So I have a piece of paper, a receipt, that proves I have paid the gardener, in case he forgets. What has that got to do with ensuring the gardener declares it for tax?
Nothing at all, any canny gardener will have two books with receipt stubs. One for the customers and one for the HMRC (tax and or VAT) inspectors. But Ed's too thick to understand such niceties. (I expect he thinks a receipt is the same as an invoice.)
BTW, I don't know if it's true, but an American told me that waiters, etc in the States get charged tax by the IRS based upon a restaurant's turnover divided by the number of waiters multiplied by a percentage for the notional tips they would have received. So ,if staff get tetchy with you in restaurants in the States because you haven't tipped, it's not only because you haven't tipped them it's because they'll be paying tax on money they haven't received!
Edited to add, yes it's true, I've checked the IRS web site:- "As an employer, you must ensure that the total tip income reported to you during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of your total receipts for that period. In calculating 8% of total receipts, you do not include nonallocable (sic) receipts. Nonallocable receipts are defined as receipts for carry out sales and receipts with a service charge added of 10% or more. When the total reported to you is less than 8%, you must allocate the difference between the actual tip income reported and 8% of gross receipts. There are three methods for allocating tip income: Gross Receipt Method Hours Worked Method Good Faith Agreement"
Reading this and knowing the monumental car crash that is the tax regime in Portugal, the UK really has it sussed at the basic level for the vast majority of people with the PAYE system. It's only when we get up to the really rich ( am not talking about your everyday bloke made good earning a million a year here ) that it all goes to pot. Again, because the will to something about it isn't there among the ruling elite...
Sorry, just flagged you by accident and can't unflag
Im an everyday bloke and I don't earn millions, but I don't think people that do earn millions should pay a higher percent tax than me.
Do you think the reverse is true though i.e. should people who earn half as much as you pay the same rate of tax you do?
I think tax should be banded up to a certain amount, but after say 30% at 45k, that should be it, 30% all the way..
So I have a piece of paper, a receipt, that proves I have paid the gardener, in case he forgets. What has that got to do with ensuring the gardener declares it for tax?
Nothing at all, any canny gardener will have two books with receipt stubs. One for the customers and one for the HMRC (tax and or VAT) inspectors. But Ed's too thick to understand such niceties. (I expect he thinks a receipt is the same as an invoice.)
BTW, I don't know if it's true, but an American told me that waiters, etc in the States get charged tax by the IRS based upon a restaurant's turnover divided by the number of waiters multiplied by a percentage for the notional tips they would have received. So ,if staff get tetchy with you in restaurants in the States because you haven't tipped, it's not only because you haven't tipped them it's because they'll be paying tax on money they haven't received!
Edited to add, yes it's true, I've checked the IRS web site:- "As an employer, you must ensure that the total tip income reported to you during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of your total receipts for that period. In calculating 8% of total receipts, you do not include nonallocable (sic) receipts. Nonallocable receipts are defined as receipts for carry out sales and receipts with a service charge added of 10% or more. When the total reported to you is less than 8%, you must allocate the difference between the actual tip income reported and 8% of gross receipts. There are three methods for allocating tip income: Gross Receipt Method Hours Worked Method Good Faith Agreement"
Reading this and knowing the monumental car crash that is the tax regime in Portugal, the UK really has it sussed at the basic level for the vast majority of people with the PAYE system. It's only when we get up to the really rich ( am not talking about your everyday bloke made good earning a million a year here ) that it all goes to pot. Again, because the will to something about it isn't there among the ruling elite...
Sorry, just flagged you by accident and can't unflag
Im an everyday bloke and I don't earn millions, but I don't think people that do earn millions should pay a higher percent tax than me.
Do you think the reverse is true though i.e. should people who earn half as much as you pay the same rate of tax you do?
If someone earned half or even three quarter of what I do, it wouldn't be worth em getting out of bed
So I have a piece of paper, a receipt, that proves I have paid the gardener, in case he forgets. What has that got to do with ensuring the gardener declares it for tax?
Nothing at all, any canny gardener will have two books with receipt stubs. One for the customers and one for the HMRC (tax and or VAT) inspectors. But Ed's too thick to understand such niceties. (I expect he thinks a receipt is the same as an invoice.)
BTW, I don't know if it's true, but an American told me that waiters, etc in the States get charged tax by the IRS based upon a restaurant's turnover divided by the number of waiters multiplied by a percentage for the notional tips they would have received. So ,if staff get tetchy with you in restaurants in the States because you haven't tipped, it's not only because you haven't tipped them it's because they'll be paying tax on money they haven't received!
Edited to add, yes it's true, I've checked the IRS web site:- "As an employer, you must ensure that the total tip income reported to you during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of your total receipts for that period. In calculating 8% of total receipts, you do not include nonallocable (sic) receipts. Nonallocable receipts are defined as receipts for carry out sales and receipts with a service charge added of 10% or more. When the total reported to you is less than 8%, you must allocate the difference between the actual tip income reported and 8% of gross receipts. There are three methods for allocating tip income: Gross Receipt Method Hours Worked Method Good Faith Agreement"
Reading this and knowing the monumental car crash that is the tax regime in Portugal, the UK really has it sussed at the basic level for the vast majority of people with the PAYE system. It's only when we get up to the really rich ( am not talking about your everyday bloke made good earning a million a year here ) that it all goes to pot. Again, because the will to something about it isn't there among the ruling elite...
Sorry, just flagged you by accident and can't unflag
Im an everyday bloke and I don't earn millions, but I don't think people that do earn millions should pay a higher percent tax than me.
Do you think the reverse is true though i.e. should people who earn half as much as you pay the same rate of tax you do?
Well what is the tax for? Do the wealthy use more of the services than the less well off, if everyone was taxed the same why would it be such a problem as the wealthy would be spending more anyway and all of that is taxed.
This is all a deflection, vilifying the wealthy when the real problem is big business like Murdoch, Amazon, Starbucks and Vodafone. Yet for all the public outrage at individuals people still use these tax evaders
In my view PAYE is immoral as it removes the right of legitimate protest in a supposedly democratic society from large swathes of working people.
If one accepts the premise no taxation without representation then everyone should have the choice not to pay if they feel disenfranchised.
I believe that politicians and the public sector in general would become far more accountable to the people they are supposed to be serving if those people had the right to turn off the money tap if public services were sub standard.
As it stands ordinary decent working people are crapped on by politicians and public sector alike.
What I have said does not mean I am against taxation. I am in favour of accountable, representative taxation that produces public services that actually serve rather than frustrate and alienate the populus.
Well, I don't know about you lot, but I don't want to pay more tax than I absolutely have to. Do you think the government will spend your money more carefully than you? I don't - I've worked for government departments (as a highly-paid consultant!) and the waste is incredible.
Lend me a fiver
That was a long time ago, sadly! It all went on drugs, booze and loose women, the rest I squandered.
Did you pay tax on the drugs and loose women? ;-)
No, but I left a few deposits I didn't get receipts for...
In my view PAYE is immoral as it removes the right of legitimate protest in a supposedly democratic society from large swathes of working people.
If one accepts the premise no taxation without representation then everyone should have the choice not to pay if they feel disenfranchised.
I believe that politicians and the public sector in general would become far more accountable to the people they are supposed to be serving if those people had the right to turn off the money tap if public services were sub standard.
As it stands ordinary decent working people are crapped on by politicians and public sector alike.
What I have said does not mean I am against taxation. I am in favour of accountable, representative taxation that produces public services that actually serve rather than frustrate and alienate the populus.
But isn't this debate all about the very richest people who use the law as it stands to pay no tax Len? They and their defenders often quote that they are breaking no law, even though some of us would say they are morally wrong, they don't care about that. Those people would surely just say "I feel disenfranchised, and as the law allows me to, I shall pay no tax."?
I'm not saying you are wrong in your idealism by the way, I understand exactly what you mean and generally agree with it.
So I have a piece of paper, a receipt, that proves I have paid the gardener, in case he forgets. What has that got to do with ensuring the gardener declares it for tax?
Nothing at all, any canny gardener will have two books with receipt stubs. One for the customers and one for the HMRC (tax and or VAT) inspectors. But Ed's too thick to understand such niceties. (I expect he thinks a receipt is the same as an invoice.)
BTW, I don't know if it's true, but an American told me that waiters, etc in the States get charged tax by the IRS based upon a restaurant's turnover divided by the number of waiters multiplied by a percentage for the notional tips they would have received. So ,if staff get tetchy with you in restaurants in the States because you haven't tipped, it's not only because you haven't tipped them it's because they'll be paying tax on money they haven't received!
Edited to add, yes it's true, I've checked the IRS web site:- "As an employer, you must ensure that the total tip income reported to you during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of your total receipts for that period. In calculating 8% of total receipts, you do not include nonallocable (sic) receipts. Nonallocable receipts are defined as receipts for carry out sales and receipts with a service charge added of 10% or more. When the total reported to you is less than 8%, you must allocate the difference between the actual tip income reported and 8% of gross receipts. There are three methods for allocating tip income: Gross Receipt Method Hours Worked Method Good Faith Agreement"
Reading this and knowing the monumental car crash that is the tax regime in Portugal, the UK really has it sussed at the basic level for the vast majority of people with the PAYE system. It's only when we get up to the really rich ( am not talking about your everyday bloke made good earning a million a year here ) that it all goes to pot. Again, because the will to something about it isn't there among the ruling elite...
Sorry, just flagged you by accident and can't unflag
Im an everyday bloke and I don't earn millions, but I don't think people that do earn millions should pay a higher percent tax than me.
Do you think the reverse is true though i.e. should people who earn half as much as you pay the same rate of tax you do?
I think tax should be banded up to a certain amount, but after say 30% at 45k, that should be it, 30% all the way..
I agree with banding, but my "utterly-random-figures-I-have-plucked-out-of-nowhere" just don't match yours Rob...
Apologise for going over old ground, but income tax was a one off measure introduced in the 19th century to pay for a war, not to do good for society. It started off only affecting a minority of the rich. It was regarded as eroding personal freedoms and was excused as necessary evil in times of national peril with Napoleon on the loose. The US never levied personal income tax until 1913.
In 1916 only 5% of the UK working population paid income tax. It is only the result of paying for wars that by 1948 virtually 100% of the working population paid income tax.
It is almost impossible to apply fairly and was never designed to be anything other than a temporary emergency measure. After introduction, to make it fairer, rates have been as high as 96% if investment income was received, but that didn't solve the problem of politicians promising more than they could pay for. Income tax receipts have never moved far away from 36% of GDP and most of it comes from a small proportion of higher earners. The really rich bastards just move their money and property around rather than leaving it around to be taxed even more. The reality is that income tax has to be spread across as many ordinary resident workers as possible to meet current revenue needs, and the State is not going to prise more out of the mobile super rich than they are prepared to bear.
We are promising more than we can afford and income tax has gone as far as it can in plugging the gap. Address evasion OK, but avoidance is more of a handy smoke screen to get politicians off the hook.
What should be noted, is that from providing nothing, income tax now provides HMRC with nearly 50% of total receipts. That corresponds to the rise in welfare spending, and income tax is now being used for social engineering, from both left and right. It is like income tax was a genie that was let out of the bottle, and politicians can't stop rubbing it. If you agree with the social engineering of the day then you might think of income tax as a moral obligation, but those who do not, are perfectly justifiable in only paying what an imperfect obligation requires by law.
If you have a moral conscience to pay as much as you can afford towards State funded social welfare, or paying as much as you can to finance State funded subsidies for private house purchases, all well and good, but there is nothing immoral about not doing what politicians would like you to do if you have a legitimate choice.
What should be noted, is that from providing nothing, income tax now provides HMRC with nearly 50% of total receipts. That corresponds to the rise in welfare spending, and income tax is now being used for social engineering, from both left and right. It is like income tax was a genie that was let out of the bottle, and politicians can't stop rubbing it. If you agree with the social engineering of the day then you might think of income tax as a moral obligation, but those who do not, are perfectly justifiable in only paying what an imperfect obligation requires by law.
There were much higher direct taxes in the late 19th century and a much smaller state. It's true that welfare payments are the highest individual element of spending (if you are including pensions) but in those days there was no education system, no police force, no health service, no clean waste or sewerage no planning system...
Instead children were routinely forced to work, the mortality rate was massive, most people lived in tiny hovels with no toilet, if you got ill it was herbal remedies or nothing and if you got old and had nobody to look after you, you'd just have to work or starve.
On top of that we are vastly better off now, at all levels of society and even after paying income tax, then we were then in your income tax free utopia.
What should be noted, is that from providing nothing, income tax now provides HMRC with nearly 50% of total receipts. That corresponds to the rise in welfare spending, and income tax is now being used for social engineering, from both left and right. It is like income tax was a genie that was let out of the bottle, and politicians can't stop rubbing it. If you agree with the social engineering of the day then you might think of income tax as a moral obligation, but those who do not, are perfectly justifiable in only paying what an imperfect obligation requires by law.
There were much higher direct taxes in the late 19th century and a much smaller state. It's true that welfare payments are the highest individual element of spending (if you are including pensions) but in those days there was no education system, no police force, no health service, no clean waste or sewerage no planning system...
Instead children were routinely forced to work, the mortality rate was massive, most people lived in tiny hovels with no toilet, if you got ill it was herbal remedies or nothing and if you got old and had nobody to look after you, you'd just have to work or starve.
On top of that we are vastly better off now, at all levels of society and even after paying income tax, then we were then in your income tax free utopia.
If we didn't have income tax raising 50% of revenues we would need a property related tax. A much fairer way of taxing wealth than taking away income, you can't move a Mayfair property to the Bahamas as easy as moving the rent it generates. I was going to make this point but didn't bother. Hoped it would be clear I'm arguing for a different way of taxing, not abolishing taxes
Compulsory education was introduced in 1880, but I am talking about 1916 when we had schools, sewerage systems, a police force etc and it wasn't funded by income tax. The point is why weren't wealth and property taxes developed instead of income tax. I suggest because income tax was easy to get away with and you get more by a small levy on a large number of people than a high levy on a few. It went from 5% to 100% of the population forced by war, (as before), and then retained as a tax because it suited politicians, not people.
The NHS was supposed to be funded by National Insurance. There was still a vestige of belief that income tax should be for a specific accountable objective and National Insurance was income tax specifically for the Welfare benefits. Ever wondered why on earth we have NI? There is no logic today because the concept of accountability for a tax has been buried. That is my main point, that income tax allows unaccountability by government, which is why nothing will change and it's too late to move the balance back to property taxes. Too many property owners now with votes. Should have been done instead of turning council house tenants into property owners and destroying the balance between buying and renting and supply and demand.
The mansion tax proposal is a nod to recognising this and redress the balance without losing votes. It will probably go like income tax, only hit the wealthy until they run out of money and then gradually hit everyone. Then we will have income tax and property taxes and I guess people still preferring to argue over who should feel the most pain instead of trying to get some control over State spending.
So I have a piece of paper, a receipt, that proves I have paid the gardener, in case he forgets. What has that got to do with ensuring the gardener declares it for tax?
Nothing at all, any canny gardener will have two books with receipt stubs. One for the customers and one for the HMRC (tax and or VAT) inspectors. But Ed's too thick to understand such niceties. (I expect he thinks a receipt is the same as an invoice.)
BTW, I don't know if it's true, but an American told me that waiters, etc in the States get charged tax by the IRS based upon a restaurant's turnover divided by the number of waiters multiplied by a percentage for the notional tips they would have received. So ,if staff get tetchy with you in restaurants in the States because you haven't tipped, it's not only because you haven't tipped them it's because they'll be paying tax on money they haven't received!
Edited to add, yes it's true, I've checked the IRS web site:- "As an employer, you must ensure that the total tip income reported to you during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of your total receipts for that period. In calculating 8% of total receipts, you do not include nonallocable (sic) receipts. Nonallocable receipts are defined as receipts for carry out sales and receipts with a service charge added of 10% or more. When the total reported to you is less than 8%, you must allocate the difference between the actual tip income reported and 8% of gross receipts. There are three methods for allocating tip income: Gross Receipt Method Hours Worked Method Good Faith Agreement"
Reading this and knowing the monumental car crash that is the tax regime in Portugal, the UK really has it sussed at the basic level for the vast majority of people with the PAYE system. It's only when we get up to the really rich ( am not talking about your everyday bloke made good earning a million a year here ) that it all goes to pot. Again, because the will to something about it isn't there among the ruling elite...
Sorry, just flagged you by accident and can't unflag
Im an everyday bloke and I don't earn millions, but I don't think people that do earn millions should pay a higher percent tax than me.
Do you think the reverse is true though i.e. should people who earn half as much as you pay the same rate of tax you do?
I think tax should be banded up to a certain amount, but after say 30% at 45k, that should be it, 30% all the way..
I agree with banding, but my "utterly-random-figures-I-have-plucked-out-of-nowhere" just don't match yours Rob...
More importantly, how's your health these days?
Yeah well, re. my figures; my governmental advisors were unavailable to consult with between my posts, so the figures were plucked out the air, but you get my point. Close the "loop holes" and get everyong on 1million plus a year paying around 30% and I think we'll be a bit better off. As for corperation tax that someone brought up earlier, that does make me sick, I don't understand how they can strike deals with the amounts being touted (1.5 Billion for a 4 Billion bill? Jesus wept)
I'm well cheers mate. I've had a few ups and downs, but as usual everything turns out alright in the end. Reading some of the posts on here makes me kidney ache from time to time though. How's your health been mate?
What should be noted, is that from providing nothing, income tax now provides HMRC with nearly 50% of total receipts. That corresponds to the rise in welfare spending, and income tax is now being used for social engineering, from both left and right. It is like income tax was a genie that was let out of the bottle, and politicians can't stop rubbing it. If you agree with the social engineering of the day then you might think of income tax as a moral obligation, but those who do not, are perfectly justifiable in only paying what an imperfect obligation requires by law.
Ever wondered why on earth we have NI?
There's only one reason why we have NI. It's because pensioners do not pay NICs and combining income tax and NI would produce a rate of tax that would be higher for pensioners. 75% of people over 60 years of age vote. Few of them are going to be like turkeys voting for Christmas. All professional politicians from all parties (even UKIP following a swift change of policy) understand that proposing the combination of income tax and NI would be political suicide.
Regardless of who has paid tax, it's shameful that the National Crime Agency spend £550m and only recoup £22m.
Well, that's what some would have you believe. And it is a very small sum. BUT it is not their main area of work is it? That is the investigation and prosecution of serious and organised crime. Collecting crime-related proceeds is just a by-product. They haven't spent £550mn confiscating £22mn. Look up Project Pegasus and Project Kraken for other examples of their work.
Sorry to go back to original post, but I've read this article about 10 times now and I can't understand it.
The man lived a lavish lifestyle with private planes and fancy houses etc, but claimed he had no income and had never received a bill.
"when he needed money it was sent to him."
"In his words there is a box somewhere which contains money and he arranges for the bills to be paid."
Is this an actual human being?
where I come from he'd be called a lying bastard who's taking the pi** .. how he didn't get nicked should be a matter for a serious governmental inquiry .. bribery and favouritism, perhaps blackmail are the first things that come to my mind .. blackmail in the context of Bloomfield knowing too much about other rich people/tax avoiders-evaders and being 'let off' as a price for his silence. This is mere speculation of course.
