Tax evaders cost country more than benefits

[Obelix 11]

That just shows how much you don't know, I pay tax on my company pension.

 

Secondly it was the government who ecouraged us to put our money into a pension pot.

 

You obviously agree with the anoraks/nerds who think top earners should get away without paying tax.

 

When you are paying in or drawing money out of it? If you do it on the former you might want a better pension or accountant.

 

Since you are obviously an abusive little chap with a chip on his shoulder I'll not waste time on you. Taraa.

[Obelix 11]

Am I a tax evader or just thrifty if I go on holiday to Jersey and while there, buy lots of really expensive things without paying VAT? True for the States too.

 

Neither. It's avoidance until you break the law. Same way that driving to France and getting three years worth of booze in one hit is legal avoidance, until you start selling it on then it's evasion.

[*_ash_* 88]

[...]That is nothing to do with the thread which is Tax evaders cost country more than benefits. [...]

 

Ok, so we've established that 'avoidance' and 'evading' are either the same, or different; dependent on your choice of parka.

 

Now to the second point which I made...

Tax avoidance cost more than £165+ billion/yr?

 

Even using your sources, and including BOTH 'avoidance' and 'evasion', I can only pull £15b in evasion, and £17b in 'avoidance'.

 

Sources (including yours). 1,2.

 

Even these combined figures totalling £32b, don't even come close to 'benefits', which are expected to exceed £164.7b/yr.

 

Pass me your calculator bassman.

 

[I1L2T3 10]

It's clear what tax evasion is. In fact it couldn't be clearer.

 

It's also clear that there are tax breaks for things the government wants us to do. It wants us to save, provide our own pensions etc... It knows that it is right not to tax the purchase of kid's clothes through VAT etc... It might allow for favourable tax treatment for companies or certain economic activities. So, people and organisations can legally pay less tax by using the tax laws in the way they were intended. So far, so good. You can call it virtuous tax avoidance if you like.

 

Things get more murky when the tax laws are interpreted in a way that was never intended, allowing individuals and organisations to stretch or use the laws to implement schemes that enable them to pay less tax. Some of the loopholes created may turn out to be accidentally of net benefit to the economy. Others may be a net drain. HMRC has reporting and compliance staff who try to detect the detrimental (but still legal) uses of the tax regime and can inform government re: which loopholes need to be closed. They also assess tax avoidance schemes to ensure they are within the law, e.g. look for evasion dressed up as avoidance. Not all schemes described as avoidance are actually legal.

 

So there you have it. Evasion clearly bad. Virtuous tax avoidance good. Other tax avoidance not necessarily virtuous. Some 'tax avoidance' not legal at all. You basically get to pick where you want to be on the spectrum.

[foxy lady 10]

The purpose ISAs is to encourage an economically beneficial activity - to encourage individuals to build up savings. The sweetener is favourable tax treatment for a limited sum of cash for each individual each year. ISAs were never intended to be marketed or advertised solely as a way for individuals to reduce their tax bill. ISAs are there to encourage an increase in overall levels of savings within the economy.

 

Then it's pretty daft to tax people on share dividends, bank accounts and building society accounts. That hardly encourages people to save or invest and only encourages folks to go offshore.

The decision of the Chancellor in 1997 to tax share dividends to pension funds was the single most destructive tax on savings and persuaded hundreds of thousands of people to stop paying into a pension for their old age.

[Bassman62 10]

Even these combined figures totalling £32b, don't even come close to 'benefits', which are expected to exceed £164.7b/yr.Pass me your calculator bassman.

 

Government ministers figures not mine my dear anorak/nerd and as I said previously aviod/evade identical, once again government and media usage.

[Bassman62 10]

Neither. It's avoidance until you break the law. Same way that driving to France and getting three years worth of booze in one hit is legal avoidance, until you start selling it on then it's evasion.

The end result is still the same, HMRC loses equity.

[Bassman62 10]

When you are paying in or drawing money out of it? If you do it on the former you might want a better pension or accountant.

.

 

What another sillym post and nothing to do with rich tax evaders/avoiders.

 

My company pension that is taxed is nothing to do with an accountant.

[Bassman62 10]

Odd then that ISAs are advertised as a way of avoiding tax. Perhaps the Government needs to educate its tax inspectors into understanding their own systems.

There is an upper limit as to hwo much you can put into an ISA each year, this is to prevent the top money people from abusing the system as they no doubt would.

[Bassman62 10]

Putting money into a pension or ISA, for example, does not run counter to the spirit or purpose of the law.

Exactly an there is an upper limit each year.

[Bassman62 10]

Which is complete and utter nonsense.

What a silly comment.

[Bassman62 10]

Maybe if we had a smaller tax book like other nations there would be less avoidance AND evasion. We would also need less taxmen, wouldn't we?

The government has announced that it is taking steps to track evaders/avoiders and plug loopholes used by those earning over £300k per anum, why are plonkers having to be so negatiove about such good news.

Deals are being reached with an increasing number of offshore tax havens regarding those who are in a privileged position that allows them to deprive HMRC of equity.