System 'players', which is worse
Poll: System 'players', which is worse
Total Members Polled: 378
Discussion
I've been reading through a few different threads today containing the usual 'lefty scum'-v-'fat-cat' arguments and I got to thinking. Who is actually causing the biggest financial drain on this once-great nation of hours?
Those who earn £100k+, pay some tax but manage to evade the full amount they are deemed to be able to afford.
Or those who have never put a penny into the system and argue that it is the Governments duty to pay them to do nothing?
Those who earn £100k+, pay some tax but manage to evade the full amount they are deemed to be able to afford.
Or those who have never put a penny into the system and argue that it is the Governments duty to pay them to do nothing?
Those who earn a lot of money do so (generally) by providing services that put money through the economy somehow. The fact that they try to get away without paying for it themselves is still not great, but is far outweighed by the money brought in by the businesses they head up.
Those who live on the dole and avoid working wherever possible need to be put down. They provide absolutely nothing to anyone. They suck the life, goodwill and morale out of those of us who have to stand by and watch them get away with it.
Those who live on the dole and avoid working wherever possible need to be put down. They provide absolutely nothing to anyone. They suck the life, goodwill and morale out of those of us who have to stand by and watch them get away with it.
Definitely the spongers. Like said previously the rich must have at least put something back into the system, Some of the very rich folk own business, or did, and will employ people, contributing to the system this way.
I'm not saying that's an excuse, just that it better than no contribution at all.
I'm not saying that's an excuse, just that it better than no contribution at all.
I think it's a bit crap when the full time head of a public sector organisation is a the head of a different company.
But thinking the tax avoidance is the bad thing there I think misses the point and risks threatening people who, as this poll highlights, contribute an awful lot more than some. More than most even, I suspect.
But thinking the tax avoidance is the bad thing there I think misses the point and risks threatening people who, as this poll highlights, contribute an awful lot more than some. More than most even, I suspect.
ds avoiding paying tax then in the next breath he congratulates himself because his accountant saved his plumbing firm £2k in tax by doing some clever accounting. 
kambites said:
Given the average political orientation of PH, I think you can probably guess the outcome of this one. 
I always thought that, but looking at some other threads today there seems to be a larger number of socialists on here than I anticipated.Just to clarify my take on this:-
Firstly, I'm far from the top-end earners but I've put a substantial amount into 'the system'.
I have never understood why those who do earn a higher than average wage are expected to pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. Maybe this is what drives them to look for loopholes to reduce their burden down to the same level as the working majority?
I've also never understood why we, as a nation, will quite happily pay people who do not work merely because they don't want to. Hell, we even bow and scrape to them when they start complaining that they don't get enough!!!
So why is it that the non-workers and socialists are so ready to complain when a 'fat-cat' is outed for avoiding payment of the full amount of tax due? Most of these people are already paying enough tax to keep a significant number of welfare cheats housed clothed and fed, do they not realise that if they bring down the capitalist system there will be no money to pay the scroungers any more?
Dr Jekyll said:
0000 said:
I think it's a bit crap when the full time head of a public sector organisation is a the head of a different company.
Why?0000 said:
There's a lot of mixed talk around evasion and avoidance without much separation of the two in this thread.
Whichever is used, the people who do this are normally paying a very high proportion of their income to HMRC already. It's rare that people will get away with paying no tax.0000 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
0000 said:
I think it's a bit crap when the full time head of a public sector organisation is a the head of a different company.
Why?If they are the 'head' of another organisation I can see the issue. But if it's just a personal service company that their remuneration goes through then there is no conflict.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff