pb1977 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 So you suggest we invade the likes of Switzerland, The Cayman Islands and all the other tax havens around the world and go asset seizing. OK your living in OJ land, i suggest you increase your medication and lock the door of your padded cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 And these people probably pay about 10% of the UK's tax revenue. really? i doubt that. however i dont care. 335 thousand million pounds thats what they should handover today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 So you suggest we invade the likes of Switzerland, The Cayman Islands and all the other tax havens around the world and go asset seizing. OK your living in OJ land, i suggest you increase your medication and lock the door of your padded cell. its that how we do it now? no we do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 That is correct, the high earners who can afford to pay high taxes won't be dodging it then and the low earners who can't afford taxes would pay less, much fairer society. What doesn't seem fair about it? While a person carries a British Passport they get the bennifits of help from the British Consulate etc. so pay up your dues, this way the country wouldn't be in the financial mess that it is. And seriously why should someone with 100,000,000 in the bank and earnining millions per year be able to live somewhere like Jersey tax free? How would anyone pay less? How does paying tax in two separate jurisdictions strike you as remotely fair? What help do you think having a passport actually provides to anyone, it's certainly never provided me with any... And it seems even more unlikely that someone who's extremely rich would require assistance from the consulate... Why should someone be able to live in Jersey tax free. Firstly they can't, Jersey operates a 20% income tax. And they can benefit from that tax rate because Jersey can legally set it own rates of tax and residents of Jersey are taxed at that rate. I'd fully expect your person with 100 mill in the bank to chuck in the passport if the government tried to add an additional 40% tax on top of the tax he already pays in the place he lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pb1977 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 its that how we do it now? no we do not. Well how would you suggest we get our hands on their overseas assets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 its that how we do it now? no we do not. Goodnight Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 The top 1% of earners pay 24% of this countries tax, the next 9% pay another 29% of this counties tax. So the top 10% of earners pay well over 50% of this countries tax income. is this after the accountant has taken off everything they are entitled to claim ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 really? i doubt that. however i dont care. 335 thousand million pounds thats what they should handover today. You've repeated this several times, but not explained why that's morally or ethically right. You've also not explained how you'd stop the mass exodus of capital from the country and the subsequent complete collapse of the economy, or why such a collapse would be beneficial to us... In short, you're just extremely jealous of those who have what you haven't and instead of advocating that it be given to you, you advocate that it should be given to everyone, a weak attempt to hide your greed and jealousy. You ignore the practical and moral problems with your idea and the undesirable consequences, probably because an idea that can't possibly be implemented doesn't need to be thought through logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 is this after the accountant has taken off everything they are entitled to claim ? Yes, that is the actual amount of the tax burden that they pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 its that how we do it now? no we do not. We don't do it at all, there is no mechanism or agreement that allows us to unilaterally seize assets without a legal precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.