Would you scalp George Osborne

neilmacd

MatHammond wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

The Tory cuts announced yesterday are entirely ideologically driven.

And I thought I could be cynical. Of course they're not entirely ideologically driven, that would be lunacy of the highest order.

There was always gonna be a lot of pain, why don't we wait and see how things pan out instead of bleating pathetically.

Not entirely idealogical perhaps... Interesting that the Labour line now seems to be that the level of cuts is a "gamble", rather than bad per se. I think in truth there is a lot of common ground between the parties and if the ideologies could be stripped away we might get an outcome that was both fair and effective.

Think that's the kind of common sense that's sadly lacking from our political parties.
Cuts are necessary - that I think 99% of the population accept.
It's the way in which they're delivered that rankles & the fact that little seems to be getting done to counter tax avoidance which whilst not totally solving the debt/deficit problem would contribute to making cuts less painful.

I'm not denying that there are people who milk the benefit system & those that do so deserve everything they get flung at them by the government but the approach seems to me to be somewhat of a shotgun blast approach of lets hit everything in that area instead of focussing on the ones who really do tkae the proverbial.
The figures show that tax avoidance costs more than benefit fraud.

UpTheWall

I don't think you'll find that 99% of the population think cuts are necessary.

I was at a very interesting lecture at the London School of Economics not so long ago that would have disabused you of that notion.

The argument has most definitely not been won!

W1

neilmacd wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

The Tory cuts announced yesterday are entirely ideologically driven.

And I thought I could be cynical. Of course they're not entirely ideologically driven, that would be lunacy of the highest order.

There was always gonna be a lot of pain, why don't we wait and see how things pan out instead of bleating pathetically.

Not entirely idealogical perhaps... Interesting that the Labour line now seems to be that the level of cuts is a "gamble", rather than bad per se. I think in truth there is a lot of common ground between the parties and if the ideologies could be stripped away we might get an outcome that was both fair and effective.

Think that's the kind of common sense that's sadly lacking from our political parties.
Cuts are necessary - that I think 99% of the population accept.
It's the way in which they're delivered that rankles & the fact that little seems to be getting done to counter tax avoidance which whilst not totally solving the debt/deficit problem would contribute to making cuts less painful.

I'm not denying that there are people who milk the benefit system & those that do so deserve everything they get flung at them by the government but the approach seems to me to be somewhat of a shotgun blast approach of lets hit everything in that area instead of focussing on the ones who really do tkae the proverbial.
The figures show that tax avoidance costs more than benefit fraud.

But tax avoidance isn't illegal - it's simply not paying more tax than you are legally obliged to pay. Or, in other words, not voluntarily giving more money to the government.

Benefit fraud, on the other thand, is deliberately taking money to which you are not entitled.

Comppletely different concepts.

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

I don't think you'll find that 99% of the population think cuts are necessary.

I was at a very interesting lecture at the London School of Economics not so long ago that would have disabused you of that notion.

The argument has most definitely not been won!

Did people think we can carry such an ever increasing debt burden forever?

Something was going to have to be done at some stage. It was brought into focus by the global recession, but government spending has been excessive for years before that. The bankers make an easy bogie-man and scapegoat, rather than the mismanagement and overspending by ministers.

DonDaddyD

We lived for many years in a Land of false economy. It was deception, everyone thought they had more money than they actually had and everyone including Internationally believed the pound was worth more than it actually was (when you consider GDP).

When I hear that some people managed £30,000 debts on 3 £10,000 credit cards I was at first astonished that credit cards actually went that high (my highest was a £1,000 and I no longer have it). I was also astonished at how much they could conceivably earn to have that kind of credit card. Their presumed wealth and salary a myth.

The cuts had to happen, Labour would have done the same thing or if not taxed us more which would amount to the same thing, minus the potential job losses, which may turn out to be a more favourable solution.

But one thing has to happen, we, as a nation, need to pay more (tax) and spend less (well spend more now to stimulate economic growth - but not spend with credit).

