snap general election?

ugo.santalucia

Shortfall wrote:

You're joking right? Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow, and David Beckham to name just three have been absolutely savaged in the press and media for aggressive tax avoidance.

And yet, there they are... on national TV, ambassadors of charity and good will and all

ugo.santalucia

Shortfall wrote:

Oh and Silvio Berlusconi's notorious tax avoidance didn't get in the way of him serving as Italy's prime minister in four governments!

Yes,with the caveat that a large part of the electorate hated him profoundly and the media (at least the ones he didn't own) lashed him at every opportunity.
He was the hero of tax avoiders of course

ugo.santalucia

meanredspider wrote:

I think you'll find each of those sportsmen were vilified in the press when they moved abroad. But we also recognise the right of people to live where they like. There's hardly an F1 driver that lives in his home country and most live in Monaco. In fact Monaco is probably the embodiment of what happens when you rack up taxes on the rich.

Of course they can... but maybe we should stop glorifying them as heroes.

If you look at kids online you are a paedo, but if you move abroad to avoid paying tax you are a hero... how's that fair? :roll:

shortfall

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

You're joking right? Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow, and David Beckham to name just three have been absolutely savaged in the press and media for aggressive tax avoidance.

And yet, there they are... on national TV, ambassadors of charity and good will and all

I'm not sure where you're going with this Ugo. Plenty of celebrities and sportsmen in the UK have been given a rough ride for participating in aggressive tax avoidance schemes which is the opposite of what you were suggesting. Some will continue as ambassadors of charity and so on because they're desperate to maintain their " brand" for commercial reasons or because they want a knighthood (or in Beckham's case both). But if you want to use Italy as a an example of how we should treat tax avoidance then I fear you're onto a loser.

rick_chasey

Economist backs the Lib Dems.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... shpolitics

The party leaders could hardly differ more in their style and beliefs. And yet a thread links the two possible winners of this election. Though they sit on different points of the left-right spectrum, the Tory and Labour leaders are united in their desire to pull up Britain’s drawbridge to the world. Both Mrs May and Mr Corbyn would each in their own way step back from the ideas that have made Britain prosper—its free markets, open borders and internationalism. They would junk a political settlement that has lasted for nearly 40 years and influenced a generation of Western governments (see article). Whether left or right prevails, the loser will be liberalism.

shortfall

ugo.santalucia wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I think you'll find each of those sportsmen were vilified in the press when they moved abroad. But we also recognise the right of people to live where they like. There's hardly an F1 driver that lives in his home country and most live in Monaco. In fact Monaco is probably the embodiment of what happens when you rack up taxes on the rich.

Of course they can... but maybe we should stop glorifying them as heroes.

If you look at kids online you are a paedo, but if you move abroad to avoid paying tax you are a hero... how's that fair? :roll:

There is no moral equivalence between paedophiles and people who want to legally shield their earnings from the taxman. An ISA is tax avoidance, so is a pension, and there are myriad other ways of using tax planning to shield your hard earned money but if you see paying tax as such a virtue you are free to overpay at whatever rate you see fit. We make heroes out of successful people because of what they do in their field of expertise, not where they choose to live.

ugo.santalucia

Shortfall wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I think you'll find each of those sportsmen were vilified in the press when they moved abroad. But we also recognise the right of people to live where they like. There's hardly an F1 driver that lives in his home country and most live in Monaco. In fact Monaco is probably the embodiment of what happens when you rack up taxes on the rich.

Of course they can... but maybe we should stop glorifying them as heroes.

If you look at kids online you are a paedo, but if you move abroad to avoid paying tax you are a hero... how's that fair? :roll:

There is no moral equivalence between paedophiles and people who want to legally shield their earnings from the taxman. An ISA is tax avoidance, so is a pension, and there are myriad other ways of using tax planning to shield your hard earned money but if you see paying tax as such a virtue you are free to overpay at whatever rate you see fit. We make heroes out of successful people because of what they do in their field of expertise, not where they choose to live.

As long as you are happy to pay extra to make up for the loss of revenue coming from those folks...

Of course with that attitude you are bound to have shoot services... there is no alternative... good luck with Theresa

shortfall

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I think you'll find each of those sportsmen were vilified in the press when they moved abroad. But we also recognise the right of people to live where they like. There's hardly an F1 driver that lives in his home country and most live in Monaco. In fact Monaco is probably the embodiment of what happens when you rack up taxes on the rich.

Of course they can... but maybe we should stop glorifying them as heroes.

If you look at kids online you are a paedo, but if you move abroad to avoid paying tax you are a hero... how's that fair? :roll:

There is no moral equivalence between paedophiles and people who want to legally shield their earnings from the taxman. An ISA is tax avoidance, so is a pension, and there are myriad other ways of using tax planning to shield your hard earned money but if you see paying tax as such a virtue you are free to overpay at whatever rate you see fit. We make heroes out of successful people because of what they do in their field of expertise, not where they choose to live.

As long as you are happy to pay extra to make up for the loss of revenue coming from those folks...

Of course with that attitude you are bound to have shoot services... there is no alternative... good luck with Theresa

The alternative is to have a tax regime that attracts rich people to pay tax here and that also encourages entrepreneurs and companies to do more of their business and set up their companies here. We tried Corbyn's policies in the 70s, the public services ground to a halt.

rjsterry

Ugo, perhaps this is of interest.

https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-we ... t-pay-tax/

This year the top 1% will pay 27% of all the income tax the government takes in. That’s down slightly on last year, but higher than the share in previous years.

Notwithstanding the cases mentioned above (which I suspect were driven more by the tax advice specialists looking for their margin than Sportsperson X desperately looking to reduce their tax bill), generally the highest earners are already doing most of the heavy lifting. Fundamentally HMRC wants to increase receipts and if a particular measure is more 'fair' but reduces overall receipts, is that actually a good idea?

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

Ugo, perhaps this is of interest.

https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-we ... t-pay-tax/

This year the top 1% will pay 27% of all the income tax the government takes in. That’s down slightly on last year, but higher than the share in previous years.

Notwithstanding the cases mentioned above (which I suspect were driven more by the tax advice specialists looking for their margin than Sportsperson X desperately looking to reduce their tax bill), generally the highest earners are already doing most of the heavy lifting. Fundamentally HMRC wants to increase receipts and if a particular measure is more 'fair' but reduces overall receipts, is that actually a good idea?

This.
If raising more revenue for public services was simply a case of increasing taxation then don't you think they'd have tried it?

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

But the Tories are coming after the middle income earners in any case..... in fact more than Labour will, so do you think May wont raise NI and carry on with Probate and further IHT and CT cuts, we dont know what Mays plans are because they are "perfectly clear..." not! but she has also committed to large rises in spending too but with no suggestion as to where this money will come from.
perhaps Ambers magic money tree, the one called bankruptcy, will provide any shortfall????? so she certainly knows how to avoid tax and leave SME's owed millions!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ds-8972936

You are aware that I said I wouldn't be voting Tory right? I did last time but they are just looking clueless at the moment. At least Labour have some policies, I just don't see how they can be delivered from some possible extra corporation tax and personal taxation on top earners. If I though they could then I would vote for them but they will either end up paying by borrowing or failing to deliver in which case there's no point voting for them.

bendertherobot

Thanet MP charged by Police for breach of expenses.

Jez mon

bendertherobot wrote:

Thanet MP charged by Police for breach of expenses.

But Theresa said they'd not done nuffink wrong.

bendertherobot

To be fair, it's only one. She can cast him adrift.......

Jez mon

To be fair, I haven't followed this case too closely, but if there has been wrong doing, is it really conceivable that only the MP was aware of it?

Also, the party are standing by him atm. I guess in a way, it's a reassuring to see they won't just throw him under the bus.

bendertherobot

Jez mon wrote:

To be fair, I haven't followed this case too closely, but if there has been wrong doing, is it really conceivable that only the MP was aware of it?

Also, the party are standing by him atm. I guess in a way, it's a reassuring to see they won't just throw him under the bus.

They've charged his agents too. The other MP's weren't proceeded with as the law is complex and there was either no evidence and/or not in the public interest. On the back of those complex investigations they have decided to proceed with this one.

Bobbinogs

Interesting development given that it was Farage that was beaten in that one!

letap73

rjsterry wrote:

Ugo, perhaps this is of interest.

https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-we ... t-pay-tax/

This year the top 1% will pay 27% of all the income tax the government takes in. That’s down slightly on last year, but higher than the share in previous years.

Notwithstanding the cases mentioned above (which I suspect were driven more by the tax advice specialists looking for their margin than Sportsperson X desperately looking to reduce their tax bill), generally the highest earners are already doing most of the heavy lifting. Fundamentally HMRC wants to increase receipts and if a particular measure is more 'fair' but reduces overall receipts, is that actually a good idea?

The top 1% have also become disproportionally richer over the last twenty years. As one example a top premier footballer was happy to receive £5000 a week in 1992 - in 2017 you have top premier footballers on £200000 - £400000 a week. For sure those guys will be paying much more tax - albeit at a much smaller fraction of their salary. The same argument can be extended to the managing directors of the footsie 100. The median salary in the last 20 - 25 years has not risen in the same way.
In the UK the growing gap in wealth between the top 1% and the bottom 10% is alarming.

bendertherobot

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ju ... lide-wales

Labour landslide in Wales..........................

Scully will come in for some criticism, but he only discusses polls, and does so with impartiality.

rick_chasey

A non-YouGov poll puts Tories at 45, Labour at 40.

Last election, 40 would have got labour near enough to winning.

meanredspider

Most of these high earners earn their money globally so why should they pay their tax in the nation of their birth rather than their tax residence? Ugo, assuming you were born in Italy, why aren't you paying tax there (maybe you do)? I'm guessing it's because you're resident (for tax purposes) in the UK. I don't suppose either Button or Hamilton are a heavy burden on the UK state. The businesses they work for (McLaren and Mercedes GP) generate UK employment and tax receipts for the Treasury and their success drives revenue for those companies which, in turn, invest in the UK.

It's a balancing act. The reason why there's such a thriving black economy in Belgium is because taxes are very high - there's a much larger incentive to cheat the system.

Stevo_666

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

Do you really think the tax will come from those people? To raise the money to fund their pledges they are going to have to spread their nets wider than people who can afford good tax lawyers / accountants. So they either won't deliver the pledges or they'll come after middle earners.
.

Aren't these the people we should get rid of?

It seems the nation is attached to a bunch of tax avoiders who allegedly are so important to the economy that we have to do anything possible to keep them...

This is a country that loves a bit of tax avoidance... the love affair with Andy Murray, Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button is very indicative of the attitute towards taxation.

In Italy people don't like to pay tax as much as here, but at least the press gave a lot of stick to Cipollini for moving his residence to Monaco... here instead they get rewarded with personality of the year awards...

Get rid of the fuk-ers

Define what you see as tax avoidance and maybe explain why somebody should be thrown out of the country for something that is not against the law?

And maybe take your rosy specs off when it comes to Italy and tax. It's a national sport over there, partly because of the high rates.

Stevo_666

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm leaning towards Lib Dem just because they seem to be the only bit of centre ground. I know they won't get in for my constituency but I don't like the way the Tory campaign has gone and whilst I surprisingly quite like some of what Labour have said it seems the only way it can be delivered is by taxing people at an unsustainable rate.

Wait a minute... what Corbyn proposes is less tax than under Blair, which was a golden age until the big crunch (certainly not down to taxation).
Unsustainable? Com'on... we are talking corporation tax...

We collect more corporation tax now when the rate last year was 20% than when Labour left power in 2010 and the rate was 28% - go figure. So if the rate goes back up...

Add to that, corporation tax reductions stimulate investment and activity that drives other tax receipts - I have posted this before but here you go:
http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html
There is a deliberate move away from CT in relative terms and towards other taxes. The overall effect is more tax collection overall.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

A non-YouGov poll puts Tories at 45, Labour at 40.

Last election, 40 would have got labour near enough to winning.

So on this, Guardian journos saying MPs they have been speaking to in a variety of seats are not seeing this reflected on the doorstep. At all.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

We collect more corporation tax now when the rate last year was 20% than when Labour left power in 2010 and the rate was 28% - go figure. l.

Is that in real terms? As a proportion of corporate output?

Or in gross terms?

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

A non-YouGov poll puts Tories at 45, Labour at 40.

Last election, 40 would have got labour near enough to winning.

So on this, Guardian journos saying MPs they have been speaking to in a variety of seats are not seeing this reflected on the doorstep. At all.

Some journos reporting the pollsters aren't confident about their numbers either.

Pross

Well my mind is made up, there's a stunning young woman in the restaurant I'm in with a load of Vote Labour stuff. That seems as good a way to make a choice as much of the policy stuff that has been churned out!

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

A non-YouGov poll puts Tories at 45, Labour at 40.

Last election, 40 would have got labour near enough to winning.

So on this, Guardian journos saying MPs they have been speaking to in a variety of seats are not seeing this reflected on the doorstep. At all.

Some journos reporting the pollsters aren't confident about their numbers either.

Where is the lack of confidence coming in? Is it a general lack of confidence in the art of polling after the Brexit and trump results? Is it to do with the polls for the last general election?

Are there more likely to be shy labourites this time around? There seems to be far more vitriol towards Corbyn and his fans than there ever was towards Milliband...

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

We collect more corporation tax now when the rate last year was 20% than when Labour left power in 2010 and the rate was 28% - go figure. l.

Is that in real terms? As a proportion of corporate output?

Or in gross terms?

Absolute amounts.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

I'm leaning towards Lib Dem just because they seem to be the only bit of centre ground. I know they won't get in for my constituency but I don't like the way the Tory campaign has gone and whilst I surprisingly quite like some of what Labour have said it seems the only way it can be delivered is by taxing people at an unsustainable rate.

Wait a minute... what Corbyn proposes is less tax than under Blair, which was a golden age until the big crunch (certainly not down to taxation).
Unsustainable? Com'on... we are talking corporation tax...

We collect more corporation tax now when the rate last year was 20% than when Labour left power in 2010 and the rate was 28% - go figure. So if the rate goes back up...

Add to that, corporation tax reductions stimulate investment and activity that drives other tax receipts - I have posted this before but here you go:
http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html
There is a deliberate move away from CT in relative terms and towards other taxes. The overall effect is more tax collection overall.

I can see your point but why does Germany do so well with productivity/growth/training and investment, yet has an overall CT of some 35%
Can't investment in plant and machinery etc be offset, yet despite such historically low CT rates, companies in the UK arent investing?