DarloRich
Veteran Member
and yet the coterie of idiots surrounding Corbyn is chock full of family connection beneficiaries!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The 2019 General Election - Campaign Debate and Discussion
- Thread starter KashmireHawker
- Start date
- Status
and yet the coterie of idiots surrounding Corbyn is chock full of family connection beneficiaries!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
edwin_m
Veteran Member
There's an argument to say that people who find loopholes in our complex tax system (avoidance) are more of a problem than those who break the rules outright (evasion). HMRC has to spend a lot of time and money closing those loopholes or arguing that they aren't legal, thus turning avoidance into evasion.
This isn't a dig at people taking out ISAs - clearly the governments that have introduced those and increased the entitlement believed they are the right thing to do, and they are fulfilling their stated purpose. It's more when there is an unintended consequence.
In no sense can taking out an ISA be considered tax avoidance. It is availing yourself of an incentive to save which has been specifically and explicitly designed for that purpose. It is only when you cross the line into abusing reliefs in ways they aren’t intended to be used that it becomes avoidance. However avoidance is not illegal and good luck coming up with a watertight definition of “fair share” when it comes to tax matters
Didn't Farage create a stink when a previous USA President (Obama) commented on UK affairs? Funny old world.
In no sense can taking out an ISA be considered tax avoidance. It is availing yourself of an incentive to save which has been specifically and explicitly designed for that purpose. It is only when you cross the line into abusing reliefs in ways they aren’t intended to be used that it becomes avoidance. However avoidance is not illegal and good luck coming up with a watertight definition of “fair share” when it comes to tax matters
Of course it’s tax avoidance. It’s avoiding the tax that would otherwise be paid if you kept the money in a normal savings account. Tax avoidance is just that, avoiding tax. Intent doesn’t come into it.
What muddies the waters are things like the General Anti-Abuse Rule that do add this subjective measure of intent so that HMRC can decide that an action was solely taken to avoid tax and thus is ‘abusive’ tax avoidance.
In that case you are working to a different definition of avoidance than HMRC. Opening an ISA is using the system exactly as Parliament designed it. No different than in railway terms to buying a railcard to “avoid” the full train fare (for example a Two Together when you’re travelling with someone else). The official government definition is as follows and intent does matter.
“[URL said:
A good example of avoidance in recent years is what became known as the Debenhams card handling case. This is where most major retailers placed notices next to their tills stating that if customers paid by debit or credit card, as opposed to cash, the overall price was the same but 2.5% of the transaction value represented a handling fee paid to the retailer’s in-house card handling subsidiary. In reality since financial services are outside the scope of VAT this was a wheeze for the retailer to avoid paying VAT on the full sales price, despite pocketing that full sales price from the customer. It went through many layers of appeal but eventually the taxman won their case.
Last edited:
Latest HMRC estimate of the tax gap is £35bn. This is defined as the difference between what should be collected and what actually is. Of this, £1.8bn is avoidance and £5.3bn is evasion. The other categories include failure to take reasonable care, differences in legal interpretation, error, and non-payment etc. Full breakdown available at the link below.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps
Latest DWP estimate of benefit fraud and error overpayments is £4.1bn. The detailed stats at the link below break this down by claimant fraud, claimant error and DWP error. Whilst lower than tax evasion, the fraud element is the highest it's been since they started measuring it.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...-system-financial-year-2018-to-2019-estimates
DarloRich
Veteran Member
that is exactly what it is! Although it is tax avoidance available to the little people ( or at least the middle people) so we turn a blind eye!
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
I see Jeremy Corbyn has promised to remove hospital parking fees. This may seem laudable but will encourage car use and remove a revenue source for the NHS and would seem to go in the opposite direction of net zero carbon and climate change emergency and encouraging public transport.
I respect your right to regard it as such from a moral point of view, but the key ingredient in the official definition is the notion of bending the rules to gain an UNINTENDED advantage. Parliament is quite entitled to set tax rules to encourage certain behaviours (e.g. saving) and by taking out an ISA the advantage you are gaining is INTENDED. This is what differentiates it from the Debenhams example I gave (which hopefully illustrates contrived transactions i.e. the 2.5% internal handling fee).
Compliance with both spirit and letter of law = ok
Compliance with letter but not spirit = avoidance
Not compliant with either letter or spirit = evasion
Any future government is quite at liberty to remove tax reliefs and concessions if it so wishes
I can't think of a railway equivalent for avoidance as distinct from evasion
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I don't disagree actually. The Government have designed this product to be "tax efficient" to drive certain behaviours and that is entirely acceptable. If they think they are loosing out on too much income they will reduce or remove the incentive.
