Tax Avoidance = Immoral

[mrmr96]

johnfm said:

Nobody mention 'worth to a country'. I described the right to influence allocation of monies taken by a government from its tax paying constituents.

Government, once eleccted, have virtually unfettered power to spend it however they like. They are given this mandate by the voters. So, why should those who make no contribution have a vote? Should prisoners have a vote? What about EU immigrants? Children?

Are you playing devil's advocate, or are you an idiot?

[johnfm]

mrmr96 said:

johnfm said:

Nobody mention 'worth to a country'. I described the right to influence allocation of monies taken by a government from its tax paying constituents.

Government, once eleccted, have virtually unfettered power to spend it however they like. They are given this mandate by the voters. So, why should those who make no contribution have a vote? Should prisoners have a vote? What about EU immigrants? Children?

Are you playing devil's advocate, or are you an idiot?

How's the keyboard warrior thing working for you? Your panties seem twisted...


Do you have anything sensible to add?

[turbobloke]

martin84 said:

Because we live in a free democracy. Just because democratic freedom of voting happens to mean you don't get a Tory majority

That's not the reason there wasn't a clear Conservative majority.

[martin84]

johnfm said:

It is nothing to do with party politics. All parties are fundamentally the same - tax and spend with no control at all over their unrelenting demand for more tax and more borrowing. Because votes are bought with spending. It is outrageous, but I can fully understand why net beneficiaries defend the current system; it is in their interest to perpetuate heavy tax and spend politics.

So you'd rather a small group of the richest people deciding on what Government we have. Do you not just think we'd get a Government acting purely in their interests because the wider population has no say in anything? Isn't that essentially the same as we have now, just the Government would cater to a different group? Or would you rather that just because it chimes with your personal view?

You do realise we invade countries which run similar systems don't you?

johnfm said:

My children don't have the vote. Yet decisions are made by the government directly affecting the format and cost of their education, the provision of their healthcare etc.

If it was a 'free democracy', why are they excluded?

So because your children can't vote, rich people should get more votes?

Well you're branching into a different issue entirely now. Whether or not children should be allowed to vote is a different discussion but saying children can't vote so it's not a free democracy is not a defence for the richest having heavier voting power. The issue on the children front is there needs to be an arbitrary number because children can't make an informed decision. Neither can many adults but there needs to be a line somewhere.

The fact is when your kids get to 18, they can vote whether they have £1 or £1million. That's what makes it a free democracy.

The only alternative is dictatorship. Most communist, extreme left dictatorships have been run entirely by the richest, giving no say to the rest of the population as the selected elite run everything in their own interests. You can't have a democracy whereby your voting eligability is tied to how much money you've got. There is no such thing.

[turbobloke]

martin84 said:

So you'd (johnfm) rather a small group of the richest people deciding on what Government we have.

It worked last time with Labour's boundary changes. Let's see if it works this time.

[martin84]

But johnfm is proposing a 'democratic' system whereby those with the most money have the heaviest voting power. In a part of the world where the status quo is 20% of people having 80% of the money I fail to see how that can result in anything other than Government's run purely in the interests of rich people and nobody else. The only way to put democracy into such a system would be to pay everybody the same amount of money, so millionaires wouldn't be allowed to be millionaires anymore. Guess which group of people would hate that system the most - to give you a clue, it won't be the poor people.

Johnfm is essentially proposing a communist-esque dictatorship but with some ceremonial paperwork thrown in to give the illusion of 'democracy.'

[NorthernBoy]

el stovey said:

That's right, even if you have a flat rate of 30%, new elaborate schemes will arrive to divert money early on so you only pay 30% of a fraction of what you actually earn.

People who are happy being in often untested aggressive tax reduction schemes will always be happy to be in them.

That's not true. I was fine paying 40% tax, even when that was a massive amount. I'm now paying 52% on a far smaller wage, and that's a high enough percentage that I'm tempted to look at options to mitigate it.

[johnfm]

martin84 said:

But johnfm is proposing a 'democratic' system whereby those with the most money have the heaviest voting power. In a part of the world where the status quo is 20% of people having 80% of the money I fail to see how that can result in anything other than Government's run purely in the interests of rich people and nobody else. The only way to put democracy into such a system would be to pay everybody the same amount of money, so millionaires wouldn't be allowed to be millionaires anymore. Guess which group of people would hate that system the most - to give you a clue, it won't be the poor people.

Johnfm is essentially proposing a communist-esque dictatorship but with some ceremonial paperwork thrown in to give the illusion of 'democracy.'

I'm not proposing anything.

In fact, I would like governments of any leaning (they are all virtually the same, tax & spend, centrists) to be about 60% smaller.

Collect less, spend less. If that was the case, I wouldn't give a toss what they spent it on as I wouldn't begrudge my lower take burden being spent in any at all.

[Ozzie Osmond]

johnfm said:

Collect less, spend less.

The problem isn't how much they collect; it's the way they squander it afterwards!

But I agree, the less they collect the less they can squander....

[martin84]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The problem isn't how much they collect; it's the way they squander it afterwards!

But I agree, the less they collect the less they can squander.... more they will borrow.

[Ozzie Osmond]

NorthernBoy said:

I'm now paying 52% on a far smaller wage.

Are you a genuine "low earner" or have you overlooked,

• VAT 20% (paid out of taxed income)
• Council Tax (paid out of taxed income)
• Stamp Duty (paid out of taxed income)
• Fuel duty (paid out of taxed income and itself subject to VAT)
• Airport tax (paid out of taxed income)

I'd wager the government takes at least two thirds of a high earner's income these days.

• Oh, I forgot the 40% Inheritance Tax payable at the end, if you've got anything left....

[Eric Mc]

Ozzie Osmond said:

NorthernBoy said:

I'm now paying 52% on a far smaller wage.

Are you a genuine "low earner" or have you overlooked,

• VAT 20% (paid out of taxed income)
• Council Tax (paid out of taxed income)
• Stamp Duty (paid out of taxed income)
• Fuel duty (paid out of taxed income and itself subject to VAT)
• Airport tax (paid out of taxed income)

I'd wager the government takes at least two thirds of a high earner's income these days.

• Oh, I forgot the 40% Inheritance Tax payable at the end, if you've got anything left....

You forget the DOZENS of other taxes that are part and parcel of almost verey financial or commercial transation.

You've only listed about 1/3 of them.

[Steffan]

coyft said:

NorthernBoy said:

el stovey said:

That's right, even if you have a flat rate of 30%, new elaborate schemes will arrive to divert money early on so you only pay 30% of a fraction of what you actually earn.

People who are happy being in often untested aggressive tax reduction schemes will always be happy to be in them.

That's not true. I was fine paying 40% tax, even when that was a massive amount. I'm now paying 52% on a far smaller wage, and that's a high enough percentage that I'm tempted to look at options to mitigate it.

I think this is key. When you feel you're an easy, lazy target it makes you want to fight back. Bring in a general anti avoidance measure, together with a maximum rate of 35%. I guarantee the tax take would go up. The problem is it might not be a vote winner and as we know the only objective of a politician is to gain/retain power.

I actually agree with you on this the Laffer curve is the key. There is undoubtedly a diminishing return when taxation is perceived to be excessive by the taxpayer.

There needs to be a lot more transparency in government. The Revenue have had too much privilege in the past. They need to recognise the need for change in the system. Currently very few taxpayers use offshore devices. Unless the system improves a lot more will start to consider the possibilities.

There needs to be a fundamental rebalancing of the UK budget to run from within the amount of money that the taxpayer can afford to generate in a year. Borrowing by the UK to fund consumption and benefits has to stop. The government have to manage the economy within levels that the taxpayer can actually afford to contribute.

There can be no more borrowing to fund unaffordable benefits lifestyles within the UK. Borrowing should be severely restricted to be used on capital investment on major infrastructure projects that have long term benefits for the UK, all the expenditure being within the UK employing local workers.

That would do it I think. I wonder if the politicians would agree.

[turbobloke]

Steffan said:

coyft said:

NorthernBoy said:

el stovey said:

That's right, even if you have a flat rate of 30%, new elaborate schemes will arrive to divert money early on so you only pay 30% of a fraction of what you actually earn.

