|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
Bing o said: It's the upkeep of the benefits classes which means people see 30-50% of their pay stolen from them at source, leaving them unable to spend money in shops such as Mr Greens, in the local pubs that are now dying etc etc. Collect the same amount of tax, just do it through low income tax, and increasing the volume of consumption tax take as a result (harder to avoid and easier to administer as well). All IMO of course. Public expenditure is not just the upkeep of the benefit classes. I'm not disputing that there is a minority of people who abuse the "system" (that happens at all layers of social strata) and by all means lets try to eliminate this. But a big chunk of public spending contributes towards making our society what it is. And it is this very "society" which enables the "self made millionaires" to become so wealthy. Try being an Lawyer/Banker/Doctor/Carpet warehouse owner in places where there is little or no Public Expenditure, It would happen only with great difficulty because you do not have an educated workforce with disposable income.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
AJS- said: But missing the point that regardless of net benefit to anyone, high taxes on the income of the well off is an ideological cornerstone of British left wingery. They really would rather these people lived overseas and contributed nothing than lived in the UK and contributed significant sums of money via a reasonable, relatively flat tax structure, and much more via living and spending their money in the country. In a way the behaviour of those that choose to live overseas and yet make their money from UK residents is akin to that of a parasite. they are prepared to reap the benefits of our society and yet wish to minimise any contribution towards its upkeep. To reiterate the UK taxes paid by their employees are NOT their taxes, regardless of how some wish to portray it.
|
|
|
DJRC
19,819 posts
105 months
|
Countdown said: Bing o said: Or you could say:
Hey, you create employment for thousands who all pay tax, so we won't piss you off and take your companies with you.
This obsession the west has with taxing more and more is sad at best, perverse at worst. The tax is paid by the people who earnt the money NOT by the Employer. To suggest the Employer should be exempt from tax is a bit like saying I should get a tax rebate when I have my car serviced. Thats what happens in Switzerland. Can claim all that back on your tax.
|
|
|
AJS-
10,004 posts
105 months
|
Countdown said: AJS- said: But missing the point that regardless of net benefit to anyone, high taxes on the income of the well off is an ideological cornerstone of British left wingery. They really would rather these people lived overseas and contributed nothing than lived in the UK and contributed significant sums of money via a reasonable, relatively flat tax structure, and much more via living and spending their money in the country. In a way the behaviour of those that choose to live overseas and yet make their money from UK residents is akin to that of a parasite. they are prepared to reap the benefits of our society and yet wish to minimise any contribution towards its upkeep. To reiterate the UK taxes paid by their employees are NOT their taxes, regardless of how some wish to portray it. In the same way, someone who goes on holiday to France is akin to a parasite, making your money here and spending it elsewhere. The point is, people will do what is in their interests, and if you make it in someone's interests to avoid the UK because the taxes are crippling then of course they will do so. Set taxes at a reasonable level and people will stay.
|
|
|
Bing o
15,184 posts
88 months
|
Countdown said: Bing o said: It's the upkeep of the benefits classes which means people see 30-50% of their pay stolen from them at source, leaving them unable to spend money in shops such as Mr Greens, in the local pubs that are now dying etc etc. Collect the same amount of tax, just do it through low income tax, and increasing the volume of consumption tax take as a result (harder to avoid and easier to administer as well). All IMO of course. Public expenditure is not just the upkeep of the benefit classes. I'm not disputing that there is a minority of people who abuse the "system" (that happens at all layers of social strata) and by all means lets try to eliminate this. But a big chunk of public spending contributes towards making our society what it is. And it is this very "society" which enables the "self made millionaires" to become so wealthy. Try being an Lawyer/Banker/Doctor/Carpet warehouse owner in places where there is little or no Public Expenditure, It would happen only with great difficulty because you do not have an educated workforce with disposable income. Makes society what it is? Spiteful, vengeful, obsessed with everyone elses wages without worrying about their own lot. It's a simple sum - set low income taxes and recoup the loss through consumption taxes with the added benefit that many more SMEs can thrive (and in turn pay their share of tax). But no, keep pushing the wealth generators abroad and suck up the worker's disposable income by funding the unfundable pensions and NHS by all means. Nothing social about a society where half of the population sponge and hate on those with the wherewithall to earn a living on their own backs.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
DJRC
19,819 posts
105 months
|
Countdown said: Bing o said: But a big chunk of public spending contributes towards making our society what it is.
