| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Uber Lions. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 16 2014, 08:31 AM (294 Views) | |
| RJD | Nov 16 2014, 08:31 AM Post #1 |
Prudence and Thrift
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
the best-paid 0.01 per cent, the ones we’re led to believe pay no tax. They earn 1.4 per cent of salary paid in Britain yet stump up 4.2 per cent of all income tax. That is to say, the top 3,000 pay more than the lowest-paid nine million taxpayers put together. The Usuals claim these people pay zero taxes. Untrue they pay the Uber Lion's Share. |
 |
 
|
| Lewis | Nov 16 2014, 08:49 AM Post #2 |
Senior Member
|
Seems unsubstantiated - reference? The top rate of tax for those getting more than £150k should be increased to at least 60% to bring it in line with what the rest of us pay. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 16 2014, 09:07 AM Post #3 |
|
Senior Member
|
Does the "usuals" include George Osborne? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661011 10 April 2012 Last updated at 12:58 Millionaire tax avoiders 'shock' chancellor Chancellor George Osborne says he is "shocked" that some of the UK's richest people have organised their finances so that they pay virtually no income tax. The Daily Telegraph reported that a study by HM Revenue and Customs showed the very rich had reduced their average income tax rate to just 10%. George Osborne said it was not right that the richest could legally arrange their tax affairs in such a way. But Labour accused him of "synthetic shock", having cut the top tax rate. He said he would take "further action" but did not outline any new proposals. HM Revenue and Customs provided the chancellor with "anonymised copies" of the confidential tax returns submitted to the organisation by the UK's wealthiest people, the Telegraph reported. Legal loopholes He was not given the details of the individuals involved, but he said the returns he had seen had shown him the 20 biggest tax avoiders had legally reduced their income tax bills by a total of £145m in a year. He told the newspaper: "I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs - and to be fair it's within the tax laws - so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don't think that's right." "I'm talking about people right at the top. I'm talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. "The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people with the highest incomes," Mr Osborne added. HMRC found the main methods used by people to reduce their bills was writing off business losses, offsetting the cost of business mortgages and borrowing on buy-to-let properties - all against their income tax bills. Others took advantage of tax relief on charitable donations. During last month's Budget the chancellor revealed that, from 2013, there would be a £50,000 cap on tax relief - or 25% of income if that was higher. Although this was criticised by charities who feared they would lose out, on Tuesday Mr Osborne said the government was still examining ways of encouraging philanthropy and charitable giving. Last month, Mr Osborne said he would cut the 50p top rate of income tax on earnings over £150,000 a year, which was introduced under the previous Labour government, to 45p from April 2013. Businesses had complained it was deterring entrepreneurs and company bosses from investing in the UK and expanding their businesses and Mr Osborne said it was raising "next to nothing" and was damaging the economy. But he said he would get five times as much from the wealthiest by other tax and anti-avoidance measures - and announced a rise in the threshold at which everyone pays income tax, which he said would leave millions of working people better off. However, Labour's shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, Chris Leslie, told the BBC Mr Osborne had been shedding some "pretty heavy crocodile tears" and "synthetic shock" about tax avoidance. "He seems surprised that the wealthiest in the country try to use tax loopholes. What is his reaction? It's to wave the white flag, put hands in the air, give up and cut that top rate of tax," he said. "Either he's showing a serious lack of judgement or these are phoney words of concern when he's quite content to see the wealthiest get away without paying their fair share." BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said the Telegraph interview suggested that the chancellor was trying to move the focus from his tax cut to the government's desire to tackle tax avoidance. |
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 16 2014, 09:20 AM Post #4 |
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
Interesting claim there. I'm quite keen to know how someone paying what is it now 45% on 150k and not getting ANY tax relief whatsoever on the first 10k (they did leave that little bombshell of Darling's in place, didn't they) is paying more than the NMW meat packer who gets his first 10k tax free ... (get yer crisps popcorn and peanuts, this is gonna be amusing) |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 16 2014, 10:54 AM Post #5 |
|
Senior Member
|
Quite, anyone on 150k a year on PAYE, is in the same boat as the rest of us, there is a VERY limited amount of tax they can avoid. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 16 2014, 11:57 AM Post #6 |
|
Senior Member
|
The usuals (by that I mean the Tory incompetents), increased the effective rate of taxation for ordinary people by increasing VAT. VAT affects the less well off more as they have to pay proportionately more. Those on £150+ invariably have tax avoiding accountants, so that can dodge as much as possible. Those stuck on PAYE have no choice agreed, but that affects the lower paid more. The effective tax rate for most people is 60% and studies have shown that this is the most advantageous rate in any case for the very wealthy. Indeed tax freedom day seems to get later and later for most people as time has gone by and this year the average person worked until 28 May for the government. http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/uncategorized/happy-tax-freedom-day/ Edited by Lewis, Nov 16 2014, 12:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 12:15 PM Post #7 |
|
Senior Member
|
I pay less as a percentage of my income that our latest apprentice does. Care to comment? 
