Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)
Comments
-
0% is not an option though. Same question to you - pick a percentage. One that's on the listmamba80 wrote:
Naive question with no context, people would vote for 0% !!!
tax evasion/avoidance has been going on for centuries, even Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
People are greedy, if they can cut Vat owed, they ll fiddle their income tax too, what ever the rate of either, as illustrated very well by LH, as if he needs to cut the amount of VAT paid.
And as you quite rightly say, its human nature some people are railing against here."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:mamba80 wrote:
Naive question with no context, people would vote for 0% !!!
tax evasion/avoidance has been going on for centuries, even Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
People are greedy, if they can cut Vat owed, they ll fiddle their income tax too, what ever the rate of either, as illustrated very well by LH, as if he needs to cut the amount of VAT paid.
0% is not an option though. Same question to you - pick a percentage. One that's on the list
And as you quite rightly say, its human nature some people are railing against here.
i vote for..... Progressive taxation! starting at 10% going up to 60% for earnings say above 750k/1m perhaps 4 or 5 bands.
Human nature, its as you elude too, would nt matter if VAT was 1, 3 or 5% or we had a truly progressive system, people will try to avoid paying it... but above all rules must equally apply to all people.
Its why i always liked the idea of an EU wide tax system, of course i can understand why the UK wouldnt lol.0 -
Fair enough!mamba80 wrote:
i vote for..... Progressive taxation! starting at 10% going up to 60% for earnings say above 750k/1m perhaps 4 or 5 bands.
Human nature, its as you elude too, would nt matter if VAT was 1, 3 or 5% or we had a truly progressive system, people will try to avoid paying it... but above all rules must equally apply to all people.
Its why i always liked the idea of an EU wide tax system, of course i can understand why the UK wouldnt lol.
And considering your own income, what is the highest percentage rate that you would be prepared to bear?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Rick point is that people and businesses should just pay whatever is asked and anything else is just 'cheap mitigation'. So, question to you and Rick:rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Why some people don't get this and think that people/businesses will simply stump up whatever tax is asked of them is beyond me.Surrey Commuter wrote:or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it
Businesses work hard to make a profit - selling for the best price, negotiating deals with suppliers etc. And yet when it comes to the last line in the P&L - tax - they are seemingly expected to say to their local tax authority - go on Mr Taxman, take as much as you want (which in many countries they will do if given the chance). There a few countries in which we operate which if we simply rolled over and gave in to what the taxman asked for in an audit, we would make an after tax loss - in which case why not just shut up shop there as we'd be better off.
"Reasonable" means different things to different people. It's skating rather close to what Rick was saying. To paraphrase a contractor on one of my projects, if we all agreed what a fair and reasonable assessment of the costs was, A lot of consultants would be out of a job.
At what level of income tax would you say 'that's enough'? Just pick one of the following percentages that is closest to what you think is on the limit :
50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.
I think you misunderstood my point, which was aimed at SC arguing for a 'reasonable' tax rate. If you set the rate at 2% someone would still say it was unfair and they couldn't make ends meet. The aim should be to find the optimum rate to maximise receipts, rather than worrying about whether anyone thinks it is reasonable. I'm not sure governments always find that optimum and there is the complicating factor of using taxes to influence behaviour. You also seem to have missed that I don't think Rick's idea is remotely realistic. I don't have a huge problem with people looking for opportunities in the tax legislation.
As for what rate of personal income tax is right, I'm comfortable with what I pay now. As I said whatever rate gets the best receipts.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Fair enough!mamba80 wrote:
i vote for..... Progressive taxation! starting at 10% going up to 60% for earnings say above 750k/1m perhaps 4 or 5 bands.
Human nature, its as you elude too, would nt matter if VAT was 1, 3 or 5% or we had a truly progressive system, people will try to avoid paying it... but above all rules must equally apply to all people.
Its why i always liked the idea of an EU wide tax system, of course i can understand why the UK wouldnt lol.
And considering your own income, what is the highest percentage rate that you would be prepared to bear?
jeez that sounds like a Monkeyme survey question.......
yeah happy for higher rate to go to 50% BUT the threshold has been eroded over the last few years and would need upping too.
but as i said, there needs to be far more progression in our taxation system, so higher rate 50% but more bands below too.
