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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I mean the actual wealthy, the ones earning over 500k a year. We all agree they should pay more but what's the best way to do it as income tax just don't work on them. Property tax Land tax Capital gains Is it just a conundrum of a modern globalised world that it's almost impossible to get the Uber wealthy to pay up?." Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. JC plans to close all these loooholes which are created by the lawyermakers who ended leaving their jobs a few months later working as highly paid executives for the companies that benefited from the loopholes they just created. Bear in mind the 2008 crash required legislative changes to take place. Checks and balances which would have prevented the crash were deliberately removed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. " Why should you pay income tax in a country you don't live in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. Why should you pay income tax in a country you don't live in. " Because it shouldn't be where you live it should be where you derive your income. They are performing the same function as someone living in the UK and on that first day and last day they are being paid. This expat scheme allows rich corporate executives to earn tens of millions without paying any tax whilst you and I pick up their tab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems the top 31,000 earners pay 12% of the total income tax in the uk " The top 31, 000 earners IN THE UK pay 12% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what percentage of total revenue come from income tax?" No idea but you can be doubly sure that the wealthiest pay the vast lions share on VAT ( because they buy more expensive stuff), APT, car tax ( flash cars), petrol ( low mpg in flash cars), fags and booze. Meanwhile the poor spend all their handouts on fags, booze , sky tv, mobile phones and takeaways ( and do the weekly shop down the local food bank) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what percentage of total revenue come from income tax? No idea but you can be doubly sure that the wealthiest pay the vast lions share on VAT ( because they buy more expensive stuff), APT, car tax ( flash cars), petrol ( low mpg in flash cars), fags and booze. Meanwhile the poor spend all their handouts on fags, booze , sky tv, mobile phones and takeaways ( and do the weekly shop down the local food bank)" Oh you are so hilarious  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If it wasn’t for the humongous amounts the wealthy in the UK pay in tax, the country would be bankrupt . The nonsense I hear from the loony left about the wealthy not paying their fair share of tax just ignores the facts as previously stated . A third of all UK income tax comes from just 381,000 UK taxpayers " . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what percentage of total revenue come from income tax? No idea but you can be doubly sure that the wealthiest pay the vast lions share on VAT ( because they buy more expensive stuff), APT, car tax ( flash cars), petrol ( low mpg in flash cars), fags and booze. Meanwhile the poor spend all their handouts on fags, booze , sky tv, mobile phones and takeaways ( and do the weekly shop down the local food bank)" How much do the poor get in ‘hand outs’  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems the top 31,000 earners pay 12% of the total income tax in the uk The top 31, 000 earners IN THE UK pay 12% " Of income tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems the top 31,000 earners pay 12% of the total income tax in the uk The top 31, 000 earners IN THE UK pay 12% Of income tax." 25% of all UK govt income is income tax 17% is NI contribution 16% is VAT Everything else is much smaller So the rich pay for the rest of us many times over | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems the top 31,000 earners pay 12% of the total income tax in the uk The top 31, 000 earners IN THE UK pay 12% Of income tax. 25% of all UK govt income is income tax 17% is NI contribution 16% is VAT Everything else is much smaller So the rich pay for the rest of us many times over" That is good to hear, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want Google, Amazon , Starbucks and Uber’s of this world to pay their fair share of tax. Our high streets are ruined by these tax avoidance businesses . " No, we ruined it by using them. And nando's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest " . I agree they do but in reality it doesn't add up to much of the total that's why I would prefer taxing the poor less and taking away some benefits,puts them on the road to work hard pay better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest . I agree they do but in reality it doesn't add up to much of the total that's why I would prefer taxing the poor less and taking away some benefits,puts them on the road to work hard pay better. " I'm referring to the working poor, disabled etc. Benefits have been frozen. Food bank use gone up. What do you want to take away? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest . I agree they do but in reality it doesn't add up to much of the total that's why I would prefer taxing the poor less and taking away some benefits,puts them on the road to work hard pay better. I'm referring to the working poor, disabled etc. Benefits have been frozen. Food bank use gone up. What do you want to take away?" . The same as I give them in tax reductions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is really quite funny to see people defending ‘the wealthy’ on the basis that it isn’t fair! The average salary in the UK is £29k, it is unlikely that Fab members are more wealthy, so why support people who could contribute more? "Some on here claim to be very well off but funnily enough they aren’t the ones moaning about paying more tax - ho figure?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. Why should you pay income tax in a country you don't live in. " I moved from Scotland to England but forgot to tell HMRC. I work for a company registered in Scotland. After the devolution of Income Tax to Edinburgh and the creation of new tax bands for Scottish tax-payers, I was treated as a Scottish tax-payer. I was paying the Scottish tax rate on my income, yet my primary residence was in England. 18 months before I realised and got in touch with HMRC. They sent me a refund on overpaid tax of £300 or so. I learned that your tax domain is determined by your primary place of residence, not by the source of your income. I am now paying the English rate of tax because my primary address is in England. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I mean the actual wealthy, the ones earning over 500k a year. We all agree they should pay more but what's the best way to do it as income tax just don't work on them. Property tax Land tax Capital gains Is it just a conundrum of a modern globalised world that it's almost impossible to get the Uber wealthy to pay up?." Income tax with no loopholes ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. Why should you pay income tax in a country you don't live in. Because it shouldn't be where you live it should be where you derive your income. They are performing the same function as someone living in the UK and on that first day and last day they are being paid. This expat scheme allows rich corporate executives to earn tens of millions without paying any tax whilst you and I pick up their tab." What if I work for a company in the UK, I am paid by that company in the UK, and they send me abroad on a project? Where should the tax on my earnings be paid? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. Why should you pay income tax in a country you don't live in. Because it shouldn't be where you live it should be where you derive your income. They are performing the same function as someone living in the UK and on that first day and last day they are being paid. This expat scheme allows rich corporate executives to earn tens of millions without paying any tax whilst you and I pick up their tab. What if I work for a company in the UK, I am paid by that company in the UK, and they send me abroad on a project? Where should the tax on my earnings be paid?" It depends on the context, like most things do. It's reasonable to have a very short project taxed similarly to now, if you will remain a resident of the UK, just being a very short visitor to the other state. If you take residence in the other state, then you could become a resident for tax purposes there. Rules currently exist that prevent double taxation via agreements that many countries have with each other. If there's any form of tax avoidance going on, it would be right for that to be penalised. You provided no details of this hypothetical project. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Increase minimum wage to a level that anyone in work does not require any benefits. Tax capital gains and death duties at the same level as income tax except for the family home above a certain threshold. £1million? Tax dividend tax at the same rate as income tax." . I could get behind those policies. I've never been in favour of the tax payer subsidising private company wages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Increase minimum wage to a level that anyone in work does not require any benefits. Tax capital gains and death duties at the same level as income tax except for the family home above a certain threshold. £1million? Tax dividend tax at the same rate as income tax.. I could get behind those policies. I've never been in favour of the tax payer subsidising private company wages." Note expecting the Tories to back this policy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Increase minimum wage to a level that anyone in work does not require any benefits. Tax capital gains and death duties at the same level as income tax except for the family home above a certain threshold. £1million? Tax dividend tax at the same rate as income tax.. I could get behind those policies. I've never been in favour of the tax payer subsidising private company wages. Note expecting the Tories to back this policy! ". They were introduced by a labour government but no,I don't expect the Tory party to back removing it either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want Google, Amazon , Starbucks and Uber’s of this world to pay their fair share of tax. Our high streets are ruined by these tax avoidance businesses . " They are paying their fair share, they're just not paying it here, they're paying it mostly in the country they're actually incorporated in; just like BP pays most of its corporate taxes here rather than in Africa, Asia or America. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I mean the actual wealthy, the ones earning over 500k a year. We all agree they should pay more but what's the best way to do it as income tax just don't work on them. Property tax Land tax Capital gains Is it just a conundrum of a modern globalised world that it's almost impossible to get the Uber wealthy to pay up?." Getting "them" to pay up more is a ridiculous notion. It's been proven that when tax rates are reduced the actual revenue increases! Why penalise the wealth creators? They bring jobs, investment thus further tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is really quite funny to see people defending ‘the wealthy’ on the basis that it isn’t fair! The average salary in the UK is £29k, it is unlikely that Fab members are more wealthy, so why support people who could contribute more? "Why is it unlikely that Fab members earn more than 29k? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is really quite funny to see people defending ‘the wealthy’ on the basis that it isn’t fair! The average salary in the UK is £29k, it is unlikely that Fab members are more wealthy, so why support people who could contribute more?
Why is it unlikely that Fab members earn more than 29k?"Statistically, the majority on here will be closer to the average wage than any other wage. I assume that's what thet psoter meant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just have one tax ! No loopholes no excuses ! No accountants ! " Radical thinking ..I like it ..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just have one tax ! No loopholes no excuses ! No accountants ! Radical thinking ..I like it .. "Don’t see why it couldn’t work ! One rate for all say 40 per cent ! The rich pay more as they earn more ! The snag is at the moment it doesn’t matter what the rate is for the rich they have an accountant to get them out of it ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just have one tax ! No loopholes no excuses ! No accountants ! Radical thinking ..I like it ..
Don’t see why it couldn’t work !
One rate for all say 40 per cent !
The rich pay more as they earn more !
The snag is at the moment it doesn’t matter what the rate is for the rich they have an accountant to get them out of it !
"Russia have a flat rate of 13%. It significantly increased their tax take. 40% would be way too high for a flat rate. You'd wipe out everyone earning average wage or below. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just have one tax ! No loopholes no excuses ! No accountants ! Radical thinking ..I like it ..
Don’t see why it couldn’t work !
One rate for all say 40 per cent !
The rich pay more as they earn more !
The snag is at the moment it doesn’t matter what the rate is for the rich they have an accountant to get them out of it !
Russia have a flat rate of 13%. It significantly increased their tax take. 40% would be way too high for a flat rate. You'd wipe out everyone earning average wage or below."Exactly! It proves that when taxes go down there is more incentive for business, entrepreneurs and the wealthy therefore revenues increase! Don't let anyone's politics of envy mask the true facts. The poor will never be better off by the wealthy being penalised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if you've just left school and thinking of a highly skilled career that is going to take years of study that will not only cost a fortune in tuition but also lost earnings..... You're better off going straight into work earning money from day one and not paying for tuition since your extra earnings will just get taxed off you and you'll only break even at retirement if at all. ?" Maths not you're strong subject? I could correct assumptions but be easier for you to Google earning potential for graduates and income tax bands. Income tax only 28% of total tax revenue | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I mean the actual wealthy, the ones earning over 500k a year. We all agree they should pay more but what's the best way to do it as income tax just don't work on them. Property tax Land tax Capital gains Is it just a conundrum of a modern globalised world that it's almost impossible to get the Uber wealthy to pay up?. Getting "them" to pay up more is a ridiculous notion. It's been proven that when tax rates are reduced the actual revenue increases! Why penalise the wealth creators? They bring jobs, investment thus further tax." "Proven"? Where, when and by whom? Do you know what the Laffer curve is and under what circumstances it applies? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just have one tax ! No loopholes no excuses ! No accountants ! Radical thinking ..I like it ..
Don’t see why it couldn’t work !
One rate for all say 40 per cent !
The rich pay more as they earn more !
The snag is at the moment it doesn’t matter what the rate is for the rich they have an accountant to get them out of it !
Russia have a flat rate of 13%. It significantly increased their tax take. 40% would be way too high for a flat rate. You'd wipe out everyone earning average wage or below."Russia has a crumbling infrastructure and disastrous public services. High employment and very, very low wages. Where is the data that shows a cut increased the overall Russian tax take? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just have one tax ! No loopholes no excuses ! No accountants ! Radical thinking ..I like it ..
Don’t see why it couldn’t work !
One rate for all say 40 per cent !
The rich pay more as they earn more !
The snag is at the moment it doesn’t matter what the rate is for the rich they have an accountant to get them out of it !
Russia have a flat rate of 13%. It significantly increased their tax take. 40% would be way too high for a flat rate. You'd wipe out everyone earning average wage or below."It was a random % but bear in mind no vat , fuel tax , no council tax , no national insurance , Just one Tax . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just have one tax ! No loopholes no excuses ! No accountants ! Radical thinking ..I like it ..
Don’t see why it couldn’t work !
One rate for all say 40 per cent !
The rich pay more as they earn more !
The snag is at the moment it doesn’t matter what the rate is for the rich they have an accountant to get them out of it !
