Is it wrong to avoid paying tax?

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/uk-reject-eu-plans-combat-multinational-tax-avoidance

Today's news about tax.
I do not know why Cameron pretends he wants to be part of the EU.

I realise this thread is a bit old, but this should be resurrected.

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/08/candy-brothers-one-hyde-park-tax

This is a blatant attempt to avoid paying tax, and should be investigated.

This is why it's wrong to avoid paying tax.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html

He gives talks on transferring staff from the public to the private sector.

There are planning applications in in the name of Karan Mangroo, who is the manager of a company called Catalyst Lend Lease.

Brilliant, absent. Any idea who owns it?
I'll have to try to find out.

I am sure that I read somewhere that the main HMRC building in London was sold off and then rented back in order to save money. The company that owns it is based offshore and doesn't pay tax in the UK.

I have just been directed by www.taxresearch.org.uk to the Libdem tax page.
Apparently they are responsible for an extra 1000 tax staff. That's weird because I thought there were a lot fewer tax staff now than in 2010.

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/09/hsbc-tory-mps-accused-of-blocking-watchdogs-bid-to-question-green

Another reason not to vote Tory. They are blocking attempts to have Lord Green brought before the PAC.

Flickety, having been a loyal and industrious (though I say it myself) Lib Dem, I gave up paying my sub a couple of years ago. The biggest coalition stumbling block for me was education. I never heard a Lib Dem voice raised against Michael Gove's 'reforms'. If the Lib Dem PPC here turns out to be reasonably sane - which cannot always be guaranteed - I will vote for him, otherwise, maybe Green.

Yes, and I am Lib Dem member and have been for over 50 years, but whether I will vote for them this year I am not sure. Like so many people my current feeling is of 'a plague on all their houses'

I wonder what the chance is of a Monster Raving Loony Party candidate standing in my constituency?

You can still vote Libdem, Flickety, knowing it will not make any difference, but also knowing you haven't voted Labour, Tory or Green.
You will also be able to legitimately complain after the election, knowing that you voted, unlike those who do not vote.

Really looking forward to Question Time tonight, after idiot Cameron showing himself up over the debates.

I have said a number of times that I have never voted for either of the main political parties and this time can only list parties I will not vote for so have no idea how I will vote when election day comes.

You said it better- thanks. Ana, there is certainly a garantee that the current government will not.

I certainly won't be voting for this government - but then I never have because I totally disagree with Conservative ideology.

I'm not sure you are right FlicketyB. The tax concessions exist to encourage the opening of new businesses and to help them to continue and grow. However, expensive tax barristers and accountants are continually being hired to find new ways of using the rules to devise new schemes that get round paying tax, or they advise as to what actions can be taken in order to save tax. I have seen the most convoluted advice given as to how to avoid liability for certain taxes by, for instance, selling a company for a period of time and then re-purchasing it - or moving investments or businesses from one jurisdiction to another. I didn't understand exactly how it worked but I did understand that it was a way of circumventing full payment of taxes.

Because these concessionary rules are being abused, I think it would be better to get rid of the majority of them since it is unclear whether they actually do facilitate business investment or just provide a way for the rich and powerful to pay a lot less tax than the general population.

There's no guarantee any party will do that even if they 'promise' that they will!

Will you be voting the same Government in then? Or vote for one that will close those unfair loopholes and ensure all pay fair contributions?

Sorry, my comments veered off subject, as comments do. I think my initial response was to someone suggesting what was being done was illegal.

I will come out of the wood work. I have no objection to people using all the mainstream means of avoiding tax; transferring existing savings into ISAs etc. I do this myself. I do strongly disapprove of people indulging in tax avoidance contortions, these very complicated schemes drawn up by tax advisors. But the government knows these schemes are there, has the opportunity to stop them and doesn't, so have no objections to them being used. Under those circumstances, since the government has effectively given them their blessing and encouragement I do not think we can blame people for using them.

I was going to ask if you knew what ethical meant, but absent has put it better.

Ethical issues are quite separate from the legality of an action. That is an entirely separate discussion.

This thread is called "Is it wrong" to avoid paying tax?" so it seems to me that it is intended for discussion about the morality of something that we know is legal and the OP specifically refers to moral unacceptability. Insisting that if it is legal, it cannot be wrong narrows the discussion to the point of being completely meaningless.

Whose ethics? This is my point. Right and wrong have different meanings in different contexts. What is ethically right or wrong is quite different from what is legally right or wrong. I may object on personal ethical grounds to something you do for personal ethical reasons

I may be strongly opposed to someone's actions on ethically grounds, but if what they are doing is legal I must defend their right to do it under the law.

Ethics are personal and subjective. Law is impersonal and objective.

I think you have a completely different idea of what is right and wrong to some of us, Flickety.

If people paid their taxes according to what is ethical now, which is what we are talking about, then this would not be happening.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/03/who-would-be-a-gp-government-meddling

No it isn't. Ethical issues are quite separate from the legality of an action. That is an entirely separate discussion. There are many aspects of legislation where we make personal ethical and moral judgements and your ethical and moral judgments may not be mine.

I am neither condoning or condemning pushing tax law to its limits. I am not making excuses for tax avoiders. I am merely pointing out that if something is within the law - and you can prove this in court if necessary then that action cannot be wrong because it is completely legal. This applies to all aspects of the law from tax, to planning to environmental legislation. I am very carefully keeping my personal views on the ethics of extreme tax avoidance out of the discussion. On all sorts of topics I may not approve of what someone is doing, but if it is legal they are entitled to do it.

At the time many women were turned down for jobs because of their gender, it was legal to do so and many people would have thought it appropriate. We cannot judge the past by modern standards. There are things we do now and fully approve of that future generations will judge as outrageously unjust by the ethics of society 100 years hence - and it won't be the things that we, now, would select as being unjust.

I agree Gracesgran. If these people can't behave like decent citizens then we should do away with all these allowances. The cost of pursuing these matters through tax tribunals makes it unlikely that any but the most blatant schemes will be exposed.

FlicketyB I emphasise that what tax specialists do is legal so it cannot be wrong.

That is simply nonsense. Lots of wrong/immoral/unethical things have been legal. In our own lifetimes, a woman could be turned down for a job for which she was ideally qualified and the best candidate purely on the grounds of her sex. It was legal to do so but that didn't make it right.