The morality of avoiding tax

A car? Luxury!

A deposit on a house for your daughter? Some poor people can only dream of getting enough saved from their benefits for a deposit on a house.

Higher education? Why can't she go to a state school and straight onto benefits like other poor souls?

Purely selfish!

 

I told you I'm not a socialist ..... but I'm not greedy either though you would fault me for it

Anyway I think I am done here. Good day to you all, it certainly has been interesting.

 

Cop out!

 

Totally ... but I didn't start this thread and I have got things to get on with so it really is good bye.

 

You didn't even respond to his point. Now you're just having a pop. The things he's talking about would not even cover 25% of the average person's estate, despite you saying earlier on there is no way he would leave 75% to the state. Then you're basically saying he's not leaving enough in your eyes for it to count. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I see no problem with the majority of someone's estate going back into the system when they die and people having to earn their way in the world. That's social mobility right up for a start. At the moment you have to be incredibly stupid to be rich and become poor but very smart to be poor and become rich. That's not a fair system when it comes to passing money on to your family.

 

That's what common law is for. And just because it costs money to fix a broken system isn't an argument for not fixing it.

 

Hectic, Godfather was making a statement, I didn't think he required a response, particularly as he was off anyway.

Little common ground here - total nonsense.

 

Well there should be because when I suggested wealth caps not affecting 85% of us then it will not affect you if splitting your house inheritance really prevents hardship. Not a chance, not even close.

We would all be much better off if national debt was cleared and our taxes went to improving infrastructure instead of continually paying the debts ... sorry I mean the interest on the debts, as from what I see the original sum is as yet untouched. Germany are well on the way to recovery while Britain continues to bobble along the bottom and will continue to do so all because people here can't see beyond their own front door.

 

I agree with Godfather that the paying off of national debt is a desirable outcome, but I think we differ on the best way to do it. I don't see how telling every entrepreneurial person that they'd be better off living abroad would help us meet that goal.

 

And why shouldn't they go live where they've hidden all their money? it does as much good there as it does here. They do not contribute, they hoard and most of that they do out of the taxman's reach. If they invest it is only to do more damage.

 

I'm no economist, but if the top 15% of our earners were incentivised by tax to move overseas (this would depend on how punitive your cap would be) then I can't think how you think our country would avoid the most catastrophic economic collapse in world history, let alone start to pay off debt.

 

That I doubt, the market demand will still be there it just needs others to take their place. Only this time you would try much harder to keep the profits in Britain.

 

I think your model is oversimplified and ignoring some fundamental principles, but it's hardly worth me starting a whole new argument with you as I think you've worked hard enough on this thread already.

 

Of course it's over simplified but it has to be a goal or the alternatives won't bear thinking about. We certainly can't afford to continue as we are - not in a democracy, not in the twenty first century.

 

I think we should just abandon thread now. Everyone's basically made their point and I for one cba to debate this any more

 

I disagree. But as Hectic says, it's exhausted its usefulness has this thread. For me at least.

 

So we've learned some people are happy to pay all their tax, and some (like me) aren't, and socialists and capitalists couldn't agree on the colour of the sky.

I'm glad thats been cleared up.

 

There isn't usually any IHT on anything left to a spouse or civil partner in a Will. When the second spouse dies the first spouse's £325k IHT allowance can be transferred to them so that there is no IHT to pay on the first £650k of the estate. In the case of the £600k house there would be no IHT to pay at all.

 

Only if the 1st spouse dies and doesn't use their NRB. As it can't be certain which spouse would die first, spouses should equalise their assets, and therefore liability, meaning that the 1st NRB would be used on first death. That is why 'Tenants In Common' is used- to equalise! The NRB is reducing in real terms over the years, whilst house values generally rise and so it has usually been best to use it (the Nil Rate Band) earlier rather than later, but not always, it can depend.

In the above example, a T in C arrangement means that half the house will be outside any IHT liability, whereas a Joint ownership arrangement leaves the whole house as liable to IHT, and the houe value may go up to, say, £1m - this will save £70,000 in a reduced IHT bill - for a tiny bit of extra thought at the outset, providing more than enough to send a child to University with no debt, or to put towards a childs home. Not to be sniffed at.

Who knows if the NRB will still be a available in the future. It is a guess! What is pretty certain though is the house value will go up more quickly over time and so would become an increasing liability.

There can also be an advanatage for, say a father, who is concerned that his children get something left to them if he dies. So, using an associated Trust arrangement he can plan to ensure that happens. Whereas, if it all goes to his wife on his death and then she remarries, her new husband/children come into the frame. It just adds flexibilty to protect your assets for the benefit of where intended.

But, Alanof, I was just demonstrating the potential benefit of a T in C arrangement which has not been frowned upon by the HMRC, I was not pretending to give an particular person IHT tax planning advice! Each case is different.

 

An interesting little survey on a Channel 4 program last night, i think the prograam was called "EyeSpy".

An audience were asked to judge to scenarios as wrong or right. Two statements read out, one by a builder who took "cash in hand" to lessen his tax liability and one by an investment fund manager who said he moved his funds offshore to lessen his tax liability. Almost the same words were used in both statements, both saying that it is"my"money.

Result - 100% felt the builder was wrong and only 32% felt the investment guy was wrong.

 

That actually is the first interesting thing you have ever posted ZZ.

But what does that tell you?

It is somewhat at odds with the tone of almost everything you write which are stalking horses to allow you to spout off your boo hoo they want my taxes, they want to stop me doing this, (but oddly they shouldn't be allowed to do that), support the status quo positions.

 

Ah! but then then they should be asking 'which damages the economy more?'

I didn't see it but in a large way it shows what has happened to society over recent times ..
Wrongly we implicitly trust the people with the clipped accents and smart suits and mistrust those in rags with broad dialects on appearance alone .... and when it comes to question honesty we do so on legal values only, the moral ones have been conveniently forgotten.

 

Just so you know, as you always end up just making personal attacks on me rather than sticking with the thread, I'm just ignoring your posts (not using the ignore function though), so dont expect replies in future.

 

It was a program about "conscience" and how people react. They left bags of money in telephone boxes and similar set-ups, to see how people reacted. The tax thing was just one of those scenarios, I dont think it was meant as a serious look at the economy.

 

Boo hoo. Like you don't dish it out.

 

I've often found the average working man is a shifty and untrustworthy fellow. I'm not blaming him mind, it's his background; a diet of turnips and lard moulds the character at an early age.

I'm told in extreme cases electric shock treatment is the best cure. Keep your eye on any workmen around your house thats the best policy.

 

I have an interesting one and perfectly true.

A very good friend of mine is a doctor (gynecologist) with a large inherited practice in a Watford-sized town in central Germany. Now I know that some of his tax arrangements are bordering on evasion, he makes no secret of them. However he assures me that he loses more money than he saves by providing treatment free to the uninsured and prescribing the best and most expensive drugs at a discount to those that can't afford them etc.

He say's it's his moral duty but how many of you would approve of this?

 

Depends what side of the "border" he is on, I suppose. If lawful, then it's OK.

 

Put it this way. The local tax office used to give him lot's of hassle but after a full blown investigation they stopped troubling him - and I mean completely. He had to change a couple of things to suit them but was never charged with anything.

But if it wasn't 100% lawful you would lock him up ZZ or what?

 

I think I've been pretty consistent in that, if it is lawful tax planning then I pretty much OK with it. If it fell on the wrong side of the Law, as tax law is open to various interpretions then mybe locking him up in the first instance would be wrong. But if it was blatent unlawfull tax evasion, then yes, lock him up!

 

So then morality takes a backseat ... those poor couples that can't afford fertility treatment, those poor girls that can't share their problems with their parents all let down because ZZ is determined to see crimes against the state punished while at the same time he dubiously rearranges his affairs to minimise inheritance duties.

 

:]]:]]

 

Al Capone used to be a massive giver to poor people in his community. And a tax evader.

 

Somehow I don't quite think he was top of the most wanted list just for filing late returns!