"UK Uncut" & Tax avoidance

[Joe Lee]

An interesting article in last Friday's Guardian regarding how the !UK
Uncut" protest group has grown virally through Twitter.

The group is campaigning against the estimated £25bn ,lost to the economy of
the country through tax avoidance by individuals & companies in the UK every
year.

Interesting to compare the £100bn lost every four years, with the
Governments planned savings of £81bn through of public spending cutbacks
during that time.

The Cameron Clegg partnership's mantra on the state of the economy & the
need for sweeping reduction in public services is "We're all in this
together", well not everyone apparently, eg. Their efficiency adviser Philip
Green.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/uk-uncut-protests-undercover-police


From the UK Uncut site;
http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets

[allantracy]

Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to come
to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the election
– badly.

We had all this when Thatcher came into power, almost from day one,
and that led nowhere.

The fact is the tide turned at the last election, middle England got
pissed off with the state acting like it was a protection racket
taking all their money (for many years to come) and delivering f**k
all in return.

It’s got f**k all to do with tax avoidance, that’s just clutching at
straws, we’ve had enough of the public sector and the big state ball
and chain on our backs, whether we can afford it or not.

These idealistic idiots, mostly in their twenties, are getting their
first taste of the tide turning in a way they never conceived would
happen.

I was shocked when Thatcher won for the first time, though not so
disappointed, but I just couldn’t believe the electorate would ever
elect someone like that, a blue rinse harridan, straight out of the
Mary Whitehouse mould - but they did.

Anyway, it’s entirely delusional to believe there are all these
corporate honey pots out there just waiting to be plundered. Those
companies avoid tax to keep down their costs and that saving was
passed onto their customers years ago and just isn’t their to be all
claimed back.

Besides, having a f**king public sector bigger than the private sector
is a time warp bag to the Soviet Block, it’s completely unsustainable
and needs to be stopped and dismantled before we go under for good.

I notice all the Guardianistas, in their best wet dreams, think with
this lot that the revolution just arrived but the truth is Cameron is
far more concerned about taxpayer revolts emerging from this financial
crisis, not bleating left wing hearts divorced from all economic
reality.

They should all go and settle down, get a mortgage, a steady job and
bang out a few kids then let’s see how keen they are on taxation.

[Joe Lee]

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to come
to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the election
– badly.
We had all this when Thatcher came into power, almost from day one,
and that led nowhere.
The fact is the tide turned at the last election, middle England got
pissed off with the state acting like it was a protection racket
taking all their money (for many years to come) and delivering f**k
all in return.
It’s got f**k all to do with tax avoidance, that’s just clutching at
straws, we’ve had enough of the public sector and the big state ball
and chain on our backs, whether we can afford it or not.
These idealistic idiots, mostly in their twenties, are getting their
first taste of the tide turning in a way they never conceived would
happen.
I was shocked when Thatcher won for the first time, though not so
disappointed, but I just couldn’t believe the electorate would ever
elect someone like that, a blue rinse harridan, straight out of the
Mary Whitehouse mould - but they did.
Anyway, it’s entirely delusional to believe there are all these
corporate honey pots out there just waiting to be plundered. Those
companies avoid tax to keep down their costs and that saving was
passed onto their customers years ago and just isn’t their to be all
claimed back.
Besides, having a f**king public sector bigger than the private sector
is a time warp bag to the Soviet Block, it’s completely unsustainable
and needs to be stopped and dismantled before we go under for good.
I notice all the Guardianistas, in their best wet dreams, think with
this lot that the revolution just arrived but the truth is Cameron is
far more concerned about taxpayer revolts emerging from this financial
crisis, not bleating left wing hearts divorced from all economic
reality.
They should all go and settle down, get a mortgage, a steady job and
bang out a few kids then let’s see how keen they are on taxation.

Ah, so the most rabid dog bites first!

You are desperately behind the times with all your talk of Thatcher.

Their is a new movement under way now, ignore it if you prefer to do that,
but you can't stop it.

It is all to do with the perception of "fairness" & that's not something
which your ideological strait-jacket is capable of recognising.


Oh, & as a rabid dog, your suck is better than your bite IME!

[allantracy]

Post by Joe Lee
You are desperately behind the times with all your talk of Thatcher.
Their is a new movement under way now, ignore it if you prefer to do that,
but you can't stop it.
It is all to do with the perception of "fairness" & that's not something
which your ideological strait-jacket is capable of recognising.

I would go back and check the election result, if I were you, because
that’s the only change in wind direction that matters not some minor
disturbances in a Top Shop.

A company is no more than a piece of paper, that’s why taxing them is
idiotic.

Individuals pay tax, it’s individuals that prosper from companies so
taxing a company and then the shareholder is nothing more than double
taxation and that’s hardly fair.

Besides, corporation taxes can never be paid by a piece of paper the
cost is just passed onto individuals, either customers (price rises)
or employees, or even worse by reducing investment within the company.

Corporate taxes are extremely shortsighted and damage the future
prosperity of all of us.

Cynical politicians, of all persuasions, resort to such taxes purely
to pander to the prejudiced bias of people like you then, because they
know they are so economically damaging, they quietly leave all the
loopholes open.

The Tories played that game this week announcing they will now close
some of the avoidance loopholes but that's after they’ve already
reduced corporation tax and they plan, in the longer term, to
eventually reduce them to zero, like so many other more enlightened
nations have already done so.

If you want to see how the world is really changing just take a look
at the former Soviet block, emerging tiger economies with simple
single low rate taxes, lean and efficient with virtually no business
taxes.

That’s the real world rapidly catching up with us every day.

As Churchill so adeptly put it, “Taxing your way to prosperity is like
standing in a bucket and trying to pick yourself up by the handle.”

Tax raising economies have always gone under in the end Old Labour
ended up at the IMF despite (or surely because of) 98% tax rates.

You lot want ever more taxes but you don’t know when to stop.

I’m willing to bet like all of the left, when it comes to tax, that
you haven’t even thought about what a ‘this far and no further’ might
be.

[Clive George]

Post by allantracy
I would go back and check the election result, if I were you, because
that’s the only change in wind direction that matters not some minor
disturbances in a Top Shop.
A company is no more than a piece of paper, that’s why taxing them is
idiotic.
Individuals pay tax, it’s individuals that prosper from companies so
taxing a company and then the shareholder is nothing more than double
taxation and that’s hardly fair.

Isn't the topshop thing about individual tax avoidance, not corporation tax?

[allantracy]

Post by Clive George
Isn't the topshop thing about individual tax avoidance, not corporation tax?