But cuts had to happen, the current situation wasn't sustainable. Public sector growth, while I think inline with the growth of the population, wasn't inline with the growth of the economy.

What worries me now is that the private sector cannot or simply refuses to pick up the slack of unemployed people (i.e. call centres go back to Indian workforce at the expense of British workers for cheaper workers and more profit). So more people unemployed, less money circulating and therefore stunted economic growth double dip and harder hitting recession (at least Gordon kept people in jobs, you'll be saying if that happens).

Other than teh private sector picking up the slack. The only other thing, that might save the economy is a mass exodus of people from England. This may bring the workforce in balance with the public/private sectors ability to employ all these people. Everyone paid, paying tax happy times. Voting BNP next time.

neilmacd

But tax avoidance isn't illegal - it's simply not paying more tax than you are legally obliged to pay. Or, in other words, not voluntarily giving more money to the government.

Benefit fraud, on the other thand, is deliberately taking money to which you are not entitled.

Comppletely different concepts.

So what about the £6bn Vodafone tax bill that boy wonder Osborne decided to write off - what "concept" does that come under[/quote]

rjsterry

Cheer up DDD, that's got to be one of your most miserable posts.

Stevo_666

neilmacd wrote:

So what about the £6bn Vodafone tax bill that boy wonder Osborne decided to write off - what "concept" does that come under

Osborne didn't write it off - HMRC caved in after negotiations with Vodafone. The 'concept' - as you put it - is that the tax man's position was not legally enforceable. What you've been reading is the usual sh1t stirring in the press who don't understand the UK controlled foreign company rules - and clearly you don't either. Here's a slightly better informed reason for the back down:-
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2220813/vodafone-escapes-2bn-tax-bill

And as for your statement that not a lot has been done to counter tax avoidance - utter crap. UK primary tax legislation runs to about 10,000 pages and climbing and a lot of what has been added over the years is to try to stop tax avoidance (as said above, perfectly legal). But as one door closes, others open - keeps me busy anyway

Initialised

Look at the long term bulimic pattern, Labour binge on the State, Tories come in and purge it back and so the cycle repeats while the execs, bankers, lawyer etc.. carry on getting richer.

neilmacd

Initialised wrote:

Look at the long term bulimic pattern, Labour binge on the State, Tories come in and purge it back and so the cycle repeats while the execs, bankers, lawyer etc.. carry on getting richer.

Exactly - Tories cut public services as the economy is in the sh1te > country gets sick of them > votes Labour in who have to overcompensate to redress the balance of underfunding > Debt/deficit rockets> Country votes Tories in who make the cuts necessary to bring thing back into some sort of equilibrium and it continues ad infinitum. Netiher side is entirely right or wrong but neither do they see the bigger picture and the problems they leave behind as they both have their own ideologies
Problem is that both sides have their pro's & cons - still strikes me that the average forum poster has more common sense than the entire govt/ opposition.

The country outside the SE of England was wrecked by Thatcher's policies and to quote Johanne Hari in The Guardian "her offspring are introducing policies she could only dream about in her wildest fantasies."
Current Tory crop are Thacher-XL with Labour now being reduced to Thatcher-lite. There's no credible alternative especially since Clegg sold the Lib-Dems down the swanny for 30 pieces of silver.

At least down south you don't have to put up with the equivalent of Stoneybridge council running most services

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

tailwindhome

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Indeed, lefty ball-cocks.

I don't actually think that there is any such thing as "tax avoidance". You pay what you have to pay. If you don't pay what you have to pay, that's tax evasion.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Indeed, lefty ball-cocks.

I don't actually think that there is any such thing as "tax avoidance". You pay what you have to pay. If you don't pay what you have to pay, that's tax evasion.

Not sure what people disagree with in the original quote: tax avoidance is not illegal but its morally dubious that the richest in society are able to take advantage of the rules to pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than the poorest in society. The richer you are, the more scope there is to pay accountants, utilise trusts, move income offshore etc. If there was less of this, then the tax rate for high earners could probably drop significantly and we'd have a fairer, more transparent system. Never going to happen of course, but in an ideal world that's how I'd like to see things go.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Indeed, lefty ball-cocks.

