PDA

View Full Version : Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?



speling bee
21st November 2012, 09:48
Did anybody else see the interview? I think it was Ian Davidson. He basically said that whilst the Rangers case was perfectly legal it was immoral.

So even when a Tax Tribunal says its legal these MPs still bang on the drum of moral high ground.

That's what we are up against !


Indeed. But the law was not changed retrospectively for them.

Lucozade and Brillo, what I don't get in all of this is:

You seem to say that it doesn't matter whether your tax arrangements were immoral, as long as they were legal.

Then, when retrospective legislation is introduced to correct this perceived moral outrage, you seem to object that the retrospective nature of this legislation is immoral, even if it is legal.

I am not, for once, trying to cause trouble. But why would my MP want to help you out when you present a moral argument, when your base position is that morality doesn't matter, just the law?

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 09:53
...

Would you kindly delete your post as it removes the flow of the thread? And repost in general.

I will happily respond - you make some good points and I would like to answer them.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 09:58
Would you kindly delete your post as it removes the flow of the thread? And repost in general.

I will happily respond - you make some good points and I would like to answer them.

I see.

TalkingCheese
21st November 2012, 10:08
Lucozade and Brillo, what I don't get in all of this is:

You seem to say that it doesn't matter whether your tax arrangements were immoral, as long as they were legal.

Then, when retrospective legislation is introduced to correct this perceived moral outrage, you seem to object that the retrospective nature of this legislation is immoral, even if it is legal.

I am not, for once, trying to cause trouble. But why would my MP want to help you out when you present a moral argument, when your base position is that morality doesn't matter, just the law?

SB - the crux of our argument isnt about morality... that is part of the governments justification. It is a distraction. The crux is that the government have protocols to follow before introducing retro legislation. They didnt follow them. As well as that:
- There was 1 months warning that the law would be changed retrospectively, to the tune of 21 years
- There was less than 1 years notice that HMRC didnt accept the arrangement. Prior to that they had accepted claims with and without enquiry leading to the expectation that all was well, and this was with full disclosure for the 7 years the arrangement was used.

Mildly irritating to be given an unexpected bankrupting bill on that basis.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 10:12
SB - the crux of our argument isnt about morality... that is part of the governments justification. It is a distraction. The crux is that the government have protocols to follow before introducing retro legislation. They didnt follow them. As well as that:
- There was 1 months warning that the law would be changed retrospectively, to the tune of 21 years
- There was less than 1 years notice that HMRC didnt accept the arrangement. Prior to that they had accepted claims with and without enquiry leading to the expectation that all was well, and this was with full disclosure for the 7 years the arrangement was used.

Mildly irritating to be given an unexpected bankrupting bill on that basis.

OK. But Parliament passes legislation, even if government introduces it, and Parliament is sovereign in this regard.

Has government or Parliament behaved illegally - I hadn't picke up on the protocols to follow? If so, I am immediately somewhat more sympathetic.

lucozade
21st November 2012, 10:33
OK. But Parliament passes legislation, even if government introduces it, and Parliament is sovereign in this regard.

Has government or Parliament behaved illegally - I hadn't picke up on the protocols to follow? If so, I am immediately somewhat more sympathetic.

Some would say that the retrospective legislation was introduced by illegal means, i.e. by misleading parliament. Protocols were not followed and as others have said no warnings were given. In fact HMRC couldn't give warnings because it was a perfectly legal scheme to use. Instead of giving some test cases time of day at a Tax Tribunal, which was initially promised, HMRC went for retrospective law changes. They knew they wouldn't win!

It's easier to defend HMRC when your not sitting with a £120,000 tax bill for working within the law. But a bitter pill to swallow surely if you can see that 3000 families are potentially going to be ruined whilst Amazon, Google, Facebook and Starbucks can continue to operate within their perfectly legal tax schemes without fear.

Big companies don't lie awake at night wondering how they are ever going to pay the big bill. I on the other hand do and the worry and stress this has caused me since 2008 has only made me stronger to fight it to the bitter end.

Retrospective taxation is unjust and has no place in a democratic society.

Put it another way - what's next for HMRC? Will it be you next or do you think you operate within the law? Do you think it's acceptable to change the speed limit on a road from 30 to 20mph and then, without warning, retrospectively fine all road users for going over 20mph?

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 10:53
Sorry about that

max
21st November 2012, 11:11
Mildly irritating to be given an unexpected bankrupting bill on that basis.

It was also mildly irritating over the years trying to get small(inflation) increments in daily rates, only to be turned down due to another contractor happy not to raise their rate...due to only paying 4% tax.

It was one thing to have jobs moving offshore, but to have "brothers in arms" undercutting rates!

speling bee
21st November 2012, 11:16
Some would say that the retrospective legislation was introduced by illegal means, i.e. by misleading parliament. Protocols were not followed and as others have said no warnings were given. In fact HMRC couldn't give warnings because it was a perfectly legal scheme to use. Instead of giving some test cases time of day at a Tax Tribunal, which was initially promised, HMRC went for retrospective law changes. They knew they wouldn't win!

It's easier to defend HMRC when your not sitting with a £120,000 tax bill for working within the law. But a bitter pill to swallow surely if you can see that 3000 families are potentially going to be ruined whilst Amazon, Google, Facebook and Starbucks can continue to operate within their perfectly legal tax schemes without fear.

Big companies don't lie awake at night wondering how they are ever going to pay the big bill. I on the other hand do and the worry and stress this has caused me since 2008 has only made me stronger to fight it to the bitter end.

Retrospective taxation is unjust and has no place in a democratic society.

Put it another way - what's next for HMRC? Will it be you next or do you think you operate within the law? Do you think it's acceptable to change the speed limit on a road from 30 to 20mph and then, without warning, retrospectively fine all road users for going over 20mph?

I think the crux of your argument is that retrospective taxation is unjust. I am brought back into this by claims that A.N. Other poster paid 3% tax. Which some might think to be unjust. But 'unjust' is not much different from 'immoral' in the sense that you're using it.

So I am interested in whether the retrospective legislation is legal. You seem to be suggesting that this particular piece of legislation may be illegal, and if that is the case, then I am considerably more sympathetic (although I'm not sure how legislation can be illegal in a country without a constitution - something to do wuth human rights at a European level?), as opposed to if it hust a view that such legislation is immoral or unjust.

The general queston on retrospective legislation is interesting. I wouldn't favour retrospective legislation on speed limits. I don't favour all legisltation so I don't favour all retrospective legislation. But that doens't mean that retrospective legislation is always wrong, and I can't make my mind up on this one.

vetran
21st November 2012, 12:11
Retrospective legislation is only valid where it was obvious you were breaking the law and are exploiting a loophole not Government advice. They weren't they were obeying, the government has changed their mind.

If the current government advice is "X is allowed" and you do X then despite morality in a civilised country then you can expect that during that period you are obeying the law. Decisions made based on that law are valid and arranging your affairs to take advantage of that should be final.

If the Advice changes to "Only Y is allowed" and you continue to do X then its reasonable so suppose you are not obeying the law. If you do Y going forward you X days are perfectly valid.

If they change the law and say "you know when we said X was OK we were lying and you have to behave as if we meant Y" then they are now on a very sticky wicket. I look forward to them losing.


For example if they now prosecuted an off licence who sold me a bottle of whisky when I was 18 (which was nearly 30 years ago), because the off licence can only sell me whisky if I'm 21 nowadays it would be seen as ridiculous. The damages or morality of selling alcohol are irrelevant.

Just because its only money and the resulting victims can't afford expensive lawyers doesn't mean we can ignore the law.

I imagine once they sort out transfer pricing and royalty abuse if they try to apply it retrospectively they will be given short shrift. If however they find an existing piece of law and apply it retrospectively they MAY get away with it.

TalkingCheese
21st November 2012, 12:12
It was also mildly irritating over the years trying to get small(inflation) increments in daily rates, only to be turned down due to another contractor happy not to raise their rate...due to only paying 4% tax.

It was one thing to have jobs moving offshore, but to have "brothers in arms" undercutting rates!

I dont know any contractor that is "happy not to raise their rate".

I understand your irritation. One legal argument boils down to proportionality. Is it proportionate to bankrupt anyone to satisfy the mild irritation that you talk of ? I used "mild irritation" sarcastically. Yours is a mild irritation and will not cause you and your family to be financially ruined.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 12:21
Retrospective legislation is only valid where it was obvious you were breaking the law and are exploiting a loophole not Government advice. They weren't they were obeying, the government has changed their mind.

If the current government advice is "X is allowed" and you do X then despite morality in a civilised country then you can expect that during that period you are obeying the law. Decisions made based on that law are valid and arranging your affairs to take advantage of that should be final.

If the Advice changes to "Only Y is allowed" and you continue to do X then its reasonable so suppose you are not obeying the law. If you do Y going forward you X days are perfectly valid.

If they change the law and say "you know when we said X was OK we were lying and you have to behave as if we meant Y" then they are now on a very sticky wicket. I look forward to them losing.


For example if they now prosecuted an off licence who sold me a bottle of whisky when I was 18 (which was nearly 30 years ago), because the off licence can only sell me whisky if I'm 21 nowadays it would be seen as ridiculous. The damages or morality of selling alcohol are irrelevant.

Just because its only money and the resulting victims can't afford expensive lawyers doesn't mean we can ignore the law.

I imagine once they sort out transfer pricing and royalty abuse if they try to apply it retrospectively they will be given short shrift. If however they find an existing piece of law and apply it retrospectively they MAY get away with it.

Legally valid or morally valid?

normalbloke
21st November 2012, 12:23
It was also mildly irritating over the years trying to get small(inflation) increments in daily rates, only to be turned down due to another contractor happy not to raise their rate...due to only paying 4% tax.

It was one thing to have jobs moving offshore, but to have "brothers in arms" undercutting rates!

No more irritating than competing with other contractors that have less expenditure ( e.g. by living local to the contract or having no mortgage) and thereby happier to work at a lower rate.

Robinho
21st November 2012, 12:31
Tax is immoral full stop.

Justified to an extent, but always immoral.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 12:45
Tax is immoral full stop.

Justified to an extent, but always immoral.

Morally justified?

Robinho
21st November 2012, 13:01
Immorally justifiable!

speling bee
21st November 2012, 13:04
Immorally justifiable!

Genius-boy strikes again.

fullyautomatix
21st November 2012, 13:05
Some would say that the retrospective legislation was introduced by illegal means, i.e. by misleading parliament. Protocols were not followed and as others have said no warnings were given. In fact HMRC couldn't give warnings because it was a perfectly legal scheme to use. Instead of giving some test cases time of day at a Tax Tribunal, which was initially promised, HMRC went for retrospective law changes. They knew they wouldn't win!