So I have a piece of paper, a receipt, that proves I have paid the gardener, in case he forgets. What has that got to do with ensuring the gardener declares it for tax?
Nothing at all, any canny gardener will have two books with receipt stubs. One for the customers and one for the HMRC (tax and or VAT) inspectors. But Ed's too thick to understand such niceties. (I expect he thinks a receipt is the same as an invoice.)
BTW, I don't know if it's true, but an American told me that waiters, etc in the States get charged tax by the IRS based upon a restaurant's turnover divided by the number of waiters multiplied by a percentage for the notional tips they would have received. So ,if staff get tetchy with you in restaurants in the States because you haven't tipped, it's not only because you haven't tipped them it's because they'll be paying tax on money they haven't received!
Edited to add, yes it's true, I've checked the IRS web site:- "As an employer, you must ensure that the total tip income reported to you during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of your total receipts for that period. In calculating 8% of total receipts, you do not include nonallocable (sic) receipts. Nonallocable receipts are defined as receipts for carry out sales and receipts with a service charge added of 10% or more. When the total reported to you is less than 8%, you must allocate the difference between the actual tip income reported and 8% of gross receipts. There are three methods for allocating tip income: Gross Receipt Method Hours Worked Method Good Faith Agreement"
Reading this and knowing the monumental car crash that is the tax regime in Portugal, the UK really has it sussed at the basic level for the vast majority of people with the PAYE system. It's only when we get up to the really rich ( am not talking about your everyday bloke made good earning a million a year here ) that it all goes to pot. Again, because the will to something about it isn't there among the ruling elite...
Sorry, just flagged you by accident and can't unflag
Im an everyday bloke and I don't earn millions, but I don't think people that do earn millions should pay a higher percent tax than me.
Do you think the reverse is true though i.e. should people who earn half as much as you pay the same rate of tax you do?
I think tax should be banded up to a certain amount, but after say 30% at 45k, that should be it, 30% all the way..
I agree with banding, but my "utterly-random-figures-I-have-plucked-out-of-nowhere" just don't match yours Rob...
More importantly, how's your health these days?
Yeah well, re. my figures; my governmental advisors were unavailable to consult with between my posts, so the figures were plucked out the air, but you get my point. Close the "loop holes" and get everyong on 1million plus a year paying around 30% and I think we'll be a bit better off. As for corperation tax that someone brought up earlier, that does make me sick, I don't understand how they can strike deals with the amounts being touted (1.5 Billion for a 4 Billion bill? Jesus wept)
I'm well cheers mate. I've had a few ups and downs, but as usual everything turns out alright in the end. Reading some of the posts on here makes me kidney ache from time to time though. How's your health been mate?
Had my two year MOT in November and all was well thanks Rob. Still not smoking but may have put on *a-hem* a "few" kilos...
What should be noted, is that from providing nothing, income tax now provides HMRC with nearly 50% of total receipts. That corresponds to the rise in welfare spending, and income tax is now being used for social engineering, from both left and right. It is like income tax was a genie that was let out of the bottle, and politicians can't stop rubbing it. If you agree with the social engineering of the day then you might think of income tax as a moral obligation, but those who do not, are perfectly justifiable in only paying what an imperfect obligation requires by law.
Ever wondered why on earth we have NI?
There's only one reason why we have NI. It's because pensioners do not pay NICs and combining income tax and NI would produce a rate of tax that would be higher for pensioners. 75% of people over 60 years of age vote. Few of them are going to be like turkeys voting for Christmas. All professional politicians from all parties (even UKIP following a swift change of policy) understand that proposing the combination of income tax and NI would be political suicide.
Simple solution that these genius politicians haven't thought up - stop levying income tax on pension income, then create a threshold of pension income above which you begin to stop receiving the basic state pension. It does seem somewhat illogical that we tax an income that most people have to use to live on for the rest of their lives. There are also thresholds of how much a person can both contribute and crystallise in their lifetime and these appear to be lowering.
I have always been of the view that income tax should be the only tax. It would be easier and cheaper to collect and fairer because it is more transparent and clearer what you are paying. You wouldn’t get any of this creative accounting, where politicians give with one hand and take with another. But, any nation does have to decide what it wants for its people. A rich person who sends their kids to public school could ask why should they have to pay for education, or likewise a person with no kids, or if somebody has private health care, they could ask why should they contribute to the health service. When you get into these, what do I get out of it discussions you miss the point. We can hark back to days when there was little or no tax. These were days when young boys were sent up chimneys and there was great suffering and exploitation of people. I am happy to pay taxes that ensure I am part of a society that cares about its people. There are a great number of rich people who do care and selfishness is not a default position. For that reason, it is not a class war. I think rich people should be proud of what they have done for others through their taxes and that should be praised and celebrated – those that pay them that is. But the ones who don't shouldn't be able to hide behind the clichés - everybody fiddles tax, I have worked for my money etc...
There is only one person who annoys me around tax - Richard Branson.
Did dirty deals with BA but then grassed them up for immunity, previous (paid off) "conviction" for tax fraud, lives on his own tax free island and yet claims his airline is "Britain's flag carrier".
Total arse-wipe who some people seem to admire for his "entrepreneurial" spirit.
I have always been of the view that income tax should be the only tax. It would be easier and cheaper to collect and fairer because it is more transparent and clearer what you are paying. You wouldn’t get any of this creative accounting, where politicians give with one hand and take with another. But, any nation does have to decide what it wants for its people. A rich person who sends their kids to public school could ask why should they have to pay for education, or likewise a person with no kids, or if somebody has private health care, they could ask why should they contribute to the health service. When you get into these, what do I get out of it discussions you miss the point. We can hark back to days when there was little or no tax. These were days when young boys were sent up chimneys and there was great suffering and exploitation of people. I am happy to pay taxes that ensure I am part of a society that cares about its people. There are a great number of rich people who do care and selfishness is not a default position. For that reason, it is not a class war. I think rich people should be proud of what they have done for others through their taxes and that should be praised and celebrated – those that pay them that is. But the ones who don't shouldn't be able to hide behind the clichés - everybody fiddles tax, I have worked for my money etc...
There is a reasonable response to anyone who complains that they shouldn't pay taxes for things they don't use from a common sense/economic POV, if not from a moral POV:
Education: better educated population correlates with lower welfare bill, lower crime, better GDP, less reliance on imported labour
Health: herd immunity, less days of work lost to ill health, emergency services
It should also be noted that the top percentile of taxpayers are currently bearing the greatest tax burden in this country than at any other time in history. Tax isn't the issue, the issue is how wealth is distributed. You can't tax your way out of that issue and any attempt to do so will simply descend into pointless class warfare and a race to the bottom where the poorest lose out.
All good points, but the problem is that not everyone lives by those rules and there's far too many people, at both ends of the scale, taking the piss out of those that do/did. Then as someone mention earlier you got the corperation tax which is the biggest piss take of em all
What should be noted, is that from providing nothing, income tax now provides HMRC with nearly 50% of total receipts. That corresponds to the rise in welfare spending, and income tax is now being used for social engineering, from both left and right. It is like income tax was a genie that was let out of the bottle, and politicians can't stop rubbing it. If you agree with the social engineering of the day then you might think of income tax as a moral obligation, but those who do not, are perfectly justifiable in only paying what an imperfect obligation requires by law.
Ever wondered why on earth we have NI?
There's only one reason why we have NI. It's because pensioners do not pay NICs and combining income tax and NI would produce a rate of tax that would be higher for pensioners. 75% of people over 60 years of age vote. Few of them are going to be like turkeys voting for Christmas. All professional politicians from all parties (even UKIP following a swift change of policy) understand that proposing the combination of income tax and NI would be political suicide.
Simple solution that these genius politicians haven't thought up - stop levying income tax on pension income, then create a threshold of pension income above which you begin to stop receiving the basic state pension. It does seem somewhat illogical that we tax an income that most people have to use to live on for the rest of their lives. There are also thresholds of how much a person can both contribute and crystallise in their lifetime and these appear to be lowering.
Surely any salary is "an income that most people have to use to live on for the rest of their lives"?
Personal allowances apply to pensions, and pensioners are less likely to have mortgages, young children etc. The personal allowance is £10500 per annum (2014/15) for people over 68.
What should be noted, is that from providing nothing, income tax now provides HMRC with nearly 50% of total receipts. That corresponds to the rise in welfare spending, and income tax is now being used for social engineering, from both left and right. It is like income tax was a genie that was let out of the bottle, and politicians can't stop rubbing it. If you agree with the social engineering of the day then you might think of income tax as a moral obligation, but those who do not, are perfectly justifiable in only paying what an imperfect obligation requires by law.
Ever wondered why on earth we have NI?
There's only one reason why we have NI. It's because pensioners do not pay NICs and combining income tax and NI would produce a rate of tax that would be higher for pensioners. 75% of people over 60 years of age vote. Few of them are going to be like turkeys voting for Christmas. All professional politicians from all parties (even UKIP following a swift change of policy) understand that proposing the combination of income tax and NI would be political suicide.
Simple solution that these genius politicians haven't thought up - stop levying income tax on pension income, then create a threshold of pension income above which you begin to stop receiving the basic state pension. It does seem somewhat illogical that we tax an income that most people have to use to live on for the rest of their lives. There are also thresholds of how much a person can both contribute and crystallise in their lifetime and these appear to be lowering.
Surely any salary is "an income that most people have to use to live on for the rest of their lives"?
Personal allowances apply to pensions, and pensioners are less likely to have mortgages, young children etc. The personal allowance is £10500 per annum (2014/15) for people over 68.
No more tax breaks for pensioners, thanks.
I was more referring to the fact that once someone is retired, they are forced to live on an income for the rest of their lives and do not have much choice about going back into work. Non-retired people do have the option of seeking to increase the amount of money they make at a sacrifice to their other free time. There is also a minority of people who cannot spare any time and they lie outside this point (e.g. carers).
It's also not much of a tax break if we withdraw the state pension from those who are drawing a high enough income from a private pension. The state pension can amount to around £10,000 a year in a lot of cases. As there is an annual contribution limit on pensions, there should also be a limit on how much someone can withdraw annually tax-free from a pension. I'm not saying pensions should be totally tax-free but that the current tax set-up for pensions is somewhat illogical given the number of perks pensioners gain from the state that are paid for by taxation.
Simple solution that these genius politicians haven't thought up - stop levying income tax on pension income, then create a threshold of pension income above which you begin to stop receiving the basic state pension. It does seem somewhat illogical that we tax an income that most people have to use to live on for the rest of their lives. There are also thresholds of how much a person can both contribute and crystallise in their lifetime and these appear to be lowering.
Pension income isn't taxed if you buy it with your own after-tax money. It's only taxed if it's coming from a tax approved pension scheme. The contributions paid originally were not taxed as salary, so HMRC extract their dues when you finally take it out in income.
The point I've tried to make before is that taxing income is wrong in principle, it's money you have earned by grafting and need to live on. Everyone keeps quoting the "wealth" of the rich and then bang on about them not paying income tax!! To misquote a President "It's the assets stupid, not the income". Only the rich would pay tax if we taxed the wealth and not income.
Corporation tax wasn't invented in the UK until 1965. taxing companies as if they are people didn't work very well so they had to invent a different system. That doesn't work either and it's all because we've gone down the route of taxing income as an easy target, i.e. nearly everyone pays.
A Poll Tax is not so different from income tax, it doesn't recognise ability to pay or different spending needs. Similar strengths of feeling were displayed when income tax was introduced.
Companies are run by directors who see their primary duty as profit maximisation for the shareholders hence the general wish to minimise company tax liabilities.
Our pensions are invested in the shares of companies like Vodafone and HSBC. More tax paid means smaller dividends and a fall in the share price...
Good.
Then your pension administrator can chose a more ethical investment.
Pension income isn't taxed if you buy it with your own after-tax money. It's only taxed if it's coming from a tax approved pension scheme. The contributions paid originally were not taxed as salary, so HMRC extract their dues when you finally take it out in income.
The point I've tried to make before is that taxing income is wrong in principle, it's money you have earned by grafting and need to live on. Everyone keeps quoting the "wealth" of the rich and then bang on about them not paying income tax!! To misquote a President "It's the assets stupid, not the income". Only the rich would pay tax if we taxed the wealth and not income.
Corporation tax wasn't invented in the UK until 1965. taxing companies as if they are people didn't work very well so they had to invent a different system. That doesn't work either and it's all because we've gone down the route of taxing income as an easy target, i.e. nearly everyone pays.
A Poll Tax is not so different from income tax, it doesn't recognise ability to pay or different spending needs. Similar strengths of feeling were displayed when income tax was introduced.
Good post that, you've answered a couple of questions I was gonna ask. Cheers Dipps
Can't see much wrong with the progressive income tax system we have - other than upping the thresholds to more realistic levels and increasing the top rate to, say, 50%.
Paying 50% of your income over, say, £1m pa, is what's being part of a society.
Comments
Well what is the tax for? Do the wealthy use more of the services than the less well off, if everyone was taxed the same why would it be such a problem as the wealthy would be spending more anyway and all of that is taxed.
This is all a deflection, vilifying the wealthy when the real problem is big business like Murdoch, Amazon, Starbucks and Vodafone. Yet for all the public outrage at individuals people still use these tax evaders
If one accepts the premise no taxation without representation then everyone should have the choice not to pay if they feel disenfranchised.
I believe that politicians and the public sector in general would become far more accountable to the people they are supposed to be serving if those people had the right to turn off the money tap if public services were sub standard.
As it stands ordinary decent working people are crapped on by politicians and public sector alike.
What I have said does not mean I am against taxation. I am in favour of accountable, representative taxation that produces public services that actually serve rather than frustrate and alienate the populus.
I'm not saying you are wrong in your idealism by the way, I understand exactly what you mean and generally agree with it.
More importantly, how's your health these days?
In 1916 only 5% of the UK working population paid income tax. It is only the result of paying for wars that by 1948 virtually 100% of the working population paid income tax.
It is almost impossible to apply fairly and was never designed to be anything other than a temporary emergency measure. After introduction, to make it fairer, rates have been as high as 96% if investment income was received, but that didn't solve the problem of politicians promising more than they could pay for. Income tax receipts have never moved far away from 36% of GDP and most of it comes from a small proportion of higher earners. The really rich bastards just move their money and property around rather than leaving it around to be taxed even more. The reality is that income tax has to be spread across as many ordinary resident workers as possible to meet current revenue needs, and the State is not going to prise more out of the mobile super rich than they are prepared to bear.
We are promising more than we can afford and income tax has gone as far as it can in plugging the gap. Address evasion OK, but avoidance is more of a handy smoke screen to get politicians off the hook.
What should be noted, is that from providing nothing, income tax now provides HMRC with nearly 50% of total receipts. That corresponds to the rise in welfare spending, and income tax is now being used for social engineering, from both left and right. It is like income tax was a genie that was let out of the bottle, and politicians can't stop rubbing it. If you agree with the social engineering of the day then you might think of income tax as a moral obligation, but those who do not, are perfectly justifiable in only paying what an imperfect obligation requires by law.
If you have a moral conscience to pay as much as you can afford towards State funded social welfare, or paying as much as you can to finance State funded subsidies for private house purchases, all well and good, but there is nothing immoral about not doing what politicians would like you to do if you have a legitimate choice.
Instead children were routinely forced to work, the mortality rate was massive, most people lived in tiny hovels with no toilet, if you got ill it was herbal remedies or nothing and if you got old and had nobody to look after you, you'd just have to work or starve.
On top of that we are vastly better off now, at all levels of society and even after paying income tax, then we were then in your income tax free utopia.
Compulsory education was introduced in 1880, but I am talking about 1916 when we had schools, sewerage systems, a police force etc and it wasn't funded by income tax. The point is why weren't wealth and property taxes developed instead of income tax. I suggest because income tax was easy to get away with and you get more by a small levy on a large number of people than a high levy on a few. It went from 5% to 100% of the population forced by war, (as before), and then retained as a tax because it suited politicians, not people.
The NHS was supposed to be funded by National Insurance. There was still a vestige of belief that income tax should be for a specific accountable objective and National Insurance was income tax specifically for the Welfare benefits. Ever wondered why on earth we have NI? There is no logic today because the concept of accountability for a tax has been buried. That is my main point, that income tax allows unaccountability by government, which is why nothing will change and it's too late to move the balance back to property taxes. Too many property owners now with votes. Should have been done instead of turning council house tenants into property owners and destroying the balance between buying and renting and supply and demand.
The mansion tax proposal is a nod to recognising this and redress the balance without losing votes. It will probably go like income tax, only hit the wealthy until they run out of money and then gradually hit everyone. Then we will have income tax and property taxes and I guess people still preferring to argue over who should feel the most pain instead of trying to get some control over State spending.
I'm well cheers mate. I've had a few ups and downs, but as usual everything turns out alright in the end. Reading some of the posts on here makes me kidney ache from time to time though. How's your health been mate?
The man lived a lavish lifestyle with private planes and fancy houses etc, but claimed he had no income and had never received a bill.
"when he needed money it was sent to him."
"In his words there is a box somewhere which contains money and he arranges for the bills to be paid."
Is this an actual human being?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31498168
Did dirty deals with BA but then grassed them up for immunity, previous (paid off) "conviction" for tax fraud, lives on his own tax free island and yet claims his airline is "Britain's flag carrier".
Total arse-wipe who some people seem to admire for his "entrepreneurial" spirit.
Education: better educated population correlates with lower welfare bill, lower crime, better GDP, less reliance on imported labour
Health: herd immunity, less days of work lost to ill health, emergency services
It should also be noted that the top percentile of taxpayers are currently bearing the greatest tax burden in this country than at any other time in history. Tax isn't the issue, the issue is how wealth is distributed. You can't tax your way out of that issue and any attempt to do so will simply descend into pointless class warfare and a race to the bottom where the poorest lose out.
Personal allowances apply to pensions, and pensioners are less likely to have mortgages, young children etc. The personal allowance is £10500 per annum (2014/15) for people over 68.
No more tax breaks for pensioners, thanks.
It's also not much of a tax break if we withdraw the state pension from those who are drawing a high enough income from a private pension. The state pension can amount to around £10,000 a year in a lot of cases. As there is an annual contribution limit on pensions, there should also be a limit on how much someone can withdraw annually tax-free from a pension. I'm not saying pensions should be totally tax-free but that the current tax set-up for pensions is somewhat illogical given the number of perks pensioners gain from the state that are paid for by taxation.
Pension income isn't taxed if you buy it with your own after-tax money. It's only taxed if it's coming from a tax approved pension scheme. The contributions paid originally were not taxed as salary, so HMRC extract their dues when you finally take it out in income.
The point I've tried to make before is that taxing income is wrong in principle, it's money you have earned by grafting and need to live on. Everyone keeps quoting the "wealth" of the rich and then bang on about them not paying income tax!! To misquote a President "It's the assets stupid, not the income". Only the rich would pay tax if we taxed the wealth and not income.
Corporation tax wasn't invented in the UK until 1965. taxing companies as if they are people didn't work very well so they had to invent a different system. That doesn't work either and it's all because we've gone down the route of taxing income as an easy target, i.e. nearly everyone pays.
A Poll Tax is not so different from income tax, it doesn't recognise ability to pay or different spending needs. Similar strengths of feeling were displayed when income tax was introduced.
Then your pension administrator can chose a more ethical investment.
Paying 50% of your income over, say, £1m pa, is what's being part of a society.