Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

SSN were just showing the impact on football clubs and games. Basically for someone like me it will add around 5 quid to a match.

[peterms]

he's trying to stifle a smirk and a laugh?

I think that's just his natural demeanour Chinds.

He looks a little bit like The Joker, IMO.

Interesting that ads showing him (Gideon) up massively for his Tax dodging exploits were pulled from Right Wing media outlets.

Just to explain a little for those who don't know what this refers to:

The advert below points out that tax dodging amounts to some £120 billion a year, and that Mr Osborne is himself dodging £1.6 million tax. It was placed with the Guardian, Independent, and Metro. The Telegraph didn't accept it. The Mail increased its price very late, so at the last minute the group running the ad couldn't afford the rate they were now charging. The Metro pulled it, having agreed to run it, saying

“I gave it the OK before Christmas, but said it would have to be pulled if there was any controversy, and now Conservative HQ are on the attack over the ‘tax dodger’ claims.

“I don’t have a problem with the group advertising with us but obviously we don’t want to run anything that could be viewed as libellous.”

[Awol]

Tax dodging or tax avoidance? The first is illegal and the second is perfectly sensible imo.

One other thing, if there is such a big problem with tax dodging, did it start in May 2010 or has 13 years of Labour Government also failed to deal with it? If the latter is correct then maybe that's because stopping it isn't quite as easy as the 'flick of a switch' approach that the Blu-Labourites are trying to spin now they are no longer being held accountable for it?

[peterms]

Tax dodging or tax avoidance? The first is illegal and the second is perfectly sensible imo.

One other thing, if there is such a big problem with tax dodging, did it start in May 2010 or has 13 years of Labour Government also failed to deal with it? If the latter is correct then maybe that's because stopping it isn't quite as easy as the 'flick of a switch' approach that the Blu-Labourites are trying to spin now they are no longer being held accountable for it?

Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance not. Tax dodging is used as a loose term covering either or both, I think. And it's been going on for a very long time.

Avoidance schemes may be legal, but that doesn't make them right - it's just people finding loopholes to get out of paying what the tax regime aimed at them paying. Like getting a lawyer to find some procedural irregularity to get you off a speeding ticket, only with far more negative consequences for everyone else.

The point is that Osborne is levying regressive taxes, hurting the poorest, while dodging tax to a remarkable degree. "We're all in this together. Well, you lot are, I'm in Klosters. Pass the Bollinger. Prost!"

[blandy]

...Avoidance schemes may be legal, but that doesn't make them right - it's just people finding loopholes to get out of paying what the tax regime aimed at them paying...

For the purposes of exploring this a bit further, I could suggest that it doesn't make them (all) wrong, either.

Is it "wrong" to, for example, have a scheme whereby from your gross pay, some things can be deducted before tax is paid - things like share schemes - where the co. that employs you sells you shares? This way, employees get a small say and ownership in the co. they work for. I'd say that was a good thing. It's limited to 1500 quid a year worth of shares, but is within the rules.

Is it wrong to buy from Amazon or Play, who ship from Jersey, outside the EU, and thus you don't pay as much tax on the CD?

Is it wrong that if the law is drafted by well paid lawyers, debated in Parliament and Lords and passed into law, that people act within that law to organise their affairs in a way that is most cost effective for them and their families? I mean if it is wrong, wouldn't the lawmakers change the law?

Is everything that is unfair "wrong"?

How many people, given the option, would choose to pay as much tax as they possibly can? Almost no-one I would suggest.

[peterms]

...Avoidance schemes may be legal, but that doesn't make them right - it's just people finding loopholes to get out of paying what the tax regime aimed at them paying...

For the purposes of exploring this a bit further, I could suggest that it doesn't make them (all) wrong, either.

Is it "wrong" to, for example, have a scheme whereby from your gross pay, some things can be deducted before tax is paid - things like share schemes - where the co. that employs you sells you shares? This way, employees get a small say and ownership in the co. they work for. I'd say that was a good thing. It's limited to 1500 quid a year worth of shares, but is within the rules.

