Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? "I agree wholeheartedly !!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? "this.. hard for anyone of any political persuasion to disagree that we all pay our fair share.. the ch 4 dispatches was interesting if only to confirm that the existing legislation is too big, over complicated and open to abuse.. as the Tory MP said anyone sending their earnings to a trust in Belize which then transfers it via the Cayman's and other countries and no tax is paid is morally wrong.. in essence it doesn't travel anywhere, its a scam.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? "When you were at school / college / university - did anyone teach you about RTFQ and ATFQ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
this..
hard for anyone of any political persuasion to disagree that we all pay our fair share..
the ch 4 dispatches was interesting if only to confirm that the existing legislation is too big, over complicated and open to abuse..
as the Tory MP said anyone sending their earnings to a trust in Belize which then transfers it via the Cayman's and other countries and no tax is paid is morally wrong..
in essence it doesn't travel anywhere, its a scam.. "Did you watch the documentary on the Fair Tax Town? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? "I am 100% for this! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
this..
hard for anyone of any political persuasion to disagree that we all pay our fair share..
the ch 4 dispatches was interesting if only to confirm that the existing legislation is too big, over complicated and open to abuse..
as the Tory MP said anyone sending their earnings to a trust in Belize which then transfers it via the Cayman's and other countries and no tax is paid is morally wrong..
in essence it doesn't travel anywhere, its a scam..
Did you watch the documentary on the Fair Tax Town? "No, meant to but aim to try and get it on the i player thingie.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What tax rise would you support for helping to improve our country, for specific purposes? Eg, small additional fee on some pet food, to increase wildlife numbers? Say up to 1p, to increase wild bird numbers or help red squirrels to spread more widely in the UK. Or 0.1p per liter on fuel, to fight road problems, such as driving standards? 0.1p per bottle of water or soft drinks to tackle flooding? What ideas can you share? " How about a drop in income taxes across the board, in exchange for us buying more things we don't need, moving the money round faster, improving all our lives, giving us less time to worry about what the wealthy may or may not be doing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Mr ddc
(True answer, I should pay less, everyone else should pay more, or have fewer benefits, except me, obvs) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? " this , Barclays Bank pay their accountants ( yes a bank employs he services of an accountancy firm , how safe does your money feel now ) 60 Million in the uk alone to avoid paying tax.. so how much tax should they really pay if they are willing to pay that amount to some one else to help them avoid taxation !! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
this..
hard for anyone of any political persuasion to disagree that we all pay our fair share..
the ch 4 dispatches was interesting if only to confirm that the existing legislation is too big, over complicated and open to abuse..
as the Tory MP said anyone sending their earnings to a trust in Belize which then transfers it via the Cayman's and other countries and no tax is paid is morally wrong..
in essence it doesn't travel anywhere, its a scam..
Did you watch the documentary on the Fair Tax Town?
No, meant to but aim to try and get it on the i player thingie.. "Here you go http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06ygl19/the-town-that-took-on-the-taxman It was fascinating and very maddening at the same time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
this..
hard for anyone of any political persuasion to disagree that we all pay our fair share..
the ch 4 dispatches was interesting if only to confirm that the existing legislation is too big, over complicated and open to abuse..
as the Tory MP said anyone sending their earnings to a trust in Belize which then transfers it via the Cayman's and other countries and no tax is paid is morally wrong..
in essence it doesn't travel anywhere, its a scam..
Did you watch the documentary on the Fair Tax Town?
No, meant to but aim to try and get it on the i player thingie..
Here you go
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06ygl19/the-town-that-took-on-the-taxman
It was fascinating and very maddening at the same time. "thanks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? "Rich people yes, including inheritance taxes on all property and land, and capital gains tax on your home (which has only risen in value due to government policy) But corporations? Are they charities? If they were forced to pay more do you really think they would just hand it over?Or do you just think they would increase their prices so that their customers, ie us, would actually pay it? 'evil corporations' is the lazy lefty way of saying 'someone else', while knowing it means us.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But corporations? Are they charities? If they were forced to pay more do you really think they would just hand it over?Or do you just think they would increase their prices so that their customers, ie us, would actually pay it? 'evil corporations' is the lazy lefty way of saying 'someone else', while knowing it means us...." Their businesses operate/benefit from our public infrastructure - they need to pay their fair share. We are not a charity to subsidise big business. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? "They do. Oh, you mean they have to maximise their tax bill, which of the smucks does that then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*sits back, satisfied* " I'll give you a back rub  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*sits back, satisfied* I'll give you a back rub "Oh. Playing nice today, are we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
They do. Oh, you mean they have to maximise their tax bill, which of the smucks does that then? "The ones who can't haggle for their own discounted tax rates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"*sits back, satisfied* I'll give you a back rub
Oh.
Playing nice today, are we?"It's a back rub or a pat on the back  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Their businesses operate/benefit from our public infrastructure - they need to pay their fair share. We are not a charity to subsidise big business. " And we benefit from the lower prices they charge because they avoid.their taxes. Do you not remember how Amazon killed the high-street record shops? Do you not remember the pasty tax? When Sainsburys and Morrisons complained that they were being undercut by Tescos and Greggs because the former charged VAT while the latter didn't? We support their tax-dodging when it suits us, then whinge about it afterwards | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
this , Barclays Bank pay their accountants ( yes a bank employs he services of an accountancy firm , how safe does your money feel now ) 60 Million in the uk alone to avoid paying tax.. so how much tax should they really pay if they are willing to pay that amount to some one else to help them avoid taxation !! "bankers are above the law to start with, so i would say the enforcement of the law in the banking industry would be a start. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Their businesses operate/benefit from our public infrastructure - they need to pay their fair share. We are not a charity to subsidise big business. And we benefit from the lower prices they charge because they avoid.their taxes. Do you not remember how Amazon killed the high-street record shops? Do you not remember the pasty tax? When Sainsburys and Morrisons complained that they were being undercut by Tescos and Greggs because the former charged VAT while the latter didn't? We support their tax-dodging when it suits us, then whinge about it afterwards" Speak for yourself, I don't support the race to the bottom. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Slightly off topic but when the tax increase was announced that would impact those with rental properties I did get annoyed at the sob articles I read. Yes tax is a bitch but those in a position to own and rent out a second home cannot really complain" As we speak, the Torygraph are sending you a letter with 100 signatures calling you anti-business. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Speak for yourself, I don't support the race to the bottom. " Really? You have never used a company that chooses to minimise their tax bill? Never even googled anything? Never laughed at a Jimmy Carr joke? I take my hat off to you & DJoe, but I don't believe either of you... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
this , Barclays Bank pay their accountants ( yes a bank employs he services of an accountancy firm , how safe does your money feel now ) 60 Million in the uk alone to avoid paying tax.. so how much tax should they really pay if they are willing to pay that amount to some one else to help them avoid taxation !! bankers are above the law to start with, so i would say the enforcement of the law in the banking industry would be a start. "It's a difficult subject. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it is fair to dig out the accountants when they are acting in their clients best interests. If they take the moral high ground, they would not have work. Its for the Government to sort, albeit I appreciate it is not that simple. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Personally I wouldn't begrudge taxes that meant our nurses and armed forces getting a decent pay rise. I think they are both chronically abused by governments of all parties. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Speak for yourself, I don't support the race to the bottom. Really? You have never used a company that chooses to minimise their tax bill? Never even googled anything? Never laughed at a Jimmy Carr joke? I take my hat off to you & DJoe, but I don't believe either of you..." We had this discussion on a thread concerning Nestle and moral behaviour. We all support it in some fashion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need a more Scandinavian tax system, you pay more but get far more back" HELL NO | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need a more Scandinavian tax system, you pay more but get far more back" People here just expect Scandinavian levels of service without the taxes to fund it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need a more Scandinavian tax system, you pay more but get far more back HELL NO" Why not, pray tell? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need a more Scandinavian tax system, you pay more but get far more back HELL NO Why not, pray tell? "Have you been there? Everything is so fucking expensive. Fundamentally, individuals make better decisions about how to spend money efficiently than governments do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But corporations? Are they charities? If they were forced to pay more do you really think they would just hand it over?Or do you just think they would increase their prices so that their customers, ie us, would actually pay it? " well i didn't notice them passing on cheaper prices when the main rate of CT dropped from 28% in 2008 to 21% in 2014 .... did anyone else notice things get cheaper?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But corporations? Are they charities? If they were forced to pay more do you really think they would just hand it over?Or do you just think they would increase their prices so that their customers, ie us, would actually pay it? well i didn't notice them passing on cheaper prices when the main rate of CT dropped from 28% in 2008 to 21% in 2014 .... did anyone else notice things get cheaper? "Not a penny BnP | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
this , Barclays Bank pay their accountants ( yes a bank employs he services of an accountancy firm , how safe does your money feel now ) 60 Million in the uk alone to avoid paying tax.. so how much tax should they really pay if they are willing to pay that amount to some one else to help them avoid taxation !! "Barclays, along with all other banks and major corporations HAVE to employ the services of an accountancy firm as, by law, their accounts have to be audited. In their latest published accounts, the cost relating to tax services is shown at £1 million, nowhere near the £60 million you claim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you been there?" yes " Everything is so fucking expensive. " and everything works so fucking well .... and i've never met a dane, swede or norwegian who complains | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"are you real or what op what a stupid suggestion" She's throwing a hypothetical out there like a lot of people do on the forums. She wasn't planning a white paper on it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you been there? yes Everything is so fucking expensive. and everything works so fucking well .... and i've never met a dane, swede or norwegian who complains" So why is the Swedish health system ranked worse than ours then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need a more Scandinavian tax system, you pay more but get far more back HELL NO Why not, pray tell? "I think Sweden has bigger political problems than tax as a percentage of GDP at the moment | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? "This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you been there? yes Everything is so fucking expensive. and everything works so fucking well .... and i've never met a dane, swede or norwegian who complains So why is the Swedish health system ranked worse than ours then? " as ever it depends whose rankings one uses in an attempt to back up ones arguement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"are you real or what op what a stupid suggestion" is that your way of saying you don't have a clue..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you been there? yes Everything is so fucking expensive. and everything works so fucking well .... and i've never met a dane, swede or norwegian who complains So why is the Swedish health system ranked worse than ours then? as ever it depends whose rankings one uses in an attempt to back up ones arguement." And which Swedish public service you look at. The tories were inspired by Swedish schools for our reforms  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need a more Scandinavian tax system, you pay more but get far more back HELL NO Why not, pray tell?