Russia have a flat rate of 13%. It significantly increased their tax take. 40% would be way too high for a flat rate. You'd wipe out everyone earning average wage or below. It was a random % but bear in mind no vat , fuel tax , no council tax , no national insurance , Just one Tax ."Ahh apologies, I didn't realize you meant 1 tax for total, I thought you were talking about 1 rate of income tax (hence my reference to Russia). It's an interesting concept. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest " Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 40 % rate kicks in at 45k or so." Which is why many people who can control their income only take out 45k when they could take out more than 80k. That's why drastically increasing taxes over 80k won't be as effective as it seems on paper. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 40 % rate kicks in at 45k or so. Which is why many people who can control their income only take out 45k when they could take out more than 80k. That's why drastically increasing taxes over 80k won't be as effective as it seems on paper." Exactly you can put up to £40,000 into a pension plan to escape tax.All sounds good but you still pay tax on it when you draw it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 40 % rate kicks in at 45k or so. Which is why many people who can control their income only take out 45k when they could take out more than 80k. That's why drastically increasing taxes over 80k won't be as effective as it seems on paper.Exactly you can put up to £40,000 into a pension plan to escape tax.All sounds good but you still pay tax on it when you draw it." Not necessarily  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 40 % rate kicks in at 45k or so. Which is why many people who can control their income only take out 45k when they could take out more than 80k. That's why drastically increasing taxes over 80k won't be as effective as it seems on paper.Exactly you can put up to £40,000 into a pension plan to escape tax.All sounds good but you still pay tax on it when you draw it. Not necessarily ". Tax avoidance, have you thought about the poor children out there with only an iPhone 7, the bullying the angst the spectacle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 40 % rate kicks in at 45k or so. Which is why many people who can control their income only take out 45k when they could take out more than 80k. That's why drastically increasing taxes over 80k won't be as effective as it seems on paper.Exactly you can put up to £40,000 into a pension plan to escape tax.All sounds good but you still pay tax on it when you draw it." There are many many ways to get that money out without paying 40%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k " That's not the actual point. As soon as you pay tax any incremental rise has a more significant effect on poorer people because it reduces money spent on necessities. For the wealthy it reduces savings, investment or discretionary spending. That is why a tiered income tax system exists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"only have to look at the nhs consultants and senior doctors who now wont work any overtime because of the change of the pension tax and those who are retiring early to avoid a massive tax bill.Wait until labour get in we will be lucky to have any left." That's because there is a vliff-edge rather than a taper. It is soluble but is not being resolved. The rest of what you have written is prejudice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k That's not the actual point. As soon as you pay tax any incremental rise has a more significant effect on poorer people because it reduces money spent on necessities. For the wealthy it reduces savings, investment or discretionary spending. That is why a tiered income tax system exists." Maybe the point should be accountability. Those paying no tax or a very small amount have no incentive to behave in financially responsible manner. As the system currently stands the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k That's not the actual point. As soon as you pay tax any incremental rise has a more significant effect on poorer people because it reduces money spent on necessities. For the wealthy it reduces savings, investment or discretionary spending. That is why a tiered income tax system exists. Maybe the point should be accountability. Those paying no tax or a very small amount have no incentive to behave in financially responsible manner. As the system currently stands the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes . " So whats your solution to the financially irresponsible? All you seem to be offering is a return to the status quo and patriot flag waving with everyone doing their bit for the country and getting rewarded (health and benefits) to their abilities. It seems to me that you don’t have any consideration for the diversity of society and people and sound as if you would be more than comfortable with people who cant succeed falling by the wayside. I personally do believe in trying to make life better for everyone but when I see multi-millionaires disrupting democracy (ie aaron banks) for their own benefit then I question where your loyalties lie, with the country or the elite? Care to give a definitive answer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k That's not the actual point. As soon as you pay tax any incremental rise has a more significant effect on poorer people because it reduces money spent on necessities. For the wealthy it reduces savings, investment or discretionary spending. That is why a tiered income tax system exists. Maybe the point should be accountability. Those paying no tax or a very small amount have no incentive to behave in financially responsible manner. As the system currently stands the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes . " Victim blaming. Excellent strategy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k That's not the actual point. As soon as you pay tax any incremental rise has a more significant effect on poorer people because it reduces money spent on necessities. For the wealthy it reduces savings, investment or discretionary spending. That is why a tiered income tax system exists. Maybe the point should be accountability. Those paying no tax or a very small amount have no incentive to behave in financially responsible manner. As the system currently stands the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes . " What do you think a fair share looks like? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k That's not the actual point. As soon as you pay tax any incremental rise has a more significant effect on poorer people because it reduces money spent on necessities. For the wealthy it reduces savings, investment or discretionary spending. That is why a tiered income tax system exists. Maybe the point should be accountability. Those paying no tax or a very small amount have no incentive to behave in financially responsible manner. As the system currently stands the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes . " Tosh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"only have to look at the nhs consultants and senior doctors who now wont work any overtime because of the change of the pension tax and those who are retiring early to avoid a massive tax bill.Wait until labour get in we will be lucky to have any left." You are aware that the tax rules that are causing this particular problem were introduced by Osborne arent you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ps no off shore no trust funds etc ! Google or amazon ? Pay up or your Barred from the U.K. Simples ??" So long as we’re in the EU no because one of the four freedoms of movement is the free movement of capital (i.e. money). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"more liquidity is needed in the economy, at the moment the most wealthy individuals and companies are happy to hoard their gains through complex tax avoidance schemes. At the same time they keep wages low enough so people are not meeting the threshold to pay income tax, as a result there there is less tax received. If the wealthy wanted to be fair they should be less greedy and start spreading their wealth and increase liquidity in the economy, if they don’t, then they deserve to be taxed higher amounts. They really need to think, pay a penalty for being so tight-fisted or increase wages so that the burden is removed from their shoulders, and offset to the people they employ, then once that happens then they get a reduction in their taxes. They need to think if they are fair then they will get treated fairly. They have nothing to lose if they do that. If they are happy with steady growth instead higher profits year on year it’s an acceptable win win situation." I like the sound of that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k That's not the actual point. As soon as you pay tax any incremental rise has a more significant effect on poorer people because it reduces money spent on necessities. For the wealthy it reduces savings, investment or discretionary spending. That is why a tiered income tax system exists. Maybe the point should be accountability. Those paying no tax or a very small amount have no incentive to behave in financially responsible manner. As the system currently stands the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes . What do you think a fair share looks like?" Have you see the new taxes on dividends? Whereas before there was no tax on dividends the tax now does a step change from 7% to 35%. How is that incremental? Income tax doubles. In the UK you either pay hardly any tax or you are taxed to death. I am in the process of moving my business from the UK for tax reasons. I certainly don't want to be contemplating suicide in a few years time because of a new tax law they might think up and apply retrospectively. To my mind anyone who holds a company in the UK has rocks in their head. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Poor pay great proportion of their income in tax when compared to the wealthiest Factually incorrect, it's the other way around. Someone who earns £11,500 per annum currently pays no income tax whatsoever. Those earning over £100K, on the other hand, pay 40% on everything they earn over £100k on top of what they're paying on their earnings between £11,500 & £100k That's not the actual point. As soon as you pay tax any incremental rise has a more significant effect on poorer people because it reduces money spent on necessities. For the wealthy it reduces savings, investment or discretionary spending. That is why a tiered income tax system exists. Maybe the point should be accountability. Those paying no tax or a very small amount have no incentive to behave in financially responsible manner. As the system currently stands the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes . What do you think a fair share looks like? Have you see the new taxes on dividends? Whereas before there was no tax on dividends the tax now does a step change from 7% to 35%. How is that incremental? Income tax doubles. In the UK you either pay hardly any tax or you are taxed to death. I am in the process of moving my business from the UK for tax reasons. I certainly don't want to be contemplating suicide in a few years time because of a new tax law they might think up and apply retrospectively. To my mind anyone who holds a company in the UK has rocks in their head." Why would you pretend that dividends are not income? How do they differ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more you tax shareholders for investing their money in businesses the less they will invest " Shareholders invest? When a share is traded, does the company get any money? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more you tax shareholders for investing their money in businesses the less they will invest Shareholders invest? When a share is traded, does the company get any money?" The difference is risk. People are prepared to risk their money if their is a potential to earn higher return. But if you change the rules so that if you lose money on an investment it's your bad luck but if make a profit HMRC will have more than a third of that it isn't worth it. And yes for small businesses it's a huge risk. If they don't get paid no one backs them up. When they get sick no one backs them up. The moment they stop working they stop earning. And there is no guarantee of future business. You want them to take that risk and make no more than a salaried employee? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more you tax shareholders for investing their money in businesses the less they will invest Shareholders invest? When a share is traded, does the company get any money? The difference is risk. People are prepared to risk their money if their is a potential to earn higher return. But if you change the rules so that if you lose money on an investment it's your bad luck but if make a profit HMRC will have more than a third of that it isn't worth it. And yes for small businesses it's a huge risk. If they don't get paid no one backs them up. When they get sick no one backs them up. The moment they stop working they stop earning. And there is no guarantee of future business. You want them to take that risk and make no more than a salaried employee?" That's not the point I'm making. The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO. Dividends are income from an investment. The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment. There is a preferential entrepreneurs tax rate and you can right off losses for years. For contractors who are really just serial employees bit without security or benefits then they should just be paid more by their client but taxed at the same rate as everyone else. Just as the low paid should be paid more and not have to claim benefits. The status quo is easier of course. Doesn't make it food or even sensible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more you tax shareholders for investing their money in businesses the less they will invest Shareholders invest? When a share is traded, does the company get any money? The difference is risk. People are prepared to risk their money if their is a potential to earn higher return. But if you change the rules so that if you lose money on an investment it's your bad luck but if make a profit HMRC will have more than a third of that it isn't worth it. And yes for small businesses it's a huge risk. If they don't get paid no one backs them up. When they get sick no one backs them up. The moment they stop working they stop earning. And there is no guarantee of future business. You want them to take that risk and make no more than a salaried employee? That's not the point I'm making. The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO. Dividends are income from an investment. The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment. There is a preferential entrepreneurs tax rate and you can right off losses for years. For contractors who are really just serial employees bit without security or benefits then they should just be paid more by their client but taxed at the same rate as everyone else. Just as the low paid should be paid more and not have to claim benefits. The status quo is easier of course. Doesn't make it food or even sensible." Actually not all contractors are serial employees, despite what HMRC maintains. Some are legitimate businesses providing a much needed service to commerce and industry. Taxing them so that it is no longer worthwhile for them to carry on is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Fortunately their are other countries in Europe who encourage economic growth by providing incentive to entrepreneurship rather than punishing people for their productivity. Congratulations to HMRC for killing the goose that lays the golden egg. England is already a technological backwater, Brexit together the brutal persecution of contractors will drive us into the dark ages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. Why should you pay income tax in a country you don't live in. Because it shouldn't be where you live it should be where you derive your income. They are performing the same function as someone living in the UK and on that first day and last day they are being paid. This expat scheme allows rich corporate executives to earn tens of millions without paying any tax whilst you and I pick up their tab. What if I work for a company in the UK, I am paid by that company in the UK, and they send me abroad on a project? Where should the tax on my earnings be paid?" I was in this situation working in many different countries. I paid no income tax for 7 years. All cleared by HMRC. Not easy... but it can be done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The more you tax shareholders for investing their money in businesses the less they will invest Shareholders invest? When a share is traded, does the company get any money? The difference is risk. People are prepared to risk their money if their is a potential to earn higher return. But if you change the rules so that if you lose money on an investment it's your bad luck but if make a profit HMRC will have more than a third of that it isn't worth it. And yes for small businesses it's a huge risk. If they don't get paid no one backs them up. When they get sick no one backs them up. The moment they stop working they stop earning. And there is no guarantee of future business. You want them to take that risk and make no more than a salaried employee? That's not the point I'm making. The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO. Dividends are income from an investment. The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment. There is a preferential entrepreneurs tax rate and you can right off losses for years. For contractors who are really just serial employees bit without security or benefits then they should just be paid more by their client but taxed at the same rate as everyone else. Just as the low paid should be paid more and not have to claim benefits. The status quo is easier of course. Doesn't make it food or even sensible. Actually not all contractors are serial employees, despite what HMRC maintains. Some are legitimate businesses providing a much needed service to commerce and industry. Taxing them so that it is no longer worthwhile for them to carry on is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Fortunately their are other countries in Europe who encourage economic growth by providing incentive to entrepreneurship rather than punishing people for their productivity. Congratulations to HMRC for killing the goose that lays the golden egg. England is already a technological backwater, Brexit together the brutal persecution of contractors will drive us into the dark ages." What did I actually say? That companies should pay an appropriate rate and that income should be taxed as income. What is your actual issue with that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. " So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point?" If I take my company public and I sell shares in my company. Where does the money from the sale of those shares go to? Dividends are income as opposed to an expense but they are something that requires financial input before you get something out. Whereas a salary requires no financial input or risk by the salary earner. When you are in a country where bona fide business are taking up 9 to 5 jobs because of the taxman you are in trouble. I recently worked with an Engineer from an Italian company. I asked him where in Italy he lived. He told me that he lived in Malta because taxes were too high in Italy. So now Italy gets a high percentage of nothing from this guy. How often does an employee lose his job compared to a contractor coming to the end of his contract? It's a redicilous comparison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point? If I take my company public and I sell shares in my company. Where does the money from the sale of those shares go to? Dividends are income as opposed to an expense but they are something that requires financial input before you get something out. Whereas a salary requires no financial input or risk by the salary earner. When you are in a country where bona fide business are taking up 9 to 5 jobs because of the taxman you are in trouble. I recently worked with an Engineer from an Italian company. I asked him where in Italy he lived. He told me that he lived in Malta because taxes were too high in Italy. So now Italy gets a high percentage of nothing from this guy. How often does an employee lose his job compared to a contractor coming to the end of his contract? It's a redicilous comparison. " So, as I have already written: 'The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO.' The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment.' Have you sold shares in your company? There is entrepreneur tax relief at 10% up to £10million over your lifetime if you choose to release equity from it. I don't have a problem with that. It could even be calculated as a multiple of your personal investment. Investing through a limited company is not, of course, a personal risk as that is the point. Limited liability. I've already suggested a way to encourage investment in an IPO. After that dividends are rental income. You take a risk in the expectation of a higher return. Trading shares does not help the company and share price is not an indication of its true value or performance. Not paying tax has been a pastime in Italy since before it's inception. You think our tax code is complicated. Tax avoidance and evasion and corruption are endemic. It has been for centuries from multinationals down to individuals. Non payment of tax is the reason the country has always suffered from chronic debt despite being one of the wealthiest economies in the world. Employees lose there jobs more and more frequently. You really believe that a permanent job is really permanent? A couple of months notice and 2 weeks redundancy and quite possibly discovering that your pension's been spent "Freelancers" on zero hours contracts even get all of the risks with none of the rewards. I get that you you don't want to pay tax and that you do an amazing job, but you haven't earned the eight to contribute less to the society we all live in. That is effectively what you're saying. You want to contribute less to the country because you are special. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point? If I take my company public and I sell shares in my company. Where does the money from the sale of those shares go to? Dividends are income as opposed to an expense but they are something that requires financial input before you get something out. Whereas a salary requires no financial input or risk by the salary earner. When you are in a country where bona fide business are taking up 9 to 5 jobs because of the taxman you are in trouble. I recently worked with an Engineer from an Italian company. I asked him where in Italy he lived. He told me that he lived in Malta because taxes were too high in Italy. So now Italy gets a high percentage of nothing from this guy. How often does an employee lose his job compared to a contractor coming to the end of his contract? It's a redicilous comparison. So, as I have already written: 'The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO.' The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment.' Have you sold shares in your company? There is entrepreneur tax relief at 10% up to £10million over your lifetime if you choose to release equity from it. I don't have a problem with that. It could even be calculated as a multiple of your personal investment. Investing through a limited company is not, of course, a personal risk as that is the point. Limited liability. I've already suggested a way to encourage investment in an IPO. After that dividends are rental income. You take a risk in the expectation of a higher return. Trading shares does not help the company and share price is not an indication of its true value or performance. Not paying tax has been a pastime in Italy since before it's inception. You think our tax code is complicated. Tax avoidance and evasion and corruption are endemic. It has been for centuries from multinationals down to individuals. Non payment of tax is the reason the country has always suffered from chronic debt despite being one of the wealthiest economies in the world. Employees lose there jobs more and more frequently. You really believe that a permanent job is really permanent? A couple of months notice and 2 weeks redundancy and quite possibly discovering that your pension's been spent "Freelancers" on zero hours contracts even get all of the risks with none of the rewards. I get that you you don't want to pay tax and that you do an amazing job, but you haven't earned the eight to contribute less to the society we all live in. That is effectively what you're saying. You want to contribute less to the country because you are special." When you need to resort to zero hours contracts to defend your argument then you've definitely got nothing in the tank. I will pay more money in tax in January than the average national wage so please don't tell me I don't pay tax. I'm not saying I don't want to pay tax. I'm saying I want to have more in my pocket at the end of the day than someone who doesn't take any risks. There is no need to insult my intelligence. Of course any person in a permanent position can lose their job. But how many people lose their job 4 or 5 times a year? I am saying I am a genuine contractor. My children live in another country and I own no property. At the moment my next contract will likely be somewhere in Europe and then have the choice of operating from a country where the 'fair share' isn't more than 50% of everything I earn, or keep my operating from the UK where it just isn't worth it any more. My personal tax has more than trippled year on year. I wonder how many salaried employees would survive if their PAYE trippled? My reason for not having left already is that I am doing work for free for a space laboratory. I have no contract with them and can walk out tomorrow. If I did that they would lose their one and only customer and shut down. This is a project that is worth somewhere between £100k and £150k were I to be paid for it. But because the project is for environmental satellites I consider it my contribution to making this world a better place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point? If I take my company public and I sell shares in my company. Where does the money from the sale of those shares go to? Dividends are income as opposed to an expense but they are something that requires financial input before you get something out. Whereas a salary requires no financial input or risk by the salary earner. When you are in a country where bona fide business are taking up 9 to 5 jobs because of the taxman you are in trouble. I recently worked with an Engineer from an Italian company. I asked him where in Italy he lived. He told me that he lived in Malta because taxes were too high in Italy. So now Italy gets a high percentage of nothing from this guy. How often does an employee lose his job compared to a contractor coming to the end of his contract? It's a redicilous comparison. So, as I have already written: 'The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO.' The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment.' Have you sold shares in your company? There is entrepreneur tax relief at 10% up to £10million over your lifetime if you choose to release equity from it. I don't have a problem with that. It could even be calculated as a multiple of your personal investment. Investing through a limited company is not, of course, a personal risk as that is the point. Limited liability. I've already suggested a way to encourage investment in an IPO. After that dividends are rental income. You take a risk in the expectation of a higher return. Trading shares does not help the company and share price is not an indication of its true value or performance. Not paying tax has been a pastime in Italy since before it's inception. You think our tax code is complicated. Tax avoidance and evasion and corruption are endemic. It has been for centuries from multinationals down to individuals. Non payment of tax is the reason the country has always suffered from chronic debt despite being one of the wealthiest economies in the world. Employees lose there jobs more and more frequently. You really believe that a permanent job is really permanent? A couple of months notice and 2 weeks redundancy and quite possibly discovering that your pension's been spent "Freelancers" on zero hours contracts even get all of the risks with none of the rewards. I get that you you don't want to pay tax and that you do an amazing job, but you haven't earned the eight to contribute less to the society we all live in. That is effectively what you're saying. You want to contribute less to the country because you are special. When you need to resort to zero hours contracts to defend your argument then you've definitely got nothing in the tank. I will pay more money in tax in January than the average national wage so please don't tell me I don't pay tax. I'm not saying I don't want to pay tax. I'm saying I want to have more in my pocket at the end of the day than someone who doesn't take any risks. There is no need to insult my intelligence. Of course any person in a permanent position can lose their job. But how many people lose their job 4 or 5 times a year? I am saying I am a genuine contractor. My children live in another country and I own no property. At the moment my next contract will likely be somewhere in Europe and then have the choice of operating from a country where the 'fair share' isn't more than 50% of everything I earn, or keep my operating from the UK where it just isn't worth it any more. My personal tax has more than trippled year on year. I wonder how many salaried employees would survive if their PAYE trippled? My reason for not having left already is that I am doing work for free for a space laboratory. I have no contract with them and can walk out tomorrow. If I did that they would lose their one and only customer and shut down. This is a project that is worth somewhere between £100k and £150k were I to be paid for it. But because the project is for environmental satellites I consider it my contribution to making this world a better place." Referring to a zero hours contract is perfectly pertinent. Don't insult my intelligence with a sweeping generalisation. Explain why it is irrelevant in the context of permanent jobs being replaced by these insecure ones. The risk being moved to people who cannot afford it who are permanently at risk of job loss. If you are "lose your job" 4 or 5 times a year then you aren't very good. You are making planned moves. The risks that you are take are for your own benefit. Why should society subsidise that? Your personal tax has trippled to the level that most people pay. My heart bleeds for someone so wealthy having to pony up. The fact is that you started by paying at an extremely low rate. You are still arguing that you deserve to pay less tax on your income. I'll repeat that, on your income, than other people. Once again, if you are genuinely investing, then there are ways around that. What you are doing is providing a service just as any employee does. The difference is that you charge more money and move more frequently. If you pay full tax you demand a higher rate. If they don't pay they don't get your services. All that is happening is that they must play the true market rate for you including correct tax. No different to raising minimum wage to prevent people having to claim benefits. The middle of society should not be expected to subsidise companies payroll at either end of the payscale. Everyone thinks that they are important and special. Perhaps your satellite company would shut down because you leave. Perhaps they'd be just fine. That has no bearing on your tax affairs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point? If I take my company public and I sell shares in my company. Where does the money from the sale of those shares go to? Dividends are income as opposed to an expense but they are something that requires financial input before you get something out. Whereas a salary requires no financial input or risk by the salary earner. When you are in a country where bona fide business are taking up 9 to 5 jobs because of the taxman you are in trouble. I recently worked with an Engineer from an Italian company. I asked him where in Italy he lived. He told me that he lived in Malta because taxes were too high in Italy. So now Italy gets a high percentage of nothing from this guy. How often does an employee lose his job compared to a contractor coming to the end of his contract? It's a redicilous comparison. So, as I have already written: 'The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO.' The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment.' Have you sold shares in your company? There is entrepreneur tax relief at 10% up to £10million over your lifetime if you choose to release equity from it. I don't have a problem with that. It could even be calculated as a multiple of your personal investment. Investing through a limited company is not, of course, a personal risk as that is the point. Limited liability. I've already suggested a way to encourage investment in an IPO. After that dividends are rental income. You take a risk in the expectation of a higher return. Trading shares does not help the company and share price is not an indication of its true value or performance. Not paying tax has been a pastime in Italy since before it's inception. You think our tax code is complicated. Tax avoidance and evasion and corruption are endemic. It has been for centuries from multinationals down to individuals. Non payment of tax is the reason the country has always suffered from chronic debt despite being one of the wealthiest economies in the world. Employees lose there jobs more and more frequently. You really believe that a permanent job is really permanent? A couple of months notice and 2 weeks redundancy and quite possibly discovering that your pension's been spent "Freelancers" on zero hours contracts even get all of the risks with none of the rewards. I get that you you don't want to pay tax and that you do an amazing job, but you haven't earned the eight to contribute less to the society we all live in. That is effectively what you're saying. You want to contribute less to the country because you are special. When you need to resort to zero hours contracts to defend your argument then you've definitely got nothing in the tank. I will pay more money in tax in January than the average national wage so please don't tell me I don't pay tax. I'm not saying I don't want to pay tax. I'm saying I want to have more in my pocket at the end of the day than someone who doesn't take any risks. There is no need to insult my intelligence. Of course any person in a permanent position can lose their job. But how many people lose their job 4 or 5 times a year? I am saying I am a genuine contractor. My children live in another country and I own no property. At the moment my next contract will likely be somewhere in Europe and then have the choice of operating from a country where the 'fair share' isn't more than 50% of everything I earn, or keep my operating from the UK where it just isn't worth it any more. My personal tax has more than trippled year on year. I wonder how many salaried employees would survive if their PAYE trippled? My reason for not having left already is that I am doing work for free for a space laboratory. I have no contract with them and can walk out tomorrow. If I did that they would lose their one and only customer and shut down. This is a project that is worth somewhere between £100k and £150k were I to be paid for it. But because the project is for environmental satellites I consider it my contribution to making this world a better place. Referring to a zero hours contract is perfectly pertinent. Don't insult my intelligence with a sweeping generalisation. Explain why it is irrelevant in the context of permanent jobs being replaced by these insecure ones. The risk being moved to people who cannot afford it who are permanently at risk of job loss. If you are "lose your job" 4 or 5 times a year then you aren't very good. You are making planned moves. The risks that you are take are for your own benefit. Why should society subsidise that? Your personal tax has trippled to the level that most people pay. My heart bleeds for someone so wealthy having to pony up. The fact is that you started by paying at an extremely low rate. You are still arguing that you deserve to pay less tax on your income. I'll repeat that, on your income, than other people. Once again, if you are genuinely investing, then there are ways around that. What you are doing is providing a service just as any employee does. The difference is that you charge more money and move more frequently. If you pay full tax you demand a higher rate. If they don't pay they don't get your services. All that is happening is that they must play the true market rate for you including correct tax. No different to raising minimum wage to prevent people having to claim benefits. The middle of society should not be expected to subsidise companies payroll at either end of the payscale. Everyone thinks that they are important and special. Perhaps your satellite company would shut down because you leave. Perhaps they'd be just fine. That has no bearing on your tax affairs." I cannot go any further into the work I am doing for obvious reasons. It sounds arrogant and conceited but I was actually informed this is the case from a number of sources. I came in to help them on a number of occasions (mostly after midnight without charging them) so they would pass their tests. Had I not come in they would have certainly failed those tests and lost their customer. You are arguing the merits of an instance you know nothing about. I am not saying that I shouldn't pay tax because I'm special. I am saying there comes a point where the profit after tax does not justify the risk. Risk vs Reward If businesses of all kind feel that the potential reward for taking a risk is not enough they will not commit to that endeavour. A bad employee loses his job 4 or 5 times a year but a good contractor gets 4 or 5 contracts a year. But there's no difference between them? Yes every employee risks the possibility of losing his or her job, but a genuine contractor faces the certainly of being out of contract. There is almost invariably a time of no earnings in that time, whereas employees are quite commonly provided severance packages and gardening leave. The life of a permanent employee vs that of a contractor is chalk and cheese. I've been both. To say they should be taxed the same is to totally ignore those different circumstances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does Corbyns wealthy coffee plantation owning wife pay UK tax on her company's profits, I wonder? " A good philosophy of taxation is that of Robert Kiyosaki. Although he is from the USA the principle applies equally. There are tax laws written to avoid companies paying too much tax. That's why businesses have accountants. You pay the taxes the HMRC and no more. Businesses are not philanthropic entities set up to make the poor better off. They exist because they provide a better return than keeping your money in the bank. I find it strange that being successful in the UK is considered some kind of sin. We call ourselves capitalists but assume that anyone who is successful must be dishonest. Weird. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point? If I take my company public and I sell shares in my company. Where does the money from the sale of those shares go to? Dividends are income as opposed to an expense but they are something that requires financial input before you get something out. Whereas a salary requires no financial input or risk by the salary earner. When you are in a country where bona fide business are taking up 9 to 5 jobs because of the taxman you are in trouble. I recently worked with an Engineer from an Italian company. I asked him where in Italy he lived. He told me that he lived in Malta because taxes were too high in Italy. So now Italy gets a high percentage of nothing from this guy. How often does an employee lose his job compared to a contractor coming to the end of his contract? It's a redicilous comparison. So, as I have already written: 'The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO.' The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment.' Have you sold shares in your company? There is entrepreneur tax relief at 10% up to £10million over your lifetime if you choose to release equity from it. I don't have a problem with that. It could even be calculated as a multiple of your personal investment. Investing through a limited company is not, of course, a personal risk as that is the point. Limited liability. I've already suggested a way to encourage investment in an IPO. After that dividends are rental income. You take a risk in the expectation of a higher return. Trading shares does not help the company and share price is not an indication of its true value or performance. Not paying tax has been a pastime in Italy since before it's inception. You think our tax code is complicated. Tax avoidance and evasion and corruption are endemic. It has been for centuries from multinationals down to individuals. Non payment of tax is the reason the country has always suffered from chronic debt despite being one of the wealthiest economies in the world. Employees lose there jobs more and more frequently. You really believe that a permanent job is really permanent? A couple of months notice and 2 weeks redundancy and quite possibly discovering that your pension's been spent "Freelancers" on zero hours contracts even get all of the risks with none of the rewards. I get that you you don't want to pay tax and that you do an amazing job, but you haven't earned the eight to contribute less to the society we all live in. That is effectively what you're saying. You want to contribute less to the country because you are special. When you need to resort to zero hours contracts to defend your argument then you've definitely got nothing in the tank. I will pay more money in tax in January than the average national wage so please don't tell me I don't pay tax. I'm not saying I don't want to pay tax. I'm saying I want to have more in my pocket at the end of the day than someone who doesn't take any risks. There is no need to insult my intelligence. Of course any person in a permanent position can lose their job. But how many people lose their job 4 or 5 times a year? I am saying I am a genuine contractor. My children live in another country and I own no property. At the moment my next contract will likely be somewhere in Europe and then have the choice of operating from a country where the 'fair share' isn't more than 50% of everything I earn, or keep my operating from the UK where it just isn't worth it any more. My personal tax has more than trippled year on year. I wonder how many salaried employees would survive if their PAYE trippled? My reason for not having left already is that I am doing work for free for a space laboratory. I