We've not had a political debate on here for a while so......

[Batch]

The day I take lessons in morals from a politician is the day the devil will skate to work.

"its morally wrong to do this, that and the other". Fuck off.

Incidentally I got our cars serviced recently and didn't pay 1p VAT all legally. Found a good, local to work back street garage that isn't VAT registered on account of earnings. In your face Gauke.

PS. Ghanimah must be having a lay in. He'd love this thread.

[pumbaa]

It'll be morally wrong to breathe soon, mark my words....

There's a massive difference between the local jobbing handyman getting paid cash in hand/keeping earnings off books and those hiring professional tax lawyers to avoid paying tax, either individually or corporately.

The government are being hypocritical about this, but once again it proves that there are a mass of tax loopholes in this country that need to be addressed, and soon. Not all of those are the fault of the current clowns either....

[Mister Lorenzo]

It'll be morally wrong to breathe soon, mark my words....

There's a massive difference between the local jobbing handyman getting paid cash in hand/keeping earnings off books and those hiring professional tax lawyers to avoid paying tax, either individually or corporately.

The government are being hypocritical about this, but once again it proves that there are a mass of tax loopholes in this country that need to be addressed, and soon. Not all of those are the fault of the current clowns either....

I don't see how you can say one is right and the other wrong. To my mind they are both wrong.
You can't pick and choose to suit your own moral compass.
It's a bit like saying I only broke the law a little bit officer!!

[Samdy Gray]

So that's alright then?

I didn't say whether it was right or wrong.

[pumbaa]

I don't see how you can say one is right and the other wrong. To my mind they are both wrong.
You can't pick and choose to suit your own moral compass.
It's a bit like saying I only broke the law a little bit officer!!

I didn't say one was right and one was wrong. I just stated there is a massive difference between the two, but you can't pick on one without dealing with the other, just to suit your own agenda.

I think we're in agreement really....

[janaage]

Everyone should just pay their fair share of tax, and look to avoid paying taxes they don't need to - within the rules. If a plumber is not declaring their income they receive for services they offer they should be fined accordingly.

[Flashheart]

I don't think that anybody is saying that anybody should be allowed to avoid paying tax.

[Ardiles]

I don't see how you can say one is right and the other wrong. To my mind they are both wrong.
You can't pick and choose to suit your own moral compass.
It's a bit like saying I only broke the law a little bit officer!!

Life isn't black & white though, is it?  There are many, many shades of grey in between.  (Cue jokes about mummy porn.)  To take an example, consider two scenarios:

• Take your car for a spin on the motorway at 72 mph.
• Take your car for a spin on the motorway at 130 mph.

Both acts contravene the Highway Code.  But should they be prosecuted the same?  I think most of us would agree that the 130 mph spin should be prosecuted vigorously and that, probably, the 72 mph spin should not be prosecuted at all.

This is a valid comparison.  For the 72 mph spin, read the window cleaner or plumber avoiding VAT.  For the 130 mph spin, read the Non Dom avoiding £ millions every year, probably with the assistance of chums/contacts in Parliament who were probably, until recently, claiming expenses they shouldn't have been as well.  Perspective and scale are everything.  The focus on the little guy attracts attention away from the bigger problems/tax avoiders out there...which was probably the intention of Mr Gauke anyway.

[janaage]

But the plumber is breaking the rules by not declaring income, ie driving at 75mph,  whereas the non doms are using the rules to their benefit, (going 130mph - but on an autobahn perhaps), which some see as morally wrong.

[Bogus Dave]

The issue is not about one being more moral than the other. The issue for me is that the govt are trying to reclaim tax money from self employed people, which is a drop in the ocean to what the know, and encourage, MNC's and non doms to take out of the country.

[Ardiles]

But the plumber is breaking the rules by not declaring income, ie driving at 75mph,  whereas the non doms are using the rules to their benefit, (going 130mph - but on an autobahn perhaps), which some see as morally wrong.

Sorry...Non Doms was a bad example.  As you say, there are rules in place where they can cut a deal with HMRC subject to an annual payment.  It would have been better if I had focused on tax avoidance in general by multi-nationals/corporates.  The scale of this avoidance, which is assisted often by consultancy firms with strong links to parliamentarians, dwarfs anything that could be claimed back from tradespeople.

[Mister Lorenzo]

Life isn't black & white though, is it?  There are many, many shades of grey in between.  (Cue jokes about mummy porn.)  To take an example, consider two scenarios:

• Take your car for a spin on the motorway at 72 mph.
• Take your car for a spin on the motorway at 130 mph.

Both acts contravene the Highway Code.  But should they be prosecuted the same?  I think most of us would agree that the 130 mph spin should be prosecuted vigorously and that, probably, the 72 mph spin should not be prosecuted at all.

This is a valid comparison.  For the 72 mph spin, read the window cleaner or plumber avoiding VAT.  For the 130 mph spin, read the Non Dom avoiding £ millions every year, probably with the assistance of chums/contacts in Parliament who were probably, until recently, claiming expenses they shouldn't have been as well.  Perspective and scale are everything.  The focus on the little guy attracts attention away from the bigger problems/tax avoiders out there...which was probably the intention of Mr Gauke anyway.

You are absolutely right, police will use their own discretion up to a certain point however it's not the same with tax, you either owe it or you don't, there aren't any grey areas.

I think we are all basically saying the same thing, we are just arguing about different scales of it.
Yes, it pisses me off that someone can avoid paying tax because they can afford to pay some city lawyer to make the most of any tax loophole, however it also pisses me off people who say it's only little old plumber John (sorry plumber John  ) doing a bit of cash work, he's not doing anyone any harm, bless him!!

[Ardiles]

You are absolutely right, police will use their own discretion up to a certain point however it's not the same with tax, you either owe it or you don't, there aren't any grey areas.

I think we are all basically saying the same thing, we are just arguing about different scales of it.
Yes, it pisses me off that someone can avoid paying tax because they can afford to pay some city lawyer to make the most of any tax loophole, however it also pisses me off people who say it's only little old plumber John (sorry plumber John  ) doing a bit of cash work, he's not doing anyone any harm, bless him!!

I'd agree with almost all of that - just not the bit I have bolded.  There are a lot of grey areas that a lot of tax professionals profit from.  Alongside all of the good points made so far in this thread, a simplification of the tax code is one suggestion I would love to see acted on.  (Very difficult to act on in practice, though.)

[jayohaitchenn]

If I could get away with not paying tax, I fucking would. Same as all the rest of you.

[DMR]

If I could get away with not paying tax, I fucking would. Same as all the rest of you.

It took 2 whole pages to cut to the chase then.