It's easier to defend HMRC when your not sitting with a £120,000 tax bill for working within the law. But a bitter pill to swallow surely if you can see that 3000 families are potentially going to be ruined whilst Amazon, Google, Facebook and Starbucks can continue to operate within their perfectly legal tax schemes without fear.

Big companies don't lie awake at night wondering how they are ever going to pay the big bill. I on the other hand do and the worry and stress this has caused me since 2008 has only made me stronger to fight it to the bitter end.

Retrospective taxation is unjust and has no place in a democratic society.

Put it another way - what's next for HMRC? Will it be you next or do you think you operate within the law? Do you think it's acceptable to change the speed limit on a road from 30 to 20mph and then, without warning, retrospectively fine all road users for going over 20mph?

Stop spouting rubbish. 2% tax on a 120K earning is legal ? You lot should be imprisoned for behaving in such a way. Pay the correct amount of tax and stop being greedy and the govt wont have to introduce retro laws.

TalkingCheese
21st November 2012, 13:10
Stop spouting rubbish. 2% tax on a 120K earning is legal ? You lot should be imprisoned for behaving in such a way. Pay the correct amount of tax and stop being greedy and the govt wont have to introduce retro laws.

So many inaccuracies. Ignorance is no excuse.

escapeUK
21st November 2012, 13:11
Yours is a mild irritation and will not cause you and your family to be financially ruined.

If the state wants to ruin your family as you put it,then I suggest you up sticks and prevent them. There are no prizes for living under an evil regime as the jews found out.

Robinho
21st November 2012, 13:13
Genius-boy strikes again.

Thanks

Robinho
21st November 2012, 13:14
Seems a fitting time to push forward the Land Value Tax again.

Hopefully people are coming round to the genium of such a system.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 13:18
Lucozade and Brillo, what I don't get in all of this is:

You seem to say that it doesn't matter whether your tax arrangements were immoral, as long as they were legal.

Then, when retrospective legislation is introduced to correct this perceived moral outrage, you seem to object that the retrospective nature of this legislation is immoral, even if it is legal.

I am not, for once, trying to cause trouble. But why would my MP want to help you out when you present a moral argument, when your base position is that morality doesn't matter, just the law?

When I got divorced I had to suffer the law even though it was completely immoral.

It is the duty of every citizen to arrange their tax affairs so that they pay the least tax. In effect, avoidance is a duty.

Retrospective legislation is only legal in a handful of countries in the world. Parliament was misled by HMRC. You should be directing any ire at HMRC. They are the ones who are immoral.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 13:25
Some would say that the retrospective legislation was introduced by illegal means, i.e. by misleading parliament. Protocols were not followed and as others have said no warnings were given. In fact HMRC couldn't give warnings because it was a perfectly legal scheme to use. Instead of giving some test cases time of day at a Tax Tribunal, which was initially promised, HMRC went for retrospective law changes. They knew they wouldn't win!

It's easier to defend HMRC when your not sitting with a £120,000 tax bill for working within the law. But a bitter pill to swallow surely if you can see that 3000 families are potentially going to be ruined whilst Amazon, Google, Facebook and Starbucks can continue to operate within their perfectly legal tax schemes without fear.

Big companies don't lie awake at night wondering how they are ever going to pay the big bill. I on the other hand do and the worry and stress this has caused me since 2008 has only made me stronger to fight it to the bitter end.

Retrospective taxation is unjust and has no place in a democratic society.


Various governments have brought in windfall taxes before on large companies. They are essentially retrospective in thie nature as they are based on past profits.

But I think you are probably right about Starbucks etc. I doubt they will be caught retrospectively, even though it would be good IMO to see a windfall tax based on retrospective 'deemed profits'. But there is nothing illegal about you being caught and them not being caught. The diffence is a moral one - about fairness.

I was thinking about this all after a chat to a friend the other day. He is being made redundant from his voluntary sector, public sector funded job. He works with people with learning disabilities and/or mental health problems on wages that none of us would get out of bed for - and he's never complained about it because that is his choice. But cuts have to be made and he finds himself on the end of it and is unsure how he will pay his mortgage, although he's the kind of guy who will find work if there is work to be had. I can't help wondering why he should lose his job and house due to the public debt, while those who found a way to pay miniscule tax get away with it. Peehaps I'm being unfair.

But if the retrospective legislation is illegal - as has been suggested although I'm not quite clear how - then I do think it should be strenuously resisted.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 13:27
When I got divorced I had to suffer the law even though it was completely immoral.

It is the duty of every citizen to arrange their tax affairs so that they pay the least tax. In effect, avoidance is a duty.

Retrospective legislation is only legal in a handful of countries in the world. Parliament was misled by HMRC. You should be directing any ire at HMRC. They are the ones who are immoral.

Don't you start trying to be civil now.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 13:27
Seems a fitting time to push forward the Land Value Tax again.

Hopefully people are coming round to the genium of such a system.

I'm largely in favour of it. If only you could explain it!

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 13:29
Don't you start trying to be civil now.

Cretin. HTH. BIDI.

Robinho
21st November 2012, 13:37
I'm largely in favour of it. If only you could explain it!

I have explained it! :smokin

It doesn't really need much explanation it's so fooking simple - the clue's in the name. Even SAS probably understands it.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 13:39
I have explained it! :smokin

It doesn't really need much explanation it's so fooking simple - the clue's in the name. Even SAS probably understands it.

Not as simple as you.

Robinho
21st November 2012, 13:40
Oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh!

speling bee
21st November 2012, 13:41
Oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh!

At least you understood that. :p

lucozade
21st November 2012, 13:55
'Speling bee' you seriously need to adjust your attitude when talking on public forums.

Perhaps open your mind to the possibility that your beloved HMRC misled your beloved Government into introducing retrospective legislation on 3000 families which has the potential of making them all bankrupt.

Your no more than the typical "joe bloggs" on the street that thinks it's easy pickings to have a pop at those whom are currently in a very serious predicament EVEN although they operated within the law at the time. THINK ABOUT IT!

In fact your no different to the tons of people that stated some extreme punishment for Rangers Football Club even before the Tax Tribunal had been decided.

The 3000 families are not just fighting for our livelihoods we are fighting against the actual principal of using retrospective legislation. YOU COULD BE NEXT!

HMRC lied and has continued to lie about this sorry affair.

Do your research before openning your gob, picking a stupid fight and spouting crap.

fullyautomatix
21st November 2012, 13:59
'Speling bee' you seriously need to adjust your attitude when talking on public forums.

Perhaps open your mind to the possibility that your beloved HMRC misled your beloved Government into introducing retrospective legislation on 3000 families which has the potential of making them all bankrupt.

Your no more than the typical "joe bloggs" on the street that thinks it's easy pickings to have a pop at those whom are currently in a very serious predicament EVEN although they operated within the law at the time. THINK ABOUT IT!

In fact your no different to the tons of people that stated some extreme punishment for Rangers Football Club even before the Tax Tribunal had been decided.

The 3000 families are not just fighting for our livelihoods we are fighting against the actual principal of using retrospective legislation. YOU COULD BE NEXT!

HMRC lied and has continued to lie about this sorry affair.

Do your research before openning your gob, picking a stupid fight and spouting crap.


Lucozade I have no sympathy for you and if the govt finds you guilty and make you bankrupt so be it. You forget that there are thousands of honest contractors on here like me who pay our taxes at the top rate just so that I can sleep easy at night knowing that the HMRC wont ever introduce any retro law on to me. What did you expect when you paid 3% tax on your 100K earnings? You were stupid and you were caught out and now pay up and stop the red herring of moral/immoral values.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:00
'Speling bee' you seriously need to adjust your attitude when talking on public forums.

Perhaps open your mind to the possibility that your beloved HMRC misled your beloved Government into introducing retrospective legislation on 3000 families which has the potential of making them all bankrupt.

Your no more than the typical "joe bloggs" on the street that thinks it's easy pickings to have a pop at those whom are currently in a very serious predicament EVEN although they operated within the law at the time. THINK ABOUT IT!

In fact your no different to the tons of people that stated some extreme punishment for Rangers Football Club even before the Tax Tribunal had been decided.

The 3000 families are not just fighting for our livelihoods we are fighting against the actual principal of using retrospective legislation. YOU COULD BE NEXT!

HMRC lied and has continued to lie about this sorry affair.

Do your research before openning your gob, picking a stupid fight and spouting crap.

So has Parliament / HMRC / government behaved illegally? That is what I'm interested to know.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:00
Do your research before openning your gob, picking a stupid fight and spouting crap.

Are you trying to kill off the general forum?

general is about lies, bollux and extrapolation. one should never bring facts into a perfectly reasoned argument.

The only thing that concerns me about SB is that he came over to L&A to troll - then had to have the posts moved by a mod. Thats just not cricket really.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:02
Lucozade I have no sympathy for you and if the govt finds you guilty and make you bankrupt so be it. You forget that there are thousands of honest contractors on here like me who pay our taxes at the top rate just so that I can sleep easy at night knowing that the HMRC wont ever introduce any retro law on to me. What did you expect when you paid 3% tax on your 100K earnings? You were stupid and you were caught out and now pay up and stop the red herring of moral/immoral values.

I do have sympathy for people losing their houses and becoming bankrupt, no matter how they've behaved. But lots of people seem to lose their houses and become bankrupt for no more reason than losing their job.

Robinho
21st November 2012, 14:02
Retrospective action is tyrannous imo.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:03
Are you trying to kill off the general forum?

general is about lies, bollux and extrapolation. one should never bring facts into a perfectly reasoned argument.

The only thing that concerns me about SB is that he came over to L&A to troll - then had to have the posts moved by a mod. Thats just not cricket really.

Was I discourteous?

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:03
Lucozade I have no sympathy for you and if the govt finds you guilty and make you bankrupt so be it. You forget that there are thousands of honest contractors on here like me who pay our taxes at the top rate just so that I can sleep easy at night knowing that the HMRC wont ever introduce any retro law on to me. What did you expect when you paid 3% tax on your 100K earnings? You were stupid and you were caught out and now pay up and stop the red herring of moral/immoral values.

Do you pay at IR35 rates? No. I thought not. You are tax avoiding scum and it would not surprise me if the law was changed retrospectively to catch those like you.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:06
So has Parliament / HMRC / government behaved illegally? That is what I'm interested to know.

HMRC have behaved illegally by misleading parliament. I don't think I can say much as its sub judice. If anyone from NTRT wants to comment then fine. But they are not as stupid as me - they ignore trolls.

Why am I so stupid?

minestrone
21st November 2012, 14:06
One is allowed to act like an arse from time to time on general, doing an "I told you so" act on this subject is a sign of someone being a full time arse.

fullyautomatix
21st November 2012, 14:07
Do you pay at IR35 rates? No. I thought not. You are tax avoiding scum and it would not surprise me if the law was changed retrospectively to catch those like you.


You have no idea what taxes I pay so stop jumping to conclusions. I pay the correct tax rate and I am 100% confident I will have no HMRC sword hanging over me. You on the other hand is the scum wanting to pay no tax and enjoy a life of greed and now that the law has quite correctly caught up with you, you are spouting some crap about morality etc. You deserve to go bankrupt and I hope you do.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:09
Retrospective action is tyrannous imo.

For once, I kind of agree with you. The only argument I can see against it, is not that it is illegal (it doesn't appear to be) and not that it is immoral (morality seemed to be irrelevant to those choosing their path so they can't play the moral card now) but that it is an abuse of power by Parliament (not HMRC and not government). It is the only argument that has my mind not quite made up on this. Unless of course it really is illegal, which would be a decider for me.

I am not interested in a slippery slope argument - if they do the right thing now, they may do the wrong thing later. But I am interested in whether this particular instance of retrospective legislation is an abuse of power or not. At the moment, I think that the schemes were so egregious (even if legal) that retrospective action is justified. But it seems that in these circmstances there should be more forebearance to allow payment over many years, if those caught would prefer to do so rather than become bankrupt.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:10
Was I discourteous?

Yes. Firstly by posting critical stuff in the s58 thread which is a heavily moderated thread due to the sensitivities involved.

Then by ignoring a reasonable request to move your posts.

But I was far worse in my response. I do apologize.

But try being forced possibly into bankruptcy, on top of having 3 kids(2 disabled), a mad mother (living with a murderer), a litigious ex-wife. An explanation, not an excuse.

You don't think that normal 50 year olds do ironman contests do you?

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:11
HMRC have behaved illegally by misleading parliament. I don't think I can say much as its sub judice. If anyone from NTRT wants to comment then fine. But they are not as stupid as me - they ignore trolls.

Why am I so stupid?

If that is shown to be the case, then you I will have no quarrel with your winning.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:11
You have no idea what taxes I pay so stop jumping to conclusions. I pay the correct tax rate and I am 100% confident I will have no HMRC sword hanging over me. You on the other hand is the scum wanting to pay no tax and enjoy a life of greed and now that the law has quite correctly caught up with you, you are spouting some crap about morality etc. You deserve to go bankrupt and I hope you do.

I also paid the correct tax rate.

HTH BIDI.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 14:12
You have no idea what taxes I pay so stop jumping to conclusions. I pay the correct tax rate and I am 100% confident I will have no HMRC sword hanging over me. You on the other hand is the scum wanting to pay no tax and enjoy a life of greed and now that the law has quite correctly caught up with you, you are spouting some crap about morality etc. You deserve to go bankrupt and I hope you do.

Thats totally uncalled for mate, totally.

I earn £4800 a year, as does my wife, and we take the rest in dividends. Is this immoral? No, it's tax management, and legal. I have operated under the rules of the land, and paid what I have been asked to pay, according to the laws set in parliament.

But you know, when parliament coems in, say in 3 years time, and states that they have changed their position on incorporated Small businesses, and, in fact, have decided that they will be taxed at 100% of their gross, and state they will apply this retrospectively from 2002. Is that cool with you?

It's the thin edge of the wedge for me, and as far as you bilge, your bilious post, well that just stinks of outright hostile jealousy.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:14
If that is shown to be the case, then you I will have no quarrel with your winning.

It is the case and will be proven. All the docs are on the NTRT website and I have taken them to my MP who is very supportive.

But it takes so long! I remember in 2008 saying my predicted end date was 2012. I was scoffed at for being way too pessimistic. Now it looks like 2015 earliest. Huge queue even getting to first tier tribunal.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:14
Yes. Firstly by posting critical stuff in the s58 thread which is a heavily moderated thread due to the sensitivities involved.

Then by ignoring a reasonable request to move your posts.

But I was far worse in my response. I do apologize.

But try being forced possibly into bankruptcy, on top of having 3 kids(2 disabled), a mad mother (living with a murderer), a litigious ex-wife. An explanation, not an excuse.

You don't think that normal 50 year olds do ironman contests do you?

No need to apologise. But you should realise that s58 doesn't just affect the 3,000 families. It matters to all of us who contribute our fair share, have to compete (as the OP said) with those who can undercut us, those people who will lose their jobs and house because of the public deficit etc.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:16
One is allowed to act like an arse from time to time on general, doing an "I told you so" act on this subject is a sign of someone being a full time arse.


Thats totally uncalled for mate, totally.

It's the thin edge of the wedge for me, and as far as you bilge, your bilious post, well that just stinks of outright hostile jealousy.

Seems to be part and parcel of posting in general these days. Well to be fair - its always been a bear pit.

I wish a wife of a friend would send me some more piccies so we could all have a laugh....

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 14:17
No need to apologise. But you should realise that s58 doesn't just affect the 3,000 families. It matters to all of us who contribute our fair share, have to compete (as the OP said) with those who can undercut us, those people who will lose their jobs and house because of the public deficit etc.

What's a fair share SB? Do you set this? Is it arbitary? Or do you pay it at 95% of gross, as per IR35? Pay what you consider yourself to be a fair wage and divi the rest up? Or low pay and large dividends?

I am genuinely interested.

d000hg
21st November 2012, 14:18
It is the duty of every citizen to arrange their tax affairs so that they pay the least tax. In effect, avoidance is a duty.Regardless of the rest of this debate, that seems a particularly ludicrous assertion.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 14:19
But I think it raises a few points. People are on this site stating they pay the right amount of tax, or their fair share; I'd be very interested in what this figure was, and how it was arrived at.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:21
Thats totally uncalled for mate, totally.

I earn £4800 a year, as does my wife, and we take the rest in dividends. Is this immoral? No, it's tax management, and legal. I have operated under the rules of the land, and paid what I have been asked to pay, according to the laws set in parliament.

But you know, when parliament coems in, say in 3 years time, and states that they have changed their position on incorporated Small businesses, and, in fact, have decided that they will be taxed at 100% of their gross, and state they will apply this retrospectively from 2002. Is that cool with you?

It's the thin edge of the wedge for me, and as far as you bilge, your bilious post, well that just stinks of outright hostile jealousy.

Parliament could in theory legislate for almost anything, retrospectively or not, and we may well not be cool with many of those things. But just because they may do something wrong in the future does not mean that what they are doing now is wrong. Of course you may think that what they are doing now is wrong in itself, in which case fair enough. But the tin end of the wedge is when they have started doing things that are wrong, not when they might do them in the future.

Unless as BP says, something unlawful has taken place.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:21
No need to apologise. But you should realise that s58 doesn't just affect the 3,000 families. It matters to all of us who contribute our fair share, have to compete (as the OP said) with those who can undercut us, those people who will lose their jobs and house because of the public deficit etc.

But what is a fair share?

I read your earlier post about the chap in the health service. It hurts. I also have a friend who goes round collecting food tins to handout to those who cannot afford food. As non bankers they don't get millions handed over to them.

And equally I could have been born in some famine ridden country.

But looking at the wider picture the more you earn the less tax you pay. There needs to be a total change in the tax system. I would prefer more property based taxes. There must be a better way than the current one.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 14:23
Regardless of the rest of this debate, that seems a particularly ludicrous assertion.

Well it was said by some judge at some point. Do you think people should pay more than their due?

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 14:24
Parliament could in theory legislate for almost anything, retrospectively or not, and we may well not be cool with many of those things. But just because they may do something wrong in the future does not mean that what they are doing now is wrong. Of course you may think that what they are doing now is wrong in itself, in which case fair enough. But the tin end of the wedge is when they have started doing things that are wrong, not when they might do them in the future.

Unless as BP says, something unlawful has taken place.

What's a fair share SB, please, in the interest of making the argument complete, let us know what is a fair share, and how you got to that figure.

As for illegal, I believe charging tax retrospectively is illegal, and I am sure were it pushed far enough it would be found thus. You'll not find law coming this year against the tax dodgers like Starbucks and Amazon, that is applied retrospectively, as it wouldn't pass a good test of law.

Now, what is a fair share?

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:30
What's a fair share SB? Do you set this? Is it arbitary? Or do you pay it at 95% of gross, as per IR35? Pay what you consider yourself to be a fair wage and divi the rest up? Or low pay and large dividends?

I am genuinely interested.

I pay minimum wage, my Ltd pays CT on the profit, I take divis up to the upper rate limit. My wife takes some divis. The rest sits in the Ltd account. At some point I will close the company down. I plan my taxes, as does anyone with an ISA etc. etc.

I figure probably 30% of my daily rate goes out in direct tax.


What is a fair share is an interesting question. I don't know where the line is drawn, but I know which side of the line 3% or 5% is on.

However, we are told (and I think this is what is behind your 'Do you set this?' question) that morality / fairness is irrelevant. It is the law that matters.

Fair enough. Now it is the law that more tax is coughed up. If it is the law that matters and morality is irrelevant then we should hear no complaints about whether it is fair or not to introduce retrospective legislation. What matters is, was the legislation legal? Even if HMRC acted illegally in advising Parliament, I am not sure I understand how that could render primary legislation illegal. Maybe the expectation is that HMRC will be found to act illegally,prompting a repeal of legislation.

d000hg
21st November 2012, 14:40
Well it was said by some judge at some point. Do you think people should pay more than their due?I think people are responsible for organising their tax affairs however they wish, not morally obligated to pay as little as possible. It is not my duty to utilise loopholes, it is my choice.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 14:41
I pay minimum wage, my Ltd pays CT on the profit, I take divis up to the upper rate limit. My wife takes some divis. The rest sits in the Ltd account. At some point I will close the company down. I plan my taxes, as does anyone with an ISA etc. etc.

I figure probably 30% of my daily rate goes out in direct tax.


What is a fair share is an interesting question. I don't know where the line is drawn, but I know which side of the line 3% or 5% is on.

However, we are told (and I think this is what is behind your 'Do you set this?' question) that morality / fairness is irrelevant. It is the law that matters.

Fair enough. Now it is the law that more tax is coughed up. If it is the law that matters and morality is irrelevant then we should hear no complaints about whether it is fair or not to introduce retrospective legislation. What matters is, was the legislation legal? Even if HMRC acted illegally in advising Parliament, I am not sure I understand how that could render primary legislation illegal. Maybe the expectation is that HMRC will be found to act illegally,prompting a repeal of legislation.

