RBS Bankers arrested?

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

I think what upsets people - lefties and righties(?) - is when an individual appears to not pay their 'fair share' of tax - i.e. a roughly equivalent proportion of their income. I also think there is a lot of ignorance about how much difference common tax avoidance measures make. Even on something as straightforward as putting your savings in an ISA as opposed to an ordinary savings account - I doubt many people could tell you off the top of their head, how much they save.

+1

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

I think what upsets people - lefties and righties(?) - is when an individual appears to not pay their 'fair share' of tax - i.e. a roughly equivalent proportion of their income.

Errr, I thought that the lefty view is that "fair" means the more you earn, the higher the proportion of your income should be expropriated for the greater good.

I didn't think lefties were big fans of something approximating a flat rate tax system.

As always the word "fair" in "fair share" is innocuous yet deeply divisive.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9076563/RBS-staff-held-in-tax-fraud-investigation.html

Does this make you feel better?

I'd like W1 to respond to this. HOW COME HE NEVER RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS HE CAN'T ANSWER?!

You and Rick are being very demanding all of a sudden - maybe I should start sending you bills.

No better, no - general myopic banker-bashing headlines to feed the well-spun public scapegoating hoardes is rather pathetic.

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

It's very often not a fine line, believe me I have dealt with this sort of thing in detail for some time and my work is always safely on the legal avoidance side of things, I made sure it was.

Let me just remind you of our legal and moral right not to overpay taxes as it is enshrined in UK case law (I have highlighted a few words below in case anyone want to get on their high horse about our 'moral obligation to pay lots of tax) :
"No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores."
James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde, 1929

Did you know that? :-)

Theres also nothing in the law about having to work for a living. Its not actually illegal to just live off benefits for the rest of your life.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

I think what upsets people - lefties and righties(?) - is when an individual appears to not pay their 'fair share' of tax - i.e. a roughly equivalent proportion of their income. I also think there is a lot of ignorance about how much difference common tax avoidance measures make. Even on something as straightforward as putting your savings in an ISA as opposed to an ordinary savings account - I doubt many people could tell you off the top of their head, how much they save.

Flat tax? Yes please.

Legally obliged tax? Yep, no problem.

Voluntary overpaying tax (particularly as demanded that the "rich" should do, often by hypocrites) - no, thanks.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It's very often not a fine line, believe me I have dealt with this sort of thing in detail for some time and my work is always safely on the legal avoidance side of things, I made sure it was.

Let me just remind you of our legal and moral right not to overpay taxes as it is enshrined in UK case law (I have highlighted a few words below in case anyone want to get on their high horse about our 'moral obligation to pay lots of tax) :
"No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores."
James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde, 1929

Did you know that? :-)

Theres also nothing in the law about having to work for a living. Its not actually illegal to just live off benefits for the rest of your life.

Yes - benefits are people fitting a specific criteria. If you don't fit the criteria, and claim, then that is fraud.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9076563/RBS-staff-held-in-tax-fraud-investigation.html

Does this make you feel better?

I have to admit that when I read about this I wonder who at HMRC/the Treasury can't foresee that as soon as a tax incentive scheme is introduced, it will be pulled, poked, deformed, and finally married to some other bastard concept in order to create a a tax dodge.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the abuse of complex and/or targeted reliefs such as these things makes me think there is something to be said for a flat rate tax rate with zero reliefs.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't know why everyone (apart from the minted obviously) isn't keen on closing tax loopholes.

In the main - because the people making the rules are using the loopholes.

rjsterry wrote:

I doubt many people could tell you off the top of their head, how much they save.

For a basic tax payer it is 20% of very,very little.
Say 20% of 3% so 0.6% of your savings. Off the top of my head

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think what upsets people - lefties and righties(?) - is when an individual appears to not pay their 'fair share' of tax - i.e. a roughly equivalent proportion of their income.

Errr, I thought that the lefty view is that "fair" means the more you earn, the higher the proportion of your income should be expropriated for the greater good.

I didn't think lefties were big fans of something approximating a flat rate tax system.

As always the word "fair" in "fair share" is innocuous yet deeply divisive.

Obviously, the argument is about what 'fair' means, but to jump across the pond, you can see how much of an issue this is even to American Republicans. There is a perception - probably wrong - that some rich people can, by means that aren't readily available to Joe Average, end up paying proportionally less tax than those on lower incomes. Hence my open question about what sort of saving various tax avoidance measures can achieve.

greg66_tri_v2.0

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't know why everyone (apart from the minted obviously) isn't keen on closing tax loopholes.

In the main - because the people making the rules are using the loopholes.

Is that not a bit naive? I doubt many policy gonks at the Treasury or HMRC are using loopholes exploited by the super-rich, not least because they are public sector employees on a PAYE payroll.

The true reason is that the loopholes usually have a legitimate purpose as well, and it is not that easy to kill the loophole without killing the legitimate use as well without getting in nebulous concepts such as the "spirit" of the legislation. And killing off the legit use would be seen as a backwards policy step and/or being defeated by the ingenuity of smart accountants and their rich clients (which is, of course, what happens all the time. But a politician knows better than to concede that openly).

