1 Tax free month a year
DonDaddyD
Posts: 12,689
With all the talk about a stuttering economy, cuts, doom, gloom and Miliband.
Should the Government give the public 1 tax free month a year? So you get your pay no tax reductions.
VAT (and other duty) would remain on products and such. I'm just talking about our actual salaries.
Call it a gesture to the public, an attempt to win votes, get us spending etc. But at the expense of child benefits and the reduction of other benefits I personally think this would make the pill easier to swallow. I just looked at my pay slip and saw it stripped by a 3rd - that hurts.
Should the Government give the public 1 tax free month a year? So you get your pay no tax reductions.
VAT (and other duty) would remain on products and such. I'm just talking about our actual salaries.
Call it a gesture to the public, an attempt to win votes, get us spending etc. But at the expense of child benefits and the reduction of other benefits I personally think this would make the pill easier to swallow. I just looked at my pay slip and saw it stripped by a 3rd - that hurts.
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 Game
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 Game
0
Comments
-
Hows that going to ease a pill. Those who get the benefits generally pay the least tax so end up worse off, whilst those earning say £1m get a nice little windfall but lost very little.0
-
DonDaddyD wrote:the Government take a 3rd out of my pay.
And the rest!
There's another 13% taken, before it even gets on your pay slip.
Buy something and another 20% is gone in VAT, plus council tax etc, etc, etc.
Oh and then the borrow another 25%, because that tax isn't enough to pay for all the stuff they like to promise everyone. At some stage we won't be able to borrow any more, so tax will go higher .... then we might even have to pay this money back (or at the very least a higher interest payment on it).
0 -
You are paid at a level that refects this.
Everyone knows the tax rates, so it should be no surprise.
What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
And guys like Harry getting funds paid into his dog's account in Monaco to avoid tax (allegedly)
Also, go abroad to avoid tax if you want but don't then preach from abroad who we should or shouldn't vote for.
And if you go abroad, don't expect to get Sports Personality of the Year!"Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
JZed wrote:Hows that going to ease a pill. Those who get the benefits generally pay the least tax so end up worse off, whilst those earning say £1m get a nice little windfall but lost very little.
It can't always be one way.
The redistribution of wealth part of a government can go too far one way, so would need to re-balance. Every choice can't be to take more money off one set of people and give it to another.
That doesn't mean to say that redistribution of wealth is wrong, just that it can't be limitless.
Also doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to clamp down on the rich not paying the tax they're meant to. (but this part is mostly governments fault in the first place)0 -
-
DonDaddyD wrote:I just looked at my pay slip and saw it stripped by a 3rd - that hurts.
If you don't like paying taxes or the government, maybe you should live in Somalia? Just sayin', I think the tax I pay is worth not living in a dystopian horror.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:With all the talk about a stuttering economy, cuts, doom, gloom and Miliband.
Should the Government give the public 1 tax free month a year? So you get your pay no tax reductions.
VAT (and other duty) would remain on products and such. I'm just talking about our actual salaries.
Call it a gesture to the public, an attempt to win votes, get us spending etc. But at the expense of child benefits and the reduction of other benefits I personally think this would make the pill easier to swallow. I just looked at my pay slip and saw it stripped by a 3rd - that hurts.
Sounds like an awesome idea. I'd get my company to pay me that month about 12 times my normal pay & then work for free the rest of the year...FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
TheStone wrote:
It can't always be one way.JZed wrote:Hows that going to ease a pill. Those who get the benefits generally pay the least tax so end up worse off, whilst those earning say £1m get a nice little windfall but lost very little.
Was just demonstrating a flaw in DDD's "1 month off" approach in that it will significantly benefit those with higher incomes. Lose child benefit of £20 a week but gain 1/12th of a far bigger income tax. If DDD wants a sweetner then its what the Liberals are suggesting which is to increase the personal allowance faster. This means those who are affected most by the removal of certain benefits, will get more non-taxed income (Edit: assuming they have an income).
Playing with tax bands is far easier to adminster too and less likely to involve lumping income into a tax free month.0 -
JZed wrote:Playing with tax bands is far easier to adminster too and less likely to involve lumping income into a tax free month.
It's like the mansion tax. I've got no problem with taxing more expensive properties more, but why do we need a new tax, when they could just extend council tax and have 20 bands if they want.0 -
TheStone wrote:It's like the mansion tax. I've got no problem with taxing more expensive properties more, but why do we need a new tax, when they could just extend council tax and have 20 bands if they want.
Councils get that and they'll feck it away on hanging baskets or something.0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
Or indeed the very best accountants. Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you could!0 -
Monkeypump wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
Or indeed the very best accountants. Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you could!
Not sure I would.... there is moral ground to consider. If I have more than enough, then why object to paying a "fair" share. I would only do it in order to be able to distribute via a charitable foundation."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
I think you need to define the 'very well off'. I'll admit being above the norm by some margin, but I'm on PAYE so there is precious little i can do to avoid the 43%+ marginal tax I pay. And if anybody disagrees, I'd love to hear how...Wallace1492 wrote:Monkeypump wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
Or indeed the very best accountants. Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you could!
Not sure I would.... there is moral ground to consider. If I have more than enough, then why object to paying a "fair" share. I would only do it in order to be able to distribute via a charitable foundation.Invacare Spectra Plus electric wheelchair, max speed 4mph
0 -
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that with all the talk of cuts losing a twelfth of the income tax and NI would have a considerable effect on the deficit and put us deeper in the mire in other ways.0
-
Very well off is well above what you or I earn. By that I mean those that can use the "loopholes" in the tax system to avoid paying tax. From what you say, I guess you do not employ a well versed accountant that can gives you ways of minimising your tax liability, bit like me.OptimisticBiker wrote:
I think you need to define the 'very well off'. I'll admit being above the norm by some margin, but I'm on PAYE so there is precious little i can do to avoid the 43%+ marginal tax I pay. And if anybody disagrees, I'd love to hear how...Wallace1492 wrote:Monkeypump wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
Or indeed the very best accountants. Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you could!
Not sure I would.... there is moral ground to consider. If I have more than enough, then why object to paying a "fair" share. I would only do it in order to be able to distribute via a charitable foundation."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
On the contrary, I have relatives who are accountants and also friends... but other than shoving tons of my hard earned into pensions or other types of investments and significantly reducing my disposable (which isn't a serious option) none of them can come up with anything useful for a PAYE earner. Now when I ran my own IT consultancy business there were many options and games to play... being self employed, or being paid outside the PAYE system is the only way to make things go your way it seems...Wallace1492 wrote:
Very well off is well above what you or I earn. By that I mean those that can use the "loopholes" in the tax system to avoid paying tax. From what you say, I guess you do not employ a well versed accountant that can gives you ways of minimising your tax liability, bit like me.OptimisticBiker wrote:
I think you need to define the 'very well off'. I'll admit being above the norm by some margin, but I'm on PAYE so there is precious little i can do to avoid the 43%+ marginal tax I pay. And if anybody disagrees, I'd love to hear how...Wallace1492 wrote:Monkeypump wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
Or indeed the very best accountants. Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you could!
Not sure I would.... there is moral ground to consider. If I have more than enough, then why object to paying a "fair" share. I would only do it in order to be able to distribute via a charitable foundation.Invacare Spectra Plus electric wheelchair, max speed 4mph0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Should the Government give the public 1 tax free month a year? So you get your pay no tax reductions.
If you are going to do this, the sensible thing would be to increase income tax by 12 percent first and then set up the tax free month. People would think you were doing them a favour.
Or better still, allow people to get tax points. Like points on a supermarket card which people hoard despite them being interest free cash, you could probably find a way of giving people their 12% tax discount in the form of points which they would be too dumb to cash in as soon as they got them. Result = loads of free interest for the Govt.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Most people pay as little tax as possible - just because you have more, doesn't mean you somehow lose the right to be tax efficient. If you're supposed to pay more tax, the law needs to say so - you shouldn't have to guess what you owe.Wallace1492 wrote:Monkeypump wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
Or indeed the very best accountants. Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you could!
Not sure I would.... there is moral ground to consider. If I have more than enough, then why object to paying a "fair" share. I would only do it in order to be able to distribute via a charitable foundation.
If you don't take advantage of tax relief wherever possible then fair enough - but that is your choice.0 -
W1 wrote:
Most people pay as little tax as possible - just because you have more, doesn't mean you somehow lose the right to be tax efficient. If you're supposed to pay more tax, the law needs to say so - you shouldn't have to guess what you owe.Wallace1492 wrote:Monkeypump wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
Or indeed the very best accountants. Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you could!
Not sure I would.... there is moral ground to consider. If I have more than enough, then why object to paying a "fair" share. I would only do it in order to be able to distribute via a charitable foundation.
If you don't take advantage of tax relief wherever possible then fair enough - but that is your choice.
Ugh. You're right of course, but Ugh. I don't like the suggestion that its "OK" for someone on £500k to be paying less tax proportionally than someone on £50k. Seems wrong somehow. Like money rightfully buys you privilege. And I think its interesting the way you phrased the bit in bold. Makes me think you're saying that the wealthy are somehow hard done by and need to have their rights protected.0 -
No, I'm saying everyone should be treated the same, rather than some people being lambasted for uisng "tax loopholes" by people who (probably) overpay on their pension, buy booze duty free, max out their ISAs or leave their assets to their spouses to avoid IHT.notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:
Most people pay as little tax as possible - just because you have more, doesn't mean you somehow lose the right to be tax efficient. If you're supposed to pay more tax, the law needs to say so - you shouldn't have to guess what you owe.Wallace1492 wrote:Monkeypump wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:What I object to is the way that the very well off can wangle ways of avoiding paying tax, yes often legal, but because they can afford to hire "dodgy" accountants.
Or indeed the very best accountants. Don't tell me you wouldn't do it if you could!
Not sure I would.... there is moral ground to consider. If I have more than enough, then why object to paying a "fair" share. I would only do it in order to be able to distribute via a charitable foundation.
If you don't take advantage of tax relief wherever possible then fair enough - but that is your choice.
Ugh. You're right of course, but Ugh. I don't like the suggestion that its "OK" for someone on £500k to be paying less tax proportionally than someone on £50k. Seems wrong somehow. Like money rightfully buys you privilege. And I think its interesting the way you phrased the bit in bold. Makes me think you're saying that the wealthy are somehow hard done by and need to have their rights protected.
If indeed someone on £500k does pay less tax (proportionately) than someone on £50k that's a fault with the system, but if they are doing nothing illegal then they are no better or worse than anyone of us who would prefer not to voluntarily overpay our taxes.0 -
Yeah, but honestly, how many people on average salaries have the resources to reduce the proportion of their income that goes to the state? Anyhoo, its just the attitude that the rich need protecting from being "lambasted" for using loopholes that irritates me. Don't worry, I'll get over itW1 wrote:No, I'm saying everyone should be treated the same, rather than some people being lambasted for uisng "tax loopholes" by people who (probably) overpay on their pension, buy booze duty free, max out their ISAs or leave their assets to their spouses to avoid IHT.
If indeed someone on £500k does pay less tax (proportionately) than someone on £50k that's a fault with the system, but if they are doing nothing illegal then they are no better or worse than anyone of us who would prefer not to voluntarily overpay our taxes.
0 -
It's not that they need protection - it's that it's hypocritical to do so.notsoblue wrote:
Yeah, but honestly, how many people on average salaries have the resources to reduce the proportion of their income that goes to the state? Anyhoo, its just the attitude that the rich need protecting from being "lambasted" for using loopholes that irritates me. Don't worry, I'll get over itW1 wrote:No, I'm saying everyone should be treated the same, rather than some people being lambasted for uisng "tax loopholes" by people who (probably) overpay on their pension, buy booze duty free, max out their ISAs or leave their assets to their spouses to avoid IHT.
If indeed someone on £500k does pay less tax (proportionately) than someone on £50k that's a fault with the system, but if they are doing nothing illegal then they are no better or worse than anyone of us who would prefer not to voluntarily overpay our taxes.
