Need help setting up an LTD

[franglais]

robbo99.:

Franglais:

robbo99.:
Yep the working man working the system legally to save on tax is a tax fiddler in the eyes of the bigots but the multi million/billionaires doing the same are seen as entrepreneurs.

There are double standards at play for sure. Better to get the rich to pay a fair share rather than let others copy or aspire to their antisocial selfishness?

And have a tax authority that is fit for purpose and not sit on their hands for year after year after year doing absolutely nothing and then landing people with massive tax bills, ie The Loan Charge which HMRC wanted to land 20 year retrospective tax bills on unsuspecting workers. Complete and utter shambles, the government bang on about how well HMRC have handled this pandemic, they ought to look at the Counter Avoidance side of HMRC.

My own (rare) dealings with HMRC have been fine, but I know there are many credible horror stories about them.

On the wider point:
Maybe one day maybe tax avoidance/evasion will become as socially acceptable as drink-driving is today?

[robbo99]

Franglais:

robbo99.:

Franglais:

robbo99.:
Yep the working man working the system legally to save on tax is a tax fiddler in the eyes of the bigots but the multi million/billionaires doing the same are seen as entrepreneurs.

There are double standards at play for sure. Better to get the rich to pay a fair share rather than let others copy or aspire to their antisocial selfishness?

And have a tax authority that is fit for purpose and not sit on their hands for year after year after year doing absolutely nothing and then landing people with massive tax bills, ie The Loan Charge which HMRC wanted to land 20 year retrospective tax bills on unsuspecting workers. Complete and utter shambles, the government bang on about how well HMRC have handled this pandemic, they ought to look at the Counter Avoidance side of HMRC.

My own (rare) dealings with HMRC have been fine, but I know there are many credible horror stories about them.

On the wider point:
Maybe one day maybe tax avoidance/evasion will become as socially acceptable as drink-driving is today?

Well tax evasion is totally illegal now, prison time if found guilty of that. Obviously drink driving is also illegal, tax avoidance is not illegal, morally I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

[franglais]

robbo99.:
Well tax evasion is totally illegal now, prison time if found guilty of that. Obviously drink driving is also illegal, tax avoidance is not illegal, morally I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

Someone drink-driving and getting a tricky lawyer to escape doesnt get a good press. Those employing lawyers or accountants to escape their tax obligations to society might still do so? I am talking morals as opposed to laws, and dont apologise for it.

[ets]

robbo99.:
Yep the working man working the system legally to save on tax is a tax fiddler in the eyes of the bigots but the multi million/billionaires doing the same are seen as entrepreneurs.

Oh but they’re investors and JOB CREATORS. Counties/states are in a fierce competition for example for the next Amazon RDC, bidding over each other to the tune of 100s of millions of £/USD worth of tax cuts/incentives so they can get the ‘‘jobs’’ which are then going to be taxed properly by virtue of income tax AND the local gov’t can claim credit for attracting said jobs. Amazon on the other hand are leading the R&D for replacing as many jobs with automation and pioneering ‘‘fully automated solutions’’.

In other words, the biggest destroyers of jobs (Amazon, Walmart, etc.) get tax cuts to create low pay jobs - some temporary, often destroying already existing jobs either locally or elsewhere by virtue of eliminating/buying out competitors. If that’s capitalism then I’m a flying sausage.

[robbo99]

Franglais:

robbo99.:
Well tax evasion is totally illegal now, prison time if found guilty of that. Obviously drink driving is also illegal, tax avoidance is not illegal, morally I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

Someone drink-driving and getting a tricky lawyer to escape doesnt get a good press. Those employing lawyers or accountants to escape their tax obligations to society might still do so? I am talking morals as opposed to laws, and dont apologise for it.

So not been sarcastic Franglais, but an Accountant is there to keep their clients legal and reduce their tax liability to a minimum. So when said client receives his/her annual tax bill, should he or she then pay double the amount to the tax man because his/her conscience tells them to do that? Taxation for self employed, ltd co’s is not an exact science like PAYE, it is full of differing interpretations and the usual grey areas. Everyone should pay their fair share of tax but what is a fair share?

