RBS Bankers arrested?

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

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:

I must admit: I was surprised to see that a former North Korean Finance Minister was alive and well on this board.

Another name gets added to the list...

rjsterry

Looks like it. There can't be that many tax efficient film investment schemes.

MonkeyMonster

rjsterry wrote:

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

you see i also don't get a lot of the whole politcal colouring system... Everyone is mixed and even then the politicans are too so what course of life do you follow? I don't normally read any newspaper tbh but lets see if you can guess the one I do on occasion...

capped capitalism should work... and sketch I meant avoidance rather than evasion. Interesting if they do close that film sponsorship hole as I know one company that dealt with that specifically and made a lot of money with it too.

fundamentally after you reach the point of your money/savings etc making more money than your outgoings it's all about penis size...

the whole top 10 people owning more money than 75% of countries in the world put together etc... really? why has it got that bad...

we need superheroes stat.

cjcp

Since we're talking about tax, this is genius:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 202134888/

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I made a very clear point about the legality and morality of tax avoidance, backed up by the relevant bit of law and a simple explanation. I haven't seen any reasoned/supported rebuttal, so the point still stands: tax avoidance is both legal and moral as set out in tax case law.

Your point about it not bering available to everyone is rubbish. Everyone who pays tax can take some steps to reduce their tax bill, it's just a question of how much you can save. Obviously if you pay more tax, then you've got more to gain: that's life, get real.

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

I made a very clear point about the legality and morality of tax avoidance, backed up by the relevant bit of law and a simple explanation.

Yeah, you keep saying that.

Stevo_666

Actually let me put my last point in another way :-)

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'

'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

rick_chasey

That old chestnut.

*sigh*.

You can see my point right? What's the point of having a progressive tax when people at the top end can exploit loopholes?

IN THEORY those loopholes are available to anyone, but IN PRACTICE (which is what matters), only the rich can afford it.

Ergo - people get annoyed.

You can argue about whether you want a progressive tax system or not, but that's not what we're saying.

I'm saying, people at the top end exploiting loopholes defeats the point, and is of no value to anyone apart from a) those exploiting and b) those who are paid to help them do it.

clarkey cat

There can't be that many tax efficient film investment schemes.

I do a bit of work in this space for HNWs dumping cash into turkeys - sometimes they pay off as an investment in their own right (Crocodile Dundee for one) but essentially its gambling where you either you get your stake back - or you win.

Sounds nasty - except when you consider that a whole bunch of people get work by producing the turkey in the first place so its not all bad.

Stevo_666

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I made a very clear point about the legality and morality of tax avoidance, backed up by the relevant bit of law and a simple explanation.

Yeah, you keep saying that.

Yep, it seems Rick still has his fingers in his ears.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

That old chestnut.

*sigh*.

You can see my point right? What's the point of having a progressive tax when people at the top end can exploit loopholes?

IN THEORY those loopholes are available to anyone, but IN PRACTICE (which is what matters), only the rich can afford it.

Ergo - people get annoyed.

You can argue about whether you want a progressive tax system or not, but that's not what we're saying.

I'm saying, people at the top end exploiting loopholes defeats the point, and is of no value to anyone apart from a) those exploiting and b) those who are paid to help them do it.

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Edit: there are expensive ways of reducing your tax and there are inexpensive ways available to all - generally the man in the street doesn't need the expensive ones because he doesn't pay enough tax to make it worthwhile. It's like saying that wealth management services are unfair because only the well off can afford them - when it's only the well off that need them. Your argument fails.

Still waiting for a valid rebuttal.

dhope

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Stevo_666

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm saying, people at the top end exploiting loopholes defeats the point, and is of no value to anyone apart from a) those exploiting and b) those who are paid to help them do it.

A wee question Rick.
How do you get on with your clients?
Only curious.

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

BS

cyclingprop

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm saying, people at the top end exploiting loopholes defeats the point, and is of no value to anyone apart from a) those exploiting and b) those who are paid to help them do it.

A wee question Rick.
How do you get on with your clients?
Only curious.

Daviesee, I have to say I really admire your spoon.
I feel that my stirring efforts would be much more effective, with a similar instrument.
Pray tell, where did you get it ?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

I can see the theory, but any specific examples of this?

cyclingprop

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

I can see the theory, but any specific examples of this?