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think what upsets people - lefties and righties(?) - is when an individual appears to not pay their 'fair share' of tax - i.e. a roughly equivalent proportion of their income.

Errr, I thought that the lefty view is that "fair" means the more you earn, the higher the proportion of your income should be expropriated for the greater good.

I didn't think lefties were big fans of something approximating a flat rate tax system.

As always the word "fair" in "fair share" is innocuous yet deeply divisive.

Obviously, the argument is about what 'fair' means, but to jump across the pond, you can see how much of an issue this is even to American Republicans. There is a perception - probably wrong - that some rich people can, by means that aren't readily available to Joe Average, end up paying proportionally less tax than those on lower incomes. Hence my open question about what sort of saving various tax avoidance measures can achieve.

Yes, in the US that may be true. I though Romney's tax affairs were pretty interesting. He sits on a huge pile of capital and lives off the investment income. For some reason that income is taxed at a much lower % than his (or anyone else's) "earned" income is. A real case of how having money makes you disproportionately richer.

And one of his oppos (can't remember whether it was Santorum or Gingrich) wants to reduce the tax rate on investment income. To zero.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I notice you use the phrase 'tax efficient' in a tax evasion thread, which looks like an attempt to blur the lines between tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal, but lefties don't like it).

Out of interest, can I infer from that that presumably people on the right (i.e. you) do like people avoiding tax?

I have been described as being on the right and yes I like avoiding tax. Previously I have brought a CDs & DVDs from Amazon shipped from Jersey and not paid vat*, I've had two bikes on the C2W scheme, I've brought Duty Free when travelling several times and I have shares in my company so I get dividends and pay less tax than I would if this was paid as profit related bonus. All of those are tax avoidance and completely legal.

*this avoidance scheme is now closed

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Theres also nothing in the law about having to work for a living. Its not actually illegal to just live off benefits for the rest of your life.

Yes - benefits are people fitting a specific criteria. If you don't fit the criteria, and claim, then that is fraud.

Ah well, you say fraud, I say "salary avoidance".

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think what upsets people - lefties and righties(?) - is when an individual appears to not pay their 'fair share' of tax - i.e. a roughly equivalent proportion of their income.

Errr, I thought that the lefty view is that "fair" means the more you earn, the higher the proportion of your income should be expropriated for the greater good.

I didn't think lefties were big fans of something approximating a flat rate tax system.

As always the word "fair" in "fair share" is innocuous yet deeply divisive.

Obviously, the argument is about what 'fair' means, but to jump across the pond, you can see how much of an issue this is even to American Republicans. There is a perception - probably wrong - that some rich people can, by means that aren't readily available to Joe Average, end up paying proportionally less tax than those on lower incomes. Hence my open question about what sort of saving various tax avoidance measures can achieve.

The fair = % of income argument gets on my nerves, it also follows that the rich are paying substantially more tax for the same service / benefit. In fact they probably use less services than the "poorer" people.

I also take exception to the "readily available to Joe Average" argument as all the tax schemes are available to all, however the cost in setting them up and administrating them out ways the amount of tax saved unless you are paying a lot of tax. The last point is very important, people using these schemes are paying significantly more tax than you or I. In short you could use an offshore bank account to save yourself a few quid in tax but the cost of setting it up and paying the account to run it would out way the saving.

Edited for omitted comma

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

The fair = % of income argument gets on my nerves, it also follows that the rich are paying substantially more tax for the same service / benefit. In fact they probably use less services than the "poorer" people.

Yeah, I don't buy this. To a certain extent, life is a zero sum game. Prosperity or otherwise doesn't happen independently of others. If you were to ship a load of millionaires to a special island with no poor people and a hermetically sealed economy, the society wouldn't work.

rjsterry

Sketchley wrote:

very important people

What? Important how? Anyway, nobody able to shed any light on exactly how much various tax avoidance measures save? For a start, on a <£40K pay package, receiving, say, a third of that in dividends rather than PAYE is in the 'nice to have' rather than 'life changing' category.

And another thing, public services are not (yet) provided on the basis of how much tax you have paid in. If one is daft enough to pay twice for one's children's education, then consider it a trade-off for some other tax-efficient investments.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

The fair = % of income argument gets on my nerves, it also follows that the rich are paying substantially more tax for the same service / benefit. In fact they probably use less services than the "poorer" people.

Yeah, I don't buy this. To a certain extent, life is a zero sum game. Prosperity or otherwise doesn't happen independently of others. If you were to ship a load of millionaires to a special island with no poor people, the society wouldn't work.

Quite.

Furthermore, would said person have gotten rich had said person been born in outer Mongolia? Probably not. We owe what we earn more to the society we live in than people think...

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

The fair = % of income argument gets on my nerves, it also follows that the rich are paying substantially more tax for the same service / benefit. In fact they probably use less services than the "poorer" people.