[franglais]

robbo99.:

Franglais:

robbo99.:
Well tax evasion is totally illegal now, prison time if found guilty of that. Obviously drink driving is also illegal, tax avoidance is not illegal, morally I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

Someone drink-driving and getting a tricky lawyer to escape doesnt get a good press. Those employing lawyers or accountants to escape their tax obligations to society might still do so? I am talking morals as opposed to laws, and dont apologise for it.

So not been sarcastic Franglais, but an Accountant is there to keep their clients legal and reduce their tax liability to a minimum. So when said client receives his/her annual tax bill, should he or she then pay double the amount to the tax man because his/her conscience tells them to do that? Taxation for self employed, ltd co’s is not an exact science like PAYE, it is full of differing interpretations and the usual grey areas. Everyone should pay their fair share of tax but what is a fair share?

An accountant is to ensure a taxpayer is legal. Is it obligatory that the bill is minimised? I’m sure most would expect that, but it isn’t necessary to take advantage of every slightly grey area is it?
That’s what I mean about the prevailing attitude towards tax paying.
Even the word you (quite correctly) use “liability” has an angle to it. Why don’t tax payers sign their cheque with a smile, thinking of nurse’s wages they are paying?
“Taking advantage” of grey areas is often seen as clever, making an individual better off, with no thought that society, and the country as an entity, is poorer.
.
For what it’s worth Scandinavian countries have higher levels of happiness than us. They also have less difference between the wealthy and the poor. They also pay high taxes to enable better standards for the majority. They tend to have more progressive taxation regimes. In the UK the rich especially have been paying less for decades.
.
You’re right that defining a “fair share” is difficult, but I reckon we would (once we got used to the idea of it) be better off if we all paid more tax.

[robbo99]

Franglais:

robbo99.:

Franglais:

robbo99.:
Well tax evasion is totally illegal now, prison time if found guilty of that. Obviously drink driving is also illegal, tax avoidance is not illegal, morally I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

Someone drink-driving and getting a tricky lawyer to escape doesnt get a good press. Those employing lawyers or accountants to escape their tax obligations to society might still do so? I am talking morals as opposed to laws, and dont apologise for it.

So not been sarcastic Franglais, but an Accountant is there to keep their clients legal and reduce their tax liability to a minimum. So when said client receives his/her annual tax bill, should he or she then pay double the amount to the tax man because his/her conscience tells them to do that? Taxation for self employed, ltd co’s is not an exact science like PAYE, it is full of differing interpretations and the usual grey areas. Everyone should pay their fair share of tax but what is a fair share?

An accountant is to ensure a taxpayer is legal. Is it obligatory that the bill is minimised? I’m sure most would expect that, but it isn’t necessary to take advantage of every slightly grey area is it?
That’s what I mean about the prevailing attitude towards tax paying.
Even the word you (quite correctly) use “liability” has an angle to it. Why don’t tax payers sign their cheque with a smile, thinking of nurse’s wages they are paying?
“Taking advantage” of grey areas is often seen as clever, making an individual better off, with no thought that society, and the country as an entity, is poorer.
.
For what it’s worth Scandinavian countries have higher levels of happiness than us. They also have less difference between the wealthy and the poor. They also pay high taxes to enable better standards for the majority. They tend to have more progressive taxation regimes. In the UK the rich especially have been paying less for decades.
.
You’re right that defining a “fair share” is difficult, but I reckon we would (once we got used to the idea of it) be better off if we all paid more tax.

And maybe if the tax collected was focused on the important things like nurses wages and so forth rather than being tossed around like confetti and wasted on the weird and the wonderful then maybe people would be open to contributing more?

[franglais]

robbo99.:

Franglais:

robbo99.:

Franglais:

robbo99.:
Well tax evasion is totally illegal now, prison time if found guilty of that. Obviously drink driving is also illegal, tax avoidance is not illegal, morally I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

Someone drink-driving and getting a tricky lawyer to escape doesnt get a good press. Those employing lawyers or accountants to escape their tax obligations to society might still do so? I am talking morals as opposed to laws, and dont apologise for it.

So not been sarcastic Franglais, but an Accountant is there to keep their clients legal and reduce their tax liability to a minimum. So when said client receives his/her annual tax bill, should he or she then pay double the amount to the tax man because his/her conscience tells them to do that? Taxation for self employed, ltd co’s is not an exact science like PAYE, it is full of differing interpretations and the usual grey areas. Everyone should pay their fair share of tax but what is a fair share?

An accountant is to ensure a taxpayer is legal. Is it obligatory that the bill is minimised? I’m sure most would expect that, but it isn’t necessary to take advantage of every slightly grey area is it?
That’s what I mean about the prevailing attitude towards tax paying.
Even the word you (quite correctly) use “liability” has an angle to it. Why don’t tax payers sign their cheque with a smile, thinking of nurse’s wages they are paying?
“Taking advantage” of grey areas is often seen as clever, making an individual better off, with no thought that society, and the country as an entity, is poorer.
.
For what it’s worth Scandinavian countries have higher levels of happiness than us. They also have less difference between the wealthy and the poor. They also pay high taxes to enable better standards for the majority. They tend to have more progressive taxation regimes. In the UK the rich especially have been paying less for decades.
.
You’re right that defining a “fair share” is difficult, but I reckon we would (once we got used to the idea of it) be better off if we all paid more tax.

And maybe if the tax collected was focused on the important things like nurses wages and so forth rather than being tossed around like confetti and wasted on the weird and the wonderful then maybe people would be open to contributing more?

Some agreement here maybe?

But I’ll be a a bit critical (again![emoji3]) of your language. Tax shouldn’t be called a “contribution”. That sort of implies a voluntary, charitable donation?
Not pointing at you particularly, just observing the common use of words, and the widespread attitude towards taxes.

[robbo99]

Why not google contribute/contribution Franglais? Tax IS a contribution therefore as a taxpayer we all contribute.

[franglais]

robbo99.:
Why not google contribute/contribution Franglais? Tax IS a contribution therefore as a taxpayer we all contribute.

I never said you used the word incorrectly. No such intentions.
But I don’t like the feel of it. I agree it’s probably me being overly sensitive.

[osark]

Amazing how some think that all the services a state provides for its populace, so it keeps revolutions at bay, are funded by taxation.
I mean the very currency one manages to aquire and is taxted on, has its inception on the state spending it and somehow the state convinces some that even though it is the only one able to create and be the first one to spend new currency, it still needs back a percentage of the intrinsically valueless piece of paper, that it conjured out of the ether and spent earlier.
Taxation for state provision is only true in a gold standard.
In a fiat system, taxation is only a way of making everyone want something that, if you think a bit, is just a piece of paper with numbers and the photo of two ugly people printed on it.
As only per coersion a fiat system kind of works for a bit. If you dont rush around to collect the state tokens so you can give a share of what you managed to pile up, back to the state, the state will hassle you.
By the way, no company ever paid taxes. Tax a company and only the people connected to that company will pay extra taxes. Employees, customers and shareholders are the ones relinquising more of their tokens to pay for a supposedly tax on the company.

[franglais]

osark:
Amazing how some think that all the services a state provides for its populace, so it keeps revolutions at bay, are funded by taxation.
I mean the very currency one manages to aquire and is taxted on, has its inception on the state spending it and somehow the state convinces some that even though it is the only one able to create and be the first one to spend new currency, it still needs back a percentage of the intrinsically valueless piece of paper, that it conjured out of the ether and spent earlier.
Taxation for state provision is only true in a gold standard.
In a fiat system, taxation is only a way of making everyone want something that, if you think a bit, is just a piece of paper with numbers and the photo of two ugly people printed on it.
As only per coersion a fiat system kind of works for a bit. If you dont rush around to collect the state tokens so you can give a share of what you managed to pile up, back to the state, the state will hassle you.
By the way, no company ever paid taxes. Tax a company and only the people connected to that company will pay extra taxes. Employees, customers and shareholders are the ones relinquising more of their tokens to pay for a supposedly tax on the company.

Amazing? Inflation!

[osark]

Franglais:

osark:
Amazing how some think that all the services a state provides for its populace, so it keeps revolutions at bay, are funded by taxation.
I mean the very currency one manages to aquire and is taxted on, has its inception on the state spending it and somehow the state convinces some that even though it is the only one able to create and be the first one to spend new currency, it still needs back a percentage of the intrinsically valueless piece of paper, that it conjured out of the ether and spent earlier.
Taxation for state provision is only true in a gold standard.
In a fiat system, taxation is only a way of making everyone want something that, if you think a bit, is just a piece of paper with numbers and the photo of two ugly people printed on it.
As only per coersion a fiat system kind of works for a bit. If you dont rush around to collect the state tokens so you can give a share of what you managed to pile up, back to the state, the state will hassle you.
By the way, no company ever paid taxes. Tax a company and only the people connected to that company will pay extra taxes. Employees, customers and shareholders are the ones relinquising more of their tokens to pay for a supposedly tax on the company.

Amazing? Inflation!

Exaclty! Our beloved £ already lost more than 80% of its purchasing power since it was introduced, and the last 20% wont take long to be dissolved as the Bank of England is now creating new £s out of nothing and buying with it gilts straight from the government, by passing the secondary market, so the the government can rescue everyone from a virus.
They called it “ways and means”. Yeah, ways and means to destroy your currency.
In a paper money system inflation will always destroy the currency, its just a matter of time.

[rjan]

osark:

Franglais:
…

Exaclty! Our beloved £ already lost more than 80% of its purchasing power since it was introduced, and the last 20% wont take long to be dissolved.
In a paper money system inflation will always destroy the currency, its just a matter of time.

Inflation is supposed to destroy existing unspent value. Without it, you’d get people hoarding currency which is a mode of systemic collapse.

The reason investment rates are sometimes below zero currently, and almost always hovering around zero, is because those with cash are attempting to force too much of it into investment spending (the kind of spending which demands a return), and too little into consumer spending (which does not demand a return).

If you go to the car showroom and buy a car for yourself, you don’t expect the manufacturer to pay you more than the car is worth next year. Yet that is what investors do - they go in and buy, say, a car production line, and next year they expect to get their money back and more.

When there is demand for investment spending and it is done productively, those returns are available. But the current market is oversupplied with those willing to spend on investment, driving the returns to investors to zero.

The next step for those who have cash but refuse to spend as consumers, and who are getting destructive returns on investment spending, is to start hoarding that cash.

Inflation is there to say “you’re not doing that!”, and to ensure the pressure to spend remains in place and maintains the momentum of the economy.

The alternative then for those with cash is either to spend it on themselves as consumers, or else to keep accepting destructive returns as investors, until the amount of money available for investment has been culled to the point that returns improve on whatever money is left.

For the vast majority of investors, it makes more sense in principle to spend on themselves as consumers than to accept destructive returns as investors, but many have such wild amounts of cash that they cannot feasibly find things to spend it on themselves all at once. And that’s what inflation is there for - to grind up money that individuals have managed to seize into their own hands, but can’t find a useful spending function for.

[trucking_sideways]

eagerbeaver:

ETS:

eagerbeaver:
What a shame that the ability to screw the tax system is slowly being addressed. Imagine a world where we are that selfish & greedy that we do not want to contribute money, yet are more than happy to use the NHS, police, fire service etc…

Yeah imagine a day when the likes of Amazon, Apple etc. multi-billion scammers start paying any taxes. Hell and sub-zero temperatures etc.

Does a week go by without some story about some rich guy/gal getting busted for taxes, like Messi, CR, Hollywood ‘‘starts’’ etc who only got caught because they were so stringy they got a discount accountant/lawyer…If the richest of the rich don’t like paying tax can you blame the working poor for feeling screwed?

Try not to worry about American tech companies or European footballers mate. This is TNUK so I assume you are either British or working in the UK. If you want to avoid paying tax, just simply say so. " Others are stealing so I will too…" a great reasoning there Chief

Apart from the fact that Amazon and Apple employ thousands of people in the UK who pay millions in tax, you are trying to avoid paying ANY. So I gather you won’t ever want a doctor, ambulance or copper and you will be happy to let all the criminals out of prison as we won’t have any prison officers? Let’s not bother sending our kids to school either.

As far as I am concerned people who don’t contribute but are happy to take are called parasites. Get some pride about you and pay some tax.

+1

Not to mention that I’m sure at some point you’ll be wanting to collect a pension too