That's just a mindset of people in life full stop. Something for nothing, or a lot for not much. I sometimes have people coming into the computer shop I work in part time. I spend at least 30 minutes, perhaps more sometimes, advising them on what computer they need and why and explaining my advice. And sometimes they have the gall to say, "Why should I buy from you instead of just buying on the web?". The answer to which is because you wouldn't have had the web spending upwards of 30 minutes on helping you avoid the pitfalls of buying the wrong machine. People always want Gucci service for Primark money. They quite often want Gucci service for no money.
No, and fortunately Switzerland has a an agreement about this with the UK, so I can't be taxed twice. Well, not that widely accepted. If you look at death duties, tax has been paid during the life of the deceased person. The moment they die, the state thinks it is entitled to another cut. This seems quite unfair to me. Sure, there is a threshold before it kicks in, but it takes no consideration of the number of inheritors. They might not be inheriting very much individually.
But inherited wealth is the bane of socialism. How can we all be equal when a few of us are given castles and unit trusts?
And I believe that this is iniquitous, but the government was elected by a majority of the electorate - or at least more of the electorate than voted for anyone else. So you have to assume, once again, that the electorate likes to be shafted in this way or it wouldn't vote for people who are trying to fleece them whilst supporting the wealthy and powerful and enabling them to avoid contributing to the services they are only too happy to use. People bleat and moan continually about all sorts of things that require more money to put right, but they don't bleat and moan enough about some of the fairly simple ways of raising revenue that could start (at least) to deal with the problems. Britain likes to be "open for business" - a euphemistic way of saying that any money is good money, no matter what its provenance, and that if you're rich enough you won't have anything to fear from the taxman - you are our guest. Anyone can come to the UK if they have a £1m to invest in British business although it appears that this has been revised to £2m. Whatever, it's chicken feed for your average oligarch or sheik. No wonder London is their playground.
It's a good point and there can be a lot of discussion about it. If you're a socialist, you might have strong feelings about it. You may also have strong feelings about private education and private healthcare.
Being in favour of the provision of good education and healthcare to all free at point of use is not the same as wanting to ban private fee-paying education and healthcare altogether. But not wanting to ban it is not the same as favouring exempting those operations from taxes. My own view is that providing such services free to users can be charitable purposes, and should be tax-exempt on that basis - but providing services for a stiff fee is simply a business not a charity and should get no exemptions. Providing expensive services accessible only to the rich and not to the poor is the opposite of charity, as far as I can see.
Britain likes to be "open for business" - a euphemistic way of saying that any money is good money, no matter what its provenance, and that if you're rich enough you won't have anything to fear from the taxman - you are our guest. It's a view but take your adopted country of residence. Geneva has one of the highest movements of private jets in Europe. A large proportion of the flights originate outside Europe and from the places you pointedly use above. Also, there are a number of organisations there that pay no taxes including employees that are resident in Switzerland. Switzerland has a chequered history like every other country. All part of the reason it's not an EU member. Preferring to hide behind the pretext of neutrality.
I can’t see what Switzerland has got to do with it. Some members live in France some in Spain. Do you want to start threads bemoaning Francoism or the deportation of Jews in the 2nd World War? If so, fill yer boots. I’m sure you know how to start a thread.
You'd inferred London being attractive to oligarchs and sheikhs for tax mitigation reasons. It ain't unique in that respect and I gave another example. Also asked why Geneva feels it necessary to have a tax free status for certain entities? The thread is about tax avoidance - including state sponsored? Don't see a reason to go off in your suggested direction.
Yes. Switzerland could make significant improvements. The country being federal and each canton self-governing, the choices that Geneva makes are not necessarily applicable to all cantons. In particular, tax is a cantonal matter. The oligarchs and sheiks tend to visit Geneva to check on their wealth. They don't live there as a matter of course. Some of the Gulf people like to spend bits of the summer in Geneva is it is a lot cooler than the sandy places they call home.
In summary, London and Geneva are hot spots in relation to this thread. Also, there a valid reasons for both countries to exist outside the EU and very much part of Europe, not just geographically.
I disagree with the first sentence above; if it were the case then why bother writing tax laws at all, why write them just to provide a sneaky loophole. IMO tax laws are written to be as fair and equitable as possible but when it subsequently transpires there is a loophole then the law is amended to close that loophole. The loopholes that appear are unintended not created intentionally. With regards the 2nd sentence, yes, the same firms that advise the Govt when it comes to drafting tax legislation also devise tax avoidance strategies, however, unless you're doing something expressly provided for in tax law, eg pension contributions as a simple example, if you wish to partake in a tax avoidance scheme you have to run it past HMRC first of all. If you fail to do so you'll be in more trouble, if/when it's subsequently proven illegal, than you would otherwise have been, thus making it very difficult to access any perceived loophole these days, leaving only legitimate routes open.
