What no jeremy cobyn thread?

[rjbell]

I guess there are 2 points, benefit fraud which is relatively low or people on benefits as a lifestyle. There has to be some benefit fraud investigators as a deterrent, same as there are random tx checks or police doing tax disc stuff. But you will never remove benefit cheats, just as you won't crime in general.

Which ever way you look at it, it's a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance. You're blaming the wrong people.

We payout in subsidies to gas and oil companies, what we lose in benefit fraud, its nonsense.

 

[cambsno]

Which ever way you look at it, it's a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance. You're blaming the wrong people.

We payout in subsidies to gas and oil companies, what we lose in benefit fraud, its nonsense.

There is nothing wrong with tax avoidance - anyone who has an ISA is guilty of that. Sorry to be pedantic but tax evasion where it is illegal is wrong and the government should take action. This is not just the current lot but Labour too, both have been scared to do anything. If you are guilty of tax evasion then make a sentence like 10x the value is payable.

 

[cambsno]

I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be benefit fraud investigators, benefits as a lifestye choice is a whole other thread. But if you're going to respond how do you feel about there being 10 times as many benefit fraud as tax fraud investigators? Particularly given the savings / income that could be generated?

If that figure is true then it seems strange at first... although how many self employed are there? There are say 50m adults so if there are 5m self employed then a 10:1 ration is about right - that said, what is the average 'fraud' - if benefits is £4k and tax fraud is £20k then obviously the balance needs to be closer.

 

[Phil V]

If that figure is true then it seems strange at first... although how many self employed are there? There are say 50m adults so if there are 5m self employed then a 10:1 ration is about right - that said, what is the average 'fraud' - if benefits is £4k and tax fraud is £20k then obviously the balance needs to be closer.

I don't know where you get your figures from, if we assume that there are 5 million self employed that's more than there are benefit claimants (unless you count pensioners), so the figure is still miles out.

Just a little more info, HMRC don't really consider tax fraud as worthy of investigation if it's likely to be less than £10k. Whereas all allegations of benefit fraud are considered worthy of investigation if there's a likelihood enough evidence can be gathered.

So if you claim £20 in benefits you're not entitled to - you're done for, but £9k worth of tax fraud and you should be OK.

 

[rjbell]

There is nothing wrong with tax avoidance - anyone who has an ISA is guilty of that. Sorry to be pedantic but tax evasion where it is illegal is wrong and the government should take action. This is not just the current lot but Labour too, both have been scared to do anything. If you are guilty of tax evasion then make a sentence like 10x the value is payable.

Are you serious, nothing wrong? What a load of nonsense. It may not be illegal yet, but its plenty wrong with it. Its absolutly nothing like having a isa. Have you looked into some of the ways they get around corporate tax? It beggars believe how this is not classed as fraud. Well we know why, because the big account firms they use, helped write up the laws.

 

[Llamaman]

Tax dodginess can be a loooooooot bigger than 20k. Some 'aggressive' tax planning schemes that sit very close (if not over) the evasion line are worth tens or hundreds of millions.
Such schemes are not as common anymore - the environment has changed and in my own experience I'm seeing far less appetite from management to engage in the dark arts. It means a lot of jobs in tax planning have gone. Avoidance still goes on, but the tax authorities know about it and liabilities are usually settled by negotiation to avoid expensive and uncertain litigation.
Luckily for me, I work in tax compliance and business there is booming due to massive increases in tax bureaucracy. Hurrah.

 

[cambsno]

Are you serious, nothing wrong? What a load of nonsense. It may not be illegal yet, but its plenty wrong with it. Its absolutly nothing like having a isa. Have you looked into some of the ways they get around corporate tax? It beggars believe how this is not classed as fraud. Well we know why, because the big account firms they use, helped write up the laws.

Tax evasion is wrong and illegal. Tax avoidance isn't wrong or illegal. By having an isa and swapping part of my salary for childcare vouchers I am avoiding tax. Totally legal and millions do. Personally I avoid paying tax as much as possible. I am talking small numbers here, companies could be avoiding millions in tax but if it's legal there is nothing wrong. If there are loopholes then the government need to clamp down. If companies are evading tax then it's a different matter. Illegal and wrong. It is only a couple of words but there is a hell of a difference.

 

[cambsno]

I don't know where you get your figures from, if we assume that there are 5 million self employed that's more than there are benefit claimants (unless you count pensioners), so the figure is still miles out.

Just a little more info, HMRC don't really consider tax fraud as worthy of investigation if it's likely to be less than £10k. Whereas all allegations of benefit fraud are considered worthy of investigation if there's a likelihood enough evidence can be gathered.

So if you claim £20 in benefits you're not entitled to - you're done for, but £9k worth of tax fraud and you should be OK.

Yeah. Forgot they would be investigating Claimants rather than anyone. Am maybe guessing that tax is harder to prove and more costly hence the difference. Even so the numbers do seem a bit too wide.

 

[gadgeteer]

Tax avoidance is morally wrong....repugnant...disgusting....etc etc.............when someone else is doing it. When I'm doing it then it's just common sense tax planning.

 

[jakeblu]

Tax evasion is wrong and illegal. Tax avoidance isn't wrong or illegal. By having an isa and swapping part of my salary for childcare vouchers I am avoiding tax. Totally legal and millions do. Personally I avoid paying tax as much as possible. I am talking small numbers here, companies could be avoiding millions in tax but if it's legal there is nothing wrong. If there are loopholes then the government need to clamp down. If companies are evading tax then it's a different matter. Illegal and wrong. It is only a couple of words but there is a hell of a difference.

I don't see a problem with a normal working man/woman trying to pay as little tax as possible, so long as it done legally of course. The problem is with the extremes that some corporations go to avoid paying there fair share. But, its not just that, the discourse in this country is a major factor in the problem, benefit fraud is seen as almost akin to child molestation whereas tax evasion is more accepted which is strange considering the detrimental effect it has on the economy compared to benefit fraud. Well actually its not strange but thats for a different day

 

[Phil V]

Yeah. Forgot they would be investigating Claimants rather than anyone. Am maybe guessing that tax is harder to prove and more costly hence the difference. Even so the numbers do seem a bit too wide.

Logic says that if tax fraud is both higher value and more complicated, it's worth throwing money at for the rewards.

But politically, tax fraudsters are 'successful' people and benefit fraudsters are 'scroungers'.

You can't throw logic at that situation.

 

[StewartR]

Maybe they've decided that it's just more cost effective to go for the low hanging fruit of benefit fraud. That would be rational, if it's true, which of course it might not be.

 

[gadgeteer]

A big problem is the fact that Joe Public don't understand how the tax system in the global economy works (or not).

So for example. Ask most public if Amazon are tax dodging and they will say yes. Because that's what they've read in the papers. Except.....Amazon are operating within the EU. And the fundamental point, the whole reason d etre of the EU is you set up a HQ in one EU country and you can trade with the other 27 nations and only pay corporation tax in your base country. And you can only set up a single HQ.

Unsurprisingly Amazon like many others have chosen Luxembourg as their HQ since they offer some corporation tax rate that is all secret and hush hush, I presume way better than ours.

So now Joe Public thinks Amazon is avoiding paying tax cos they buy something in the UK and Amazon isn't paying any corporation tax to the UK. Of course BMW don't pay corporation tax to UK either but no-one talks about that.

Vodafone were widely pilloried for being tax avoiders cos HMRC said they owed £6 billion after selling Mannesman. Except Vodafone disagreed. They went to court and the court (eventually) decided that Vodafone was right. Under EU laws, the CFC rules did not apply for assets sold within the EU. So both HMRC & Vodafone were happy with that but obviously that doesn't sell newspapers so the Daily Mail et al ignored the fact that there was never any tax avoidance, just a difference of opinion. Cue lots of sit ins and protests by idiots who didn't understand or didn't want to understand.

Benefit fraud is more easier to understand and prosecute and until recently much more visible on the public eye. We tend not to see tax evaders. But we all know someone who is claiming benefits who probably shouldn't be.

 

[jakeblu]

But we all know someone who is claiming benefits who probably shouldn't be.

I dont

 

[decigallen]

He can't be held to be responsible for what you want to hear. He didn't say that at all...And nor do the Tories say that.

Oh come on, really?

He's backed austerity, and refuses to oppose Tory cuts to benefits and the housing benefit cap.

He said specifically that he wants Labour to be hard on people 'who want something for nothing' and be behind those who 'want to succeed.' How woud you interpret this? His rhetoric at the Ernst and Young address regarding benefits, the economy and big business could've come from a Tory MP. He described 'wealth creators' as 'heroes'!

And if you think the Tories don't imply that those on benefits are scroungers, you are plainly naive or in denial.

I am obviously opposed to benefit cheating, but the public have major misconceptions about it. An article I read recently put the cost of benefit faud at 1.1bn - that's people deliberately conning the system. The government is investing £308m in tackling benefit fraud. At the same time, a staggaring £1.6bn a year is underpaid in benefits - people not getting what they're entitled to. This would completely offset all fraudulent claims but for one thing... clerical errors result in £2.4bn in benefits being overpaid. So ineptitude not only denies people what they're entitled to, it is giving people more than they're entitled to - much more than what people are fraudulently claiming. Perhaps that £308m would be more wisely invested in staff training?

And to put benefits fraud in perspective, HRMC put the tax gap (the difference between what is paid in tax and what should be) at £34bn. Some experts say it is actually closer to £100bn. If you want somewhere to start looking for £12bn of austerity cuts, there's a good place to start.

But that won't happen of course. Those on benefits traditionally aren't a key voting group (aside from pensioners, who incidentally account for £20m in benefit fraud). They also don't hold power or influence over parties. The media tend to deflect working class attention towards migrants and whip up some xenophobic fervour so that the government are exhonerated from their duties in social care and job creation. And we'll continue to tut at "Benefits Street" while "Millionaire Tax Evaders Street' locks their gates and keeps on fiddling the system.

I think Burnham is a good guy, but he's totally bought into the falsehood that Labour can only win power by going to the centre and teetering on the right.

 

[decigallen]

I dont

Nor me.

I do know people that aren't on benefits that are entitled to be.

 

[rjbell]

Tax evasion is wrong and illegal. Tax avoidance isn't wrong or illegal. By having an isa and swapping part of my salary for childcare vouchers I am avoiding tax. Totally legal and millions do. Personally I avoid paying tax as much as possible. I am talking small numbers here, companies could be avoiding millions in tax but if it's legal there is nothing wrong. If there are loopholes then the government need to clamp down. If companies are evading tax then it's a different matter. Illegal and wrong. It is only a couple of words but there is a hell of a difference.

You've obviously not looked into the way they get around paying, aggressive tax schemes as they call it. Its not merely paying as little as possible through legal tax efficient schemes like isa's or pensions. Its going out of there way to hide profits and deceive, its not legal by any stretch, its just not enough proof to prove its fraud. You seem to have objections with Corbyn using the would evasion, its not a slip of the tongue, it's intentional. It's evasion plain and simple. As Llamaman mentions some have been caught some still getting away with it.

 

[gadgeteer]

HRMC put the tax gap (the difference between what is paid in tax and what should be) at £34bn. Some experts say it is actually closer to £100bn. If you want somewhere to start looking for £12bn of austerity cuts, there's a good place to start.

I've seen these figures quoted and it assumes that HMRC is always right. They're not. No doubts there are some who are evading tax. It's totally unrealistic to expect 100% collection rates just as it is to expect there to be no 'clerical errors' in benefits given how many people rely upon them.

 

[decigallen]

I've seen these figures quoted and it assumes that HMRC is always right. They're not. No doubts there are some who are evading tax. It's totally unrealistic to expect 100% collection rates just as it is to expect there to be no 'clerical errors' in benefits given how many people rely upon them.

The prevailing opinion among tax experts is that HRMC are being conservative with their estimates in the tax gap.

They don't have to recover all of it, but even 25% would make a huge difference to the budget. Similary, I don't expect there to be no clerical errors in benefit distribution but a total of £4bn worth of mistakes is negligent!

