In the news

Hard to tell for sure because a lot of it is secret, but you can "invest" any profits your company makes in another company, which happens to be based offshore, then maybe take a loan back from that company with made up payment terms.

You previously said avoidance and evasion are synonyms. That couldn't be further from the truth. One practice is legal. One isn't. They are by definition not synonymous.

The point you are making now is an entirely different one and concerns the question of when legal avoidance arrangements become immoral. That is a question to which everyone will have a different answer. The problem Cameron has is that he has publically condemned the exact avoidance practices his family have been involved in and that he has profited from.

I have nothing constructive to add but shamelessly stealing this posted on LadyLiz's facetard.
Apologies if reep.

1 Attachment

It's a proper big chip. And it is in London.

Is there gravy or a barm with these chips @ £3.50?

Is that expensive for chips in London?

To be honest all the ones I've ever tried down here I've not been impressed with (you like what you grow up with so Liverpool chips are the best - shout out to Cosmos in Prescot). So when I found a place that does nearly as good as home chips I was really happy. I didn't really notice the cost (in that I hadn't had any others of late locally) I'd gladly pay more I think if I needed to.

None of this minted mushy peas either.

The portiions are pretty big too. Enough to fill a big plate.

Not in legal terms they're not. One is a crime, the other not. The distinction is important.

Consequentially, absolutely. That is, if you're happily immoral, but don't want to risk going to jail.

One could easily make an argument that morally they're the same thing. In fact, I think both Cameron and Osborne did just that.

No argument from me on the moral side of things. But I'd be in hot water if I wrote for publication that someone had evaded taxes when they'd only avoided them - easy grounds for a defamation suit.

Exactly. Knew a proper philosopher would get the point.

Maybe I needed to be clearer, morally evasion and avoidance are synonyms.

fucking hell

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/samantha-cameron-special-adviser-fashion-aide-taxpayer-salary-530000-a6974181.html

Taxpayer 'pays for Samantha Cameron's £53,000-a-year fashion adviser'

I agree they have said that. But leaving out what they said (barefaced).

Isn't tax evasion always immoral, but tax avoidance a sliding scale, where at one end it's an ISA at your regular bank, and the other it's no different *except for the legality bit* to evasion?

Some forms of tax avoidance could be seen as simply paying as much tax as you should no less but certainly no more.

Does this mean us serfs can take cash in hand for a bit in protest?

Some forms of tax avoidance could be seen as simply paying as much tax as you should no less but certainly no more.

And that's what they'll say.

It's legal and im/moral isn't a binary distinction.

Indeed, pensions are a huge way to avoid paying tax, cycle to work schemes avoid you paying as much tax, etc, etc.

The traditional boundary between acceptable and unacceptable is what that person themself does, this can equally be applied to tax avoidance, e.g. I've got tax free savings/investments (ISA, premium bonds) and a pension that I pay into tax free, plus I once bought a bike on the Cycle2Work scheme; those are all fine. But anything more than that is taking the piss because I don't do it. QED.

Offshore stuff isn't much different, most of the time tax will be due when you try to repatriate the money/profits back to the UK, it's just that these people rarely have a need to bring any of it back in any time soon. Having a huge chunk of money offshore that can only be used for some things (investments such as shares or property) is way beyond the vast majority of the population.

That's the key point IMO. If something is an established product that has been deliberately created to incentivise a positive action (e.g. pensions for people saving for retirement) then no immorality has occurred. If you have to consult with an army of specialist tax accountants to construct something then it's pretty obvious at that point that you are exploiting a loophole, rather than benefitting from an established tax break.

Edit - Greenbank beat me to it.

Having said the above, I have to admit I am surprised at the sort of stuff that HMRC is totally fine with. Discounted Gift Trusts would probably shock the average man on the street if there was a way of explaining them that didn't induce instant boredom.

morally evasion and avoidance are synonyms

Nope. As I and many others have stated, having an ISA, pension etc. is tax avoidance but is clearly not morally synonymous with tax evasion. You could argue that morally tax evasion is synonymous with a sophisticated, offshore tax avoidance structure depending on the individual facts. This is exactly what Cameron has argued and is now rightly getting roasted.

HMRC shut that down some time ago - that was how Jimmy Carr made dollar.

Avoidance can be investigated under COP9, which can have criminal sanctions.

[Edit] COP8, not 9

My two cents is that tax evasion is out of reach of all bar those with lots of disposable income.

Dumping a lot of cash into a pension to go from 40-50% to 20% income tax is impossible for nearly everyone.

That's where it rubs me most, of course we all like to keep our cash. But at some point with food banks etc...you have to ask yourself if you've no shame.

Maybe a few rich ppl invest tax savings into improving equality as they feel government is wasteful OK fair nuff.

Or, offshore companies can buy things like property then rent them back to you incredibly cheaply.

Maybe a few rich ppl invest tax savings into improving equality as they feel government is wasteful OK fair nuff

Sounds unlikely, anyway why take the chance? Eat the rich.

I.e. my local chippy taking my £3.50 for large chips and mushy peas

Mushy peas? Fuck off

Chips. Curry sauce. Job done.

My two cents is that tax evasion is out of reach of all bar those with lots of disposable income.

Well, not really: I got a quote for a job last week including a lower cash-in-hand rate; I doubt that's just lower transaction costs.

It's hardly as odious as the elaborate off-shore version though, partly because less effort and forethought go into it.