[Wykey]

I think Wykey's 100% right, to not utilise them would be ridiculous.

To not utilise aggressive tax avoidance schemes is ridiculous?

May I ask, where did you first hear the term "aggressive tax avoidance"?

[chrysostom]

I think Wykey's 100% right, to not utilise them would be ridiculous.

To not utilise something which is 100% legal and saves you money as an individual, and keeps you in line with paying the base rate of tax which a majority of the earning population pay is ridiculous?

Well, when you put it like that...

[dimtimjim]

Exactly. Everyone seems to forget that even paying 25% of what you earn in tax is a feck load of money. Then you have to pay 20% tax on everything you spend your remaining money on - is it any wonder people try to 'look after themselves' with such LEGAL policies..?!!

[ess]

It makes me wonder how people who work from home and claim tax relief on their lighting, heating, cleaning, insurance, mortgage interest payments, council tax, water rates and 'general maintenance' are perceived.

Is that aggressive tax avoidance as well?

No. Aggressive tax avoidance is a tax loss unmatched by an economic loss, which is set off against income for the year so as to reduce the tax payable.

Besides most of what you've listed can't be claimed as they are not extra expenses inured from working at home. Most people working from home claim less than £3 a week, seams about right for the additional expense of heating and electrics.

[ess]

I think Wykey's 100% right, to not utilise them would be ridiculous.

To not utilise something which is 100% legal and saves you money as an individual, and keeps you in line with paying the base rate of tax which a majority of the earning population pay is ridiculous?

Well, when you put it like that...

If you quote someone don't re-write the quote.

[ess]

Exactly. Everyone seems to forget that even paying 25% of what you earn in tax is a feck load of money. Then you have to pay 20% tax on everything you spend your remaining money on - is it any wonder people try to 'look after themselves' with such LEGAL policies..?!!

What is this 25% tax you keep speaking ok?

[chrysostom]

If you quote someone feel free to re-write the quote if it's an obvious edit and contributes to a point about semantics and the media.

[Wykey]

It makes me wonder how people who work from home and claim tax relief on their lighting, heating, cleaning, insurance, mortgage interest payments, council tax, water rates and 'general maintenance' are perceived.

Is that aggressive tax avoidance as well?

No. Aggressive tax avoidance is a tax loss unmatched by an economic loss, which is set off against income for the year so as to reduce the tax payable.

Besides most of what you've listed can't be claimed as they are not extra expenses inured from working at home. Most people working from home claim less than £3 a week, seams about right for the additional expense of heating and electrics.

Oh really, that's what aggressive tax avoidance is is it? Interesting. And that's what you know for a fact CM did, do you?

Interesting.

As for the list, I think you'll find that ALL of what I listed can be claimed, given I got the list from HMRC. So I ask again, is that aggressive tax avoidance, seeing as you seem slightly confused as to legitimate allowances and tax relief?

[ess]

It makes me wonder how people who work from home and claim tax relief on their lighting, heating, cleaning, insurance, mortgage interest payments, council tax, water rates and 'general maintenance' are perceived.

Is that aggressive tax avoidance as well?

No. Aggressive tax avoidance is a tax loss unmatched by an economic loss, which is set off against income for the year so as to reduce the tax payable.

Besides most of what you've listed can't be claimed as they are not extra expenses inured from working at home. Most people working from home claim less than £3 a week, seams about right for the additional expense of heating and electrics.

Oh really, that's what aggressive tax avoidance is is it? Interesting. And that's what you know for a fact CM did, do you?

Interesting.

As for the list, I think you'll find that ALL of what I listed can be claimed, given I got the list from HMRC. So I ask again, is that aggressive tax avoidance, seeing as you seem slightly confused as to legitimate allowances and tax relief?

Are you sure your looking at the correct HMRC website?

I am and it clearly says mortgage, council tax, water and anything that is not in additional cost is not allowed:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-household.htm#1

[DevilsDuck]

oh this is fun...we are arguing about tax

*puts in his pocket protector*

[chrysostom]

Just a quick comparison table to show the disparity between income earned and proportion of income paid in tax. (sorry it's not that tidy!)



If I was in the higher earner bracket, I would want to be paying (proportionately) as much as everyone else. If the government was going to take money away from me 'because I can afford to do without it' then I would try as hard as I could to get that money back if there was a legal way to do so.

[Wykey]

Are you sure your looking at the correct HMRC website?

I am and it clearly says mortgage, council tax, water and anything that is not in additional cost is not allowed:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-household.htm#1

Wow, good to see you really do understand your argument (here's a clue for you, read what I wrote and have more than a cursory glance at google).

[The Deadly]

All this talk is very taxing on my brain.....

[Wykey]

If I was in the higher earner bracket, I would want to be paying (proportionately) as much as everyone else. If the government was going to take money away from me 'because I can afford to do without it' then I would try as hard as I could to get that money back if there was a legal way to do so.

Or in other words to legitimately minimise your tax liability and legitimately maximise the tax relief you claim.

Aggressively. Or maybe even sadistically.

[Yudster]

Do I think such schemes are wrong and that morally and ethically people including Chris Moyles should think better of engaging in them? Yes.

Did I enjoy the Chris Moyles Show on the radio and do I admire Chris as an expert and supreme radio broadcaster? Yes.

That's me done.

[dimtimjim]

Chrys is hitting the nail on the head with his lovely images... If we all pay a flat tax rate, using 25% as an example, those who earn more, will naturally end up paying more. 25% of £100,000 is more than 25% of £10,000. Yet the system we have means that someone earning £100,000 ends up paying way over the odds.

Again, I ask, is it really a shock that people will try to utilise fully legal methods to bring them back down to the 25%(ish) which Johnny-average pays?

Using Chrys example figures, I know damn well if I earned £140,000, yet only came out with £84,736, I'd feel pretty hard done by.

And ESS, i'm using 25% as an approx figure most tax payers pay, which includes NI in to a single figure, as NI is jus' another tax on your earning you have no choice about paying. Combine them and you're nearly at 25%. Ok?

[neilt0]

Yes, a flat tax makes complete sense. Which is why Herman Cain is now the U.S. president.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2011/ ... graph?lite

[Yudster]

Flat tax rate is ludicrous. 25% of (for example) my salary is far more significant to me than 25% of the salary of someone earning six figures. People who can afford more should pay more.

Maybe I wasn't done before. I am now though.

[ess]

Chrys is hitting the nail on the head with his lovely images... If we all pay a flat tax rate, using 25% as an example, those who earn more, will naturally end up paying more. 25% of £100,000 is more than 25% of £10,000. Yet the system we have means that someone earning £100,000 ends up paying way over the odds.

Again, I ask, is it really a shock that people will try to utilise fully legal methods to bring them back down to the 25%(ish) which Johnny-average pays?

Using Chrys example figures, I know damn well if I earned £140,000, yet only came out with £84,736, I'd feel pretty hard done by.

And ESS, i'm using 25% as an approx figure most tax payers pay, which includes NI in to a single figure, as NI is jus' another tax on your earning you have no choice about paying. Combine them and you're nearly at 25%. Ok?

You people think that aggressive tax avoidance just allows people to pay rate at the same rate as average Joe? Thats kind of cute but horribly mistaken. They pay minimal amount of tax on these schemes, as low as 1%, while most people pay between 20-30%.

These shady immoral schemes are only legal until the law catches up and closes them down, much like legal highs.

Thanks.

[chrysostom]

much like legal highs.

Legal highs aren't immoral!

This could lead to a 'legality vs. morality of drugs' debate, which is too much to get into.

[dimtimjim]

You people think that aggressive tax avoidance just allows people to pay rate at the same rate as average Joe? Thats kind of cute but horribly mistaken. They pay minimal amount of tax on these schemes, as low as 1%

No I don't, and expecting to pay jus' 1% on your earning is, in my opinion, wrong on every level.

but thanks, you're also cute yourself. x x

[ess]

much like legal highs.

Legal highs aren't immoral!

This could lead to a 'legality vs. morality of drugs' debate, which is too much to get into.

Ok I should have been clearer i was referring to the second part of the sentence. Legal highs are only legal until the law catches up with them.

[ess]

You people think that aggressive tax avoidance just allows people to pay rate at the same rate as average Joe? Thats kind of cute but horribly mistaken. They pay minimal amount of tax on these schemes, as low as 1%

No I don't, and expecting to pay jus' 1% on your earning is, in my opinion, wrong on every level.

but thanks, you're also cute yourself. x x

Then why are you defending this tax avoidance? The figures aren't out yet but in other schemes people were only paying 1% tax on earning so I doubt this scheme will be much different and will almost certainly be significantly less % tax than normals pay.

[Boboff]

When people work from home they can claim "use of home as office"
These amounts must be reasonable and proportionate to income. It's not a proportion of your bills your allowed to claim, but an overall allowance which recognizes if your office is 10% of the floor space of your home, no more than 10% of your home running costs can be claimed.
Conversely if you live in your business (like a pub) you have to pay tax on the costs of the private living accommodation.
Otherwise expenses must be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade.
That is all straight forward really.

What isn't are these schemes, which are designed only to Evade tax, which is illegal and should be stopped.

But where do you stop? Many Rich people set up lifetime trusts to take wealth out of the calculation for inheritance tax, indeed it is often said inheritance tax is optional, as getting out of it is very easy and legal, and I suppose it's the same thing.

All the presenters and journo's at the BBC, all paid through a company, with the express intention of the BBC not having to pay Employers NIC, and the Employee paying only 20 or 25% tax. That's just the same as well.

Using separate legal entities to disunite a man from his money, to reduce his liability to taxation.

Morally it's wrong, but if I was megga rich, would I do it? Hell yes. ( Nurses are already paid shit loads, I know my wife keeps me in the manner I wish to become accustomed to!)

[chrysostom]

The figures aren't out yet but in other schemes people were only paying 1% tax on earning so I doubt this scheme will be much different and will almost certainly be significantly less % tax than normals pay.

Bear in mind we don't know whether the scheme itself was successful or how much was invested in the period which lasted less than 12 months before Chris pulled out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... cheme.html

A new article in the Telegraph about this.

Suggests that Moyles probably wasn't using it for his BBC earnings as he's contractually obliged to pay 'the appropriate amount of tax' on that income.