have no contract with them and can walk out tomorrow. If I did that they would lose their one and only customer and shut down. This is a project that is worth somewhere between £100k and £150k were I to be paid for it. But because the project is for environmental satellites I consider it my contribution to making this world a better place. Referring to a zero hours contract is perfectly pertinent. Don't insult my intelligence with a sweeping generalisation. Explain why it is irrelevant in the context of permanent jobs being replaced by these insecure ones. The risk being moved to people who cannot afford it who are permanently at risk of job loss. If you are "lose your job" 4 or 5 times a year then you aren't very good. You are making planned moves. The risks that you are take are for your own benefit. Why should society subsidise that? Your personal tax has trippled to the level that most people pay. My heart bleeds for someone so wealthy having to pony up. The fact is that you started by paying at an extremely low rate. You are still arguing that you deserve to pay less tax on your income. I'll repeat that, on your income, than other people. Once again, if you are genuinely investing, then there are ways around that. What you are doing is providing a service just as any employee does. The difference is that you charge more money and move more frequently. If you pay full tax you demand a higher rate. If they don't pay they don't get your services. All that is happening is that they must play the true market rate for you including correct tax. No different to raising minimum wage to prevent people having to claim benefits. The middle of society should not be expected to subsidise companies payroll at either end of the payscale. Everyone thinks that they are important and special. Perhaps your satellite company would shut down because you leave. Perhaps they'd be just fine. That has no bearing on your tax affairs. I cannot go any further into the work I am doing for obvious reasons. It sounds arrogant and conceited but I was actually informed this is the case from a number of sources. I came in to help them on a number of occasions (mostly after midnight without charging them) so they would pass their tests. Had I not come in they would have certainly failed those tests and lost their customer. You are arguing the merits of an instance you know nothing about. I am not saying that I shouldn't pay tax because I'm special. I am saying there comes a point where the profit after tax does not justify the risk. Risk vs Reward If businesses of all kind feel that the potential reward for taking a risk is not enough they will not commit to that endeavour. A bad employee loses his job 4 or 5 times a year but a good contractor gets 4 or 5 contracts a year. But there's no difference between them? Yes every employee risks the possibility of losing his or her job, but a genuine contractor faces the certainly of being out of contract. There is almost invariably a time of no earnings in that time, whereas employees are quite commonly provided severance packages and gardening leave. The life of a permanent employee vs that of a contractor is chalk and cheese. I've been both. To say they should be taxed the same is to totally ignore those different circumstances. " You are rewarded for the risk that you take. Yes or no? You choose to be a contractor. You choose to take the risk. You are saying that due to your choices you should pay less tax. That's the summary. You keep making an argument of exceptionalism and refuse to even acknowledge the point that I keep making that companies should not be subsidised by the state. If you and they think that you are worth it they should pay you enough for you to pay the same level of tax on your income as an employee. They should also pay the low paid enough to live without benefits. What do you object to about that? What makes you think that I haven't experience of both sectors of the employment market? That's why your arguments don't wash with me. You choosing to do pro bono work also makes no odds People volunteer all the time. Should they get tax rebates? Not so pro bono then is it? Paying tax on income is not a barrier to risk. Risk is tied to the capital and that attracts a far lower tax. Would you care to address that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave?" ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave? ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society." Did you permanently employ the plumber? It's a yes or no answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point? If I take my company public and I sell shares in my company. Where does the money from the sale of those shares go to? Dividends are income as opposed to an expense but they are something that requires financial input before you get something out. Whereas a salary requires no financial input or risk by the salary earner. When you are in a country where bona fide business are taking up 9 to 5 jobs because of the taxman you are in trouble. I recently worked with an Engineer from an Italian company. I asked him where in Italy he lived. He told me that he lived in Malta because taxes were too high in Italy. So now Italy gets a high percentage of nothing from this guy. How often does an employee lose his job compared to a contractor coming to the end of his contract? It's a redicilous comparison. So, as I have already written: 'The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO.' The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment.' Have you sold shares in your company? There is entrepreneur tax relief at 10% up to £10million over your lifetime if you choose to release equity from it. I don't have a problem with that. It could even be calculated as a multiple of your personal investment. Investing through a limited company is not, of course, a personal risk as that is the point. Limited liability. I've already suggested a way to encourage investment in an IPO. After that dividends are rental income. You take a risk in the expectation of a higher return. Trading shares does not help the company and share price is not an indication of its true value or performance. Not paying tax has been a pastime in Italy since before it's inception. You think our tax code is complicated. Tax avoidance and evasion and corruption are endemic. It has been for centuries from multinationals down to individuals. Non payment of tax is the reason the country has always suffered from chronic debt despite being one of the wealthiest economies in the world. Employees lose there jobs more and more frequently. You really believe that a permanent job is really permanent? A couple of months notice and 2 weeks redundancy and quite possibly discovering that your pension's been spent "Freelancers" on zero hours contracts even get all of the risks with none of the rewards. I get that you you don't want to pay tax and that you do an amazing job, but you haven't earned the eight to contribute less to the society we all live in. That is effectively what you're saying. You want to contribute less to the country because you are special. When you need to resort to zero hours contracts to defend your argument then you've definitely got nothing in the tank. I will pay more money in tax in January than the average national wage so please don't tell me I don't pay tax. I'm not saying I don't want to pay tax. I'm saying I want to have more in my pocket at the end of the day than someone who doesn't take any risks. There is no need to insult my intelligence. Of course any person in a permanent position can lose their job. But how many people lose their job 4 or 5 times a year? I am saying I am a genuine contractor. My children live in another country and I own no property. At the moment my next contract will likely be somewhere in Europe and then have the choice of operating from a country where the 'fair share' isn't more than 50% of everything I earn, or keep my operating from the UK where it just isn't worth it any more. My personal tax has more than trippled year on year. I wonder how many salaried employees would survive if their PAYE trippled? My reason for not having left already is that I am doing work for free for a space laboratory. I have no contract with them and can walk out tomorrow. If I did that they would lose their one and only customer and shut down. This is a project that is worth somewhere between £100k and £150k were I to be paid for it. But because the project is for environmental satellites I consider it my contribution to making this world a better place. Referring to a zero hours contract is perfectly pertinent. Don't insult my intelligence with a sweeping generalisation. Explain why it is irrelevant in the context of permanent jobs being replaced by these insecure ones. The risk being moved to people who cannot afford it who are permanently at risk of job loss. If you are "lose your job" 4 or 5 times a year then you aren't very good. You are making planned moves. The risks that you are take are for your own benefit. Why should society subsidise that? Your personal tax has trippled to the level that most people pay. My heart bleeds for someone so wealthy having to pony up. The fact is that you started by paying at an extremely low rate. You are still arguing that you deserve to pay less tax on your income. I'll repeat that, on your income, than other people. Once again, if you are genuinely investing, then there are ways around that. What you are doing is providing a service just as any employee does. The difference is that you charge more money and move more frequently. If you pay full tax you demand a higher rate. If they don't pay they don't get your services. All that is happening is that they must play the true market rate for you including correct tax. No different to raising minimum wage to prevent people having to claim benefits. The middle of society should not be expected to subsidise companies payroll at either end of the payscale. Everyone thinks that they are important and special. Perhaps your satellite company would shut down because you leave. Perhaps they'd be just fine. That has no bearing on your tax affairs. I cannot go any further into the work I am doing for obvious reasons. It sounds arrogant and conceited but I was actually informed this is the case from a number of sources. I came in to help them on a number of occasions (mostly after midnight without charging them) so they would pass their tests. Had I not come in they would have certainly failed those tests and lost their customer. You are arguing the merits of an instance you know nothing about. I am not saying that I shouldn't pay tax because I'm special. I am saying there comes a point where the profit after tax does not justify the risk. Risk vs Reward If businesses of all kind feel that the potential reward for taking a risk is not enough they will not commit to that endeavour. A bad employee loses his job 4 or 5 times a year but a good contractor gets 4 or 5 contracts a year. But there's no difference between them? Yes every employee risks the possibility of losing his or her job, but a genuine contractor faces the certainly of being out of contract. There is almost invariably a time of no earnings in that time, whereas employees are quite commonly provided severance packages and gardening leave. The life of a permanent employee vs that of a contractor is chalk and cheese. I've been both. To say they should be taxed the same is to totally ignore those different circumstances. You are rewarded for the risk that you take. Yes or no? You choose to be a contractor. You choose to take the risk. You are saying that due to your choices you should pay less tax. That's the summary. You keep making an argument of exceptionalism and refuse to even acknowledge the point that I keep making that companies should not be subsidised by the state. If you and they think that you are worth it they should pay you enough for you to pay the same level of tax on your income as an employee. They should also pay the low paid enough to live without benefits. What do you object to about that? What makes you think that I haven't experience of both sectors of the employment market? That's why your arguments don't wash with me. You choosing to do pro bono work also makes no odds People volunteer all the time. Should they get tax rebates? Not so pro bono then is it? Paying tax on income is not a barrier to risk. Risk is tied to the capital and that attracts a far lower tax. Would you care to address that?" Why do you twist everything I say? The fact that I have pro bono work means I have to live off last years profits which the taxman now demands in tax. If you have been in both scenarios you will understand that a good year followed by a bad year causes tax problems. When I became a contractor the tax contractors paid wasn't a fraction of what it is now. I had probably 4 times the disposable income I have today. If I can go back to that state by relocating my business elsewhere then that I shall do. Currently looking at Gran Canaria. 4% Corporation Tax. Income tax which has just been reduced at low end by .5% and a maximum of 24% at the upper end where I would need to earn €90 000. Compare that to a dividend tax of 35.2% on anything over £2000? No brainer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The value of shares don't necessarily increase. If you are forced to sell them at a loss or if that entity is longer, then you lose money. Why would anyone want to take that risk when they can just stick their money in the bank? In terms of contracting. Let's say a contractor has a good year. His good year is reduced in value by 38% by HMRC. The next year is a bad year. His costs exceed his profits. Can he use the profits from his previous good year. No. Why because HMRC took them. Probably the only two reasons for doing business in the UK, a strong and tax free dividends are now a thing of the past. The only reason to be in the UK now is for the sunshine. So did you read what I wrote or are you just replying to what you assumed I must have written because I disagreed? Once the IPO is done with, share trading does not help the company. It is merely a parasitic activity. Perhaps you can explain a different logic to me? Can you also explain how dividends are not income? If a company cannot pay dividends then it is not making a profit, and it makes the premise of this part of the discussion moot anyway. If you are employed and lose your job you cannot get your tax back from the previous year. What's your point? If I take my company public and I sell shares in my company. Where does the money from the sale of those shares go to? Dividends are income as opposed to an expense but they are something that requires financial input before you get something out. Whereas a salary requires no financial input or risk by the salary earner. When you are in a country where bona fide business are taking up 9 to 5 jobs because of the taxman you are in trouble. I recently worked with an Engineer from an Italian company. I asked him where in Italy he lived. He told me that he lived in Malta because taxes were too high in Italy. So now Italy gets a high percentage of nothing from this guy. How often does an employee lose his job compared to a contractor coming to the end of his contract? It's a redicilous comparison. So, as I have already written: 'The company does not benefit from any "investment" from shareholders after the IPO.' The risk and reward is from the change in capital value. However if all you do is buy and sell shares that is also income. Perhaps a preferential tax rate if you hold the shares for several years. That then could be considered an investment.' Have you sold shares in your company? There is entrepreneur tax relief at 10% up to £10million over your lifetime if you choose to release equity from it. I don't have a problem with that. It could even be calculated as a multiple of your personal investment. Investing through a limited company is not, of course, a personal risk as that is the point. Limited liability. I've already suggested a way to encourage investment in an IPO. After that dividends are rental income. You take a risk in the expectation of a higher return. Trading shares does not help the company and share price is not an indication of its true value or performance. Not paying tax has been a pastime in Italy since before it's inception. You think our tax code is complicated. Tax avoidance and evasion and corruption are endemic. It has been for centuries from multinationals down to individuals. Non payment of tax is the reason the country has always suffered from chronic debt despite being one of the wealthiest economies in the world. Employees lose there jobs more and more frequently. You really believe that a permanent job is really permanent? A couple of months notice and 2 weeks redundancy and quite possibly discovering that your pension's been spent "Freelancers" on zero hours contracts even get all of the risks with none of the rewards. I get that you you don't want to pay tax and that you do an amazing job, but you haven't earned the eight to contribute less to the society we all live in. That is effectively what you're saying. You want to contribute less to the country because you are special. When you need to resort to zero hours contracts to defend your argument then you've definitely got nothing in the tank. I will pay more money in tax in January than the average national wage so please don't tell me I don't pay tax. I'm not saying I don't want to pay tax. I'm saying I want to have more in my pocket at the end of the day than someone who doesn't take any risks. There is no need to insult my intelligence. Of course any person in a permanent position can lose their job. But how many people lose their job 4 or 5 times a year? I am saying I am a genuine contractor. My children live in another country and I own no property. At the moment my next contract will likely be somewhere in Europe and then have the choice of operating from a country where the 'fair share' isn't more than 50% of everything I earn, or keep my operating from the UK where it just isn't worth it any more. My personal tax has more than trippled year on year. I wonder how many salaried employees would survive if their PAYE trippled? My reason for not having left already is that I am doing work for free for a space laboratory. I have no contract with them and can walk out tomorrow. If I did that they would lose their one and only customer and shut down. This is a project that is worth somewhere between £100k and £150k were I to be paid for it. But because the project is for environmental satellites I consider it my contribution to making this world a better place. Referring to a zero hours contract is perfectly pertinent. Don't insult my intelligence with a sweeping generalisation. Explain why it is irrelevant in the context of permanent jobs being replaced by these insecure ones. The risk being moved to people who cannot afford it who are permanently at risk of job loss. If you are "lose your job" 4 or 5 times a year then you aren't very good. You are making planned moves. The risks that you are take are for your own benefit. Why should society subsidise that? Your personal tax has trippled to the level that most people pay. My heart bleeds for someone so wealthy having to pony up. The fact is that you started by paying at an extremely low rate. You are still arguing that you deserve to pay less tax on your income. I'll repeat that, on your income, than other people. Once again, if you are genuinely investing, then there are ways around that. What you are doing is providing a service just as any employee does. The difference is that you charge more money and move more frequently. If you pay full tax you demand a higher rate. If they don't pay they don't get your services. All that is happening is that they must play the true market rate for you including correct tax. No different to raising minimum wage to prevent people having to claim benefits. The middle of society should not be expected to subsidise companies payroll at either end of the payscale. Everyone thinks that they are important and special. Perhaps your satellite company would shut down because you leave. Perhaps they'd be just fine. That has no bearing on your tax affairs. I cannot go any further into the work I am doing for obvious reasons. It sounds arrogant and conceited but I was actually informed this is the case from a number of sources. I came in to help them on a number of occasions (mostly after midnight without charging them) so they would pass their tests. Had I not come in they would have certainly failed those tests and lost their customer. You are arguing the merits of an instance you know nothing about. I am not saying that I shouldn't pay tax because I'm special. I am saying there comes a point where the profit after tax does not justify the risk. Risk vs Reward If businesses of all kind feel that the potential reward for taking a risk is not enough they will not commit to that endeavour. A bad employee loses his job 4 or 5 times a year but a good contractor gets 4 or 5 contracts a year. But there's no difference between them? Yes every employee risks the possibility of losing his or her job, but a genuine contractor faces the certainly of being out of contract. There is almost invariably a time of no earnings in that time, whereas employees are quite commonly provided severance packages and gardening leave. The life of a permanent employee vs that of a contractor is chalk and cheese. I've been both. To say they should be taxed the same is to totally ignore those different circumstances. You are rewarded for the risk that you take. Yes or no? You choose to be a contractor. You choose to take the risk. You are saying that due to your choices you should pay less tax. That's the summary. You keep making an argument of exceptionalism and refuse to even acknowledge the point that I keep making that companies should not be subsidised by the state. If you and they think that you are worth it they should pay you enough for you to pay the same level of tax on your income as an employee. They should also pay the low paid enough to live without benefits. What do you object to about that? What makes you think that I haven't experience of both sectors of the employment market? That's why your arguments don't wash with me. You choosing to do pro bono work also makes no odds People volunteer all the time. Should they get tax rebates? Not so pro bono then is it? Paying tax on income is not a barrier to risk. Risk is tied to the capital and that attracts a far lower tax. Would you care to address that? Why do you twist everything I say? The fact that I have pro bono work means I have to live off last years profits which the taxman now demands in tax. If you have been in both scenarios you will understand that a good year followed by a bad year causes tax problems. When I became a contractor the tax contractors paid wasn't a fraction of what it is now. I had probably 4 times the disposable income I have today. If I can go back to that state by relocating my business elsewhere then that I shall do. Currently looking at Gran Canaria. 4% Corporation Tax. Income tax which has just been reduced at low end by .5% and a maximum of 24% at the upper end where I would need to earn €90 000. Compare that to a dividend tax of 35.2% on anything over £2000? No brainer." I have not "twisted" anything. It may not accord with your view of yourself, but it's a perfectly valid view of exactly the same information. You haven't responded to it directly. If you are choosing to earn nothing or less, why should that mean that you pay less tax than an employee person earning the same amount? If you own a small business the tax incentive is to invest in it and grow it, not to take profit out. If you take profit out, then it's income. Nothing being twisted. You have explained very clearly how you will personally be better off by paying less tax than someone earning the same or more than you in salary. You haven't explained why you shouldn't pay the same tax but be paid more by your clients in order to cover the true cost. Either they need the work done or they don't. Then you make the same amount and do as you so now me save for the lean times, the same as an employee has to do when their pay is frozen or they lose their job. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave? ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society. Did you permanently employ the plumber? It's a yes or no answer." No, I didn't employ him permanently because I paid him something in the region of £40/hr. That covers his additional costs. If he and all other plumbers paid full income tax then I'd have to pay him more. Why is that so difficult to get? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave? ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society. Did you permanently employ the plumber? It's a yes or no answer. No, I didn't employ him permanently because I paid him something in the region of £40/hr. That covers his additional costs. If he and all other plumbers paid full income tax then I'd have to pay him more. Why is that so difficult to get?" Why is it so difficult for the taxman to get? I've just given you a perfect example of how flexible workforce is necessary. Yet GSK, Vodafone, NHS, Diamond Light Source are getting rid of their contractors whether they fall inside IR35 or not. The CEST tool has been declared by courts to be unfavourably biased toward HMRC and a large majority of contractors who fight HMRC, win. So you think £40/h is fair wage for a plumber? Interesting that this is what an engineer with four years study and 10 years experience can earn. However when that same engineer works for an engineering company his rate goes down to under £20/h but companies will pay £100 for those same services. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this has become a personal discussion which isn't the point of a forum. For the others out there who point to incremental tax. Have a look at the tax brackets for 2018/2019 Below £11850 no tax From there to £46350 7.5% From there to £150000 a whopping increment of 25% to 32.5% From £150000 to infinity just a 5.6% the smallest increment of the lot. Please can someone explain how this is supporting small businesses?" How are those figures worked out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this has become a personal discussion which isn't the point of a forum. For the others out there who point to incremental tax. Have a look at the tax brackets for 2018/2019 Below £11850 no tax From there to £46350 7.5% From there to £150000 a whopping increment of 25% to 32.5% From £150000 to infinity just a 5.6% the smallest increment of the lot. Please can someone explain how this is supporting small businesses? How are those figures worked out?" https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-dividends | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this has become a personal discussion which isn't the point of a forum. For the others out there who point to incremental tax. Have a look at the tax brackets for 2018/2019 Below £11850 no tax From there to £46350 7.5% From there to £150000 a whopping increment of 25% to 32.5% From £150000 to infinity just a 5.6% the smallest increment of the lot. Please can someone explain how this is supporting small businesses? How are those figures worked out?" The idea is to have contractors having the same take home pay as a permanent employee. And NI aside it's pretty much even stevens. Except that the permanent employee gets leave, sick leave, more security etc etc. Which begs the question (and the point I'm making) why contract when you're better off in a permanent position? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trouble is, these contractors earning comparable rates to people who worked hard for years to get degrees etc are cheating the system aren't they? Daring to try and live a middle class lifestyle when working class people like them, should be staying in their lane! These people need to get back inline. Also, Think about how the climate will benefit when they won't be able to afford to holiday in Benidorm. Winner winner "You hit the nail on the head Clem! The solution to the disparity between rich and poor is to make everyone poor. Fuck the environment. It's jobs and salaries that matter! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trouble is, these contractors earning comparable rates to people who worked hard for years to get degrees etc are cheating the system aren't they? Daring to try and live a middle class lifestyle when working class people like them, should be staying in their lane! These people need to get back inline. Also, Think about how the climate will benefit when they won't be able to afford to holiday in Benidorm. Winner winner
You hit the nail on the head Clem! The solution to the disparity between rich and poor is to make everyone poor.
Fuck the environment. It's jobs and salaries that matter!"Notice who complains most about skilled workers daring to drag themselves out of poverty... unforgivable, get back down into the filth! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave? ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society. Did you permanently employ the plumber? It's a yes or no answer. No, I didn't employ him permanently because I paid him something in the region of £40/hr. That covers his additional costs. If he and all other plumbers paid full income tax then I'd have to pay him more. Why is that so difficult to get? Why is it so difficult for the taxman to get? I've just given you a perfect example of how flexible workforce is necessary. Yet GSK, Vodafone, NHS, Diamond Light Source are getting rid of their contractors whether they fall inside IR35 or not. The CEST tool has been declared by courts to be unfavourably biased toward HMRC and a large majority of contractors who fight HMRC, win. So you think £40/h is fair wage for a plumber? Interesting that this is what an engineer with four years study and 10 years experience can earn. However when that same engineer works for an engineering company his rate goes down to under £20/h but companies will pay £100 for those same services. " You are completely caught up in what you believe to be good for you right now. I am going to right this very clearly. Clients should pay MORE to their contract staff to cover the insecurity and lack of benefits and income tax. Do you understand this? Is this clear? Companies pay more. Contractors earn the same. Contractors pay income tax. What would your complaint be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trouble is, these contractors earning comparable rates to people who worked hard for years to get degrees etc are cheating the system aren't they? Daring to try and live a middle class lifestyle when working class people like them, should be staying in their lane! These people need to get back inline. Also, Think about how the climate will benefit when they won't be able to afford to holiday in Benidorm. Winner winner
You hit the nail on the head Clem! The solution to the disparity between rich and poor is to make everyone poor.
Fuck the environment. It's jobs and salaries that matter!
Notice who complains most about skilled workers daring to drag themselves out of poverty... unforgivable, get back down into the filth!
"Big chip you have. Not said anything of the sort. The other half of my conspiracy against the poor is to make companies pay their lowest wage staff enough not to have to claim benefits. Companies pay more. Staff earn more. Government don't have to pay benefits. What's your actual issue with that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave? ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society. Did you permanently employ the plumber? It's a yes or no answer. No, I didn't employ him permanently because I paid him something in the region of £40/hr. That covers his additional costs. If he and all other plumbers paid full income tax then I'd have to pay him more. Why is that so difficult to get? Why is it so difficult for the taxman to get? I've just given you a perfect example of how flexible workforce is necessary. Yet GSK, Vodafone, NHS, Diamond Light Source are getting rid of their contractors whether they fall inside IR35 or not. The CEST tool has been declared by courts to be unfavourably biased toward HMRC and a large majority of contractors who fight HMRC, win. So you think £40/h is fair wage for a plumber? Interesting that this is what an engineer with four years study and 10 years experience can earn. However when that same engineer works for an engineering company his rate goes down to under £20/h but companies will pay £100 for those same services. You are completely caught up in what you believe to be good for you right now. I am going to right this very clearly. Clients should pay MORE to their contract staff to cover the insecurity and lack of benefits and income tax. Do you understand this? Is this clear? Companies pay more. Contractors earn the same. Contractors pay income tax. What would your complaint be?" Well if any contractors survive IR35 they will indeed pass the added tax costs on to the customer over time. The difference is that while the HMRC abuses the fact that they can just set a rate, no argument, it's not as easy for a contractor to just up his rate by 25%. Imagine you are competing for a contract in Brazil. You need to up your rate to pay all these taxes but the guy you're competing with pays 15% tax in his home country. Screwed. But you are right. Contracting costs are passed on to the client who then passes it on to the customer which drives up prices and inflation. The man on the street is just as poor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave? ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society. Did you permanently employ the plumber? It's a yes or no answer. No, I didn't employ him permanently because I paid him something in the region of £40/hr. That covers his additional costs. If he and all other plumbers paid full income tax then I'd have to pay him more. Why is that so difficult to get? Why is it so difficult for the taxman to get? I've just given you a perfect example of how flexible workforce is necessary. Yet GSK, Vodafone, NHS, Diamond Light Source are getting rid of their contractors whether they fall inside IR35 or not. The CEST tool has been declared by courts to be unfavourably biased toward HMRC and a large majority of contractors who fight HMRC, win. So you think £40/h is fair wage for a plumber? Interesting that this is what an engineer with four years study and 10 years experience can earn. However when that same engineer works for an engineering company his rate goes down to under £20/h but companies will pay £100 for those same services. You are completely caught up in what you believe to be good for you right now. I am going to right this very clearly. Clients should pay MORE to their contract staff to cover the insecurity and lack of benefits and income tax. Do you understand this? Is this clear? Companies pay more. Contractors earn the same. Contractors pay income tax. What would your complaint be? Well if any contractors survive IR35 they will indeed pass the added tax costs on to the customer over time. The difference is that while the HMRC abuses the fact that they can just set a rate, no argument, it's not as easy for a contractor to just up his rate by 25%. Imagine you are competing for a contract in Brazil. You need to up your rate to pay all these taxes but the guy you're competing with pays 15% tax in his home country. Screwed. But you are right. Contracting costs are passed on to the client who then passes it on to the customer which drives up prices and inflation. The man on the street is just as poor." The man on the street pays if he subsidised tax rebates. Society benefits more without the tax rebate. Relatively wealthy idividuals benefit less. You've chosen your position which is fine but it's disengenuous to claim otherwise isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We don't agree they should pay more. They earned it, they should decide how they spend it. We should all pay less, but take responsibility for our own needs." What deeds are you responsible for if you are crippled in a car crash or suffer from depression or have parents who are criminals and drug addicts. Empty nonsense. The market doesn't always work and the state needs to function to fix it. That requires money. That requires tax. Saying we should all pay less is also empty. We have to pay what is necessary, bit the state has to be continually becoming more efficient which requires intelligent, motivated people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We don't agree they should pay more. They earned it, they should decide how they spend it. We should all pay less, but take responsibility for our own needs. What deeds are you responsible for if you are crippled in a car crash or suffer from depression or have parents who are criminals and drug addicts. Empty nonsense. The market doesn't always work and the state needs to function to fix it. That requires money. That requires tax. Saying we should all pay less is also empty. We have to pay what is necessary, bit the state has to be continually becoming more efficient which requires intelligent, motivated people." .In the rather sad scenario where someone is crippled in a car crash there will inevitably be a large compensation claim to compensate someone for their injuries. The poster is trying to encourage people people to be responsible for their actions. Why should a family with two children be expected to subsidise those with ten and who claim benefits. ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave? ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society. Did you permanently employ the plumber? It's a yes or no answer. No, I didn't employ him permanently because I paid him something in the region of £40/hr. That covers his additional costs. If he and all other plumbers paid full income tax then I'd have to pay him more. Why is that so difficult to get? Why is it so difficult for the taxman to get? I've just given you a perfect example of how flexible workforce is necessary. Yet GSK, Vodafone, NHS, Diamond Light Source are getting rid of their contractors whether they fall inside IR35 or not. The CEST tool has been declared by courts to be unfavourably biased toward HMRC and a large majority of contractors who fight HMRC, win. So you think £40/h is fair wage for a plumber? Interesting that this is what an engineer with four years study and 10 years experience can earn. However when that same engineer works for an engineering company his rate goes down to under £20/h but companies will pay £100 for those same services. You are completely caught up in what you believe to be good for you right now. I am going to right this very clearly. Clients should pay MORE to their contract staff to cover the insecurity and lack of benefits and income tax. Do you understand this? Is this clear? Companies pay more. Contractors earn the same. Contractors pay income tax. What would your complaint be? Well if any contractors survive IR35 they will indeed pass the added tax costs on to the customer over time. The difference is that while the HMRC abuses the fact that they can just set a rate, no argument, it's not as easy for a contractor to just up his rate by 25%. Imagine you are competing for a contract in Brazil. You need to up your rate to pay all these taxes but the guy you're competing with pays 15% tax in his home country. Screwed. But you are right. Contracting costs are passed on to the client who then passes it on to the customer which drives up prices and inflation. The man on the street is just as poor. The man on the street pays if he subsidised tax rebates. Society benefits more without the tax rebate. Relatively wealthy idividuals benefit less. You've chosen your position which is fine but it's disengenuous to claim otherwise isn't it?" Compared to your noble offer to give my money to the government anything seems disingenuous. I wonder if you freely give your money away as willingly as you would have others give theirs away. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has your drain ever been blocked? Did you call in s plumber? Did you employ him permanently? Did you set up a pension for him? Did you pay him sick leave and annual leave? ...and I paid him a premium for his time. Why should the government give him more money in the form of a reduced tax demand? Why should he contribute less to the country. He should charge more to cover it and I should have to pay the full cost to to his business and to society. Did you permanently employ the plumber? It's a yes or no answer. No, I didn't employ him permanently because I paid him something in the region of £40/hr. That covers his additional costs. If he and all other plumbers paid full income tax then I'd have to pay him more. Why is that so difficult to get? Why is it so difficult for the taxman to get? I've just given you a perfect example of how flexible workforce is necessary. Yet GSK, Vodafone, NHS, Diamond Light Source are getting rid of their contractors whether they fall inside IR35 or not. The CEST tool has been declared by courts to be unfavourably biased toward HMRC and a large majority of contractors who fight HMRC, win. So you think £40/h is fair wage for a plumber? Interesting that this is what an engineer with four years study and 10 years experience can earn. However when that same engineer works for an engineering company his rate goes down to under £20/h but companies will pay £100 for those same services. You are completely caught up in what you believe to be good for you right now. I am going to right this very clearly. Clients should pay MORE to their contract staff to cover the insecurity and lack of benefits and income tax. Do you understand this? Is this clear? Companies pay more. Contractors earn the same. Contractors pay income tax. What would your complaint be? Well if any contractors survive IR35 they will indeed pass the added tax costs on to the customer over time. The difference is that while the HMRC abuses the fact that they can just set a rate, no argument, it's not as easy for a contractor to just up his rate by 25%. Imagine you are competing for a contract in Brazil. You need to up your rate to pay all these taxes but the guy you're competing with pays 15% tax in his home country. Screwed. But you are right. Contracting costs are passed on to the client who then passes it on to the customer which drives up prices and inflation. The man on the street is just as poor. The man on the street pays if he subsidised tax rebates. Society benefits more without the tax rebate. Relatively wealthy idividuals benefit less. You've chosen your position which is fine but it's disengenuous to claim otherwise isn't it?" What we are talking about is those too rich to pay taxes joining forces to elect a party to place the tax burden on an outnumbered middle class. Its two lions and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. You just have the audacity to tell the sheep its a fair system and the sheep should pay it's fair share. Whats a fair share? You pay your taxes the government pisses it on a wall. Now your fair share needs to be more. It's not determined by what the tax payer can afford its based on what government needs. Does my money go to bullding schools and hospitals. No they are going into decline. My tax money spend on 100 million pound "get read for Brexit on 31 October when it was clearly not going to happen Have you seen the loan debacle and how many people have committed suicide? HMRC must be so proud. You must be over the moon. I pay a fuckload in tax. So don't tell me it's not enough. Why don't you and all the people like you do the same thing and I wouldn't be so heavily taxed? There's nothing stopping you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about" Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We don't agree they should pay more. They earned it, they should decide how they spend it. We should all pay less, but take responsibility for our own needs. What deeds are you responsible for if you are crippled in a car crash or suffer from depression or have parents who are criminals and drug addicts. Empty nonsense. The market doesn't always work and the state needs to function to fix it. That requires money. That requires tax. Saying we should all pay less is also empty. We have to pay what is necessary, bit the state has to be continually becoming more efficient which requires intelligent, motivated people. .In the rather sad scenario where someone is crippled in a car crash there will inevitably be a large compensation claim to compensate someone for their injuries. The poster is trying to encourage people people to be responsible for their actions. Why should a family with two children be expected to subsidise those with ten and who claim benefits. ? " Genuinely no clue where your head is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. " Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. Why should you pay income tax in a country you don't live in. " Fair question. Do you think though you should pay income tax on income earned in that country? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The poster is trying to encourage people people to be responsible for their actions. Why should a family with two children be expected to subsidise those with ten and who claim benefits. ? " I agree though there obviously will be some that circumstances change and they need benefits to live but it's the many who just reproduce over and over with no intention of trying to pay themselves that really piss me off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The poster is trying to encourage people people to be responsible for their actions. Why should a family with two children be expected to subsidise those with ten and who claim benefits. ? I agree though there obviously will be some that circumstances change and they need benefits to live but it's the many who just reproduce over and over with no intention of trying to pay themselves that really piss me off. " It's not the many though. It's some. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else?" That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you aware that the day you land in the UK is not counted as being in the UK, nor the day you leave. So land Friday, fly out Friday and you can be an expat corporate executive, work in the UK but not pay taxes. JC plans to close that loophole. Why should you pay income tax in a country you don't live in. Fair question. Do you think though you should pay income tax on income earned in that country? " I think you should either live in another country and pay tax to that country or live in the UK and pay tax in the UK. Not live in another country as a British citizen and pay little or no tax to anyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still clueless about whats happening here. All I know is that I have a mortgage free house, a new, fast car on the drive, 5 or 6 expensive holidays a year so guess how much income tax I pay each year. ???? ( to the nearest £5,000) The closest guess gets a free crackerjack pen lol" Here is it explained. A single person LLC gets paid for doing some work. Here is what the HMRC gets from that. 1) VAT @ 20% (Client pays that) 2) Corporation Tax on profits 3) Dividend tax and Income Tax 4) VAT when income is spent So whereas an employee is taxed twice. (3 & 4) The LLC is taxed 3 times on the same money. So 20% + 35.2% + 20% = 72.2% So it gets to a point where to earn extra money is pointless because it all goes th HMRC. Just before I took a well deserved holiday I worked 100 days in a row. Weekends bank holidays the works. My days were between 12 - 16 hours. So why do I deserve more money in my pocket? Because I worked for it. Why is my rate better than the permanently employed? Because I invested in myself and made my skills marketable. And if a permanent employee has the same skills then that person should be using supply and demand to increase their income and become contractors too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still clueless about whats happening here. All I know is that I have a mortgage free house, a new, fast car on the drive, 5 or 6 expensive holidays a year so guess how much income tax I pay each year. ???? ( to the nearest £5,000) The closest guess gets a free crackerjack pen lol Here is it explained. A single person LLC gets paid for doing some work. Here is what the HMRC gets from that. 1) VAT @ 20% (Client pays that) 2) Corporation Tax on profits 3) Dividend tax and Income Tax 4) VAT when income is spent So whereas an employee is taxed twice. (3 & 4) The LLC is taxed 3 times on the same money. So 20% + 35.2% + 20% = 72.2% So it gets to a point where to earn extra money is pointless because it all goes th HMRC. Just before I took a well deserved holiday I worked 100 days in a row. Weekends bank holidays the works. My days were between 12 - 16 hours. So why do I deserve more money in my pocket? Because I worked for it. Why is my rate better than the permanently employed? Because I invested in myself and made my skills marketable. And if a permanent employee has the same skills then that person should be using supply and demand to increase their income and become contractors too." Sorry that's 32.5% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was reading a political science book about how democracy dies. In essence, the author said two things needed to happen for democracy to continue: * The rich do not believe the poor are stealing their money * The Army gets to keep its guns. "Democracy: Two lions and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. In this case rich and the poor voting on weather the middle class should pay all the tax. How dare that sheep not wanting to contribute its share? ) or shear? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was reading a political science book about how democracy dies. In essence, the author said two things needed to happen for democracy to continue: * The rich do not believe the poor are stealing their money * The Army gets to keep its guns.
Democracy: Two lions and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
In this case rich and the poor voting on weather the middle class should pay all the tax.
How dare that sheep not wanting to contribute its share? ) or shear?"Whether. Not having a good day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else?" How do you get that right? An employee earning £50 000 is paying 40% on roughly £5000 whilst the contractor is paying 20% Comporation Tax and 32.5% on the same £5000. So 40% is more than 52.5%??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still clueless about whats happening here. All I know is that I have a mortgage free house, a new, fast car on the drive, 5 or 6 expensive holidays a year so guess how much income tax I pay each year. ???? ( to the nearest £5,000) The closest guess gets a free crackerjack pen lol" No guesses then?. Ah well, anyway, I pay about £1,000 a year income tax . And no, my name is not google. Just clever . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still clueless about whats happening here. All I know is that I have a mortgage free house, a new, fast car on the drive, 5 or 6 expensive holidays a year so guess how much income tax I pay each year. ???? ( to the nearest £5,000) The closest guess gets a free crackerjack pen lol No guesses then?. Ah well, anyway, I pay about £1,000 a year income tax . And no, my name is not google. Just clever ." I tell you what. I will give you £5000 provided you give me back any money more than £1000 I have to pay in Income Tax alone. I contribute 11 X more in tax as an LLC than I did as an employee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still clueless about whats happening here. All I know is that I have a mortgage free house, a new, fast car on the drive, 5 or 6 expensive holidays a year so guess how much income tax I pay each year. ???? ( to the nearest £5,000) The closest guess gets a free crackerjack pen lol No guesses then?. Ah well, anyway, I pay about £1,000 a year income tax . And no, my name is not google. Just clever . I tell you what. I will give you £5000 provided you give me back any money more than £1000 I have to pay in Income Tax alone. I contribute 11 X more in tax as an LLC than I did as an employee. " Why would I do that lol..... I’m happy with my £1000 contribution. Thank you HMRC xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still clueless about whats happening here. All I know is that I have a mortgage free house, a new, fast car on the drive, 5 or 6 expensive holidays a year so guess how much income tax I pay each year. ???? ( to the nearest £5,000) The closest guess gets a free crackerjack pen lol No guesses then?. Ah well, anyway, I pay about £1,000 a year income tax . And no, my name is not google. Just clever . I tell you what. I will give you £5000 provided you give me back any money more than £1000 I have to pay in Income Tax alone. I contribute 11 X more in tax as an LLC than I did as an employee. Why would I do that lol..... I’m happy with my £1000 contribution. Thank you HMRC xx" Exactly. But here I am being told that I don't pay my fair share of tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still clueless about whats happening here. All I know is that I have a mortgage free house, a new, fast car on the drive, 5 or 6 expensive holidays a year so guess how much income tax I pay each year. ???? ( to the nearest £5,000) The closest guess gets a free crackerjack pen lol No guesses then?. Ah well, anyway, I pay about £1,000 a year income tax . And no, my name is not google. Just clever . I tell you what. I will give you £5000 provided you give me back any money more than £1000 I have to pay in Income Tax alone. I contribute 11 X more in tax as an LLC than I did as an employee. Why would I do that lol..... I’m happy with my £1000 contribution. Thank you HMRC xx Exactly. But here I am being told that I don't pay my fair share of tax." You can only pay what PAYE or HMRC tell you to pay . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still clueless about whats happening here. All I know is that I have a mortgage free house, a new, fast car on the drive, 5 or 6 expensive holidays a year so guess how much income tax I pay each year. ???? ( to the nearest £5,000) The closest guess gets a free crackerjack pen lol No guesses then?. Ah well, anyway, I pay about £1,000 a year income tax . And no, my name is not google. Just clever . I tell you what. I will give you £5000 provided you give me back any money more than £1000 I have to pay in Income Tax alone. I contribute 11 X more in tax as an LLC than I did as an employee. Why would I do that lol..... I’m happy with my £1000 contribution. Thank you HMRC xx Exactly. But here I am being told that I don't pay my fair share of tax. You can only pay what PAYE or HMRC tell you to pay . " Well you don't get taxed on your assets so I'm not sure what your point is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I mean the actual wealthy, the ones earning over 500k a year. We all agree they should pay more but what's the best way to do it as income tax just don't work on them. Property tax Land tax Capital gains Is it just a conundrum of a modern globalised world that it's almost impossible to get the Uber wealthy to pay up?." It's very very easy. If you earn 151k a year your dividend rate is roughly 38%. If you earn 500k a year its........ still 38%. The taxman doesn't mind that he can't get money out of the super rich. He just shovels that tax burden over to the middle class. And that's the point of my argument in this thread. The 31000 may not have voting power in the ballots. They vote with their feet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. " You are usually very coherent in your arguments on other threads. On this one, no. I have not said that you do not pay your fair share. Are you in the 1% who make up the 310,000 paying the most income tax? Then I have no sympathy because they pay a smaller proportion in tax than anyone else. I agree that the relatively wealthy pay a particular high tax burden. Particularly those salaried. Strangely enough they are not all lazy, unimaginative and feckless. The self-employed also reduce their income tax burden even though they have chosen a riskier employment route and would be earning more than an equivalent salaried member of staff with benefits regardless. I have worked both sides of the fence and I am perfectly aware of how much better off I was as a contractor. I also took advantage of the tax system as it would be irrational not to. I may well be consulting again and will be annoyed not to earn more, but I will not whine about taxation being more equitable. They are not the same problem. The loopholes are being closed. That is correct. The UK will lose its flexible workforce if industry chooses not to pay more for expertise. That is their choice. With Brexit we will probably be driven to a lower wage, low job security economy anyway as that will be our only competitive advantage, so don't worry about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. You are usually very coherent in your arguments on other threads. On this one, no. I have not said that you do not pay your fair share. Are you in the 1% who make up the 310,000 paying the most income tax? Then I have no sympathy because they pay a smaller proportion in tax than anyone else. I agree that the relatively wealthy pay a particular high tax burden. Particularly those salaried. Strangely enough they are not all lazy, unimaginative and feckless. The self-employed also reduce their income tax burden even though they have chosen a riskier employment route and would be earning more than an equivalent salaried member of staff with benefits regardless. I have worked both sides of the fence and I am perfectly aware of how much better off I was as a contractor. I also took advantage of the tax system as it would be irrational not to. I may well be consulting again and will be annoyed not to earn more, but I will not whine about taxation being more equitable. They are not the same problem. The loopholes are being closed. That is correct. The UK will lose its flexible workforce if industry chooses not to pay more for expertise. That is their choice. With Brexit we will probably be driven to a lower wage, low job security economy anyway as that will be our only competitive advantage, so don't worry about it." Yeah I looked back on some of my posts here and realise I skipped a few words here and there. Sorry for that. Good luck in going into consulting. If you're good at what you do, of which I have no doubt, I'm sure you'll be very successful. In terms of Brexit I'm one of those who votes in his worst interests. If labour loses I will be sad for a country that I believe deserve better, but at the same time it cuts off my only personal competition from Europe and benefits my business. As I've said before I'd be happy to pay the tax I pay if it went to enriching public services. Of the money I do get after taxes I give away more than I spend on myself so the more the taxman takes the less I have to help others. What is your opinion of our curious tax brackets where tax rates rise exponentially until £150k and then end there? Seemingly the philosophy is that the more you earn the more you can afford to pay in tax, until you hit £150k and then that philosophy no longer applies  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. You are usually very coherent in your arguments on other threads. On this one, no. I have not said that you do not pay your fair share. Are you in the 1% who make up the 310,000 paying the most income tax? Then I have no sympathy because they pay a smaller proportion in tax than anyone else. I agree that the relatively wealthy pay a particular high tax burden. Particularly those salaried. Strangely enough they are not all lazy, unimaginative and feckless. The self-employed also reduce their income tax burden even though they have chosen a riskier employment route and would be earning more than an equivalent salaried member of staff with benefits regardless. I have worked both sides of the fence and I am perfectly aware of how much better off I was as a contractor. I also took advantage of the tax system as it would be irrational not to. I may well be consulting again and will be annoyed not to earn more, but I will not whine about taxation being more equitable. They are not the same problem. The loopholes are being closed. That is correct. The UK will lose its flexible workforce if industry chooses not to pay more for expertise. That is their choice. With Brexit we will probably be driven to a lower wage, low job security economy anyway as that will be our only competitive advantage, so don't worry about it. Yeah I looked back on some of my posts here and realise I skipped a few words here and there. Sorry for that. Good luck in going into consulting. If you're good at what you do, of which I have no doubt, I'm sure you'll be very successful. In terms of Brexit I'm one of those who votes in his worst interests. If labour loses I will be sad for a country that I believe deserve better, but at the same time it cuts off my only personal competition from Europe and benefits my business. As I've said before I'd be happy to pay the tax I pay if it went to enriching public services. Of the money I do get after taxes I give away more than I spend on myself so the more the taxman takes the less I have to help others. What is your opinion of our curious tax brackets where tax rates rise exponentially until £150k and then end there? Seemingly the philosophy is that the more you earn the more you can afford to pay in tax, until you hit £150k and then that philosophy no longer applies "Our tax system is screwed towards the wealthy. They all are. I don't think that any tax rate should land above 50%. Personal opinion but anything beyond that is very counter-productive. Oddly enough the perception of a "fair" tax rate is about 30%. The problem is that we can't afford all the stuff we want as a country with that. We don't understand how much stuff costs. There is, of course waste, but not that much. From a wealth perspective, it's just that. Wealth is the problem. However we distribute the income tax situation it's more or less fair as long as everyone pays what's due. The real issue is wealth. It just sucks money out of the system and away from the majority of the population. Both individuals and governments. That solution is global. Will they fix that? Nah. The second string that actually allow personal taxes to be reduced is multinationals paying their taxes. Will they fix that? Nah. Should we try and get governments that will? Yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. You are usually very coherent in your arguments on other threads. On this one, no. I have not said that you do not pay your fair share. Are you in the 1% who make up the 310,000 paying the most income tax? Then I have no sympathy because they pay a smaller proportion in tax than anyone else. I agree that the relatively wealthy pay a particular high tax burden. Particularly those salaried. Strangely enough they are not all lazy, unimaginative and feckless. The self-employed also reduce their income tax burden even though they have chosen a riskier employment route and would be earning more than an equivalent salaried member of staff with benefits regardless. I have worked both sides of the fence and I am perfectly aware of how much better off I was as a contractor. I also took advantage of the tax system as it would be irrational not to. I may well be consulting again and will be annoyed not to earn more, but I will not whine about taxation being more equitable. They are not the same problem. The loopholes are being closed. That is correct. The UK will lose its flexible workforce if industry chooses not to pay more for expertise. That is their choice. With Brexit we will probably be driven to a lower wage, low job security economy anyway as that will be our only competitive advantage, so don't worry about it. Yeah I looked back on some of my posts here and realise I skipped a few words here and there. Sorry for that. Good luck in going into consulting. If you're good at what you do, of which I have no doubt, I'm sure you'll be very successful. In terms of Brexit I'm one of those who votes in his worst interests. If labour loses I will be sad for a country that I believe deserve better, but at the same time it cuts off my only personal competition from Europe and benefits my business. As I've said before I'd be happy to pay the tax I pay if it went to enriching public services. Of the money I do get after taxes I give away more than I spend on myself so the more the taxman takes the less I have to help others. What is your opinion of our curious tax brackets where tax rates rise exponentially until £150k and then end there? Seemingly the philosophy is that the more you earn the more you can afford to pay in tax, until you hit £150k and then that philosophy no longer applies
Our tax system is screwed towards the wealthy. They all are.
I don't think that any tax rate should land above 50%. Personal opinion but anything beyond that is very counter-productive.
Oddly enough the perception of a "fair" tax rate is about 30%. The problem is that we can't afford all the stuff we want as a country with that. We don't understand how much stuff costs. There is, of course waste, but not that much.
From a wealth perspective, it's just that. Wealth is the problem.
However we distribute the income tax situation it's more or less fair as long as everyone pays what's due.
The real issue is wealth. It just sucks money out of the system and away from the majority of the population. Both individuals and governments.
That solution is global. Will they fix that? Nah.
The second string that actually allow personal taxes to be reduced is multinationals paying their taxes.
Will they fix that? Nah.
Should we try and get governments that will? Yes."If you read Robert T Kiyosaki you can understand things from the perspective of the rich. You spoke of passing taxes on to one's customers. One day I did just that. Do you know what the response was? The director offered to pay me from an offshore sister company into an offshore bank account. "Then you won't have to pay ANY tax and you can drop your rate!"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. You are usually very coherent in your arguments on other threads. On this one, no. I have not said that you do not pay your fair share. Are you in the 1% who make up the 310,000 paying the most income tax? Then I have no sympathy because they pay a smaller proportion in tax than anyone else. I agree that the relatively wealthy pay a particular high tax burden. Particularly those salaried. Strangely enough they are not all lazy, unimaginative and feckless. The self-employed also reduce their income tax burden even though they have chosen a riskier employment route and would be earning more than an equivalent salaried member of staff with benefits regardless. I have worked both sides of the fence and I am perfectly aware of how much better off I was as a contractor. I also took advantage of the tax system as it would be irrational not to. I may well be consulting again and will be annoyed not to earn more, but I will not whine about taxation being more equitable. They are not the same problem. The loopholes are being closed. That is correct. The UK will lose its flexible workforce if industry chooses not to pay more for expertise. That is their choice. With Brexit we will probably be driven to a lower wage, low job security economy anyway as that will be our only competitive advantage, so don't worry about it. Yeah I looked back on some of my posts here and realise I skipped a few words here and there. Sorry for that. Good luck in going into consulting. If you're good at what you do, of which I have no doubt, I'm sure you'll be very successful. In terms of Brexit I'm one of those who votes in his worst interests. If labour loses I will be sad for a country that I believe deserve better, but at the same time it cuts off my only personal competition from Europe and benefits my business. As I've said before I'd be happy to pay the tax I pay if it went to enriching public services. Of the money I do get after taxes I give away more than I spend on myself so the more the taxman takes the less I have to help others. What is your opinion of our curious tax brackets where tax rates rise exponentially until £150k and then end there? Seemingly the philosophy is that the more you earn the more you can afford to pay in tax, until you hit £150k and then that philosophy no longer applies
Our tax system is screwed towards the wealthy. They all are.
I don't think that any tax rate should land above 50%. Personal opinion but anything beyond that is very counter-productive.
Oddly enough the perception of a "fair" tax rate is about 30%. The problem is that we can't afford all the stuff we want as a country with that. We don't understand how much stuff costs. There is, of course waste, but not that much.
From a wealth perspective, it's just that. Wealth is the problem.
However we distribute the income tax situation it's more or less fair as long as everyone pays what's due.
The real issue is wealth. It just sucks money out of the system and away from the majority of the population. Both individuals and governments.
That solution is global. Will they fix that? Nah.
The second string that actually allow personal taxes to be reduced is multinationals paying their taxes.
Will they fix that? Nah.
Should we try and get governments that will? Yes.
If you read Robert T Kiyosaki you can understand things from the perspective of the rich.
You spoke of passing taxes on to one's customers. One day I did just that. Do you know what the response was? The director offered to pay me from an offshore sister company into an offshore bank account. "Then you won't have to pay ANY tax and you can drop your rate!" "Which takes me back to what I said about global solutions for corporation tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. You are usually very coherent in your arguments on other threads. On this one, no. I have not said that you do not pay your fair share. Are you in the 1% who make up the 310,000 paying the most income tax? Then I have no sympathy because they pay a smaller proportion in tax than anyone else. I agree that the relatively wealthy pay a particular high tax burden. Particularly those salaried. Strangely enough they are not all lazy, unimaginative and feckless. The self-employed also reduce their income tax burden even though they have chosen a riskier employment route and would be earning more than an equivalent salaried member of staff with benefits regardless. I have worked both sides of the fence and I am perfectly aware of how much better off I was as a contractor. I also took advantage of the tax system as it would be irrational not to. I may well be consulting again and will be annoyed not to earn more, but I will not whine about taxation being more equitable. They are not the same problem. The loopholes are being closed. That is correct. The UK will lose its flexible workforce if industry chooses not to pay more for expertise. That is their choice. With Brexit we will probably be driven to a lower wage, low job security economy anyway as that will be our only competitive advantage, so don't worry about it. Yeah I looked back on some of my posts here and realise I skipped a few words here and there. Sorry for that. Good luck in going into consulting. If you're good at what you do, of which I have no doubt, I'm sure you'll be very successful. In terms of Brexit I'm one of those who votes in his worst interests. If labour loses I will be sad for a country that I believe deserve better, but at the same time it cuts off my only personal competition from Europe and benefits my business. As I've said before I'd be happy to pay the tax I pay if it went to enriching public services. Of the money I do get after taxes I give away more than I spend on myself so the more the taxman takes the less I have to help others. What is your opinion of our curious tax brackets where tax rates rise exponentially until £150k and then end there? Seemingly the philosophy is that the more you earn the more you can afford to pay in tax, until you hit £150k and then that philosophy no longer applies
Our tax system is screwed towards the wealthy. They all are.
I don't think that any tax rate should land above 50%. Personal opinion but anything beyond that is very counter-productive.
Oddly enough the perception of a "fair" tax rate is about 30%. The problem is that we can't afford all the stuff we want as a country with that. We don't understand how much stuff costs. There is, of course waste, but not that much.
From a wealth perspective, it's just that. Wealth is the problem.
However we distribute the income tax situation it's more or less fair as long as everyone pays what's due.
The real issue is wealth. It just sucks money out of the system and away from the majority of the population. Both individuals and governments.
That solution is global. Will they fix that? Nah.
The second string that actually allow personal taxes to be reduced is multinationals paying their taxes.
Will they fix that? Nah.
Should we try and get governments that will? Yes.
If you read Robert T Kiyosaki you can understand things from the perspective of the rich.
You spoke of passing taxes on to one's customers. One day I did just that. Do you know what the response was? The director offered to pay me from an offshore sister company into an offshore bank account. "Then you won't have to pay ANY tax and you can drop your rate!" "...and you know if something went wrong with HMRC the liability would sit with you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. You are usually very coherent in your arguments on other threads. On this one, no. I have not said that you do not pay your fair share. Are you in the 1% who make up the 310,000 paying the most income tax? Then I have no sympathy because they pay a smaller proportion in tax than anyone else. I agree that the relatively wealthy pay a particular high tax burden. Particularly those salaried. Strangely enough they are not all lazy, unimaginative and feckless. The self-employed also reduce their income tax burden even though they have chosen a riskier employment route and would be earning more than an equivalent salaried member of staff with benefits regardless. I have worked both sides of the fence and I am perfectly aware of how much better off I was as a contractor. I also took advantage of the tax system as it would be irrational not to. I may well be consulting again and will be annoyed not to earn more, but I will not whine about taxation being more equitable. They are not the same problem. The loopholes are being closed. That is correct. The UK will lose its flexible workforce if industry chooses not to pay more for expertise. That is their choice. With Brexit we will probably be driven to a lower wage, low job security economy anyway as that will be our only competitive advantage, so don't worry about it. Yeah I looked back on some of my posts here and realise I skipped a few words here and there. Sorry for that. Good luck in going into consulting. If you're good at what you do, of which I have no doubt, I'm sure you'll be very successful. In terms of Brexit I'm one of those who votes in his worst interests. If labour loses I will be sad for a country that I believe deserve better, but at the same time it cuts off my only personal competition from Europe and benefits my business. As I've said before I'd be happy to pay the tax I pay if it went to enriching public services. Of the money I do get after taxes I give away more than I spend on myself so the more the taxman takes the less I have to help others. What is your opinion of our curious tax brackets where tax rates rise exponentially until £150k and then end there? Seemingly the philosophy is that the more you earn the more you can afford to pay in tax, until you hit £150k and then that philosophy no longer applies
Our tax system is screwed towards the wealthy. They all are.
I don't think that any tax rate should land above 50%. Personal opinion but anything beyond that is very counter-productive.
Oddly enough the perception of a "fair" tax rate is about 30%. The problem is that we can't afford all the stuff we want as a country with that. We don't understand how much stuff costs. There is, of course waste, but not that much.
From a wealth perspective, it's just that. Wealth is the problem.
However we distribute the income tax situation it's more or less fair as long as everyone pays what's due.
The real issue is wealth. It just sucks money out of the system and away from the majority of the population. Both individuals and governments.
That solution is global. Will they fix that? Nah.
The second string that actually allow personal taxes to be reduced is multinationals paying their taxes.
Will they fix that? Nah.
Should we try and get governments that will? Yes.
If you read Robert T Kiyosaki you can understand things from the perspective of the rich.
You spoke of passing taxes on to one's customers. One day I did just that. Do you know what the response was? The director offered to pay me from an offshore sister company into an offshore bank account. "Then you won't have to pay ANY tax and you can drop your rate!"