And it is this very "society" which enables the "self made millionaires" to become so wealthy. Try being an Lawyer/Banker/Doctor/Carpet warehouse owner in places where there is little or no Public Expenditure, It would happen only with great difficulty because you do not have an educated workforce with disposable income. No it doesnt. Society exists and always exist because people want it to. Those people will trade and barter and exchange goods and finance themselves. Top down imposition of publically spent money rarely improves society and that is true for almost every soverign nation throughout history. Why? because govts invariably get it wrong. This is not a left or right thing, its simply history. Top down imposition only works more efficiently than bottom up in very few areas, which is why historically societies have created and accepted sructure along very similar lines throughout the world. Security/defence and education are the 2 areas where mankind has shown itself to be efficiently capable of organising from the top down better than it can bottom up. The other major one is public health. We are as a species pathetically useless at actually organising and running ourselves en masse. From there on it breaks down into sociology and social anthropology arguments about the whys and hows. Do not though confuse your social ideologies with the dull history.
|
|
|
Blue62
1,391 posts
21 months
|
Bing o said: Makes society what it is? Spiteful, vengeful, obsessed with everyone elses wages without worrying about their own lot.
It's a simple sum - set low income taxes and recoup the loss through consumption taxes with the added benefit that many more SMEs can thrive (and in turn pay their share of tax). But no, keep pushing the wealth generators abroad and suck up the worker's disposable income by funding the unfundable pensions and NHS by all means.
Nothing social about a society where half of the population sponge and hate on those with the wherewithall to earn a living on their own backs. Do half the population sponge, or is there a little bit of poetry in that claim? Back to the OP though, this is really about tax avoidance around a technicality of 'domicile' it's interesting to note how many of us think that this is acceptable on the basis of the positive contribution these people make elsewhere. I do wonder sometimes if the threat of these people moving elsewhere is real or just a scaremongering tactic by successive Govts too weak to address the issue. Would the likes of Green really close his UK business if the tax rules changed?
|
|
|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
AJS- said: In the same way, someone who goes on holiday to France is akin to a parasite, making your money here and spending it elsewhere. Not at all. If he's earned the money/paid taxes in the UK he can do as he wishes. OTOH if he's living offshore whilst earning money from the UK then yes, it's parasitical. AJS- said: The point is, people will do what is in their interests, Of course they will. People are intrinsically very selfish. That is why, if left completely to our own devices, Society as a whole is worse off. I'd be happy to see some examples with little or no State control that have an equivalent quality of life to what we have in the UK. AJS- said: and if you make it in someone's interests to avoid the UK because the taxes are crippling then of course they will do so. Set taxes at a reasonable level and people will stay. By all means avoid the UK. But you cant have it both ways (i.e sitting offshore whilst leeching off UK society).
|
|
|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
Bing o said: Makes society what it is? Spiteful, vengeful, obsessed with everyone elses wages without worrying about their own lot. That's human nature and happens everywhere to various degrees, whether its Somalia or Slough. Bing o said: It's a simple sum - set low income taxes and recoup the loss through consumption taxes with the added benefit that many more SMEs can thrive (and in turn pay their share of tax). But no, keep pushing the wealth generators abroad and suck up the worker's disposable income by funding the unfundable pensions and NHS by all means. Or we could ensure that profits are taxed at source rather than hived offshore. Fine with me 
|
|
|
Justayellowbadge
29,418 posts
111 months
|
Countdown said: Somalia or Slough. I think it's a tad extreme, and more than a little unfair, to lump Somalia in with somewhere like Slough.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
DJRC said: No it doesnt. Society exists and always exist because people want it to. Those people will trade and barter and exchange goods and finance themselves. Top down imposition of publically spent money rarely improves society and that is true for almost every soverign nation throughout history. Why? because govts invariably get it wrong. This is not a left or right thing, its simply history. Top down imposition only works more efficiently than bottom up in very few areas, which is why historically societies have created and accepted sructure along very similar lines throughout the world. Look at the "developed" societies and look at the "developing" societies. As far as I can see the common factor in the developed countries is a democratic government with a reasonable level of State control. Whereas the common factor in underdeveloped countries is either a Totalitarian state or a State with very little Public Sector influence (both of the latter having little or no tax revenues). Do you have any examples of successful "bottom up" societies? DJRC said: Security/defence and education are the 2 areas where mankind has shown itself to be efficiently capable of organising from the top down better than it can bottom up. The other major one is public health. . I'd add Law & Order, Transport, and Utilities to that. And that more or less covers everything as far as the UK is concerned. DJRC said: We are as a species pathetically useless at actually organising and running ourselves en masse. Do not though confuse your social ideologies with the dull history. I think we're pretty good once we realise that if we all work for the common good rather than ourselves then collectively we are better off.
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,858 posts
85 months
|
Countdown said: The tax is paid by the people who earnt the money NOT by the Employer. To suggest the Employer should be exempt from tax is a bit like saying I should get a tax rebate when I have my car serviced. After all, I an enabling the mechanic to pay tax - the Govt should be grateful for this and reduce my share of the burden accordingly  One of the main reason that people such as Philip Green are able to earn such large amounts is BECAUSE he operates in a society such as the UK. but he doesn't want to pay towards the "upkeep" of the UK. That's wrong IMO. How much more wrong could you possibly be? Mr Green risks his money and spends his time generating huge amounts of income for the uk in providing lots of jobs. If he was to allow himself to pay tax in the uk he would get hammered as thanks for his efforts. Personally i have no issue with what he does. Until the uk gov introduces a fair tax system i think its reasonable for those who create jobs and wealth to avoid tax.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
A simple question.
Why does Mr Green not use his incredible talents in places such as Africa or Asia and make profits there ( and pay much lower rates of tax into the bargain?
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,858 posts
85 months
|
Countdown said: A simple question.
Why does Mr Green not use his incredible talents in places such as Africa or Asia and make profits there ( and pay much lower rates of tax into the bargain? Easy not as much money to be made. ETA: Africa not enough money and that which you do make you will be robbed of by the local government.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,338 posts
65 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: Countdown said: A simple question.
Why does Mr Green not use his incredible talents in places such as Africa or Asia and make profits there ( and pay much lower rates of tax into the bargain? Easy not as much money to be made. Why's that then? After all, both have very low direct tax rates. Very pure free market economies. Little or no red tape. Sounds like an entrepreneur's dream.
|
|
|
DJRC
19,819 posts
105 months
|
Countdown said: DJRC said: No it doesnt. Society exists and always exist because people want it to. Those people will trade and barter and exchange goods and finance themselves. Top down imposition of publically spent money rarely improves society and that is true for almost every soverign nation throughout history. Why? because govts invariably get it wrong. This is not a left or right thing, its simply history. Top down imposition only works more efficiently than bottom up in very few areas, which is why historically societies have created and accepted sructure along very similar lines throughout the world. Look at the "developed" societies and look at the "developing" societies. As far as I can see the common factor in the developed countries is a democratic government with a reasonable level of State control. Whereas the common factor in underdeveloped countries is either a Totalitarian state or a State with very little Public Sector influence (both of the latter having little or no tax revenues). Do you have any examples of successful "bottom up" societies? DJRC said: Security/defence and education are the 2 areas where mankind has shown itself to be efficiently capable of organising from the top down better than it can bottom up. The other major one is public health. . I'd add Law & Order, Transport, and Utilities to that. And that more or less covers everything as far as the UK is concerned. DJRC said: We are as a species pathetically useless at actually organising and running ourselves en masse. Do not though confuse your social ideologies with the dull history. I think we're pretty good once we realise that if we all work for the common good rather than ourselves then collectively we are better off. "Developing" "Developed" ? I said, look at the history, *not* the social ideology. Do I use a different language to people or something? The above 2 terms are relevent for the last 200 yrs of human history. My post was also encompassing the previous 5000 yrs. Ill try it again and keep it simple so you can understand it from the historical perspective *without* trying to put your modern ideological spin on it. Societies throughout human history have formed when top down imposition of group security and the ability to promote the legacy of the group via learning and passing down knowledge from generation have been established. Each of those major societies have then expanded by private enterprise trade. Even Rome. Law and order is an interesting one as it has waned back and forth for centuries. England is a very good study in microcosm of that debate. From the formation of the country and the almost totalitarian imposition of it by Alfred to the nadir of formal law and order in England in the 18thC. During that span the fortunes of formal notions of law and order waxed and waned. As to transport and utilities? Forget it. They are a disaster compared to private. Not just a disaster of inefficieny, but an unmitigated disaster at that. No we arent good at all. The trouble with humanity is that it doesnt like stillness. It needs perpetual motion. Unfortunately that means we move further and further away from our initial good intentions and best ideas because we need to forever tinker. That need for almost constant evolution and revolution is behind the rise and fall of every society in history. We as a species are brilliant at reinventing ourselves. We are crap though at managing ourselves.