Yes, in a democracy, taxation is for funding the society we want to live in, however, there will always be those who 'game' the system to reduce the amount of tax, in hard cash, they pay. The debate really, and this is where the thread came from originally, is whether or not it is wrong to use legitimate means to achieve a reduction in cash paid to the tax man. We seem to all be in agreement that it's OK for the average individual to reduce their tax liability and avoid paying tax but not for a corporation, or HNWs, that can avail of expensive (in accountant/legal fees) schemes & structures. Surely a mindset like this is being two faced. That's not an accusation that you're being two faced Loz, it's a statement that applies to anybody. If that is the case, how does one fix it then and make it more equitable or should that be make it more acceptable to the average person who can't afford to avail of expensive accountants/lawyers?
They also may be forced to sell the one thing they inherit e.g the family home/farm/business - add what you want - in order to meet the tax bill. A thing of sentimental value they wish to hold onto. Death duties, an inequitable tax IMO. For the record, I don't have a castle or a large estate which I'm likely to inherit. My parents are both still alive but when they pass I know there won't be enough to exceed the threshold. However, I have witnessed situations where a deceased's estate has had to be broken up and sold off to pay the tax bill thus preventing the beneficiaries from retaining something that had been in the family, and built up by the family, over several generations. It's sad.
I don't think anyone will argue against "legitimate" means of reducing tax liability. The difficulty comes when determining what is legitimate. Legitimate deductions, for me, are available to any taxpayer in the same position as another and which do not create an un-level playing field in the business world. It's possible that what I am looking for is impossible or impractical. It's possible that a simplified tax system, which does not allow for complicated avoidance schemes, could spell the end of large business in the UK as these businesses will not find UK investment to be to their taste. Would that be the end of the World, though? Small businesses spring up to fill in the gaps, produce local, buy local becomes more common-place ... we'd all be poor but perhaps we would all be better off in other ways. I'm spit-balling now, getting off track. It's possible that we as a society are incapable of creating a tax regime that does not favour the largest national and international firms over the smaller businesses. I'd like to see some effort to make things fairer, both in terms of small business competitiveness and a more reasonable result regarding tax paid in the UK by the big multi-nationals but maybe that is pie in the sky. It might be easier for ordinary people to make different decisions about who they buy goods and services from. There's a lot to be said for buying local.
I've often wondered why, if we want a fairer tax regime, progressive rates of personal income taxation exist? Surely the very fact one loses a higher % of one's income the more one earns is an incentive in it's own right to find ways around the system. It's almost as if the State has decided, unilaterally, how much we each need and thus takes a bigger proportion of the rest. Why not have a simple flat rate of income tax? I haven't crunched the numbers but surely it's possible to arrive at a deal that has a starting threshold of 0% thus aiding those on low incomes and then a flat rate of XX% on everything afterwards? Just, for the sake of argument, say it's £20k and then 33% on everything above that, there's no disincentive for people to earn/declare more as they know they will always get to keep 2/3rds. However, people aren't as transient as the HQs of corporations can be, so although corporation taxes are already flat, there would have to be uniformity globally - well at least in all English speaking western nations - for it to work, but we'll never get everyone to toe the line.
There is no intrinsically moral justification for higher tax rates for higher incomes. The principle of, The more you earn, the more you pay is satisfied by a flat rate of tax. The existence of progressive rates of tax is predicated upon the instinct amongst leftists to "re-distribute wealth", aka the politics of envy. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...
I am a PAYE earner and would love some legal scheme to avoid paying the huge amount of tax i am paying... Being an employee.. gives me no ability do avoid paying any tax or getting other benefits that being self employed does.. I conciously move as much into my pension as I can to minimise my tax burden and the stealth 60% tax when your 0% tax rate is erroded... I fill in self assessments, constantly keep my income updated with tax office and I still get underpayment demands at the end of the year. So I agree... a simpler 1 rate system would be better.. with a fixed 0% allowance of x amount for everyone.. When you see your annual bonus being effectively taken away from you... or at least reduced and your left with just 30% of the original amount... I feel like the tax man is Dick Turpin and I would happily welcome some ideas on tax avoidance.. LEGAL... This does not motivate me to earn more... work harder... contribute to society more... but leaves me feeling abused and shafted.. That's my 2 cents..
If only. You have here set out the starry-eyed naive Panglossian view, presumably for purposes of comparison. Sadly the real world is not so perfect!
