Hamilton and Button tax avoidance
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
I think the idea of a tax system is not to be 'paying your way', as you have emphasised. It is a difficult thing to quantify in any case.
Companies benefit from the minimum wage in a sense. Someone on minimum wage might well, and would in many places in this country, receive a bit of assistance from government to make ends meet. Whilst there is much in the red top papers about scroungers, if this was removed then the only option would be for companies to pay living wages, and we can't have that, can we. One can't expect the low paid to be taxed even more to pay for their own subsidies.
I know two couples who have struggled to get their kids through university and are now struggling to get them through 'internships', ie working for free, in order to get the jobs they want. That's three kids who are earning nothing (a fourth just employed, and on little more than MW) but can't claim because they are not available for work (I think that's the phrase). Both these couples have a fair income. Some would call them quite rich in fact. But neither has a car as new as my 8-year-old Focus. They are poor because they want to give their kids the chance to compete with the offspring of those they call rich.
They are not comfortable with the situation as, as one of the women pointed out to my wife, if either her or her partner lost their job, they'd be in sever financial problems.
So where are all these taxes to come from? The poor on minimum wage, with their subsidies being a necessity? The middle classes who want their kids to remain in the middle class? In a country that is, we are told, poor the money must come from those with money to spare. Suggesting that you put enough in already given how little you withdraw is not really an argument that stands up.
Not criticising you, your actions or your morals, just your logic.
WHo says this country is poor? Is it feck.Companies benefit from the minimum wage in a sense. Someone on minimum wage might well, and would in many places in this country, receive a bit of assistance from government to make ends meet. Whilst there is much in the red top papers about scroungers, if this was removed then the only option would be for companies to pay living wages, and we can't have that, can we. One can't expect the low paid to be taxed even more to pay for their own subsidies.
I know two couples who have struggled to get their kids through university and are now struggling to get them through 'internships', ie working for free, in order to get the jobs they want. That's three kids who are earning nothing (a fourth just employed, and on little more than MW) but can't claim because they are not available for work (I think that's the phrase). Both these couples have a fair income. Some would call them quite rich in fact. But neither has a car as new as my 8-year-old Focus. They are poor because they want to give their kids the chance to compete with the offspring of those they call rich.
They are not comfortable with the situation as, as one of the women pointed out to my wife, if either her or her partner lost their job, they'd be in sever financial problems.
So where are all these taxes to come from? The poor on minimum wage, with their subsidies being a necessity? The middle classes who want their kids to remain in the middle class? In a country that is, we are told, poor the money must come from those with money to spare. Suggesting that you put enough in already given how little you withdraw is not really an argument that stands up.
Not criticising you, your actions or your morals, just your logic.
To be honest, the idea of the living wage is a good one. I'm not happy that we play top up the coffers for families. However, perhaps a two-tier NMW is in order? Entry level positions like chicken friers, cool, NMW and taxpayer topups, but those are clawed back from the employer, if the employee is over 25 say. Living wage, no extra NI. There are entry level jobs, but they should be entry level.
Just picking up on the "Paid Internships" thing.
If ever there was a device to ensure the status quo that is a beaut. The rich can sponsor little Tarquin or Tiffany through an Internship in London for that plum job they've always fancied. If my son wanted to do something like that there is no way I could afford to pay for him to rent a room in London and live for a year down there just to get a foot in the door.
Know your place Northern Scum...
Hateful practice.
If ever there was a device to ensure the status quo that is a beaut. The rich can sponsor little Tarquin or Tiffany through an Internship in London for that plum job they've always fancied. If my son wanted to do something like that there is no way I could afford to pay for him to rent a room in London and live for a year down there just to get a foot in the door.
Know your place Northern Scum...
Hateful practice.
Rumblestripe said:
Just picking up on the "Paid Internships" thing.
If ever there was a device to ensure the status quo that is a beaut. The rich can sponsor little Tarquin or Tiffany through an Internship in London for that plum job they've always fancied. If my son wanted to do something like that there is no way I could afford to pay for him to rent a room in London and live for a year down there just to get a foot in the door.
Know your place Northern Scum...
Hateful practice.
Or your kids could just move to London, work their a$$es off in sh!t jobs for a while and then spend time building a career and working the system, it seemed to work for me......I had no sponsor, or silver spoon, but I do know what hard work is and was willing to work in just about any job to stay in London, so its not all about keeping people in their place.If ever there was a device to ensure the status quo that is a beaut. The rich can sponsor little Tarquin or Tiffany through an Internship in London for that plum job they've always fancied. If my son wanted to do something like that there is no way I could afford to pay for him to rent a room in London and live for a year down there just to get a foot in the door.
Know your place Northern Scum...
Hateful practice.
Eric Mc said:
Is that still feasible in London?
Of course it is. Shared flat/house rent in the 'burbs somewhere along a tube line and don't waste your money on booze and iPhones for a few years.IMO this 'London is too expensive' attitude people have is more actually a 'I wish London were cheaper so I can live in Ealing/ANother more central location while I start my career'. There are plenty of cheaper places outside the centre - especially to the East, and I expect prices to rise there as well. Get in there.