I don't actually think that there is any such thing as "tax avoidance". You pay what you have to pay. If you don't pay what you have to pay, that's tax evasion.

Well some people think its unfair. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about it myself, but I can see their point. If you're living from paycheque to paycheque, you don't have the luxury of employing a financial advisor to advise you on how to pay the minimum of tax through creative accounting and loophole exploitation. Just because something isn't technically illegal, doesn't mean its not against the spirit of the law. It could be argued that one's success in life is more often than not due to the position in society one is born into. Generally, if you're well off and educated, your children will be well off and educated. Social mobility happens, but its the exception rather than the rule. So while I don't think successful people necessarily have a debt to society that should be paid by excessive taxing, its a bit morally dubious that they should be so easily able to avoid paying the same proportion of their earnings back into society just because of an accident of birth.

UpTheWall

W1 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

I don't think you'll find that 99% of the population think cuts are necessary.

I was at a very interesting lecture at the London School of Economics not so long ago that would have disabused you of that notion.

The argument has most definitely not been won!

Did people think we can carry such an ever increasing debt burden forever?

Something was going to have to be done at some stage. It was brought into focus by the global recession, but government spending has been excessive for years before that. The bankers make an easy bogie-man and scapegoat, rather than the mismanagement and overspending by ministers.

Dude,

Let's split the debt into its two parts:

We only just finished paying off the second world war debt last week. The long term debt (bonds, and so on) will be paid off in 14-15 years.

As for the structural deficit, i.e. the difference in revenues and spending during the govt's financial year, is where the argument lies:
It's obviously not quite binary, but simplisticly do we drop the spending, or do we work on stimulating the economy to increase revenues (not to mention the better social impact that would have)

tailwindhome

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Indeed, lefty ball-cocks.

I don't actually think that there is any such thing as "tax avoidance". You pay what you have to pay. If you don't pay what you have to pay, that's tax evasion.

Not sure what people disagree with in the original quote: tax avoidance is not illegal but its morally dubious that the richest in society are able to take advantage of the rules to pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than the poorest in society. The richer you are, the more scope there is to pay accountants, utilise trusts, move income offshore etc. If there was less of this, then the tax rate for high earners could probably drop significantly and we'd have a fairer, more transparent system. Never going to happen of course, but in an ideal world that's how I'd like to see things go.

There is nothing morally dubious about taking professional advice on legal means within the taxation system to minimize your tax liabilty.

You may think the tax system is unfair. You may be right. But thats a different issue.

UpTheWall

neilmacd wrote:

Initialised wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Again people quoting incorrect headlines.

I can't find the detailed stats as I have to work but here's a good little article from the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm

The top 1% of earners raise 25% of income tax.

The tax burden on the rich is actually rather unfair. Especially with this new 50% tax band.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Indeed, lefty ball-cocks.

I don't actually think that there is any such thing as "tax avoidance". You pay what you have to pay. If you don't pay what you have to pay, that's tax evasion.

Well some people think its unfair. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about it myself, but I can see their point. If you're living from paycheque to paycheque, you don't have the luxury of employing a financial advisor to advise you on how to pay the minimum of tax through creative accounting and loophole exploitation. Just because something isn't technically illegal, doesn't mean its not against the spirit of the law. It could be argued that one's success in life is more often than not due to the position in society one is born into. Generally, if you're well off and educated, your children will be well off and educated. Social mobility happens, but its the exception rather than the rule. So while I don't think successful people necessarily have a debt to society that should be paid by excessive taxing, its a bit morally dubious that they should be so easily able to avoid paying the same proportion of their earnings back into society just because of an accident of birth.

Class War.

So very passe, dahling.