So a fair share is paying yourself, a skilled IT contractor, minimum wage? What would you say your wage would be in permie dom?

You're paying minimum wage to avoid paying more NI I suppose? That saves a good 11%

I don't think you've thought through the morality issue personally, if you're choosing to avoid paying NI tax at the correct level. Legal, yes, Moral?

It's a fine line, so I am amazed you've got involved in the argument, to be honest

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 14:49
I think most of us are borderline with our morality to be honest. If you're paying yourself below what the industry would pay you, and avoiding NI, then morality has to be called into question. Factor in your wife being paid divis as part of you working, and you can see a case for someone wondering if you were inside that conservatory trying to throw rocks out.

Fact is, we should be paying ourselves a whole lot more, and paying our fair share of NI, that's what would be morally right, but we're not. We shift tax so we save money; my wife is a housewive, yet gets paid from my company and takes dividends. I pay myself £4800 a year to ensure I pay almost no NI. This saves me huge amount. Paying my wife a share, and divis, means we both keep under the upper tax threshold as well.

None of this sits right, morally speaking, but it's within the law.

Now what if HMRC remove these laws, for us IT bods, then retrospectively charges us at IR35 levels? They could do it, quite easily.

Just don't be so quick to throw stones; it's the thin edge of the wedge for me, and I think we're all borderline, or the majority of us all.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:53
So a fair share is paying yourself, a skilled IT contractor, minimum wage? What would you say your wage would be in permie dom?

You're paying minimum wage to avoid paying more NI I suppose? That saves a good 11%

I don't think you've thought through the morality issue personally, if you're choosing to avoid paying NI tax at the correct level. Legal, yes, Moral?

It's a fine line, so I am amazed you've got involved in the argument, to be honest

I don't think the line between 3 - 5% and 30% is fine. Neither do I think that the line between a Ltd company (and I genuinely am outside IR35 whatever the accursed Business Entity Tests say) and a dodgy scheme is fine.

And any time I chat to a contractor collegue who admits to being in a dodgy scheme, they look pretty shifty when they whisper what they do to you.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 14:56
I think most of us are borderline with our morality to be honest. If you're paying yourself below what the industry would pay you, and avoiding NI, then morality has to be called into question. Factor in your wife being paid divis as part of you working, and you can see a case for someone wondering if you were inside that conservatory trying to throw rocks out.

Fact is, we should be paying ourselves a whole lot more, and paying our fair share of NI, that's what would be morally right, but we're not. We shift tax so we save money; my wife is a housewive, yet gets paid from my company and takes dividends. I pay myself £4800 a year to ensure I pay almost no NI. This saves me huge amount. Paying my wife a share, and divis, means we both keep under the upper tax threshold as well.

None of this sits right, morally speaking, but it's within the law.

Now what if HMRC remove these laws, for us IT bods, then retrospectively charges us at IR35 levels? They could do it, quite easily.

Just don't be so quick to throw stones; it's the thin edge of the wedge for me, and I think we're all borderline, or the majority of us all.

Remember HMRC can't change the law, Parliament can. And Parliament can legislate for anything pretty much. But... the offshore schemes are at a whole different level. I simply don't think I'm in the conservatory.

That is not to say I wouldn't like to see the tax arrangements changes. Tax divis as other income is the obvious solution IMO.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 14:59
But my point is, you are discusisng morality as well, and is it morally acceptable to pay yourself minimum wage, and collect the rest in tax efficient divs, shared with your wife, to minimise your tax further, and all done, in order to avoid paying you NI?

Is that morally acceptable?

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:00
But my point is, you are discusisng morality as well, and is it morally acceptable to pay yourself minimum wage, and collect the rest in tax efficient divs, shared with your wife, to minimise your tax further, and all done, in order to avoid paying you NI?

Is that morally acceptable?

Yes.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 15:02
I also do not believe you are paying 30%, unless you mean Corp tax, and Income tax?

You said you pay min income tax, and almost no NI. You divi up your income, paying the lowest amount, and what is left is kept in the company, subject to corp tax, yes?

I am sitting here thinking 30% is rather high, I reckon we do between 17-20%, doing pretty much the same.

Can you justify your wife being a shareholder? Or is she income masking for you?

These are genuine questions, for I am pretty much exactly as you are doing, with a couple of bells, and I am interested in your take on the morality of it all.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 15:04
Yes.

I disagree strongly; you're avoiding NI, and masking your earnings. Also strange to hear you're out of IR35, when you've just said you've been at the same place for 36 odd months. Something doesn't add up here.

Ticktock
21st November 2012, 15:08
Can you justify your wife being a shareholder? Or is she income masking for you?


I can justify anyone being a shareholder in my company, if I have chosen to sell / give / trade shares in my company to them. Can you justify a nurse being a shareholder in BT, a postman being a shareholder in Apple, or whatever?

IR35 Avoider
21st November 2012, 15:08
Lucozade and Brillo, what I don't get in all of this is:

You seem to say that it doesn't matter whether your tax arrangements were immoral, as long as they were legal.

Then, when retrospective legislation is introduced to correct this perceived moral outrage, you seem to object that the retrospective nature of this legislation is immoral, even if it is legal.

I am not, for once, trying to cause trouble. But why would my MP want to help you out when you present a moral argument, when your base position is that morality doesn't matter, just the law?

Morality shouldn't come into it, on either side of the argument. There is only one issue to consider, the rule of law.

The law is what should determine what people are legally sanctioned for doing. That's why the morality of tax avoidance is irrelevant.

The problem with retrospective legislation is that it is the law undermining itself. If we can't know what laws our behaviour today is subject to, the idea of leading a law-abiding life must vanish as an ambition. We might as well do whatever we think we can get away with, as long as we can square it with out conscience. Retrospective legislation is "legal", but it destroys respect for the law, so what is "legal" ceases to matter.

Retrospective legislation is mostly forbidden by human rights law, but there is an execption for tax.

Robinho
21st November 2012, 15:09
Gig length has no bearing on IR35.

Why would it?

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:10
I disagree strongly; you're avoiding NI, and masking your earnings. Also strange to hear you're out of IR35, when you've just said you've been at the same place for 36 odd months. Something doesn't add up here.

I've not been at the same place for 36 months.

One contract has been running for 1 month, at a client I had left 2 months before after an 11 month stint.
One contract has been running for 5 months.
I have just signed off deliverables on a third contact that started 18 or so months ago, but which effectively finished (bar final sign off) 10 months ago.

Thinking of someone else perhaps?

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:14
I also do not believe you are paying 30%, unless you mean Corp tax, and Income tax?

You said you pay min income tax, and almost no NI. You divi up your income, paying the lowest amount, and what is left is kept in the company, subject to corp tax, yes?

I am sitting here thinking 30% is rather high, I reckon we do between 17-20%, doing pretty much the same.

Can you justify your wife being a shareholder? Or is she income masking for you?

These are genuine questions, for I am pretty much exactly as you are doing, with a couple of bells, and I am interested in your take on the morality of it all.

I think I said 30% of my daily rate.

So, CT, PAYE / NIC and at some point I will get the rest of the money out of the company account, and that won't be tax free. Is that about 30%?

I justify my wife being a shareholder (33%) as she bears as much of the risk that I do in running a business, as opposed to when I had a secure permie income. You are of course welcome to disagree with any of it, but I am happy with what I do.

porrker
21st November 2012, 15:15
I've not been at the same place for 36 months.

One contract has been running for 1 month, at a client I had left 2 months before after an 11 month stint.
One contract has been running for 5 months.
I have just signed off deliverables on a third contact that started 18 or so months ago, but which effectively finished (bar final sign off) 10 months ago.

Thinking of someone else perhaps?

Sounds like a disguised employee with a contract and ltd company to create a sham busines 2 business structure that allows a reduction in tax and NI liabilities... A touch of hipocracy here me thinks.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:20
Sounds like a disguised employee with a contract and ltd company to create a sham busines 2 business structure that allows a reduction in tax and NI liabilities... A touch of hipocracy here me thinks.

And you are welcome to that opinion.

Of course it would be hypocrisy, if I had said, 'You deserve retrospective legislation because you use tax planning.'

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 15:26
I think I said 30% of my daily rate.

So, CT, PAYE / NIC and at some point I will get the rest of the money out of the company account, and that won't be tax free. Is that about 30%?

I justify my wife being a shareholder (33%) as she bears as much of the risk that I do in running a business, as opposed to when I had a secure permie income. You are of course welcome to disagree with any of it, but I am happy with what I do.

I think you're talking tulip to be honest SB; you said you pay a fair amount, but justify that by masking your earnings, and paying as little Income tax and NIC's as you can.

Your wife, presumably, takes as much risk in your business, as mine does in mine, which is sweet fark all. It's just something nice to say to justify it, for there's no risk at all; as a contractor, and if the work runs out, you look for a new contract, if you don't find one, you look for alternative employment, or claim the dole. Your wife has no risk, and we both know it.

The trouble is, you claim a moral high ground, when you're stood on sand. I don't think I pay anywhere near the fair amount of tax, in fact, like you, I actively avoid doing so; I pay what I have to, and not a penny more. Like you. It's not morally right, as my NIC's were a little over £100 and tax low 4 figures. You're just trying to justify it, which is tulip really, a little like you.

You really are a cock of the highest magnitude.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:27
I think you're talking tulip to be honest SB; you said you pay a fair amount, but justify that by masking your earnings, and paying as little Income tax and NIC's as you can.

Your wife, presumably, takes as much risk in my business, as mine does, which is sweet fark all. It's just something nice to say to justify it, for there's no risk at all; as a contractor, and if the work runs out, you look for a new contract, if you don't find one, you look for alternative employment, or claim the dole. Your wife has no risk, and we both know it.

The trouble is, you claim a moral high ground, when you're stood on sand. I don't think I pay anywhere near the fair amount of tax, in fact, like you, I actively avoid doing so; I pay what I have to, and not a penny more. Like you. It's not morally right, as my NIC's were a little over £100 and tax low 4 figures. You're just trying to justify it, which is tulip really, a little like you.

You really are a cock of the highest magnitude.

How sad that you are unable to conduct a civil conversation.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 15:30
How sad that you are unable to conduct a civil conversation.

This from someone who went trolling on the professional forums? Nice work mate.

I find it sad you are trying to justify what you do as fair, when it is anything but, but hey ho, at least I know it isn't fair, or morally sound, and know what I do is minimise paying my fair share. I know friends on 30k who pay more NI than me.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:34
This from someone who went trolling on the professional forums? Nice work mate.

I find it sad you are trying to justify what you do as fair, when it is anything but, but hey ho, at least I know it isn't fair, or morally sound, and know what I do is minimise paying my fair share. I know friends on 30k who pay more NI than me.

I think you asked me about my position and I explained it and you disagreed - in your own style.

But people paying 3 to 5% is important. If you don't see it, then that's OK.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 15:41
I think you asked me about my position and I explained it and you disagreed - in your own style.

But people paying 3 to 5% is important. If you don't see it, then that's OK.

No, you said you paid 'the fair amount', and I queried how you come to it being the fair amount; lets not get these discussions wrong now.

There is a difference, but, when does it become fair, at what point, when does the amount you pay marry to it being fair? You're telling me it is fair, which is subjective and done to cover what you are actually doing, as it really isn't fair to minimise your NIC's: this is what you are missing; if you don't see it, then that's OK too.

vetran
21st November 2012, 15:44
I think you're talking tulip to be honest SB; you said you pay a fair amount, but justify that by masking your earnings, and paying as little Income tax and NIC's as you can.

Your wife, presumably, takes as much risk in your business, as mine does in mine, which is sweet fark all. It's just something nice to say to justify it, for there's no risk at all; as a contractor, and if the work runs out, you look for a new contract, if you don't find one, you look for alternative employment, or claim the dole. Your wife has no risk, and we both know it.

The trouble is, you claim a moral high ground, when you're stood on sand. I don't think I pay anywhere near the fair amount of tax, in fact, like you, I actively avoid doing so; I pay what I have to, and not a penny more. Like you. It's not morally right, as my NIC's were a little over £100 and tax low 4 figures. You're just trying to justify it, which is tulip really, a little like you.

You really are a cock of the highest magnitude.

I was right with until the last two sentences.

fckvwls
21st November 2012, 15:46
I was right with until the last two sentences.

Could this not be settled down in Bridgewater or on skype with aussielong as referee?

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:48
No, you said you paid 'the fair amount', and queried how you come to it being the fair amount; lets not get these discussions wrong now.

There is a difference, but, when does it become fair; you're telling me it is fair, which is subjective and done to cover what you are actually doing, as it really isn't fair to minimise your NIC's: this is what you are missing; if you don't see it, then that's OK too.

So, here is the difference. A Ltd (operated properly by someone outside IR35) is a legitimate vehicle intended by Parliament (or possibly existing on the basis of common law in the dim and distant pass - but you get the point). I pay myself within that structure and pay taxes accordingly. I reckon about 30% of my day rate will go on tax.

I happen to believe that operating in such a way is fair. I would like to see a different tax structure, and if we get one will operate within that structure.

I also happen to think that using offshore trusts and loan to pat 3 to 5% tax (if that is indeed the level) is not fair. I think there is a differnce between the two.

And I didn't even call you a cock or a shit, while explaining it.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 15:53
I was right with until the last two sentences.

Fair enough, too harsh?

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:55
Fair enough, too harsh?

Projection.

porrker
21st November 2012, 15:56
And you are welcome to that opinion.

Of course it would be hypocrisy, if I had said, 'You deserve retrospective legislation because you use tax planning.'

I would be careful about wish retrospective legislation on anyone. I recently read hmrc could consider using the GAAR post April 2013 to enforce IR35.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 15:56
So, here is the difference. A Ltd (operated properly by someone outside IR35) is a legitimate vehicle intended by Parliament (or possibly existing on the basis of common law in the dim and distant pass - but you get the point). I pay myself within that structure and pay taxes accordingly. I reckon about 30% of my day rate will go on tax.

I happen to believe that operating in such a way is fair. I would like to see a different tax structure, and if we get one will operate within that structure.

I also happen to think that using offshore trusts and loan to pat 3 to 5% tax (if that is indeed the level) is not fair. I think there is a differnce between the two.

And I didn't even call you a cock or a tulip, while explaining it.

You're deliberately masking your earnings, you are deliberately paying yourself minimum wage, you are deliberately avoiding NIC's, you have made your wife a shareholder to minimise tax, not as she takes a risk, for we know she doesn't.

But you have the temerity to call it fair?

I believe that's tulipe, as I do the same, and know precisely it is all done to minimise my outgoings, and maximise my earnigns. Whether it is 2/5%, or 20%, it's still minimising your obligations, and masking your true obligations.

You;re trying to justify to yourself, that you are paying a fair amount, but we all know it isn't.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 15:58
I would be careful about wish retrospective legislation on anyone. I recently read hmrc could consider using the GAAR post April 2013 to enforce IR35.

And that is a different issue. There are some laws I support and some I don't.

Going a few pages back the tyranny point of Robbie's, or abuse of power I would prefer to say, is the one thing about this that still has me wondering about whether it is the right thing or not.

vetran
21st November 2012, 16:06
So, here is the difference. A Ltd (operated properly by someone outside IR35) is a legitimate vehicle intended by Parliament (or possibly existing on the basis of common law in the dim and distant pass - but you get the point). I pay myself within that structure and pay taxes accordingly. I reckon about 30% of my day rate will go on tax.

I happen to believe that operating in such a way is fair. I would like to see a different tax structure, and if we get one will operate within that structure.

I also happen to think that using offshore trusts and loan to pat 3 to 5% tax (if that is indeed the level) is not fair. I think there is a differnce between the two.

And I didn't even call you a cock or a tulip, while explaining it.


But as a permie I pay 40%+ of my earnings and you EARN so much more than me, please Mr Taxman can you sort this out.

Hector - of course, now any single person (or with spouse as cosec) in IT is a tax evader and has been for the last 10 years. they can claim 5% of expenses, its full employer & employee tax on the rest. I deem you IR35 caught.

MPs - sounds sensible to me I have to pay full tax on MY salary (the rest is either fiddled expenses or paid offshore) so be it.

Hector - Spelling Bee you are a filthy tax evader pay up for the last 10 years , what do you mean you spent 40% of your turnover on tools & travel tough pay up or the Bailiff will be round

Spelling Bee - Oh woe is me the tax man is being Unfair :cry3:

yes the offshore deal was morally dodgy, but it was legal, ban it in future, move on, its not like it is a new problem I was being offered offshore schemes in year 2000.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 16:08
But as a permie I pay 40%+ of my earnings and you EARN so much more than me, please Mr Taxman can you sort this out.

Hector - of course, now any single person (or with spouse as cosec) in IT is a tax evader and has been for the last 10 years. they can claim 5% of expenses, its full employer & employee tax on the rest. I deem you IR35 caught.

MPs - sounds sensible to me I have to pay full tax on MY salary (the rest is either fiddled expenses or paid offshore) so be it.

Hector - Spelling Bee you are a filthy tax evader pay up for the last 10 years , what do you mean you spent 40% of your turnover on tools & travel tough pay up or the Bailiff will be round

Spelling Bee - Oh woe is me the tax man is being Unfair :cry3:

yes the offshore deal was morally dodgy, but it was legal [just like not paying much NIC's and Income tax], ban it in future, move on, its not like it is a new problem I was being offered offshore schemes in year 2000.

Amen

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:10
But as a permie I pay 40%+ of my earnings and you EARN so much more than me, please Mr Taxman can you sort this out.

Hector - of course, now any single person (or with spouse as cosec) in IT is a tax evader and has been for the last 10 years. they can claim 5% of expenses, its full employer & employee tax on the rest. I deem you IR35 caught.

MPs - sounds sensible to me I have to pay full tax on MY salary (the rest is either fiddled expenses or paid offshore) so be it.

Hector - Spelling Bee you are a filthy tax evader pay up for the last 10 years , what do you mean you spent 40% of your turnover on tools & travel tough pay up or the Bailiff will be round

Spelling Bee - Oh woe is me the tax man is being Unfair :cry3:

yes the offshore deal was morally dodgy, but it was legal, ban it in future, move on, its not like it is a new problem I was being offered offshore schemes in year 2000.

For the reasons I explained above, I do not think Ltd's and offshore vehicles are equivalent.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:11
You're deliberately masking your earnings, you are deliberately paying yourself minimum wage, you are deliberately avoiding NIC's, you have made your wife a shareholder to minimise tax, not as she takes a risk, for we know she doesn't.

But you have the temerity to call it fair?

I believe that's tulipe, as I do the same, and know precisely it is all done to minimise my outgoings, and maximise my earnigns. Whether it is 2/5%, or 20%, it's still minimising your obligations, and masking your true obligations.

You;re trying to justify to yourself, that you are paying a fair amount, but we all know it isn't.

I think you have identified the point of disagreement.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 16:11
For the reasons I explained above, I do not think Ltd's and offshore vehicles are equivalent.

Morally, or legally?

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:13
Morally, or legally?

Both, although the latter by retrospective legislation.

vetran
21st November 2012, 16:16
For the reasons I explained above, I do not think Ltd's and offshore vehicles are equivalent.

sorry there was NO difference with them legally.

Money has no morals.

Apparently because you are not paying the FAIR (i.e. what the court of public opinion decides) amount of tax neither do you.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:22
sorry there was NO difference with them legally.

Money has no morals.

Apparently because you are not paying the FAIR (i.e. what the court of public opinion decides) amount of tax neither do you.

Back to my original post.

If morality is irreleant then there should be no complaint that retrospective legislation is unfair. As long as it is legal, then what's the problem?

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 16:22
sorry there was NO difference with them legally.

Money has no morals.

Apparently because you are not paying the FAIR (i.e. what the court of public opinion decides) amount of tax neither do you.

This is the funny bit, if he was tested, by HMRC, they'd argue he wasn;t paying himself a fair wage. Also, if the Mortgage people come a sniffing, there's an argument you're being economical with the true in your earnings. I have seen this happen.

The trouble is, SB's pay is dictated not by fairness, but what he thinks he can get away with; everything else is abhorrent.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:25
This is the funny bit, if he was tested, by HMRC, they'd argue he wasn;t paying himself a fair wage. Also, if the Mortgage people come a sniffing, there's an argument you're being economical with the true in your earnings. I have seen this happen.

The trouble is, SB's pay is dictated not by fairness, but what he thinks he can get away with; everything else is abhorrent.

HMRC can argue what they want. I am confident that I would prevail at a tribunal.

The key figures to me ar 3 ro 5% and 30%. I can see a difference there.

cailin maith
21st November 2012, 16:26
For the reasons I explained above, I do not think Ltd's and offshore vehicles are equivalent.

Of course you don't.

Because you think you have the moral highground.

I'm pretty sure if HMRC said Divs were immoral and retrospectively changed the legislation, there would be uproar.

Morals should not come into this.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 16:26
Back to my original post.

If morality is irreleant then there should be no complaint that retrospective legislation is unfair. As long as it is legal, then what's the problem?

So you'd be happy if it the purported legislation was applied on your earnings, retrospecitively?

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 16:27
Gig length has no bearing on IR35.

Why would it?

Are you serious Robinho?

cailin maith
21st November 2012, 16:28
HMRC can argue what they want. I am confident that I would prevail at a tribunal.


And so were the BN66 guys.

But HMRC didn't bother with the Tribunal, they thought about it - then changed their minds. They simply introduced the retrospective legislation.

porrker
21st November 2012, 16:30
HMRC can argue what they want. I am confident that I would prevail at a tribunal.

The key figures to me ar 3 ro 5% and 30%. I can see a difference there.

So where is the cutoff between fair and unfair 10% or 25%? The vast majority of contractors limit their liabilities through artificial arrangements. We are just arguing over semantics now and as another post said you are justifying it to yourself!

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:32
So you'd be happy if it the purported legislation was applied on your earnings, retrospecitively?

I am not saying morality is unimportant. That is the argument of the s58 guys.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:32
And so were the BN66 guys.

But HMRC didn't bother with the Tribunal, they thought about it - then changed their minds. They simply introduced the retrospective legislation.

The Queen of Darkness appears.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:34
So where is the cutoff between fair and unfair 10% or 25%? The vast majority of contractors limit their liabilities through artificial arrangements. We are just arguing over semantics now and as another post said you are justifying it to yourself!

As I said before: I am not sure where the line is but I know which side 3% is on.

SupremeSpod
21st November 2012, 16:37
As I said before: I am not sure where the line is but I know which side 3% is on.

So do I, legal until the laws are changed.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 16:39
So do I, legal until the laws are changed.

And they have been.

SupremeSpod
21st November 2012, 16:43
And they have been.

Not all of 'em. There's plenty of other ways to mitigate your tax liability.

There is information on this site that shows you how to arrange your affairs so that you can still receive child benefit, and put 10 grand in your pension pot for a net cost of 2.5k, all perfectly legal and above board.

http://www.contractoruk.com/money/contractors_act_now_avoid_child_benefit_cut.html

Robinho
21st November 2012, 16:48
Are you serious Robinho?

Yes. If you're operating as a business for a year. Why does it makes a difference if you're doing it for 3 years?

HMRC might be more likely to take a look as it gets longer, but it doesn't change the nature of the relationship just because it's lasted a long time.

vetran
21st November 2012, 17:15
The Queen of Darkness appears.

This from the Prince of hypocrisy?


You are a retrospectively a tax evader <placeholder>

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 17:19
And they have been.

and you'd be happy if they applied the rules retrospectively with the upcoming threat of new legislation?

That's the question.

porrker
21st November 2012, 17:22
And they have been.

Most certainly not! The finance act explicitly gives exclusions that allow these schemes to operate legally.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 17:22
Yes. If you're operating as a business for a year. Why does it makes a difference if you're doing it for 3 years?

HMRC might be more likely to take a look as it gets longer, but it doesn't change the nature of the relationship just because it's lasted a long time.

Well, in the first instance, it does make a difference in the public sector if you are there longer than 6 months. In the second, I'd wager nearly every contract that went on for 3 years would fall under IR35. Thirdly, you're not allowed travel expenses past 2 years, iirc, in contract, another IR35 marker...

Robinho
21st November 2012, 17:24
There are 3 primary indicators for IR35. Duration is not one of them.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 17:29
[QUOTE=Old Hack;1649785]Well, in the first instance, it does make a difference in the public sector if you are there longer than 6 months.QUOTE]

It doesn't make a legal difference, in this instance. It just has a procurement and therefore contractual implication.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 17:30
and you'd be happy if they applied the rules retrospectively with the upcoming threat of new legislation?

That's the question.

Certainly not. But then I'm not paying 3 to 5% tax via a dodgy offshore outfit.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 17:34
Certainly not. But then I'm not paying 3 to 5% tax via a dodgy offshore outfit.

I have just stated, in your position, if they stated any off payroll IT worker is subject to IR35, would you be happy, you're saying no.

So what you're saying, is precisely what they were saying, and you lambasted them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 17:44
I have just stated, in your position, if they stated any off payroll IT worker is subject to IR35, would you be happy, you're saying no.

So what you're saying, is precisely what they were saying, and you lambasted them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't expect them to be happy about it.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 17:54
I don't expect them to be happy about it.

But you were happy to have a bit of a goad.

Hmmm.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 17:55
[QUOTE=Old Hack;1649785]Well, in the first instance, it does make a difference in the public sector if you are there longer than 6 months.QUOTE]

It doesn't make a legal difference, in this instance. It just has a procurement and therefore contractual implication.

Er, no, they are bringing in legislation in the new year, currently in consultation; I am in discussions directly with the treasury about it, funny enough...

SupremeSpod
21st November 2012, 17:56
Certainly not. But then I'm not paying 3 to 5% tax via a dodgy offshore outfit.

As a matter of interest, what's dodgy about it?

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 17:56
There are 3 primary indicators for IR35. Duration is not one of them.

Not with public sector contracts

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 17:57
As a matter of interest, what's dodgy about it?

I know, he's missed that; he's already alluded to them being legal, but morally wrong....

cojak
21st November 2012, 18:12
NTRT isn't about aggressive tax avoidance schemes, it about retrospective tax legislation.

You can disapprove of the former and still be indignant at the unfairness of the latter.

As I do.

cojak
21st November 2012, 18:15
And the complaints about retrospective tax demands of Vodafone in India shows how 2-faced the Government is about it.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 18:23
But you were happy to have a bit of a goad.

Hmmm.

But that's not illegal. So apparently it's OK.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 18:27
But that's not illegal. So apparently it's OK.

Do what you do, for it has no bearing on me; I just wanted to point out your duplicity mate.

Loving your defence though, absolutely. Going to pass it on to my 9 yo just to check my theory that she could see through your bluster...

minestrone
21st November 2012, 18:28
NTRT isn't about aggressive tax avoidance schemes, it about retrospective tax legislation.

You can disapprove of the former and still be indignant at the unfairness of the latter.

As I do.

Aye, It was chancery to do it and I declined the offer when it was offered to me but chasing people down for houses is chancery.

High horse mentality and multiple "I told you so" posting is arseholery of the highest order.

minestrone
21st November 2012, 18:42
The way I see it is that the tax system in this country is a complete shambles.

There are more tax accountants and tax lawyers in the UK than formally trained Engineers.

It is a :shit: state of affairs.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 18:47
Do what you do, for it has no bearing on me; I just wanted to point out your duplicity mate.

Loving your defence though, absolutely. Going to pass it on to my 9 yo just to check my theory that she could see through your bluster...

Duplicity? Am I paying 3 to 5% tax?

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 18:54
Duplicity? Am I paying 3 to 5% tax?

No, but you're avoiding tax, just like the 3-5% folks.

HTH BIDI

speling bee
21st November 2012, 18:56
No, but you're avoiding tax, just like the 3-5% folks.

HTH BIDI

My objection is to people paying 3 to 5%. Where is the duplicity?

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 19:01
My objection is to people paying 3 to 5%. Where is the duplicity?

You're objection is people not paying enough tax, a fair share.

You avoid paying a fair share.

Or should I say, you objection is people paying less tax then you maybe?

You avoid paying tax. Simple.

HTH BIDI

speling bee
21st November 2012, 19:05
You're objection is people not paying enough tax, a fair share.

You avoid paying a fair share.

Or should I say, you objection is people paying less tax then you maybe?

You avoid paying tax. Simple.

HTH BIDI

I object to them paying 3 to 5%. Maybe your 9 yo can explain what an outcome is.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 19:13
I object to them paying 3 to 5%. Maybe your 9 yo can explain what an outcome is.

But you avoid tax yourself, so you object to people doing what you're doing; avoiding tax.

She understands duplicitous

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 19:17
Anyway, as we have found out the type of person you are, I am out of this, for all you will do, is what you always do, and that is bore the thread to death repeating, ad nauseum, a false point.

YOU, yes, YOU, take many steps to avoid tax, and NICS. They just do it better, and for all I know, it's this that irks you.

duplicitous - marked by deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another...

cailin maith
21st November 2012, 19:30
The Queen of Darkness appears.

Charming :eyes

centurian
21st November 2012, 19:34
I object to them paying 3 to 5%.

And given the recent fuss over PSC's, I have no doubt that there are millions of people in this country that would object to the level of tax you are paying through your PSC.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 19:42
And given the recent fuss over PSC's, I have no doubt that there are millions of people in this country that would object to the level of tax you are paying through your PSC.

I expect so.

lucozade
21st November 2012, 19:47
Lucozade I have no sympathy for you and if the govt finds you guilty and make you bankrupt so be it. You forget that there are thousands of honest contractors on here like me who pay our taxes at the top rate just so that I can sleep easy at night knowing that the HMRC wont ever introduce any retro law on to me. What did you expect when you paid 3% tax on your 100K earnings? You were stupid and you were caught out and now pay up and stop the red herring of moral/immoral values.

Oh really!!

Get your facts right before spouting more crap about a subject you clearly don't know about.

Do you operate under the LTD or Umbrella banner then. You could be next on the list of "tax avoiding scum". Open your eyes!

You all think your perfectly safe because your operating "within the law" in whatever mechanism you have chosen to be in. Yet you can't see the wood for trees in that the NTRT campaign and affected people may actually do you all a favour by protecting out bloomin rights in this land.

Tax avoidance is legal, no matter how immoral or fair it may seem.

Using retrospection is admission that it was legal.

THINK BEFORE YOU STINK :-)

minestrone
21st November 2012, 20:00
When general collides with professional.

Can we get back to Katie Perry, the state of traps in clientco, norks and winding each other up over things that don't really matter.

mudskipper
21st November 2012, 20:02
When general collides with professional.

Can we get back to Katie Perry, the state of traps in clientco, norks and winding each other up over things that don't really matter.

Katy Perry :spel

minestrone
21st November 2012, 20:03
Katy Perry :spel

norks.

Old Hack
21st November 2012, 20:03
I just love the way Greg looks the dick he is.

BrilloPad
21st November 2012, 20:06
When general collides with professional.

Can we get back to Katie Perry, the state of traps in clientco, norks and winding each other up over things that don't really matter.

+1

Whatever happened to the one a day thread?

bless 'em all
21st November 2012, 20:19
Sorry I'm late, just arrived, traffic.

So, you're all agreed then. Katy Perry is a slag.

Why did it take 14 pages to decide?

minestrone
21st November 2012, 20:49
+1

Whatever happened to the one a day thread?

That is blast from the past, norks every day, then it went all wrong...

