Would you scalp George Osborne
Comments
-
UpTheWall wrote: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.
I appreciate that - you can't spend your way out of personal bankrputcy. But it is reckless in the extreme to deliberately waste money which peolple are legally obliged to pay on the hope that somehow that will snowball into greater revenues. And if it does, will there be cuts then? No, we can afford to have people sitting around doing nothing if revenues are up. And the cycle repeats. But that can't go on forever, and I'm glad someone now has the balls to put a stop to it. The problem is that I don't think the cuts go nearly far enough...0 -
Sewinman wrote:This is my contribution to this thread:
I kind of like that. Esp the fact that the Clegg picture has captured "Liberal Democrats" in the background, just so you know who he is.
Why is though that the Class War types are avuncular old men, wearing expensive looking overcoats? Shouldn't he have piercings, tattoos, and be living in a protest camp somewhere?0 -
SecretSam wrote: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.
There are also a large number of respected economists who completely agree. Like the IMF.
The fact that either way the tax payer has to cough up is where we have gone wrong. Living off the state as a way of life (either on welfare or by having a non-job in the public sector) is completely unacceptable, but the last government was pretty keen on it so that they had a solid voter base who wouldn't vote them out. That nearly worked. The problem is no-one had enough fingers to count on and the maths doesn't stack up. That can't go on indefintately.0 -
W1 wrote: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.
ISAs are certainly a more tax efficient way of saving than a basic savings account, but they're really an example of the tax system being used to encourage people to save. IIRC you do pay tax on ISAs above a certain amount, and I doubt that at the level of wealth where it makes sense to pay someone to advise you on the most tax efficient place to put your money, one would be bothering with such things as ISAs (IIRC payments into an ISA are limited to about £3,600 pa, so pretty small beer to the offshore account crowd). Tax allowances are just the thresholds below which earnings/savings aren't taxed, so again trivial to the very wealthy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:ISAs are certainly a more tax efficient way of saving than a basic savings account, but they're really an example of the tax system being used to encourage people to save. IIRC you do pay tax on ISAs above a certain amount, and I doubt that at the level of wealth where it makes sense to pay someone to advise you on the most tax efficient place to put your money, one would be bothering with such things as ISAs (IIRC payments into an ISA are limited to about £3,600 pa, so pretty small beer to the offshore account crowd). Tax allowances are just the thresholds below which earnings/savings aren't taxed, so again trivial to the very wealthy.
But the point is they are all arguably tax avoidance. You're not obliged to use an ISA to save. You can save outside of an ISA, and pay tax, or inside an ISA and not pay tax. The ISA option therefore avoids tax. That's no different to paying yourself a dividend rather than a salary from your limited company, it's just perhaps on a different scale. But the principles are exactly the same. Ditto paying into pensions, plus many other "tax avoidance" schemes that "normal" people use without even thinking, whilst harping on about the nasty immoral "rich".
You can put around £10k in a stocks and shares ISA per year, and the income and capital growth is tax free. That's a tax free pot of investments of £100k over ten years. Excluding multi-billionaire olligarks that's a tidy sum for anyone to play with, tax free.0 -
I don't think comparisons between personal finance and government spending are very helpful. Governments are keen on being re-elected for the next term and will spend any surplus they have or cut taxes. I can't ever remember a UK government of any hue seriously 'saving for a rainy day'. What would be the point from a political sense?
Shame we did not follow the Norwegian model of creating a sovereign wealth fund with our North Sea oil money - rather than cutting taxes and drinking a lot of champers in the 80s.0 -
W1 wrote:rjsterry wrote:ISAs are certainly a more tax efficient way of saving than a basic savings account, but they're really an example of the tax system being used to encourage people to save. IIRC you do pay tax on ISAs above a certain amount, and I doubt that at the level of wealth where it makes sense to pay someone to advise you on the most tax efficient place to put your money, one would be bothering with such things as ISAs (IIRC payments into an ISA are limited to about £3,600 pa, so pretty small beer to the offshore account crowd). Tax allowances are just the thresholds below which earnings/savings aren't taxed, so again trivial to the very wealthy.
But the point is they are all arguably tax avoidance. You're not obliged to use an ISA to save. You can save outside of an ISA, and pay tax, or inside an ISA and not pay tax. The ISA option therefore avoids tax. That's no different to paying yourself a dividend rather than a salary from your limited company, it's just perhaps on a different scale. But the principles are exactly the same. Ditto paying into pensions, plus many other "tax avoidance" schemes that "normal" people use without even thinking, whilst harping on about the nasty immoral "rich".