And let's be clear, that £34bn is through avoidance and evasion, so it's not a case of clerical error akin to the benefits 'problem.' Even if the figures are slightly skewed, benefits fraud is dwarfed by tax fraud yet one receives disproportionately more coverage in the mainstream media.

 

[Phil V]

The prevailing opinion among tax experts is that HRMC are being conservative with their estimates in the tax gap.

They don't have to recover all of it, but even 25% would make a huge difference to the budget. Similary, I don't expect there to be no clerical errors in benefit distribution but a total of £4bn worth of mistakes is negligent!

Although the 'errors' aren't necessarily errors, those stats cover a multitude of situations.
Firstly the 2.4bn in errors aren't all mistakes made by staff (even though that's what's assumed by the description) and 1.6bn underpaid is 'unclaimed', if benefits are 'underpaid' it's counted in the error figures.

When Pension Credit was launched, the Government, acting on figures from the ONS decided that there should be 5 million claimants. When the total reached just over 2 million there was a huge push to find the rest of these potential claimants. I know people who were asked to visit the same customers repeatedly to encourage them to claim, but the pensioners had a valid reason for not claiming (usually capital). It's amazing how many old people live in apparent poverty sat on a substantial nest egg.

Frankly I take any figure of 'unclaimed benefit' with a pinch of salt, as until a claim is made, no-one knows whether people would be entitled.

There's plenty amiss with the benefit system under this government, but I don't think your assumption comes close to it.

 

[gadgeteer]

I think you have to put the entire amounts into context. On their own the amounts sound crazy. BILLIONS.

Except in 2013 HMRC collected £612 billion. So let's take the figure of £34billion to be true and assume HMRC is always right. That's 5%. In other words 95% of taxes were successfully collected. That's pretty good in my book. Room for improvement. Yes of course. Big problem? I would say not.

For benefits, I believe some of that underpayment figure is based on various groups not claiming what they are entitled to. In which case I don't think it's fair to count that. Obviously we can't be paying out benefits to those who have not applied. But anyway, let's roll with it for now.

£4billion of 'mistakes' out of £220billion we spend on various benefits. That's about 2%. So 98% of benefits paid are correct. Again. There's always room for improvement but not a huge problem in my opinion.

 

[rjbell]

£34bn i would imagine is a very modest estimate. I've heard figures from £20 - £140bn.

Then consider the same companies who don't like paying tax, don't like paying their staff a fair wage either. £30bn spent in tax credits. They are being subsidised.

The wonder of a free market!

 

[Phil V]

I think you have to put the entire amounts into context. On their own the amounts sound crazy. BILLIONS.

Except in 2013 HMRC collected £612 billion. So let's take the figure of £34billion to be true and assume HMRC is always right. That's 5%. In other words 95% of taxes were successfully collected. That's pretty good in my book. Room for improvement. Yes of course. Big problem? I would say not.

For benefits, I believe some of that underpayment figure is based on various groups not claiming what they are entitled to. In which case I don't think it's fair to count that. Obviously we can't be paying out benefits to those who have not applied. But anyway, let's roll with it for now.

£4billion of 'mistakes' out of £220billion we spend on various benefits. That's about 2%. So 98% of benefits paid are correct. Again. There's always room for improvement but not a huge problem in my opinion.

I understand where you're coming from. But the figures involved, asnd the fact that it's taxpayers money mean that 95% is an appalling figure to call 'close'.

I'd want 99.9% as a target, and it's actually closer to the reality of what's happening with benefits, miles out for taxes though

I've said this before, when a government announces 'cuts to the public sector', they usually do an x% in every department, which is just adding to bureaucratic nonsense (as you'd expect from a politically motivated decision) .

If you were looking at this as a business and you wanted to 'make cuts', you'd look at the areas to invest in which would enable savings, and investing in any part that increased revenue*, then make your cuts in the other parts. Expecting HMRC to reduce costs only looks like a good idea if you have no idea what their purpose is .

*revenue is an interesting word, we used to have a govt department with that in the name.

 

[Phil V]

£34bn i would imagine is a very modest estimate. I've heard figures from £20 - £140bn.