"if you are not happy with norks then ram it" stylee

Very strange.

minestrone
21st November 2012, 20:58
Reminds me of the soup nazi sketch...

"no norks for you today"

meanttobeworking
22nd November 2012, 11:57
What are you hoping to achieve by attacking these guys? From here, it looks like you just like poking them with sticks (inbetween pulling wings off butterflies and burning ants with a magnifying glass).

Don't get me wrong, I already understand you don't approve of offshore schemes and their users. You can consider that point well and truly delivered. I'm just interested in why you feel the need to pursue them with such vigour? Do you fight a moral crusade over *everything* you disapprove of in life? You must spend ALL your time in forums, putting people straight! If you put this amount of effort into defending HMRC and striving to correct the morals of these 'tax dodgers', I can only imagine what towering feats of selfless giving you must bestow on other worthy causes, like widows, orphans, the homeless, victims of theft, rape, abuse and violence. SURELY you must have a bee* in your bonnet about those things too...?

Or do you just single out these people for fun?

*no pun intended

cojak
22nd November 2012, 12:27
This sub-thread has been moved away from the NTRT thread to a place where people can debate.

Yours isn't the only voice MTBW.

meanttobeworking
22nd November 2012, 12:31
Agreed, but we've had 14 pages of SB's voice, I'm just asking what he/she is trying to achieve. Isn't that allowed?

BrilloPad
22nd November 2012, 12:37
Agreed, but we've had 14 pages of SB's voice, I'm just asking what he/she is trying to achieve. Isn't that allowed?

Personally I welcome SB's opinion even though I disagree. I would rather here it here rather than from HMRC later.


You have no idea what taxes I pay so stop jumping to conclusions. I pay the correct tax rate and I am 100% confident I will have no HMRC sword hanging over me. You on the other hand is the scum wanting to pay no tax and enjoy a life of greed and now that the law has quite correctly caught up with you, you are spouting some crap about morality etc. You deserve to go bankrupt and I hope you do.

And again I welcome FA's opinion for same reason.

meanttobeworking
22nd November 2012, 12:39
Ah my mistake, I thought you might have welcomed a supportive voice when it seemed like you were being attacked.

I'll leave you to your battle :)

BrilloPad
22nd November 2012, 12:51
Ah my mistake, I thought you might have welcomed a supportive voice when it seemed like you were being attacked.

I'll leave you to your battle :)

Cheers. As per the post below we seem to be all agreed that this thread is too controversial. And I didn't really feel under attack - we should be able to justify ourselves. I would loved to have posted more - but quite alot of facts still have to be kept under our hat. No point in alerting HMRC. Though I hope one day the Brannigan might come here and post.


When general collides with professional.

Can we get back to Katie Perry, the state of traps in clientco, norks and winding each other up over things that don't really matter.

meanttobeworking
22nd November 2012, 12:57
As an unaffected but interested party, I was just intrigued to hear SB's motivation for debating the issue - I think that's an important piece of information in any debate, and it seemed to me to be odd that someone would expend so much time and effort without good reason. The only one I could think of is that he/she enjoys it, which to me is just as morally repugnant as offshore scheme users are to SB, which is why I spoke up.

Maybe they do have a better reason for doing it, but I'm beginning to wish I'd never taken an interest :D

SupremeSpod
22nd November 2012, 12:58
Cheers. As per the post below we seem to be all agreed that this thread is too controversial. And I didn't really feel under attack - we should be able to justify ourselves. I would loved to have posted more - but quite alot of facts still have to be kept under our hat. No point in alerting HMRC. Though I hope one day the Brannigan might come here and post.

Brannigan? Retiring with a fat civil service pension from the taxes we don't pay :laugh

lilelvis2000
22nd November 2012, 13:17
I'm doing nearly everything in cash these days. Will i declare it? Oh yes! :wink

The government make these loopholes to help out their cronies..and when others take advantage they throw fits. Maybe its time the small businessman became a bit smarter?

LisaContractorUmbrella
22nd November 2012, 13:51
I have no opinion on Katy Perry (sorry) but I do think that it is absolutely ridiculous to accuse businesses of 'immorality' when they are working within the confines of the UK tax law; if you extend the popular argument of 'fairness' (the word as used by modern day politicians as opposed to the OED) the only end result will be all businesses registering as charities.

With regard to retrospection in tax cases - the comment was made, by HMR&C, that tax payers should have known what their position would be had they (HMR&C) applied their minds to the issue in question at the time. This attitude has now been given credibility by the allowing of the retrospective element of the legislation and can therefore be used again at any time, in theory, leaving many people in a position whereby they could receive an additional tax bill at some time in the future merely because they didn't have a crystal ball. Most people on here know my views on tax avoidance but retrospection following a change in law is unacceptable.

lilelvis2000
22nd November 2012, 14:00
...
With regard to retrospection in tax cases - the comment was made, by HMR&C, that tax payers should have known what their position would be had they (HMR&C) applied their minds to the issue in question at the time. This attitude has now been given credibility by the allowing of the retrospective element of the legislation and can therefore be used again at any time, in theory, leaving many people in a position whereby they could receive an additional tax bill at some time in the future merely because they didn't have a crystal ball. Most people on here know my views on tax avoidance but retrospection following a change in law is unacceptable.

My wife has this issue in Immigration Law. A change in law after a client has put his application and the HO decided to use the new laws!

Of course HMRC had been under-taxing some people and then went and sent them all bills. If I tried that with my clients I'd get my bollocks cut off.

This country is going down the tube. The government is lucky the population are sheep.

d000hg
22nd November 2012, 14:11
I do think that it is absolutely ridiculous to accuse businesses of 'immorality' when they are working within the confines of the UK tax lawI don't like that line of thinking, it suggests that if you can find a legal loophole to do something wrong, you're fine. Or that right and wrong are defined solely by what is legal/illegal.

The point of the law is to mirror and enforce what we decide is right and wrong, not to define it.

LisaContractorUmbrella
22nd November 2012, 14:25
I don't like that line of thinking, it suggests that if you can find a legal loophole to do something wrong, you're fine. Or that right and wrong are defined solely by what is legal/illegal.

The point of the law is to mirror and enforce what we decide is right and wrong, not to define it.

What who decides is right and wrong? Majority opinion? Informed opinion? politicians?

Robinho
22nd November 2012, 14:28
Let's summarise...

Taxation is immoral - Legalised theft
Tax minimisation via offshores is legal and amoral - It's the government's responsibility to eliminate theft (tax) avoidance loopholes
Tax minimisation via ltds is legal and amoral - It's the government's responsibility to eliminate theft (tax) avoidance loopholes
Retrospective action by the government is tyranny - They are acting above the laws they have set

Points 2 and 3 are identical IMO. If you believe actively using legal forms of tax minimisation is immoral (i don't but if you do) the severity of it makes no difference.

Old Hack
22nd November 2012, 14:37
I don't like that line of thinking, it suggests that if you can find a legal loophole to do something wrong, you're fine. Or that right and wrong are defined solely by what is legal/illegal.

The point of the law is to mirror and enforce what we decide is right and wrong, not to define it.

What you are saying is that instead of defining right and wrong with objectively understandable laws, we have to by subjective measures, like a line in the sand of our morality?

Why is it finding a loophole to do something wrong, when it is onlyu wrong to certain people; this is the bit I cannot understand; you're judging people by your own moral toolset, not theirs.

What is right and wrong to you, may be way off what is right and wrong to me, to spod, to SB.

It's why I genuinely cannot understand Gregs viewpoint; he actively avoids paying tax, yet pokes a finger out at others who are doing the very same thing, albeit at a different level.

What is a fair amount of tax? Seriously, what is the figure you can come up with, that is fair, just?

I pay as little as I have to, judged by the rules in play when I come to pay them. Morality? You could argue you did this as you didn't want to aid paying for an illegal war, or that you do not believe in the morality of MP's being able to claim different expenses than business people. What I am saying, is morality is an amazingly bendy item when you want it to be.

I have a very good idea of right and wrong, I believe. It would, I have utterly no doubt, be very different than yours. We have laws, in order this is balanced; I dont agree with some, I agree others shoudl be different, harsher lets say.

I just don't get why morality, or what is what we think is right and wrong comes into it.

vetran
22nd November 2012, 14:48
I don't like that line of thinking , it suggests that if you can find a legal loophole to do something wrong, you're fine You are in law . Or that right and wrong are defined solely by what is legal/illegal they aren't otherwise people wouldn't believe parking fines are illegal.

The point of the law is to mirror and enforce what we decide and legislate is right and wrong, not and therefore to define it.

FTFY

You are still seeing 'the law' as being interested in Morality. Law doesn't decide right or wrong it just decides what is legal or illegal.

Law makers & Judges should be aware of morality - Law enforcers and those that obey can't be.

If its an immoral law change it going forward and if you wish give people who fell foul of it (not profited from it) an individual pardon or allow an appeal. This is the sort of thing that happened with treason and homosexuality laws. If you can get others that used it abusively (not illegally) under another law that existed at the time then go for it .

If its a bad law it will be opposed, morality may have a part in it but hindsight cannot be assumed in law.


Try this, you invest all your money in an ISA, in 10 years time the government decides ISA's were wrong and wants all you to pay it back, after all getting interest tax free was obviously a fiddle.

That's ok?

Try that again with a pension.
Discounted dental care.
Free Bus passes.
Free school meals. - you later earn above average wage and receive a bill for you the school meals you ate 20 years ago.

cojak
22nd November 2012, 15:55
Agreed, but we've had 14 pages of SB's voice, I'm just asking what he/she is trying to achieve. Isn't that allowed?

Of course it's allowed.

But expect to be challenged back.

d000hg
22nd November 2012, 16:08
What who decides is right and wrong? Majority opinion? Informed opinion? politicians?I don't know, but the point of the law is to crystalise morality into something tangible.


FTFY

You are still seeing 'the law' as being interested in Morality. Law doesn't decide right or wrong it just decides what is legal or illegal.Isn't that what I said, that laws are passed based on morality but morality is not defined by law? Laws are (ideally) strict rules, but those rules are written based on (somebody's idea of) morality.

LisaContractorUmbrella
22nd November 2012, 16:47
I don't know, but the point of the law is to crystalise morality into something tangible.

Isn't that what I said, that laws are passed based on morality but morality is not defined by law? Laws are (ideally) strict rules, but those rules are written based on (somebody's idea of) morality.

But the point is d000hg that morality is personal to the individual it cannot be crystalised except by oppression

vetran
22nd November 2012, 16:55
Ferguson: Five years?! No! No! I had no choice! They were killing each other in there.
Judge Dredd: You could have gone out the window.
Ferguson: Forty floors? It would have been suicide!
Judge Dredd: Maybe, but it's legal.

