OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Ram59]

Understand your annoyance completely Ram59, but as your anecdote reveals you're not actually comparing 'like with like', you're comparing yourself with a skiver simply because you happen to inhabit the same environment on occasions. You - presumably - may not often share the same circles as the rich and famous, you may not be as familiar with their lifestyles but surely that is no excuse to ignore the swindlers amongst them who actually cost society far more than those regularly exposed in certain newspapers or programmes such as 'Benefits Street'. Think Triz is 100% right on this one.

I don't think it's a case of ignoring the bigger cases, which are constantly exposed in the papers I read. But you can't avoid it at the local level when it's thrown in your face all of the time, BTW he told us last night that he's off to book a holiday for April today, 'only Benidorm' in his words.

[ramAnag]

'Exposed' perhaps...but Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Trump, Cameron Snr, Michael Caine, Anne Robinson etc have all been linked with either tax evasion or avoidance and still seem to be flourishing...well obviously not in the flesh in the case of Cameron Snr, but still as far as finances are concerned.

[Ram59]

'Exposed' perhaps...but Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Trump, Cameron Snr, Michael Caine, Anne Robinson etc have all been linked with either tax evasion or avoidance and still seem to be flourishing...well obviously not in the flesh in the case of Cameron Snr, but still as far as finances are concerned.

Those mentioned have all been linked with tax avoidance and it's up to the powers to be to stop it. But before we get too moral over it, I think we all are guilty of tax avoidance on a much smaller scale, I'm sure everyone here has paid cash for a discount or maybe been paid cash in hand for a bit of work. So at what figure does it become wrong, £1000,£10000,£30000 or £30000.01?
These people or companies have all contributed either directly or indirectly far more money than I am ever likely to pay to the tax man. They've also avoided far more.

The big difference with the scroungers is that they have not and have no intention of contributing anything to society, they just take take.

[Andy_Faber]

Those mentioned have all been linked with tax avoidance and it's up to the powers to be to stop it. But before we get too moral over it, I think we all are guilty of tax avoidance on a much smaller scale, I'm sure everyone here has paid cash for a discount or maybe been paid cash in hand for a bit of work. So at what figure does it become wrong, £1000,£10000,£30000 or £30000.01?
These people or companies have all contributed either directly or indirectly far more money than I am ever likely to pay to the tax man. They've also avoided far more.

The big difference with the scroungers is that they have not and have no intention of contributing anything to society, they just take take.

100% agreed, that's what I was trying to say more scientifically/longwindedly earlier.

The personal morals of it are tricky, I won't have bootleg DVDs, CDs or clothing in the house but I'm always up for a cash deal with the local bricky - not easy is it!

[ramAnag]

Agreed...we're all guilty and personally I use Amazon far too much...but would you be after the 'cash deals' quite so much if you didn't think a precedent had been set, time and time again, by those who really don't have to 'look after the pennies' Andy?

[AdiSalisbury]

Could the EU not have been stronger in these issues? Ie. in simple terms pay what you owe or you'll be banned from trading with Europe?

[Ram59]

Our issue should be with the government for allowing these people or corporations or even us, to get away with it. We all agree that we're up for getting away with it if we can, if we were fortunate enough to be getting very large sums of money, you have to assume that we'd be doing the same avoidance tactics ourselves.

1 Point here, whilst these people or corporations are paying clever accountants to legally avoid paying tax, we all admit to illegally avoiding tax where we can, even if it's on a tiny scale, so who's more in the wrong, the people breaking the law or the people not breaking the law?

[roger_ramjet]

Is that really a question? If one legally seeks to minimise ones tax bill - which is not avoiding paying tax, but rather it is paying the correct amount of tax in the circumstances - how can that be as morally wrong as breaking the law. The tax advisor predominantly is there to make sure that you do not overpay your tax liability due to a lack of understanding of the rules and to help structure your affairs in a tax efficient manner within the rules..

Are you therefore also suggesting that it is as morally wrong to get an expert's help in buying a car at the best price as it is to simply go out and steal it?

[Ram59]

Is that really a question? If one legally seeks to minimise ones tax bill - which is not avoiding paying tax, but rather it is paying the correct amount of tax in the circumstances - how can tthat be as morally wrong as breaking the law. The tax advisor predominantly is there to make sure that you do not overpay your tax liability due to a lack of understanding of the rules and to help structure your affairs in a tax efficient manner within the rules..

Are you therefore also suggesting that it is as morally wrong to get an expert's help in buying a car at the best price as it is to simply go out and steal it?

