RBS Bankers arrested?

sketchley

And this looks like a good idea too. Scrap benefits, have flat tax with negative income tax for low earners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_i ... income_tax

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

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).

Not really.
It is not the gonks that make the rules, they simply enforce them.
It is their bosses you need to look at. Yes, your MP.
If he/she has been in power for over a year and not naive him/herself then it is a fair bet that they are set up as a limited company. Why do that? To avoid tax.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

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".

Well if you want to compare like with like, it ought really to be "salary evasion". But either way, it's fraud, so it is actually illegal.

It's perfectly possible to live life without paying most taxes i.e. evading them - but it's just as illegal as fraudulently claiming benefits.

rjsterry

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.

VATon everything then? So how would that effect money invested on your behalf - pension funds, stocks and shares ISAa, and so on - a tax on each individual transaction made by the fund manager, or a tax on the growth? What about straightforward interest paid by banks to savers? What about large sums gifted between close relatives/spouses?

VAT is as 'simple' as you describe, but there are already lots of complexities, particularly in the construction industry.

sketchley

rjsterry 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.

VATon everything then? So how would that effect money invested on your behalf - pension funds, stocks and shares ISAa, and so on - a tax on each individual transaction made by the fund manager, or a tax on the growth? What about straightforward interest paid by banks to savers? What about large sums gifted between close relatives/spouses?

VAT is as 'simple' as you describe, but there are already lots of complexities, particularly in the construction industry.

You miss the point. Every single transaction is subject to tax at flat rate. That is the whole point of flat rate. The relatively low rate is off is off set in having to pay it on everything, plus it much much simpler to administer and much much harder to evade or avoid. As soon as you start applying exceptions then it fall down very quickly, it all of nothing with flat rate*

*I'm aware of versions of flat rate mentioned in wikipedia article referenced earlier

rjsterry

Sketchley wrote:

rjsterry 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.

VATon everything then? So how would that effect money invested on your behalf - pension funds, stocks and shares ISAa, and so on - a tax on each individual transaction made by the fund manager, or a tax on the growth? What about straightforward interest paid by banks to savers? What about large sums gifted between close relatives/spouses?

VAT is as 'simple' as you describe, but there are already lots of complexities, particularly in the construction industry.

You miss the point. Every single transaction is subject to tax at flat rate. That is the whole point of flat rate. The relatively low rate is off is off set in having to pay it on everything, plus it much much simpler to administer and much much harder to evade or avoid. As soon as you start applying exceptions then it fall down very quickly, it all of nothing with flat rate*

*I'm aware of versions of flat rate mentioned in wikipedia article referenced earlier

No, my point was that 'transaction' is not as easy to define as might be thought. What do *you* mean by transaction?

sketchley

The transfer of money or asset from one person or company to another.

clarkey cat

charitable donations?

mtb-idle

clarkey cat wrote:

charitable donations?

and that's why flat rate taxes don't work

and that's why exceptions to flat rate taxes are made

and that's why loopholes appear

and that's why tax evasion/avoidance/mitigation/fraud/whatever other word you want to call it occurs

rjsterry

Sketchley wrote:

The transfer of money or asset from one person or company to another.

And you don't think this would lead to an explosion in cash-in-hand payment?

Stevo_666

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.

Been away for a bit and had to come back to this even though we've moved on to a flat tax discussion.

You miss the point NSB - while it's not illegal not to work or to claim legitimate benefits, I think it's fair to say that there is a moral case to be made for supporting yourself/family/whatever and not being a burden on others as far as possible. However if you re-read the case law above, it clearly states that taxpayers are morally (and legally) entitled to arrange their affairs to legally minimise their tax burden, i.e. tax avoidance is not only legal, it's moral as well :-)

This bit of tax law is quite significant as it chops the legs from under people who argue that there is some moral obligation to pay more tax than the rules allow. A big slap in the face for a key part of left wing thinking really.

Back to flat tax - a well thought out flat tax system could be a good thing. It would certainly make tax less punitive than it is in the UK at present and also reduce both evasion and avoidance as there would be far less need to do so. Not sure that taxing everything works as RJS said, but harmonisation of rates of different taxes, elimination of progressive rates and the simplification thorough reduced incentives/breaks etc IMO would be a positive thing.

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Been away for a bit and had to come back to this even though we've moved on to a flat tax discussion.

You miss the point NSB - while it's not illegal not to work or to claim legitimate benefits, I think it's fair to say that there is a moral case to be made for supporting yourself/family/whatever and not being a burden on others as far as possible. However if you re-read the case law above, it clearly states that taxpayers are morally (and legally) entitled to arrange their affairs to legally minimise their tax burden, i.e. tax avoidance is not only legal, it's moral as well :-)

Really? The law can dictate what is and isn't moral? Can any other legal eagles confirm that? I had no idea...

cyclingprop

Morality. Discuss. #Godwinslaw.

Stevo_666

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Been away for a bit and had to come back to this even though we've moved on to a flat tax discussion.

You miss the point NSB - while it's not illegal not to work or to claim legitimate benefits, I think it's fair to say that there is a moral case to be made for supporting yourself/family/whatever and not being a burden on others as far as possible. However if you re-read the case law above, it clearly states that taxpayers are morally (and legally) entitled to arrange their affairs to legally minimise their tax burden, i.e. tax avoidance is not only legal, it's moral as well :-)

Really? The law can dictate what is and isn't moral? Can any other legal eagles confirm that? I had no idea...

The quote above clearly refers to there being no moral obligation. It is taken from a tax case that was decided in a UK court of law, so it forms part of established case law in relation to tax. So in this case the answer is yes.

Anyhow, surely the law is intended to reflect to some extent what is regarded as moral, even if main purpose of the law is not to be a moral guide?

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Really? The law can dictate what is and isn't moral? Can any other legal eagles confirm that? I had no idea...

The quote above clearly refers to there being no moral obligation. It is taken from a tax case that was decided in a UK court of law, so it forms part of established case law in relation to tax. So in this case the answer is yes.

Anyhow, surely the law is intended to reflect to some extent what is regarded as moral, even if main purpose of the law is not to be a moral guide?

Yeah, I read your quote. I thought the only law that dictated morality was Sharia Law...

Stevo_666

Rick's gone very quiet on this one, wonder if he's on the 'road to Damascus'?

Anyway, my work here is done for now ;-)

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick's gone very quiet on this one, wonder if he's on the 'road to Damascus'?

Anyway, my work here is done for now ;-)

Yeah yeah.

The issue is this. By and large, only the people who have significant resources can afford the cost/effort to be tax efficient.

While that's all well and fine, in reality a) this is a 'benefit' that not everyone can receive and b) it works against the prinicple of a progessive tax system, which is what we have in place.

In light of those two things, I'm not happy with it.

Now, for sure, the more complicated the system is, the more holes there will be. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort to close those holes, nor should that stop people from criticising others for not engaging in the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

nor should that stop people from criticising others for not engaging in the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

That's an assumption that those people share your World view.
You will know by now that there are those that don't.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nor should that stop people from criticising others for not engaging in the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

That's an assumption that those people share your World view.
You will know by now that there are those that don't.

I'll still criticise. And papers will too.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nor should that stop people from criticising others for not engaging in the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

That's an assumption that those people share your World view.
You will know by now that there are those that don't.

I'll still criticise. And papers will too.

I am sure that will be a major concern to those who "maximise" their income.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nor should that stop people from criticising others for not engaging in the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

That's an assumption that those people share your World view.
You will know by now that there are those that don't.

I'll still criticise. And papers will too.

But as we've established above, your view is contrary to the principles of UK tax law :-)

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nor should that stop people from criticising others for not engaging in the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

That's an assumption that those people share your World view.
You will know by now that there are those that don't.

