JFKvsNixon Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 That doesn't even make sense. All taxpayers pay £4,415, yet you've highlighted 3 other brackets which do not pay that amount. I think that the average is for all the 100% of the tax payers, the average for the top 10% to 1% is £10,550 and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 That doesn't even make sense. All taxpayers pay £4,415, yet you've highlighted 3 other brackets which do not pay that amount. It makes sense if you understand what the word average means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Too true, why would those who avoid it by what ever means they can now suddenly decide to pay it if it was cut. Because you are assuming that they avoid it in it's entireity. That's almost never the case. Say for example I can offshore some of my earnings as the work is done in Germany for example and that money comes in to a German backing account and I pay 45% tax on it. By doing so I avoid paying the 50% tax take taht I would have done in the UK. I've still paid a large amount of tax on it - just not in this country. However I've saved 5% of my expected tax bill if I was in the UK. The money is also handy as I spend a lot of Euros anyway on holidays and on investments, and don't have to muck about with currency conversions. Now if the Chancellor lowers that tax rate to 40% and tapers off the NI as you would expect, I'll simply get that money paid to my bank account here. I'll still pay the 40% take on it, but that money would go into the UK coffers rather than the German coffers. End result is that the UK makes more money off me than before - yes I may pay less tax in total but the UK gets a whole lot more. It's also denominated in sterling, so I am more likely to spend in the UK and of course when I do the Chancellor gets 20% back as VAT, rather than the German, or French, or italians.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 That doesn't even make sense. All taxpayers pay £4,415, yet you've highlighted 3 other brackets which do not pay that amount. It makes perfect sense - those numbers are the aggregate for each band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 The current system is already progressive, even if the 50% rate were removed it would still be progressive. If someone is prepared to live abroad for a larger portion of the year than they live here, then it's not a scheme, they're no longer resident here. So are you just sore that you can't arrange your affairs to take advantage of some tax avoidance methods? There's a lot of perhaps in your post there and none of it really justifies why share schemes, living abroad, putting money into your pension or any other way of reducing your tax is wrong. I'm not sore about anything. My income suits me fine. I'm very lucky with what I earn and I haven't got a problem with the amount of tax I pay. I don't want to buy shares in my company right now. I'm busy investing in other far more interesting things. Moving abroad to avoid tax is currently a legal way of avoiding tax, a scheme. HMRC do investigate people who are doing that. Like it or not, it happens as a means of tax avoidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 All you're offering is a blinkered view on the situation based on your current situation of not being able to afford to use a share options scheme. What makes you think your opinion is more valid than mine? My personal situation isn't relevant, what I wanted to find out was what these avoidance schemes were. But it turns out that they aren't schemes at all. Who would describe not living in the UK or owning a company as a tax avoidance scheme? And even if there was such a scheme (like the fine wine thing for example that's no longer possible), you still haven't explained why it would mean that the 50% rate shouldn't be abolished. Presumably if all the high earners were avoiding tax the 50% rate would be irrelevant anyway as none of them would be paying it... Quite simply the 50% rate was introduced to raise revenue. It was projected to raise £7bn+. Nobody has proven that it hasn't met that expectation. Osborne doesn't know for sure so it's a bit premature - with that in mind it looks ideologically driven with no clear rationale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Yeah look at those loop holes Average income tax paid for; All taxpayers £4,415 Top 10% to 1% £10,550 Top 1% to 0.1% £49,477 Top 0.1% £274,482 Look at them getting away with it. Have you told the HMRC there are no loopholes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Quite simply the 50% rate was introduced to raise revenue. It was projected to raise £7bn+. Nobody has proven that it hasn't met that expectation. Osborne doesn't know for sure so it's a bit premature - with that in mind it looks ideologically driven with no clear rationale. I already said that this should be the criteria. I just don't think your argument about loop holes has any place in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I already said that this should be the criteria. I just don't think your argument about loop holes has any place in this discussion. Relax and chill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Did you have anything to contribute to the discussion, or were you just stirring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.