|
turbobloke
55,691 posts
130 months
|
SLacKer said: Countdown said: Eric Mc said: Government measuring systems are so hopeless it is always difficult to quantify the inefficiencies. In other words, the methods used for measuring efficiency/inefficiency are inefficient in themselves.
The National Audit Office is probably the best source for reports on the effectiveness of government. Having said all that, it is crass to claim that 100% of all govrernment expenditure is inefficient.
. I'd suggest there's another way of looking at it; look at how much you pay out in direct/indirect taxes and compare them to the service you receive . If you think it's VFM all well and good. If you don't then feel free to leave. The amount of people whinging about taxes and "The Guv'mint" whilst being happy to live here is hypocritical. So by that you mean the system is the system and is perfect and therefore anyone who wishes it was different should leave the country because if they don't they are a hypocrite. If that were the case unjust laws would never have been repealed and change would never occur. I find death duty the most morally abhorrent tax in that the demise of a loved one may well lead to a large tax bill because the total estate is worth more than a hopelessly outdated threshold. What possible justification is there for that? Stamp duty on your primary dwelling what is that all about? I find a lot wrong with the system as it stands so by your comment I should leave the country. And if everybody with a justified sense of concern were to leave, those like crankedup (presumably) who remain would be stuffed everywhichway since the libdim 8% support base can only include the tiniest fraction of high earners who pay lots of tax. The top 1% earners pay 30% of taxes iirc. Somebody had better hope they stay around rather than encouraging vilification of 'toffs'. That's apart from the fact that with taxes currently at a high level, if certain rates e.g. CGT, stamp duty, corptax and income had reduced rates, the amount of tax received is more than likely to increase.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,632 posts
66 months
|
Diderot said: Erm, the terminally stupid Climate Change Act has committed us to spunking up to £50 billion per year for the next 40 years. A democratically decided policy decision. Perhaps not one that you or I agree with but we can't say it's waste just because we personally don't support it. I'd rather we had less Police, no nuclear deterrent, no trading Standards, no Environmental Health (if somebody wants to eat mechanically reclaimed bovine rectum that's their lookout) but, as a society, WE have decided that we want these things. For me to suggest that not paying tax is in some way justified because I consider SOME Govt policies as "waste" is rubbish. People try to pay as little tax as possible purely because they are selfish. They want to keep as much of their own money as possible and rely on everybody else to fund public services.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,691 posts
130 months
|
Countdown said: Diderot said: Erm, the terminally stupid Climate Change Act has committed us to spunking up to £50 billion per year for the next 40 years. A democratically decided policy decision. Perhaps not one that you or I agree with but we can't say it's waste just because we personally don't support it. Yes we can, because it is...that's all that there is to say - as with any other forms of legislated idiocy.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,632 posts
66 months
|
SLacKer said: So by that you mean the system is the system and is perfect and therefore anyone who wishes it was different should leave the country because if they don't they are a hypocrite. If that were the case unjust laws would never have been repealed and change would never occur. Nope. never said it was perfect and by all means lobby for it to be changed. But, until it's changed, everybody should comply with the law. SLacKer said: I find death duty the most morally abhorrent tax in that the demise of a loved one may well lead to a large tax bill because the total estate is worth more than a hopelessly outdated threshold. What possible justification is there for that?
Stamp duty on your primary dwelling what is that all about?
I find a lot wrong with the system as it stands so by your comment I should leave the country. All taxes are unfair. There is no link between how much you pay and how much you consume (the majority are better off, and a minority who subsidise the rest of us are worse off. I too find a lot wrong with the system. But my choices are "comply with the rules or leave". Evading tax whilst taking the benefits is morally wrong.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,632 posts
66 months
|
SLacKer said: So by that you mean the system is the system and is perfect and therefore anyone who wishes it was different should leave the country because if they don't they are a hypocrite. If that were the case unjust laws would never have been repealed and change would never occur. Nope. never said it was perfect and by all means lobby for it to be changed. But, until it's changed, everybody should comply with the law. SLacKer said: I find death duty the most morally abhorrent tax in that the demise of a loved one may well lead to a large tax bill because the total estate is worth more than a hopelessly outdated threshold. What possible justification is there for that?
Stamp duty on your primary dwelling what is that all about?
I find a lot wrong with the system as it stands so by your comment I should leave the country. All taxes are unfair. There is no link between how much you pay and how much you consume (the majority are better off, and a minority who subsidise the rest of us are worse off. I too find a lot wrong with the system. But my choices are "comply with the rules or leave". Evading tax whilst taking the benefits is morally wrong.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
So, if you personally don't use a particular service you shouldn't have to pay for it?
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,452 posts
126 months
|
Countdown said: All taxes are unfair. There is no link between how much you pay and how much you consume (the majority are better off, and a minority who subsidise the rest of us are worse off.
I too find a lot wrong with the system. But my choices are "comply with the rules or leave". Evading tax whilst taking the benefits is morally wrong. Evading tax is illegal. No one's disputing that. The topic of the thread is (as things currently stand ) avoidance. If it is ruled that the scheme is evasion having debated the interpretation of an evidently stupidly written rule, then I am sure all participants will be advised, sent a tax bill (with interest) and told not to partake in such schemes again. Bringing morals into it complicates the issue as it's subjective, and there is enough that is open to interpretation as it is. The rules need to be very clear, concise and consistent (and by all means create them on some sense of morality if one must). Beyond that, actions are either legal or not. There is no middle ground.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
But there is - especially in taxation. A SEEMINGLY legal activity CAN be reinterpreted by the courts as being illegal or unworkable.
Carr will find out soon enough which side of the fence this scheme falls.
|
|
|
Countdown
6,632 posts
66 months
|
Eric Mc said: So, if you personally don't use a particular service you shouldn't have to pay for it? Are you talking to me or "Devil's advocate" me?  In a 100% fair "utopia" you would pay for only the goods / services you receive. The downsides being that nobody would pay for Public Services where consumption cannot be controlled. Which would lead to a pretty s  t society, as can be evidenced in most of the 3rd world. I am quite happy paying the current levels of UK tax for the privildge of living in the current UK society.
|
|
|
Roboraver
101 posts
32 months
|
|
|
voyds9
4,118 posts
153 months
|
Eric Mc said: But there is - especially in taxation. A SEEMINGLY legal activity CAN be reinterpreted by the courts as being illegal or unworkable.
Carr will find out soon enough which side of the fence this scheme falls. I believe Cameron (heard on BBC) has said 'although the scheme was legal it was immoral'. It would be interesting HMRC tried to argue the opposite.
|
|
|
deadslow
3,189 posts
93 months
|
voyds9 said: I believe Cameron (heard on BBC) has said 'although the scheme was legal it was immoral'. It would be interesting HMRC tried to argue the opposite. Morality lectures from MPs, you've got to larf 
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
voyds9 said: Eric Mc said: But there is - especially in taxation. A SEEMINGLY legal activity CAN be reinterpreted by the courts as being illegal or unworkable.
Carr will find out soon enough which side of the fence this scheme falls. I believe Cameron (heard on BBC) has said 'although the scheme was legal it was immoral'. It would be interesting HMRC tried to argue the opposite. What, that it was ILLEGAL but MORAL?
|
|
|
Sexual Chocolate
887 posts
14 months
|
voyds9 said: I believe Cameron (heard on BBC) has said 'although the scheme was legal it was immoral'. It would be interesting HMRC tried to argue the opposite. Bit rich coming from him considering his fathers inheritance was offshore.
|
|
|
Diderot
2,602 posts
62 months
|
Sexual Chocolate said: voyds9 said: I believe Cameron (heard on BBC) has said 'although the scheme was legal it was immoral'. It would be interesting HMRC tried to argue the opposite. Bit rich coming from him considering his fathers inheritance was offshore. And his father in law is trousering wads of cash for the windymills on his land
|
|
|
NDA
10,257 posts
95 months
|
I thought Adele's view on tax earlier in the year was amusing.... 'Speaking to Q magazine, Adele said, "I'm mortified to have to pay 50%! [While] I use the NHS, I can't use public transport any more. Trains are always late, most state schools are s t, and I've gotta give you, like, four million quid – are you having a laugh? When I got my tax bill in from [the album] 19, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire" I guess the point with tax is that those on 'normal' incomes will complain that as they 'pay their fair share' then so should the wealthy. The problem for the wealthy is that the same percentage of their income looks a ridiculous amount. From Adele's point of view, she records an album and the next thing she knows she's got a bill for £4m.  When you are required to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in Stamp Duty, for example, it feels like legalised confiscation of hard earned wedge. As does paying tax in death duties when you've paid tax all your life.... It seems a never ending stream of cash being removed from you. So legal schemes to minimise this flow of cash to the state (to fritter away) look quite attractive.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
Is Adele planning on torpedoing her career too?
Effectively telling all the saps who pay to buy her music or go to her concerts that they are mugs and she isn't is going to really endear her to them.
These high profile people really must get a grip on understanding who has put them where they are.
|
|
|
NDA
10,257 posts
95 months
|
Eric Mc said: Is Adele planning on torpedoing her career too?
Effectively telling all the saps who pay to buy her music or go to her concerts that they are mugs and she isn't is going to really endear her to them.
These high profile people really must get a grip on understanding who has put them where they are. I suspect she loves her fans. But not the tax demands. The two are possibly separate. 
|
|
|
WojaWabbit
637 posts
88 months
|
sidicks said: I just used this and discovered my income is allegedly greater than 94% of the population. Therefor I'd dispute the accuracy of this tool as I'm always f king skint 
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,452 posts
126 months
|
Eric Mc said: Is Adele planning on torpedoing her career too?
Effectively telling all the saps who pay to buy her music or go to her concerts that they are mugs and she isn't is going to really endear her to them.
These high profile people really must get a grip on understanding who has put them where they are. Maybe it would do the saps some good to understand that a single individual is being sent demands with menaces (I've yet to receive a polite letter from HMRC) for 4m quid and ask if that is really, truly "fair". Maybe someone like Adele would be able to explain it in a vernacular they understand which might prompt them to look at who is really at fault in this crazy system. Probably not though...
|
|