You can put around £10k in a stocks and shares ISA per year, and the income and capital growth is tax free. That's a tax free pot of investments of £100k over ten years. Excluding multi-billionaire olligarks that's a tidy sum for anyone to play with, tax free.
It is disingenous and arguing semantics to suggest using a government approved tax vehicle is the same as what people mean by tax avoidance. How can you avoid something that they don't want you to pay. But you know that, don't you.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.
There is no 'arguably' about it, they are tax avoidance and are neither illegal nor immoral.
Suggesting otherwise is silly.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.
You take that back!“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Sewinman wrote:W1 wrote:rjsterry wrote:ISAs are certainly a more tax efficient way of saving than a basic savings account, but they're really an example of the tax system being used to encourage people to save. IIRC you do pay tax on ISAs above a certain amount, and I doubt that at the level of wealth where it makes sense to pay someone to advise you on the most tax efficient place to put your money, one would be bothering with such things as ISAs (IIRC payments into an ISA are limited to about £3,600 pa, so pretty small beer to the offshore account crowd). Tax allowances are just the thresholds below which earnings/savings aren't taxed, so again trivial to the very wealthy.
But the point is they are all arguably tax avoidance. You're not obliged to use an ISA to save. You can save outside of an ISA, and pay tax, or inside an ISA and not pay tax. The ISA option therefore avoids tax. That's no different to paying yourself a dividend rather than a salary from your limited company, it's just perhaps on a different scale. But the principles are exactly the same. Ditto paying into pensions, plus many other "tax avoidance" schemes that "normal" people use without even thinking, whilst harping on about the nasty immoral "rich".
You can put around £10k in a stocks and shares ISA per year, and the income and capital growth is tax free. That's a tax free pot of investments of £100k over ten years. Excluding multi-billionaire olligarks that's a tidy sum for anyone to play with, tax free.
It is disingenous and arguing semantics to suggest using a government approved tax vehicle is the same as what people mean by tax avoidance. How can you avoid something that they don't want you to pay. But you know that, don't you.
it's not disingenuous in the slightest - the government also drafts the tax legislation - they are therefore responsible for what taxes people are obliged to pay. provided you are within the letter of those laws there is no tax avoidance - you are just paying what you are obliged to pay, nothing more. And there is no right - legal or moral - to ask anyone to pay more than they are obliged to pay.0 -
W1 wrote:Sewinman wrote:W1 wrote:rjsterry wrote:ISAs are certainly a more tax efficient way of saving than a basic savings account, but they're really an example of the tax system being used to encourage people to save. IIRC you do pay tax on ISAs above a certain amount, and I doubt that at the level of wealth where it makes sense to pay someone to advise you on the most tax efficient place to put your money, one would be bothering with such things as ISAs (IIRC payments into an ISA are limited to about £3,600 pa, so pretty small beer to the offshore account crowd). Tax allowances are just the thresholds below which earnings/savings aren't taxed, so again trivial to the very wealthy.
But the point is they are all arguably tax avoidance. You're not obliged to use an ISA to save. You can save outside of an ISA, and pay tax, or inside an ISA and not pay tax. The ISA option therefore avoids tax. That's no different to paying yourself a dividend rather than a salary from your limited company, it's just perhaps on a different scale. But the principles are exactly the same. Ditto paying into pensions, plus many other "tax avoidance" schemes that "normal" people use without even thinking, whilst harping on about the nasty immoral "rich".
You can put around £10k in a stocks and shares ISA per year, and the income and capital growth is tax free. That's a tax free pot of investments of £100k over ten years. Excluding multi-billionaire olligarks that's a tidy sum for anyone to play with, tax free.
It is disingenous and arguing semantics to suggest using a government approved tax vehicle is the same as what people mean by tax avoidance. How can you avoid something that they don't want you to pay. But you know that, don't you.
it's not disingenuous in the slightest - the government also drafts the tax legislation - they are therefore responsible for what taxes people are obliged to pay. provided you are within the letter of those laws there is no tax avoidance - you are just paying what you are obliged to pay, nothing more. And there is no right - legal or moral - to ask anyone to pay more than they are obliged to pay.
Tax Avoidance = Good
Self employed man employs accountant to minimise his tax liabilty
Tax Evasion = Bad
Self employed man works cash in hand and doesn't declare as income
People need to understand the difference“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
But surely the definition of tax avoidance is that it is the (clever/immoral/whatever) use of vehicles that were not set up to reduce personal tax burden to, indeed, reduce personal tax burden - hence it being avoidance. That is very different from using vehicles that have been deliberately set up to reduce tax burden.
