Elite Tax Haven Details Leaked

[anonymous-user]

James_B said:

steviegunn said:

If you have little or no income, how do you pay income tax?

The poor don't pay much inheritance tax because they don't inherit anything.

The poor don't pay much stamp duty because they can't afford to buy a house.

The poor don't pay much tax because they are poor.

Income tax is only 25% of UK revenue (source - https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178 ) so I wonder what percentage of the other 75% of revenue is directly or indirectly supplied by the 50% of households who are taking out more than they pay in in income tax? There is some information but I suspect the burden especially from VAT makes the 50% bigger contributors to that lump than the 1%.

Edited by steviegunn on Thursday 9th November 22:52

Taking out more than they pay in total tax, not in income tax. I posted the ONS data up,the other day showing how redistributive our tax system is overall.

So your suspicions are wrong, most households are net recipients, they take more out than they pay in.

This myth that the lower paid are paying too much just isn’t true, the burden is at the other end of the scale.

The main point is that "the poor don't pay much tax because they are poor". Would you support those "at the other end of the scale" paying more tax so that "most households" receive more?

[98elise]

Wayoftheflower said:

98elise said:

bks

Would you swap your tax bill for Alan Sugars?

£58M on an income of £181M? 32% sounds good to me.

So is £58m a lot or a little?

[Henners]

98elise said:

Wayoftheflower said:

98elise said:

bks

Would you swap your tax bill for Alan Sugars?

£58M on an income of £181M? 32% sounds good to me.

So is £58m a lot or a little?

I doubt he's boggo-PAYE either!

[PurpleMoonlight]

Wayoftheflower said:

£58M on an income of £181M? 32% sounds good to me.

Mostly dividends I would guess, so about right.

[Wayoftheflower]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Wayoftheflower said:

£58M on an income of £181M? 32% sounds good to me.

Mostly dividends I would guess, so about right.

£181M was his dividends taken from Telegraph article. Additional dividend rate is 38% so I guess he's claimed £29M odd in deductions to get the effective rate down to 32%

[Dr Jekyll]

98elise said:

Wayoftheflower said:

98elise said:

bks

Would you swap your tax bill for Alan Sugars?

£58M on an income of £181M? 32% sounds good to me.

So is £58m a lot or a little?

If you take the official view that tax is to pay for hospitalsnschools then it's a lot. But if you take the real leftie view that tax is there to impoverish the successful, then it's £123m too low.

[anonymous-user]

James_B said:

Yipper said:

Tax always works on a bell-curve.

The very poorest pay little.
The very richest pay little.
Everyone in between pays a lot.

The poorest pay nothing, and the richest tend to pay a lot.

Whenever people are given real-world examples I know that the claim that they mean some other rich people, but you’ll be hard pressed to find any that are in the bottom half of tax payers.

Just how rich are you proposing that you have to go before you are going to find people paying little? The star trader in the city on £10m a year will be paying about £4.7m in deductions, then you’ve someone like Alan Sugar, who paid £58m in tax personally last year, and you’ve then got the fact that the top 1%of earners pay 30% of all income tax, on 14%of all wages.

The hyperbole from some that the rich pay little is just not borne out by the facts.

edit: bah, didn't refresh from last night - discussed above

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

It seems to me that the most egregious 'avoidance' schemes and structures use trusts to, AIUI, dissociate the assets from their owners/beneficiaries. In a few cases, like say caring for disabled children I get it but otherwise I'm struggling to see why they are accepted as legitimate structures. Can anyone explain why they are so widely tolerated/considered legit?

Much misunderstanding around the subject of trusts. A standard UK discretionary trust of the sort you describe will pay 45% tax on all income and normal capital gains and dividend tax.

[roachcoach]

Roman Rhodes said:

James_B said:

steviegunn said:

If you have little or no income, how do you pay income tax?

The poor don't pay much inheritance tax because they don't inherit anything.

The poor don't pay much stamp duty because they can't afford to buy a house.

The poor don't pay much tax because they are poor.

Income tax is only 25% of UK revenue (source - https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178 ) so I wonder what percentage of the other 75% of revenue is directly or indirectly supplied by the 50% of households who are taking out more than they pay in in income tax? There is some information but I suspect the burden especially from VAT makes the 50% bigger contributors to that lump than the 1%.

