Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Lexilogio

Tax Avoidance - is it morally wrong

Tax avoidance.... its everything from the downright criminal (depending on which school you went to, of course) to paying a very good accountant.

But is it morally right? We all live in the society, and to gain the benefit, arguably through the democratic process, have signed up to the tax system. So is avoiding paying it - particularly for those who can well afford to pay, morally wrong?
Powwow

Yes it us morally wrong. That's why one must elect governments that believe in lowering taxes.lol Cut the fat, drain the puss from the big government boil.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Yes it us morally wrong. That's why one must elect governments that believe in lowering taxes.lol Cut the fat, drain the puss from the big government boil.


Aye cos that way the rich get richer - and the poor can't afford anything.
Powwow

No trent. Lower the taxes for all. Rich and middle class and the poor should be paying little to no taxes. Cut the fat! Get by with less government involment and control, put more money back into the pockets of the indiidual. It's funny, the German PM was just here visiting our PM. Harper gave her a canoe paddle. The media quickly decided it was because the EU is up sh.t creek.lol
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
No trent. Lower the taxes for all. Rich and middle class and the poor should be paying little to no taxes. Cut the fat! Get by with less government involment and control, put more money back into the pockets of the indiidual. It's funny, the German PM was just here visiting our PM. Harper gave her a canoe paddle. The media quickly decided it was because the EU is up sh.t creek.lol


Well as you know we aren't in the EU.

I just don't see such a simplistic formula working. In any case it will certainly not happen under our current govt. who are stealthily loading taxes onto the poorest whilst giving the  richest the tax breaks.

We are truly all in this together as Mr Cameron keeps saying. Just that some of us are paddling in shit whilst the poorest are drowning.
Powwow

Really? The UK is not an EU member? I thought you just kept your own currency is all. Really, people living below the poverty line are seeing their taxes increase and those with a million pounds are seeing their taxes shrink? I don't like that either.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Really? The UK is not an EU member? I thought you just kept your own currency is all. Really, people living below the poverty line are seeing their taxes increase and those with a million pounds are seeing their taxes shrink? I don't like that either.


Sorry brain on amber   - yes of course we are. I was thinking of the euro.
Ketty

Is it not that tax avoidance is perfectly legal, but that tax evasion is illegal?

I paid a young chap by cash this week for doing a very good job for me.  He did not ask for cash and it's up to him what he does with the it, but I know it will be spent on his young children (he's a single-parent).  He works long hard hours but earns less than the average wage.  He does pay tax and NI, but if, by paying him cash, he's avoided paying some tax and by so doing it means it makes life a little easier for his young family, then who am I to say he's wrong to do so?  And is that avoidance or evasion?
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Is it not that tax avoidance is perfectly legal, but that tax evasion is illegal?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Quote:
I paid a young chap by cash this week for doing a very good job for me.  He did not ask for cash and it's up to him what he does with the it, but I know it will be spent on his young children (he's a single-parent).  He works long hard hours but earns less than the average wage.  He does pay tax and NI, but if, by paying him cash, he's avoided paying some tax and by so doing it means it makes life a little easier for his young family, then who am I to say he's wrong to do so?  And is that avoidance or evasion?

Avoidance. And good luck to him.
Lexilogio

pow wow wrote:
Yes it us morally wrong. That's why one must elect governments that believe in lowering taxes.lol Cut the fat, drain the puss from the big government boil.


If you endlessly cut taxes you end up without any welfare for those on hard times. You go back to people starving on the streets.
The Boyg

Ketty wrote:
He does pay tax and NI, but if, by paying him cash, he's avoided paying some tax and by so doing it means it makes life a little easier for his young family, then who am I to say he's wrong to do so?  And is that avoidance or evasion?


If he should have paid tax on these earnings but intends not to by not declaring them then it is tax evasion and illegal.

We could all make the argument that we would have more money to spend making a better life for our families if we didn't pay all the taxes that we owe on our earnings.
Leonard James

The rich are not taxed enough and the poor too much. But there's very little anybody can do about it ... Mammon is usually the strongest god.
Ketty

The Boyg wrote:


If he should have paid tax on these earnings but intends not to by not declaring them then it is tax evasion and illegal.


I don't know if he'll declare them, if he doesn't then yes, it's illegal.

Knowing he earns very little and lives very frugally as a one-parent family, I'm not going to judge him on that.

Hopefully if he does declare it he will be able to avoid some tax by taking into account the cost of fuel for getting to my home, and the need to launder his clothing after doing the work.  Or, I guess next time, rather than cash, I could just buy his children their next pair of shoes and winter coats.  
Lexilogio

I suspect most people have paid cash in hand at some time - knowing that it is probably not declared to the tax office.
bnabernard

As a Jobbing builder I decline to be involved in this discussion  

bernard  
Ketty

bnabernard wrote:
As a Jobbing builder I decline to be involved in this discussion  



 
cyberman

Ketty wrote:

Knowing he earns very little and lives very frugally as a one-parent family, I'm not going to judge him on that.


Imagine you see him out and about next week, and you see him nicking tins of beans from a corner shop. What would you do?

Or if you see him nicking chocolate and magazines?

Or if you see him picking someone's pocket?

To what extent are you tolerant of theft?
Ketty

cyberman wrote:
Ketty wrote:

Knowing he earns very little and lives very frugally as a one-parent family, I'm not going to judge him on that.


Imagine you see him out and about next week, and you see him nicking tins of beans from a corner shop. What would you do?

Or if you see him nicking chocolate and magazines?

Or if you see him picking someone's pocket?

To what extent are you tolerant of theft?


You don't know him, he wouldn't.

However I'll go with your 'what if' . . .

If I saw him stealing from a shop, I'd pay for the goods.  If I saw him picking somebody's pocket, I would stop him.

Theft is wrong.

And there's a huge presumption here that he may not declare the money.  He may, and if he does I hope he can cover it by out of pocket and legitimate expenses such as travel, laundry, heat and light of his room at home when he was working out what I needed and how much it would cost . . .
The Boyg

Ketty wrote:
And there's a huge presumption here that he may not declare the money.


It was you who introduced the suspicion in the first place:
Ketty wrote:
He does pay tax and NI, but if, by paying him cash, he's avoided paying some tax and by so doing it means it makes life a little easier for his young family, then who am I to say he's wrong to do so?

Unless you know of a mechanism by which a cash payment would legally reduce his tax liability.
Ketty

The Boyg wrote:

It was you who introduced the suspicion in the first place:


My bad.

Mr Cameron had said something about the cash-in-hand black economy and it had irritated me.

The Boyg wrote:
Ketty wrote:
He does pay tax and NI, but if, by paying him cash, he's avoided paying some tax and by so doing it means it makes life a little easier for his young family, then who am I to say he's wrong to do so?


Unless you know of a mechanism by which a cash payment would legally reduce his tax liability.


Poor use of words on my part.  He can avoid some tax by claiming legitimate expenses.  However, theft is theft this is true, and I can't condone, but neither will I judge in his particular circumstances.   But I'm human and if it was an MP I'd judge.  If he was a fat-cat banker, I'd judge.  If he was claiming unemployment benefit, I'd judge.  I admit it.  So shoot me.    maddddd.gif    Anyway, you've pricked my conscience so next time I will buy stuff for the children and his home and then he won't be tempted . . . not that I'm saying he was tempted.
cymrudynnion

Ketty wrote:
Is it not that tax avoidance is perfectly legal, but that tax evasion is illegal?

I paid a young chap by cash this week for doing a very good job for me.  He did not ask for cash and it's up to him what he does with the it, but I know it will be spent on his young children (he's a single-parent).  He works long hard hours but earns less than the average wage.  He does pay tax and NI, but if, by paying him cash, he's avoided paying some tax and by so doing it means it makes life a little easier for his young family, then who am I to say he's wrong to do so?  And is that avoidance or evasion?
It will depend on how much you paid him and how much he either earns or receives in benefit. Presumably he contracted himself to you and therefore would not be subject to P.A.Y.E. if this is the case he could put up a good arguement that any monies received from you cojuld be written off against tax. Although most likely one shiouldn't assume anyone receiving cash for a job doesn't inform the Revenue.
cymrudynnion

Along similar lines. A person lives in a property that is 16 miles from their place of work so the round trip is 32 miles. Their employer opens a new place of employment 1 mile from their house. The employer asks them to take a temporary transfer to the new place of employment. Legally the person may claim against tax the jounrney from their house to the old place of employment and then on to the new place of employment, at 44p/mile less anything paid by the employer.
Legally this scenario is correct but morally?
Lexilogio

Morally I don't think they are correct, but equally, many of us don't reduce tax as we are entitled to. For example, if you provide your own clothes, as opposed to a uniform, I think you are entitled to a tax reduction (not an expert, so don't quote me on that!)
cyberman

Lexilogio wrote:
Morally I don't think they are correct, but equally, many of us don't reduce tax as we are entitled to. For example, if you provide your own clothes, as opposed to a uniform, I think you are entitled to a tax reduction (not an expert, so don't quote me on that!)


