Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Pblakeney
Well-Known Member
Avoidance is legal, evasion is illegal. It is as simple as that.
HMS_Dave
Active Member
Indeed, both are also immoral. I know morals flew out of the window many many years ago and is not often discussed, but people take great pride in it now, even setting up companies to allow others to partake in the activity, at cost of course.
Pblakeney
Well-Known Member
Indeed, both are also immoral. I know morals flew out of the window many many years ago and is not often discussed, but people take great pride in it now, even setting up companies to allow others to partake in the activity, at cost of course.
Morals are personal and subjective. There is no point in arguing them.
Do you consider ISA savings accounts "immoral" (as they are a means of tax avoidance for many).
Ian
HMS_Dave
Active Member
In general yes, but in respect to a subject like taxation. I dont think its out of the realms of discussion.
HMS_Dave
Active Member
There are many different types of ISA's. So not all are risk free and some benefit more than just the person taking out the ISA such as investment funds and pensions. I think there is a case to argue morally for and against. But realistically, the big hitters in the avoidance and evasion scene are on to bigger things and schemes, frankly.
Pblakeney
Well-Known Member
I don't see how. We can have opposing morals viewpoints and yet both be correct. Although someone "for" a position that is legal is more correct. The only defining line is when immoral is made illegal.
Is it immoral that Amazon (purely as an example) pay so little tax? Is it illegal? No. Get the laws/rules changed if your first answer was "yes".
HMS_Dave
Active Member
Sure, I agree but im saying it should form part of the discussion, morals play a part in law making but it is not the only factor. But, Surely, it what makes us human to and not just clinically governed by pieces of paper in law, but also morality. I've not seen an argument where it should be and is dismissed entirely. People will say "well, that's wrong" when describing things seen as unfair or there had been miscarriage of justice. We say that because what we morally judge. It is different for everyone, like opinions, but I think we can form a moral consensus if more people tend to agree on one thing or another and I think this can be applied in subjects regarding taxation, which primarily is there to improve and maintain society.
Stevo 666
Senior Member
Indeed, both are also immoral. I know morals flew out of the window many many years ago and is not often discussed, but people take great pride in it now, even setting up companies to allow others to partake in the activity, at cost of course.
Who decides what is moral in this area?
HMS_Dave
Active Member
At the moment it is down to the individual isn't it? Not all those who pay large amounts of tax, for example, take part in various schemes they could access in which they would pay less of it. I suppose the question then would be why wouldn't they?
midlandsgrimpeur
Regular
All of us lefties 😉
Or maybe the Govt who setup the legal avoidance schemes normally to achieve outcomes they want. ie they want people to use the schemes as that's why they created them.
Government is not a charity relying on voluntary donations.
Ian
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
No, the Uk has those same extra rules but did not make them as stupid as the EU ones, resulting in bussines as usal for uk business and lost of extra paperwork for eu business. Also if they don't ship outside of the EU.
Bro it an example of a other benefit of not being in the EU.
Nit picking yes they won't word for word call it that, they might even go trough sister company X-Y-Z but the effect is still the same, just with an fancy name...