I'll still criticise. And papers will too.

I am sure that will be a major concern to those who "maximise" their income.

You'd be surprised how thin skinned they are.

That example of newsnight is a good one. They reported that this top civil servant got paid tax efficiently (i.e. into a business entity rather than his bank account) and he immediately had to change.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nor should that stop people from criticising others for not engaging in the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

That's an assumption that those people share your World view.
You will know by now that there are those that don't.

I'll still criticise. And papers will too.

But as we've established above, your view is contrary to the principles of UK tax law :-)

I'll say it again.

That prinicple of law is, in practice, not applicable to everyone. In fact, it's only applicable to well off people. The purpose of the progressive tax system, was to be that. Your above principle goes in the face of that, and that, from where I'm sitting, is incorrect.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

Define "a lot".

Because at the moment all you have done is replace one woolly concept (spirit) with another (a lot).

Whatever you earn, you should pay whatever tax the legislation compels you to pay. Whether that is "a lot" depends entirely on the tax legislation.

Or try this: the tax legislation says you pay 40% income tax. But a loophole means that if your payroll is run on a Sunday, you pay 20%.

What day would you like your payroll to be run?

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

Thing is if you earn a lot more than someone then you almost certainly pay more tax than they do. Or is what you are actually saying is the more you earn the higher the rate of tax you should pay....

MonkeyMonster

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

Thing is if you earn a lot more than someone then you almost certainly pay more tax than they do. Or is what you are actually saying is the more you earn the higher the rate of tax you should pay....

or rather they shouldn't be allowed to use loop holes/tax evasion strategies. tbh earn over say 150 grand a year and the tax rate should go up to 60 then 300 - 70 and then basically at 500k all earnings should nullify itself as tax.

If a company is doing so well that it can pay from than that it's charging too much for the service and should be fined for being greedy cnuts.

that'd rapidly reset some issues - never gonna happen obv.

sketchley

MonkeyMonster wrote:

.....

or rather they shouldn't be allowed to use loop holes/tax evasion strategies.....

Evasion is illegal no one is allowed to do it rich or poor. As for "loop holes" I'll assume you mean tax avoidance schemes, if you want to use one of those you have to declare it and HMRC will tell you if you can. They may then decide to close the scheme. I believe this is what actually happened with these RBS bankers, the scheme I believe was to do with film funding was used by a number of people to legally avoid tax through investment in UK film industry. If I remember correctly HMRC decide to close the scheme by limiting the amount invested that could be invested in this scheme and there by closed the loop hole.

rjsterry

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

Thing is if you earn a lot more than someone then you almost certainly pay more tax than they do. Or is what you are actually saying is the more you earn the higher the rate of tax you should pay....

or rather they shouldn't be allowed to use loop holes/tax evasion strategies. tbh earn over say 150 grand a year and the tax rate should go up to 60 then 300 - 70 and then basically at 500k all earnings should nullify itself as tax.

If a company is doing so well that it can pay from than that it's charging too much for the service and should be fined for being greedy cnuts.

that'd rapidly reset some issues - never gonna happen obv.

And to think me and Rick are tarred as the pinkos :shock:

bompington

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

the 'spirit' of the tax system, i.e. if you earn a lot you should pay a lot of tax.

Thing is if you earn a lot more than someone then you almost certainly pay more tax than they do. Or is what you are actually saying is the more you earn the higher the rate of tax you should pay....

or rather they shouldn't be allowed to use loop holes/tax evasion strategies. tbh earn over say 150 grand a year and the tax rate should go up to 60 then 300 - 70 and then basically at 500k all earnings should nullify itself as tax.

If a company is doing so well that it can pay from than that it's charging too much for the service and should be fined for being greedy cnuts.

that'd rapidly reset some issues - never gonna happen obv.

Or even better, let's string up all the kulaks from the nearest tree after a quick show trial in front of the local Workers' Committee!

sketchley

No idea if this is related....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... phole.html