|
|
|
Bing o
15,184 posts
88 months
|
Countdown said: Why's that then? After all, both have very low direct tax rates. Very pure free market economies. Little or no red tape. Sounds like an entrepreneur's dream. I think the millionaires in Singapore, HK, China and the rest of Asia would disagree. It's relatively easy to make millions - make something for 50cents, sell it for 1 dollar to a tiny fraction of the Chinese et voila. plenty of westerners out here doing just that. Funnily enough, I pay 11% tax on income, and the rest through consumption taxes - and there are thousands of SMEs and larger chains all employing people because 1. There is little in the way of handouts 2. Tax money is cycled through the real economy, not given direct to the govt and on to Wayne and Waynetta.
|
|
|
AJS-
10,004 posts
105 months
|
Countdown said: AJS- said: In the same way, someone who goes on holiday to France is akin to a parasite, making your money here and spending it elsewhere. Not at all. If he's earned the money/paid taxes in the UK he can do as he wishes. OTOH if he's living offshore whilst earning money from the UK then yes, it's parasitical. Legal is legal. If someone isn't paying due taxes then they're breaking the law. Otherwise it's their money to do with as they choose, be it a once a year holiday in France or a villa in Monaco and a holding company in the Bahamas. Countdown said: AJS- said: The point is, people will do what is in their interests, Of course they will. People are intrinsically very selfish. That is why, if left completely to our own devices, Society as a whole is worse off. I'd be happy to see some examples with little or no State control that have an equivalent quality of life to what we have in the UK. Try Hong Kong for starters. Singapore, Switzerland. If more state control equals more general well being then North Korea should be heaven on earth. Countdown said: AJS- said: and if you make it in someone's interests to avoid the UK because the taxes are crippling then of course they will do so. Set taxes at a reasonable level and people will stay. By all means avoid the UK. But you cant have it both ways (i.e sitting offshore whilst leeching off UK society). Is it leeching to provide goods and services people want and then arrange your affairs in the most tax efficient way possible? How about this - a simple one off flat tax of 20% on all income above 12,000 a year, no NI, no employerss contributions, no corporation tax or capital gains tax, then see how many people bother to avoid it compared to the current socialist mess.
|
|
|
heppers75
2,281 posts
86 months
|
Blue62 said: I do wonder sometimes if the threat of these people moving elsewhere is real or just a scaremongering tactic by successive Govts too weak to address the issue. Would the likes of Green really close his UK business if the tax rules changed? No he would do what many large corporates do, he would reconstruct those businesses so that they had very convoluted corporate structures that were headquartered in Zug or similar much like one of my ex employers did. Yes doing so has a hefty cost but there does come a point where the cost is out weighed by the benefit and that is generally reached when they are over taxed in the country of origin/operation. So what happens is the senior management team spends a considerable amount of time managing very complex budget scenarios to ensure that the various very complex rules are adhered to to ensure that there is a very small tax profile anywhere but Zug! And I speak from 3 years worth of experience of having done it!
|
|
|
DonkeyApple
12,003 posts
38 months
|
AJS- said: In the same way, someone who goes on holiday to France is akin to a parasite, making your money here and spending it elsewhere.
The point is, people will do what is in their interests, and if you make it in someone's interests to avoid the UK because the taxes are crippling then of course they will do so. Set taxes at a reasonable level and people will stay. This is the nub of the issue. Ok, lower tax and there will still be some people who feel the need to evade or avoid but it will be a fraction of the number of people now. We need a low taxation economy if we are to get more grubby little s  ts like Philip Green to build up businesses that employ thousands and generate millions in tax. We need to be clearly supporting the go getters and not chasing them away or holding them down with huge taxation and red tape along with pandering to the hatred of the feckless and bitter.
|
|