It's great fuel for the financially irresponsible fire that is the Labour masses, though. They are encouraged to borrow, to buy and to live beyond their means. When it is pointed out that that is neither sustainable nor sensible, what happens? Quick - point at the [insert hated affluent group here], who are living within their means, and rouse the crowd by shouting: "the Tories are telling you you're not allowed to live like those people! The rich people! The people who grind you underfoot!".

Brilliant.

As for the bile and venom spewing out over this, I find it pretty funny. There a lot of people on the left who just hate the Tories with an irrationality defies understanding. Most memorable was one Polly Toynbee, who after coalition was announced, was stotting with rage on TV, because (oh, how I laughed) she had propounded tactical voting to keep the Tories out. Hahahahaaahhaha!

One more time.

Hahahahaaahhaha!

HA!

W1

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Indeed, lefty ball-cocks.

I don't actually think that there is any such thing as "tax avoidance". You pay what you have to pay. If you don't pay what you have to pay, that's tax evasion.

Not sure what people disagree with in the original quote: tax avoidance is not illegal but its morally dubious that the richest in society are able to take advantage of the rules to pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than the poorest in society. The richer you are, the more scope there is to pay accountants, utilise trusts, move income offshore etc. If there was less of this, then the tax rate for high earners could probably drop significantly and we'd have a fairer, more transparent system. Never going to happen of course, but in an ideal world that's how I'd like to see things go.

Do you use ISAs? Capital gains tax allowances? Income tax allowances? Duty free shopping? All of those are arguably "tax avoidance", all of them are open to anyone and none of them require particularly complex or expensive advice.

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Initialised wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Again people quoting incorrect headlines.

I can't find the detailed stats as I have to work but here's a good little article from the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm

The top 1% of earners raise 25% of income tax.

The tax burden on the rich is actually rather unfair. Especially with this new 50% tax band.

And don't forget that the "rich" are less likely to take from the state too (private education, private medical etc). So not only do they pay disproportionately more, but take substantially less....

So let's stop the rich bashing please - without their contriubition we would all be much worse off.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Indeed, lefty ball-cocks.

I don't actually think that there is any such thing as "tax avoidance". You pay what you have to pay. If you don't pay what you have to pay, that's tax evasion.

Well some people think its unfair. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about it myself, but I can see their point. If you're living from paycheque to paycheque, you don't have the luxury of employing a financial advisor to advise you on how to pay the minimum of tax through creative accounting and loophole exploitation. Just because something isn't technically illegal, doesn't mean its not against the spirit of the law. It could be argued that one's success in life is more often than not due to the position in society one is born into. Generally, if you're well off and educated, your children will be well off and educated. Social mobility happens, but its the exception rather than the rule. So while I don't think successful people necessarily have a debt to society that should be paid by excessive taxing, its a bit morally dubious that they should be so easily able to avoid paying the same proportion of their earnings back into society just because of an accident of birth.

Life isn't fair. Some people are taller than others, or better looking. Some people are richer than others too. Tough. The concept of social mobility is rather bizarre - it's just not possible for everyone to be "rich" - and it's not really practical for everyone to be equal (unless you want to be forced to work the same hours, get paid the same money, drive the same car, live in the same box, buy the same things etc etc). Some of that is based on birth, some of that is based on luck but in the grand scheme of things everyone has an opportunity in the UK to make something of themselves. If you make success not worth having (through excessive taxation or scapegioating) and you make living off benefits too easy then why bother working hard?

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

I don't think you'll find that 99% of the population think cuts are necessary.

I was at a very interesting lecture at the London School of Economics not so long ago that would have disabused you of that notion.

The argument has most definitely not been won!

Did people think we can carry such an ever increasing debt burden forever?

Something was going to have to be done at some stage. It was brought into focus by the global recession, but government spending has been excessive for years before that. The bankers make an easy bogie-man and scapegoat, rather than the mismanagement and overspending by ministers.

Dude,

Let's split the debt into its two parts:

We only just finished paying off the second world war debt last week. The long term debt (bonds, and so on) will be paid off in 14-15 years.