...and you know if something went wrong with HMRC the liability would sit with you "Probably one of the reasons why I pay so much tax is that I don't take advantage of loopholes that are available to me. There are people on this forum who know me and if I was lying they would call me on it. Every penny I own I worked for. I have even inherited money and given it away. I don't want money I don't deserve. So no I didn't even consider it. But it gave me an idea of how much this sort of thing goes on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forgive me but as much as I read up and try to follow this thread, I have no idea what you are both talking about Imagine you are really good at something. But your workplace doesn't recognise your talents and reward you accordingly. When you out on you own you find that life is more difficult, there is no guaranteed work, no more leave or sick leave. It is your best interests to work hard to earn more. You work late nights, weekends, bank holidays etc. You do more than double the hours of what you used to do as an employee. Eventually after years of working your ass off your business becomes a success and you start to see a reward for those long hours and travelling over the country and sleeping in shitty beds far from home etc. Then some guy who isn't good at his job, couldn't be bothered to change his circumstance and likes the 8 hour safe day, looks at what you're earning. That's not fair you need to take home the same money as me. So him and the rich band together to elect a government which impliments an immediate 25% tax increase on the money you earned for all those extra hours to try and lift your circumstances. Still playing the victim? Why should you pay less tax on your income than anyone else? That's the problem. The lions share of the income tax burden lies on the shoulders of 31000 people out of a population of 60 million. We keep hearing about them paying their 'fair share'. But what's fair about it? If it was fair two hikes ago what changed? It's a simple case of the government in power piling the tax burden onto the same 31000 because if they lose their vote the just don't care. Please explain why the first half of my should be working for free for the government. Not so that we can have better schools and hospitals. So that Boris's wealthy friends don't have to work at all. Why is it fair that the 31000 are paying the tax that the far far aren't paying at all? I'm not saying I should pay less tax than anyone else. I'm protesting paying more. If you are really worried that the super rich aren't getting enough, then I'm sure there is a billionaires son out there on a 70ft launch sniffing cocaine out of a hookers belly button. You are free to donate you disposable income to him. In the meantime please stop volunteering my hard earned income to the black hole of HMRC. You are usually very coherent in your arguments on other threads. On this one, no. I have not said that you do not pay your fair share. Are you in the 1% who make up the 310,000 paying the most income tax? Then I have no sympathy because they pay a smaller proportion in tax than anyone else. I agree that the relatively wealthy pay a particular high tax burden. Particularly those salaried. Strangely enough they are not all lazy, unimaginative and feckless. The self-employed also reduce their income tax burden even though they have chosen a riskier employment route and would be earning more than an equivalent salaried member of staff with benefits regardless. I have worked both sides of the fence and I am perfectly aware of how much better off I was as a contractor. I also took advantage of the tax system as it would be irrational not to. I may well be consulting again and will be annoyed not to earn more, but I will not whine about taxation being more equitable. They are not the same problem. The loopholes are being closed. That is correct. The UK will lose its flexible workforce if industry chooses not to pay more for expertise. That is their choice. With Brexit we will probably be driven to a lower wage, low job security economy anyway as that will be our only competitive advantage, so don't worry about it. Yeah I looked back on some of my posts here and realise I skipped a few words here and there. Sorry for that. Good luck in going into consulting. If you're good at what you do, of which I have no doubt, I'm sure you'll be very successful. In terms of Brexit I'm one of those who votes in his worst interests. If labour loses I will be sad for a country that I believe deserve better, but at the same time it cuts off my only personal competition from Europe and benefits my business. As I've said before I'd be happy to pay the tax I pay if it went to enriching public services. Of the money I do get after taxes I give away more than I spend on myself so the more the taxman takes the less I have to help others. What is your opinion of our curious tax brackets where tax rates rise exponentially until £150k and then end there? Seemingly the philosophy is that the more you earn the more you can afford to pay in tax, until you hit £150k and then that philosophy no longer applies
Our tax system is screwed towards the wealthy. They all are.
I don't think that any tax rate should land above 50%. Personal opinion but anything beyond that is very counter-productive.
Oddly enough the perception of a "fair" tax rate is about 30%. The problem is that we can't afford all the stuff we want as a country with that. We don't understand how much stuff costs. There is, of course waste, but not that much.
From a wealth perspective, it's just that. Wealth is the problem.
However we distribute the income tax situation it's more or less fair as long as everyone pays what's due.
The real issue is wealth. It just sucks money out of the system and away from the majority of the population. Both individuals and governments.
That solution is global. Will they fix that? Nah.
The second string that actually allow personal taxes to be reduced is multinationals paying their taxes.
Will they fix that? Nah.
Should we try and get governments that will? Yes.
If you read Robert T Kiyosaki you can understand things from the perspective of the rich.
You spoke of passing taxes on to one's customers. One day I did just that. Do you know what the response was? The director offered to pay me from an offshore sister company into an offshore bank account. "Then you won't have to pay ANY tax and you can drop your rate!"
...and you know if something went wrong with HMRC the liability would sit with you
Probably one of the reasons why I pay so much tax is that I don't take advantage of loopholes that are available to me. There are people on this forum who know me and if I was lying they would call me on it. Every penny I own I worked for. I have even inherited money and given it away. I don't want money I don't deserve.
So no I didn't even consider it. But it gave me an idea of how much this sort of thing goes on."I don't disagree with you. It goes on because it's acceptable. Admired even. There's no social stigma attached to it. You just need to look to our "leaders", both political and financial to see why. All we have left with any integrity are some of the Lord's (some) and the judiciary and the bits of the civil service that haven't yet been politicised. All will be dismantled if we have another Conservative government because they stop "getting things" done which is short-hand for speaking truth to power. You won't need to move anything abroad at that point because we will be in the financial wild west. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/6cC5gIuBrXA Interesting. Same everywhere...." This is a YouTube podcast, and I don't really know who they are. However, you can find this same data from the Economist or a host of studies and papers for the USA the UK and most other places. Yet the poor continue to vote for the parties screwing them over. Emotion trumps logic. We are also mathematically illiterate and get bored if something is complicated. It's the EU and immigrants' fault. Job done | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/6cC5gIuBrXA Interesting. Same everywhere.... This is a YouTube podcast, and I don't really know who they are. However, you can find this same data from the Economist or a host of studies and papers for the USA the UK and most other places. Yet the poor continue to vote for the parties screwing them over. Emotion trumps logic. We are also mathematically illiterate and get bored if something is complicated. It's the EU and immigrants' fault. Job done ". Weak minded bollocks, you know the data doesn't show that but continue to peddle the same old liberal shit. If anything this election shows liberals among anything are the losers. It's immigrants and the EU!!!! .
You don't realise how close you are | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/6cC5gIuBrXA Interesting. Same everywhere.... This is a YouTube podcast, and I don't really know who they are. However, you can find this same data from the Economist or a host of studies and papers for the USA the UK and most other places. Yet the poor continue to vote for the parties screwing them over. Emotion trumps logic. We are also mathematically illiterate and get bored if something is complicated. It's the EU and immigrants' fault. Job done .
Weak minded bollocks, you know the data doesn't show that but continue to peddle the same old liberal shit.
If anything this election shows liberals among anything are the losers.
It's immigrants and the EU!!!!
.
You don't realise how close you are"Ah. You're back. Show us your data then. Such a coherent argument too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/6cC5gIuBrXA Interesting. Same everywhere.... This is a YouTube podcast, and I don't really know who they are. However, you can find this same data from the Economist or a host of studies and papers for the USA the UK and most other places. Yet the poor continue to vote for the parties screwing them over. Emotion trumps logic. We are also mathematically illiterate and get bored if something is complicated. It's the EU and immigrants' fault. Job done .
Weak minded bollocks, you know the data doesn't show that but continue to peddle the same old liberal shit.
If anything this election shows liberals among anything are the losers.
It's immigrants and the EU!!!!
.
You don't realise how close you are
Ah. You're back.
Show us your data then.
Such a coherent argument too ". Would it matter, every data you don't like is dismissed as bad data, every data you do like is put forth as gospel (Koranic). Apparently according to the liberals,half our bias is our skin colour!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/6cC5gIuBrXA Interesting. Same everywhere.... This is a YouTube podcast, and I don't really know who they are. However, you can find this same data from the Economist or a host of studies and papers for the USA the UK and most other places. Yet the poor continue to vote for the parties screwing them over. Emotion trumps logic. We are also mathematically illiterate and get bored if something is complicated. It's the EU and immigrants' fault. Job done .
Weak minded bollocks, you know the data doesn't show that but continue to peddle the same old liberal shit.
If anything this election shows liberals among anything are the losers.
It's immigrants and the EU!!!!
.
You don't realise how close you are
Ah. You're back.
Show us your data then.
Such a coherent argument too .
Would it matter, every data you don't like is dismissed as bad data, every data you do like is put forth as gospel (Koranic).
Apparently according to the liberals,half our bias is our skin colour!! "You absolutely nailed it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/6cC5gIuBrXA Interesting. Same everywhere.... This is a YouTube podcast, and I don't really know who they are. However, you can find this same data from the Economist or a host of studies and papers for the USA the UK and most other places. Yet the poor continue to vote for the parties screwing them over. Emotion trumps logic. We are also mathematically illiterate and get bored if something is complicated. It's the EU and immigrants' fault. Job done .
Weak minded bollocks, you know the data doesn't show that but continue to peddle the same old liberal shit.
If anything this election shows liberals among anything are the losers.
It's immigrants and the EU!!!!
.
You don't realise how close you are"Yeah fucking immigrants! You mean Boris Johnson, I presume? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont think they need to be taxed more, I think a whole new tax system needs to be rolled out. We are all given a "Tax Card", and how much we earn decides how much VAT we pay on purchases. We group products into "essential", "wanted" and "luxury". Luxury products have a flat rate no matter how much you earn, lets just say 18% Vat. Essential have VAT depending how much you earn, if you are a high earner they are 18%, medium earner they are 15% and low earner they are 5%. Wanted products like slightly upgraded products but not upgraded, have a higher vat for low earners. So a budget phone would have 5% vat for them, mid range 10%, iphone 18%, and all of the phones would be 18% for the high earner. The card tracks how much tax youre paying. Then we can look at a person not just by the income tax they give, but every single penny of tax they give. Then the tax system can be tailored to allow low earners a lower cost of living and take a fairer picture of a rich person who is spending lots of money encouraging lots of businesses in the area, vs scrooge who is on a million and paying no tax, and not even spending tax on luxury purchases. I then think people need a reward for paying more tax. Maybe faster treatment in hospital for elective procedures if you are paying more tax. Small things that make people feel like paying tax is not a total waste of time for them. If youre paying 5 million a year in tax then I personally believe you should get a private room in the nhs if you go into the nhs, you personally probably paid for the hospital. You probably have private insurance too, and will probably leave the nhs system quickly. " Interesting idea. I personally think that it wouldn’t make that much difference to the rich though as they would avoid the sales tax by buying a phone in hong kong or dubai or their companies would and then it would be tax deductible. The rich can play with jurisdictions, tax rate differentials, and have accountants who can create ever increasing methods of tax avoidance. The poor do not and therefore would be disproportionately affected. The truth is that the system we have is probably the best as a shift to sales tax would encourage a black market and cash payments as in Italy. The reality is none of us are paying enough tax or earning enough to sustain what we have and we are all living too long. There is nothing in the national pot, and we are all living on some form of credit hoping that when we want to withdraw our pensions there are enough people paying in to cover whats going out. So yes I do think the rich should be taxed as they have all the advantage and the ability to use it to their benefit and if they dont like it then they can always raid their pension scheme and fuck off to Monaco like Sir Philip Greens wife did with the Arcadia business - I actually admire him for putting money back into the pension scheme after his wife’s company had so comprehensively plundered it. Shame he is a serial groper though so my admiration for his response to the pension fund raid is tempered by his grotesque actions to his much younger staff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://youtu.be/6cC5gIuBrXA Interesting. Same everywhere.... This is a YouTube podcast, and I don't really know who they are. However, you can find this same data from the Economist or a host of studies and papers for the USA the UK and most other places. Yet the poor continue to vote for the parties screwing them over. Emotion trumps logic. We are also mathematically illiterate and get bored if something is complicated. It's the EU and immigrants' fault. Job done .
Weak minded bollocks, you know the data doesn't show that but continue to peddle the same old liberal shit.
If anything this election shows liberals among anything are the losers.
It's immigrants and the EU!!!!
.
You don't realise how close you are
Ah. You're back.
Show us your data then.
Such a coherent argument too .
Would it matter, every data you don't like is dismissed as bad data, every data you do like is put forth as gospel (Koranic).
Apparently according to the liberals,half our bias is our skin colour!! "Not forgetting facial tattoos and half a kilo of metal hanging from ears, inside noses, eyebrows , cheeks and tongue. And they wonder why they have to sign on every week?. Dunno how they afford all that ink and steel | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont think they need to be taxed more, I think a whole new tax system needs to be rolled out. We are all given a "Tax Card", and how much we earn decides how much VAT we pay on purchases. We group products into "essential", "wanted" and "luxury". Luxury products have a flat rate no matter how much you earn, lets just say 18% Vat. Essential have VAT depending how much you earn, if you are a high earner they are 18%, medium earner they are 15% and low earner they are 5%. Wanted products like slightly upgraded products but not upgraded, have a higher vat for low earners. So a budget phone would have 5% vat for them, mid range 10%, iphone 18%, and all of the phones would be 18% for the high earner. The card tracks how much tax youre paying. Then we can look at a person not just by the income tax they give, but every single penny of tax they give. Then the tax system can be tailored to allow low earners a lower cost of living and take a fairer picture of a rich person who is spending lots of money encouraging lots of businesses in the area, vs scrooge who is on a million and paying no tax, and not even spending tax on luxury purchases. I then think people need a reward for paying more tax. Maybe faster treatment in hospital for elective procedures if you are paying more tax. Small things that make people feel like paying tax is not a total waste of time for them. If youre paying 5 million a year in tax then I personally believe you should get a private room in the nhs if you go into the nhs, you personally probably paid for the hospital. You probably have private insurance too, and will probably leave the nhs system quickly. Interesting idea. I personally think that it wouldn’t make that much difference to the rich though as they would avoid the sales tax by buying a phone in hong kong or dubai or their companies would and then it would be tax deductible. The rich can play with jurisdictions, tax rate differentials, and have accountants who can create ever increasing methods of tax avoidance. The poor do not and therefore would be disproportionately affected. The truth is that the system we have is probably the best as a shift to sales tax would encourage a black market and cash payments as in Italy. The reality is none of us are paying enough tax or earning enough to sustain what we have and we are all living too long. There is nothing in the national pot, and we are all living on some form of credit hoping that when we want to withdraw our pensions there are enough people paying in to cover whats going out. So yes I do think the rich should be taxed as they have all the advantage and the ability to use it to their benefit and if they dont like it then they can always raid their pension scheme and fuck off to Monaco like Sir Philip Greens wife did with the Arcadia business - I actually admire him for putting money back into the pension scheme after his wife’s company had so comprehensively plundered it. Shame he is a serial groper though so my admiration for his response to the pension fund raid is tempered by his grotesque actions to his much younger staff." Well he paid it back after the pensions regulator started proceedings against him. It hardly makes him a nice guy.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why would you want to punish or tax the rich? I admire them. Actually making something of themselves. Leave them alone." I've go no problem with people making money. If you read the article, it's the way they make money by not paying tax. I resent paying their tax for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