Almost everyone can undertake actions which reduce the amount of tax they would otherwise pay, i.e. deliberately "avoid" tax.0 -
Its legal to have as many children as you want, and to not work. Does that mean that people who have multiple children specifically for the purpose of getting more benefits so they don't have to work don't deserve to be criticised for that?W1 wrote:It's not that they need protection - it's that it's hypocritical to do so.
Almost everyone can undertake actions which reduce the amount of tax they would otherwise pay, i.e. deliberately "avoid" tax.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Its legal to have as many children as you want, and to not work. Does that mean that people who have multiple children specifically for the purpose of getting more benefits so they don't have to work don't deserve to be criticised for that?W1 wrote:It's not that they need protection - it's that it's hypocritical to do so.
Almost everyone can undertake actions which reduce the amount of tax they would otherwise pay, i.e. deliberately "avoid" tax.
Slightly off-topic, because I was highlighting the hypocricy of tax avoiders criticising other tax avoiders, merely based on the size of the avoidance.
None-the-less an interesting point.
Yes, in my view there is a distinction between not voluntarily paying in more than you are obliged to, and deliberately extracting as much as possible.
Whilst both are entirely legal, there is no requirement to pay more tax than you are obliged to pay, whereas there is a much more arguable obligation not to take deliberate decisions which mean that you depend on others for your lifestyle choices. Moreover there is a cost associated with collecting revenue and paying it out again - there is no such cost in not collecting revenue.
If we all "played the system" by having as many kids as possible so as to live off benefits, there would be collapse. However the vast majority of people avoid taxes in one way or another already, without collapse.
Benefits are to provide a safetynet, not to excuse a lack of personal responsibility.
But in both cases the real criticism has to be faced toward the system that allows such possibilities to arise.0 -
True. But the rich have more influence on that system than the poor. Besides, its the attitude of deference to the rich that I find irritating. Its hypocritical. Someone wilfully being a drain the state when they don't need be to is not paying their dues. The same way anyone who avoids taxes is not paying their dues. Both groups are deserving of criticism, but some people just empathise with the tax avoiders. I guess because its better to aspire to being a tax dodger than a benefit scrounger.W1 wrote:But in both cases the real criticism has to be faced toward the system that allows such possibilities to arise.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
True. But the rich have more influence on that system than the poor. Besides, its the attitude of deference to the rich that I find irritating. Its hypocritical. Someone wilfully being a drain the state when they don't need be to is not paying their dues. The same way anyone who avoids taxes is not paying their dues. Both groups are deserving of criticism, but some people just empathise with the tax avoiders. I guess because its better to aspire to being a tax dodger than a benefit scrounger.W1 wrote:But in both cases the real criticism has to be faced toward the system that allows such possibilities to arise.
That's the whole point though - even avoiding tax you are paying "your dues" i.e. what you are due to pay. Just because you aren't voluntarily paying more, doesn't make you ripe for criticism.
And you know my view of the "influence" on the system in relation to the poor - they appear remarkably well represented, hence why benefits have become less of the safety-net, and more of a lifestyle for some.
And most people are "tax dodgers" - even you, I would suggest Mr Blue. And if you aren't, that is your (voluntary) choice. But frankly I'd rather give money to charity than voluntarily give it to the state.0 -
what about the suggestion that you should get a number of votes according to the amount of tax you pay?FCN = 40
-
MTB-Idle wrote:what about the suggestion that you should get a number of votes according to the amount of tax you pay?
It's a bad suggestion. A very bad one.0 -
W1 wrote:
But frankly I'd rather give money to charity than voluntarily give it to the state.
That's interesting. Do you actually mean that you would go out of your way to avoid paying tax, but then donate what you would have paid to charity? I don't quite agree with doing that but I would admire you for your principles.
I believe in paying the tax that you should, and I don't go out of my way to exploit loopholes which I maybe could. I find the attitude of people who do the opposite selfish, with the usual arguments about it only being wasted, or unfair because others get away with it/claim benefits etc. ridiculous and pathetic excuses.
I'm with Warren Buffet on this one.0 -
Give unto Caesar what Caesar is due. And not a frickin penny more :-DFCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0
