Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

That's one way of looking at it, but I'm asking you what the highest rate is that you personally would tolerate.

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.

OK, not asking you to disclose your income.

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 know you weren't; as I said it would depend on what I was earning as that went up I would be more relaxed about what the rate was. I don't think people's 'limit' is determined by what they consider reasonable (although they might rationalise it as that). I think it's a straightforward cost:benefit analysis. All these mitigation schemes cost something to implement - even cycle-to-work or ISAs albeit just your own time. If that cost outweighs the tax saving it's not worth doing. So the answer to your question is people will tolerate a rate of tax at which the costs of whatever mitigation schemes are available start to outweigh the savings.

Matthewfalle

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

Selling clothes pegs and lucky holly,

Ben6899

If I may play Devil's advocate? Personally, I think the 40% and 45% rates are taking the p1ss.

20% of £60k is already a considerably larger contribution than 20% of £20k. Higher earners already pay more, don't they?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

That's one way of looking at it, but I'm asking you what the highest rate is that you personally would tolerate.

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.

OK, not asking you to disclose your income.

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

Whatever is calculated as optimal, between putting people off earning money/encouraging excessive squirreling/dodging, and generating the best return.

Just like you'd price your product; in this case, the product is living/doing business/buying in the UK, and all the benefits that entails; rule of law, policing, fire, health, blah blah blah.

pblakeney

Ben6899 wrote:

If I may play Devil's advocate? Personally, I think the 40% and 45% rates are taking the p1ss.

20% of £60k is already a considerably larger contribution than 20% of £20k. Higher earners already pay more, don't they?

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

Jez mon

Ben6899 wrote:

If I may play Devil's advocate? Personally, I think the 40% and 45% rates are taking the p1ss.

20% of £60k is already a considerably larger contribution than 20% of £20k. Higher earners already pay more, don't they?

So would you suggest a flat rate?

I think where the higher rates might feel unfair, is in the higher end of white collar professional roles. i.e. after the higher brackets have kicked in, but before we get into the realms of the mega rich and their exotic ways of buying a private jet.

Fortunately, I'm some way off hitting the higher thresholds...

hopkinb

At £210k pa, if the individual puts 15% of salary into a pension, effective tax rate is 35%. If no pension contributions, effective tax rate is 42%.

At £125k pa, with 15% pension contrib, effective tax rate is 31%, with no pension contribution, it's 39%.

Obviously the lower rate reflects the fact that tax will eventually be paid when the individual takes their pension, but those rates seem reasonable when comparing to other developed countries.

kingstongraham

hopkinb wrote:

At £210k pa, if the individual puts 15% of salary into a pension, effective tax rate is 35%. If no pension contributions, effective tax rate is 42%.

At £125k pa, with 15% pension contrib, effective tax rate is 31%, with no pension contribution, it's 39%.

Obviously the lower rate reflects the fact that tax will eventually be paid when the individual takes their pension, but those rates seem reasonable when comparing to other developed countries.

At £210k pa, there's no tax relief on pension contributions over £10k per year. So if they did that, they would pay almost another £10k tax on that 15% going to the pension. Like I said, they have it really hard, I don't know why they bother.

surrey_commuter

hopkinb wrote:

At £210k pa, if the individual puts 15% of salary into a pension, effective tax rate is 35%. If no pension contributions, effective tax rate is 42%.

At £125k pa, with 15% pension contrib, effective tax rate is 31%, with no pension contribution, it's 39%.

Obviously the lower rate reflects the fact that tax will eventually be paid when the individual takes their pension, but those rates seem reasonable when comparing to other developed countries.

I work with a bloke who through bonuses ended up earning £110k which got him a letter from the tax man asking for £6,200 of the last £10k. Or he could put £3,800 into his pension and they would pay £6,200 into it.

How much tax do they collect between £100-125K? if they were not withdrawing the personal allowance the chap would have not even thought about it and PAYE'd £4k on the £10k.

hopkinb

KingstonGraham wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

At £210k pa, if the individual puts 15% of salary into a pension, effective tax rate is 35%. If no pension contributions, effective tax rate is 42%.

At £125k pa, with 15% pension contrib, effective tax rate is 31%, with no pension contribution, it's 39%.

Obviously the lower rate reflects the fact that tax will eventually be paid when the individual takes their pension, but those rates seem reasonable when comparing to other developed countries.

At £210k pa, there's no tax relief on pension contributions over £10k per year. So if they did that, they would pay almost another £10k tax on that 15% going to the pension. Like I said, they have it really hard, I don't know why they bother.

I'd probably protest by packing it in and getting a job doing 40 hours a week at minimum wage. That would show them, I'd pay much less tax then.

Stevo_666

hopkinb wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

At £210k pa, if the individual puts 15% of salary into a pension, effective tax rate is 35%. If no pension contributions, effective tax rate is 42%.

At £125k pa, with 15% pension contrib, effective tax rate is 31%, with no pension contribution, it's 39%.

Obviously the lower rate reflects the fact that tax will eventually be paid when the individual takes their pension, but those rates seem reasonable when comparing to other developed countries.

At £210k pa, there's no tax relief on pension contributions over £10k per year. So if they did that, they would pay almost another £10k tax on that 15% going to the pension. Like I said, they have it really hard, I don't know why they bother.

I'd probably protest by packing it in and getting a job doing 40 hours a week at minimum wage. That would show them, I'd pay much less tax then.

That's avoidance

I've often argued that lazy f***ers are the biggest tax dodgers - after all they could be working harder, earning more money and paying more tax. But they choose not to and complain about others that do instead.

pblakeney

I’ve found that working hard has absolutely no correlation to salary.

hopkinb

Plenty people work farking hard for not a lot though, and plenty people do next to nothing for farking loads!

hopkinb

In my experience, people who rise to the top, do so by employing a mixture of plausible bullshyte, @rselicking and crucially, claiming credit for success, but delegating failure.

Pross

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.

That's because ethics are an individual thing. Tax evasion is wrong and I haven't seen anyone on here say otherwise, it's illegal and therefore there is no grey area. Tax avoidance is legal and in some cases encouraged by the Government itself such as with ISAs, pensions and salary sacrifice schemes. So at which shade of grey should we all become outraged? The ISAs, pensions, salary sacrificing for season tickets / child care vouchers / cycle to work scheme? Claiming a tax rebate for a professional subscription or because you have to clean your work uniform? A Director paying themselves a relatively small salary and then dividends based on company performance? Someone who sets up a load of shell companies for the sole purpose of exploiting tax laws and minimising tax liability? My own level of outrage is somewhere between the last two but is directed more at the law makers who enable it to occur. I don't have an issue with a person who is operating fully within the law that allows this when it should be easy to prevent as I've concluded it's intentional by the law makers to allow it to happen.

I also find the 'pay their fair share' argument an odd one. If someone pays 20% on £500k income then they are still paying 20 times that of someone paying 20% on a £25k income whilst probably using fewer tax payer funded services so there's a reasonable argument that they are already paying their fair share. If, however, they are managing to pay less gross tax (or not a significant amount extra) than the lower paid person then I would agree there's a problem. I've said on similar threads before that when people talk about the rich needing to pay more 'rich' is always someone wealthier than them. I don't see many £30k earners thinking they should have an extra couple of pence on tax for earnings over £20k.

cycleclinic

The rich did not get rich by giving it away to governments.

I dont think anyone has an obligation to pay more than they owe. If there is a way of legally not paying the tax it should be exploited. If we want less loophole frame the law that way and accept the downsides of that.

The whole argument of pay your fair share is faulty logic. What is meant is we the hard working British public want you the rich to pay for all the things we want but don't want to pay for.

A paper was published a number of years back that modelled wealth distribution using the maths of how polymer chains tangle because money behave the same way it sticks to the few. What the authors found is changing the tax system did not have a big impact on wealth distribution. Money sticks to money. You can change how easily money moves and easier it can move but it will still stick to the few. The whole debate is bankrupt. If government wants to raise more funds tax more, increase wealth and ensure money can flow to where it is needed freely. Asking the rich to pay more does not work as you are asking human beings to not be inherantly selfishly human. If your tax policy relies on people less human it will fail, instead design a system that exploits human behaviour to maximise revenue, much like retailers exploit our behaviours to us to spend.

kingstongraham

thecycleclinic wrote:

Asking the rich to pay more does not work as you are asking human beings to not be inherantly selfishly human. If your tax policy relies on people less human it will fail, instead design a system that exploits human behaviour to maximise revenue, much like retailers exploit our behaviours to us to spend.

It shouldn't be "asking", it's a tax.

If you think paying tax should be made appealing like a retailer makes their offering appealing, what positive incentives can you put in place that would help that? There is currently a negative incentive that if you get caught doing something that is over the line, you pay a fine. And if you do something that might be over the line, the loophole might be closed retrospectively.

"If you pay tax, you get a nice civilised place to live in" doesn't seem to work on everyone.

cycleclinic

A nice civilised place well that is subjective.

Your suggesting that people should not exploit loopholes because the u. K will be a nicer place. I am not sure how the government having more to spend makes us more civilised. Our civility surely is within us and how we treat each other rather than through how much our governments spend. Tax is a contract. It is levied in return for something. The more you want the rich to pay even though they the more they will try to find loopholes. That is human nature after all there is only so much rich person can draw in services so the press, the left, some people want them to pay more than there fir share it seems.

There are many ways to look at this but asking people to go against human nature is self defeating and a failure to understand how money works. Asking some people to pay more when they already do is faulty logic to me.

If we want the government to be able to spend a bit more and i personally i do, we all have to contribute a bit more. If you want more spending but want others to pay when they already do then I'd say that's a bit selfish and wanting something for nothing. If we want the rich to pay more close the exemptions they exploit but that will restrict the flow of money. When money moves less freely we all get poorer. Inequality drops too potentially. There is no free lunch.

kingstongraham

thecycleclinic wrote:

A nice civilised place well that is subjective.

Your suggesting that people should not exploit loopholes because the u. K will be a nicer place. I am not sure how the government having more to spend makes us more civilised. Our civility surely is within us and how we treat each other rather than through how much our governments spend. Tax is a contract. It is levied in return for something. The more you want the rich to pay even though they the more they will try to find loopholes. That is human nature after all there is only so much rich person can draw in services so the press, the left, some people want them to pay more than there fir share it seems.

There are many ways to look at this but asking people to go against human nature is self defeating and a failure to understand how money works. Asking some people to pay more when they already do is faulty logic to me.

If we want the government to be able to spend a bit more and i personally we all have to contribute a bit more. If we want the rich to pay more close the exemptions they exploit but that will restrict the flow of money. When money moves less freely we all get poorer. Inequality drops too potentially. There is no free lunch.

You said "design a system that exploits human behaviour to maximise revenue, much like retailers exploit our behaviours to us to spend." I was wondering what kind of thing you were thinking of.

Matthewfalle

hopkinb wrote:

Plenty people work farking hard for not a lot though, and plenty people do next to nothing for farking loads!

H3 is again 100% correct.

generally the people who say that thay have a had a really hard horrific day and and need a drink haven't been working a 12 hour shift in a factory/mine, haven't been dealing with the effluent of society or scraping pieces of people up or doing all the other unsavoury jobs thst need doing that people like Rick look down on.

rick_chasey

Alright Matthew, calm down.

Gotta at least be vaguely on point when it comes to insulting.

Given most of us are on here posting during working hours, none of us can claim real hardship at work.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alright Matthew, calm down.

Gotta at least be vaguely on point when it comes to insulting.

Given most of us are on here posting during working hours, none of us can claim real hardship at work.

Really?

robert88

What we need is a local income tax instead of a national one. After all if the tax is paid into a pot administered by people who live a few doors away then they'd be a bit more careful what they did with it.

What's more if it was a community with lots of billionaires and the roads were full of potholes, blah, blah, it'd be a bit suspicious, no?

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

He's Welsh not Irish, that's where Rick went wrong.
Running brothels. That's what he meant when he said 'properties'.

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

He's Welsh not Irish, that's where Rick went wrong.
Running brothels. That's what he meant when he said 'properties'.

Emporioums, as Edwyn calls them .......

Matthewfalle

Robert88 wrote:

What we need is a local income tax instead of a national one. After all if the tax is paid into a pot administered by people who live a few doors away then they'd be a bit more careful what they did with it.

What's more if it was a community with lots of billionaires and the roads were full of potholes, blah, blah, it'd be a bit suspicious, no?

Shush that man - no more sensible suggestions like that.

You mean people looking after their immediate area and therefore seeing a return on their taxes?

pinno

Robert88 wrote:

What we need is a local income tax instead of a national one. After all if the tax is paid into a pot administered by people who live a few doors away then they'd be a bit more careful what they did with it.

What's more if it was a community with lots of billionaires and the roads were full of potholes, blah, blah, it'd be a bit suspicious, no?

Dumfries and Galloway Council are subsidised by ooh, millions by the Scottish Executive, same as all councils are funded by central government. In rural areas, we would probably pay far too much in Council tax whereas, rich areas in Cities would pay much less.
I watched that program about a bog standard 1 bedroom flat in Chelsea worth £850k. The occupant paid something like £700 pa council tax. I pay £1290 for my 3 bedroom house. I just looked up the Council Tax Band for the equivalent Band in Chelsea and Kensington and it's £1052 per annum.
There would be wide disparities in local taxes but I would go along with ring fenced local taxes, i'e taxes paid towards specific services.

kingstongraham

Matthewfalle wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

What we need is a local income tax instead of a national one. After all if the tax is paid into a pot administered by people who live a few doors away then they'd be a bit more careful what they did with it.

What's more if it was a community with lots of billionaires and the roads were full of potholes, blah, blah, it'd be a bit suspicious, no?

Shush that man - no more sensible suggestions like that.

You mean people looking after their immediate area and therefore seeing a return on their taxes?

Like a council tax?

Stevo_666

hopkinb wrote:

In my experience, people who rise to the top, do so by employing a mixture of plausible bullshyte, @rselicking and crucially, claiming credit for success, but delegating failure.

Dammit, rumbled :P Apart from the arris licking that is, I delegate that.

You know what they say, sh1t trickles downwards and credit trickles upwards...

ballysmate

Pinno wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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?

He's Welsh not Irish, that's where Rick went wrong.
Running brothels. That's what he meant when he said 'properties'.

So Holly isn't so lucky after all is she?