FabSwingers.com forum: Pay your taxes for a fair society!

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I realise on all sides of the political spectrum there is a mass movement to end tax avoidance and loopholes which are regularly exploited by the elite.

But still more work needs to be done.

If more people did not avoid paying tax and paid it would that mean that it would reduce our collective tax burden?

Your thoughts?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he machinistMan
over a year ago

Stoke

If people wanted to hand their money over to governments there wouldn't be tax laws.

What we need is rigourous enforcement of the laws we already have.

However one of the main problems is in a globalised economy people can and do choose to move assets around to avoid high tax and even just tax in general.

It would seem to me that income tax and CT need to be abolished and a wholesale move to sales tax is becoming more necessary by the year.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"If people wanted to hand their money over to governments there wouldn't be tax laws.

What we need is rigourous enforcement of the laws we already have.

However one of the main problems is in a globalised economy people can and do choose to move assets around to avoid high tax and even just tax in general.

It would seem to me that income tax and CT need to be abolished and a wholesale move to sales tax is becoming more necessary by the year."

So sales tax, how would that work, what should be the rate, and how would it be distributed?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he machinistMan
over a year ago

Stoke

Although to be honest your title is misleading.

Switzerland has a low tax economy and is still very egalitarian.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *he machinistMan
over a year ago

Stoke

"If people wanted to hand their money over to governments there wouldn't be tax laws.

What we need is rigourous enforcement of the laws we already have.

However one of the main problems is in a globalised economy people can and do choose to move assets around to avoid high tax and even just tax in general.

It would seem to me that income tax and CT need to be abolished and a wholesale move to sales tax is becoming more necessary by the year.

So sales tax, how would that work, what should be the rate, and how would it be distributed?"
.

Distribution won't change just the way tax is raised plus it's harder to offshore business to avoid.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I might be cynical but to be honest the more taxes they collect the more they waste on shite projects like hs2 and the less they will spend on essential services like police NHS social care ect.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *agermeisterMan
over a year ago

Leeds

"I realise on all sides of the political spectrum there is a mass movement to end tax avoidance and loopholes which are regularly exploited by the elite.

But still more work needs to be done.

If more people did not avoid paying tax and paid it would that mean that it would reduce our collective tax burden?

Your thoughts?

Firstly the Tories have absolutely no intention to cracking down on tax avoidence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I realise on all sides of the political spectrum there is a mass movement to end tax avoidance and loopholes which are regularly exploited by the elite.

But still more work needs to be done.

If more people did not avoid paying tax and paid it would that mean that it would reduce our collective tax burden?

Your thoughts?

The tories make changes to give out tax cuts to themselves and their rich mates.

That aside, a more simpler system would work better as it would be more transparent and easier to administer

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

"I realise on all sides of the political spectrum there is a mass movement to end tax avoidance and loopholes which are regularly exploited by the elite.

But still more work needs to be done.

If more people did not avoid paying tax and paid it would that mean that it would reduce our collective tax burden?

Your thoughts?

It would reduce our collective tax burden or mean that we could find everything that we want to.

Especially if you consider how much corporate earnings are just sat offshore or used to fund pointless share buy-backs.

If the money was, at least spent on investment in training and equipment which means spending in the real economy that would be something...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

"I might be cynical but to be honest the more taxes they collect the more they waste on shite projects like hs2 and the less they will spend on essential services like police NHS social care ect."
Sadly I agree I share your views

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *wosmilersCouple
over a year ago

Heathrowish

I want to disagree but I cannot.

Worse till is how such contracts are awarded....often nepotism or camouflaged nepotism at it's worst.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

I want to disagree but I cannot.

Worse till is how such contracts are awarded....often nepotism or camouflaged nepotism at it's worst."

So are you both saying the country would be better off if individuals and corporations did not pay their taxes?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *wosmilersCouple
over a year ago

Heathrowish

I want to disagree but I cannot.

Worse till is how such contracts are awarded....often nepotism or camouflaged nepotism at it's worst.

So are you both saying the country would be better off if individuals and corporations did not pay their taxes?"

Not at all but there should also be an obligation for whatever taxes that we do pay to be spent responsibility.

Unfortunately, those that have previously spent and are planning to spend our taxes (that is our legal obligation to pay to the public purse from OUR OWN earnings), have frequently failed to live up to their responsibilities to do so.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I want to disagree but I cannot.

Worse till is how such contracts are awarded....often nepotism or camouflaged nepotism at it's worst.

So are you both saying the country would be better off if individuals and corporations did not pay their taxes?"

I more lean towards everyone paying a equal pecetage of tax.

hammering someone at 40% is not going to make them pay tax all it does if make that person find ways of paying less and sometimes as little as 10%

tax all at 20% and it would be a much fairer system.

yes there will always be the ones who will fuck the system but you will allways get that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I want to disagree but I cannot.

Worse till is how such contracts are awarded....often nepotism or camouflaged nepotism at it's worst.

So are you both saying the country would be better off if individuals and corporations did not pay their taxes?