Is it wrong to buy from Amazon or Play, who ship from Jersey, outside the EU, and thus you don't pay as much tax on the CD?

Is it wrong that if the law is drafted by well paid lawyers, debated in Parliament and Lords and passed into law, that people act within that law to organise their affairs in a way that is most cost effective for them and their families? I mean if it is wrong, wouldn't the lawmakers change the law?

Is everything that is unfair "wrong"?

How many people, given the option, would choose to pay as much tax as they possibly can? Almost no-one I would suggest.

There's a difference between things which are within the rules, and things which have been devised in such a way as to find and exploit loopholes which the regulations don't address, but which clearly go against the intention of a tax regime.

For example, if the tax regime is set up in a way which purports to have the richest paying most, but through paying those expensive advisers the richest find ways to escape paying and leave it to the rest of us, then I'd say that's an undesirable outcome, one which the legislators seemingly hadn't planned, one which goes against the basis on which the rest of us have been persuaded that we have tax obligations, and therefore, wrong.

To say that no-one would choose to pay as much tax as they can is not to legitimise the richest being able to get away with avoidance, except I suppose for those people who say "Well I would do that if I could, so good luck to his lordship, bless 'im".

If it's wrong wouldn't the lawmakers change it? Evidently not. To do so would be to undertake piecemeal reform of large swathes of detailed legislation which would be difficult and timeconsuming, and which would be bitterly opposed by people in a good position to put up obstacles at every step of the way. Unless they were to reform the tax system more radically, for example by taxing things which can't be spirited away overseas. Land, for example. But I don't detect any appetite to do so. For me, that calls into question the effectiveness or integrity of the legislators, rather than making me think that tax avoiders are really OK.

[Gringo]

Have labour committed to reducing VAT back to 17.5% - just haven't seen this mentioned anywhere.

[blandy]

...For me, that calls into question the effectiveness or integrity of the legislators, rather than making me think that tax avoiders are really OK.

This is how I look at it, too. Given the scale of the apparent avoidance of paying tax - something the likes of us have no choice about - it seems that successive Gov'ts either have no will or no capability to legislate effectively.

It seems human nature that people will try and avoid paying taxes. Whether this is right or wrong is incidental, it's fact. Gov't seems not to recognise this, or at least to do zilch about it. They could and should surely do more. Blaming people for avoiding may sate our anger, to an extent, but it won't change anything.

The more complex the law is made, the more loopholes are found.

Better surely to set people working to come up with a transparent and simple system over time and to implement it properly once it's been fully honed.

[peterms]

Have labour committed to reducing VAT back to 17.5% - just haven't seen this mentioned anywhere.

I haven't seen a commitment to doing this - and I think the manifesto sidestepped the issue, though some, possibly including Ed Balls, wanted to commit to no increase, but were overruled.

[peterms]

...It seems human nature that people will try and avoid paying taxes. Whether this is right or wrong is incidental, it's fact. Gov't seems not to recognise this, or at least to do zilch about it. They could and should surely do more. Blaming people for avoiding may sate our anger, to an extent, but it won't change anything.

Compare this to speeding. We recognise that many people will break speed limits, if it suits them and if they can get away with it. In fact, I wonder if there's anyone who has really never broken the limit.

But to move from knowing that most or all of us will do it, to saying that it's ok to have a system where the rich can get off though the rules purportedly apply to all of us, would be seen as unacceptable by pretty well everyone.

I suppose this is why no-one in government will actually say it's ok for the rich to pay less tax than the poor, even if they connive in it happening, or actively practice it in the case of many of them.

The more complex the law is made, the more loopholes are found.

It's interesting that there's a very significant overlap between the legislators, and those who profit from tax avoidance either by doing the dodging or advising those who do.