Have you been there? Everything is so fucking expensive.
Fundamentally, individuals make better decisions about how to spend money efficiently than governments do. "Yes, I have a number of friends across Scandinavia who have lived here and all preferred the tax system there. Individuals make better decision about how to spend money; most gormless cunts in this country just want shines things right now, and these are the cunts who are in debt up to their eyes because they want that BMW and designer bag but don't save toward there pension. Just because our government is fucking incompetent and corrupt doesn't mean they all are. PS don't start drinking so early in the day | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you been there? yes Everything is so fucking expensive. and everything works so fucking well .... and i've never met a dane, swede or norwegian who complains So why is the Swedish health system ranked worse than ours then? as ever it depends whose rankings one uses in an attempt to back up ones arguement. And which Swedish public service you look at. The tories were inspired by Swedish schools for our reforms "Indeed, they should have looked at Finland instead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need a more Scandinavian tax system, you pay more but get far more back HELL NO Why not, pray tell?
Have you been there? Everything is so fucking expensive.
Fundamentally, individuals make better decisions about how to spend money efficiently than governments do.
Yes, I have a number of friends across Scandinavia who have lived here and all preferred the tax system there. Individuals make better decision about how to spend money; most gormless cunts in this country just want shines things right now, and these are the cunts who are in debt up to their eyes because they want that BMW and designer bag but don't save toward there pension. Just because our government is fucking incompetent and corrupt doesn't mean they all are. PS don't start drinking so early in the day "Good they can stay there then can't they. The grass is always greener. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you been there? yes Everything is so fucking expensive. and everything works so fucking well .... and i've never met a dane, swede or norwegian who complains So why is the Swedish health system ranked worse than ours then? as ever it depends whose rankings one uses in an attempt to back up ones arguement." The WHO. I guess it's not so clear cut as "everything works so well" then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok well if we want innovative suggestions, how about a tax to pay for significant pay increases and a recruitment drive for tax specialists to work at HMRC? You want the big companies to pay more tax, you need the people at HMRC who can make the cases to bring them to account. If I was a tax expert there is no bloody way I'd work for the tax man, I'd be over on the other side helping people minimise their tax bills and being appropriately paid for my skills. In fact that applies to the professional services in the public sector in general. It's become a real struggle to recruit good candidates to some of these sort of jobs, and the constant erosion of pay and conditions and derision from the public and the media as bureaucrats and pen pushers plays a big part in that. "The same can be said for the SFO with financial crime and also to a certain extend the judiciary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok well if we want innovative suggestions, how about a tax to pay for significant pay increases and a recruitment drive for tax specialists to work at HMRC? You want the big companies to pay more tax, you need the people at HMRC who can make the cases to bring them to account. If I was a tax expert there is no bloody way I'd work for the tax man, I'd be over on the other side helping people minimise their tax bills and being appropriately paid for my skills. In fact that applies to the professional services in the public sector in general. It's become a real struggle to recruit good candidates to some of these sort of jobs, and the constant erosion of pay and conditions and derision from the public and the media as bureaucrats and pen pushers plays a big part in that. "agreed.. one would almost think if one was cynical that 'they' don't want an effective system which is bizarre.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" well i didn't notice them passing on cheaper prices when the main rate of CT dropped from 28% in 2008 to 21% in 2014 .... did anyone else notice things get cheaper? "I did. Are you really saying Amazon weren't able to undercut everyone else? Purrlease! Where do you think the 'extra' money goes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you been there? yes Everything is so fucking expensive. and everything works so fucking well .... and i've never met a dane, swede or norwegian who complains So why is the Swedish health system ranked worse than ours then? as ever it depends whose rankings one uses in an attempt to back up ones arguement. The WHO. I guess it's not so clear cut as "everything works so well" then" healthcare isn't everything .... and you set the debate up as scandanavia not sweden so that means we need to take the aggregate and the aggregate is high rankings. but again it depends whose rankings one uses and what those rankings base their measurement on. i can only go on what i've seen for myself and the opinions of the many folks from scandanavia i've spoken to and they ain't complaining | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? " Rich people yes, including inheritance taxes on all property and land, and capital gains tax on your home (which has only risen in value due to government policy) But corporations? Are they charities? If they were forced to pay more do you really think they would just hand it over?Or do you just think they would increase their prices so that their customers, ie us, would actually pay it? 'evil corporations' is the lazy lefty way of saying 'someone else', while knowing it means us.... well i didn't notice them passing on cheaper prices when the main rate of CT dropped from 28% in 2008 to 21% in 2014 .... did anyone else notice things get cheaper?
I did.
Are you really saying Amazon weren't able to undercut everyone else?
Purrlease!
Where do you think the 'extra' money goes?"i didn't mention amazon ..... but then nor did you til just then .... you do realise amazon are not the only shop don't you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"are you real or what op what a stupid suggestion" How kind. My family name is Osborne and things are a little tight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok well if we want innovative suggestions, how about a tax to pay for significant pay increases and a recruitment drive for tax specialists to work at HMRC? You want the big companies to pay more tax, you need the people at HMRC who can make the cases to bring them to account. If I was a tax expert there is no bloody way I'd work for the tax man, I'd be over on the other side helping people minimise their tax bills and being appropriately paid for my skills. In fact that applies to the professional services in the public sector in general. It's become a real struggle to recruit good candidates to some of these sort of jobs, and the constant erosion of pay and conditions and derision from the public and the media as bureaucrats and pen pushers plays a big part in that.
agreed..
one would almost think if one was cynical that 'they' don't want an effective system which is bizarre.."Surely it would be worth trying a simplified system where it was cheaper and easier to pay tax rather than shell out on time and money for clever accountants to work around it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What tax rise would you support for helping to improve our country, for specific purposes? Eg, small additional fee on some pet food, to increase wildlife numbers? Say up to 1p, to increase wild bird numbers or help red squirrels to spread more widely in the UK. Or 0.1p per liter on fuel, to fight road problems, such as driving standards? 0.1p per bottle of water or soft drinks to tackle flooding? What ideas can you share? " As I haven't even had a payrise since 2008 I don't think there should be any tax rise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" i didn't mention amazon ..... but then nor did you til just then .... you do realise amazon are not the only shop don't you?" Scroll up, you'll see that I did. Amazon were one if the first companies labelled as 'evil tax-dodgers' of course there are others, wasn't that my point? I'm still waiting for one of you to explain where the 'extra' money goes, because as far as I can tell it can only be Lower prices Additional investment Shareholders (ie our pension funds) Or executive salaries, ie the very ones we agreed at the beginning should be paying around 60% of it in combined NI & income tax. Now explain how 'we' got robbed by the greedy corporations again? (Ps, nothing personal to you, it's just.the other two appear to have gone quiet...) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok well if we want innovative suggestions, how about a tax to pay for significant pay increases and a recruitment drive for tax specialists to work at HMRC? You want the big companies to pay more tax, you need the people at HMRC who can make the cases to bring them to account. If I was a tax expert there is no bloody way I'd work for the tax man, I'd be over on the other side helping people minimise their tax bills and being appropriately paid for my skills. In fact that applies to the professional services in the public sector in general. It's become a real struggle to recruit good candidates to some of these sort of jobs, and the constant erosion of pay and conditions and derision from the public and the media as bureaucrats and pen pushers plays a big part in that.
agreed..
one would almost think if one was cynical that 'they' don't want an effective system which is bizarre..
Surely it would be worth trying a simplified system where it was cheaper and easier to pay tax rather than shell out on time and money for clever accountants to work around it"I concur, add in how many pointless jobs are created and how much we spend on tax officials to police the system! At some point tax gets so high it pays to avoid it... There is a threshold... Tax should be as low as possible and governments should be forced to survive on the bare minimum while providing maximum service... This means loss of administration jobs! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd approve of a 'stinking rich' band. Once you get to £150k salary you pay most of that back as tax - because who really needs that much? The only other taxes I would approve of would be ones where the income raised would be ring-fenced for specific things. Too much tax just becomes lost - road tax for example should be invested only in transport infrastructure etc. etc." I'm sorry but £150k per annum if far from stinking rich, particularly in London. Besides, a lot of people in that bracket have worked very hard for that sort of money. Taxing people to heavily will just result in more tax avoidance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd approve of a 'stinking rich' band. Once you get to £150k salary you pay most of that back as tax - because who really needs that much? The only other taxes I would approve of would be ones where the income raised would be ring-fenced for specific things. Too much tax just becomes lost - road tax for example should be invested only in transport infrastructure etc. etc. I'm sorry but £150k per annum if far from stinking rich, particularly in London. Besides, a lot of people in that bracket have worked very hard for that sort of money. Taxing people to heavily will just result in more tax avoidance. " I'm sorry. But it is. I know plenty who earn it and a couple who earn considerably more. None of them need it and at least one has a fair bit of difficulty spending it at the moment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok well if we want innovative suggestions, how about a tax to pay for significant pay increases and a recruitment drive for tax specialists to work at HMRC? You want the big companies to pay more tax, you need the people at HMRC who can make the cases to bring them to account. If I was a tax expert there is no bloody way I'd work for the tax man, I'd be over on the other side helping people minimise their tax bills and being appropriately paid for my skills. In fact that applies to the professional services in the public sector in general. It's become a real struggle to recruit good candidates to some of these sort of jobs, and the constant erosion of pay and conditions and derision from the public and the media as bureaucrats and pen pushers plays a big part in that.
agreed..
one would almost think if one was cynical that 'they' don't want an effective system which is bizarre..
Surely it would be worth trying a simplified system where it was cheaper and easier to pay tax rather than shell out on time and money for clever accountants to work around it
I concur, add in how many pointless jobs are created and how much we spend on tax officials to police the system!
At some point tax gets so high it pays to avoid it...
There is a threshold...
Tax should be as low as possible and governments should be forced to survive on the bare minimum while providing maximum service...
This means loss of administration jobs!"I do agree with massive simplification of the tax system - but since the thread was about hypothecated taxes that was my suggestion for one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd approve of a 'stinking rich' band. Once you get to £150k salary you pay most of that back as tax - because who really needs that much? The only other taxes I would approve of would be ones where the income raised would be ring-fenced for specific things. Too much tax just becomes lost - road tax for example should be invested only in transport infrastructure etc. etc. I'm sorry but £150k per annum if far from stinking rich, particularly in London. Besides, a lot of people in that bracket have worked very hard for that sort of money. Taxing people to heavily will just result in more tax avoidance. " And once you're at £150k by the time you take tax (no personal allowance once you get to that salary), NI and all the rest off, you're getting on for 50% of it being paid in tax anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd approve of a 'stinking rich' band. Once you get to £150k salary you pay most of that back as tax - because who really needs that much? The only other taxes I would approve of would be ones where the income raised would be ring-fenced for specific things. Too much tax just becomes lost - road tax for example should be invested only in transport infrastructure etc. etc. I'm sorry but £150k per annum if far from stinking rich, particularly in London. Besides, a lot of people in that bracket have worked very hard for that sort of money. Taxing people to heavily will just result in more tax avoidance. I'm sorry. But it is. I know plenty who earn it and a couple who earn considerably more. None of them need it and at least one has a fair bit of difficulty spending it at the moment." Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" i didn't mention amazon ..... but then nor did you til just then .... you do realise amazon are not the only shop don't you? Scroll up, you'll see that I did. Amazon were one if the first companies labelled as 'evil tax-dodgers' of course there are others, wasn't that my point? I'm still waiting for one of you to explain where the 'extra' money goes, because as far as I can tell it can only be Lower prices Additional investment Shareholders (ie our pension funds) Or executive salaries, ie the very ones we agreed at the beginning should be paying around 60% of it in combined NI & income tax. Now explain how 'we' got robbed by the greedy corporations again? (Ps, nothing personal to you, it's just.the other two appear to have gone quiet...)" it's not me who infered we are "getting robbed" so i feel no need to explain someone elses comments. fair enough you mention amazon when it came to record shops. however, the point still stands that even though corporation tax has fallen by 9% over seven years prices have broadly risen year on year, including amazons, so i see no evidence of the savings being passed on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves?" And what drives property prices up? hmmm.. I didn't suggest a salary cap. I suggested a much higher taxation once you get beyond a point that would provide you with an extremely comfortable way of life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"but 50% tax is hardly a lot when you're earning that much hence my suggestion - once you get to £150k the rate could be much higher. The tax avoidance argument is pointless - you could argue that at any level." You do realise there are a shit load of people earning, quite rightly, well in excess of £150k a year in this country? What incentive would they or anyone have to earn more? The tax avoidance question is not pointless and does not apply at any level. It applies for most people earning(very roughly) about £70k up because with anything below £70k it is not worth setting up a service company. Any one above that threshold it makes sense depending on your moral values | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves? And what drives property prices up? hmmm.. I didn't suggest a salary cap. I suggested a much higher taxation once you get beyond a point that would provide you with an extremely comfortable way of life. " What's the difference between a salary cap and, to quote you, getting to £150k salary paying most of that back? In practise it is very little | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves? And what drives property prices up? hmmm.. I didn't suggest a salary cap. I suggested a much higher taxation once you get beyond a point that would provide you with an extremely comfortable way of life. " But why should they pay a much higher rate of taxation? If it's just about what you "can" afford to pay, most people "can" pay more - they'd have to make some sacrifices to their way of life to be able to afford it but they physically could. I "could" pay more and live comfortably in a much smaller house. But why should I? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
As I said previously I know plenty of them. Of those the wealthiest spend a considerable amount of time (and money) giving their cash away!
As for all those people that would lack all incentive to work once their taxation went up beyond the £150k bracket - well you tell me - what will they do? Are they going to sign-on? Maybe move abroad like all the bankers did?
