Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Manuel,

Cast your mind back to 70s and 80s, how many meals in your establishment were paid for as "company" expenses, even though they were obviously or not so obviously "private" affairs.

.

Another excellent explanation Fred... sadly a tin hat required for the abuse back I expect by some.

Ed: Make that two or three -):

so Greece have won they called their bluff and won .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31516416

Any "Con" Party/Government members or sympathisers involved in it?

the general ekection in may will be split to much for any party so we will have another election in 2016 . in my view it is a cert

A lot of people confuse tax avoidance and tax evasion. It can be a dangerous mistake to make!

As the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey said:

“The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall”.

What can’t be stressed enough is that the two terms – and the actions each entails – are definitely not the same thing.

Tax avoidance involves using whatever legal means you choose to reduce your current or future tax liabilities.

Tax evasion means doing illegal things to avoid paying taxes. It’s the Al Capone path to financial freedom.

Generally speaking, you can talk about and discuss tax avoidance on here but it would be utterly stupid to discuss and debate methods of tax evasion. The subject is 'taboo'. People do not do it.

As we listen and read some of the things our politicians have to say about tax avoidance, their utter hypocrisy beggars belief.

We know most all politicians are generally highly 'power', 'status' and 'money' motivated individuals and in the current 'war' being fought between Labour and the Conservatives, it would seem that Labour are knocking Tax Avoidance the most. They are postulating that Legal methods of avoidance are so wrong, that they must logically be classed as 'tax evasion' because they are so immoral. And yet, some of their more highly positioned members and particularly the Leader, Ed Miliband, has one of the dirtiest histories himself, of using and abusing legal avoidance measures to minimise his own (and his family's) taxation. Particularly so, when it comes to avoiding IHT on his mother's home and flipping his own and his girlfriend's properties at appropriate times to save CGT.

Tax avoidance is not immoral and neither is it wrong. In my opinion it is a sensible thing to do, and definitely so at my own level. My own measures include how my wife and I own our own home, how we have written our wills and the things we have done to protect our own family's wealth.

Most people are encouraged by the government to invest in ISAs and such like. Lots of people on here 'play the markets' using spread betting. It is entirely CGT free and you can go both long and short with your positions.

Lots of people who are interested in the 'equities market' are also interested in the 'property market' too. This latter often involves spending sums of money on property improvements and on loan interest. Such investors definitely want the tax allowances that are available, often to turn the difference of loss into a profit. They use legal methods of tax avoidance and legal tax allowances. Importantly, they don't go harping on about it in attacks on other property owners and do not take hypocritical stances with their opinions.

Hypocrisy is the worst crime in a politician in most people's view, and I do think this particular hypocrisy will cost Miliband and his party the election. What utter tosh, that he is 'holier than thou'. He is a bloody politician! He just wants to win power at all costs! To use an hypocrisy as a tool to win his political battle disqualifies him by way of naiveity. In the most simple of terms he shows he just isn't good enough to be the country's political leader.

Well said Exec! :0) Balls up a lot can't even add up his own expenses, God help us all if he gets a chance with the British economy.

a very quick answer to what one of you guys wrote earlier ......

tax law is very complicated for all sorts of reasons and gets more so as the world becomes ever more multinational

avoidance is pretty much synonymous with "using one's allowances to their full advantage"

why are their loop holes to avoid paying tax . why d they not close the loop holes
the answer is simple its the very people who use the system with the knowledge of their own rules that set the rules to suit them

and no gov will close the holes to avoid tax their donors would withdraw their backing

MrT - read above

I think what T is getting at is that for the vast majority the loop holes are immaterial (apart from ISA's), and as such it is only the really well off who benefit.
2517

Exec,

I agree with much of what you have posted and it does come down to "What I have got is mine." and "What you have got I want a bit of.".

I find the argument to disadvantage oneself or "family" by not using legal "tax avoidance" is difficult as it advantages those who don't act in a similar way.

The reason for rules and laws.

I suppose it depends on what sort of society you "wish" for and the "route" you think appropriate to move to-wards it.

==========

Disagree with you conclusions on Miliband, I think in spite of playing against those with loaded dice and an uneven table is doing reasonably well at the moment and not using up his powder.

=-=-=-=


ISA's etc. I have ISA's and have used them from their conception.

But, I was in luck and earned enough "excess" income to put cash away for tax free growth. Many low earners (honest and hard working) didn't have the "excess" cash or the "ability" to earn such, and also lacked the "knowledge" do utilise the "system".

There was a plausible balance of reasons for their introduction. None appear altruistic to me.

I know this is a bit OT but , was told by my Bank that the rate of interest on an account I had was reducing from 1% down to 0.2% . So went to Bank to close account said it was a rediculous interest rate etc . The next thing they say see our Personal Banker chappie .Had honest talk with him . he said basically the Banks have vast amounts of money stashed away , and don't need savers money. They have their required reserves and that's it . I asked about future savers rates and he said they're going nowhere for a long time . I was a bit taken aback . Any one else had this happen.

this discussion has been going round and round and round for months

if you (like fred) want to pay the taxman more than you need, then feel free, though the taxman has never recognised the word "moral"

however, those who choose to pay the taxman as little as is legally possible should not be castigated for so doing
give unto caesar etc, but why a penny more is a very fair argument

2517 correct the loop holes are their for the rich and them alone , its called look after your good friends and fcuk the workers . that is why we are ditching the 3 main parties they are not for the good of the uk

Manuel.

Then don't be surprised that society also provides you less than you expect!

Fred

I found your take on things quite interesting. You say:

"I find the argument to disadvantage oneself or "family" by not using legal "tax avoidance" is difficult as it advantages those who don't act in a similar way.

The reason for rules and laws.

I suppose it depends on what sort of society you "wish" for and the "route" you think appropriate to move to-wards it."

Like you I would like an 'ideal society'.

I do think, that to some extent in the UK we have got one. The same opportunities exist for everyone.

"No they don't!" I can hear you say, almost immediately.

Let's examine why not then:

Different family backgrounds
Different family wealth
Different family parental ability
Different parental power
Different family status
Different family security
Different family geographical residence
Different personal ability
Different work ethics
Different levels of intelligence
Different peer pressures
Different attitudes to peer pressure
Different influences from peers
Different attitudes to fashion
Different attitudes to behaviour
Different experiences with drugs, sex and rock and roll
Some live in the city - others live in the country
Some like gardening - some don't
Some take to computers, science, technology - some don't

Need I go on with my list?

We are all different.

Do I suspect that you want to bring us all down to a level?

My attitude is that I want everyone to aspire to be better.

I don't like litter. So I pick some of it up even though I didn't drop it or throw it onto the street. I feel motivated to do so.

But what about those people who are not motivated or who are lazy or merely have poor levels of motivation?

The point I am trying to make, is that the opportunities (and the same tax avoidance measures) really are available to us all.

It is not therefore wrong, that because some take them up and some don't, that those who do take them up should be made not to, so as to level things down for those who don't (take them up).

(I suggest you read that last sentence aloud. :-))

IMHO, I think this latter attitude is the one that pervades in Socialism or 'Leftism'. That's why I am not and cannot really be a Socialist.

Furthermore, I do generally feel, that very affluent socialists are usually hypocrits. IMHO too, the extreme of this is exhibited in Communism and also at the top of Religions.

Exactly Exec, example:-

Guess who was first in the queue to take up Royal Mail Shares on the float?

Guess who was first to complain that they didn't receive as many as he and the rest of his family applied for.

And I may be guessing now but I wouldn't be surprised if he was the first to sell.


Don't you just love Left Whingers :0)

Exec,

The same opportunities exist for everyone.

Agreed, but the aptitude is not. You give many of the reason for it not being so.

-=-=-=-=-=

Do I suspect that you want to bring us all down to a level?


As with Secondary schools I wanted the educational levels of those to be raised, not the destruction of the grammar schools etc.

However, raising the "expectations" of one group may be at some lowering of the expectancy of more "privileged" groups.

Motivation, interesting.

It is usually down to considering consciously or unconsciously the "personal" advantage or gain for oneself, although the "advantage" may be diverse and for many not based on financial gain.

==-=-==--

I must admit I had an accountant, who I gave the responsibility of claiming or not to claiming for "expenses" etc. running my accounts and to acting as he saw fit. (He was a friend.) I was busy with other things and enjoyed what I was doing not interested in the various "fiddles" which some of my colleagues used.

Many low earners do not have the knowledge. or able to apply themselves the tax rules to avoid tax which would advantage themselves.

You personally doing so is down to your "inclinations", others consider other things are more important.

But as said before I think taxation system and rules and regulation and due for a serious investigations and simplification.

=======

Personally, I don't consider myself particularly left wing, but I do want a decent society and I am prepared to pay my share to support it.

=-=-=-==

The thing which I saw in a hospital recently was a patient needing help and "health" workers standing around and doing nothing.

I asked why the didn't assist the "patient" and was told they were not being paid to do so.

They knew the price of everything and the value of very little.

I doubt that similar would have been as apparent before ""there
is no such thing as society"".