Jimmy Carr!
Comments
-
I understand, i just kind of would like an insight into the basis for their judgements0
-
James Patterson wrote: »I understand, i just kind of would like an insight into the basis for their judgements
Seems to have been covered enough for both sides of the argument.0 -
-
James Patterson wrote: »You do have a point haha i'll shutup
I didn't mean it like that
I just didn't want to repeat myself. 0 -
I've just got two tickets to go see him on the 20th :thumbup:0
-
-
James Patterson wrote: »When everyone is referring to immorality, are you saying its immoral due to it not being fair? I think immoral is a bit over-exagerated personally.
I thought I explained my own point of view on the morality issue rather well on a previous post, but I'll clarify my take on it once more. As accountants we're frequently taking the moral high ground on all sorts of dodgy client issues yet take a strange stance on tax avoidance. Is it because we're happy, not to mention fairly well paid, to turn a blind eye when we subjectively need to and it's our own careers on the line? Or if it's a celebrity or footballer people happen to like, why do so many suddenly turn ignorant? The Michael Jackson syndrome comes straight to my mind with that one.
If the Greek problems have shown us nothing else, it's that rampant tax avoidance and evasion result in a crumbling public sector: welfare and benefit systems that if everyone contributed their "fair share", would theoretically provide support and care to whoever might need them. It's simply not enough to re-spend your money back into the cycle of cash if it's not going to some of the places that need it the most. The wealthy might well be able to afford their own private health care and pensions but the poorer majority cannot. It affects each and every one of us directly as well as indirectly, no matter how well off you are. Were we ever unfortunate to suffer something such as a serious car crash, it's not the fricking RAC who are gonna cut us free, ferry us off to their own hospitals and provide life saving care: it's the publicly funded emergency services and the local A&E department. And what's the (alleged) core reason why so many are closing? Ooh, I can't guess. Does tax avoidance contribute to this? Of course it f**king does, it just a question of scale. £10,000 tax avoided could be the tipping point between life and death for someone who needed a life saving machine or care service that wasn't there.
No one has said tax avoidance is illegal, not a single person on this thread: we all know it's within the law. But moral? Ethical? Try arguing those points with someone who's maybe lost a close friend or relative due to lack of public funding and you might shortly be needing your own A&E treatment...0 -
There is an interesting thread on this on the ICAEW forum, responding to a recent article in The Times. The OP (there) suggests participating in these schemes is a breach of their code of ethics, and they need to ask themselves whether they want to belong to our profession or not, as it could be seen as bringing the profession into disrepute.
However, most of the responses seem to disagree with him along the "tax avoidance is legal" line. I agree with Robert's post above how the public purse shouldn't be deprived of money it urgently needs - although this brings us back to an earlier post about how it's the Government's responsibility to distribute the funds where they are needed, where not everyone agrees with how they are doing this.
I think accountants don't need to be questioning the law - if we wanted to do that we'd be lawyers or MPs. We all seem to agree that "small scale" tax avoidance such as incorporating a business is morally ok, but I think there is just a number of very fine lines between this and the type of schemes this thread talks about. Each scheme along the line will be slightly more elaborate, saving slightly more tax and being slightly less moral. Where does one draw the line to say these methods of tax avoidance are ok but anything more isn't? As either side of that line the schemes won't be that different, it's just that they appear so when people only talk about the extremes.0 -
An extra thought I had. At any given point in time, there will be mature accountants - and doubtless this will also affect some of the (tax) avoiders too, they don't completely live in plastic bubbles - that would willingly help clients deprive the public purse of tax income, yet will often bemoan the lack of available funding whenever they need to use a public service or their family/child tax credits are being reduced.
You don't need a magnifying glass to see the hypocrisy in that.
Interesting point Rozzi about the Times article and the ICAEW forum. I'm sure Joe Public often does see us as unprofessional and without ethics in the same vein as they might view 'bent' solictors who get violent criminals off on legal technicalities. Within the law isn't the same as being in the public interest.0 -
Earth calling Robert; Earth calling Robert; Earth calling Robert, come in - over?........ Nope nothing but static here!0
-
No one has said tax avoidance is illegal, not a single person on this thread: we all know it's within the law. But moral? Ethical? Try arguing those points with someone who's maybe lost a close friend or relative due to lack of public funding and you might shortly be needing your own A&E treatment...
Problem solved; the government has announced another round of quantitive easing £50b
So its the savers in effect, footing the bills this time..
The K2 scheme is legal, but it must be close to some grey areas, such a convaluted loop hole;
UK earners 'quit' their job
They then sign new employment contracts with offshore shell companies
The offshore companies 'rehire' their new employee to the UK but take their earnings
The offshore company pays the employee a much lower salary each month, but 'loans' them several thousand pounds
These loans can be written down as tax liabilities, thus substantially reducing tax payable to the Government0 -
Earth calling Robert; Earth calling Robert; Earth calling Robert, come in - over?........ Nope nothing but static here!
Doesn't your partner work in the NHS, Dean? If so, and with so much public outcry over the (alleged) under-funding of the system, don't you find it slightly ironic that you'd happily contribute to one of the root causes of it?0 -
Doesn't your partner work in the NHS, Dean? If so, and with so much public outcry over the (alleged) under-funding of the system, don't you find it slightly ironic that you'd happily contribute to one of the root causes of it?
Yeah she's now a GP working in practice - she earns far too much, has a huge pension, get's paid for holiday, only works 3 and a half days a week the rest is paid for study time, receives a study fund annually. Oh and not to mention the Christmas party.
But hey; I'm a private sector worker, self-employed sole-practitioner, no holiday, no pension, education self-funded, no study leave, no Christmas party (:001_tongue:). Oh this is a hot topic in our household - and yes, I am bitter and twisted about it! :001_smile:
Regards
Dean0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.2K Books to buy and sell
- 2.3K General discussion
- 12.5K For AAT students
- 328 NEW! Qualifications 2022
- 161 General Qualifications 2022 discussion
- 11 AAT Level 2 Certificate in Accounting
- 57 AAT Level 3 Diploma in Accounting
- 95 AAT Level 4 Diploma in Professional Accounting
- 8.9K For accounting professionals
- 23 coronavirus (Covid-19)
- 273 VAT
- 92 Software
- 275 Tax
- 138 Bookkeeping
- 7.2K General accounting discussion
- 203 AAT member discussion
- 3.8K For everyone
- 38 AAT news and announcements
- 345 Feedback for AAT
- 2.8K Chat and off-topic discussion
- 584 Job postings
- 16 Who can benefit from AAT?
- 36 Where can AAT take me?
- 42 Getting started with AAT
- 26 Finding an AAT training provider
- 48 Distance learning and other ways to study AAT
- 25 Apprenticeships
- 66 AAT membership