And when they do of course we'd never find other people to step in to their jobs would we?.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves? And what drives property prices up? hmmm.. I didn't suggest a salary cap. I suggested a much higher taxation once you get beyond a point that would provide you with an extremely comfortable way of life. What's the difference between a salary cap and, to quote you, getting to £150k salary paying most of that back? In practise it is very little " You don't pay it back - it would be taxed - how is that paying it back? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves? And what drives property prices up? hmmm.. I didn't suggest a salary cap. I suggested a much higher taxation once you get beyond a point that would provide you with an extremely comfortable way of life. But why should they pay a much higher rate of taxation? If it's just about what you "can" afford to pay, most people "can" pay more - they'd have to make some sacrifices to their way of life to be able to afford it but they physically could. I "could" pay more and live comfortably in a much smaller house. But why should I?" I think the point of the thread was why shouldn't you?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves? And what drives property prices up? hmmm.. I didn't suggest a salary cap. I suggested a much higher taxation once you get beyond a point that would provide you with an extremely comfortable way of life. What's the difference between a salary cap and, to quote you, getting to £150k salary paying most of that back? In practise it is very little You don't pay it back - it would be taxed - how is that paying it back?" That should say pay most of that back as tax per your earlier post. My point was there is little difference in practice between taxing someone most of their salary over £150k and a salary cap. They are one in the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves? And what drives property prices up? hmmm.. I didn't suggest a salary cap. I suggested a much higher taxation once you get beyond a point that would provide you with an extremely comfortable way of life. What's the difference between a salary cap and, to quote you, getting to £150k salary paying most of that back? In practise it is very little You don't pay it back - it would be taxed - how is that paying it back? That should say pay most of that back as tax per your earlier post. My point was there is little difference in practice between taxing someone most of their salary over £150k and a salary cap. They are one in the same. " They're nothing like the same. Salary cap = you get £150k and that's your lot. 70% tax bracket at £150k would mean you can still earn considerably more than £150k but for each £1 you make over £150k you pay it at the higher tax bracket. How is that the same? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, have you considered areas outside of your local region? Property prices and so forth. Whilst the idea would never work, what sort of incentive would it provide for anyone living in this country to do well for themselves? And what drives property prices up? hmmm.. I didn't suggest a salary cap. I suggested a much higher taxation once you get beyond a point that would provide you with an extremely comfortable way of life. But why should they pay a much higher rate of taxation? If it's just about what you "can" afford to pay, most people "can" pay more - they'd have to make some sacrifices to their way of life to be able to afford it but they physically could. I "could" pay more and live comfortably in a much smaller house. But why should I? I think the point of the thread was why shouldn't you?!" I don't think it was the point, actually - but why should I? Because some people you know have high salaries and a lot of disposable income? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the point still stands that even though corporation tax has fallen by 9% over seven years prices have broadly risen year on year, including amazons, so i see no evidence of the savings being passed on." But again, that was my point, if it isn't being passed on in lower prices, it's either going into investment (ie more jobs - the Greggs and Starbucks model of expansion; shareholders or salaries. It doesn't just disappear, one way or another the taxman eventually gets his cut. Surely you can see that? Where it is bad is where it distorts the market and forces other businesses to close, often those that had better pay and conditions for their staff. That is the argument against big corporations, not the lazy "they defraud the taxman so we have to pay more" argument. That is the lie that leads to public debt, when governments spend money they know full-well will never materialise... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think it was the point, actually - but why should I? Because some people you know have high salaries and a lot of disposable income? " ok Why should you? why shouldn't you? Why should you? why shouldn't you? Why should you? why shouldn't you? etc. etc. kind of dull | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What people already earn that much?
As I said previously I know plenty of them. Of those the wealthiest spend a considerable amount of time (and money) giving their cash away!
As for all those people that would lack all incentive to work once their taxation went up beyond the £150k bracket - well you tell me - what will they do? Are they going to sign-on? Maybe move abroad like all the bankers did?
And when they do of course we'd never find other people to step in to their jobs would we?.."If you are genuinely of the belief that i) not many people earn in excess of £150k and ii) of those who do, most give it away, then I'd suggest you get out more. Even in Shropshire, there are professionals at partner level in their chosen field who clear the £150k threshold you suggest. What do you think those people are paid in a city? Lawyers, accountants, estate agents etc. Since when did bankers move abroad? Large corporations are domiciled off shore, not their advisers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What people already earn that much?
As I said previously I know plenty of them. Of those the wealthiest spend a considerable amount of time (and money) giving their cash away!
As for all those people that would lack all incentive to work once their taxation went up beyond the £150k bracket - well you tell me - what will they do? Are they going to sign-on? Maybe move abroad like all the bankers did?
And when they do of course we'd never find other people to step in to their jobs would we?..
If you are genuinely of the belief that i) not many people earn in excess of £150k and ii) of those who do, most give it away, then I'd suggest you get out more.
Even in Shropshire, there are professionals at partner level in their chosen field who clear the £150k threshold you suggest. What do you think those people are paid in a city? Lawyers, accountants, estate agents etc.
Since when did bankers move abroad? Large corporations are domiciled off shore, not their advisers.
"As you don't seem to be reading (or understanding) what I've written I think best to give this one up. If you ever manage to get to that salary level and are able to employ an accountant to explain how tax works maybe you'll look on it a little differently. Until then good luck to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think it was the point, actually - but why should I? Because some people you know have high salaries and a lot of disposable income? ok Why should you? why shouldn't you? Why should you? why shouldn't you? Why should you? why shouldn't you? etc. etc. kind of dull"  Ok - why shouldn't I - because people don't just exist to be taxed to pay for other people, and they should be able to retain the majority of the income that they earn to use themselves as they see fit.
Beyond a certain level of taxable income I think they should reduce the tax rate, because that person has already contributed hugely to the costs of society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"(m) replying Let us think Britain would be a company and all the council would be profit and loss centers. Bing we are bust Give an untrained monkey a toy and the toy is broke. Same with taxes - the people using the receipt of taxes are untrained, many uneducated and have no idea of the world. Mr G Brown the wiz kid of finance never worked in an industry. History student, then television journalist, then lecturer and bingo Chancellor running a country and all our pockets. Or Mr D Alexander student of Philosophy, then goes on to be a communication director and bing next day he's deputy Chancellor And then you all wonder why taxes increase, why the holes in the streets get bigger, why Council have no idea what they are doing. Look in the mirror you voted for these people and they do not care an inch about you. Then look at countries which employ professionals to run their tax income and their wealth - like Norway or Switzerland. Norway has oil fine okay you have a point but have the "wasted" the money out of their oil wealth ? Answer is no..the Fund which belongs to the people of Norway holds £ 150 billion in its' account with shares from international companies which in return pay dividends. This money is used to build schools, roads, provide pensions to service members. Or Switzerland they have no oil no nothing except work on average 48 hours a week pay 48% tax on their income and ? Guess the Bund (the central state) has a debt of approx. £40 billion ... that is peanuts to the debt of countries like German, Britain, France .... But both these countries saw 50 years ago that only professionals with the correct eduction and work experience can manage the income (tax) and not waste every thing.... Last question for all of you... how many languages does teh PM speak...1 English and very rotten French..How many does the average Swiss politican speak ? Answer German and French (a must) and English, some speak Italian, Russian and since 10 years even Mandarin... The average Norwegian politican speaks their own language, English, many German and Russian and most have an understanding of French... Yup... raise taxes great idea...perfect for what ??? So that these can be wasted with the idiots in Whitehall ? "Lost for words, rarely see this level of common sense on the forums... will a thumb up suffice? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok - why shouldn't I - because people don't just exist to be taxed to pay for other people, and they should be able to retain the majority of the income that they earn to use themselves as they see fit.
"Funnily enough I agree but as the original question was about what new taxes would I approve of my point was that I'd only approve of additional taxes on those that can most afford it. I don't agree at reducing taxes for higher earners. They can already do this in lots of ways anyway but that aside I don't think it's true that increased taxation is a disincentive - it's more a question as to what's the best way to give something back to society. I'd accept that taxation probably isn't it though at the current time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your languages point is a bizarre one - how many languages does the average Swiss person speak? Norwegian? Vs the average Briton? Considerably more, I'd argue. Seems a strange thing to criticise our politicians for when actually it reflects the rest of the population at large. " It's about the average person who has a job to work with other countries rather than the population as a whole... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A haircut tax to pay for wigs for bald people. A fart tax to pay for cleaner air. " rarely see this level of common sense | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Personally I wouldn't begrudge taxes that meant our nurses and armed forces getting a decent pay rise. I think they are both chronically abused by governments of all parties. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What people already earn that much?
As I said previously I know plenty of them. Of those the wealthiest spend a considerable amount of time (and money) giving their cash away!
As for all those people that would lack all incentive to work once their taxation went up beyond the £150k bracket - well you tell me - what will they do? Are they going to sign-on? Maybe move abroad like all the bankers did?
And when they do of course we'd never find other people to step in to their jobs would we?..
If you are genuinely of the belief that i) not many people earn in excess of £150k and ii) of those who do, most give it away, then I'd suggest you get out more.
Even in Shropshire, there are professionals at partner level in their chosen field who clear the £150k threshold you suggest. What do you think those people are paid in a city? Lawyers, accountants, estate agents etc.