Edited by steviegunn on Thursday 9th November 22:52

Taking out more than they pay in total tax, not in income tax. I posted the ONS data up,the other day showing how redistributive our tax system is overall.

So your suspicions are wrong, most households are net recipients, they take more out than they pay in.

This myth that the lower paid are paying too much just isn’t true, the burden is at the other end of the scale.

The main point is that "the poor don't pay much tax because they are poor". Would you support those "at the other end of the scale" paying more tax so that "most households" receive more?

You realise the reality of the situation though, right? That those at the top are not tied to a country and if the tax situation becomes overly hostile in their eyes, they will simply leave.

Would you support reducing the percentage the "rich" pay if it actually resulted in a higher treasury take thus allowing a high governmental spend. The logical answer is "of course". Sadly the emotional horsest the media and other elements have dragged into this mean a very disappointing percentage of people would say "no".

So few seem to understand that idealism must be balanced against pragmatism and reality when it comes to implementation.

Edited by roachcoach on Friday 10th November 09:45

[anonymous-user]

roachcoach said:

Roman Rhodes said:

James_B said:

steviegunn said:

If you have little or no income, how do you pay income tax?

The poor don't pay much inheritance tax because they don't inherit anything.

The poor don't pay much stamp duty because they can't afford to buy a house.

The poor don't pay much tax because they are poor.

Income tax is only 25% of UK revenue (source - https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178 ) so I wonder what percentage of the other 75% of revenue is directly or indirectly supplied by the 50% of households who are taking out more than they pay in in income tax? There is some information but I suspect the burden especially from VAT makes the 50% bigger contributors to that lump than the 1%.

Edited by steviegunn on Thursday 9th November 22:52

Taking out more than they pay in total tax, not in income tax. I posted the ONS data up,the other day showing how redistributive our tax system is overall.

So your suspicions are wrong, most households are net recipients, they take more out than they pay in.

This myth that the lower paid are paying too much just isn’t true, the burden is at the other end of the scale.

The main point is that "the poor don't pay much tax because they are poor". Would you support those "at the other end of the scale" paying more tax so that "most households" receive more?

You realise the reality of the situation though, right? That those at the top are not tied to a country and if the tax situation becomes overly hostile in their eyes, they will simply leave.

Would you support reducing the percentage the "rich" pay if it actually resulted in a higher treasury take thus allowing a high governmental spend. The logical answer is "of course". Sadly the emotional horsest the media and other elements have dragged into this mean a very disappointing percentage of people would say "no".

So few seem to understand that idealism must be balanced against pragmatism and reality when it comes to implementation.

Edited by roachcoach on Friday 10th November 09:45

It depends where you define "the top" with regard to moving jurisdictions. I'm not sure (and this is plucking figures from the air after giving it a small amount of thought) that for anyone earning <£500k PA and/or with <£5m in investable assets moving jurisdiction just because of tax is much of an option. However, below and up to those figures there will be plenty of people that the majority would consider wealthy and who could afford to pay more tax.

[edh]

I thought this was an interesting article - suggesting that offshore finance was essentially invented by accident..

no idea how close to the truth it is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41906470

[roachcoach]

Roman Rhodes said:

roachcoach said:

Roman Rhodes said:

James_B said:

steviegunn said:

If you have little or no income, how do you pay income tax?

The poor don't pay much inheritance tax because they don't inherit anything.

The poor don't pay much stamp duty because they can't afford to buy a house.

The poor don't pay much tax because they are poor.

Income tax is only 25% of UK revenue (source - https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178 ) so I wonder what percentage of the other 75% of revenue is directly or indirectly supplied by the 50% of households who are taking out more than they pay in in income tax? There is some information but I suspect the burden especially from VAT makes the 50% bigger contributors to that lump than the 1%.

Edited by steviegunn on Thursday 9th November 22:52

Taking out more than they pay in total tax, not in income tax. I posted the ONS data up,the other day showing how redistributive our tax system is overall.

So your suspicions are wrong, most households are net recipients, they take more out than they pay in.

This myth that the lower paid are paying too much just isn’t true, the burden is at the other end of the scale.

The main point is that "the poor don't pay much tax because they are poor". Would you support those "at the other end of the scale" paying more tax so that "most households" receive more?

You realise the reality of the situation though, right? That those at the top are not tied to a country and if the tax situation becomes overly hostile in their eyes, they will simply leave.

Would you support reducing the percentage the "rich" pay if it actually resulted in a higher treasury take thus allowing a high governmental spend. The logical answer is "of course". Sadly the emotional horsest the media and other elements have dragged into this mean a very disappointing percentage of people would say "no".

So few seem to understand that idealism must be balanced against pragmatism and reality when it comes to implementation.

Edited by roachcoach on Friday 10th November 09:45

It depends where you define "the top" with regard to moving jurisdictions. I'm not sure (and this is plucking figures from the air after giving it a small amount of thought) that for anyone earning <£500k PA and/or with <£5m in investable assets moving jurisdiction just because of tax is much of an option. However, below and up to those figures there will be plenty of people that the majority would consider wealthy and who could afford to pay more tax.

They'll not move at current rates, I would expect, but you crank that up and a lot of people will start considering it. You can only squeeze people so hard. I mean I already knock back overtime because it's not worth it to me after tax compared to my free time, the exchequer is getting a high percentage of bugger all as a result.

Again you've highlighted the problem with the sentence "there will be plenty of people that the majority would consider wealthy and who could afford to pay more tax", the issue today is driven by emotion, not the actual logic or reality of the situation.

The very fact it is politically untenable to lower a tax rate to increase revenues says it all.

[Tony33]

Yipper said:

Tax always works on a bell-curve.

The very poorest pay little.
The very richest pay little.
Everyone in between pays a lot.

If this thread has taught us anything it is that just isn't the case.

Yes we can get hung up on the morality of tax rates but in terms of a little and a lot as an absolute value, even a lower percentage rate of tax of the rich than stated as the "rules" amounts to many times that of the "in between".

Maybe such transparency isn't such a great thing as I am sure governments accept that the amount they get from the rich and large corporations far outweighs getting heavy handed demanding the spirit of the law and seeing them disappear to another country and getting nothing.

The fact that we rely on such a small percentage to contribute such a huge amount of tax to pay for society seems a rather precarious position.

[Halb]

steviegunn said:

Income tax is only 25% of UK revenue (source - https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178 ) so I wonder what percentage of the other 75% of revenue is directly or indirectly supplied by the 50% of households who are taking out more than they pay in in income tax? There is some information but I suspect the burden especially from VAT makes the 50% bigger contributors to that lump than the 1%.

Edited by steviegunn on Thursday 9th November 22:52

The link had a good pie chart

[steviegunn]

What I as alluding to, perhaps clumsily is that if we had a more equal society then the tax burden would be more equal. When a very few earn vastly greater sums than everyone else then of course the tax will be unequal, if the rich want to pay less tax make the poor richer so they are able to pay more.

[RacerMDR]

the poor can make themselves richer by working harder/smarter though? non?

Then they won't want pay the unfair amount of tax either

[anonymous-user]

RacerMDR said:

the poor can make themselves richer by working harder/smarter though? non?

Then they won't want pay the unfair amount of tax either

If you are a teacher or a nurse or similar then your earning potential is limited.

[roachcoach]

desolate said:

RacerMDR said:

the poor can make themselves richer by working harder/smarter though? non?

Then they won't want pay the unfair amount of tax either

If you are a teacher or a nurse or similar then your earning potential is limited.

TIL this is the standard for "poor"

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-work-experien...

England and Wales - £22,917 to £38,633
Scotland - £22,416 to £43,845

[anonymous-user]

roachcoach said:

TIL this is the standard for "poor"

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-work-experien...

England and Wales - £22,917 to £38,633
Scotland - £22,416 to £43,845

I don't know if that was the thread or not but it was established you had to earn a lot more than that to be a 'net' contributor to the finances of the country.

[sidicks]

desolate said:

I don't know if that was the thread or not but it was established you had to earn a lot more than that to be a 'net' contributor to the finances of the country.

I think the figure was around £30k, but obviously contained a large number of caveats and assumptions.

Remember to add 20-25% to those salaries to take into account the value of the pension ...

There is also significant potential for substantial increases for additional responsibility, as shown by the ranges for head teachers in the same article.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 10th November 12:02