Quite how this has ended up in this discussion, but as mentioned above London IS a perfectly liveable.
£30k entry finance jobs (probably more) gets you £1,946/month.
If you can not afford rent and living with that kind of money you have issues (all from getting "kids" into the chain).
FYI you can rent a decent room in Knightsbridge for £700/month.
I actually found it much harder to survive outside of London and work.
My salary up North (Harrogate) was very low - and other than housing, everything else costs the same!
£30k entry finance jobs (probably more) gets you £1,946/month.
If you can not afford rent and living with that kind of money you have issues (all from getting "kids" into the chain).
FYI you can rent a decent room in Knightsbridge for £700/month.
I actually found it much harder to survive outside of London and work.
My salary up North (Harrogate) was very low - and other than housing, everything else costs the same!
My first job in London paid £9k a year , I could just about afford to share a crappy flat in Kilburn , couldn't run a car, didn't go out all that much and then lost my job(1992 turned out to be a good year for a lot of people in the end.. !) I was supposd to be working in the city but no one was hiring, so ended up helping a stock take in a luggage store on Piccadilly ( glamorous I know). I persevered and eventually ended up temping to nearly 2 years before landing an actual permanent job.
I didn't think I would ever own a house either back then, but it's amazing what some hard work and application can do.
I recognize things see not quite the same now, but nothing stays the same anyway , so best make the most of it while you can.
I didn't think I would ever own a house either back then, but it's amazing what some hard work and application can do.
I recognize things see not quite the same now, but nothing stays the same anyway , so best make the most of it while you can.
That's the point. Experiences from even a few short years ago may not be valid to the current situation. Of course, the London property market may be one giant bubble ready to pop. If it does, then the situation may rectify itself. Only a few weeks ago an estate engine revealed that they had sold 38 properties to ONE Chinese buyer - who paid in cash.
Just about everyone avoids tax where they can - ISAs and Duty Free are the easy options available to everyone. I don't expect anyone to pay more tax than they are required to by law. Obviously as your earnings increase you increase the number of avoidance options available - some need significant capital to use, for example moving to Monaco!
However, I do expect (contrary to reality!) the law to be written in such a way to keep the tax regime simple and minimise loopholes. Anyone who objects to people legally avoiding tax should direct their objections at the politicians - they make the rules and create the loopholes that people can utilise.
Tax EVASION is completely different (although often conflated with avoidance in (social) media).
However, I do expect (contrary to reality!) the law to be written in such a way to keep the tax regime simple and minimise loopholes. Anyone who objects to people legally avoiding tax should direct their objections at the politicians - they make the rules and create the loopholes that people can utilise.
Tax EVASION is completely different (although often conflated with avoidance in (social) media).
ewenm said:
Just about everyone avoids tax where they can - ISAs and Duty Free are the easy options available to everyone. I don't expect anyone to pay more tax than they are required to by law. Obviously as your earnings increase you increase the number of avoidance options available - some need significant capital to use, for example moving to Monaco!
However, I do expect (contrary to reality!) the law to be written in such a way to keep the tax regime simple and minimise loopholes. Anyone who objects to people legally avoiding tax should direct their objections at the politicians - they make the rules and create the loopholes that people can utilise.
Tax EVASION is completely different (although often conflated with avoidance in (social) media).
As I said earlier - complexity enters the system in order to plug the multiple tax loopholes that would exist in a very simple tax system.However, I do expect (contrary to reality!) the law to be written in such a way to keep the tax regime simple and minimise loopholes. Anyone who objects to people legally avoiding tax should direct their objections at the politicians - they make the rules and create the loopholes that people can utilise.
Tax EVASION is completely different (although often conflated with avoidance in (social) media).
Complex tax avoidance schemes are required with complex tax systems.
Simple tax systems give rise to simple avoidance - they don't kill avoidance.
I have done a deal with JB's property development company. Plenty of tax was paid by both parties
SDLT
VAT
Corporation Tax
S106 payments
Pre application fees
SDLT levied on VAT (yep a tax on a tax)
The tax elements were split between the two, our tax exposure was over £250k before corp tax. JB could have decided not to invest his cash in UK property development and therefore not paid all that tax
SDLT
VAT
Corporation Tax
S106 payments
Pre application fees
SDLT levied on VAT (yep a tax on a tax)
The tax elements were split between the two, our tax exposure was over £250k before corp tax. JB could have decided not to invest his cash in UK property development and therefore not paid all that tax
Eric Mc said:
As I said earlier - complexity enters the system in order to plug the multiple tax loopholes that would exist in a very simple tax system.
Complex tax avoidance schemes are required with complex tax systems.
Simple tax systems give rise to simple avoidance - they don't kill avoidance.
Simple avoidance everyone can use simply perhaps. Equality in avoidance!Complex tax avoidance schemes are required with complex tax systems.
Simple tax systems give rise to simple avoidance - they don't kill avoidance.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff