The Doctor Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: The govt provide exemptions and allowances, using them is not immoral. Massive difference between allowances provided and taking advantage of loopholes to avoid paying on top of what you save from those allowances... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 2 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Massive difference between allowances provided and taking advantage of loopholes to avoid paying on top of what you save from those allowances... I'm sure there are some crooks but 99% of accountants won't do anything illegal as they'd lose their license. They're very well paid, it's not worth it to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: I'm sure there are some crooks but 99% of accountants won't do anything illegal as they'd lose their license. They're very well paid, it's not worth it to them. Wasn't claiming they were doing anything illegal? Avoidance using loopholes is legal, just immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 4 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Wasn't claiming they were doing anything illegal? Avoidance using loopholes is legal, just immoral. No. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 I love my Accountant, he's worth his weight in gold, and I'd pay him twice as much as I do currently if I had to. His view is that HRMC aren't really interested in bottom feeders like me and only give a shite about the big boys and corporates. They haven't got the time, inclination or resources to check up or investigate one man bands or business that turnover less than £5m. He's got no issues working the system or using it to the benefit of his clients. It's not 'tax dodging' or 'fiddling the system' it's just making the most out of of the current laws and legislation in place. Being self employed we don't get any of the normal benefits an employee would, so paying slightly less tax balances that out for me.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 8 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Wasn't claiming they were doing anything illegal? Avoidance using loopholes is legal, just immoral. 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: No. Morality in this matter is obviously subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 6 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Wasn't claiming they were doing anything illegal? Avoidance using loopholes is legal, just immoral. So the example given is, a self employed man (which is similar to a zero hour contract) is (if she doesnt have a job) paying his wife 11,500 to take advantage of her tax free allowance. Which part of that is immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 Just now, leicsmac said: Morality in this matter is obviously subjective. Morality doesn't come into it. You pay your accountant to keep your tax bill as low as possible. All they are doing is their job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 I used to do some part time assessing and earned no more than £1500 on top of my normal pay for about 10 years and every year I had to fill in a tax form and 5 of those years they asked me to prove some of it which i could. Complete waste of every ones time and I used to wonder what I'd done in a previous life to warrant such interest in me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 1 minute ago, Strokes said: So the example given is, a self employed man (which is similar to a zero hour contract) is (if she doesnt have a job) paying his wife 11,500 to take advantage of her tax free allowance. Which part of that is immoral? A one man band wouldn't get away with that. He'd have to prove that she was doing £11,500 worth of work. Before my wife went back to work after having the kids I paid her £25 a week as that's all the accountant said I could get away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: Morality doesn't come into it. You pay your accountant to keep your tax bill as low as possible. All they are doing is their job. Of course it does. The accountant is being paid to keep the tax bill as low as possible and so therefore keep the individuals contributions to the public good as low as possible. How you view that situation depends entirely on your own moral viewpoint and is in no way objective. Edited 26 October 2017 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: A one man band wouldn't get away with that. He'd have to prove that she was doing £11,500 worth of work. Before my wife went back to work after having the kids I paid her £25 a week as that's all the accountant said I could get away with. Yeah it would be easier if you set yourself up as a limited company and put both as directors. Then had a paye payroll for that. I was never able to do it when i was self employed as my wife was working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Of course it does. The accountant is being paid to keep the tax bill as low as possible and so therefore keep the individuals contributions to the public good as low as possible. How you view that situation depends entirely on your own moral viewpoint and is in no way objective. It's not up to the accountant to make moral decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: Yeah it would be easier if you set yourself up as a limited company and put both as directors. Then had a paye payroll for that. I was never able to do it when i was self employed as my wife was working. Last year my Accountant advised me to transfer 12% of shares into my wife's name. My wife has a part time job and earns 21k per year and now 'earns' an extra £480 p/month dividend from my Ltd company. The only difference is that she now does a self assessment and last year her extra tax bill was a whole 52p! I'm just doing as I'm told really. I'm not sure what's immoral about it as it's all within the laws of the land. I sleep at night no problem (apart from needing to get up to piss) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 I've nothing against accountants, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 14 minutes ago, Webbo said: It's not up to the accountant to make moral decisions. You're right, it's not. Like the attorney defending Dylan Roof, it is the job they're hired to do. The moral culpability, whichever way it is viewed, lies with who hired them - but don't pretend there isn't a moral question to be answered about such practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 10 minutes ago, leicsmac said: You're right, it's not. Like the attorney defending Dylan Roof, it is the job they're hired to do. The moral culpability, whichever way it is viewed, lies with who hired them - but don't pretend there isn't a moral question to be answered about such practices. To answer any moral question you first have to answer a question of whether that tax is morally just in the first place, and the morality of what government chooses to spend it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 13 minutes ago, leicsmac said: You're right, it's not. Like the attorney defending Dylan Roof, it is the job they're hired to do. The moral culpability, whichever way it is viewed, lies with who hired them - but don't pretend there isn't a moral question to be answered about such practices. What about a doctor that saves a rapist's life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 26 October 2017 Author Share Posted 26 October 2017 2 minutes ago, KingGTF said: To answer any moral question you first have to answer a question of whether that tax is morally just in the first place, and the morality of what government chooses to spend it on. Not necessarily, given the millions of people that don’t have the choice as to whether they pay tax, the rate it is set at, or what the government spends it on - it’s a matter they are dictated to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, KingGTF said: To answer any moral question you first have to answer a question of whether that tax is morally just in the first place, and the morality of what government chooses to spend it on. Absolutely. As I said, my contention was with the assertion that this matter wasn't subjective in the first place. 9 minutes ago, Webbo said: What about a doctor that saves a rapist's life? Yup, you could certainly debate the morality of that. But again, it comes down to the moral choice the client/patient made that should be examined rather than the person doing their job. I think perhaps we might agree on that. Edited 26 October 2017 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: Not necessarily, given the millions of people that don’t have the choice as to whether they pay tax, the rate it is set at, or what the government spends it on - it’s a matter they are dictated to. Then that's a moral question in itself. There's a known quote by an American judicial philosopher by the name of Leonard Hand which says: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." The moral issue isn't that some people can, it's that some people can't maximise their own welfare (although everyone can in some way such as an ISA or even choosing to buy food instead of clothes). Edited 26 October 2017 by KingGTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 39 minutes ago, Buce said: I've nothing against accountants, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one... Are you self emplyed buce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 1 hour ago, Strokes said: So the example given is, a self employed man (which is similar to a zero hour contract) is (if she doesnt have a job) paying his wife 11,500 to take advantage of her tax free allowance. Which part of that is immoral? Well in that you're getting into an argument about whether nepotism is moral to boot, so not the best example but the question would be is she actually doing the work for that income? If so, ignore the nepotism question for a second and it's fine: she'd be an employee, wages should be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strokes said: So the example given is, a self employed man (which is similar to a zero hour contract) is (if she doesnt have a job) paying his wife 11,500 to take advantage of her tax free allowance. Which part of that is immoral? If she isn't actually working for the company then of course it is immoral. Edited 26 October 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted 26 October 2017 Share Posted 26 October 2017 10 minutes ago, toddybad said: If she isn't actually working for the company then of course it is immoral. Depends what you class as 'work' My wife doesn't deal with clients or the business finances but she puts up with my mood swings, listens to my moans and it's highly supportive of me. Actually, I think I'll call her my 'Coach'. Yeah, that works. And at only £480 a month, she's a cheap coach at that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts