DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Yes Peter that is a good point. It has made no difference to my taxes but it does make a difference to donations. I must say it is something that I have only been aware of in recent year, making online donations.
True Keith, it seems that even some charities have to pay their CEOs before money gets to the cause. Our friend Bono is quite good at this sort of thing.
Barry, the example you give is exactly the sort of tax planning that none of us could really dispute. You help people like us all to make the most of our savings, this will never be anything other than good. The issue is with grand scale tax planning (what I poke fun at in #11). This is not an old lady paying a few thousand pound less, this is international tax gymnastics, allowing large companies pay next to nothing back to the country they earn their money in/from. I had a friend down to stay last weekend and she works for a large firm in the city, in 'international tax planning'. I can assure you, this isn't about paying a flat simple rate, this is about paying as close to nothing as possible...regardless of the complexity of tax rates. This isn't about envy, simply ensuring that everyone IS actually doing their bit, unlike the likes Phillip Green, who legally does some pretty amazing tax stunts...he probably paid less in tax last year than the little old lady you mention.
I have no problem with paying more in, I do think it's needed. But I don't want to think I'm the only one. It's the language of 'gold plated pensions' that is one of envy, not the call for a fairer system where the more well off pay in proportionally ( sometimes floated as the idea of fairness).
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Darren... the point you are making about tax is why I am saying that the best way is to have simpler and lower taxes. HMRC will collect more revenue that way. There has always been a battle between revenue and taxpayers/advisers and the tax code has increased in complexity expedentially to try to plug it, but it never will and all you end up achieving is the opposite to what you want. Human nature is what you are up against. Remember that despite that 27% of Income tax is collected from the top 1% of earners (on over £150,000) and 53% from the top 10% (everyone over £48,000).
As for pensions, yes I can see the point about envy but remember that the 'gold plating' is justified as very few people outside the public sector can get defined benefit pensions that are fully indexed. The simple fact is that statistically most people are paying more through their taxes for public sector pensions than they can afford (or choose to afford) to pay into their own. Bear in mind as well that a recent survey shows that on a like for like job comparison the public sector are paid on average 7% more than the private sector. This combination is one that is not sustainable and is actually dangerous for the public sector employees iin the longer term.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
One from Reg
Dave Brown of The Independent
*************************************************************
.``Pussy ...pussy keep me happy and I will keep feeding you something..........not a lot``..........
*************************************************************
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Thanks PaulB.
New rift opened in the Coalition yesterday when Vince Cable said ``He was `Scandalised`by the Commons Accounts Committee report that leading companies are dodging taxes and added ministers had imposed tough new controls on the banks who committed industrial scale tax dodging and now needed to target the very rich individuals who don`t pay their share``...........we are all in this together??.......
Previously Ten Downing Street had denied that managers of HMC had bent its rules to favour major companies.
There is now a call to overhaul the HMC operations to remove the `Sweetheart` tax deals that exist.There is a need for an ``Open Society``and Transparency in Finance Johnnies past and present `normal` dealings.
HMRC`s permanent Secretary had 107 lunches with Large Companies in two years!!!!!!
There is no such thing as a free lunch..................there is always a pay back............but not normally this big!!!!!!
This is another rift that will not go away.
Senior Lib/Dem`s and ministers who are unhappy with tory policies may be looking for another Coalition............but Labour do not want Clegg and Danny Alexander.
Watch this space.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,890
well interesting times ahead
yes your right reg number 10 denied it all until it was proved
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
The complexities of the tax system may well need overhauling, but there is absolutely no reason or excuse for letting big businesses off of the tax they legitimately owe and as they can go back 7 years I understand, they should go back to those companies and demand it is paid.
Small businesses and individuals are hounded into prison and bankruptcy for non-payment of tax, it should apply across the board and the big busienssses owe larger amounts of course.
Roger
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Yes Roger, that is quite simply it!
Barry, I think you post raises more questions than it addresses.
Firstly it confirms the huge inequality that exists within our country. Although this is may not be seen a necessarily bad, it is quite telling that (supposedly) 80% of income tax comes from 11% of earners. It doesn't take a great deal of understanding to see that this represents a gap that is not representative of anyone in this country.
I'm sure that most of the remaining 89% would love to be in the position to pay in more, ie earn more. One thing I can be sure of is that every penny of someone on £20k goes back into the economy. So by this reasoning the lower earners are putting 'more back in' proportionally than those with the spare cash to employ a tax lawyer. The only way to address this would be to improve social mobility...an idea fast in decline as a result of coalition policy.
Another more amusing way to look at it is: we only have to get the financial elite to cough up a bit more (or just pay what they owe in some cases) and then 89% of the country won't have to pay income tax at all. I think you have a winning policy on your hands here!!! Vast rafts of the public see many of these big business wages as 'gold plated' (by your definition)...I can even give you a percentage now, 99%.
As for the like for like survey: as many public sector roles are exactly that, I find the nuture of such a survey spurious to say the least. And if you compare the wages of teachers (for instance) you will find that most private schools adhere to the same pay scale as the state schools. So in this factual instance the wages are the same, the only differences being: longer holidays and 1/5 of the class sizes...which in a funny way is all part of a retirement plan.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Going back to first principles: the tax regime is laid down by statute and nobody except parliament can modify it, surely?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
In theory yes Peter. I think we know that in practice that this means nothing.
Ultimately it boils down to whether we place our faith in democracy or in money and the ability to circumnavigate such 'statutory' obligations.
This is where we stand.
If such obligations where absolute, there would no use for tax lawyers...if only!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Darren - you got your figures wrong. I was not referring to the top 11% but the top 10%, think - where do the top 1% fit in that? The top 10% contribute 53% of HMRC Income Tax revenue collected, official figures and just over half of that was from the top 1%. Re-read what I said.
The problem is that too many seem to think that high tax rates for the rich actually help redistribute wealth. They do not. If you want the wealthier to pay more tax then we need to simplify the tax system and reduce rates. Simple taxes are harder to avoid and lower taxes reduces the need to avoid them. Lower tax rates for the better off will also attract capital from overseas and incentivise more investment and economic activity.
The simple fact of life is that no-one likes paying tax, rich or poor.
What we need is an overall increase in the levels of profitable economic activity in the economy increasing the 'pool of wealth'. That will increase tax revenues, not high tax rates, it will also create more jobs further boosting tax revenues.
Sadly there will always be people 'at the bottom' - with little or nothing. Some people simply will never make something of themselves whatever you do whether its because they get into drugs, are lazy or simply too stupid to be useful to themselves or anyone else. What is important is that those 'at the bottom' who are not stupid, lazy or drugged up, get an opportunity to improve their circumstances and that is what is so tragic at the moment in that there are far too many people lacking those opportunities. I will never shed a tear about the former lazy useless so and sos and 'the State' should not keep throwing cash at them either. But because they will always be with us, by definition, as the wealth of the country increases including the wealth of the better off, the gap will naturally rise. A focus on that gap does no-one any good, the focus should be on getting the economy moving as the only way to help those who can and want to help themselves.
Roger - no-one is defending HMRC here. As I said it seems to me they are going for the easy targets and just see the larger companies as too difficult to tackle. A simpler tax code would help that problem.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
surely tax codes apply to people not corporations?
high earners pay their share in most cases so clarge corporations should be forced to cough up.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
If we really need to reduce it to this: dear all, please read the figure 11% as 10% and 89% as 90%.
I'm not sure what this means in the context of the thread but my original points stand.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Howard - you are referring to something different. The Tax Code is 'the book' of tax rules that has more than doubled in length over the last 15 years alone. You are thinking of individual tax codes.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
DT think before you post - the 89% and 90% are your imagination. Read it properly please.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,890
roger your post 26 says it all
i agree 100%
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I am referring to the 90% that earn below the top 10% earners.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The 90% that contribute 43% of the income tax take you mean DT?
In other words everyone who earns under £48,000 pa but many of whom aspire to earn more and good for them.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Yes, that's the one. See how easy discrete information makes things.
