pb1977 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Ok lets take a friend of mine who has just purchased a bike useing the cycle to work scheme. He gets the bike VAT free for starters and as seen as the installments he is paying back are taken from payroll at source he actually does have a reduction in the amount of tax he pays each month. Works out far cheaper than buying the bike from the shop himself and he saves a few £ in tax each month for the next 12 months. I guess thats anti social and immoral as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 There are probably going to be more lefties out on the street over student tuition fees than any of the issues you mention. Not to support the students but just to cause a political riot. That puts it into perspective. My personal opinion is that all public sector workers should give up their gold plated pensions and early retirement packages. They are too much of a drain on public finances. Apart from the fact that public sector pensions were deemed affordable and reducing in cost over time by the last report on them. And far from being goldplated for most people they are barely above state provision. Since you want to take away what people have as a contractual right as deferred pay maybe since you want to set that precedent you would be happy for the pay and entitlements of all workers to be reviewed retrospectivcely not just public sector workers.....including people like Phillip Green? Sounds like a good idea if you want to establish that principle. We can retrospectively change the rules so he pays us more tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 Ok lets take a friend of mine who has just purchased a bike useing the cycle to work scheme. He gets the bike VAT free for starters and as seen as the installments he is paying back are taken from payroll at sourse he actually does have a reduction in his income tax and NI each month. Works out far cheaper than buying the bike from the shop himself and he saves a few £ in tax each month for the next 12 months. I guess thats anti social and immoral as well. Why is having a bike anti-social? You don't seem to understand what the thread is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 Errm, yes you can. Mutual/Friendly Societies, private heath and unemployment insurance, privately funded education. The state is a poor custodian of taxpayers money. It does us no favours by squandering the money it should be spending on vital social services. You mean like the US system that costs 3 times as much to deliver the same level of services? Well if you like it so much why don't you go abroad, some of us like our money to be well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Innit Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Maybe you should make it clear then that you want minimum state provision, when you have need of the states services. Much of what the state does either shouldn't be done at all, or could be funded more efficiently without much state involvement. The system is corrupt and inefficient. We should sort that out first before demanding more tax to feed the beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Innit Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Why is having a bike anti-social? You don't seem to understand what the thread is about. The point is that the person described is, by your definition, a tax shirker. They aren't paying as much tax as they would if they didn't use that government scheme. You should be condeming the discount bike buyer too, if you want to be consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pb1977 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Why is having a bike anti-social? You don't seem to understand what the thread is about. But my friend is useing the cycle to work scheme to get a bike on the cheap and he also saves a few £'s in tax over the next 12 months. He will actually pay less tax over the next 12 months. Buy the bike direct from the bike shop he pays X amount of tax on his wages. Buys the bike useing the cycle to work scheme he still gets the same bike but he gets it VAT free and also pays less tax on his salary over the next 12 months than he would have if he had just purchased the bike privately himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 It's difficult not to understand your politics of envy. What seems odd to me is envy that inspires the lengths the rich will go to avoid paying their share to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 But my friend is useing the cycle to work scheme to get a bike on the cheap and he also saves a few £'s in tax over the next 12 months. He will actually pay less tax over the next 12 months. Buy the bike direct from the bike shop he pays X amount of tax on his wages. Buys the bike useing the cycle to work scheme he still gets the same bike but also pays less tax on his salary over the next 12 months han he wpuld have if he had just purchased the bike privately himself. Yes you told me that. So why are you saying it is anti-social? I would rather he had a bike than a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 the lengths the rich will go to avoid paying their share to society. Everyone would avoid paying taxes given half a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.