As for the structural deficit, i.e. the difference in revenues and spending during the govt's financial year, is where the argument lies:
It's obviously not quite binary, but simplisticly do we drop the spending, or do we work on stimulating the economy to increase revenues (not to mention the better social impact that would have)

As to the structural deficit, the concept of spending our way out of recession is financially mental. Spending money you don't have on the hope of later being able to pay it back is what the country has been doing for years, and on a micro level is what all the plastic credit adddicts have used to keep up with the Joneses.

greg66_tri_v2.0

W1 wrote:

Do you use ISAs? Capital gains tax allowances? Income tax allowances? Duty free shopping? All of those are arguably "tax avoidance", all of them are open to anyone and none of them require particularly complex or expensive advice.

Quite. Though there will be someone along in a minute to say that they can't afford to put money into an ISA, or can't afford to fly abroad, so those two tax avoidance schemes are "unfair".

What I really find difficult about the who fad for "fairness" is that it is a remarkably difficult concept to pin down. At one extreme, fairness is achieved if everyone has just the right amount of money that they need to support a lifestyle that is not significantly different to anyone else's (different lifestyle standards offending against the fairness principle).

I think that's been tried though. And it failed. Quite badly.

Furthermore, it overlooks a pretty fundamental point: life isn't fair. We aren't all equally gifted with a golf club, or with paint and an easel, or with numbers. In simple terms, in any capitalist democracy, you will have individuals whose income massively exceeds the mean, and who contribute far more than they take out, thus support a swathe of the population. Yet is now seems that they are targets to be squeezed some more, under the rubric of "fairness". Don't get it.

Sewinman

This is my contribution to this thread:

neilmacd

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Indeed, lefty ball-cocks.

I don't actually think that there is any such thing as "tax avoidance". You pay what you have to pay. If you don't pay what you have to pay, that's tax evasion.

Not sure what people disagree with in the original quote: tax avoidance is not illegal but its morally dubious that the richest in society are able to take advantage of the rules to pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than the poorest in society. The richer you are, the more scope there is to pay accountants, utilise trusts, move income offshore etc. If there was less of this, then the tax rate for high earners could probably drop significantly and we'd have a fairer, more transparent system. Never going to happen of course, but in an ideal world that's how I'd like to see things go.

Exactly the point I was making that it isn't illegal but morally wrong - clearly missed by the fairly obvious right-wingers on this forum.
Part of the reason we're stuck with the government we are - public schoolboy network backing each other up & forgetting what principles, if any, they had in the first place who in turn will weight the system to suit their own - turkeys & christmas scenario.

MAybe if those that hive their money into offshore accounts paid what they should through this country then we wouldn't be in the dog-doo to the extent that we are & don't trot out the nonsense of it all being Labour's fault.
It's a global financial crisis that caused this mess not one political party that you happen not to agree with

UpTheWall

W1 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

I don't think you'll find that 99% of the population think cuts are necessary.

I was at a very interesting lecture at the London School of Economics not so long ago that would have disabused you of that notion.

The argument has most definitely not been won!

Did people think we can carry such an ever increasing debt burden forever?

Something was going to have to be done at some stage. It was brought into focus by the global recession, but government spending has been excessive for years before that. The bankers make an easy bogie-man and scapegoat, rather than the mismanagement and overspending by ministers.

Dude,

Let's split the debt into its two parts:

We only just finished paying off the second world war debt last week. The long term debt (bonds, and so on) will be paid off in 14-15 years.

As for the structural deficit, i.e. the difference in revenues and spending during the govt's financial year, is where the argument lies:
It's obviously not quite binary, but simplisticly do we drop the spending, or do we work on stimulating the economy to increase revenues (not to mention the better social impact that would have)

As to the structural deficit, the concept of spending our way out of recession is financially mental. Spending money you don't have on the hope of later being able to pay it back is what the country has been doing for years, and on a micro level is what all the plastic credit adddicts have used to keep up with the Joneses.

