Not a tax haven.

[Roger Mexico]

I wonder how many of those 62% have isa's? Avoiding tax. Making pension contributions . avoiding tax. Giving assets away. Avoiding tax. Have a company and using every means to reduce the tax they pay.

And that's before you get to the portion of that 62% that evade it rather than avoid it.

 

Sorry but this is nonsense - even if it is widely believed nonsense. Neither ISAs nor pension contributions would normally count as 'avoiding' tax because the primary purpose they are chosen is not to avoid taxes. Any more than people choosing Jaffa Cakes over Hobnobs is avoiding tax because you don't pay VAT on the first.

 

People invest in ISAs or pensions because they wish to save for various purposes. Governments choose to encourage this by giving certain tax advantages. Savers may consider those advantages when deciding how to save, but would still choose some forms of saving anyway.

 

As to gifts, it depends on the circumstances and motive. Most gifts are given to help need or as a reward, but it may be that tax avoidance is involved. For example Cameron's mother's gift to him is unlikely to be because they couldn't afford new shoes for the kids or the car had conked out and they needed a new one. So it presumably was tax avoidance. But most gifts don't come in that category. Just because something may be used for tax avoidance it doesn't mean that every case of it is or even that the vast majority of examples are.

 

 

[1] There are situations in the UK with higher rate taxpayers making contribution that do indeed count as tax avoidance. But most people will not be in a position to benefit.

[GaryPotter]

As to gifts, it depends on the circumstances and motive. Most gifts are given to help need or as a reward, but it may be that tax avoidance is involved. For example Cameron's mother's gift to him is unlikely to be because they couldn't afford new shoes for the kids or the car had conked out and they needed a new one. So it presumably was tax avoidance. But most gifts don't come in that category.

I've seen quite a few of my friends 'inherit' their parents houses so they won't have to sell up to fund nursing fees. Some of those will be well over £200k. It's all artificial on paper transactions to save money and to avoid being socially responsible and looking after their own bloody parents. That's much worse in my book as it's us picking up the £1,000 a week bill to look after their parents and they've got a £200k house free gratis they can sell and go on very nice holidays and buy very nice cars with. That's worse than legally saving a few quid on inheritance tax as covered in the papers today with Cameron. Those people are leeches dumping massive liabilities on the tax payer and ending up with free houses that can't be touched to repay the taxpayer what they have had to shell out.

[finlo]

 

As to gifts, it depends on the circumstances and motive. Most gifts are given to help need or as a reward, but it may be that tax avoidance is involved. For example Cameron's mother's gift to him is unlikely to be because they couldn't afford new shoes for the kids or the car had conked out and they needed a new one. So it presumably was tax avoidance. But most gifts don't come in that category.

 

 

 

I've seen quite a few of my friends 'inherit' their parents houses so they won't have to sell up to fund nursing fees. Some of those will be well over £200k. It's all artificial on paper transactions to save money and to avoid being socially responsible and looking after their own bloody parents. That's much worse in my book as it's us picking up the £1,000 a week bill to look after their parents and they've got a £200k house free gratis they can sell and go on very nice holidays and buy very nice cars with. That's worse than legally saving a few quid on inheritance tax as covered in the papers today with Cameron. Those people are leeches dumping massive liabilities on the tax payer and ending up with free houses that can't be touched to repay the taxpayer what they have had to shell out.

Yet it's ok for those that sponged off the state all their lives to be cared for for free?

[GaryPotter]

 

 

As to gifts, it depends on the circumstances and motive. Most gifts are given to help need or as a reward, but it may be that tax avoidance is involved. For example Cameron's mother's gift to him is unlikely to be because they couldn't afford new shoes for the kids or the car had conked out and they needed a new one. So it presumably was tax avoidance. But most gifts don't come in that category.

I've seen quite a few of my friends 'inherit' their parents houses so they won't have to sell up to fund nursing fees. Some of those will be well over £200k. It's all artificial on paper transactions to save money and to avoid being socially responsible and looking after their own bloody parents. That's much worse in my book as it's us picking up the £1,000 a week bill to look after their parents and they've got a £200k house free gratis they can sell and go on very nice holidays and buy very nice cars with. That's worse than legally saving a few quid on inheritance tax as covered in the papers today with Cameron. Those people are leeches dumping massive liabilities on the tax payer and ending up with free houses that can't be touched to repay the taxpayer what they have had to shell out.

Yet it's ok for those that sponged off the state all their lives to be cared for for free?

Yeah, it's not fair either way but I still think these people are worse than tax avoiders. They're saving £1,000 a week that we are stumping up and then they're able to sell the houses and keep the cash and basically take the piss out of the rest of us.

[the stinking enigma]

the real piss take is that it costs a grand a week for a room and a few minumum wage staff and about £3.50 per day per person meal allowance

[GaryPotter]

the real piss take is that it costs a grand a week for a room and a few minumum wage staff and about £3.50 per day per person meal allowance

True, that's fair comment too. I'm just pissed off as I've seen quite a few people do it recently and they're already gloating about how they're spending their windfall when they couldnt wait to offload their infirm parents onto the state and nab the house. It's pretty low behaviour in my book. Much worse than avoiding a bit of tax.

[finlo]

the real piss take is that it costs a grand a week for a room and a few minumum wage staff and about £3.50 per day per person meal allowance

 

£1.50 actually.

[forestboy]

 

the real piss take is that it costs a grand a week for a room and a few minumum wage staff and about £3.50 per day per person meal allowance

True, that's fair comment too. I'm just pissed off as I've seen quite a few people do it recently and they're already gloating about how they're spending their windfall when they couldnt wait to offload their infirm parents onto the state and nab the house. It's pretty low behaviour in my book. Much worse than avoiding a bit of tax.

Envious bugger.

[GaryPotter]

 

 

the real piss take is that it costs a grand a week for a room and a few minumum wage staff and about £3.50 per day per person meal allowance

True, that's fair comment too. I'm just pissed off as I've seen quite a few people do it recently and they're already gloating about how they're spending their windfall when they couldnt wait to offload their infirm parents onto the state and nab the house. It's pretty low behaviour in my book. Much worse than avoiding a bit of tax.

Envious bugger.

Yes funny how you can be envious that the state is milking you for your parents care fees as you can afford it and yet some spawny twat is driving round in a new car because he's dumped his liabilities onto the state and copped for a £200k house into the bargain. As I said these people are leeches and much worse than tax avoiders. I bet they think tax avoiding is wrong to whilst taking the piss to the tune of £1,000 a week.

[finlo]

 

 

 

the real piss take is that it costs a grand a week for a room and a few minumum wage staff and about £3.50 per day per person meal allowance

True, that's fair comment too. I'm just pissed off as I've seen quite a few people do it recently and they're already gloating about how they're spending their windfall when they couldnt wait to offload their infirm parents onto the state and nab the house. It's pretty low behaviour in my book. Much worse than avoiding a bit of tax.

Envious bugger.

Yes funny how you can be envious that the state is milking you for your parents care fees as you can afford it and yet some spawny twat is driving round in a new car because he's dumped his liabilities onto the state and copped for a £200k house into the bargain. As I said these people are leeches and much worse than tax avoiders. I bet they think tax avoiding is wrong to whilst taking the piss to the tune of £1,000 a week.

 

Yes, but they've worked hard all their lives to buy that house.

The state should be providing the old age care and cut these greedy £1000 a week jokers out of the loop.

[the stinking enigma]

its a disgrace.

[the stinking enigma]

while the owners of these places pay no tax on their mega profits on the back of our hard working families

[GaryPotter]

while the owners of these places pay no tax on their mega profits on the back of our hard working families

So is that where the line is drawn? Ducking out of £1,000 a week bill and doing an artificial transaction to keep a £200k house from being sold to provide the taxpayer with a means to cover a care bill is fine, but some owners maybe not paying tax (I don't actually know how that might happen) is completely unacceptable? Jesus this debate gets more fucked up by the minute.

[notwell]

You've just reminded me to have a word with my parents about their house!

[Kopek]

You mean that dark, brooding, cold place where you were brought up?

 

We've just been defended, o Radio 4 news, by Nigel Fagage!!! We are not a tax haven. Ta Nige.