Question Is minimising your tax bill "morally wrong"?

[DaGaffer]

...Or, as I like to call it, common sense? Whilst Jimmy Carr is clearly a hypocrite for lampooning bankers' tax affairs whilst feeding at the same trough, does the government genuinely think it has a moral claim over your earnings?

*sits back, opens popcorn*

 

[Mabs]

I'm not in favour of tax avoidance obviously, but I don't think it is for politicians to lecture people about morality”​

Ed Miliband

 

[djpringle]

Hmmm...tough one, is paying extra money into a pension and gifting shares morally wrong? Both help to avoid tax but are not born out of loophole exploitation.

 

[BloodOmen]

If only we had hartman to sort all the tax dodging bastards out would be awesome to see him grill mps and loophole celebs xD

 

[old.Tohtori]

Minimizing taxes, or rather; paying what you're supposed to instead of what they're asking = nothing wrong if you're that bothered.
Tax avoiding = not.

On the issue of a moral claim? No, but they do have a claim still if you like fancy free stuff back.

 

[Scouse]

Nothing wrong at all - otherwise it'd be illegal.

I paid about 10% in total on 70 grand last year. If I'd had tried *really* hard I could have paid a lot less.

I don't feel guilty because the super-rich pay can pay less than 2% on most of their income. That's how the governments of the world set the rules. Corporations and companies pay equivalent amounts. Only Joe Public, who has little interest in tax affairs, is pro-capitalism because he dreams that he's going to be rich some day (when he isn't) and wants to protect his dream (rather than live in reality and make a world for everyone, rather than a very very few), pays tax at the appropriate amount.

Labour tried to make IT contractors pay tax like a "normal average joe" - which would have entailed me paying ~60% on total - using the IR35 laws. However, they couldn't find a way to do it legally - because if they did then all the super-rich and companies would have to pay tax at everyone else's rate too - and the rich won't wear it.

So good on Jimmy Carr. Good on me too and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise - you're bitter and stupid and your anger is directed at the wrong people - it should be directed at the people who make the rules and the people who own them....

 

[Chilly]

The problem is with the law, really. It's not illegal to do what Jimmy & co were doing but it's very clearly against the spirit of the law. It is the government's desire that everyone pay their taxes. Obviously if there are legal ways to reduce that, they will be persued and it's the govt's fault for writing shitty laws. But you also have to look at the "asshole" measure. Is Jimmy being an asshole? Yes he is. Look at the mechanic of this "efficiency" loophole: your employer loans you hundreds of thousands of pounds which you then default on. Not only do you avoid paying tax but those defaulted loans never make it onto your credit record, so there's no downside.

As to a moral right to your earnings: to some extent. Anyone's ability to earn money is at some level due to our society and government allowing them to do so. BP drilling for oil and making profit? Because they were granted a licence to a lmited resource by the govt - the fee is a revenue share, which is entirely reasonable.

Jimmy makes money because there are enough people willing to spend 50 quid on a ticket to go see him take the piss out of people - people would not have that spare 50 quid if it were not for society as a whole agreeing to all sorts of things like, in general, don't be a dick.

 

[Scouse]

it's very clearly against the spirit of the law

No it isn't. At all.

The law is set up precicely to allow the rich to avoid paying tax and to make the peasants pay.

Avoiding tax is the whole reason financial laws are the way they are - to allow the rich to avoid paying whilst keeping average joe in his place - financially and socially.

 

[soze]

Totally wrong in my eyes. He is not avoiding Tax to pay a mortgage it is just pure greed. Legal loophole but morally wrong. And I agree with what her name it makes him as bigger scum bag as any benefit cheat as he has just robbed the country of £1 by using a dodgy loophole.

*I also think Arsenal were scummy when they did it and the fact they had to pay the money back was a good outcome.

 

[- English -]

Just another reason why the UK is going down the shitter

 

[soze]

Yes far too many people who think it is funny and cleaver to exploit a loophole because it is there. People who think they are doing something good by pointing out the issue and saying don't blame me blame the people who made the law really are bottom feeders. The euro millions winner who still claims a disability car is a prime example. You are exploiting the system for your own selfish agenda you are not noble you are not cleaver you are cunts.

 

[Himse]

Yes far too many people who think it is funny and cleaver to exploit a loophole because it is there. People who think they are doing something good by pointing out the issue and saying don't blame me blame the people who made the law really are bottom feeders. The euro millions winner who still claims a disability car is a prime example. You are exploiting the system for your own selfish agenda you are not noble you are not cleaver you are cunts.

I find it really hard to believe if you made XXmillion a year you'd want to give 50% or some large percentage to the government.

 

[Jeros]

Tax is the price we pay for living in a first world country with decent healthcare, education and personal security (I.E no AK-47 toting warlords down the street abducting our kids) and even things like water from a tap.

Pay it gladly and be thankful for the nation of your birth.

We really don't know what we have sometimes.

 

[Tom]

The annoying thing about this is a raft of ignorant people now believe that any tax avoidance is evil. So when I avoid paying income tax on my business expenditure, I'm evil?

Any businessman who doesn't do everything he can to avoid paying tax is an idiot. Tax should be viewed as a necessary evil, nothing more.

 

[old.user4556]

What about self employed people that take cash in hand on the side for work done? Are they all evil tax dodging bastards?

 

[- English -]

What about self employed people that take cash in hand on the side for work done? Are they all evil tax dodging bastards?

well aren't they meant to declare it?

 

[rynnor]

There is a lot of hypocrisy in the tax system - essentially it is setup so that the richest pay a tiny proportion and it could be reformed at a stroke with a flat tax on everyone so its a moral minefield.

We all know that someone needs to pay but everyone thinks it should be someone else

 

[DaGaffer]

My 2c:

I'm conflicted. I do believe there are good and proper reasons for paying tax, but at the same time I agree with Scouse that the deck is stacked, which is why I LOL'd when I heard David Cameron and George Osborne talking about morals.

So the question is then, do I take the socially responsible approach and pay taxes at the maximum rate expected by the Revenue, in order to do my bit to pay for schools and hospitals and cruise missiles, or do I say, "fuckers who are rich enough to afford an accountant (companies and individuals) don't pay maximum tax, so why should I?" Also, Is it right that a publicly traded company would not only be expected to minimise its tax exposure through every legal means available, but could even find itself sued by its shareholders for not "maximising shareholder value" if it didn't? How can it be "morally wrong" for individuals, but correct and proper for organisations?

There are plenty of other issues as well; is my tax money being wasted? (Undoubtedly yes). Is my tax money being used for things I consider more morally questionable than tax avoidance? (Undoubtedly yes). If I'm rich, am I not paying proportionately more tax anyway through VAT and duties due to my higher spending power, and also using public services far less due to private schools and healthcare etc? (Undoubtedly yes). Do any of those things give me an acceptable justification for minimising my tax? (erm...)

Personally, I could never condemn someone for minimising their tax esposure because I know full well that if I won the Euromillions tomorrow I'd do exactly the same. However, I also know that if I made a living pointing out the moral or economic failings of others for fun and profit, it would probably be a good idea to be squeaky clean myself. People in glass houses...

 

[MYstIC G]

The annoying thing about this is a raft of ignorant people now believe that any tax avoidance is evil. So when I avoid paying income tax on my business expenditure, I'm evil?

Any businessman who doesn't do everything he can to avoid paying tax is an idiot. Tax should be viewed as a necessary evil, nothing more.

Tax should never be viewed as necessary, just evil. Once a tax always a tax.

 

[Tom]

There is a lot of hypocrisy in the tax system - essentially it is setup so that the richest pay a tiny proportion and it could be reformed at a stroke with a flat tax on everyone so its a moral minefield.

We all know that someone needs to pay but everyone thinks it should be someone else

Erm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm

 

[Chilly]

What about self employed people that take cash in hand on the side for work done? Are they all evil tax dodging bastards?

Well that's stone cold illegal, so yes.

 

[Chilly]

Erm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm

Yup, it's the 40%+ crew who pay for this country. Even if Barclays, or whoever, is only paying 3% corp tax, their £15bn UK wage bill will be taxed at a very high rate (at least 40%, I would imagine).

 

[Fweddy]

I think it's immoral to pay more for anything than you have to.

 

[Raven]

No it isn't wrong. But if you do so you cannot criticise anyone else for doing so. Bankers, the rich etc.

Unlucky Scouse, you are a massive hypocrite.

Stand by your convictions or stfu about them.

 

[leggy]

Nothing wrong at all - otherwise it'd be illegal.

I paid about 10% in total on 70 grand last year. If I'd had tried *really* hard I could have paid a lot less.

I don't feel guilty because the super-rich pay can pay less than 2% on most of their income. That's how the governments of the world set the rules. Corporations and companies pay equivalent amounts. Only Joe Public, who has little interest in tax affairs, is pro-capitalism because he dreams that he's going to be rich some day (when he isn't) and wants to protect his dream (rather than live in reality and make a world for everyone, rather than a very very few), pays tax at the appropriate amount.

Labour tried to make IT contractors pay tax like a "normal average joe" - which would have entailed me paying ~60% on total - using the IR35 laws. However, they couldn't find a way to do it legally - because if they did then all the super-rich and companies would have to pay tax at everyone else's rate too - and the rich won't wear it.

So good on Jimmy Carr. Good on me too and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise - you're bitter and stupid and your anger is directed at the wrong people - it should be directed at the people who make the rules and the people who own them....

I came here to say some similar but you've beaten me to it with a lucid and succinctly written post. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

No it isn't wrong. But if you do so you cannot criticise anyone else for doing so. Bankers, the rich etc.

Unlucky Scouse, you are a massive hypocrite.

Stand by your convictions or stfu about them.

Thought the same thing. A funny position to be taking. Bit of a joke.

 

[rynnor]

Isnt taxation itself immoral?

I mean its essentially demanding money with menaces by the state.

Personally Id rather spend my own money for all my families services than have to fund a system that takes it off me then squanders it on costly ineffecient services...

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Isnt taxation itself immoral?

I mean its essentially demanding money with menaces by the state.

Personally Id rather spend my own money for all my families services than have to fund a system that takes it off me then squanders it on costly ineffecient services...

So... you'd be happy with no roads, no hospital treatment, no doctors, no dentistry, no waste collection? It's not taking money by menace, it's taking money to give you what you need to get on in life.

The fact it's often administrated badly is a whole other discussion.

 

[rynnor]

So... you'd be happy with no roads, no hospital treatment, no doctors, no dentistry, no waste collection? .

If I had the other half of my earnings I could pay for all of that - is it really an essential function of the state that my rubbish is collected or which dentists I use?

If you leave it to individuals its in their interests to get the best deal so its always going to be more effecient?

 

[DaGaffer]

If I had the other half of my earnings I could pay for all of that - is it really an essential function of the state that my rubbish is collected or which dentists I use?

If you leave it to individuals its in their interests to get the best deal so its always going to be more effecient?

Defence, law enforcement, education, basic health and social welfare. A certain amount of tax is necessary to give the bare minimum required for a functioning society. In reality there are other things the state has to do that simply wouldn't be economic for the private sector to supply (3/4 of the road network for example). Efficiency isn't the first or only requirement of a functioning society, so no, individuals couldn't completely decide what they do and don't want to pay for.