Then consider the same companies who don't like paying tax, don't like paying their staff a fair wage either. £30bn spent in tax credits. They are being subsidised.

The wonder of a free market!

One of the biggest mistakes of the last 'labour' government was the 2 tier approach to low wages, the NMW and then tax credits. The idea behind tax credits was to boost business by subsidising companies who couldn't afford to pay a living wage, giving the money to the employees in the form of a tax credit. If the DTI had given the money to companies as an incentive to employ people and ensure they paid the living wage, we wouldn't have so many 'working poor' and a 'welfare bill' that looks like we are giving money to the feckless who can't get a decent job.

It's amazing that the benefits system is criticised from the right because it allows people to have subsidised housing and loads of money in tax credits. The actual recipients of this tax funded system are employers maximising profits by underpaying their staff, and private landlords adding a housing boom to the massive problems already faced by the economy. So the rich are getting richer straight from the exchequer and the poor get blamed for having a 'sense of entitlement' . Shouldn't people who work be entitled to a fair wage that'll pay for a roof over their head

 

[decigallen]

I don't think you can call either 'correct' or 'pretty good' by lumping it into percentages. I agree with Phil, you need to be looking at over 99% rates to be considered good. But if we're onto percentages, that £34bn represents about 4.5% of the UK's entire spending. It represents nearly 40% of the education budget. It's around 30% of the total welfare budget and about 75% of the defense budget. It's 291% of the proposed Tory welfare cuts.

 

[gadgeteer]

In an ideal world Phil I would agree with you. But collecting taxes is I suspect a lot harder than finding benefit claimants. I'm not saying we have the right focus. Just saying that it must be a lot harder to find where a company (or rich individual) should be paying more tax when they have incredibly complex affairs, mountains of paperwork and a team of very well paid accountants & lawyers to defend their interests. Compare that to the benefit cheat who typically has none of the above.

We can all agree tax evasion is wrong. Tax avoidance is grey. Like I said earlier. Tax avoidance is only wrong when someone else is doing it. Otherwise it's just sensible tax planning.

 

[boyfalldown]

Nor me.

I do know people that aren't on benefits that are entitled to be.

I know a few who don't claim everything either, but none who are claiming when they should't be

 

[boyfalldown]

In an ideal world Phil I would agree with you. But collecting taxes is I suspect a lot harder than finding benefit claimants. I'm not saying we have the right focus. Just saying that it must be a lot harder to find where a company (or rich individual) should be paying more tax when they have incredibly complex affairs, mountains of paperwork and a team of very well paid accountants & lawyers to defend their interests. Compare that to the benefit cheat who typically has none of the above.

We can all agree tax evasion is wrong. Tax avoidance is grey. Like I said earlier. Tax avoidance is only wrong when someone else is doing it. Otherwise it's just sensible tax planning.

so does that mean you think the balance is correct? Simply because collecting taxes properly is harder work HMRC shouldn't bother doing so?

 

[dejongj]

£34bn i would imagine is a very modest estimate. I've heard figures from £20 - £140bn.

Then consider the same companies who don't like paying tax, don't like paying their staff a fair wage either. £30bn spent in tax credits. They are being subsidised.

The wonder of a free market!

Naturally when they are subsidised as the call it there isn't a free market. Which had been my point many a time. Those companies don't decide that the government tops up people's income the government does. If only the government stopped interfering with the free market like that the employers would have to pay more for valuable resources. And if they can get those resources for a lower cost without it affecting their business then so what?

 

[dejongj]

I understand where you're coming from. But the figures involved, asnd the fact that it's taxpayers money mean that 95% is an appalling figure to call 'close'.

I'd want 99.9% as a target, and it's actually closer to the reality of what's happening with benefits, miles out for taxes though

I've said this before, when a government announces 'cuts to the public sector', they usually do an x% in every department, which is just adding to bureaucratic nonsense (as you'd expect from a politically motivated decision) .

If you were looking at this as a business and you wanted to 'make cuts', you'd look at the areas to invest in which would enable savings, and investing in any part that increased revenue*, then make your cuts in the other parts. Expecting HMRC to reduce costs only looks like a good idea if you have no idea what their purpose is .

*revenue is an interesting word, we used to have a govt department with that in the name.

And interestingly they had revenue constables guarding the doors always found that a funny word when I walked in. Nice folk though.

 

[gadgeteer]

No what I'm saying is that I think that people see BILLIONS and assume there's a BIG problem. What I'm saying is that when you look at it as a whole and accept you will never get 100% on anything then HMRC and the benefits get it more right than wrong. The fact is that in the last few years under a Tory government there has been a bigger push on cracking down on tax avoidance. The latest budget scrapped non-dom status and also removed the commonly used tactic of setting yourself up as a limited company to avoid the higher rate tax. But these things take time and we STILL won't get 100%.

I personally believe we should be tougher on tax evaders and benefit cheats. But like I said. My main point is that it's not a big problem and there are lies, damn lies and then statistics.

 

[cambsno]

You've obviously not looked into the way they get around paying, aggressive tax schemes as they call it. Its not merely paying as little as possible through legal tax efficient schemes like isa's or pensions. Its going out of there way to hide profits and deceive, its not legal by any stretch, its just not enough proof to prove its fraud. You seem to have objections with Corbyn using the would evasion, its not a slip of the tongue, it's intentional. It's evasion plain and simple. As Llamaman mentions some have been caught some still getting away with it.

My take is simple. If it's legal then the company are within their rights to do that if not then they should be punished. It may be morally wrong but that's personal opinion. People think drinking or porn is wrong but the government allow us to indulge. I find pregnant women smoking wrong but there is no law against it. If it is proven to be evasion fine, but in this country it's innocent till proven guilty.

 

[cambsno]

A big problem is the fact that Joe Public don't understand how the tax system in the global economy works (or not).

So for example. Ask most public if Amazon are tax dodging and they will say yes. Because that's what they've read in the papers. Except.....Amazon are operating within the EU. And the fundamental point, the whole reason d etre of the EU is you set up a HQ in one EU country and you can trade with the other 27 nations and only pay corporation tax in your base country. And you can only set up a single HQ.

Unsurprisingly Amazon like many others have chosen Luxembourg as their HQ since they offer some corporation tax rate that is all secret and hush hush, I presume way better than ours.

So now Joe Public thinks Amazon is avoiding paying tax cos they buy something in the UK and Amazon isn't paying any corporation tax to the UK. Of course BMW don't pay corporation tax to UK either but no-one talks about that.

Vodafone were widely pilloried for being tax avoiders cos HMRC said they owed £6 billion after selling Mannesman. Except Vodafone disagreed. They went to court and the court (eventually) decided that Vodafone was right. Under EU laws, the CFC rules did not apply for assets sold within the EU. So both HMRC & Vodafone were happy with that but obviously that doesn't sell newspapers so the Daily Mail et al ignored the fact that there was never any tax avoidance, just a difference of opinion. Cue lots of sit ins and protests by idiots who didn't understand or didn't want to understand.

Benefit fraud is more easier to understand and prosecute and until recently much more visible on the public eye. We tend not to see tax evaders. But we all know someone who is claiming benefits who probably shouldn't be.

And yet while we moan about Amazon being tax dodgers we all continue to shop there, and Starbucks...

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Re vodafone. They

A big problem is the fact that Joe Public don't understand how the tax system in the global economy works (or not).

So for example. Ask most public if Amazon are tax dodging and they will say yes. Because that's what they've read in the papers. Except.....Amazon are operating within the EU. And the fundamental point, the whole reason d etre of the EU is you set up a HQ in one EU country and you can trade with the other 27 nations and only pay corporation tax in your base country. And you can only set up a single HQ.

Unsurprisingly Amazon like many others have chosen Luxembourg as their HQ since they offer some corporation tax rate that is all secret and hush hush, I presume way better than ours.

So now Joe Public thinks Amazon is avoiding paying tax cos they buy something in the UK and Amazon isn't paying any corporation tax to the UK. Of course BMW don't pay corporation tax to UK either but no-one talks about that.

Vodafone were widely pilloried for being tax avoiders cos HMRC said they owed £6 billion after selling Mannesman. Except Vodafone disagreed. They went to court and the court (eventually) decided that Vodafone was right. Under EU laws, the CFC rules did not apply for assets sold within the EU. So both HMRC & Vodafone were happy with that but obviously that doesn't sell newspapers so the Daily Mail et al ignored the fact that there was never any tax avoidance, just a difference of opinion. Cue lots of sit ins and protests by idiots who didn't understand or didn't want to understand.

Benefit fraud is more easier to understand and prosecute and until recently much more visible on the public eye. We tend not to see tax evaders. But we all know someone who is claiming benefits who probably shouldn't be.

I thought the Court of Appeal then found against Vodafone?

 

[dejongj]

I don't think you can call either 'correct' or 'pretty good' by lumping it into percentages. I agree with Phil, you need to be looking at over 99% rates to be considered good. But if we're onto percentages, that £34bn represents about 4.5% of the UK's entire spending. It represents nearly 40% of the education budget. It's around 30% of the total welfare budget and about 75% of the defense budget. It's 291% of the proposed Tory welfare cuts.

I don't think percentages like 95 or 99 can be deemed a blank good or not. The higher you tend to get the bigger the investment will be required, and the more bureaucratic it will become for call with all sorts of increased compliance cost.

I remember when I was working with one of them in the compliance teams, and one of the personas is those that are willful uncompliant. No matter what you do they'll find a way.

Is it truly worth it to hunt down every single one? Morally perhaps yes, but does it make financial sense and can you do it without affecting the vast majority who are compliant and perhaps just uninformed? I doubt it.

My gut feel tells me that 99% comes with too much cost associated to it.

But on another note; all those who think avoidance is grey can you please hand in your pension plans, isa's etc on your way out

 

[gadgeteer]

Re vodafone. They


I thought the Court of Appeal then found against Vodafone?

Hmm, interesting. The article I'd read from what usually is a very good site never mentioned the court of appeal. (Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/18/once_more_into_the_tax_breach_dear_friends/)

Even with that in mind it still seems that the £6billion is an urban myth made up by the press.

I guess it just goes to show how complex it all is for even the professionals to understand so for the rest of us it's practically impossible.

 

[Llamaman]

Tax planning - doing what parliament intended to save tax (eg ISAs)
Tax avoidance - doing something legal, but not as parliament intended (eg treaty shopping)
Tax evasion - doing something illegal (eg misdeclaring income)

 

[boyfalldown]

The article I'd read from what usually is a very good site never mentioned the court of appeal. (Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/18/once_more_into_the_tax_breach_dear_friends/)

I've never seen the register described as a very good site before...Its lots of things, funny, irreverent but I've never thought of it as unbiased and reliable

 

[decigallen]

No what I'm saying is that I think that people see BILLIONS and assume there's a BIG problem.

er, what!?? When you see billions it IS a BIG problem! How is it otherwise?!? It doesn't matter that it represents 5% - it is a shocking amount of money when the Tory government are making £12bn of 'necessary cuts' in the name of austerity that will force more and more of your fellow citizens towards food banks and poverty.

If a shop loses 5% of it's profits through shoplifting, they will almost certainly see it as a big issue regardless of the amount of money it is...

And regarding the 'we all know people fiddling benefits' statement earlier. As I said, I don't. But I do know people who do everything in their power to fiddle their taxes.

 

[dejongj]

Tax planning - doing what parliament intended to save tax (eg ISAs)
Tax avoidance - doing something legal, but not as parliament intended (eg treaty shopping)
Tax evasion - doing something illegal (eg misdeclaring income)

Nice attempt but unfortunately that is just your distinction and has no basis. Tax avoidance purely for the intent of avoiding tax with no other purpose is already covered in the law and is tax evasion. You are avoiding paying tax when you contribute to a pension or an ISA. It is normal, it is legal.

Tax planning you do all the time and could include avoidance and evasive measures. It can also involve simple working in a different way, say like it is more beneficial for us for my wife to no work than it is to work as if she had further income we end up paying more tax for minimum extra gain whilst she looses 160 hours per month And in order to implement that a number of measures are available.