I suppose an analogy might be the use of a loophole in the laws of a sport in order to win. Nothing particularly wrong with it from any legal sense, but not the sort one might want to share 18 holes with.0 -
rjsterry wrote:W1 wrote: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.
ISAs are certainly a more tax efficient way of saving than a basic savings account, but they're really an example of the tax system being used to encourage people to save. IIRC you do pay tax on ISAs above a certain amount, and I doubt that at the level of wealth where it makes sense to pay someone to advise you on the most tax efficient place to put your money, one would be bothering with such things as ISAs (IIRC payments into an ISA are limited to about £3,600 pa, so pretty small beer to the offshore account crowd). Tax allowances are just the thresholds below which earnings/savings aren't taxed, so again trivial to the very wealthy.
ISA are there to encourage people to save, I would also expect anyone on high income to max out there ISA every year and take full advantage of their allowance even though they need no encouragement to save. This is an unfortunate consequence of offering the tax break to all and why there is an annual cap on the amount you can put in otherwise everyone would invest all.
The same can be said for Entrepreneur Relief on Capital Capture gains tax. It is there to encourage people to take the risk and invest in new business, instead of simply putting their money into less risky investments. This tax break means that the entrepreneur makes more money which is then taxed at a lower rate than they would have done with other investments. The new companies then pay corporation tax and create jobs which people then pay tax on. The net result of this is more tax revenue then if the Entrepreneur had simply invested their money in a bank and paid 40% tax on the interest. Claiming this benefit is not morally indefensible and should not be seen as tax avoidance. However some people with a lot of money may exploit the rules in order to avoid income tax without creating the jobs etc and this is why there is £5 million lifetime limit on gains qualifying for Entrepreneur Relief so it not exploited in the extreme. Shutting down this “loophole” might have the knock on affect of reducing investment in genuine new companies and the jobs they provide and so you have a conundrum close the loop hole exploited by a few which in turn affect the many who benefit from the tax break (people in job in the new companies).
I know my company would not be here today employing over 100 people from a standing start in 1998 without this tax schemes as it encouraged 2 people to invest in us when it was risky to do so. You might argue they were avoiding tax by investing in us, I would not.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
W1 wrote: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?
No, you're right. Life isn't fair. Nature is dispassionate. But society has to be perceived as "fair". In fact, your opinion on people who are living off benefits, indicates to me that you don't think this is "fair". Again, I agree with part of what you say. We can't all be the same class, society will stratify naturally, but we're still all connected. I disagree with your thoughts on meritocracy however. From what you say it follows that if everyone has the opportunity to become rich and successful if they work hard enough, then a lack of success is simply due to not being able or willing to work hard and therefore your place in society is deserved. A common view I think. But one I think that is ignorant of the fact that the success of some arguably comes at the price of others who have no control over their circumstances through no fault of their own.0 -
Sewinman wrote:W1 wrote:rjsterry wrote:ISAs are certainly a more tax efficient way of saving than a basic savings account, but they're really an example of the tax system being used to encourage people to save. IIRC you do pay tax on ISAs above a certain amount, and I doubt that at the level of wealth where it makes sense to pay someone to advise you on the most tax efficient place to put your money, one would be bothering with such things as ISAs (IIRC payments into an ISA are limited to about £3,600 pa, so pretty small beer to the offshore account crowd). Tax allowances are just the thresholds below which earnings/savings aren't taxed, so again trivial to the very wealthy.
But the point is they are all arguably tax avoidance. You're not obliged to use an ISA to save. You can save outside of an ISA, and pay tax, or inside an ISA and not pay tax. The ISA option therefore avoids tax. That's no different to paying yourself a dividend rather than a salary from your limited company, it's just perhaps on a different scale. But the principles are exactly the same. Ditto paying into pensions, plus many other "tax avoidance" schemes that "normal" people use without even thinking, whilst harping on about the nasty immoral "rich".
You can put around £10k in a stocks and shares ISA per year, and the income and capital growth is tax free. That's a tax free pot of investments of £100k over ten years. Excluding multi-billionaire olligarks that's a tidy sum for anyone to play with, tax free.
It is disingenous and arguing semantics to suggest using a government approved tax vehicle is the same as what people mean by tax avoidance. How can you avoid something that they don't want you to pay. But you know that, don't you.
Quite. I think most people think of tax avoidance as the avoidance of paying a 'fair' share of the tax burden (not a share based on how much use you make of public services - almost by definition, those who can afford to contribute least will make most use of public services) or put another way, paying an amount of tax proportionate to one's wealth.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
@W1, I think you're undermining the validity of your position by banging on about ISAs as tax avoidance. That clearly isn't the type of situation that was being discussed, as has been pointed out succinctly above. Although, I would suggest that anybody with a spare £10,000 to invest on an annual basis arguably amounts to being, if not "rich" then at least "well off".
The whole accounting industry, looking at ways to help people avoid paying tax, is in my opinion morally dubious. If people just paid the tax that they were intended to pay (rather than look for increasingly convoluted ways to avoid paying it) we could have a much simpler and transparent system which would also in all probability end up being a lot fairer. Of course, this will never happen - people are too greedy, and its easy to point to the inherent unfairness of the existing tax system on the rich if they didn't seek to avoid.
Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.0 -
Greg66 wrote: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!
If you think I'm a class warrior after that post then I failed in putting my opinion across properly :P0 -
The poor could reduce the proportion of tax they pay by reducing the proportion of their income they spend on cigarettes and alcohol.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
MatHammond wrote:Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.
+1 Hear hear...0 -
Wow I created a humdinger. I thank you.
I get really really tired of this class war thing. it's a lifestyle choice, not a true measure of wealth. And that's me saying that.
On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.
That would be fair and I would be happy with that.
On tax avoidance, moan, moan moan. If I was savvy and gambled enough, I'd do it. I don't gamble and therefore won't do it. I don't hate my friend who did take the risk investing, avoiding etc and turned a profit. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
Inheretance tax should be abolished.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
TailWindHome wrote:The poor could reduce the proportion of tax they pay by reducing the proportion of their income they spend on cigarettes and alcohol.
Or scratch cards and Sky+0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Wow I created a humdinger. I thank you.
I get really really tired of this class war thing. it's a lifestyle choice, not a true measure of wealth. And that's me saying that.
On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.
That would be fair and I would be happy with that.
On tax avoidance, moan, moan moan. If I was savvy and gambled enough, I'd do it. I don't gamble and therefore won't do it. I don't hate my friend who did take the risk investing, avoiding etc and turned a profit. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
Inheretance tax should be abolished.
DDD - even the most radical right wing Tory MP would not seriously suggest such a radical and regressive tax structure. You are as right wing as they come!0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Wow I created a humdinger. I thank you.
I get really really tired of this class war thing. it's a lifestyle choice, not a true measure of wealth. And that's me saying that.
On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.
That would be fair and I would be happy with that.
On tax avoidance, moan, moan moan. If I was savvy and gambled enough, I'd do it. I don't gamble and therefore won't do it. I don't hate my friend who did take the risk investing, avoiding etc and turned a profit. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
Inheretance tax should be abolished.
nice work on monster you created!!
I do like your policy. A more equitable approach indeed. The same amount across the board; I guess you're implying people wouldn't want to "dodge" so much with such a scheme?
And as for inheritance tax, I agree. Being taxed on income that's already been taxed is quite egregious I think.0 -
Sewinman wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Wow I created a humdinger. I thank you.
I get really really tired of this class war thing. it's a lifestyle choice, not a true measure of wealth. And that's me saying that.
On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.
That would be fair and I would be happy with that.
On tax avoidance, moan, moan moan. If I was savvy and gambled enough, I'd do it. I don't gamble and therefore won't do it. I don't hate my friend who did take the risk investing, avoiding etc and turned a profit. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
Inheretance tax should be abolished.
DDD - even the most radical right wing Tory MP would not seriously suggest such a radical and regressive tax structure. You are as right wing as they come!
I know! It's great, isn't it? He's Anakin Skywalker and he doesn't realise it.0 -
Here you go DDD - UKIP argree with you, but think your tax rate is a bit low... :shock:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/ukipflattaxpolicy.pdf0 -
MatHammond wrote:@W1, I think you're undermining the validity of your position by banging on about ISAs as tax avoidance. That clearly isn't the type of situation that was being discussed, as has been pointed out succinctly above. Although, I would suggest that anybody with a spare £10,000 to invest on an annual basis arguably amounts to being, if not "rich" then at least "well off".
The whole accounting industry, looking at ways to help people avoid paying tax, is in my opinion morally dubious. If people just paid the tax that they were intended to pay (rather than look for increasingly convoluted ways to avoid paying it) we could have a much simpler and transparent system which would also in all probability end up being a lot fairer. Of course, this will never happen - people are too greedy, and its easy to point to the inherent unfairness of the existing tax system on the rich if they didn't seek to avoid.
Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.
The problem is Matt that using an ISA is, absolutely, tax avoidance. I know it doesn't follow your arguments but you can't dispute it. The same principle applies. The fact that it probably applies to you too might be an uncomfortable truth.