Example: I used taxes more often when they're cheaper. Therefore a pay more because I use them more often. I really hate it when they whack a surcharge on at New Year. And rate 3 is phenominal.

rjsterry

cyclingprop wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

I can see the theory, but any specific examples of this?

Example: I used taxes more often when they're cheaper. Therefore a pay more because I use them more often. I really hate it when they whack a surcharge on at New Year. And rate 3 is phenominal.

Badoom-tish.

cyclingprop

rjsterry wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

I can see the theory, but any specific examples of this?

Example: I used taxes more often when they're cheaper. Therefore a pay more because I use them more often. I really hate it when they whack a surcharge on at New Year. And rate 3 is phenominal.

Badoom-tish.

Couldn't resist

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

I can see the theory, but any specific examples of this?

Not sure if you saw the recent documentary about 'Putin and the West'? In one of the episodes Putin's finance minister was trying to sell to Putin that slashing personal tax rates to something like 15% (IIRC) would actually increase the tax take. They went through with it and it did.

Stevo_666

But to get back to the original point, what some of you are doing here is ignoring a piece of UK law because it doesn't fit in with your views.

So the question has to be asked: do you accept the law of the land? Yes or no.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

BS

Is it?
Flat tax works partly on exactly this principle - is that BS as well?

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm saying, people at the top end exploiting loopholes defeats the point, and is of no value to anyone apart from a) those exploiting and b) those who are paid to help them do it.

A wee question Rick.
How do you get on with your clients?
Only curious.

How d'ya think?

I'd be sacked if I didn't.

They don't expect me to be honest.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

But to get back to the original point, what some of you are doing here is ignoring a piece of UK law because it doesn't fit in with your views.

So the question has to be asked: do you accept the law of the land? Yes or no.

We're saying the law should be changed if that's the case.

HMRC are clearly taking a dim view of these guys' attempt to pay as little tax as possible.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

BS

Is it?
Flat tax works partly on exactly this principle - is that BS as well?

The general point that Stevo is making, which appears to be that we pay too much tax and that this is a problem for society because those who pay the most are upset by this, is BS. Also, repetition of the line that playing with the grey area between tax evasion and tax avoidance is moral, is also BS.

BS

Stevo_666

notsoblue wrote:

The general point that Stevo is making, which appears to be that we pay too much tax and that this is a problem for society because those who pay the most are upset by this, is BS. Also, repetition of the line that playing with the grey area between tax evasion and tax avoidance is moral, is also BS.

BS

Brilliant argument - it's BS because you want it to be. Who's got his fingers in his ears now

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But to get back to the original point, what some of you are doing here is ignoring a piece of UK law because it doesn't fit in with your views.

So the question has to be asked: do you accept the law of the land? Yes or no.

We're saying the law should be changed if that's the case.

HMRC are clearly taking a dim view of these guys' attempt to pay as little tax as possible.

That's a 'Yes' then. Thank you Rick, I rest my case :-)

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But to get back to the original point, what some of you are doing here is ignoring a piece of UK law because it doesn't fit in with your views.

So the question has to be asked: do you accept the law of the land? Yes or no.

We're saying the law should be changed if that's the case.

HMRC are clearly taking a dim view of these guys' attempt to pay as little tax as possible.

Well yes of course they are, HMRC want as much "in" as possible, legally or not.

Thankfully we have laws and judges to limit their ability to do so to be within the limits of tax law.

Just because HMRC take a "dim view" does not mean that the law needs to be changed.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The main reason why people are so keen to reduce their tax bill is that it's way too bl00dy high in the first place...

Nah, people would try to reduce what they pay if it were half what it currently is, same as they aim to earn more despite being comfortable.

Higher tax bill= more incentive to reduce it.
Lower tax bill = less incentive to reduce it and less to gain by doing so.

Cutting taxe rates can often increase the tax take and has done in the past.

BS

Is it?
Flat tax works partly on exactly this principle - is that BS as well?

The general point that Stevo is making, which appears to be that we pay too much tax and that this is a problem for society because those who pay the most are upset by this, is BS. Also, repetition of the line that playing with the grey area between tax evasion and tax avoidance is moral, is also BS.

BS

That's not what I read him saying (at least, not in the post you replied to).

The "law" has dealt with the moral point of being tax efficient - it's therefore clearly not "BS", although in your opinion the judgement might be incorrect.

Is it BS that cutting taxes can increase the tax rate?