with yourself.

MrsMicawber, is your comment in response to my point about there only being 300,000 higher rate tax payers in the UK? If so can you explain further, I would like to respond but don't quite understand your point.

I would think that the fact that there are only 300,000 higher rate tax payers is indicative of the importance of a good accountant, the benefits of paying some (most?) of your earnings in dividends and that the tax rate of 62% (50% Income Tax, 12% NI) is far too high.

That is tax avoidance in action.

Tabloid, I never said pillock, bollocks but I did respond with 'utter rubbish' because as I explained above, I thought the statement was.

But hey, feel free to attribute any insults to me you like. All it does is show you don't have any facts to debate.

But MrsMicawber. How can you argue that avoiding inheritance tax is OK but for someone else who does something equally legal is not?

The whole capitalist system works in a pyramid fashion. The rich are needed to spend money and that in turn filters down to the poor.

Theoretically speaking it's a perverse system and is totally unfair. Something like communism is much fairer where everyone is equal and everyone gets paid the same, with the state deciding how best to use it's resources.

However, in reality every single country which has tried it has failed.

And I know I'd rather be poor in a capitalist state than a communist/socialist/marxist/other one.

niceguy2 I called him a pillock and said he was talking bollocks up thread - I stand by every word. I think that right now he thinks that you and I are one and the same.

I was going to pick up on the inheritance tax avoidance thingummy as evidence of double standards but you have phrased it far more eloquently than I would have done.

As for your critique of communism, you've forgotten the uncomfortable fact that implementing communism usually requires a large pile of dead bodies. Other than that, I think your post is 'spotty dog'.

I think you are being sidetracked. This is NOT a discussion of the desirability of tax avoidance measures. This is about illegal tax evasion. Dave Hartnett has had to resign because he - contrary to HMRC's own processes and contrary to the advice of its own lawyers - let Goldman Sachs off 20 million quid.

Re Vodafone, Cinnabar Red's post was written several months ago before the details of the Vodafone case came to light. Anyone who reads Private Eye, as I do, will be aware that HMRC would have had no difficulty reclaiming far more than they eventually received had proper processes been followed.

OK, but in the case of Goldman Sachs, it was an almighty cock up by the HMRC. Correct?

So there wasn't any tax evasion since GS cannot be held liable for the failures of the HMRC. If you buy something from a shop and they charge you less and later realise their mistake, is that somehow your fault?

I don't read Private Eye, so not aware of what you are referring to but if you have a link handy I'd be interested in reading it.

MrPantsguy2 you are rude ("pillock", "bollocks" etc), a fundamentalist (you repeat mantralike your tax evasion is legal so that's OK, savage cuts need to be made, they're not ideologically motivated idiocy) and divisive (insinuating whomsoever dares highlight your wrongheadedness is one and the same). you assume anyone who doesn't simply wither, or swoon, under the sheer illogic of your empty propaganda is a MAN. i would advise breadandbutterfly not to get sucked in.

MrsMicawber and the point is that until it becomes illegal then it's perfectly LEGAL to do so.

And who becomes the moral arbiter of what is/is not hard work? You? Me? Surely it's the government whom we elect to make decisions like that on our behalf. And how do they do that? Well they change the law........

Am I a big bad tax dodger when I ordered my rechargable batteries from a company based in Jersey because they are cheaper since they are using a VAT loophole?

Under your example, ISA's should not be legal since all I'm doing is cutting a cheque, depositing into a bank account, letting someone else make money and pay me the interest. All without paying tax on any of it.

The problem with declaring certain types of tax avoidance as bad is that we all have different views on what is good/bad. That's why we have laws and even then there is ambiguity.