And drawing a distinctiion between using ISAs and "the type of situtation that is being discussed" (but which remains unspecified) is being disingenous. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance. How much tax is avoided when using ISAs comared to using off-shore accounts for example?
And again what tax someone is supposed to pay will depend on how the tax legistlation is drafted. That's the only "intention" there is, not some moral or "spirit" because that isn't how laws work - that would be completely impossible. It has to be done to the letter, and if it is then there can be no problem with it. If you don't like the result of the drafted legislation then the legislation has to be changed. But it's not the job of the taxpyer to volunteer to pay more tax than the law obliges them to. If you disagree I'd be interested to understand what extra taxes you pay, and why.0 -
UpTheWall wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Wow I created a humdinger. I thank you.
I get really really tired of this class war thing. it's a lifestyle choice, not a true measure of wealth. And that's me saying that.
On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.
That would be fair and I would be happy with that.
On tax avoidance, moan, moan moan. If I was savvy and gambled enough, I'd do it. I don't gamble and therefore won't do it. I don't hate my friend who did take the risk investing, avoiding etc and turned a profit. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
Inheretance tax should be abolished.
nice work on monster you created!!
I do like your policy. A more equitable approach indeed. The same amount across the board; I guess you're implying people wouldn't want to "dodge" so much with such a scheme?
And as for inheritance tax, I agree. Being taxed on income that's already been taxed is quite egregious I think.
Flat tax would probably work, but it's a massive vote loser as it's complex to understnad. No-one has the balls to implement it.0 -
MatHammond wrote:@W1, I think you're undermining the validity of your position by banging on about ISAs as tax avoidance. That clearly isn't the type of situation that was being discussed, as has been pointed out succinctly above. Although, I would suggest that anybody with a spare £10,000 to invest on an annual basis arguably amounts to being, if not "rich" then at least "well off".
The whole accounting industry, looking at ways to help people avoid paying tax, is in my opinion morally dubious. If people just paid the tax that they were intended to pay (rather than look for increasingly convoluted ways to avoid paying it) we could have a much simpler and transparent system which would also in all probability end up being a lot fairer. Of course, this will never happen - people are too greedy, and its easy to point to the inherent unfairness of the existing tax system on the rich if they didn't seek to avoid.
Its interesting that those disputing my position seem to be saying that "life isn't fair" as a riposte. I'm sure they'd be a bit less blase if they were in a different social and/or economic position. That's not "class war" by the way, just an observation.
You sound just like George Osborne
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4220838.stm
Mr Osborne says he wants to see the UK moving towards "a simpler tax system which is simple to understand, where there are no loop-holes, where the very rich do not avoid tax by employing expensive accountants".
"I am fully conscious that we may not be able to introduce a pure flat tax, but we may be able to move towards simpler and flatter taxes," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"What I am really talking about is removing a lot of the complexity from the tax system - a lot of the reliefs and exemptions - in return for either a lower rate or a bigger tax allowance.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
notsoblue wrote:No, you're right. Life isn't fair. Nature is dispassionate. But society has to be perceived as "fair". In fact, your opinion on people who are living off benefits, indicates to me that you don't think this is "fair". Again, I agree with part of what you say. We can't all be the same class, society will stratify naturally, but we're still all connected. I disagree with your thoughts on meritocracy however. From what you say it follows that if everyone has the opportunity to become rich and successful if they work hard enough, then a lack of success is simply due to not being able or willing to work hard and therefore your place in society is deserved. A common view I think. But one I think that is ignorant of the fact that the success of some arguably comes at the price of others who have no control over their circumstances through no fault of their own.
That may be so (and we'd be well into the depths of philosophy if we carry on). My point is not so much that those who are not successful haven't worked hard or are just plain lazy, but more that opportunities are provided to all (albeit starting from base-lines that are varied and a result of many different factors). Now whether those opportunities can be converted into success will depend on many factors, including luck of the gene pool.
But I do think that there are in fact very few people who have no control over their circumstances at all. Certainly it may be harder for some than for others, I agree.
I also don't think that success has to come at the price of others.0 -
W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:On taxes, if everyone paid 27% tax on their taxable income and had the same threshold on the rest. That would be fair. People who earned more would pay more money but pay the same percentage. People who earned less would pay the same percentage but pay less.
That would be fair and I would be happy with that.
I do like your policy. A more equitable approach indeed. The same amount across the board; I guess you're implying people wouldn't want to "dodge" so much with such a scheme?
Flat tax would probably work, but it's a massive vote loser as it's complex to understnad. No-one has the balls to implement it.
Surely one rate of tax is less complex?0
