Forgive me for being cynical....

It is a control thing. If you pay taxes the money goes where the government decides to spend it; on the NHS, education, benefits, pensions. If you leave it to charity when you die you can decide which charities and which projects it goes to. What is more, if you leave all your money to charity no inheritance tax is paid as payments to charity are exempt from inheritance tax so, once again all your money stays under your control - or you can spend it all on yourself.

Meanwhile you keep complete control and have access to all your dosh while you live and bathe in the knowledge that you think people think well of you because it is going to charity after you die.

Buffet & Gates seem to be genuinely driven by altruistic motives, but of course they benefit from people thinking well of them while they are alive and see their money doing good in their lifetimes.

Seems like the rich can't win! I do get so annoyed that all governments complain about them avoiding paying tax but never seem to get round to closing the loopholes which allow it. There is no suggestion that any of them are doing anything illegal so why are these schemes not made illegal? Perhaps it needs international agreement which is imposssible to get?

I think if I had lots of money I would enjoy deciding where it should go as I could choose the organisations I think would use it most effectively. I don't think I would be so sure that any government could be trusted to use it in a way I would totally agree with.

I'm no expert but I believe a lot of the "loopholes" are concessions that are made to businesses, charities or individuals to encourage them to invest in the UK and/or to invest in certain geographical and economic areas. I'm sure there are people on here that understand more about taxation than I do and will correct me if I've got it wrong.

If I'm right about how these "loopholes" arise, it seems that unfortunately many of these businesses, charities or individuals see such schemes merely as an opportunity to devise other schemes to enable them to avoid paying tax or significantly reduce it Now that we are aware that this is happening on a huge scale, is it feasible to just get rid of all these "incentives" so that there's a much simpler taxation system?

I cannot understand why anybody needs to keep amassing more and more money once they are past the stage where they could possibly spend it on themselves. If the rich want to control where there money goes, why not donate it when they are alive?
Yes, the schemes are all legal but that does not make them moral. A partner in one of the big four accountancy companies, who was personally responsible for devising many of these schemes, is now an advisor to the government on tax avoidance. Like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
There is no benefit to anybody in the UK in Lord Ashcroft being allowed to declare that his 'centre of interest' is in Monaco.
I am afraid the leadership of HMRC for some time has been too ready to cosy up to big business, allowing some companies to escape paying huge amounts in tax, penalties and interest, even against the advice of its own lawyers. I wouldn't like to get GN into trouble with the libel laws, but I made my own deductions about the motivation. Private Eye was rather braver and named names - and nobody has sued.

Eleothan - many companies escape paying tax in the UK by using offshore offices in places like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, or Lichenstein. They say that is where their business is based, but often the addresses given consist of just one small office, often with no staff.
I was aware of one 'entrepeneur' that had over 100 companies registered in various places, and the profits were moved around all the time just before audits were due. He used one of the big four accountancy companies (the ones that failed to spot the dangers of sub-prime lending) and they were quite happy to sign off all his accounts. He had a senior tax inspector all to himself!

Was it Margaret Beckett who used to work for Arthur Anderson (of Enron fame)?