It is no different to setting your will & affairs up properly. That is tax avoidance but again we decide that is acceptable.
First get the public transport links to the hospital right. Here in York they are limited, slow, and unreliable, and many people have no option but to travel in by car (which they then, of course, need to park). Taxis are no alternative. The three-quarters of a mile between where I live and the hospital routinely costs between £6 and £7 (despite the "on-line cost recckoner" coming up with a figure of under £4!).
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I note serial Westminster electoral failure Nigel Farage will not stand as a candidate in the forthcoming election.
Such a snowflake
Such a snowflake
NoMorePacers
Established Member
So much for being the 'man of the people' he makes himself out to be...
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
I have no idea but one thing is certain, the lost revenue will have to be replaced by increased taxation or other services reduced.
There is no magic money tree for any political party.
He probably wants to continue doing his LBC radio show. He would have to stop doing it during the campaign if he stands. However, his mere presence on the radio is a party political broadcast even if he stays within the rules.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Indeed. Words fail me at time. I am tempted to use the word tosser but don’t want to get banned by the mods!
Butts
Veteran Member
Never mind outside the UK, Scotland and Wales already have free parking at NHS Hospitals within it's borders.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,181
Election rules avoidance?
I was aware of that, hence the phrasing of the question. I've looked at a few hospitals in countries with superior public transport systems and they do seem to charge a lot for parking. Wales and Scotland seem to be the exceptions.
There are strict rules on broadcasting impartiality from Tuesday and he will have to hold his tongue to an extent, but clearly everyone knows who he is.
Then you'll be pleased to know you're incorrect. His radio show has already been pulled until after the election.
thenorthern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 May 2013
- Messages
- 4,119
LBC schedule says Nigel Farage will not be on all next week so I think Nigel Farage will be off air for the duration of the campaign as even if he is not standing the fact that he is taking a big part in the campaign for the Brexit party will break impartiality rules.
What will be interesting is long time Labour party seats such as those in Sunderland and Stoke-on-Trent are now vulnerable to the Conservative Party/Brexit Party at this election as Labour supporting a second referendum won't go down well with these areas which voted to leave the EU in relatively large numbers. In these areas we could start seeing politicians promising shiny new things to try and get votes.
What will be interesting is long time Labour party seats such as those in Sunderland and Stoke-on-Trent are now vulnerable to the Conservative Party/Brexit Party at this election as Labour supporting a second referendum won't go down well with these areas which voted to leave the EU in relatively large numbers. In these areas we could start seeing politicians promising shiny new things to try and get votes.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,181
If it were pulled for good I'd be skipping. Mind you, leavers will probably feel the same about James O'Brien! But one is a pseudo-politician about to lose his gravy train, pig's trough and raison d'etre in the new year.
That's the one silver lining about Brexit, unless Farage's new campaign will be to remove the UK (or what's left of the UK) out of the WTO; what, all those unelected undemocratic bureaucrats??
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,181
Sounds like there will be an opposition pact between Greens/LD's and others (notably Grieve) not to stand and split the vote.
Someone (not on here I don't think!) laughed in my face about voters voting tactically! It's already started, and I'm still voting for the coalition of chaos in the hope that seven months down the line Britain finally comes to it's senses and votes to scrap Brexit - or at very least whoever's the PM can negotiate a Norway +++ deal.
Which was what Farage wanted right at the start....
deltic
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 3,224
Based on the average of the last 8 polls the Tories are looking at a majority of a 100+ - its going to take some massive shift by Labour's famous electioneering machine or for the Brexit Party to make serious inroads into the Tory vote to prevent a Boris win.
The average of the 8 polls has
Con 39% Lab 27% Lib Dem 16% Brexit Party 10% Green 3%
Scotland and Northern Ireland excluded as usual
The average of the 8 polls has
Con 39% Lab 27% Lib Dem 16% Brexit Party 10% Green 3%
Scotland and Northern Ireland excluded as usual
You confuse legitimate tax planning with tax avoidance. Tax planning as in an IS A is arranging your affairs in line with the way the laws was intended. Avoidance is taking advantage of loopholes is unintended consequences of the legislation. Evasion is failing to pay the tax due.
There needs to be a pact between them and Labour to make a real difference.
- Status