The Iom To Go For Automatic Exchange Of Tax Information

[HotAir]

You can avoid tax legally and morally

 

Wrong. You cannot be moral when you do something with the intention of avoiding paying your fair share of tax as it is an attempt to shift your tax burden onto others who in many cases are unable or unwilling to take advantage of these tax avoidance schemes. These schemes may be legal, but not moral. Its a simple concept. If you go to dinner in a restaurant with friends on the understanding that by the end of the evening the bill will be paid, and then proceed to pay less than your share of the bill because you realise that can avoid doing so, you are making your friends pay for you, or the restaurant does not get the full amount due. Your friends would be entitled to take umbrage at your behaviour if they realise you've taken certain actions just to avoid paying your fair share. If you enjoy the benefits of participating in a society, then you are morally obligated to pay your fair share to support it.

[oldmanxfella]

You can avoid tax legally and morally

 

Wrong. You cannot be moral when you do something with the intention of avoiding paying your fair share of tax as it is an attempt to shift your tax burden onto others who in many cases are unable or unwilling to take advantage of these tax avoidance schemes. These schemes may be legal, but not moral. Its a simple concept. If you go to dinner in a restaurant with friends on the understanding that by the end of the evening the bill will be paid, and then proceed to pay less than your share of the bill because you realise that can avoid doing so, you are making your friends pay for you, or the restaurant does not get the full amount due. Your friends would be entitled to take umbrage at your behaviour if they realise you've taken certain actions just to avoid paying your fair share. If you enjoy the benefits of participating in a society, then you are morally obligated to pay your fair share to support it.

 

You are all hot air aren't you what rubbish.

 

You remind me of Thomas S. Foley's quote:

 

"If you don't drink, smoke, or drive a car, you're a tax evader"

[triskelion]

You can avoid tax legally and morally

 

Wrong. You cannot be moral when you do something with the intention of avoiding paying your fair share of tax as it is an attempt to shift your tax burden onto others who in many cases are unable or unwilling to take advantage of these tax avoidance schemes. These schemes may be legal, but not moral. Its a simple concept. If you go to dinner in a restaurant with friends on the understanding that by the end of the evening the bill will be paid, and then proceed to pay less than your share of the bill because you realise that can avoid doing so, you are making your friends pay for you, or the restaurant does not get the full amount due. Your friends would be entitled to take umbrage at your behaviour if they realise you've taken certain actions just to avoid paying your fair share. If you enjoy the benefits of participating in a society, then you are morally obligated to pay your fair share to support it.

Yes, but that would be evasion, not avoidance. No one disputes that skipping out on paying your dues is immoral, which is why the Island sets very high regulatory standards to help prevent such things.

 

However, if I have (say) a voucher that entitles me to a free burger at your restaurant, then I have avoided paying the full price, but have done nothing that would justifiably upset my friends.

[The Voice of Reason]

However, if I have (say) a voucher that entitles me to a free burger at your restaurant, then I have avoided paying the full price, but have done nothing that would justifiably upset my friends.

 

That analogy so doesn't work.

 

The UK govt for example enables tax efficient savings (ISA'S etc - say like your burger voucher). There may be no tax due on that, see Premium Bond example given above but it is promoted by the govt for anyy number of reasons, political, economical etc, as your burger voucher is promoted by the restauranter in the hope of generating alternative income at that restaurant (perhaps they hope you may come back as a paying customer or there may be conditions attached say you have to buy a starter and a sweet.

 

You have not avoided paying the full price because the full price is nothing, as determined by the restauranteur.

 

There is no such thing as a free lunch unless you do a runner.

 

Pay unto Caesar what is due to Caesar

[Evil Goblin]

This is a typical error which smacks of sloppy thinking. Let's be clear - just because taxation may be necessary does not mean it is necessarily moral. Much confusion arises by virtue of that error.

 

Taxation is actually a form of legalised theft - it is the arbitrary taking away from someone of that which is rightfully theirs by dictat of others - it is actually immoral. The fact that it is necessary is another matter altogether from morality.