I m not against any form of incentive, infact they are vital, however, needs to be fair and seen to be fair, in law not someones subjective judgement.0 -
That's one way of looking at it, but I'm asking you what the highest rate is that you personally would tolerate.rjsterry wrote:
I think you misunderstood my point, which was aimed at SC arguing for a 'reasonable' tax rate. If you set the rate at 2% someone would still say it was unfair and they couldn't make ends meet. The aim should be to find the optimum rate to maximise receipts, rather than worrying about whether anyone thinks it is reasonable. I'm not sure governments always find that optimum and there is the complicating factor of using taxes to influence behaviour. You also seem to have missed that I don't think Rick's idea is remotely realistic. I don't have a huge problem with people looking for opportunities in the tax legislation.
As for what rate of personal income tax is right, I'm comfortable with what I pay now. As I said whatever rate gets the best receipts."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And P.S. don't be shy Rick "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
TheBigBean wrote:Doping in France is illegal, yet there have been hardly any prosecutions. That doesn't mean cyclists doping in France have committed no wrong it just means it is hard to prove. Tax is the same.
What?! and get rid of the half dozen, half decent cyclists they have in the process?
Right, where was I? Oh yes, page 10.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Rick point is that people and businesses should just pay whatever is asked and anything else is just 'cheap mitigation'. So, question to you and Rick:rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Why some people don't get this and think that people/businesses will simply stump up whatever tax is asked of them is beyond me.Surrey Commuter wrote:or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it
Businesses work hard to make a profit - selling for the best price, negotiating deals with suppliers etc. And yet when it comes to the last line in the P&L - tax - they are seemingly expected to say to their local tax authority - go on Mr Taxman, take as much as you want (which in many countries they will do if given the chance). There a few countries in which we operate which if we simply rolled over and gave in to what the taxman asked for in an audit, we would make an after tax loss - in which case why not just shut up shop there as we'd be better off.
"Reasonable" means different things to different people. It's skating rather close to what Rick was saying. To paraphrase a contractor on one of my projects, if we all agreed what a fair and reasonable assessment of the costs was, A lot of consultants would be out of a job.
At what level of income tax would you say 'that's enough'? Just pick one of the following percentages that is closest to what you think is on the limit :
50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.
I think you misunderstood my point, which was aimed at SC arguing for a 'reasonable' tax rate. If you set the rate at 2% someone would still say it was unfair and they couldn't make ends meet. The aim should be to find the optimum rate to maximise receipts, rather than worrying about whether anyone thinks it is reasonable. I'm not sure governments always find that optimum and there is the complicating factor of using taxes to influence behaviour. You also seem to have missed that I don't think Rick's idea is remotely realistic. I don't have a huge problem with people looking for opportunities in the tax legislation.
As for what rate of personal income tax is right, I'm comfortable with what I pay now. As I said whatever rate gets the best receipts.
My argument is that the optimum rate is that which people think is reasonable.
Personally I think taking half or more of somebody's income in tax is totally wrong.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:mamba80 wrote:
Naive question with no context, people would vote for 0% !!!
tax evasion/avoidance has been going on for centuries, even Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
People are greedy, if they can cut Vat owed, they ll fiddle their income tax too, what ever the rate of either, as illustrated very well by LH, as if he needs to cut the amount of VAT paid.
0% is not an option though. Same question to you - pick a percentage. One that's on the list
And as you quite rightly say, its human nature some people are railing against here.
i vote for..... Progressive taxation! starting at 10% going up to 60% for earnings say above 750k/1m perhaps 4 or 5 bands.
Human nature, its as you elude too, would nt matter if VAT was 1, 3 or 5% or we had a truly progressive system, people will try to avoid paying it... but above all rules must equally apply to all people.
Its why i always liked the idea of an EU wide tax system, of course i can understand why the UK wouldnt lol.
People and corporations will not pay the current rates which are significantly less than 60% so I am not sure what makes you think that this would work.
I used to have hope but when I read the case of an English manager getting off on tax evasion at trial I questioned the ability of juries to rule on anything remotely complicated. I mean who registers assets in the name of his dog other than good old Harry redknapp then pleads that he is just a simple soul.0 -
Agree. An individual should be able to keep more than half of what they make. 40% tops IMO. Worked perfectly well from the late 80's to 2010.Surrey Commuter wrote:rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Rick point is that people and businesses should just pay whatever is asked and anything else is just 'cheap mitigation'. So, question to you and Rick:rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Why some people don't get this and think that people/businesses will simply stump up whatever tax is asked of them is beyond me.Surrey Commuter wrote:or reduce tax levels to a rate where people think they are reasonable and are happy to pay it
Businesses work hard to make a profit - selling for the best price, negotiating deals with suppliers etc. And yet when it comes to the last line in the P&L - tax - they are seemingly expected to say to their local tax authority - go on Mr Taxman, take as much as you want (which in many countries they will do if given the chance). There a few countries in which we operate which if we simply rolled over and gave in to what the taxman asked for in an audit, we would make an after tax loss - in which case why not just shut up shop there as we'd be better off.
"Reasonable" means different things to different people. It's skating rather close to what Rick was saying. To paraphrase a contractor on one of my projects, if we all agreed what a fair and reasonable assessment of the costs was, A lot of consultants would be out of a job.
At what level of income tax would you say 'that's enough'? Just pick one of the following percentages that is closest to what you think is on the limit :
50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.
I think you misunderstood my point, which was aimed at SC arguing for a 'reasonable' tax rate. If you set the rate at 2% someone would still say it was unfair and they couldn't make ends meet. The aim should be to find the optimum rate to maximise receipts, rather than worrying about whether anyone thinks it is reasonable. I'm not sure governments always find that optimum and there is the complicating factor of using taxes to influence behaviour. You also seem to have missed that I don't think Rick's idea is remotely realistic. I don't have a huge problem with people looking for opportunities in the tax legislation.
As for what rate of personal income tax is right, I'm comfortable with what I pay now. As I said whatever rate gets the best receipts.
My argument is that the optimum rate is that which people think is reasonable.
Personally I think taking half or more of somebody's income in tax is totally wrong."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
That's one way of looking at it, but I'm asking you what the highest rate is that you personally would tolerate.rjsterry wrote:
I think you misunderstood my point, which was aimed at SC arguing for a 'reasonable' tax rate. If you set the rate at 2% someone would still say it was unfair and they couldn't make ends meet. The aim should be to find the optimum rate to maximise receipts, rather than worrying about whether anyone thinks it is reasonable. I'm not sure governments always find that optimum and there is the complicating factor of using taxes to influence behaviour. You also seem to have missed that I don't think Rick's idea is remotely realistic. I don't have a huge problem with people looking for opportunities in the tax legislation.
As for what rate of personal income tax is right, I'm comfortable with what I pay now. As I said whatever rate gets the best receipts.
Not sure I can answer that properly without divulging more about my personal circumstances than I'm comfortable with on a public forum. It would vary depending on my income. It would also depend on what I received in return. I could probably live with a penny on income tax if that's what you are asking. No I don't think hiking taxes for "the rich" whoever they are is a good idea.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I dunno either. All I know is that at some point, I will have to pay the plasterers and whether I pay them cash or a bill with VAT in top, i'm still going to get fleeced.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Pinno wrote:I dunno either. All I know is that at some point, I will have to pay the plasterers and whether I pay them cash or a bill with VAT in top, i'm still going to get fleeced.
Better to get fleeced and have flat walls and ceilings than save a bit of money and have to look at pi**ed walls and ceilings that you have to hide from the light.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Pinno wrote:I dunno either. All I know is that at some point, I will have to pay the plasterers and whether I pay them cash or a bill with VAT in top, i'm still going to get fleeced.
Better to get fleeced and have flat walls and ceilings than save a bit of money and have to look at pi**ed walls and ceilings that you have to hide from the light.
How did you know my walls were p1ssed?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
United Kingdom
Gross salary £25,000
After tax £20,279
Tax rate 18.9%
Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,480
Tax rate 24.8%
Gross salary £100,000
After tax £65,780
Tax rate 34.3%
Long way from 60% or even 40%.... yet even with these relatively low rates, people still do all they can to avoid paying anything at all.
bottom line is do you want to invest in public services or not? because if i or a loved one gets a cancer diagnoses etc, i want the best treatment and drugs with no waiting around, when i ride my bike i dont want to have to go out on a mtb because the roads are to pot holed and i want our kids to have world beating education systems.... yet even amongst the more left of centre on here, keeping your cash at source is more important, whcih is sad really.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... stralia-us0 -
OK, not asking you to disclose your income.rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That's one way of looking at it, but I'm asking you what the highest rate is that you personally would tolerate.rjsterry wrote:
I think you misunderstood my point, which was aimed at SC arguing for a 'reasonable' tax rate. If you set the rate at 2% someone would still say it was unfair and they couldn't make ends meet. The aim should be to find the optimum rate to maximise receipts, rather than worrying about whether anyone thinks it is reasonable. I'm not sure governments always find that optimum and there is the complicating factor of using taxes to influence behaviour. You also seem to have missed that I don't think Rick's idea is remotely realistic. I don't have a huge problem with people looking for opportunities in the tax legislation.
As for what rate of personal income tax is right, I'm comfortable with what I pay now. As I said whatever rate gets the best receipts.
Not sure I can answer that properly without divulging more about my personal circumstances than I'm comfortable with on a public forum. It would vary depending on my income. It would also depend on what I received in return. I could probably live with a penny on income tax if that's what you are asking. No I don't think hiking taxes for "the rich" whoever they are is a good idea.
My point was that Rick's point that everyone should simply pay their taxes whatever rate or amount that may be, is simply rubbish. Everyone has their limit as I have demonstrated here. Rick knows this, which is why he is avoiding answering the question
And as for his statement that people who mitigate tax are cheap, well I can tell you from personal experience that isn't true
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.
The view seems to be anyone who doesn't fiddle there tax are idiots, or poor peasants.0 -
Moonbiker wrote:Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.
The view seems to be anyone who doesn't fiddle there tax are idiots, or poor peasants.
That's the impression I am getting on here. Not many have stated that tax avoidance or evasion is UNETHICAL or IMMORAL for our society.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Morals are like farts.
Everyone has them. No one is interested in anyone else's.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
mamba80 wrote:United Kingdom
Gross salary £25,000
After tax £20,279
Tax rate 18.9%
Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,480
Tax rate 24.8%
Gross salary £100,000
After tax £65,780
Tax rate 34.3%
Long way from 60% or even 40%.... yet even with these relatively low rates, people still do all they can to avoid paying anything at all.
bottom line is do you want to invest in public services or not? because if i or a loved one gets a cancer diagnoses etc, i want the best treatment and drugs with no waiting around, when i ride my bike i dont want to have to go out on a mtb because the roads are to pot holed and i want our kids to have world beating education systems.... yet even amongst the more left of centre on here, keeping your cash at source is more important, whcih is sad really.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... stralia-us
what does it look like for earning £125k ie when marginal rate is 60%+
rough maths suggests that he now takes home £75k and is paying 40% on everything.
Lets put him in for;
£10k in VAT
£3k in council tax
£3K in petrol/booze/fags/shares duty
£6k per annum land stamp duty
by now I reckon our hero is paying over half of his income in tax - with such high marginal rates no wonder he takes steps to not pay anymore tax0 -
Mr Goo wrote:Moonbiker wrote:Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.
The view seems to be anyone who doesn't fiddle there tax are idiots, or poor peasants.
That's the impression I am getting on here. Not many have stated that tax avoidance or evasion is UNETHICAL or IMMORAL for our society.
maybe because it is obvious? maybe we are waiting for he without sin to cast the first stone?
maybe you come across as being chippy and that is why you get the responses that you do
can you honestly say that you have never taken action to minimise the amount of tax that you pay. On the other side of the coin do you only claim benefits that you need rather than what you are entitled to?0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:United Kingdom
Gross salary £25,000
After tax £20,279
Tax rate 18.9%
Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,480
Tax rate 24.8%
Gross salary £100,000
After tax £65,780
Tax rate 34.3%
Long way from 60% or even 40%.... yet even with these relatively low rates, people still do all they can to avoid paying anything at all.
bottom line is do you want to invest in public services or not? because if i or a loved one gets a cancer diagnoses etc, i want the best treatment and drugs with no waiting around, when i ride my bike i dont want to have to go out on a mtb because the roads are to pot holed and i want our kids to have world beating education systems.... yet even amongst the more left of centre on here, keeping your cash at source is more important, whcih is sad really.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... stralia-us
what does it look like for earning £125k ie when marginal rate is 60%+
rough maths suggests that he now takes home £75k and is paying 40% on everything.
Lets put him in for;
£10k in VAT
£3k in council tax
£3K in petrol/booze/fags/shares duty
£6k per annum land stamp duty
by now I reckon our hero is paying over half of his income in tax - with such high marginal rates no wonder he takes steps to not pay anymore tax
Unless he already has a sizeable pension, he's putting 25k into a pension which is an approved way of deferring his tax to when he is likely to pay less.
If you want to feel sorry for someone, try someone earning £210,000, who pays the 45% tax rate, doesn't get any tax free allowance, and only gets tax relief on £10,000 of pension contributions. Those guys really have it tough.0 -
Pinno wrote:rjsterry wrote:Pinno wrote:I dunno either. All I know is that at some point, I will have to pay the plasterers and whether I pay them cash or a bill with VAT in top, i'm still going to get fleeced.
Better to get fleeced and have flat walls and ceilings than save a bit of money and have to look at pi**ed walls and ceilings that you have to hide from the light.
How did you know my walls were p1ssed?
Because they are well plastered?0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:United Kingdom
Gross salary £25,000
After tax £20,279
Tax rate 18.9%
Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,480
Tax rate 24.8%
Gross salary £100,000
After tax £65,780
Tax rate 34.3%
Long way from 60% or even 40%.... yet even with these relatively low rates, people still do all they can to avoid paying anything at all.
bottom line is do you want to invest in public services or not? because if i or a loved one gets a cancer diagnoses etc, i want the best treatment and drugs with no waiting around, when i ride my bike i dont want to have to go out on a mtb because the roads are to pot holed and i want our kids to have world beating education systems.... yet even amongst the more left of centre on here, keeping your cash at source is more important, whcih is sad really.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... stralia-us
what does it look like for earning £125k ie when marginal rate is 60%+
rough maths suggests that he now takes home £75k and is paying 40% on everything.
Lets put him in for;
£10k in VAT
£3k in council tax
£3K in petrol/booze/fags/shares duty
£6k per annum land stamp duty
by now I reckon our hero is paying over half of his income in tax - with such high marginal rates no wonder he takes steps to not pay anymore tax
Unless he already has a sizeable pension, he's putting 25k into a pension which is an approved way of deferring his tax to when he is likely to pay less.
If you want to feel sorry for someone, try someone earning £210,000, who pays the 45% tax rate, doesn't get any tax free allowance, and only gets tax relief on £10,000 of pension contributions. Those guys really have it tough.
Good point - Mamba can you do the calcs for £125k and £210k0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:United ...us
what...tax
...someone earning £210,000...Those guys really have it tough.
What?!
Tax bill of £120k on £210k pa (is that corrrect?). If you cannot live on £10k per month, then there's something very wrong there.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Moonbiker wrote:Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.
s.
I'm not so please don't taint me with that brush. I work for a living.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:United Kingdom
Gross salary £25,000
After tax £20,279
Tax rate 18.9%
Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,480
Tax rate 24.8%
Gross salary £100,000
After tax £65,780
Tax rate 34.3%
Long way from 60% or even 40%.... yet even with these relatively low rates, people still do all they can to avoid paying anything at all.
bottom line is do you want to invest in public services or not? because if i or a loved one gets a cancer diagnoses etc, i want the best treatment and drugs with no waiting around, when i ride my bike i dont want to have to go out on a mtb because the roads are to pot holed and i want our kids to have world beating education systems.... yet even amongst the more left of centre on here, keeping your cash at source is more important, whcih is sad really.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... stralia-us
what does it look like for earning £125k ie when marginal rate is 60%+
rough maths suggests that he now takes home £75k and is paying 40% on everything.
Lets put him in for;
£10k in VAT
£3k in council tax
£3K in petrol/booze/fags/shares duty
£6k per annum land stamp duty
by now I reckon our hero is paying over half of his income in tax - with such high marginal rates no wonder he takes steps to not pay anymore tax
Unless he already has a sizeable pension, he's putting 25k into a pension which is an approved way of deferring his tax to when he is likely to pay less.
If you want to feel sorry for someone, try someone earning £210,000, who pays the 45% tax rate, doesn't get any tax free allowance, and only gets tax relief on £10,000 of pension contributions. Those guys really have it tough.
You need to consider employer's NI too. That will help the argument. Although to be fair, I'm not exactly sure what the discussion is about.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Moonbiker wrote:Seems its true most cyclists are really accountants & lawyers theese days.
s.
I'm not so please don't taint me with that brush. I work for a living.
Tarmacing drives?0