Since when did bankers move abroad? Large corporations are domiciled off shore, not their advisers.
As you don't seem to be reading (or understanding) what I've written I think best to give this one up.
If you ever manage to get to that salary level and are able to employ an accountant to explain how tax works maybe you'll look on it a little differently.
Until then good luck to you."People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about a drop in income taxes across the board, in exchange for us buying more things we don't need, moving the money round faster, improving all our lives, giving us less time to worry about what the wealthy may or may not be doing?" I agree, the rich & corporations avoid tax because the rates are too high. Work hard, do well and you get stuffed for it. I believe in a flat rate for everyone. Those on low incomes will pay much less and those on higher incomes will still contribute more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok - why shouldn't I - because people don't just exist to be taxed to pay for other people, and they should be able to retain the majority of the income that they earn to use themselves as they see fit.
Funnily enough I agree but as the original question was about what new taxes would I approve of my point was that I'd only approve of additional taxes on those that can most afford it.
I don't agree at reducing taxes for higher earners. They can already do this in lots of ways anyway but that aside I don't think it's true that increased taxation is a disincentive - it's more a question as to what's the best way to give something back to society. I'd accept that taxation probably isn't it though at the current time."I think it is a disincentive. If we're going off personal, anecdotal evidence (like yours) my dad has just stepped down to part time in the NHS because it was not worth his while going to work - the marginal tax rate was such that he would see practically zero of that day's earnings. So the public purse now has to pay for someone else for that day he doesn't work, and HMRC doesn't get any tax for that day, where it would have done if it had been taxed but at a lower rate. Plenty of senior figures in my workplace have done similar things over the past few years; especially where they're nearing the end of their careers so aren't necessarily looking for new promotion or new challenge. If someone told you you'd be basically working for free after a certain point, and you had the option not to work it, I think most people would take that option. And these are just salaried examples. If you get into company owners etc then there are more ways it really does act as a disincentive to investment, employment and the overall tax take. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your languages point is a bizarre one - how many languages does the average Swiss person speak? Norwegian? Vs the average Briton? Considerably more, I'd argue. Seems a strange thing to criticise our politicians for when actually it reflects the rest of the population at large. It's about the average person who has a job to work with other countries rather than the population as a whole... " But I don't think it's a reason to praise the politicians of other countries. It's not because they're better that they know more languages, it's because they're Swiss or Norwegian. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok - why shouldn't I - because people don't just exist to be taxed to pay for other people, and they should be able to retain the majority of the income that they earn to use themselves as they see fit.
Funnily enough I agree but as the original question was about what new taxes would I approve of my point was that I'd only approve of additional taxes on those that can most afford it.
I don't agree at reducing taxes for higher earners. They can already do this in lots of ways anyway but that aside I don't think it's true that increased taxation is a disincentive - it's more a question as to what's the best way to give something back to society. I'd accept that taxation probably isn't it though at the current time.
I think it is a disincentive. If we're going off personal, anecdotal evidence (like yours) my dad has just stepped down to part time in the NHS because it was not worth his while going to work - the marginal tax rate was such that he would see practically zero of that day's earnings. So the public purse now has to pay for someone else for that day he doesn't work, and HMRC doesn't get any tax for that day, where it would have done if it had been taxed but at a lower rate. Plenty of senior figures in my workplace have done similar things over the past few years; especially where they're nearing the end of their careers so aren't necessarily looking for new promotion or new challenge. If someone told you you'd be basically working for free after a certain point, and you had the option not to work it, I think most people would take that option.
And these are just salaried examples. If you get into company owners etc then there are more ways it really does act as a disincentive to investment, employment and the overall tax take. "I'm assuming he isn't medical staff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A haircut tax to pay for wigs for bald people. A fart tax to pay for cleaner air. rarely see this level of common sense "I read the OP properly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd like to see student nursing and med technical support get their bursary back... I know a few who say they will be looking for a different career as they can't afford the fees.... Bloody stupid when there's a shortage of nurses " I can see this happening soon. Maths teachers already get 'golden hellos', I predict something like the military have, you get a 'golden hello' but only if you sign up to work in the nhs for a minimum period. Would solve the rush to become agency staff too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok - why shouldn't I - because people don't just exist to be taxed to pay for other people, and they should be able to retain the majority of the income that they earn to use themselves as they see fit.
Funnily enough I agree but as the original question was about what new taxes would I approve of my point was that I'd only approve of additional taxes on those that can most afford it.
I don't agree at reducing taxes for higher earners. They can already do this in lots of ways anyway but that aside I don't think it's true that increased taxation is a disincentive - it's more a question as to what's the best way to give something back to society. I'd accept that taxation probably isn't it though at the current time.
I think it is a disincentive. If we're going off personal, anecdotal evidence (like yours) my dad has just stepped down to part time in the NHS because it was not worth his while going to work - the marginal tax rate was such that he would see practically zero of that day's earnings. So the public purse now has to pay for someone else for that day he doesn't work, and HMRC doesn't get any tax for that day, where it would have done if it had been taxed but at a lower rate. Plenty of senior figures in my workplace have done similar things over the past few years; especially where they're nearing the end of their careers so aren't necessarily looking for new promotion or new challenge. If someone told you you'd be basically working for free after a certain point, and you had the option not to work it, I think most people would take that option.
And these are just salaried examples. If you get into company owners etc then there are more ways it really does act as a disincentive to investment, employment and the overall tax take.
I'm assuming he isn't medical staff. "He is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So if two people went through the same comprehensive education system and one chose to work his (or her tits) balls off to earn and the other decided that he (or she) just wanted to do a low stress job - should the one working every hour and taking risks pay much more tax than the other person? & lets just assume both of them are really nice people and don't work in the financial sector! Sadly taxation is not simple, wish it was!" Or to put this another way "Communism has already been tried and it didn't work" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. " It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. But it isn't the case. Even the current government claim a desire for the 'broadest shoulders to bear the heaviest burden' - never quite works out that way though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. " I'm trying to understand your last paragraph. Could you please clarify what you mean when you say higher rate tax payers do not pay their entire salary? Are you talking about their personal allowances and the basic rate of tax or are you suggesting that tax is not payable on income above a certain threshold? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No more benefit after 2 children" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. But it isn't the case. Even the current government claim a desire for the 'broadest shoulders to bear the heaviest burden' - never quite works out that way though. " I appreciate your courtesy(not sarcasm). In so far as 'most', 'more' etc, it is neither here nor there I agree. My concern was and remains that if you impose a high tax threshold, whether it be 70% or 90%, people will get driven to tax avoidance. I understand you would only pay the higher rate on earnings over £150k (I am in the 40% tax band so get the maths) but it is necessary to look beyond those on £175/£200k and consider those earning £500k etc. My point remains there is a number of people earning over £150k (well over in fact) and to tax them the rates you mention will only result in more tax avoidance. Already a number of people use service companies so limit their tax liability. To add a further tax would only result in further avoidance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm trying to understand your last paragraph. Could you please clarify what you mean when you say higher rate tax payers do not pay their entire salary? Are you talking about their personal allowances and the basic rate of tax or are you suggesting that tax is not payable on income above a certain threshold?" When you get into higher bands you only pay higher amount on the portion of your salary in that threshold. So if you earn £50k , you have your £10,600 allowance , you pay 20% on Next £32k and then 40% on the remainder so 40% on roughly £8k | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm trying to understand your last paragraph. Could you please clarify what you mean when you say higher rate tax payers do not pay their entire salary? Are you talking about their personal allowances and the basic rate of tax or are you suggesting that tax is not payable on income above a certain threshold? When you get into higher bands you only pay higher amount on the portion of your salary in that threshold. So if you earn £50k , you have your £10,600 allowance , you pay 20% on Next £32k and then 40% on the remainder so 40% on roughly £8k" I know how the tax system works, I didn't understand the point the poster was making when he said that higher tax payers do not pay higher rate tax on their entire salary there would be no incentive to seek an income above a certain point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm trying to understand your last paragraph. Could you please clarify what you mean when you say higher rate tax payers do not pay their entire salary? Are you talking about their personal allowances and the basic rate of tax or are you suggesting that tax is not payable on income above a certain threshold? When you get into higher bands you only pay higher amount on the portion of your salary in that threshold. So if you earn £50k , you have your £10,600 allowance , you pay 20% on Next £32k and then 40% on the remainder so 40% on roughly £8k I know how the tax system works, I didn't understand the point the poster was making when he said that higher tax payers do not pay higher rate tax on their entire salary there would be no incentive to seek an income above a certain point." and he explained it - perfectly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm trying to understand your last paragraph. Could you please clarify what you mean when you say higher rate tax payers do not pay their entire salary? Are you talking about their personal allowances and the basic rate of tax or are you suggesting that tax is not payable on income above a certain threshold? When you get into higher bands you only pay higher amount on the portion of your salary in that threshold. So if you earn £50k , you have your £10,600 allowance , you pay 20% on Next £32k and then 40% on the remainder so 40% on roughly £8k I know how the tax system works, I didn't understand the point the poster was making when he said that higher tax payers do not pay higher rate tax on their entire salary there would be no incentive to seek an income above a certain point. and he explained it - perfectly" He may have answered something perfectly but it wasn't the question I asked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm trying to understand your last paragraph. Could you please clarify what you mean when you say higher rate tax payers do not pay their entire salary? Are you talking about their personal allowances and the basic rate of tax or are you suggesting that tax is not payable on income above a certain threshold? When you get into higher bands you only pay higher amount on the portion of your salary in that threshold. So if you earn £50k , you have your £10,600 allowance , you pay 20% on Next £32k and then 40% on the remainder so 40% on roughly £8k I know how the tax system works, I didn't understand the point the poster was making when he said that higher tax payers do not pay higher rate tax on their entire salary there would be no incentive to seek an income above a certain point. and he explained it - perfectly He may have answered something perfectly but it wasn't the question I asked. " Ok - not sure if the original post was my comments or the other posters but my point was , If you start to tax people at 70% plus of what they earn over £150k , people lose the incentive to earn those sums, or they find a means or paying less tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm trying to understand your last paragraph. Could you please clarify what you mean when you say higher rate tax payers do not pay their entire salary? Are you talking about their personal allowances and the basic rate of tax or are you suggesting that tax is not payable on income above a certain threshold? When you get into higher bands you only pay higher amount on the portion of your salary in that threshold. So if you earn £50k , you have your £10,600 allowance , you pay 20% on Next £32k and then 40% on the remainder so 40% on roughly £8k I know how the tax system works, I didn't understand the point the poster was making when he said that higher tax payers do not pay higher rate tax on their entire salary there would be no incentive to seek an income above a certain point. and he explained it - perfectly He may have answered something perfectly but it wasn't the question I asked. Ok - not sure if the original post was my comments or the other posters but my point was , If you start to tax people at 70% plus of what they earn over £150k , people lose the incentive to earn those sums, or they find a means or paying less tax." I was asking the question of the other poster, in general I'm in agreement with you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. But it isn't the case. Even the current government claim a desire for the 'broadest shoulders to bear the heaviest burden' - never quite works out that way though. " Everyone on this thread understands how tax works - they just don't agree with what you're suggesting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. But it isn't the case. Even the current government claim a desire for the 'broadest shoulders to bear the heaviest burden' - never quite works out that way though. I appreciate your courtesy(not sarcasm). In so far as 'most', 'more' etc, it is neither here nor there I agree. My concern was and remains that if you impose a high tax threshold, whether it be 70% or 90%, people will get driven to tax avoidance. I understand you would only pay the higher rate on earnings over £150k (I am in the 40% tax band so get the maths) but it is necessary to look beyond those on £175/£200k and consider those earning £500k etc. My point remains there is a number of people earning over £150k (well over in fact) and to tax them the rates you mention will only result in more tax avoidance. Already a number of people use service companies so limit their tax liability. To add a further tax would only result in further avoidance. " . Mmmm that sounds plausible doesn't it, I mean fair tax and people pay, high tax and they avoid!!. Unfortunately it's just not true, the wealthy avoid paying ANY TAX. point in case Jimmy carr with his complicated tax dodging, he was paying into a scheme that avoided any tax at all but the scheme cost about 7% so in effect a 7% tax. However he was only paying tax at around 20-30% because he was paying himself through his own limited company! In reality people will avoid any tax they can get away with regardless of whether you think it's fair or not. The ONLY difference between higher earners and low earners is that higher earners have more opportunity to do the avoiding thanks to having obviously more resources and having a mate in power who makes the tax laws | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I kind of wish I'd asked my opening question a little differently - and avoided use of the tax word." 
(I did try with my first post, but it was always going to end badly )
Mr ddc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. But it isn't the case. Even the current government claim a desire for the 'broadest shoulders to bear the heaviest burden' - never quite works out that way though. I appreciate your courtesy(not sarcasm). In so far as 'most', 'more' etc, it is neither here nor there I agree. My concern was and remains that if you impose a high tax threshold, whether it be 70% or 90%, people will get driven to tax avoidance. I understand you would only pay the higher rate on earnings over £150k (I am in the 40% tax band so get the maths) but it is necessary to look beyond those on £175/£200k and consider those earning £500k etc. My point remains there is a number of people earning over £150k (well over in fact) and to tax them the rates you mention will only result in more tax avoidance. Already a number of people use service companies so limit their tax liability. To add a further tax would only result in further avoidance. . Mmmm that sounds plausible doesn't it, I mean fair tax and people pay, high tax and they avoid!!. Unfortunately it's just not true, the wealthy avoid paying ANY TAX. point in case Jimmy carr with his complicated tax dodging, he was paying into a scheme that avoided any tax at all but the scheme cost about 7% so in effect a 7% tax. However he was only paying tax at around 20-30% because he was paying himself through his own limited company! In reality people will avoid any tax they can get away with regardless of whether you think it's fair or not. The ONLY difference between higher earners and low earners is that higher earners have more opportunity to do the avoiding thanks to having obviously more resources and having a mate in power who makes the tax laws" I don't think that applies to someone on £150k which is the sort of level that's being discussed. I don't class that kind of salary as in the same bracket as the Jimmy Carrs of this world. And that's not the ONLY difference - there's also the question of how much the high earner has already contributed, and the risks and sacrifices it may have taken them to get there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. But it isn't the case. Even the current government claim a desire for the 'broadest shoulders to bear the heaviest burden' - never quite works out that way though. I appreciate your courtesy(not sarcasm). In so far as 'most', 'more' etc, it is neither here nor there I agree. My concern was and remains that if you impose a high tax threshold, whether it be 70% or 90%, people will get driven to tax avoidance. I understand you would only pay the higher rate on earnings over £150k (I am in the 40% tax band so get the maths) but it is necessary to look beyond those on £175/£200k and consider those earning £500k etc. My point remains there is a number of people earning over £150k (well over in fact) and to tax them the rates you mention will only result in more tax avoidance. Already a number of people use service companies so limit their tax liability. To add a further tax would only result in further avoidance. . Mmmm that sounds plausible doesn't it, I mean fair tax and people pay, high tax and they avoid!!. Unfortunately it's just not true, the wealthy avoid paying ANY TAX. point in case Jimmy carr with his complicated tax dodging, he was paying into a scheme that avoided any tax at all but the scheme cost about 7% so in effect a 7% tax. However he was only paying tax at around 20-30% because he was paying himself through his own limited company! In reality people will avoid any tax they can get away with regardless of whether you think it's fair or not. The ONLY difference between higher earners and low earners is that higher earners have more opportunity to do the avoiding thanks to having obviously more resources and having a mate in power who makes the tax laws I don't think that applies to someone on £150k which is the sort of level that's being discussed. I don't class that kind of salary as in the same bracket as the Jimmy Carrs of this world. And that's not the ONLY difference - there's also the question of how much the high earner has already contributed, and the risks and sacrifices it may have taken them to get there. " . I've worked for many people who earn in that background... They avoid as much tax as legal and then some more that's not, in fact I was only having this very same discussion with a customer the other week... And she blurted out that she pays 10% tax on her earnings of 200k, she was very pleased with herself as indeed we all would be!. I'm not sure what you mean by risks and sacrifices? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. But it isn't the case. Even the current government claim a desire for the 'broadest shoulders to bear the heaviest burden' - never quite works out that way though. I appreciate your courtesy(not sarcasm). In so far as 'most', 'more' etc, it is neither here nor there I agree. My concern was and remains that if you impose a high tax threshold, whether it be 70% or 90%, people will get driven to tax avoidance. I understand you would only pay the higher rate on earnings over £150k (I am in the 40% tax band so get the maths) but it is necessary to look beyond those on £175/£200k and consider those earning £500k etc. My point remains there is a number of people earning over £150k (well over in fact) and to tax them the rates you mention will only result in more tax avoidance. Already a number of people use service companies so limit their tax liability. To add a further tax would only result in further avoidance. . Mmmm that sounds plausible doesn't it, I mean fair tax and people pay, high tax and they avoid!!. Unfortunately it's just not true, the wealthy avoid paying ANY TAX. point in case Jimmy carr with his complicated tax dodging, he was paying into a scheme that avoided any tax at all but the scheme cost about 7% so in effect a 7% tax. However he was only paying tax at around 20-30% because he was paying himself through his own limited company! In reality people will avoid any tax they can get away with regardless of whether you think it's fair or not. The ONLY difference between higher earners and low earners is that higher earners have more opportunity to do the avoiding thanks to having obviously more resources and having a mate in power who makes the tax laws I don't think that applies to someone on £150k which is the sort of level that's being discussed. I don't class that kind of salary as in the same bracket as the Jimmy Carrs of this world. And that's not the ONLY difference - there's also the question of how much the high earner has already contributed, and the risks and sacrifices it may have taken them to get there. . I've worked for many people who earn in that background... They avoid as much tax as legal and then some more that's not, in fact I was only having this very same discussion with a customer the other week... And she blurted out that she pays 10% tax on her earnings of 200k, she was very pleased with herself as indeed we all would be!. I'm not sure what you mean by risks and sacrifices?" If you earn it salaried, through PAYE, then your opportunities to avoid it are limited to bunging more in your pension pot (in which you'll be taxed again at a later date) and a bit of tinkering around the edges. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People always get personal when they run out of ideas. In respect to your salary cap point, your original post suggested paying 'most' of the same back in tax. The term 'Most' is generic. You then went onto use a 70% example to attempt to make my suggestion that taxing 'most' of a persons salary is not the same as a cap. 'Most' could have meant 90%. The example you used is convenient for your argument, nothing more. Anyone that thinks this Country could survive/develop taxing the majority of any one persons salary at £150k has lived a very sheltered life. Perhaps you should look at how France are now dropping their super tax rules? It's rather comical you suggest I need an accountant to understand tax when you consider tax avoidance is practical irrespective of the salary earnt. It wasn't my intent to be personal but there's no sense arguing with somebody who doesn't appear to have a basic grasp of the subject being argued about. 70% is most. 90% is more. Neither here nor there with regard to the point - it could be 51% - it matters not for a political debate on a swinging forum. People that pay higher rate taxes don't pay them on their entire salary - this seems not to be understood by a couple of posters. If that were the case of course there would be no incentive to seek a higher income beyond a certain point. But it isn't the case. Even the current government claim a desire for the 'broadest shoulders to bear the heaviest burden' - never quite works out that way though. I appreciate your courtesy(not sarcasm). In so far as 'most', 'more' etc, it is neither here nor there I agree. My concern was and remains that if you impose a high tax threshold, whether it be 70% or 90%, people will get driven to tax avoidance. I understand you would only pay the higher rate on earnings over £150k (I am in the 40% tax band so get the maths) but it is necessary to look beyond those on £175/£200k and consider those earning £500k etc. My point remains there is a number of people earning over £150k (well over in fact) and to tax them the rates you mention will only result in more tax avoidance. Already a number of people use service companies so limit their tax liability. To add a further tax would only result in further avoidance. . Mmmm that sounds plausible doesn't it, I mean fair tax and people pay, high tax and they avoid!!. Unfortunately it's just not true, the wealthy avoid paying ANY TAX. point in case Jimmy carr with his complicated tax dodging, he was paying into a scheme that avoided any tax at all but the scheme cost about 7% so in effect a 7% tax. However he was only paying tax at around 20-30% because he was paying himself through his own limited company! In reality people will avoid any tax they can get away with regardless of whether you think it's fair or not. The ONLY difference between higher earners and low earners is that higher earners have more opportunity to do the avoiding thanks to having obviously more resources and having a mate in power who makes the tax laws I don't think that applies to someone on £150k which is the sort of level that's being discussed. I don't class that kind of salary as in the same bracket as the Jimmy Carrs of this world. And that's not the ONLY difference - there's also the question of how much the high earner has already contributed, and the risks and sacrifices it may have taken them to get there. . I've worked for many people who earn in that background... They avoid as much tax as legal and then some more that's not, in fact I was only having this very same discussion with a customer the other week... And she blurted out that she pays 10% tax on her earnings of 200k, she was very pleased with herself as indeed we all would be!. I'm not sure what you mean by risks and sacrifices? If you earn it salaried, through PAYE, then your opportunities to avoid it are limited to bunging more in your pension pot (in which you'll be taxed again at a later date) and a bit of tinkering around the edges. " . Taxed again? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you earn it salaried, through PAYE, then your opportunities to avoid it are limited to bunging more in your pension pot (on which you'll be taxed again at a later date) and a bit of tinkering around the edges. . Taxed again?" When you draw the pension down as income. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you earn it salaried, through PAYE, then your opportunities to avoid it are limited to bunging more in your pension pot (on which you'll be taxed again at a later date) and a bit of tinkering around the edges. . Taxed again? When you draw the pension down as income." . You don't pay tax on your contributions and you get the tax back on personal contributions at 20%. I mean I agree with double tax being bad, I think they should just apply capital gains on your pension as in reality that's really what you've done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you earn it salaried, through PAYE, then your opportunities to avoid it are limited to bunging more in your pension pot (on which you'll be taxed again at a later date) and a bit of tinkering around the edges. . Taxed again? When you draw the pension down as income.. You don't pay tax on your contributions and you get the tax back on personal contributions at 20%. I mean I agree with double tax being bad, I think they should just apply capital gains on your pension as in reality that's really what you've done" Thanks, I understand how pensions and tax relief works. That was my point - tax relief on pensions is one of the few ways salaried people can minimise their tax bill. I've worked for plenty of individuals in that salary range too. They were all paying a fuck ton more than 10%, because if you're an employee then your means of limiting tax on your income are limited. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Mmmm that sounds plausible doesn't it, I mean fair tax and people pay, high tax and they avoid!!. Unfortunately it's just not true, the wealthy avoid paying ANY TAX. point in case Jimmy carr with his complicated tax dodging, he was paying into a scheme that avoided any tax at all but the scheme cost about 7% so in effect a 7% tax. However he was only paying tax at around 20-30% because he was paying himself through his own limited company! In reality people will avoid any tax they can get away with regardless of whether you think it's fair or not. The ONLY difference between higher earners and low earners is that higher earners have more opportunity to do the avoiding thanks to having obviously more resources and having a mate in power who makes the tax laws" I don't think we are talking at cross purposes in fairness. What I am trying to say, in response to a suggestion much further up the thread, is taxing anyone who earns more than £150k at 70% plus is going to encourage more avoidance. As you say, even with the existing tax rules there is plenty of avoidance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No more benefit after 2 children" Cap total benefits to 50% of average wage. It is ludicrous some households get more post tax income sitting on their ass smoking and drinking than those who earn their way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you earn it salaried, through PAYE, then your opportunities to avoid it are limited to bunging more in your pension pot (on which you'll be taxed again at a later date) and a bit of tinkering around the edges. . Taxed again? When you draw the pension down as income.. You don't pay tax on your contributions and you get the tax back on personal contributions at 20%. I mean I agree with double tax being bad, I think they should just apply capital gains on your pension as in reality that's really what you've done Thanks, I understand how pensions and tax relief works. That was my point - tax relief on pensions is one of the few ways salaried people can minimise their tax bill. I've worked for plenty of individuals in that salary range too. They were all paying a fuck ton more than 10%, because if you're an employee then your means of limiting tax on your income are limited. " . Yeah employees do get screwed! Which is why I meant people who earn less tend to get screwed more because the vast majority of employed jobs pay less than 50k let alone 150k. When I worked in London, I worked for loads of people that had worked at the same building and company for 20 years as a sub contractor for the purpose of minimising tax's, yes your losing some befits like holiday pay, however most of those people were earning 300k ,I worked for several people who were "employed" but still managed to run their income through secondary companies, like I said it comes down to resources to be able to do it mostly, however alot of the loop holes exist because the wealthy want them to exist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Mmmm that sounds plausible doesn't it, I mean fair tax and people pay, high tax and they avoid!!. Unfortunately it's just not true, the wealthy avoid paying ANY TAX. point in case Jimmy carr with his complicated tax dodging, he was paying into a scheme that avoided any tax at all but the scheme cost about 7% so in effect a 7% tax. However he was only paying tax at around 20-30% because he was paying himself through his own limited company! In reality people will avoid any tax they can get away with regardless of whether you think it's fair or not. The ONLY difference between higher earners and low earners is that higher earners have more opportunity to do the avoiding thanks to having obviously more resources and having a mate in power who makes the tax laws I don't think we are talking at cross purposes in fairness. What I am trying to say, in response to a suggestion much further up the thread, is taxing anyone who earns more than £150k at 70% plus is going to encourage more avoidance. As you say, even with the existing tax rules there is plenty of avoidance. " . No I happen to think we ALL want to avoid tax as much as possible regardless of whether we think there fair or not. I just also happen to think the wealthy have a distinct advantage in avoiding them both legally and illegally | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . No I happen to think we ALL want to avoid tax as much as possible regardless of whether we think there fair or not. I just also happen to think the wealthy have a distinct advantage in avoiding them both legally and illegally" I hate fully bollocks terms like "fair tax", it's a term only a politician could love because it's absolutely meaningless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone on this thread understands how tax works - they just don't agree with what you're suggesting." Good to know who speaks for the people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone on this thread understands how tax works - they just don't agree with what you're suggesting. Good to know who speaks for the people." Not claiming to. But you kept making digs about how all the people you were replying to (me being one of them) didn't understand tax. How about I rephrase it: I understand how tax works (much better than you, I expect) I just don't agree with you. Better? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone on this thread understands how tax works - they just don't agree with what you're suggesting. Good to know who speaks for the people. Not claiming to. But you kept making digs about how all the people you were replying to (me being one of them) didn't understand tax. How about I rephrase it: I understand how tax works (much better than you, I expect) I just don't agree with you. Better? "Not really it's just back to your original style of "debate" I'm right You're wrong I know You don't I'm right You're wrong I know You don't Once again.. dull. If you have a suggestion to offer I'm interested to hear it. If you're just jumping in to snipe, it's kind of childish. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone on this thread understands how tax works - they just don't agree with what you're suggesting. Good to know who speaks for the people. Not claiming to. But you kept making digs about how all the people you were replying to (me being one of them) didn't understand tax. How about I rephrase it: I understand how tax works (much better than you, I expect) I just don't agree with you. Better?