[LondonLax]

I have no problem whatsoever with tax avoidance.

If you are not breaking any law then it is all fair game as to how best you make the most of your own money/assets.

Personally I'd be far more willing to donate money to charity than give extra money to the government that I'm not required to.

[blandy]

..

Compare this to speeding. We recognise that many people will break speed limits, if it suits them and if they can get away with it. In fact, I wonder if there's anyone who has really never broken the limit.

That's not an analogy I really agree with. Breaking the speed limit is illegal, tax avoidance is not. Put up a speed camera and everyone gets caught. Doesn't matter if they're in a Roller or a Renault.

But to move from knowing that most or all of us will do it, to saying that it's ok to have a system where the rich can get off though the rules purportedly apply to all of us, would be seen as unacceptable by pretty well everyone.

The system doesn't allow the rich to "get off though the rules purportedly apply to everyone". There are no rules outlawing what they do. It's not like the rules "permit" them to do something we are forbidden from. The rules simply detail what must happen in various circs. Anything outside those circs is by default "OK". It may seem semantics, but they don't have different rules, it's just that the existing universal rules are inadequate, as they omit to address various issues.

I suppose this is why no-one in government will actually say it's ok for the rich to pay less tax than the poor, even if they connive in it happening, or actively practice it in the case of many of them.

They won't say it because they no it is not what people want to hear (other than a few rich people, who they look after in other ways.

The more complex the law is made, the more loopholes are found.

It's interesting that there's a very significant overlap between the legislators, and those who profit from tax avoidance either by doing the dodging or advising those who do.

Is that the case, I genuinely don't know. The people who draft laws are civil servants, of all grades, MPs from all parties pass the laws. Yes specialist tax accountants advise and so on, and they can be well paid, but not the astronomical sums the likes of Phillip Green and Co. earn.

[drat01]

I have no problem whatsoever with tax avoidance.

If you are not breaking any law then it is all fair game as to how best you make the most of your own money/assets.

Personally I'd be far more willing to donate money to charity than give extra money to the government that I'm not required to.

Disagree 1 million percent with that attitude.

In the context of this thread we have a whole set of liars in Gvmt who constantly bleat out the line about being in this together. They then avoid taxes that the average man in the street should and would pay, just to increase their wealth further and are able only to do this because they are wealthy. Loopholes by their definition

an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation

Members of the Gvmt especially should not be looking to exploit loopholes they should be looking to close them. The whole tax avoidance thing is a morally corrupt thing that this Gvmt especially seem very keen to continue.

[drat01]

[peterms]

That's not an analogy I really agree with. Breaking the speed limit is illegal, tax avoidance is not. Put up a speed camera and everyone gets caught. Doesn't matter if they're in a Roller or a Renault.

... The system doesn't allow the rich to "get off though the rules purportedly apply to everyone". There are no rules outlawing what they do. It's not like the rules "permit" them to do something we are forbidden from. The rules simply detail what must happen in various circs. Anything outside those circs is by default "OK". It may seem semantics, but they don't have different rules, it's just that the existing universal rules are inadequate, as they omit to address various issues.

Mine was a poor analogy, it compared something illegal with something not. The point I'm making is that the measures used in tax avoidance are usually not so much a planned part of the system, available for all to use, but things which tend to be available only to a few, because you need specialist knowledge which is out of the reach of most people.

The basis on which tax obligations are justified is that taxation applies to all. When we see that in practice the wealthiest are able to escape their obligations, leaving the rest of us to pay their share as well as our own, it undermines the legitimacy of the system.

Saying that tax avoidance is open to all is a red herring - the richest can pay for schemes specially devised to evade the grasp of the regulations, using constructions which didn't exist when the rules were drawn up and which the rules therefore don't address. This is why there's been some interest in having a general anti-avoidance rule to block loopholes, though some pessimism about whether one could be drafted. It's not that tax avoiders are making proper use of schemes which have been created to allow less tax to be paid, but that they are able to bypass the purpose of the regulations where most people can't.

