TStael: Moral?
Read here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/10/taxing-questions-of-morality-for-david-cameron-in-the-wake-of-panama-papers Or high-lights:
"The Panama Papers story that has led to controversy about David Cameron’s tax affairs (Cameron’s trust problem, 9 April) broke in the same week that his government closed a tax avoidance scheme that helps low-paid people.
I am a supply teacher. Even though I have over a decade’s teaching experience, am available for work year round and teach shortage subjects (science and maths), my annual income is a paltry £12,000-£14,000. This letter is anonymous because I am embarrassed by my low income.
I often travel for an hour each way to work. Even though supply teachers are self-employed, tax law means that we have to be paid PAYE and therefore cannot offset expenses against tax. (*!!!)
A tax avoidance scheme – using an umbrella company – allows us to offset expenses. It is unreasonable that we have to pay an umbrella company (out of our meagre earnings) to be allowed to do what any other self-employed person is allowed to do as of right.
Name and address supplied"
* by me - where is the morality of this, compared with what you say is fine?
Oh dear. You really are terribly poor at reading up on these things aren't you?
The scheme that we know about was not tax avoiding. If it was then that anonymous speech in the Gaurdian might have some relevance. However the only scheme DC has been linked to has been an offshore trading scheme that was (and please read this bit) declared to the UK tax authorities. No tax avoidance, it was all paid. Even a brief read up of the details should have highlighted that.
So your highlights:
"I am a supply teacher..." - So? You're a low earner, understood.
"... Tax law means I cannot offset my expenses against tax..." - true, that's not anything new.
"A tax avoidance scheme – using an umbrella company – allows us to offset expenses. It is unreasonable that we have to pay an umbrella company (out of our meagre earnings) to be allowed to do what any other self-employed person is allowed to do as of right" - That's not what a tax avoidance scheme is, it's nothing to do with the subject at hand, and is nothing to do with what Cameron was accused of.
Where is the morality? You've reference a completely irrelevant set of facts. It's like me asking you where the morality is in eating a banana when someone was shot in another country trying to steal a banana. You haven't even put up a very good straw man!