 

Poppycock - the fact that tax is necessary is what makes it moral. One may debate the finer points (rates of tax, targeting, exemption, concessions etc) but broadly speaking society as a whole has needs which need to be paid for, and it is morally right that members of society pay for it. (Who else would?).

 

I'm afraid, my friend, you are the one indulging in sloppy thinking.

VoR - this claptrap deserves a fuller response than I have time for at present. Rest assured I will get back on it - in the meantime I would simply point out that you have fallen into the trap of believing that moral views can be objective, which they are not and cannot ever be.

[P.K.]

Treasury minister Stephen Timms has said many banks continued "to be involved in tax avoidance that goes well beyond reasonable tax planning".

 

Well, probably not so much the likes of RBS.

 

Full story here.

[Cambon]

Cambon - just because you opt for and pay the withholding tax does not satisfy your tax obligations to, for example, HMRC. You are still required to return the income in question and claim offset for the tax paid (so why would you bother taking the withholding option anyway?!!). Otherwise, by paying 25%. 35% or whatever the withholding tax was when your tax rate where you reside is 50% means you are skiving off your proper tax bill. So, I'm afraid that even if you opt for the withholding tax you will still be classed as an evader.

 

The whole point of the EUSTD agreement was that you were seen as paying your tax. As the rate increased, it would become less attractive to have tax withheld. However, if you have a dividend voucher or statement stating that tax has been withheld, it is as good as having a receipt from HMRC. That is what the whole of Europe signed up to.

[Cambon]

Wrong. You cannot be moral when you do something with the intention of avoiding paying your fair share of tax as it is an attempt to shift your tax burden onto others who in many cases are unable or unwilling to take advantage of these tax avoidance schemes.

 

Like paying betting tax on your pools entry or the lottery? Government enforced tax avoidence!

[Evil Goblin]

This is a typical error which smacks of sloppy thinking. Let's be clear - just because taxation may be necessary does not mean it is necessarily moral. Much confusion arises by virtue of that error.

 

Taxation is actually a form of legalised theft - it is the arbitrary taking away from someone of that which is rightfully theirs by dictat of others - it is actually immoral. The fact that it is necessary is another matter altogether from morality.

 

Poppycock - the fact that tax is necessary is what makes it moral. One may debate the finer points (rates of tax, targeting, exemption, concessions etc) but broadly speaking society as a whole has needs which need to be paid for, and it is morally right that members of society pay for it. (Who else would?).

 

I'm afraid, my friend, you are the one indulging in sloppy thinking.

VoR - this claptrap deserves a fuller response than I have time for at present. Rest assured I will get back on it - in the meantime I would simply point out that you have fallen into the trap of believing that moral views can be objective, which they are not and cannot ever be.

Right, VoR, let's contemplate the morality of taxation. Whether or not you consider taxation to be moral is a function of your basic paradigm of how things are.

 

One Group (which I will label "Marxists" and of which you appear to be one) would hold that all things essentially belong to the Common Weal - individuals may, subject to various rules as to how they do it,enjoy personal, private enjoyment and use of those things as permitted by the people corporate i.e. the State for so long as the State might permit. Therefore, when the State imposes taxation it is only reclaiming that which actually belongs to it i.e. it is moral.

The second Group believes that when individuals strive, devote effort to and take risks to, acquire things then those things primarily belong to them and not the State because they are the fruits of the individuals own efforts and no-one else's. Thus, if the State arbitrarily sequesters some of those things from the individual it is committing an immoral act. This is so whether the taxation levied is necessary or not.

 

Necessity has nothing to do with the morality of the matter.

[The Voice of Reason]

This is a typical error which smacks of sloppy thinking. Let's be clear - just because taxation may be necessary does not mean it is necessarily moral. Much confusion arises by virtue of that error.

 

Taxation is actually a form of legalised theft - it is the arbitrary taking away from someone of that which is rightfully theirs by dictat of others - it is actually immoral. The fact that it is necessary is another matter altogether from morality.

