http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... th.htmlthe

$60+ Trillion by laundering money by the 'banksters' and now open faced tax evasion

the working classes just have to pick up the bill and put up with PAYE

oh well start back to work on Tuesday, must keep going cant give up, the banksters require it ...

As much as I hate to say it... if I was in a position where I could do something like that... I would absolutely avoid paying any more tax than I had to legally

That's tax avoidance, not tax evasion.

And if you do then you never have the right to complain about the tax burden or the state of public services ever again.

I think certain tax avoidance is okay eg ISAs. But there has to be a limit especially on the amount. I'm already peeved that companies owe the UK around £4 billion in tax, yet my pensions pot gets raided and I have to pay more into it for less.

I have no problem with the government using the tax system to incentivise certain behaviours - paying into a pension or saving for the future, for example. However, arranging dodgy situations where your money passes through several offshore companies in order to avoid paying tax is clearly a whole other ball game and, as the Chancellor would put it, is morally repugnant.

Actually I would because I would legally be able to pay what I was abiding to the letter of the law

Avoidance is 100% legal, to avoid paying more than you should is a core principle of being frugal (and to an extend, financially responsible). To take advantages of things like Cash ISAs, working family credits, partial VAT claims on things like a home PC for work use... all perfectly legitimate and no one would bat an eyelid

Using these 'loopholes' is however IMO evasion not avoidance

Gift aid is basicly tax avoidance.......

Except a charity directly benefits, unlike some cunning Swiss/Offshore loophole.

For the record tax credits are a benefit, not a form of tax relief. The name is misleading.

They're a pain in the arse is what they are!

Tax credits a system that actively encourages employers to pay low wages

I work with someone who despite being qualified to teach at college level (and did so for many years), is better off working at my pay grade, thanks to the 5 children he has.
The supplements he's entitled to at my level puts him slightly ahead than if he was teaching.
Personally, I think the moral of the story is that people shouldn't have so many children...

Benefits / credits for children should be set according to population requirements. Excluding the pension pyramid scheme of course.

Now that's just an off the cuff opinion, not subject to critical analysis or the like.

I'm just here for a bit of fun, no more, no less.

Just think of how his pension is going to be so much worse off when he retires because of him not teaching.