No - you can't claim for clothes which you could wear anywhere. Nor for initial purchase of things like hard hats, steel toe-cap boots etc., but you can claim for replacing these. The rule is that you can deduct from the amount to be taxed any expenses which are "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of your duties".

Buying are hard hat when you first set up is putting yourself in a position whereby you can do your work, as is driving to the office in the morning. But if your hard hat wears out and needs replacing, or if your boss sends you to another site as part of your jobs (as in cym's example) then you can claim that expense as a deduction from your taxable income. The principle applies equally to Schedule D and Schedule E, for those who know the jargon.
Lexilogio

cyberman wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Morally I don't think they are correct, but equally, many of us don't reduce tax as we are entitled to. For example, if you provide your own clothes, as opposed to a uniform, I think you are entitled to a tax reduction (not an expert, so don't quote me on that!)


No - you can't claim for clothes which you could wear anywhere. Nor for initial purchase of things like hard hats, steel toe-cap boots etc., but you can claim for replacing these. The rule is that you can deduct from the amount to be taxed any expenses which are "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of your duties".

Buying are hard hat when you first set up is putting yourself in a position whereby you can do your work, as is driving to the office in the morning. But if your hard hat wears out and needs replacing, or if your boss sends you to another site as part of your jobs (as in cym's example) then you can claim that expense as a deduction from your taxable income. The principle applies equally to Schedule D and Schedule E, for those who know the jargon.


Thank you!

I guess I can't claim that my heels are necessary for my job then  
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Morally I don't think they are correct, but equally, many of us don't reduce tax as we are entitled to. For example, if you provide your own clothes, as opposed to a uniform, I think you are entitled to a tax reduction (not an expert, so don't quote me on that!)


No - you can't claim for clothes which you could wear anywhere. Nor for initial purchase of things like hard hats, steel toe-cap boots etc., but you can claim for replacing these. The rule is that you can deduct from the amount to be taxed any expenses which are "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of your duties".

Buying are hard hat when you first set up is putting yourself in a position whereby you can do your work, as is driving to the office in the morning. But if your hard hat wears out and needs replacing, or if your boss sends you to another site as part of your jobs (as in cym's example) then you can claim that expense as a deduction from your taxable income. The principle applies equally to Schedule D and Schedule E, for those who know the jargon.
Agreed Cyberman. These days a Nurse be they RGN or the ols SEN get an allowance in tax against their salaries. many uyears ago my wife had to prove she didn't wear flat shoes as part of her regular daily attire, nor tights.
cymrudynnion

Lexilogio wrote:
Morally I don't think they are correct, but equally, many of us don't reduce tax as we are entitled to. For example, if you provide your own clothes, as opposed to a uniform, I think you are entitled to a tax reduction (not an expert, so don't quote me on that!)
Providing you can prove the item of clothing worn for work would not be worn in your normal life you can claim. If you are contracted to work for a company and that company quotes your place of work in your Contract, should you be asked to work elsewhere you are entitled to claim expenses at 44p/mile to get from your Contractual place of employment to whereever you are sent. If the company doesn't pay these expenses the Revenue will against your tax.
Lexilogio

cymrudynnion wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Morally I don't think they are correct, but equally, many of us don't reduce tax as we are entitled to. For example, if you provide your own clothes, as opposed to a uniform, I think you are entitled to a tax reduction (not an expert, so don't quote me on that!)
Providing you can prove the item of clothing worn for work would not be worn in your normal life you can claim. If you are contracted to work for a company and that company quotes your place of work in your Contract, should you be asked to work elsewhere you are entitled to claim expenses at 44p/mile to get from your Contractual place of employment to whereever you are sent. If the company doesn't pay these expenses the Revenue will against your tax.


I get paid for travel - when I have to go elsewhere.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum