Tax Avoidance 101: Investing in British film

[ahinton]

Then to change the constitutional arrangements with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

That would require the agreement of those islands, of which the latter is not part of EU; even if that might prove to be any kind of possibility, however, it would depend very much on the specific nature of the new constitutional arrangements in terms of whether, to extent and how it might effect any material difference to the current arrangments and, let's face it, none of these islands would want to have punitive new arrangments forced upon them if the end result would be the movement of capital away from them to tax havens elsewhere.

Also to introduce legislation defining all legitimate tax avoidance schemes, eg ISAs. It also needs to define legitimate processes of avoidance, ie specific kinds of money flow. The new law to say that anything outside those definitions and that has the character of tax avoidance, also defined, will be adjudged as being tax evasion.

For that to work you'd have tp be able to ensure that the specific definitions that you'd set up could not be used for other kinds of avoidance scheme, which would be far more difficult to achieve than it might at first seem. Offshore centring, for example, does not necessarily mean tax avoidance - it can, however, mean tax avoidance in Britain and the tax liability arising elsewhere, i.e. a small business sets up in Isle of Man and employs or sub-contracts work to the owner/s of the business and then both the business and the individuals working within it pay Isle of Man taxes insted of British taxes. You couldn't stop that unless you put up a bar all foreign (i.e. non-UK) based businesses either (a) employing or sub-contracting people to undertake work in UK or (b) being owned by British citizens or both - and it is obvious that neither of these will happen as they would be in no one's interests.

A time gap of one month before any money from product sales etc can be moved out of Britain.

Assuming that the money was still being paid into British bank accounts (which, of course, would not necessarily have to be the case), what would that hope to achieve?

Introduce an annual tax ahead of earnings for anyone who has very high income based on their previous year's income. If they then earn less, the excess money can be refunded. Similar to what happens with phone and energy bills.

This already happens with self-employed sole traders; are you seriously seeking to advocate a law in which PAYE has to operate similarly for those employess whose tax liability exceeds a certain figure? If so, can you imagine what this would cost and the extent of the additional burden upon employers that it would impose? If not, what? In any case, the law here is already unfair in that when HMRC owes a taxpayer money for overpaid tax, the interest that it pays is a fraction of that which it charges taxpayers on underpaid tax and tax paid late; would that have to change first in order to set a level playing field?

Require the top 2%, or their accountants, to attend tax reporting centres like job centres but only monthly to present a work book indicating the efforts they have put in during work and the payments made to them.

Who would determine who that "top 2%" are? The "top 2%" of what or whom, anyway? If you mean the top 2% of employed earners, that will vary on a daily basis. Who would pay for the setup and operation of these centres, what do you suppose that they would cost and what would it be expected to prove and on what basis or grounds? Also, if your "top 2%" is confined to those people, it would exclude the self-employed, all those with valuable assets but relatively low taxable incomes and all those who live on incomes from abroad; is that what you'd nevertheless seek to do?

All aid to foreign tax havens, including British dependencies, to cease. Withdrawal of separate agreements with EU countries like Luxembourg until change. Discussions with the French Government about Monaco to effect change.

All of this would require, respectively, the co-operation of those tax havens and dependencies, EU-wide agreement on any arrangements that involve EU countries and the co-operation of the French government and Monaco authorities (as well, in principle, as that of the Spanish government in respedct of Andorra and Gibraltar and any other similar examples that might apply here).

Illegal for political parties to receive donations from convicted fraudsters, once the new laws have been introduced.

Agree on that wholeheartedly, but why wait until a political party in government tries to draft all of these laws and eventually succeeds in securing (if ever it could) all the co-operation that it would require in order to bring about any possibility that all or some of them might actually work in practice? (which could mean a good many years, even if it could all be achieved)...

Finally, any such proposals for legislative fiscal change, even if they might not impact directly upon another EU member state, would have to fall within - or at least not risk breaching - relevant EU legislation, whih fact would ensure that they would have an even rougher ride of it than otherwise; currently, each parliamentyary term in Britain is five years and there is always a danger in trying to effect any legislative change that could take longer than that to bring about, especially in mid- to late-term.

[Beef Oven]

I believe it's everyone's moral responsibility to pay as little tax as possible.

[amateur51]

I believe it's everyone's moral responsibility to pay as little tax as possible.

Why's that, beefy?

[ahinton]

I believe it's everyone's moral responsibility to pay as little tax as possible.

I struggle to convince myself that there is any moral responsibility involved in paying or avoiding taxes. There is a legal responsibility to pay the correct amount of tax that is owing and to decalre any tgaxable income and other financial matters that affect one's tax position and liability; that "correct" amount is determined by law at the time that the tax falls due and will, of coure, vary according to that time (i.e. one;s liability for the same things will be different from time to time). HMRC's legal duty is quite clear in that it has no right to charge any more tax than is absolutely necessary and, whenever it overcharges a taxpayer, it transcends that legal duty whether it does so deliberately or by accident.