I more lean towards everyone paying a equal pecetage of tax.

hammering someone at 40% is not going to make them pay tax all it does if make that person find ways of paying less and sometimes as little as 10%

tax all at 20% and it would be a much fairer system.

yes there will always be the ones who will fuck the system but you will allways get that.

That's going to leave a hole in the budget!

Generally it's companies or self employed who avoid tax. So income tax will generally be taken. And if higher earners seek to avoid tax at 40% theyd probably still do so at 20%

Personally I don't like a single tax rate. While it looks fair it hurts poorer people more as their need for each and every pound is a lot greater.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *wosmilersCouple
over a year ago

Heathrowish

I want to disagree but I cannot.

Worse till is how such contracts are awarded....often nepotism or camouflaged nepotism at it's worst.

So are you both saying the country would be better off if individuals and corporations did not pay their taxes?

I more lean towards everyone paying a equal pecetage of tax.

hammering someone at 40% is not going to make them pay tax all it does if make that person find ways of paying less and sometimes as little as 10%

tax all at 20% and it would be a much fairer system.

yes there will always be the ones who will fuck the system but you will allways get that.

That's going to leave a hole in the budget!

Generally it's companies or self employed who avoid tax. So income tax will generally be taken. And if higher earners seek to avoid tax at 40% theyd probably still do so at 20%

Personally I don't like a single tax rate. While it looks fair it hurts poorer people more as their need for each and every pound is a lot greater. "

More in favour of having a higher personal allowance and a higher basic rate to balance the yield.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Try living in Scotland, Jimmy Crankie's SNP have increased the tax rate for us achievers. There is no incentive to better yourself in Scotland. Perhaps we should all collect the brew, where would the SNP be then. Who would keep their core voters, the something for nothing brigade. You English are so lucky!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Tax requirements depend upon a country spending plans. Who pays what and how much, is determined by the government - which could also vary its spending plans. All things being equal, if no tax avoidance happened, those who always pay, would pay less.

The effective tax rate for lower income levels is typically higher than others - they also disproportionately spend in their country, contributing to growth.

The current UK government is not particularly interested in a fairer system, with reduced avoidance - many conservative donors benefit very nicely from the way they have it sewn up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

I want to disagree but I cannot.

Worse till is how such contracts are awarded....often nepotism or camouflaged nepotism at it's worst.

So are you both saying the country would be better off if individuals and corporations did not pay their taxes?

I more lean towards everyone paying a equal pecetage of tax.

hammering someone at 40% is not going to make them pay tax all it does if make that person find ways of paying less and sometimes as little as 10%

tax all at 20% and it would be a much fairer system.

yes there will always be the ones who will fuck the system but you will allways get that.

That's going to leave a hole in the budget!

Generally it's companies or self employed who avoid tax. So income tax will generally be taken. And if higher earners seek to avoid tax at 40% theyd probably still do so at 20%

Personally I don't like a single tax rate. While it looks fair it hurts poorer people more as their need for each and every pound is a lot greater. "

It looks the opposite of fair - the only way it's fair is if somehow there isn't a basic cost of living.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *wosmilersCouple
over a year ago

Heathrowish

The politics of envy versus the politics of greed....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I realise on all sides of the political spectrum there is a mass movement to end tax avoidance and loopholes which are regularly exploited by the elite.

But still more work needs to be done.

If more people did not avoid paying tax and paid it would that mean that it would reduce our collective tax burden?

Your thoughts?

Firstly the Tories have absolutely no intention to cracking down on tax avoidence. "
I think you will find that they have already tweaked the allowances in order to bring in more tax. The 10 % writing down allowance on fixture for buy to let has been scrapped, interest relief is being phased out and the threshold for relief on dividend income lowered.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bsolutebeginnersCouple
over a year ago

Planet Ork

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

"Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

Amusing, but flawed. You assume that everyone is a self seeking bastard as opposed to friends who like each others company despite inequity in income

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bsolutebeginnersCouple
over a year ago

Planet Ork

I never assume anything, it doesn’t state anywhere within the text that they are friends and if they were then that would spoil the analogy that was being made. It is just an over simplified but humorous explanation of tax cuts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

"I never assume anything, it doesn’t state anywhere within the text that they are friends and if they were then that would spoil the analogy that was being made. It is just an over simplified but humorous explanation of tax cuts.

It is a perspective on it, but it ignores the fact that if you picked 10 people the odds are that only one or two would be bastards and the rest would be happy to see the back of them...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I realise on all sides of the political spectrum there is a mass movement to end tax avoidance and loopholes which are regularly exploited by the elite.

But still more work needs to be done.

If more people did not avoid paying tax and paid it would that mean that it would reduce our collective tax burden?

Your thoughts?

A simpler tax system would make it harder for avoidance and increase fairness.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iltsguy200Man
over a year ago

Warminster

The UK Tax code has trebled in length since 1997, it’s currently 17,000 pages long, mainly under the direction of one Mr G Brown. The Hong Kong Tax code, widely held by tax lawyers to be the most admirably efficient in the world, is 276 pages long.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread