Wealth-creator™.

[ahinton]

in general the more money you have the more loopholes there are to take advantage of

Whilst that is indeed undeniable, it's equally true to say that the more money one has, the more one can do in all sorts of ways - not least even giving some of it away! That said, I do feel that a somewhat disproportionate amount of attention is being directed at the wealthy who use tax avoidance schemes and too little at the non-wealthy who use other tax avoidance schemes and the only justification for any of this, it seems to me, is that some of the schemes used by wealthier taxpayers are the ones that are the most suspect and in need of the eagle-eyed attentions of specialist legislators

I'm probably more shocked at the amount of verbiage some people expend on what is one of the least interesting subjects in the known universe, unless you're an accountant, but maybe there are a lot of accountants contributing...

Well, first of all, that lets me out, as I'm no accountant! Secondly, you ought perhaps to direct your view at whoever started the thread if your concern about it is the absence of inherent interest in it!

[Serial_Apologist]

It is also worth noting that "society" - of which there most certainly IS such a thing! - makes ever greater economic demands on itself and raises its members' expectations continuously. In the same way as it is simply not possible to expand one's listening time to take in more and more music indefinitely, it is not possible always to expect to generate ever greater tax revenues in order to meet those social demands and expectations, because sufficient funds simply aren't there to do so.

Well it worked pretty well on that basis for nearly 3 decades after WW2 using technology as it always had been used to increase productivity; then Milton Friedman suggested another way of running capitalism, companies invested in countries applying his principles, and, lo and behold, we find ourselves where we are now!

[ahinton]

Well it worked pretty well on that basis for nearly 3 decades after WW2 using technology as it always had been used to increase productivity; then Milton Friedman suggested another way of running capitalism, companies invested in countries applying his principles, and, lo and behold, we find ourselves where we are now!

I didn't say that there couldn't ever be ANY extra funds to meet society's demands and expectations of which I wrote; I said that there would never be SUFFICIENT for that purpose!

[aeolium]

ahinton, it would be unutterably tedious for me, this forum and possibly you to continue this discussion as we hold irreconcilably different opinions on this matter. I suggest the difference can be summarised by saying that you do not find anything immoral or pernicious in any kind of tax avoidance, and I do.

[ahinton]

ahinton, it would be unutterably tedious for me, this forum and possibly you to continue this discussion as we hold irreconcilably different opinions on this matter. I suggest the difference can be summarised by saying that you do not find anything immoral or pernicious in any kind of tax avoidance, and I do.

That not quite an accurate assessment. If you don't mind my saying so, it's best for you to speak only for yourself rather than the forum as a whole and, although I was responding to you, I was not doing so exclusively, otherwise I'd have done so in a PM; likewise, I assume that you intended your posts on the subject to be read by anyone here and not just me.

I'd never even used the word "pernicious" in the present context.

As to morals, all that I can add is that I do at least concede that it is immoral to break the law.

As to my own views on tax avoidance, I have never sought to claim that there is and can be nothing wrong with any form of tax avoidance, as my remarks about K2 should clarify; au contraire, my belief is that it's up to the legislators to keep a constant eye on existing and new schemes and how they are used, with a view to making them unlawful if, as and when they may see fit and, in each case when they do so, what had been tax avoidance becomes tax evasion.

Ultimately, though, whatever anyone's views of morality and legality vis-à-vis tax avoidance of any kind, the only ways in which to address and deal with them are self-evidently legal ones; after all, the only difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is that the former is legal whereas the latter is not.

PhilipT is right in noting the need for well-constructed, viable and fair tax laws at all times in order best to serve society as a whole and it therefore behoves those who frame them to do the job continuously, conscientiously and attentively. In addition, a thorough and fundamental overhaul of the tax system to make it much simpler will slash the massive burden of costs of inspection and collection, reduce margins for error and potential injustices; it may possibly also increase public confidence and trust in the tax lawmakers and practitioners within HMRC. All of these outcomes could surely only be for the public benefit; there would also be advantages in respect of certain fancy clever-clogs avoidance schemes in that it would make them harder to contrive and to conceal and might even effect at least some reduction in the impetus for their creation.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Globally, another narrative exists: from Occupy, from the 99%, or even the 47% – or even us plebs could roll one out. But nowhere is it represented in the party system. As party leaders congratulate themselves on the tough choices they make, not one will say we are slashing the NHS by precisely the amount the war in Afghanistan costs us. Not one will explain that stopping tax avoidance by the super rich would pay for a functioning welfare system. Instead, we are offered the choice only between who can cut most earnestly and most efficiently.

We do not need to be tear-gassed into submission as we simply keep our eyes shut tight while Athens burns. Again.

The message remains that there is no alternative to austerity, but remember the Paris 1968 slogan: "Those who lack imagination cannot imagine what is lacking." When no alternative can be voiced by our main parties, the deficit is not purely fiscal. It is one of democracy.

grauniad

it is not the fairness of the tax system that bothers me ahinton it is our future as a civilised nation ...

[MrGongGong]

As to morals, all that I can add is that I do at least concede that it is immoral to break the law.

I can think of instances where the "moral" course of action would be to break the law

[heliocentric]

I can think of instances where the "moral" course of action would be to break the law

Plenty. You just have to ask yourself who it is that creates law and what their (class) interests are, as in the classic case that "white-collar" crime is almost always punished much less severely than the "blue" variety, despite costing society far more in both human and economic terms.

[PhilipT]

Plenty. You just have to ask yourself who it is that creates law and what their (class) interests are, as in the classic case that "white-collar" crime is almost always punished much less severely than the "blue" variety, despite costing society far more in both human and economic terms.

If the wrong people are making the law then haven't the electorate failed in their moral duty to elect the right people? Or do you take the view that all elections are rigged?

[heliocentric]

Or do you take the view that all elections are rigged?

They're certainly rigged in that you don't get a chance to vote for anyone who takes the view that the same laws should apply to rich and poor.

[ahinton]

I can think of instances where the "moral" course of action would be to break the law

OK, so it can work both ways.

[PhilipT]

They're certainly rigged in that you don't get a chance to vote for anyone who takes the view that the same laws should apply to rich and poor.

Really? Have you stood as a candidate? If not, why not?

While I agree with those who say it is sometimes the moral course of action to break the law, I was thinking rather of cases where the situation demands it rather than when the law is a bad law. The best advice I've heard on what to do in that case came from, of all people, James Callaghan: "If a law is a bad law then your course of action is clear. You must obey the law, and change the government."

[teamsaint]

Round here, you get to vote for a tory, someone who pretends not to be a tory but would in fact , if elected, do what the tories tell them to do, or a random labour person.The real tory gets in.

In the alternative universe where labour votes actually count in Salisbury, and you get one of them to" represent" you, they then do what their tory masters in the banks tell them, with socialist policies like handing control of the economy to the B of E, invading foreign sovereign states, and introducing university tuition fees, even though they didn't say they would.

[Serial_Apologist]

Given that most laws today porport to defend all individuals and sectors of society, it is understandable that many people think of breaking laws as being indefensible. In this situation the most propitious rallying points for extra-parliamentary opposition are calls to defend specific laws that are being broken - eg in the latest notorious Rochdale case the law that is supposed to protect children, or instances when employers flagrantly disobeying health and safety legislation get away with it - or for reinstating laws that have been removed from the statute book, such as laws prohibiting certain kinds of picketing, and street demonstrations that require police permission.

[PhilipT]

.. with socialist policies like handing control of the economy to the B of E ..

Isn't socialism the delusion that it's possible to control the economy? Governments can and do influence it - anyone who spends money influences the economy - but control it?