Judge Dredd: Emotions. There oughta be a law against them.

Rico Dredd: Guilt, and innocence, is a matter of timing.


Satire but with a grain of truth.

d000hg
22nd November 2012, 17:14
But the point is d000hg that morality is personal to the individual it cannot be crystalised except by oppressionSo it's oppressive to make a law saying sex between an adult and a 13-yo is illegal, because some people would say a 13-yo should be allowed to make that choice?

Laws come from somewhere, and that is an approximation of the average view of morality. Most people think killing someone or beating them up is wrong, so our laws reflect that. Most think sex with a minor is wrong, so it's illegal. Etc.

vetran
22nd November 2012, 17:48
So it's oppressive to make a law saying sex between an adult and a 13-yo is illegal, because some people would say a 13-yo should be allowed to make that choice?

Laws come from somewhere, and that is an approximation of the average view of morality. Most people think killing someone or beating them up is wrong, so our laws reflect that. Most think sex with a minor is wrong, so it's illegal. Etc.

Yes most people think its immoral, so a law is proposed & passed after due consideration, it is modified and improved in production

Most people think its immoral for someone to earn more than them, maybe we need a law?
Many people think its immoral to commit infidelity, maybe we need a law?
Many people think its immoral that some people get benefits , maybe we need a law?

Some parties think its immoral that businesses pay tax differently to them because the papers say so, maybe we need a law?

Most people think the existing legal system is a mess and there is too much regulation & loopholes , maybe we need a law?

d000hg
22nd November 2012, 18:01
Yes most people think its immoral, so a law is proposed & passed after due consideration, it is modified and improved in production

Most people think its immoral for someone to earn more than them, maybe we need a law? no they don't
Many people think its immoral to commit infidelity, maybe we need a law? Sure. In fact I'm a bit surprised it isn't
Many people think its immoral that some people get benefits , maybe we need a law?That's an infantile example. Many != most... the vast majority are in favour of the welfare state in some form.

Some parties think its immoral that businesses pay tax differently to them because the papers say so, maybe we need a law?

Most people think the existing legal system is a mess and there is too much regulation & loopholes , maybe we need a law?:spank:

vetran
22nd November 2012, 18:40
Most people think its immoral for someone to earn more than them, maybe we need a law? no they don't
Many people think its immoral to commit infidelity, maybe we need a law? Sure. In fact I'm a bit surprised it isn't
Many people think its immoral that some people get benefits , maybe we need a law?That's an infantile example. Many != most... the vast majority are in favour of the welfare state in some form.


see you disagree with me,
Communism is quite popular.
Infidelity is a social issue not a legal one.
Many!=most have you read the papers or looked at voting figures.

only way to create or amend a law is to use reason not emotion

minestrone
22nd November 2012, 19:15
Doog, do us a favour and get shot of the animated nazi smilie sig.

Some of us work for places where that will get folk into trouble.

Robinho
22nd November 2012, 19:23
Doog, do us a favour and get shot of the animated nazi smilie sig.

Some of us work for places where that will get folk into trouble.

The guy wants to outlaw infidelity.

He possibly has Nazi tendencies.

minestrone
22nd November 2012, 19:31
He can demand compulsory female circumscription for all I care. The guy has zoomerish tendacies but he should put that down in text.

Having 40 Hitlers with swastika flags waving will be a problem for casual viewers of the site and I can say it is that for me.

centurian
22nd November 2012, 19:58
Having 38 Hitlers with swastika flags waving will be a problem for casual viewers of the site and I can say it is that for me.

:spel

FTFY

d000hg
22nd November 2012, 20:00
Doog, do us a favour and get shot of the animated nazi smilie sig.

Some of us work for places where that will get folk into trouble.Awww. You can hide sigs (I've heard) and you could block that single image.

But I only did it 'cos it looked cute, I'm amazed nobody has complained about it before - admin has censored me before for using overly colorful text!

d000hg
22nd November 2012, 20:01
only way to create or amend a law is to use reason not emotionI don't believe you can reason your way to morality.

minestrone
22nd November 2012, 20:09
Awww. You can hide sigs (I've heard) and you could block that single image.

But I only did it 'cos it looked cute, I'm amazed nobody has complained about it before - admin has censored me before for using overly colorful text!

You work from home, some of us have to work for places where multiple little tiny animated Hitlers waving nazi flags looks decidedly dodgy and will impact.

A sense of perspective and context need be applied.

I cannot force you to make the right decision, I only ask and question your decision to place that as your sig.

minestrone
22nd November 2012, 20:11
Cheers!

Robinho
22nd November 2012, 20:18
Thanks Doug

minestrone
22nd November 2012, 20:26
Tit follows arse.

Robinho
22nd November 2012, 20:28
You so miserable.

minestrone
22nd November 2012, 20:36
You have to question the absolute stupidity of someone that thinks a Hitler smilie is a bit of a jape then preaches about morality.

This was Hitler...

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/image20i.jpg/

It is not a funny thing, not something that can be laughed about.

cojak
22nd November 2012, 20:43
You so miserable.

Oh, I forgot to mention - you're banned for 3 days.

minestrone
22nd November 2012, 21:03
For the best that you removed that image cojak. Should not have posted it. Sorry.

But in my defence I think some people should look at it.

d000hg
22nd November 2012, 21:07
You work from home, some of us have to work for places where multiple little tiny animated Hitlers waving nazi flags looks decidedly dodgy and will impact.

A sense of perspective and context need be applied.

I cannot force you to make the right decision, I only ask and question your decision to place that as your sig.If CUK deem it a suitable icon for the site, you should really take it up with them. But merely out of courtesy, rather than because I agree with you (I overcame the urge to post a whole page full of 'em ;))


You have to question the absolute stupidity of someone that thinks a Hitler smilie is a bit of a jape then preaches about morality.

This was Hitler...

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/image20i.jpg/)

It is not a funny thing, not something that can be laughed about.I haven't preached about anything, I stated an opinion. A bit like you did above.

Saying a cute nazi smilie is like laughing about the holocaust is like say that using the :winker: smilie is the same as posting a hi-res image of a man jerking off. I don't have such a picture though and Robby is banned.

I assume you have never taken part in any jokes about the Jimmy Saville case... and obviously I'll be keeping an eagle eye on your smilie usage.

But as I said - if you're offended by a nazi smilie you have the obvious choices:
a)block the image... why not if you think it's wrong on the site?
b)petition admin that it's inappropriate
c)piss off

d000hg
22nd November 2012, 21:17
Just for you minny:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x70bndpc70

minestrone
22nd November 2012, 22:41
If CUK deem it a suitable icon for the site, you should really take it up with them. But merely out of courtesy, rather than because I agree with you (I overcame the urge to post a whole page full of 'em ;))

I haven't preached about anything, I stated an opinion. A bit like you did above.

Saying a cute nazi smilie is like laughing about the holocaust is like say that using the :winker: smilie is the same as posting a hi-res image of a man jerking off. I don't have such a picture though and Robby is banned.

I assume you have never taken part in any jokes about the Jimmy Saville case... and obviously I'll be keeping an eagle eye on your smilie usage.

But as I said - if you're offended by a nazi smilie you have the obvious choices:
a)block the image... why not if you think it's wrong on the site?
b)petition admin that it's inappropriate
c)piss off


I'm not the one with a Hitler sig.

I'm not the one preaching constantly about how people should live their life.

vetran
22nd November 2012, 23:05
I don't believe you can reason your way to morality.

no you reason your way to efficacy.

Law has nothing to do with morality. Society's needs drive law making. The needs may not be obvious and are frequently intertwined with religion or public observance of morality. But in a good society they are based on Society's needs.

That is why taking multiple wives is allowed in a warring society with a high casualty rate or where the law makers wish to spread their genes was permitted - something we see as almost barbaric now.

Marrying your brother's widow (before benefits existed).

Coveting your neighbours wife/ ass is frowned upon.

As is eating Pork (a common cause of illness in early times).

If for instance society discovered a major plague that would wipe out the human race. The only way to avoid it was to be ravished by a corpulent red headed Glaswegian and a shire horse whilst dressed as Goebbels in a public place, smoking a bible and eating a Koran wrapped bacon cheeseburger. I'm pretty sure the law would change quickly, if only to preserve the elite.

Shares in horse stables would also rise.

It's a sad truth.

Old Hack
23rd November 2012, 09:49
I'm not the one with a Hitler sig.

I'm not the one preaching constantly about how people should live their life.

On. Head. Nail. Hit. The.

Any order you like.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to minestrone again.

d000hg
23rd November 2012, 10:11
I'm not the one with a Hitler sig.

I'm not the one preaching constantly about how people should live their life.I think you'll struggle to find evidence that I often tell people how to live their lives. I simply speak my opinion, exactly like you do. So I guess you're constantly preaching too.

You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about Hitler.

BrilloPad
23rd November 2012, 10:51
I think you'll struggle to find evidence that I often tell people how to live their lives. I simply speak my opinion, exactly like you do. So I guess you're constantly preaching too.

You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about Hitler.

When on holiday in Austria the taxi driver suggested we visit the hitler museum in Bavaria - his summer home or something.

I was surprised there was a museum to him. On the other hand should he be forgotten? Particularly with the way Europe is heading now.

Old Hack
23rd November 2012, 12:07
When on holiday in Austria the taxi driver suggested we visit the hitler museum in Bavaria - his summer home or something.

I was surprised there was a museum to him. On the other hand should he be forgotten? Particularly with the way Europe is heading now.

My wife and I honeymooned in Austria. The only thing I am surprised about, is that there weren't any Hitler statues about. They seemed strangely proud of him...

d000hg
23rd November 2012, 14:08
Did you go BP?

BrilloPad
23rd November 2012, 14:47
Did you go BP?

No fooking way! I hate museums anyway.

BrilloPad
23rd November 2012, 14:49
They seemed strangely proud of him...

Thankfully they are way more proud of the sound of music. At least in Salzburg. We toured some of the filming sites.

Persuaded the twins to run down that tunnel of plants. I filmed then - then filmed baby BP having a wee over the plants. Kids eh.....

Robinho
24th November 2012, 18:19
You have to question the absolute stupidity of someone that thinks a Hitler smilie is a bit of a jape then preaches about morality.

This was Hitler...

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/image20i.jpg/)

It is not a funny thing, not something that can be laughed about.

So you get all uppity about someone posting hitler smileys because you don't want onlookers seeing it. And then you decide to post a picture of holocaust victims in an open grave.

You really can't make it up.

:facepalm: :laugh