It seems to be mostly about corporation taxes as they are also
targeting a long list of companies, such as Boots, Vodaphone, Barclays
and now Cadburys that have relocated for those reasons.

Though inevitably the activities of Philip Green and his wife have
been thrown into the mix.

But then, people are free to live where they like and the UK has
always failed to arouse much International sympathy against tax
havens, particularly during laughing stock Labour government.

In the end, it always seems to be the UK under Labour that has the
most difficulty with tax exiles and the harsh reality is that you have
to go a long way to find any other country that is as draconian as the
UK towards the wealthy, especially now we have 50p tax rate.

On the whole, people have less trouble paying their taxes when they
feel that governments aren’t taking the piss and that’s never been so
with Labour.

It wouldn't be such a big ask if all their spending was going on stuff
like hip operations but some of things and the huge amounts they've
spent money on, it's been lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Then there’s the waste, one of my relatives worked for a NHS Health
Authority in Leeds.

She needed to attend a meeting in Lincoln but felt a bit under the
weather, OK to work but not drive, so her boss hired a taxi both ways
and it waited for her whilst she was in the meeting.

They were burning money under Labour and now she’s just been made
redundant so what the f**k was going on before so necessary that is
now deemed so pointless?

[Edster]

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to come
to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the election
– badly.
We had all this when Thatcher came into power, almost from day one,
and that led nowhere.
The fact is the tide turned at the last election, middle England got
pissed off with the state acting like it was a protection racket
taking all their money (for many years to come) and delivering f**k
all in return.
It’s got f**k all to do with tax avoidance, that’s just clutching at
straws, we’ve had enough of the public sector and the big state ball
and chain on our backs, whether we can afford it or not.
These idealistic idiots, mostly in their twenties, are getting their
first taste of the tide turning in a way they never conceived would
happen.
I was shocked when Thatcher won for the first time, though not so
disappointed, but I just couldn’t believe the electorate would ever
elect someone like that, a blue rinse harridan, straight out of the
Mary Whitehouse mould - but they did.
Anyway, it’s entirely delusional to believe there are all these
corporate honey pots out there just waiting to be plundered. Those
companies avoid tax to keep down their costs and that saving was
passed onto their customers years ago and just isn’t their to be all
claimed back.
Besides, having a f**king public sector bigger than the private sector
is a time warp bag to the Soviet Block, it’s completely unsustainable
and needs to be stopped and dismantled before we go under for good.
I notice all the Guardianistas, in their best wet dreams, think with
this lot that the revolution just arrived but the truth is Cameron is
far more concerned about taxpayer revolts emerging from this financial
crisis, not bleating left wing hearts divorced from all economic
reality.
They should all go and settle down, get a mortgage, a steady job and
bang out a few kids then let’s see how keen they are on taxation.

The millionnaire party only got in this time because a lot of people
believed Clegg's lies about student fees and repealing the Digital
Economy Act, and that took a lot of votes away from labour. Now that
he's basically told all his voters to fuck off they won't be voting
liberal again in a hurry. I doubt many of them will switch to voting
toff either, they will either vote labour or just not bother.

[Shaun]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:31:30 -0800 (PST), allantracy

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to come
to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the election
=96 badly.
We had all this when Thatcher came into power, almost from day one,
and that led nowhere.
The fact is the tide turned at the last election, middle England got
pissed off with the state acting like it was a protection racket
taking all their money (for many years to come) and delivering f**k
all in return.

I must say its very public spirited of you to pay an extra couple of
hundred quid in tax because Vodaphone don't feel like paying any.

[Mentalguy2k8]

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to come
to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the election
– badly.

And we have to ask the questions - who was in charge of the Government and
HMRC in 2000 when Vodafone were (legally?) using offshore companies to
acquire assets? And why weren't these protestors protesting about tax
avoidance while Blair/Brown were in power?

Strange that Vodafone, RBS and others have "avoided" paying a huge amount of
tax for over a decade, yet these people are only picketing shops and banks
*now*. Anyone would think they kept quiet about it until the Tories gained
power.

[Mark]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:40:44 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"

Post by Mentalguy2k8

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to come
to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the election
– badly.

And we have to ask the questions - who was in charge of the Government and
HMRC in 2000 when Vodafone were (legally?) using offshore companies to
acquire assets? And why weren't these protestors protesting about tax
avoidance while Blair/Brown were in power?
Strange that Vodafone, RBS and others have "avoided" paying a huge amount of
tax for over a decade, yet these people are only picketing shops and banks
*now*. Anyone would think they kept quiet about it until the Tories gained
power.

People have been complaining about tax avoidance for decades. Just
because the media don't report it does not mean that people were
keeping quiet. There is increasing anger at this avoidance now since
people know the scale of the cuts and predict they will be worse off.

All it proves is that the Tories are as useless as Labour. No
suprises there.

[Joe Lee]

Post by Mark
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:40:44 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"

Post by Mentalguy2k8

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to
come to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the
election - badly.

And we have to ask the questions - who was in charge of the
Government and HMRC in 2000 when Vodafone were (legally?) using
offshore companies to acquire assets? And why weren't these
protestors protesting about tax avoidance while Blair/Brown were in
power?
Strange that Vodafone, RBS and others have "avoided" paying a huge
amount of tax for over a decade, yet these people are only picketing
shops and banks *now*. Anyone would think they kept quiet about it
until the Tories gained power.

People have been complaining about tax avoidance for decades. Just
because the media don't report it does not mean that people were
keeping quiet. There is increasing anger at this avoidance now since
people know the scale of the cuts and predict they will be worse off.
All it proves is that the Tories are as useless as Labour. No
suprises there.

Unfortunatly Mark, "mentalguy2k8" & "Cynic" are unlikely to read your
comments as they 'hang out' on the uk.legal group - which is no longer in
the Newsgroups line. I realise you might have intended this & if so,
apologies for butting in here.

[Mark]

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Mark
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:40:44 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"

Post by Mentalguy2k8

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to
come to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the
election - badly.

And we have to ask the questions - who was in charge of the
Government and HMRC in 2000 when Vodafone were (legally?) using
offshore companies to acquire assets? And why weren't these
protestors protesting about tax avoidance while Blair/Brown were in
power?
Strange that Vodafone, RBS and others have "avoided" paying a huge
amount of tax for over a decade, yet these people are only picketing
shops and banks *now*. Anyone would think they kept quiet about it
until the Tories gained power.

People have been complaining about tax avoidance for decades. Just
because the media don't report it does not mean that people were
keeping quiet. There is increasing anger at this avoidance now since
people know the scale of the cuts and predict they will be worse off.
All it proves is that the Tories are as useless as Labour. No
suprises there.

Unfortunatly Mark, "mentalguy2k8" & "Cynic" are unlikely to read your
comments as they 'hang out' on the uk.legal group - which is no longer in
the Newsgroups line. I realise you might have intended this & if so,
apologies for butting in here.

No problem. I don't read uk.legal so it would not be appropriate to
post there -- hence I did remove that ng deliberately.

[Edster]

Post by Mentalguy2k8

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to come
to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the election
– badly.

And we have to ask the questions - who was in charge of the Government and
HMRC in 2000 when Vodafone were (legally?) using offshore companies to
acquire assets? And why weren't these protestors protesting about tax
avoidance while Blair/Brown were in power?
Strange that Vodafone, RBS and others have "avoided" paying a huge amount of
tax for over a decade, yet these people are only picketing shops and banks
*now*. Anyone would think they kept quiet about it until the Tories gained
power.

The main difference was that labour weren't planning to kick crutches
away from the poor and pinch pennies from their begging bowls. The
millionnaires in the government say they have no choice, but the truth
is that they do.

[Joe Lee]

Post by allantracy
Just the usual rag bag bunch of lefties that find it difficult to come
to terms with democracy and the fact that their boys lost the election
– badly.
We had all this when Thatcher came into power, almost from day one,
and that led nowhere.
The fact is the tide turned at the last election, middle England got
pissed off with the state acting like it was a protection racket
taking all their money (for many years to come) and delivering f**k
all in return.
It’s got f**k all to do with tax avoidance, that’s just clutching at
straws, we’ve had enough of the public sector and the big state ball
and chain on our backs, whether we can afford it or not.
These idealistic idiots, mostly in their twenties, are getting their
first taste of the tide turning in a way they never conceived would
happen.
I was shocked when Thatcher won for the first time, though not so
disappointed, but I just couldn’t believe the electorate would ever
elect someone like that, a blue rinse harridan, straight out of the
Mary Whitehouse mould - but they did.
Anyway, it’s entirely delusional to believe there are all these
corporate honey pots out there just waiting to be plundered. Those
companies avoid tax to keep down their costs and that saving was
passed onto their customers years ago and just isn’t their to be all
claimed back.
Besides, having a f**king public sector bigger than the private sector
is a time warp bag to the Soviet Block, it’s completely unsustainable
and needs to be stopped and dismantled before we go under for good.
I notice all the Guardianistas, in their best wet dreams, think with
this lot that the revolution just arrived but the truth is Cameron is
far more concerned about taxpayer revolts emerging from this financial
crisis, not bleating left wing hearts divorced from all economic
reality.

I do think the problem you have is that you're stuck so far out on the right
wing, that you see any form of protest as coming drom the loony left.

In the Mail last Monday Alex Brummer, their City Editor, in an article on
Tax avoidance, said:
"... It is time the Government addressed this disgraceful state of affairs
and intervened to properly police these foreign takeovers which threaten to
damage the integrity of Britain’s industrial base and which are doing such
irreparable harm to the nation’s tax revenues.
Why should hard-working, tax-paying Britons suffer as a result of foreign
companies’ widespread deceptions and tax avoidance scams? Almost no other
Western nation would stand for such wholesale plunder of its heritage."


Read more
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1335974/ALEX-BRUMMER-New-York-Fed-comes-clean.html#ixzz17de5QY9h>

But then, your perspective, I guess you see the Mail as being too far to the
left.

Post by allantracy
They should all go and settle down, get a mortgage, a steady job and
bang out a few kids then let’s see how keen they are on taxation.

Oh dear! See above.

[Cynic]

Post by Joe Lee
The group is campaigning against the estimated £25bn ,lost to the economy of
the country through tax avoidance by individuals & companies in the UK every
year.

Tax avoidance simply means arranging things so that you don't pay what
you don't have to pay. An extremely sensible policy, don't you think?

I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.

Would you want to campaign against those selfish people as well?

[allantracy]

Post by Cynic
Tax avoidance simply means arranging things so that you don't pay what
you don't have to pay.  An extremely sensible policy, don't you think?
I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.
Would you want to campaign against those selfish people as well?

The IR is on record saying that by far the greatest sums lost in tax
evasion (that’s the illegal stuff by the way) are agricultural diesel,
roll your own tobacco, cash in hand and tax credits.

You don’t need to go abroad to find any of that going on and I
seriously doubt it’s the rich that are responsible for those dodges
either.

[Mentalguy2k8]

Post by Cynic
Tax avoidance simply means arranging things so that you don't pay what
you don't have to pay. An extremely sensible policy, don't you think?
I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.
Would you want to campaign against those selfish people as well?
The IR is on record saying that by far the greatest sums lost in tax
evasion (that’s the illegal stuff by the way) are agricultural diesel,
roll your own tobacco, cash in hand and tax credits.

Probably because the duty on tobacco and diesel is artificially
astronomical. And of course, every possible loophole to avoid that duty is
illegal.

[Joe Lee]

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee
The group is campaigning against the estimated £25bn ,lost to the
economy of the country through tax avoidance by individuals &
companies in the UK every year.

Tax avoidance simply means arranging things so that you don't pay what
you don't have to pay.

Well that's one definition.
Another one might be, arranging things so that you don't pay a fair
contribution (fair has to be defined(.

Post by Cynic
An extremely sensible policy, don't you think?

Not in the context, no. I would describe it (generally) as pure unadulterad
greed & an affront to all those who work & pay the taxes that are required
of them.

Post by Cynic
I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.
Would you want to campaign against those selfish people as well?

I think that's just a bit silly TBH Cynic.

[Cynic]

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee
The group is campaigning against the estimated £25bn ,lost to the
economy of the country through tax avoidance by individuals &
companies in the UK every year.

Tax avoidance simply means arranging things so that you don't pay what
you don't have to pay.

Well that's one definition.
Another one might be, arranging things so that you don't pay a fair
contribution (fair has to be defined(.

I should think that anyone who is following the rules *is* paying
their "fair share" as defined by government. If not, then blame the
rules - just as I do with benefits "scroungers".

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic
An extremely sensible policy, don't you think?

Not in the context, no. I would describe it (generally) as pure unadulterad
greed & an affront to all those who work & pay the taxes that are required
of them.

Post by Cynic
I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.
Would you want to campaign against those selfish people as well?

I think that's just a bit silly TBH Cynic.

Yes, it is silly. It is in fact just as silly as expecting companies
to pay more than they have to. By avoiding tobacco and booze tax
those people are avoiding paying their "fair share" just as much as
companies that use the rules to their advantage. IOW not at all.

[Mentalguy2k8]

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee
The group is campaigning against the estimated £25bn ,lost to the
economy of the country through tax avoidance by individuals &
companies in the UK every year.

Tax avoidance simply means arranging things so that you don't pay what
you don't have to pay.

Well that's one definition.
Another one might be, arranging things so that you don't pay a fair
contribution (fair has to be defined(.

I should think that anyone who is following the rules *is* paying
their "fair share" as defined by government. If not, then blame the
rules - just as I do with benefits "scroungers".

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic
An extremely sensible policy, don't you think?

Not in the context, no. I would describe it (generally) as pure unadulterad
greed & an affront to all those who work & pay the taxes that are required
of them.

Post by Cynic
I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.
Would you want to campaign against those selfish people as well?

I think that's just a bit silly TBH Cynic.

Yes, it is silly. It is in fact just as silly as expecting companies
to pay more than they have to. By avoiding tobacco and booze tax
those people are avoiding paying their "fair share" just as much as
companies that use the rules to their advantage. IOW not at all.

Exactly, if we want companies to pay more taxes, then we have to change the
rules and tighten up the loopholes. I can't see anyone voluntarily paying an
extra £3bn in tax if they don't have to.

Nodody is arguing that these people aren't greedy, they're just taking
advantage of the current laws. It *does* seem unfair, and the amounts of tax
"avoided" are probably greater than the cuts to the welfare and eduction
budgets, but it's up to the Government to mend it. Trouble is, I don't
think any Government (Labour included) is going to start a fight with Big
Business. Maybe they're aware that these "loopholes" are what attracts huge
investment into British companies. And after all, it's not like they don't
pay *anything* in various taxes.

[Cynic]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:19:06 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"

Post by Mentalguy2k8

Post by Cynic
Yes, it is silly. It is in fact just as silly as expecting companies
to pay more than they have to. By avoiding tobacco and booze tax
those people are avoiding paying their "fair share" just as much as
companies that use the rules to their advantage. IOW not at all.

Exactly, if we want companies to pay more taxes, then we have to change the
rules and tighten up the loopholes. I can't see anyone voluntarily paying an
extra £3bn in tax if they don't have to.
Nodody is arguing that these people aren't greedy, they're just taking
advantage of the current laws. It *does* seem unfair, and the amounts of tax
"avoided" are probably greater than the cuts to the welfare and eduction
budgets, but it's up to the Government to mend it. Trouble is, I don't
think any Government (Labour included) is going to start a fight with Big
Business. Maybe they're aware that these "loopholes" are what attracts huge
investment into British companies. And after all, it's not like they don't
pay *anything* in various taxes.

I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do not
have to pay. Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules. If you believe that they were
unintentional, you would also have to believe that the people who made
the rules were incredibly ignorant about the very subject that they
were meant to be experts in. In fact, of course, the rules are
usually designed to *deliberately* cause companies to behave in a
certain way in order to save tax.

Tell me, do you insist on sending the government 17.5% of the amount
you spend on zero-rated goods? If not, it means you are taking
advantage of a "loophole" in the VAT rules to get away with not paying
sales tax on certain products. You greedy person!

[allantracy]

Post by Cynic
I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do not
have to pay.  Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules.

The likes of Ryanair base themselves in Ireland to avoid paying UK
Corporation taxes.

There can be no doubt that some or even all of that saving gets past
on to their passengers in the form of cheaper fares.

So, no doubt, UK Uncut would have us all boycott Ryanair’s cheap fares
to keep their Guardian reading mates in jobs, can’t see that working.

Besides, morally, whom would they have Ryanair pay their taxes to when
there’s nothing like an airline for being multinational in both
location and customers?

You see, they just haven’t thought it out have they?

[Norman Wells]

Post by allantracy

Post by Cynic
I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do
not have to pay. Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules.

The likes of Ryanair base themselves in Ireland to avoid paying UK
Corporation taxes.

Yes, it's got nothing to do with the fact that they're Irish at all.

[Edster]

Post by allantracy

Post by Cynic
I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do not
have to pay.  Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules.

The likes of Ryanair base themselves in Ireland to avoid paying UK
Corporation taxes.
There can be no doubt that some or even all of that saving gets past
on to their passengers in the form of cheaper fares.
So, no doubt, UK Uncut would have us all boycott Ryanair’s cheap fares
to keep their Guardian reading mates in jobs, can’t see that working.
Besides, morally, whom would they have Ryanair pay their taxes to when
there’s nothing like an airline for being multinational in both
location and customers?
You see, they just haven’t thought it out have they?

They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

[steve robinson]

Post by allantracy

Post by Cynic
I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you

do not >> have to pay.  Calling them "loopholes" infers that they
are using >> unintentional flaws in the rules.

Post by allantracy
The likes of Ryanair base themselves in Ireland to avoid paying UK
Corporation taxes.
There can be no doubt that some or even all of that saving gets
past on to their passengers in the form of cheaper fares.
So, no doubt, UK Uncut would have us all boycott Ryanair’s cheap
fares to keep their Guardian reading mates in jobs, can’t see
that working.
Besides, morally, whom would they have Ryanair pay their taxes to
when there’s nothing like an airline for being multinational in
both location and customers?
You see, they just haven’t thought it out have they?

They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

That would be impossible to implement let alone enforce , its likely
to contravene EU law too

[allantracy]

Post by Edster
They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

Or where they book maybe?

Ryanair has customers from all over Europe are you seriously proposing
they should pay full corporation taxe in every country they operate
from?

Pay taxes in sixteen f**king countries and f**king sixteen times over
that would be one mighty shit way to do business.

Only a deluded lefty could ever come up with that one, the idea that a
buiness should be a charity they certianly wouldn't make any f**king
money.

[Edster]

Post by allantracy

Post by Edster
They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

Or where they book maybe?
Ryanair has customers from all over Europe are you seriously proposing
they should pay full corporation taxe in every country they operate
from?
Pay taxes in sixteen f**king countries and f**king sixteen times over
that would be one mighty shit way to do business.
Only a deluded lefty could ever come up with that one, the idea that a
buiness should be a charity they certianly wouldn't make any f**king
money.

If they don't make any money they won't need to pay taxes.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:15:19 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by allantracy

Post by Cynic
I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do not
have to pay.  Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules.

The likes of Ryanair base themselves in Ireland to avoid paying UK
Corporation taxes.
There can be no doubt that some or even all of that saving gets past
on to their passengers in the form of cheaper fares.
So, no doubt, UK Uncut would have us all boycott Ryanair’s cheap fares
to keep their Guardian reading mates in jobs, can’t see that working.
Besides, morally, whom would they have Ryanair pay their taxes to when
there’s nothing like an airline for being multinational in both
location and customers?
You see, they just haven’t thought it out have they?

They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

So an Englishman, an Irishman and a Channel Islander on the same flight
will pay different fares because the airline has to pay different taxes on
each of them?

That would certainly mean that no-one who ever travels internationally or
buys things across national borders would ever vote for a party proposing
higher taxes.

Mark

[Edster]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:15:19 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by allantracy

Post by Cynic
I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do not
have to pay.  Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules.

The likes of Ryanair base themselves in Ireland to avoid paying UK
Corporation taxes.
There can be no doubt that some or even all of that saving gets past
on to their passengers in the form of cheaper fares.
So, no doubt, UK Uncut would have us all boycott Ryanair’s cheap fares
to keep their Guardian reading mates in jobs, can’t see that working.
Besides, morally, whom would they have Ryanair pay their taxes to when
there’s nothing like an airline for being multinational in both
location and customers?
You see, they just haven’t thought it out have they?

They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

So an Englishman, an Irishman and a Channel Islander on the same flight
will pay different fares because the airline has to pay different taxes on
each of them?
That would certainly mean that no-one who ever travels internationally or
buys things across national borders would ever vote for a party proposing
higher taxes.
Mark

They would only be able to vote in the country they live in.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:33:27 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:15:19 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster
They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

So an Englishman, an Irishman and a Channel Islander on the same flight
will pay different fares because the airline has to pay different taxes on
each of them?
That would certainly mean that no-one who ever travels internationally or
buys things across national borders would ever vote for a party proposing
higher taxes.

They would only be able to vote in the country they live in.

Indeed, and they'd all vote for low taxes in the country they live in. So
we'd all end up with taxes as low as in the Channel Islands.

Mark

[Edster]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:33:27 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:15:19 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster
They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

So an Englishman, an Irishman and a Channel Islander on the same flight
will pay different fares because the airline has to pay different taxes on
each of them?
That would certainly mean that no-one who ever travels internationally or
buys things across national borders would ever vote for a party proposing
higher taxes.

They would only be able to vote in the country they live in.

Indeed, and they'd all vote for low taxes in the country they live in. So
we'd all end up with taxes as low as in the Channel Islands.
Mark

Assuming they had a low tax party to vote for. Even then I would have
thought what services they intend to cut in order to provide these low
taxes would be important to all but the most gullible of voters.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:02:20 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:33:27 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:15:19 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster
They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

So an Englishman, an Irishman and a Channel Islander on the same flight
will pay different fares because the airline has to pay different taxes on
each of them?
That would certainly mean that no-one who ever travels internationally or
buys things across national borders would ever vote for a party proposing
higher taxes.

They would only be able to vote in the country they live in.

Indeed, and they'd all vote for low taxes in the country they live in. So
we'd all end up with taxes as low as in the Channel Islands.

Assuming they had a low tax party to vote for. Even then I would have
thought what services they intend to cut in order to provide these low
taxes would be important to all but the most gullible of voters.

If there are votes in it, then of course there will be a low tax party to
vote for. And the people who will vote for the low taxes won't care much
about what servies are cut. They'll simply claim (with some justification)
that it's unfair that they have to pay more for goods and services just
because they live in the UK.

Mark

[Edster]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:02:20 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:33:27 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:15:19 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster
They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

So an Englishman, an Irishman and a Channel Islander on the same flight
will pay different fares because the airline has to pay different taxes on
each of them?
That would certainly mean that no-one who ever travels internationally or
buys things across national borders would ever vote for a party proposing
higher taxes.

They would only be able to vote in the country they live in.

Indeed, and they'd all vote for low taxes in the country they live in. So
we'd all end up with taxes as low as in the Channel Islands.

Assuming they had a low tax party to vote for. Even then I would have
thought what services they intend to cut in order to provide these low
taxes would be important to all but the most gullible of voters.

If there are votes in it, then of course there will be a low tax party to
vote for. And the people who will vote for the low taxes won't care much
about what servies are cut. They'll simply claim (with some justification)
that it's unfair that they have to pay more for goods and services just
because they live in the UK.
Mark

They will when something they rely on is cut. There's only so far you
can penny pinch from the poor.

[Mark]

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:02:20 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:33:27 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster

Post by Mark Goodge
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:15:19 +0000, Edster put finger to keyboard and

Post by Edster
They should pay taxes based on where the customer is from.

So an Englishman, an Irishman and a Channel Islander on the same flight
will pay different fares because the airline has to pay different taxes on
each of them?
That would certainly mean that no-one who ever travels internationally or
buys things across national borders would ever vote for a party proposing
higher taxes.

They would only be able to vote in the country they live in.

Indeed, and they'd all vote for low taxes in the country they live in. So
we'd all end up with taxes as low as in the Channel Islands.

Assuming they had a low tax party to vote for. Even then I would have
thought what services they intend to cut in order to provide these low
taxes would be important to all but the most gullible of voters.

If there are votes in it, then of course there will be a low tax party to
vote for. And the people who will vote for the low taxes won't care much
about what servies are cut. They'll simply claim (with some justification)
that it's unfair that they have to pay more for goods and services just
because they live in the UK.

They will when something they rely on is cut. There's only so far you
can penny pinch from the poor.

I doubt the extremely rich would be users of the "services" that would
be cut so they won't care a damn. They can afford to pay for anything
they need anyway. Much like the Eton mess that is running our country
right now.

Look at the cuts here: State education, libraries, public sector jobs,
welfare, police, councils. None of which would really matter to the
likes of those parasites like P. Green.

[Edster]

Post by Cynic
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:19:06 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"

Post by Mentalguy2k8

Post by Cynic
Yes, it is silly. It is in fact just as silly as expecting companies
to pay more than they have to. By avoiding tobacco and booze tax
those people are avoiding paying their "fair share" just as much as
companies that use the rules to their advantage. IOW not at all.

Exactly, if we want companies to pay more taxes, then we have to change the
rules and tighten up the loopholes. I can't see anyone voluntarily paying an
extra £3bn in tax if they don't have to.
Nodody is arguing that these people aren't greedy, they're just taking
advantage of the current laws. It *does* seem unfair, and the amounts of tax
"avoided" are probably greater than the cuts to the welfare and eduction
budgets, but it's up to the Government to mend it. Trouble is, I don't
think any Government (Labour included) is going to start a fight with Big
Business. Maybe they're aware that these "loopholes" are what attracts huge
investment into British companies. And after all, it's not like they don't
pay *anything* in various taxes.

I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do not
have to pay. Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules. If you believe that they were
unintentional, you would also have to believe that the people who made
the rules were incredibly ignorant about the very subject that they
were meant to be experts in. In fact, of course, the rules are
usually designed to *deliberately* cause companies to behave in a
certain way in order to save tax.
Tell me, do you insist on sending the government 17.5% of the amount
you spend on zero-rated goods? If not, it means you are taking
advantage of a "loophole" in the VAT rules to get away with not paying
sales tax on certain products. You greedy person!

It shows that the rich will take care of themselves at the expense of
the poor.

[AlanG]

Post by Edster

Post by Cynic
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:19:06 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"

Post by Mentalguy2k8

Post by Cynic
Yes, it is silly. It is in fact just as silly as expecting companies
to pay more than they have to. By avoiding tobacco and booze tax
those people are avoiding paying their "fair share" just as much as
companies that use the rules to their advantage. IOW not at all.

Exactly, if we want companies to pay more taxes, then we have to change the
rules and tighten up the loopholes. I can't see anyone voluntarily paying an
extra £3bn in tax if they don't have to.
Nodody is arguing that these people aren't greedy, they're just taking
advantage of the current laws. It *does* seem unfair, and the amounts of tax
"avoided" are probably greater than the cuts to the welfare and eduction
budgets, but it's up to the Government to mend it. Trouble is, I don't
think any Government (Labour included) is going to start a fight with Big
Business. Maybe they're aware that these "loopholes" are what attracts huge
investment into British companies. And after all, it's not like they don't
pay *anything* in various taxes.

I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do not
have to pay. Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules. If you believe that they were
unintentional, you would also have to believe that the people who made
the rules were incredibly ignorant about the very subject that they
were meant to be experts in. In fact, of course, the rules are
usually designed to *deliberately* cause companies to behave in a
certain way in order to save tax.
Tell me, do you insist on sending the government 17.5% of the amount
you spend on zero-rated goods? If not, it means you are taking
advantage of a "loophole" in the VAT rules to get away with not paying
sales tax on certain products. You greedy person!

It shows that the rich will take care of themselves at the expense of
the poor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/08/social-status-empathy-philanthropy

"Why the rich are meaner than the poor

It may be startling to some that richer people are less generous – but
the statistic tallies with psychological research

So Messrs Maude, Hunt and Willetts think "it's startling that the
richest third of donors in Britain give less, as a proportion of their
income, to charity than the poorest third." I suppose the Tory doyens
have been a bit busy of late to be browsing the current psychology
journals, but had they done so, they might not have been quite so
surprised."

[allantracy]

It may be startling to some that richer people are less generous but
the statistic tallies with psychological research
So Messrs Maude, Hunt and Willetts think "it's startling that the
richest third of donors in Britain give less, as a proportion of their
income, to charity than the poorest third." I suppose the Tory doyens
have been a bit busy of late to be browsing the current psychology
journals, but had they done so, they might not have been quite so
surprised.

Oh here we go all Tories are bastards.

Well yes maybe they are but at least they're honest about it.

Whereas the left are even worse bastards because they're so f**king
self righteous and incompetent that they don't even realise they're
being bastards and that makes them downright dangerous.

[AlanG]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:25:38 -0800 (PST), allantracy

Post by allantracy

It may be startling to some that richer people are less generous but
the statistic tallies with psychological research
So Messrs Maude, Hunt and Willetts think "it's startling that the
richest third of donors in Britain give less, as a proportion of their
income, to charity than the poorest third." I suppose the Tory doyens
have been a bit busy of late to be browsing the current psychology
journals, but had they done so, they might not have been quite so
surprised.

Oh here we go all Tories are bastards.

That's mostly correct.
Some are complete bastards.
There are a couple who are quite likeable.

And some are completely stupid

Post by allantracy
Well yes maybe they are but at least they're honest about it.
Whereas the left are even worse bastards because they're so f**king
self righteous and incompetent that they don't even realise they're
being bastards and that makes them downright dangerous.

Indeed.

However the article is not about left and right if you had botherd to
read it but about rich and poor and their attitudes to charitable
giving

[Edster]

Post by allantracy

It may be startling to some that richer people are less generous but
the statistic tallies with psychological research
So Messrs Maude, Hunt and Willetts think "it's startling that the
richest third of donors in Britain give less, as a proportion of their
income, to charity than the poorest third." I suppose the Tory doyens
have been a bit busy of late to be browsing the current psychology
journals, but had they done so, they might not have been quite so
surprised.

Oh here we go all Tories are bastards.
Well yes maybe they are but at least they're honest about it.
Whereas the left are even worse bastards because they're so f**king
self righteous and incompetent that they don't even realise they're
being bastards and that makes them downright dangerous.

I don't know about you, but I would class policies that are going to
dramatically increase petty crime and then vastly reduce police and
prison budgets "dangerous".

[AlanG]

Post by Edster

Post by allantracy

It may be startling to some that richer people are less generous but
the statistic tallies with psychological research
So Messrs Maude, Hunt and Willetts think "it's startling that the
richest third of donors in Britain give less, as a proportion of their
income, to charity than the poorest third." I suppose the Tory doyens
have been a bit busy of late to be browsing the current psychology
journals, but had they done so, they might not have been quite so
surprised.

Oh here we go all Tories are bastards.
Well yes maybe they are but at least they're honest about it.
Whereas the left are even worse bastards because they're so f**king
self righteous and incompetent that they don't even realise they're
being bastards and that makes them downright dangerous.

I don't know about you, but I would class policies that are going to
dramatically increase petty crime and then vastly reduce police and
prison budgets "dangerous".

I have no objection to sacking all police and replacing them with a
local parish watch

[Mark]

Post by AlanG

Post by Edster

Post by allantracy

It may be startling to some that richer people are less generous but
the statistic tallies with psychological research
So Messrs Maude, Hunt and Willetts think "it's startling that the
richest third of donors in Britain give less, as a proportion of their
income, to charity than the poorest third." I suppose the Tory doyens
have been a bit busy of late to be browsing the current psychology
journals, but had they done so, they might not have been quite so
surprised.

Oh here we go all Tories are bastards.
Well yes maybe they are but at least they're honest about it.
Whereas the left are even worse bastards because they're so f**king
self righteous and incompetent that they don't even realise they're
being bastards and that makes them downright dangerous.

I don't know about you, but I would class policies that are going to
dramatically increase petty crime and then vastly reduce police and
prison budgets "dangerous".

I have no objection to sacking all police and replacing them with a
local parish watch

I do.

I have a vision of hordes of elderly ladies trying to chase a
shoplifter waving their walking sticks in the air.

[Joe Lee]

Post by Cynic
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:19:06 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"

Post by Mentalguy2k8

Post by Cynic
Yes, it is silly. It is in fact just as silly as expecting
companies to pay more than they have to. By avoiding tobacco and
booze tax those people are avoiding paying their "fair share" just
as much as companies that use the rules to their advantage. IOW
not at all.

Exactly, if we want companies to pay more taxes, then we have to
change the rules and tighten up the loopholes. I can't see anyone
voluntarily paying an extra £3bn in tax if they don't have to.
Nodody is arguing that these people aren't greedy, they're just
taking advantage of the current laws. It *does* seem unfair, and the
amounts of tax "avoided" are probably greater than the cuts to the
welfare and eduction budgets, but it's up to the Government to mend
it. Trouble is, I don't think any Government (Labour included) is
going to start a fight with Big Business. Maybe they're aware that
these "loopholes" are what attracts huge investment into British
companies. And after all, it's not like they don't pay *anything* in
various taxes.

I do not agree that it is greedy to avoid paying money that you do not
have to pay. Calling them "loopholes" infers that they are using
unintentional flaws in the rules. If you believe that they were
unintentional, you would also have to believe that the people who made
the rules were incredibly ignorant about the very subject that they
were meant to be experts in. In fact, of course, the rules are
usually designed to *deliberately* cause companies to behave in a
certain way in order to save tax.
Tell me, do you insist on sending the government 17.5% of the amount
you spend on zero-rated goods? If not, it means you are taking
advantage of a "loophole" in the VAT rules to get away with not paying
sales tax on certain products. You greedy person!

L have to admit that I never imagined that not paying VAT on zero-rated VAT
items is an example of defrauding the exchequer.

Does the same apply to VAT exempt items ... errm, using your example of what
constitutes Tax avoidance?

[Cynic]

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic
Tell me, do you insist on sending the government 17.5% of the amount
you spend on zero-rated goods? If not, it means you are taking
advantage of a "loophole" in the VAT rules to get away with not paying
sales tax on certain products. You greedy person!

L have to admit that I never imagined that not paying VAT on zero-rated VAT
items is an example of defrauding the exchequer.
Does the same apply to VAT exempt items ... errm, using your example of what
constitutes Tax avoidance?

My example illustrate that using the rules to avoid paying tax that
you don't have to pay is neither greedy nor is it defrauding the
exchequer.

[Joe Lee]

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic
Tell me, do you insist on sending the government 17.5% of the amount
you spend on zero-rated goods? If not, it means you are taking
advantage of a "loophole" in the VAT rules to get away with not
paying sales tax on certain products. You greedy person!

L have to admit that I never imagined that not paying VAT on
zero-rated VAT items is an example of defrauding the exchequer.
Does the same apply to VAT exempt items ... errm, using your example
of what constitutes Tax avoidance?

My example illustrate that using the rules to avoid paying tax that
you don't have to pay is neither greedy nor is it defrauding the
exchequer.

I feel sure your example would have been extremely useful & illustrative -
had you only been posting on uk.juvenile

[Cynic]

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic
Tell me, do you insist on sending the government 17.5% of the amount
you spend on zero-rated goods? If not, it means you are taking
advantage of a "loophole" in the VAT rules to get away with not
paying sales tax on certain products. You greedy person!

L have to admit that I never imagined that not paying VAT on
zero-rated VAT items is an example of defrauding the exchequer.
Does the same apply to VAT exempt items ... errm, using your example
of what constitutes Tax avoidance?

My example illustrate that using the rules to avoid paying tax that
you don't have to pay is neither greedy nor is it defrauding the
exchequer.

I feel sure your example would have been extremely useful & illustrative -
had you only been posting on uk.juvenile

Yes, the situation really is childishly simple. It is a pity that it
is still a bit above your level.

[Joe Lee]

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic
Tell me, do you insist on sending the government 17.5% of the
amount you spend on zero-rated goods? If not, it means you are
taking advantage of a "loophole" in the VAT rules to get away
with not paying sales tax on certain products. You greedy person!

L have to admit that I never imagined that not paying VAT on
zero-rated VAT items is an example of defrauding the exchequer.
Does the same apply to VAT exempt items ... errm, using your
example of what constitutes Tax avoidance?

My example illustrate that using the rules to avoid paying tax that
you don't have to pay is neither greedy nor is it defrauding the
exchequer.

I feel sure your example would have been extremely useful &
illustrative - had you only been posting on uk.juvenile

Yes, the situation really is childishly simple. It is a pity that it
is still a bit above your level.

Yes I think you've nailed it there Cynic.

That someone doesn't pay Tax on an item which isn't subject to Tax is an
excellent example of tax avoidance.

<shakes head & walks away whistling>

[Cynic]

Post by Joe Lee

Post by Cynic
Yes, the situation really is childishly simple. It is a pity that it
is still a bit above your level.

Yes I think you've nailed it there Cynic.
That someone doesn't pay Tax on an item which isn't subject to Tax is an
excellent example of tax avoidance.

You have it *almost* right.

That someone chooses to buy an item that is not subjected to tax in
preference to an item that *is* subjected to tax is an excellent
example of tax avoidance.

[Phister]

Unfortunately tax avoidance is only available to the rich and wealthy, who
can setup off shore bank accounts and ghost companies to shuffle money
around. The ordinary man is constrained by the PAYE scheme, brought in to
curtail any work expenses and deviation from income tax rules.

[Cynic]

Post by Phister
Unfortunately tax avoidance is only available to the rich and wealthy, who
can setup off shore bank accounts and ghost companies to shuffle money
around. The ordinary man is constrained by the PAYE scheme, brought in to
curtail any work expenses and deviation from income tax rules.

Rubbish.

There are plenty of things that the average employee could do to lower
the the amount of money they pay in taxes if they were to learn the
rules and make the effort. Obviously the less money you make the less
you can save, and so the effort of keeping records and learning the
ever-changing rules is not worth it if you do not stand to save even
as much as a three figure sum per year.

[allantracy]

Post by Cynic
I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.