The way the economy works is mental. A lot of macroeconomics doesn't follow the "common sense" / intuitive rules of personal finance.

sketchley

TailWindHome wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

Re tax avoidance - it may not be illegal but it is morally wrong that the richest proportionally pay less than the poorest in society & perhaps down to having the money to have accountants & lawyers advise them on the loopholes & other ways to reduce their tax bills.

Nonsense

Not entirely but mostly nonsense.

Reclassification of income as capital gains in order to pay the lower rate of tax is common practice and could be classed as “Tax Avoidance” and can be seen as morally wrong by some. So that part is not Nonsense.

The reason why this is done is more due to the difference between 40% higher rate income tax and 28% CGT (18% as was) rather than because the person can afford the tax advice, most of which is freely available on the internet anyway. Of course you also need the kind of income that can be reclassified.

To argue that the current government is doing nothing about “tax avoidance” is nonsense. The new government, albeit under pressure from the Lib Dems (not a bad thing), have done something about it already by increasing the CGT rate from 18% to 28% for high rate tax payers. Not as far as the Lib Dems would have liked, as they wanted parity between Income Tax and CGT, but considerably more than the previous government who failed to do anything about CGT as a means for “Tax Avoidance” for 10 years.

If you still inclined to disagree with this and think the current government is doing nothing about tax avoidance. You may want to read this announced in George Osborne’s speech on Wednesday. http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=conWebDoc.37682

It’s not always the richest that “avoid” tax. Plenty of middle income individuals do exactly this by investing in property instead of savings as profit on property sales are capital gains and interest on investments are income. So you pay less tax and get a greater return on investments. Also profit made from buying and selling stuff is liable for CGT as well, the personal limit is around £10k but anymore than this is liable for tax, there are plenty of people making good money as 2nd income on ebay or small time share trading and I suspect not all of them declare it and not a lawyer or accountant in sight.

If it was simply a matter of needing the right advice to pay less tax, then why is there no taxlawyersforyou.com offering to reduce your tax bill for a small commission?

W1

neilmacd wrote:

Exactly the point I was making that it isn't illegal but morally wrong - clearly missed by the fairly obvious right-wingers on this forum.
Part of the reason we're stuck with the government we are - public schoolboy network backing each other up & forgetting what principles, if any, they had in the first place who in turn will weight the system to suit their own - turkeys & christmas scenario.

MAybe if those that hive their money into offshore accounts paid what they should through this country then we wouldn't be in the dog-doo to the extent that we are & don't trot out the nonsense of it all being Labour's fault.
It's a global financial crisis that caused this mess not one political party that you happen not to agree with

"Paid what they should?" You mean pay what they are legally obliged to? Or pay some made up figure which you think they should? Is that how you calculate your tax bill too then?

Do you think that you "pay what you should" or do you pay as much tax as possible?

You see it's easy to criticise the "rich" becuase well "they can afford it". But unless you're liviing in a box hand to muth you can afford to pay more tax too. But do you, voluntarily, ignore any tax-saving incentives? Do you feel morally obliged to give whatever you can afford to the state? If so you're a fooll, if not then you're a hypocrite.

greg66_tri_v2.0

neilmacd wrote:

It's a global financial crisis that caused this mess not one political party that you happen not to agree with

We are in a mess because of a global financial crisis.

We are badly placed to recover because the British economy is heavily reliant on financial services (you may remember Darling and Brown telling us in 2008 that the British economy was uniquely well placed to weather the storm. Someone missed out a "not").

Our difficulties are compounded by the fact that during the good years, Labour spent rather than saved income (repeat above 2008 comment). So (a) now there's nothing in the rainy day fund; (b) conversely there are huge spending commitments to service (or cut).

secretsam

W1 wrote:

the concept of spending our way out of recession is financially mental.

I think you'll find that there are a lot of very respected Economists who would disagree with you on that one. Spending creates wealth, which creates tax revenue, which pays for the spending.

The alternative is paying out welfare for people to do nothing. Bear in mind that (for example) the 500k or so jobs going in the public sector will probably be matched by another 500k in the private sector, as those jobs were reliant on public sector spending.