The problem with most people's moralisings about tax and about taxpayer's duties and responsibilities in terms of declaring income, capital gains and the rest correctly and remitting the tax due accordingly is that all of this system, however efficient or otherwise, implies that it is both morally and legally acceptable to place one's complete trust in government to levy charges upon taxpayers and then spend the revenue received from them in the most effective and legally acceptable ways (which does not, for example, include funding or helping to fund illegal military activity); it is hard to figure out the widsom in that.

[ahinton]

Why's that, beefy?

I am not seeking to answer for BeefOven but the answer to your question should be as set out in my previous post in respect of HMRC's responsibility, which is never to overcharge any taxpayer.

[JohnSkelton]

I agree with Beef Oven that it's everyone's moral responsibility to pay as little tax as possible. So here's a libertarian (which should please Beef Oven ) solution. We don't abolish property laws (obviously - since they are sacrosanct) but we do away with any form of state police. That way anyone who fancies any of Beef Oven's retained income / property will have an opportunity to take it from Beef Oven, while Beef Oven will be able to arm Beef Oven's self to the teeth (since there will be no way to stop the free traffic in arms domestically) ... and may the best shot win!

How does that sound?

[amateur51]

I agree with Beef Oven that it's everyone's moral responsibility to pay as little tax as possible. So here's a libertarian (which should please Beef Oven ) solution. We don't abolish property laws (obviously - since they are sacrosanct) but we do away with any form of state police. That way anyone who fancies any of Beef Oven's retained income / property will have an opportunity to take it from Beef Oven, while Beef Oven will be able to arm Beef Oven's self to the teeth (since there will be no way to stop the free traffic in arms domestically) ... and may the best shot win!

How does that sound?

Are you Edward de Bono by any chance?

[JohnSkelton]

Are you Edward de Bono by any chance?

Not when I last looked, but since shaving I haven't looked in a mirror. Hang on ...

... hmm: if you try to look at yourself by spinning round very quickly in your chair you land up on the floor .

[amateur51]

Not when I last looked, but since shaving I haven't looked in a mirror. Hang on ...

... hmm: if you try to look at yourself by spinning round very quickly in your chair you land up on the floor .

[Beef Oven]

I am not seeking to answer for BeefOven but the answer to your question should be as set out in my previous post in respect of HMRC's responsibility, which is never to overcharge any taxpayer.

You have answered for me - please don't do that in the future.

[Beef Oven]

I agree with Beef Oven that it's everyone's moral responsibility to pay as little tax as possible. So here's a libertarian (which should please Beef Oven ) solution. We don't abolish property laws (obviously - since they are sacrosanct) but we do away with any form of state police. That way anyone who fancies any of Beef Oven's retained income / property will have an opportunity to take it from Beef Oven, while Beef Oven will be able to arm Beef Oven's self to the teeth (since there will be no way to stop the free traffic in arms domestically) ... and may the best shot win!

How does that sound?

sounds good

[ahinton]

You have answered for me - please don't.

No, I have not; I have answered the question that happens to have been addressed to you, which is not the same as giving your answer for you and, since that question was not put to you in the form of a PM, it's open to be answered by anyone on the forum where it was posed in the first place.

I don't agree with your answer fully anyway; I think that people have a legal responsibility rather than a moral one not to pay any more tax than is necessary, just as HMRC has a legal rather than a moral responsibility not to overcharge taxpayers. If taxation were purely a moral issue, there would be no need for laws governing it.

[Beef Oven]

Why's that, beefy?

Amsy, it's simple. The government will simply spend it on wars with countries like Afghanistan, Iraq etc if there's any left over from giving it to people who won't or can't work. (and there is none left over, our welfare spend is bigger than the revenue the government collects throughout the year!).

People should pay what they are legally required to pay, and if they can reduce that bill legally, they should.

It will help make us all more self-reliant and the nation stronger!

[ahinton]

I agree with Beef Oven that it's everyone's moral responsibility to pay as little tax as possible.

It's a legal responsibility, not a moral one, just as it is a legal rather than a moral responsibility to pay all the tax that is due, subject to prudent advance tax planning that every taxpayer can do (and is allowed to do, provided that it demonstrably falls fully within whatever tax law stipulates at the time when it is done).

So here's a libertarian (which should please Beef Oven ) solution. We don't abolish property laws (obviously - since they are sacrosanct) but we do away with any form of state police. That way anyone who fancies any of Beef Oven's retained income / property will have an opportunity to take it from Beef Oven, while Beef Oven will be able to arm Beef Oven's self to the teeth (since there will be no way to stop the free traffic in arms domestically) ... and may the best shot win!

I realise that this "solution" to an unspecified problem is not intended to be taken seriously but, if it were, the disposal of state police would surely result in a far smaller tax take, both nationally and locally (and no, I am not advocating any such thing). I do not personally fancy any of Beef Oven's rightful income and I daresay pelnty of other people would likewise be far more exerecised in deriving their own incomes, so the need for Beef Oven or anyone else to arm him/herself to the teeth (would you also get rid of state sponsored dentistry or would you just let that happen naturally, as it is now?) would not apply in practice and, in any case, most of those arms might otherwise have to be seized from armaments manufactures or their current owners following questionable arms trading by the British government using taxpayers' money.

[Beef Oven]

No, I have not; I have answered the question that happens to have been addressed to you.....

Chuffing priceless!!!!!

P.S. Only child were we