Starmer's vision quest

[CXRAndy]

Avoidance is legal, evasion is illegal. It is as simple as that.

Indeed, both are also immoral

Do you have an ISA or Pension?

Those are tax avoidance planning

I expect a hypocritical response

 

[bobzmyunkle]

ISAs are tax avoidance and therefore equivalent to all other forms of tax avoidance. So there's no moral difference between saving a few quid in an ISA and any of those convoluted schemes that people pay their accountants to set up.
You've convinced me guys. Well actually you haven't but I'm just one of those whinging lefties and no doubt a hypocrite according to your puerile logic

 

[CXRAndy]

ISAs are tax avoidance and therefore equivalent to all other forms of tax avoidance. So there's no moral difference between saving a few quid in an ISA and any of those convoluted schemes that people pay their accountants to set up.
You've convinced me guys. Well actually you haven't but I'm just one of those whinging lefties and no doubt a hypocrite according to your puerile logic

I was directing my reply to HMS

If your personal position is tax avoidance is immoral, but partake with simple tax avoidance- own it as a hypocritical position

 

[AndyRM]

I wonder sometimes, if people who hoard their money are actually happy?

It's just a number at the end of the day, and all you need is a couple of coins to pay the ferryman.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I wonder sometimes, if people who hoard their money are actually happy?

No, but if you have a lot is a bit easy-er to mask your unhappiness.

 

[BoldonLad]

I wonder sometimes, if people who hoard their money are actually happy?

It's just a number at the end of the day, and all you need is a couple of coins to pay the ferryman.

An often repeated idea.

One of my pals was reasonably wealthy (certainly, a millionaire, without considering property).

Sadly, he developed a form of blood cancer, at age 55.

He lived for a further 10 or so years, after the diagnosis.

In this 10 years, he was able to enjoy his season ticket at NUFC, indulge his passion for fast cars, enjoy holidays, spend time at his apartment in Provence, even sit in his large garden at home.

His illness was his illness, IMHO, it was certainly more bearable in his circumstances that it would have been if he was living on Universal Credit in North or South Tyneside.

 

[AndyRM]

An often repeated idea.

One of my pals was reasonably wealthy (certainly, a millionaire, without considering property).

Sadly, he developed a form of blood cancer, at age 55.

He lived for a further 10 or so years, after the diagnosis.

In this 10 years, he was able to enjoy his season ticket at NUFC, indulge his passion for fast cars, enjoy holidays, spend time at his apartment in Provence, even sit in his large garden at home.

His illness was his illness, IMHO, it was certainly more bearable in his circumstances that it would have been if he was living on Universal Credit in North or South Tyneside.

We're getting dangerously philosophical and humanist here...

I'm glad your pal was able to enjoy those years, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone their financial wealth.

 

[Stevo 666]

All of us lefties 😉

Sadly, some people actually believe that 🙂

 

[Stevo 666]

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?

Not really in my view: whether something is allowable or not is dependent to the law and not some random moral arbiter. Quite often I see the moral aspect being wheeled out as a way of applying pressure or as a way of saying that someone isn't happy with then outcome determined by the law.

The only reference to morals in tax law I can see is an old piece of case law which is still valid:
Lord Clyde quote from Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764:[10]

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."[11]

 

[Pross]

An often repeated idea.

One of my pals was reasonably wealthy (certainly, a millionaire, without considering property).

Sadly, he developed a form of blood cancer, at age 55.

He lived for a further 10 or so years, after the diagnosis.

In this 10 years, he was able to enjoy his season ticket at NUFC, indulge his passion for fast cars, enjoy holidays, spend time at his apartment in Provence, even sit in his large garden at home.

His illness was his illness, IMHO, it was certainly more bearable in his circumstances that it would have been if he was living on Universal Credit in North or South Tyneside.

But would it have be more bearable still had he had 10 times the wealth? I assume that was the point of the question. There comes a point where some people are beyond living in comfort / luxury and having everything they could possibly need or really want yet they continue with their main focus seemingly being to make even more. Don't get me wrong, I would love to win a big Euro Millions jackpot and live in luxury but even at that level I hope I'd be thinking of how I could use it to help others and certainly wouldn't be looking at ways, legal or not, to avoid paying taxes.

 

[matticus]

Morals are personal and subjective. There is no point in arguing them.

Yes there is.

 

[Stevo 666]

ISAs are tax avoidance and therefore equivalent to all other forms of tax avoidance. So there's no moral difference between saving a few quid in an ISA and any of those convoluted schemes that people pay their accountants to set up.
You've convinced me guys. Well actually you haven't but I'm just one of those whinging lefties and no doubt a hypocrite according to your puerile logic

You do realise what tax avoidance is?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-avoidance-an-introduction

Here's the relevant bit: "Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended."

Given that ISA's are allowed by the law and are intended to give a tax benefit, can you explain to us how ISAs constitute tax avoidance?

 

[Pblakeney]

But would it have be more bearable still had he had 10 times the wealth? I assume that was the point of the question. There comes a point where some people are beyond living in comfort / luxury and having everything they could possibly need or really want yet they continue with their main focus seemingly being to make even more. Don't get me wrong, I would love to win a big Euro Millions jackpot and live in luxury but even at that level I hope I'd be thinking of how I could use it to help others and certainly wouldn't be looking at ways, legal or not, to avoid paying taxes.

It is possible to help others and charities while reducing your tax bill.
In fact, I'd suggest it is more efficient.

 

[Stevo 666]

It is possible to help others and charities while reducing your tax bill.
In fact, I'd suggest it is more efficient.

Well quite.

@Pross have you never done gift aid for a charitable contribution?

 

[CXRAndy]

It's just a number at the end of the day

Its more than that, it's a tool which makes life a little bit easier, one less thing to worry about.

The amount is very subjective, one man's pile n all that

Imo list in order
Health
Family
Wealth