|
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 16 2014, 12:17 PM Post #8 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
"Those stuck on PAYE have no choice agreed, but that affects the lower paid more." No, it does not. The lower paid have the first 10k free. The ones stuck on PAYE (and that includes all the government advisors these days, they barricaded up the ltd company fee path) do not. |
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 16 2014, 12:18 PM Post #9 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
yes. how does that work exactly ? |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 16 2014, 12:33 PM Post #10 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Source: HMRC 1999-20,1.1,3.2 2000-01,1.1,2.9 2001-02,1,2.7 2002-03,0.9,2.4 2003-04,1,2.4 2004-05,1.1,2.8 2005-06,1.2,3 2006-07,1.3,3.3 2007-08,1.5,3.8 2008-09,N/A,N/A 2009-10,1.8,4.4 2010-11,1,3.8 2011-12,1.1,3.7 2012-13,1,3.3 2013-14,1.6,4.7 2014-15,1.4,4.2 |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 16 2014, 12:37 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
|
Link RJD, that is just a list with no explanation |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 12:48 PM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
|
For starters you can avoid a lot of VAT on things that are not strictly business expenses, you can also put money into trusts or class some income as investment, one that has become popular with the very wealthy is to set yourself up as a limited company, or as several limited companies, and pay yourself a dividend from the money this "business" makes, you still pay tax of course but corporation or business rates not the rate levied on PAYE or direct income which is at a much higher rate. The only people who would pay the headline rates of taxation would be someone like the latest X Factor winner who got his mum to do the accounts! RJD will of course ignore this thread just like the last one in which I went to all the trouble of explaining this to him. 
|
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 01:00 PM Post #13 |
|
Senior Member
|
Is it also not the case oh very forgetful one that the better off have done rather well out of the recession? Sometimes you need all the facts don't you?
|
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 16 2014, 01:50 PM Post #14 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I ignore most of your ignorant nonsense. Don't be offended as it appears others also have followed suit. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 02:04 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
|
Oh dear someone really didn't want to hear the reality of how some of us get away with less tax than is reasonable did they?  I see you have made no attempt whatsoever to address the points I made so I consider your myths well and truly busted! File under, mummy the naughty man told the truth........
|
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 16 2014, 02:31 PM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
|
Under the coalition disposable income levels have fallen for those on average wage and lower. That is not true of those in the top bracket. btw - employees saw their NI contributions raised 9% in mid 2010 and there after. Do we have figures for how much NI contributions those you highlighted make, or have they opted out? |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 16 2014, 02:58 PM Post #17 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
What myths, what busted. You delude yourself. The facts I posted are not from the Red Nag. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 16 2014, 02:59 PM Post #18 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Why not address facts rather than create smoke? |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 16 2014, 05:34 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
|
OK; The fact that your post was about the relative difference in contributions made from income tax by those at the extreme ends of the income scale. It was about 'proportions' how the few at the top contribute more than the many at the bottom. And why is that so? Is it because those on the lower end of the income scale barely earn enough to live on, nevermind pay much in taxes. That section has seen their 'incomes' drop in real terms, those at the top not so ...... and so that proportion of tax they pay gets larger. A situation of those that are prospering are seeing their taxes rise, those at the bottom are seeing their 'proportion' of the tax take fall from lack of prosperity. Oh; and we are not talking in Sterling terms here, the actual amounts in Lsd, but the 'proportion' of the whole. The whole has barely altered despite the claims of a 'recovery', of millions more 'in work'. Evidence that these are not real jobs contributing wealth to the economy, but non-jobs that disguise the true level of unemployment - off unemployment benefit, but sadly not off benefits at all. Thatcher disguised the jobless totals by putting people on invalidity benefits, Cameron instead puts them on subsidised work placement. It's "smoke & mirrors". Your article is a condemnation of policy, the evidence of disparity of not being "all in it together", and is in essence an example of press corruption of the story (so far). |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 05:57 PM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
|
Would you care to re read post number twelve I put up for you and tell me which bits are from the Red Nag, are myths and are delusion? I gave some context to your one sided claims and you have failed to counter them! Not everyone with a few quid under the pillow is a totally selfish arsehole you know! |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 06:03 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Member
|
Any chance of a coherent reply instead of your tedious I haven't a clue so I'll knock off a tired and cliched response that makes me look like a dork? And talking of smoke have you recently invested in a smoke machine of the sort used in films? You have produced copious amounts of the stuff yourself on this thread! File under the nasty man told me the truth again!
Edited by Tigger, Nov 16 2014, 06:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Nov 16 2014, 06:18 PM Post #22 |
|
Senior Member
|
If its legal and not for tax evasion then thats the end of it Any complaints are just personal opinions, and no one elses concerns except the MPs and government. If people pay what is required by law, and legislation as written, it really is no one elses buisiness but the individual concerned. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 06:30 PM Post #23 |
|
Senior Member
|
Yes we know that Sherlock, but that is not the point here is it? And what a wonderful appeal to authority that was, or it's not their fault guv as they's only following rules innit, I expect in your hypocritical right wing World that absolves them from any moral let alone financial responsibility. Another elderly fool turned up here earlier and tried to claim that the very wealthy pay the lions share of income tax, this is clearly highly misleading as they in fact pay a lower percentage than the average PAYE worker, and running a business I am fully aware of this state of affairs! File under, oops sorry wrong poster! You all look the same to me truth be told........
Edited by Tigger, Nov 16 2014, 06:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 16 2014, 06:38 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
|
I beg to differ, but you seem to have neglected that VAT and other indirect taxes affect the poor more. Add in the fact that tax credits are effectively frozen and that negates any increase in the starting point at which they begin paying tax. The so-called tax cuts by the incompetents in this years conference are all smoke and mirrors, no matter how the Usuals try to butter it up differently. As per usual the only people to benefit are those who are already well off. A typo on my part in my earlier posting, I meant £150k plus. We all make some mistakes, but there are those who think that they are perfect. Edited by Lewis, Nov 16 2014, 07:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
| AndyK | Nov 16 2014, 07:33 PM Post #25 |
|
Senior Member
|
No VAT affects the well off far more than it does the poor. The essentials are VAT free or reduced VAT. 20% on a new BMW is better than 15% don't you think? The top rate is 47% not 45 (including NI) and those over £100k pay a 60% tax rate. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 16 2014, 07:45 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
|
Rubbish the poorer pay more in VAT proportionately. Not everything is VAT free. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 16 2014, 07:56 PM Post #27 |
|
Senior Member
|
This report by the Rowntrree Foundation argues that the poorest are hit hardest by VAT increases: http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2011/01/vat-rise-affecting-people-poverty I quote: But the IFS go on to make the (obvious) point that VAT rises hit those who spend the most – with the caveat that VAT does not apply equally to all items. They also say that the bottom tenth of the income distribution have to spend more compared with their reported incomes. So, when you compare the impact of the VAT rise as a proportion of spending rather than income, then you get a mildly progressive pattern where the highest 10% by income lose a little bit more than the lowest 10%. In fact, the impact is pretty much equal across the whole population when you look at it like this, i.e. as a proportion of spending. There is a much more pronounced progressive pattern when you put everyone in order according to how much they spend rather than their income. The answer, then, is that the VAT rise is regressive when you look at it by income, but progressive when you use expenditure. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 08:01 PM Post #28 |
|
Senior Member
|
Really! I suggest you sack your present accountant! Try this little wheeze, buy a new car and claim it is for sole use within your business, this might entail meeting clients, transporting a bag of cement or dropping off a letter, to complete the charade have the name of the business displayed on the vehicle, you might of course pop down the shops in it or go on holiday but as long as it is on "business" nobody cares! You can claim VAT off of the purchase price and on a lot of the running costs. And NOBODY on £100k pays the headline rate of tax unless they are completely stupid! Edited by Tigger, Nov 16 2014, 08:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| AndyK | Nov 16 2014, 08:03 PM Post #29 |
|
Senior Member
|
The study is not correct, the poorest are net beneficiaries of the tax system, they pay no tax at all. |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Nov 16 2014, 08:05 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
|
This is about personal tax's. Business taxes are a completely different subject. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 08:21 PM Post #31 |
|
Senior Member
|
You don't seem to understand, you get your wages/income paid into a business you set up to avoid paying that headline rate I mentioned, you in effect set up a shell company to this end, a while ago Private Eye reported that several senior tax officials at HMRC had done just this! And I think I'm right in saying just about anyone earning in excess of circa £70k can use a tax planner and ask the person who pays their wages to hand them over to the tax planner for suitable attention. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 16 2014, 08:23 PM Post #32 |
|
Senior Member
|
Nonsense! Most of life's essentials attract indirect taxation which is unavoidable by those on PAYE. |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Nov 16 2014, 08:57 PM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
|
They are NET beneficiaries of the tax system. It doesn't matter how much VAT they pay, the system has been arranged so that they pay an effective 0 rate. Edited by AndyK, Nov 16 2014, 09:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 16 2014, 10:45 PM Post #34 |
|
Senior Member
|
VAT is tax! That is paid regardless of the rate or level at which income tax kicks in! |
|
|
|
| Boxter | Nov 17 2014, 01:51 AM Post #35 |
Regular Member
|
Some corporations pay less tax than their secretaries. Junckers the current EU supremeo devised a scam whilst PM of the Dutchy of Luxembourx for 19 years which gave it a ratio of foreign investment to GDP that is the highest in the world at 4,700 % (compared to the UK, at a paltry 50%). How much tax evasion do you need to do that trick! |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Nov 17 2014, 08:02 AM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
|
That's not how it works, the Swedes have a 25% tax rate and have a much more equal society. It doesn't matter what the VAT rate is if you are a net beneficiary of tax. It could be 50% and the poor could be better off, even if VAT was applied equally to everything. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 17 2014, 07:43 PM Post #37 |
|
Senior Member
|
No can't agree. It is a regressive tax that affects the lowest paid worse as they spend a greater proportion of their available money on it. The study is correct in coming to this conclusion. |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Nov 17 2014, 10:42 PM Post #38 |
|
Senior Member
|
Its not a regressive tax, you can't take any one tax in unison and analyse it like that. Tax has to be taken in balance with benefits and tax credits. It doesn't make any difference what VAT tax rate is applied because it can always be balanced out by benefits. The poorer section are net beneficiaries of the tax system, that means they receive more from the system than they pay in tax. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 17 2014, 11:00 PM Post #39 |
|
Senior Member
|
No still don't agree. VAT affects people because they have to pay it if the goods or service attracts it regardless if they pay income tax or not. It therefore does matter what the VAT rate is. |
|
|
|
| Tytoalba | Nov 17 2014, 11:11 PM Post #40 |
|
Senior Member
|
The paying of VAT is part out of necessity and part out of a desire where it becomes a voluntary act.by buying the goods or services one desires that carry VAT Some essentials are VAT free. Spend more and you pay more, spend less and you pay less. Just a thought to get the replies. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:37 AM Jul 14