 

Poppycock - the fact that tax is necessary is what makes it moral. One may debate the finer points (rates of tax, targeting, exemption, concessions etc) but broadly speaking society as a whole has needs which need to be paid for, and it is morally right that members of society pay for it. (Who else would?).

 

I'm afraid, my friend, you are the one indulging in sloppy thinking.

VoR - this claptrap deserves a fuller response than I have time for at present. Rest assured I will get back on it - in the meantime I would simply point out that you have fallen into the trap of believing that moral views can be objective, which they are not and cannot ever be.

Right, VoR, let's contemplate the morality of taxation. Whether or not you consider taxation to be moral is a function of your basic paradigm of how things are.

 

One Group (which I will label "Marxists" and of which you appear to be one) would hold that all things essentially belong to the Common Weal - individuals may, subject to various rules as to how they do it,enjoy personal, private enjoyment and use of those things as permitted by the people corporate i.e. the State for so long as the State might permit. Therefore, when the State imposes taxation it is only reclaiming that which actually belongs to it i.e. it is moral.

The second Group believes that when individuals strive, devote effort to and take risks to, acquire things then those things primarily belong to them and not the State because they are the fruits of the individuals own efforts and no-one else's. Thus, if the State arbitrarily sequesters some of those things from the individual it is committing an immoral act. This is so whether the taxation levied is necessary or not.

 

Necessity has nothing to do with the morality of the matter.

 

 

 

Oh if it were only that simple.

 

These striving, risk taking individuals of whom you speak, do not their efforts also prosper because of the environment created by the said evil State.? No man is an island.

 

This "State" which after all , in the democratic world at least, has been created by society itself is not "committing an immoral act" in imposing taxation, quite the opposite. I see nothing immoral in the State requiring a contribution from individuals to provide hospitals, schools, policemen etc. In fact I would suggest most right minded people would agree with the principle of taxation (obviously as stated before there may be disagreements over the finer details), even though I suspect many might take umbrage with being labelled "Marxist" by your rather ill informed definition.

[Snaipyr]

Tax planning, tax avoidance, tax evasion - all much of a muchness in my view. All immoral, only difference is that the latter is labeled illegal. I've never questioned my obligation to pay tax at the going rate, but I would like to have a say in how it is spent. Health care, social welfare, education etc - fine, so long as it's being spent wisely. Wars, bailing out banks etc - not fine.

 

When I get my tax return forms I'd like a list enclosed outlining everything that the government spends money on, and be able to tick the ones I agree to contribute towards. That would be true democracy!

[Evil Goblin]

Vor - you are still missing the central truth - necessity and morality are two different things. I do not deny the necessity (and to some extent the desirability) of taxation and I completely agree that persons should pay that amount of tax which the law requires. You can work to the law, which is there in black and white, but not to morality, as everyone's morality tends to be different and to change over time).

 

The point is then to determine just what the law requires. It is a long established principle that you need only pay tax as the law specifically requires. If you so organise your affairs so that the law requires a lesser tax take than otherwise might be the case then that is not immoral - it is moral. Tax is a matter of necessity and legality, not morality.

 

Ref "Marxist", I simply used that term as a handy reference for the paradigm in question and no slight was intended.

[Evil Goblin]

"Tax planning, tax avoidance, tax evasion - all much of a muchness in my view. All immoral, only difference is that the latter is labeled illegal. "

 

What is immoral about tax avoidance i.e. not paying tax when the law does not require it?

[The Voice of Reason]

When I get my tax return forms I'd like a list enclosed outlining everything that the government spends money on, and be able to tick the ones I agree to contribute towards. That would be true democracy!

 

No it wouldn't!. It would be true stupidity!

[The Voice of Reason]

What is immoral about tax avoidance i.e. not paying tax when the law does not require it?

 

 

I have no problem with you not volunteeering to pay VAT when purchasing say, childrens clothes, when the law does not require it. Not sure quite where you're going with this one.