Which is why such taxes shouldn’t even exist.

Simple single rates of taxation could dramatically reduce the cost of
those bodies empowered to collect taxes off us and the huge costs
incurred by businesses and individuals that have to pay them.

It’s an appalling level of waste and inefficiency burdened upon our
economy purely for the most cynical of political reasons.

Those cynical reasons being that politicians (inevitably Labour ones)
don’t want us to realise by just how much it is we’re being taxed,
which for most of us is nowadays well over two thirds of our income.

But, it was Brown that raised the whole thing to a new, never before,
devious level, the absolute f**kwitt worst of the lot, hundreds of
stealth taxes many costing far more to collect than they could ever
hope to raise in revenue.

It’s no wonder groups like the Tea Party (US) and the Taypayers
Alliance (UK) are emerging like never before.

Forget a few ragbag protestors, fresh from the student union bar,
Cameron knows and is already on record as stating that his greatest
worry in paying down this deficit is a taxpayers revolt not the
backlash from spending cuts.

Indeed, when have public sector spending cuts ever brought about a
response to compare with the 10p tax fiasco, the fuel duty protest or,
of course, the big one of poll tax riots.

Those were all about taxes not arse scratching civil servants losing
their non-jobs or students being made to faced up to economic reality.

Somehow, I don’t see students getting the sympathy vote, it’s not like
they’re the Ghurkhas, after all.

[Jethro]

Post by allantracy

Post by Cynic
I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.

Which is why such taxes shouldn’t even exist.
Simple single rates of taxation could dramatically reduce the cost of
those bodies empowered to collect taxes off us and the huge costs
incurred by businesses and individuals that have to pay them.
It’s an appalling level of waste and inefficiency burdened upon our
economy purely for the most cynical of political reasons.
Those cynical reasons being that politicians (inevitably Labour ones)
don’t want us to realise by just how much it is we’re being taxed,
which for most of us is nowadays well over two thirds of our income.

No. The reason these taxes are there (and high) is because the
*government* has decided they are "bad". It's the government
attempting to enforce *its'* morality on the populus.

[Cynic]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 01:09:25 -0800 (PST), Jethro

Post by Jethro
No. The reason these taxes are there (and high) is because the
*government* has decided they are "bad". It's the government
attempting to enforce *its'* morality on the populus.

Nope. It really is just about money. By making out that the
government is doing a morally good thing by imposing "sin taxes", it
avoids the riots that would undoubtedly take place if it were to, say,
impose supertax on baby food. The government will have carefully
calculated how much tax it can get away with before too many people
gave up smoking & boozing, or too much was lost via smuggling.

As it is, anyone who complains about being over-taxed can be told that
they should give up their unhealthy vices, and there is no good
counter to that one.

[Mark]

Post by Cynic
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 01:09:25 -0800 (PST), Jethro

Post by Jethro
No. The reason these taxes are there (and high) is because the
*government* has decided they are "bad". It's the government
attempting to enforce *its'* morality on the populus.

Nope. It really is just about money. By making out that the
government is doing a morally good thing by imposing "sin taxes", it
avoids the riots that would undoubtedly take place if it were to, say,
impose supertax on baby food. The government will have carefully
calculated how much tax it can get away with before too many people
gave up smoking & boozing, or too much was lost via smuggling.
As it is, anyone who complains about being over-taxed can be told that
they should give up their unhealthy vices, and there is no good
counter to that one.

So I should give up my unhealthy vice, called "Working"? Obviously
income tax is a "sin-tax" to discourage this ;-)

[allantracy]

Post by Cynic
As it is, anyone who complains about being over-taxed can be told that
they should give up their unhealthy vices, and there is no good
counter to that one.

How about mind your own business what we choose as a lifestyle?

[Theodore]

Post by Cynic

Post by Joe Lee
The group is campaigning against the estimated £25bn ,lost to the economy of
the country through tax avoidance by individuals & companies in the UK every
year.

Tax avoidance simply means arranging things so that you don't pay what
you don't have to pay. An extremely sensible policy, don't you think?
I know people who collectively cost the country even more in lost tax
by refusing to smoke tobacco or drink vast amounts of alcohol.
Would you want to campaign against those selfish people as well?

Absolutely. Why on earth should anyone pay any more tax than they have
too?

[Edster]

Post by Joe Lee
An interesting article in last Friday's Guardian regarding how the !UK
Uncut" protest group has grown virally through Twitter.
The group is campaigning against the estimated £25bn ,lost to the economy of
the country through tax avoidance by individuals & companies in the UK every
year.
Interesting to compare the £100bn lost every four years, with the
Governments planned savings of £81bn through of public spending cutbacks
during that time.
The Cameron Clegg partnership's mantra on the state of the economy & the
need for sweeping reduction in public services is "We're all in this
together", well not everyone apparently, eg. Their efficiency adviser Philip
Green.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/uk-uncut-protests-undercover-police
From the UK Uncut site;
http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets

There's also this one.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/contribute/the-artful-dodger

[harry]

Post by Joe Lee
An interesting article in last Friday's Guardian regarding how the !UK
Uncut" protest group has grown virally through Twitter.
The group is campaigning against the estimated 25bn ,lost to the economy of
the country through tax avoidance by individuals & companies in the UK every
year.
Interesting to compare the 100bn lost every four years, with the
Governments planned savings of 81bn through of public spending cutbacks
during that time.
The Cameron Clegg partnership's mantra on the state of the economy & the
need for sweeping reduction in public services is "We're all in this
together", well not everyone apparently, eg. Their efficiency adviser Philip
Green.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/uk-uncut-protests-undercover...
From the UK Uncut site;http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets
--
Joe Lee

So, why were there no pictures of these "undercover police"? Just
Bollocks.

[Edster]

Post by harry

Post by Joe Lee
An interesting article in last Friday's Guardian regarding how the !UK
Uncut" protest group has grown virally through Twitter.
The group is campaigning against the estimated 25bn ,lost to the economy of
the country through tax avoidance by individuals & companies in the UK every
year.
Interesting to compare the 100bn lost every four years, with the
Governments planned savings of 81bn through of public spending cutbacks
during that time.
The Cameron Clegg partnership's mantra on the state of the economy & the
need for sweeping reduction in public services is "We're all in this
together", well not everyone apparently, eg. Their efficiency adviser Philip
Green.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/uk-uncut-protests-undercover...
From the UK Uncut site;http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets
--
Joe Lee

So, why were there no pictures of these "undercover police"? Just
Bollocks.

There's photos of the infiltrators on fitwatch.