People who are happy being in often untested aggressive tax reduction schemes will always be happy to be in them.

That's not true. I was fine paying 40% tax, even when that was a massive amount. I'm now paying 52% on a far smaller wage, and that's a high enough percentage that I'm tempted to look at options to mitigate it.

I think this is key. When you feel you're an easy, lazy target it makes you want to fight back. Bring in a general anti avoidance measure, together with a maximum rate of 35%. I guarantee the tax take would go up. The problem is it might not be a vote winner and as we know the only objective of a politician is to gain/retain power.

There is undoubtedly a diminishing return when taxation is perceived to be excessive by the taxpayer.

Agreed.

Overhearing some shrill zealot on TV yesterday harping on about it being OK for him to get tax benefits from his personal allowance, ISA, pension payments, all fine, but various tax avoidance measures he wasn't aware of were not OK. Morals or sour grapes? I looked in for a minute to find out who it was...turned out to be Baron Matthew Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a rentamouth libdim of course. So, both probably, with fake righteous indignation for good measure.

[martin84]

Steffan said:

I actually agree with you on this the Laffer curve is the key. There is undoubtedly a diminishing return when taxation is perceived to be excessive by the taxpayer.

General school of thought is that curve - in regards to the top rate of income tax - is about 40%. Gordon Brown delivered 11 budgets to the house of commons and in none of them did he bring in a higher top rate of income tax because even he knew that was the level where you get the most out of the rich.

[turbobloke]

martin84 said:

Steffan said:

I actually agree with you on this the Laffer curve is the key. There is undoubtedly a diminishing return when taxation is perceived to be excessive by the taxpayer.

General school of thought is that curve - in regards to the top rate of income tax - is about 40%. Gordon Brown delivered 11 budgets to the house of commons and in none of them did he bring in a higher top rate of income tax because even he knew that was the level where you get the most out of the rich.

Attributing such wisdom to Clown or his advisor Balls would be pushing it.

If Incapability Brown had been looking to maximise tax take from the rich rather than adhering to the ancient doctrine of seeming to soak the rich, or the alternative doctrine of setting traps for the enemy, he would have been unlikely to settle on 40% or increase the top rate to 50%.

There's a well-known example from the 20s which suggests Clown was off the money when looking at the top rate, marginal rate and taxes taken from the 'rich'. Looked at purely in terms of tax rate and tax take, Mellon's tax cutting went from about 70% down to low 20% and the tax take from high earners continued to increase all the way in parallel.



In terms of total taxes i.e. not just from high earners there was also an increase to over $1bn in total at the end of the same period.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Eric Mc said:

You forget the DOZENS of other taxes that are part and parcel of almost verey financial or commercial transation.

You've only listed about 1/3 of them.

Just tried to rattle off some of the big ones. Sounds as though you, like me, find the total tax burden simply astounding.

[martin84]

turbobloke said:

Attributing such wisdom to Clown or his advisor Balls would be pushing it.

Well the previous Conservative Government brought it down to 40% in the first place - and intend to reduce it back to 40% again - so it's their 'wisdom' really. All I was saying was Brown never put it up, he knew 40% would get him a very healthy take from the wealthy as it'd been proven to do so for the previous decade or so.

[turbobloke]

martin84 said:

turbobloke said:

Attributing such wisdom to Clown or his advisor Balls would be pushing it.

Well the previous Conservative Government brought it down to 40% in the first place - and intend to reduce it back to 40% again - so it's their 'wisdom' really. All I was saying was Brown never put it up, he knew 40% would get him a very healthy take from the wealthy as it'd been proven to do so for the previous decade or so.

Not even close, Labour was responsible for what Labour did, and the supposed wisdom of it was there in your post not the manifesto of the previous Conservative government. When trouble came in a land where boom and bust had been eradicated by the Clown we were not well placed to deal with it. What Labour did, in summary, was to screw up the country at such a great price that our children will be paying for years.

[martin84]

turbobloke said:

What Labour did, in summary, was to screw up the country at such a great price that our children will be paying for years.

Nothing like some biased hyperbole is there?