Actually, I was suggesting the opposite. We are all moaning about people and corporations legally avoiding tax, but seem happy to evade tax and/or deal with these companies ourselves.

Having shown us to be not that different to the big corporations ourselves, except on a much smaller scale, what about the scroungers? Does anyone on here feel they have the right to never have to work for a living and to be able to live off the state for their whole life, bringing up as many children as they want?

[Andy_Faber]

Actually, I was suggesting the opposite. We are all moaning about people and corporations legally avoiding tax, but seem happy to evade tax and/or deal with these companies ourselves.

Having shown us to be not that different to the big corporations ourselves, except on a much smaller scale, what about the scroungers? Does anyone on here feel they have the right to never have to work for a living and to be able to live off the state for their whole life, bringing up as many children as they want?

Very good way of making a point, and personally 'work ethic' is as much part of my DNA as DCFC is, BUT ironically the scroungers are actually only acting inside the law themselves (apart from those also knicking the power tools out of my shed), making the very most of our apparently very generous welfare state. strange how a benefits loafer being able to afford a Spanish holiday turns my stomach but a businessman raking a few hundred k back in taxes doesn't.......

[ramAnag]

Our issue should be with the government for allowing these people or corporations or even us, to get away with it. We all agree that we're up for getting away with it if we can, if we were fortunate enough to be getting very large sums of money, you have to assume that we'd be doing the same avoidance tactics ourselves.

1 Point here, whilst these people or corporations are paying clever accountants to legally avoid paying tax, we all admit to illegally avoiding tax where we can, even if it's on a tiny scale, so who's more in the wrong, the people breaking the law or the people not breaking the law?

Not sure 'we all agree we're up for getting away with it if we can' Ram. We're all guilty of hypocrisy at times but if we all set out to get
away with things as much as we can that really would be the road to ruin.

Surely the point is...ordinary 'little' people are inclined to try and 'get away with it' because they see huge corporations and even the leader (Elect) of the 'free world' getting away with it time and again. Hearing of people 'getting away' with driving home after downing half a dozen pints doesn't make me want to drink and drive anymore than 'successful' bank robbers make me want to go and rob a bank but I'm afraid hearing of all the loopholes used to allow the already wealthy to avoid paying their fair share does make me sometimes ask...'any benefit for paying in cash'? Not sure if that's morally reprehensible or just 'worldly'.

[roger_ramjet]

Interesting news snippet on local radio in Surrey. People are to polled on whether they will accept a 15% increase in council tax to fund the social care budget in the county as there is a large shortfall on the budget (for 2017-118 I presume).

My answer would be to quote DCFC Army verbatim. **** Off.

But it makes you wonder about the "affluent south" argument. If Surrey, which is supposedly a well to do commuter county has no money for care, what must it be like elsewhere in the country? Or is Surrey like Florida - all the greys have fled here and so we need a higher care budget?

I blame the EU myself. Must be all those eastern Europeans heading for Surrey to milk the budget.

[ramAnag]

Interesting news snippet on local radio in Surrey. People are to polled on whether they will accept a 15% increase in council tax to fund the social care budget in the county as there is a large shortfall on the budget (for 2017-118 I presume).

My answer would be to quote DCFC Army verbatim. **** Off.

But it makes you wonder about the "affluent south" argument. If Surrey, which is supposedly a well to do commuter county has no money for care, what must it be like elsewhere in the country? Or is Surrey like Florida - all the greys have fled here and so we need a higher care budget?

I blame the EU myself. Must be all those eastern Europeans heading for Surrey to milk the budget.

15%!!!! Isn't that really a case of...'well we - the Government of now approaching seven years - have cut services to the bone so although we're against raising income tax - not the Tory way - we'll do it this way, abdicate all responsibility and set one section of society against another'? Or am I being too cynical? Maybe some of that £350,000,000 could be redirected to Surrey each week, though Christ knows how much they'll need in poorer parts of the country.

[roger_ramjet]

15%!!!! Isn't that really a case of...'well we - the Government of now approaching seven years - have cut services to the bone so although we're against raising income tax - not the Tory way - we'll do it this way, abdicate all responsibility and set one section of society against another'? Or am I being too cynical? Maybe some of that £350,000,000 could be redirected to Surrey each week, though Christ knows how much they'll need in poorer parts of the country.

The local authority seem to be suggesting that central government funding cuts have been so severe that they cannot afford to spend what they wish to. In fairness to central government, they would say that though, wouldn't they?

[ramAnag]

...and in fairness to local government...the funding cuts have been seriously severe. Maybe they should just bomb Crawley.