Not really it's just back to your original style of "debate"
I'm right
You're wrong
I know
You don't
I'm right
You're wrong
I know
You don't
Once again.. dull.
If you have a suggestion to offer I'm interested to hear it. If you're just jumping in to snipe, it's kind of childish."I made my suggestion further up already. Pretty early on in the thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
"This, again and again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
This, again and again
"Apparently they'll just avoid paying them and lack incentive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mean your post about "hypothecated taxes"? Presumably meant as hypothetical taxes?" No, my post about a tax to enable pay increases and recruitment of tax specialists to HMRC. And no - I meant hypothecated taxes. That's the term for taxes which are levied to pay for a specific thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mean your post about "hypothecated taxes"? Presumably meant as hypothetical taxes? No, my post about a tax to enable pay increases and recruitment of tax specialists to HMRC. And no - I meant hypothecated taxes. That's the term for taxes which are levied to pay for a specific thing. " Seems a weird thing to be against. I'd like to see more of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I kind of agree with the principle though except that I'd say to invest in doing what the Govt. said it would do which was to simplify the taxation system.
I think this would be best done by setting up some sort of independent body. Likewise for much of the public sector. Accountable to Govt. but not only acting in their interests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . No I happen to think we ALL want to avoid tax as much as possible regardless of whether we think there fair or not. I just also happen to think the wealthy have a distinct advantage in avoiding them both legally and illegally I hate fully bollocks terms like "fair tax", it's a term only a politician could love because it's absolutely meaningless. " . It is utterly meaningless, I think 60% is perfectly fair to somebody earning millions a year, they utterly disagree for many reasons all of which I utterly disagree with. So it's catch 22 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . No I happen to think we ALL want to avoid tax as much as possible regardless of whether we think there fair or not. I just also happen to think the wealthy have a distinct advantage in avoiding them both legally and illegally I hate fully bollocks terms like "fair tax", it's a term only a politician could love because it's absolutely meaningless. . It is utterly meaningless, I think 60% is perfectly fair to somebody earning millions a year, they utterly disagree for many reasons all of which I utterly disagree with. So it's catch 22" So building upon that. I would assume the only people that need to talk in such terms are people that don't have a solid case behind them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You mean your post about "hypothecated taxes"? Presumably meant as hypothetical taxes? No, my post about a tax to enable pay increases and recruitment of tax specialists to HMRC. And no - I meant hypothecated taxes. That's the term for taxes which are levied to pay for a specific thing. Seems a weird thing to be against. I'd like to see more of them." They're complicated and costly to administer and audit, and incredibly restrictive. Simplification is the way to go if people actually want to improve the tax system. Hence my post about more tax inspectors - in an ideal world you'd need far fewer because you'd have a simpler tax code - but if that's not the system you have, and you're adding in more and more specific taxes then you need the people to police it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"in an ideal world you'd need far fewer because you'd have a simpler tax code - but if that's not the system you have, and you're adding in more and more specific taxes then you need the people to police it. " OK that's an actual agreement. I'm going to bed happy now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"in an ideal world you'd need far fewer because you'd have a simpler tax code - but if that's not the system you have, and you're adding in more and more specific taxes then you need the people to police it. OK that's an actual agreement. I'm going to bed happy now " And you learnt a new word. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How about rich people and corporations just pay their fucking tax like the rest of shmucks?
"Didn't we cover that one further up too?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah employees do get screwed! Which is why I meant people who earn less tend to get screwed more because the vast majority of employed jobs pay less than 50k let alone 150k. When I worked in London, I worked for loads of people that had worked at the same building and company for 20 years as a sub contractor for the purpose of minimising tax's, yes your losing some befits like holiday pay, however most of those people were earning 300k ,I worked for several people who were "employed" but still managed to run their income through secondary companies, like I said it comes down to resources to be able to do it mostly, however alot of the loop holes exist because the wealthy want them to exist" Please correct me if I am wrong, as I don't profess to have a significant amount of knowledge on the subject, but don't HMRC permit the use of service companies by individuals, subject to meeting what seems to be a relatively wide criteria, in turn allowing people to pay corporation tax at a much lower rate than if they were an employee? If so, I am not so sure the same can really be considered tax avoidance can it? I personally draw the line between someone operating a service company as allowed by HMRC and the complicated off shore trusts /SPV's used by the superwealthy which provide for very little tax | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah employees do get screwed! Which is why I meant people who earn less tend to get screwed more because the vast majority of employed jobs pay less than 50k let alone 150k. When I worked in London, I worked for loads of people that had worked at the same building and company for 20 years as a sub contractor for the purpose of minimising tax's, yes your losing some befits like holiday pay, however most of those people were earning 300k ,I worked for several people who were "employed" but still managed to run their income through secondary companies, like I said it comes down to resources to be able to do it mostly, however alot of the loop holes exist because the wealthy want them to exist Please correct me if I am wrong, as I don't profess to have a significant amount of knowledge on the subject, but don't HMRC permit the use of service companies by individuals, subject to meeting what seems to be a relatively wide criteria, in turn allowing people to pay corporation tax at a much lower rate than if they were an employee? If so, I am not so sure the same can really be considered tax avoidance can it? I personally draw the line between someone operating a service company as allowed by HMRC and the complicated off shore trusts /SPV's used by the superwealthy which provide for very little tax" There's not much point posting a long question to a closed thead, try opening a new one if you seriously want an answer... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Blah yackety shmackety blah blah blah" Is that the answer Corbyn gave when someone asked him how come the Labour party only paid 14k in tax despite having a turnover of over 33 million? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I responsible for the Labour party's tax policies? What makes you think I'm even a Labour voter? "Come now, we've all been Labour voters at one time or another. It's nothing to be ashamed of
The hypocrisy of some modern socialists when it comes to tax avoidance on the other hand...
(Btw, you know eventually Ruggers will spot us here and shut this down permanently) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And anyway, I think Rugby may have gone to bed "Blimey, free pass to wreak mayhem! I swear DG's not allowed the keys to the platinum level | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