Yeah, I don't buy this. To a certain extent, life is a zero sum game. Prosperity or otherwise doesn't happen independently of others. If you were to ship a load of millionaires to a special island with no poor people, the society wouldn't work.

The point was about the recent fixation on % of income being a measurement for fair and statements along the lines of "Mit Romney pays less tax than me". It wasn't a social comment on which system works best. I think statements such as these should tampered with how much the person actually pays. You cannot say for example you pay more tax than Mit Romney in a year, although I suspect his tax as % of income is less than yours, although that is what the initial headlines state.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

very important people

What? Important how? Anyway, nobody able to shed any light on exactly how much various tax avoidance measures save? For a start, on a <£40K pay package, receiving, say, a third of that in dividends rather than PAYE is in the 'nice to have' rather than 'life changing' category.

And another thing, public services are not (yet) provided on the basis of how much tax you have paid in. If one is daft enough to pay twice for one's children's education, then consider it a trade-off for some other tax-efficient investments.

I've seen it going from roughly 50% on 400k to roughly 10%.

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

very important people

What? Important how? Anyway, nobody able to shed any light on exactly how much various tax avoidance measures save? For a start, on a <£40K pay package, receiving, say, a third of that in dividends rather than PAYE is in the 'nice to have' rather than 'life changing' category.

And another thing, public services are not (yet) provided on the basis of how much tax you have paid in. If one is daft enough to pay twice for one's children's education, then consider it a trade-off for some other tax-efficient investments.

Sorry there should have been a comma in the orignal post. Should have been

The last point is very important, people using these schemes are paying significantly more tax than you or I.

:oops: :oops:

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

The fair = % of income argument gets on my nerves, it also follows that the rich are paying substantially more tax for the same service / benefit. In fact they probably use less services than the "poorer" people.

Yeah, I don't buy this. To a certain extent, life is a zero sum game. Prosperity or otherwise doesn't happen independently of others. If you were to ship a load of millionaires to a special island with no poor people, the society wouldn't work.

Quite.

Furthermore, would said person have gotten rich had said person been born in outer Mongolia? Probably not. We owe what we earn more to the society we live in than people think...

Totally. And I don't mind people being rewarded for their position in society (I'm aspirational too...) but they shouldn't forget that that position only exists because the society they're a part of supports it. Opting out by being a burden on the welfare system or avoiding your taxes undermines that. No moral judgement from me really, but if you do opt out, you shouldn't claim you're doing so because deserve it.

Kieran_Burns

notsoblue wrote:

dhope wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I doubt an orthodontist with an ISA would have been as newsworthy.

I reckon the papers could get their teeth into that story.

I've been bracing myself for a big expose.

True, true.... they could really drill down to the truth. However as always - it'll be an amalgam of lies and deceit, filling in for the honest approach

sketchley

The more I hear all the sides of the tax debate the more I am in favour of flat tax rate for all transactions however made with no exceptions. Has to be the most cost effective way of collecting tax and less open to abuse, all you need to do is prove a transaction was made and tax is payable. Simple. 20% should do it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Kieran_Burns wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

dhope wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I doubt an orthodontist with an ISA would have been as newsworthy.

I reckon the papers could get their teeth into that story.

I've been bracing myself for a big expose.

True, true.... they could really drill down to the truth. However as always - it'll be an amalgam of lies and deceit, filling in for the honest approach

Will it? Which bit?

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

The more I hear all the sides of the tax debate the more I am in favour of flat tax rate for all transactions however made with no exceptions. Has to be the most cost effective way of collecting tax and less open to abuse, all you need to do is prove a transaction was made and tax is payable. Simple. 20% should do it.

Would be interesting to see what the macro economic impact of that would be. Has anyone tried to model it?

rick_chasey

Kieran_Burns wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

dhope wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I doubt an orthodontist with an ISA would have been as newsworthy.

I reckon the papers could get their teeth into that story.

I've been bracing myself for a big expose.

True, true.... they could really drill down to the truth. However as always - it'll be an amalgam of lies and deceit, filling in for the honest approach

Perhaps they'll snatch it from the jaws of defeat. Gnawing them, they probably will.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

The more I hear all the sides of the tax debate the more I am in favour of flat tax rate for all transactions however made with no exceptions. Has to be the most cost effective way of collecting tax and less open to abuse, all you need to do is prove a transaction was made and tax is payable. Simple. 20% should do it.

Would be interesting to see what the macro economic impact of that would be. Has anyone tried to model it?

I guess so as Mr Osborne is on record as saying he favours it.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4220838.stm

sketchley

Stuff here too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

Looks like a few Eastern Bloc countries run it.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

dhope wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I doubt an orthodontist with an ISA would have been as newsworthy.

I reckon the papers could get their teeth into that story.

I've been bracing myself for a big expose.

True, true.... they could really drill down to the truth. However as always - it'll be an amalgam of lies and deceit, filling in for the honest approach

Perhaps they'll snatch it from the jaws of defeat. Gnawing them, they probably will.

I don't think its in the public interest though. Nobody caries.

clarkey cat

I thought it came out at 14:30?