It's interesting that there's a very significant overlap between the legislators, and those who profit from tax avoidance either by doing the dodging or advising those who do.

Is that the case, I genuinely don't know. The people who draft laws are civil servants, of all grades, MPs from all parties pass the laws. Yes specialist tax accountants advise and so on, and they can be well paid, but not the astronomical sums the likes of Phillip Green and Co. earn.

Well there's a strong overlap between tax avoiders and the PM and Chancellor, for a start. Beyond things like that, the people who avoid tax have extremely strong ties of family, friendship and so on with legislators - it's been exhaustively demonstrated, and I think we all know it by now. Those ties are used for lobbying, and very effective lobbying. The lobbyists submit drafts of the specific wording they would like to see in bills, and legislators pick them up and propose them. The civil servants see their seniors glide effortlessly into well-paid directorships on retirement, and it's clear to them that similar perks can be theirs, if they play the game. It's a little more subtle than a wad in a brown envelope, but the principle's much the same.

[snowychap]

It seems human nature that people will try and avoid paying taxes. Whether this is right or wrong is incidental, it's fact. Gov't seems not to recognise this, or at least to do zilch about it. They could and should surely do more. Blaming people for avoiding may sate our anger, to an extent, but it won't change anything.

It's interesting that the government (most especially the Tories) have chosen to avoid going on the offensive and treating tax dodging as a 'moral' issue (they've rather palmed off any talk about dealing with tax evasion and avoidance to the lying party Treasury rep) whilst spending a great deal of time since the GE (and during the election campaign) demonizing those at the other end of the spectrum.

Why is the 'benefits are a lifestyle choice' issue a moral one (Osborne specifically said it was so on a number of occasions) and avoiding paying ones dues (and we're not talking about the things that are open to everyone which are mainly government incentives to get people to do one thing or another - ISAs, pension schemes, &&c.) not?

[peterms]

Indeed, the approach to what they term benefit thieves is condemnatory, accusing, generally pretty hostile, while their approach to Vodafone dodging £4.8 billion of tax is a little more accommodating.

[blandy]

It's interesting that the government (most especially the Tories) have chosen to avoid going on the offensive and treating tax dodging as a 'moral' issue (they've rather palmed off any talk about dealing with tax evasion and avoidance to the lying party Treasury rep) whilst spending a great deal of time since the GE (and during the election campaign) demonizing those at the other end of the spectrum.

Why is the 'benefits are a lifestyle choice' issue a moral one (Osborne specifically said it was so on a number of occasions) and avoiding paying ones dues ...not?

Exactly right. Very good point. Personally speaking I don't think any of is it "morals" related. If the system lets people "skive" or lets them keep more of their own money than ideal, then it's the system that's the issue.

That Gov'ts concentrate only on one part - the "skivers" and leave alone the "dodgers" suggests as Peter implied, incompetence and/or complicity.

[drat01]

The LibDem support has hit a 20 year low down to just 7%

Join the Tories and this is what happens!

The Lib Dems' poll rating has fallen to its lowest level since June 1990, according to the latest survey for The Sun.

YouGov puts the party's support at just 7% while their Tory coalition partners trail Labour by four points.

The Coalition Government's approval rating has dropped to a record low of minus 20%.

The results were revealed the day before Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's birthday and just a week before the Oldham by-election.

YouGov poll for The Sun

Conservatives 39%

Labour 43%

Lib Dems 7%

Just 3% of voters think the Lib Dems are led by "people of real talent", compared to 27% for the Tories and 17% for Labour.

Only 6% believe the party can take "tough" decisions, while the figure for Labour is 11%, with the Tories on 56%.

And 35% think the Lib Dems "chop and change all the time", compared to 29% for Labour and 15% for the Tories

[avfc89]

I'm quite surprised by that poll to be honest; I didn't think Ed would be in the lead at this stage.