Tax break imminent for those on high earnings?

[Cyclone]

Nope, I don't pay the mimimum I can possibly get away with. I pay the correct amount.

 

You seem to be missing the point...

 

The minimum you can possibly get away with is the correct amount.

[Cyclone]

It's not inconsistent at all. I pay the correct amount of income tax. I don't look for ways not to pay it. Quite simply services have to be paid for. We have increasing inequalities of wealth that need to be reversed.

 

The right amount of income tax is what your tax band states it is. IMO. The danger is of course that if all of us chose to make subjective assessments of how much tax we should pay the social contract would start to break down.

 

Nobody gets to make a subjective assessment, the government publish a set of rules, they're called laws, we all have to work within that and organise our finance however we chose. At the end of it all the rules will allow you to work out the correct amount of tax to pay, that's called the minimum you can get away if, if you like, or alternatively, the correct amount.

[Cyclone]

The flaw in your argument is that it ignores how people got wealthy in the first place . In contemporary Britain, for a fair proportion of the people in the 50% tax band, that is going to involve ill-gotten gains.

Now you're just off in la la land. Are you sure you're not a socialist.

 

If people want to take their chances overseas let them go. There are plenty willing to take their place.

No, there aren't. If the high earners leave then that's it, we can't magic them back up, they'll take their tax revenue elsewhere and we'll all be poorer. But you can try to claim it's morally justified because they're well paid through some sort of 'ill-gotten' gains apparently...

 

Studies in the US showed that tax hikes for the very rich in some states did not lead to the expected exodus. In some states it amounted to a handful of families.

The figures will show whether the 50% rate worked or not in increasing tax revenue, that's the only criteria that should be used to decide whether to keep it or not.

[Cyclone]

People are not compelled to seek out expensive tax avoidance lawyers to drive their tax base as low as possible. You know and I know that is not how it works. Next argument please.

 

Tax avoidance lawyers? So what you're trying to claim is that it's morally wrong to get tax advice (from an accountant most likely, not a lawyer)? Is that really your argument? That knowing and making use of the rules the government sets is wrong?

[I1L2T3]

Tax avoidance lawyers? So what you're trying to claim is that it's morally wrong to get tax advice (from an accountant most likely, not a lawyer)? Is that really your argument? That knowing and making use of the rules the government sets is wrong?

 

Indeed. I am claiming that in some cases tax avoidance is morally wrong. In some cases it is the intended consequence of government policy, e.g. promoting savings. It's the use of avoidance schemes that are not within the spirit of the rules that I have a problem with, e.g. if an individual uses a complex but technically legal set of steps to avoid tax, i.e. the sort of thing that anybody who is seriously wealthy will do as a matter of routine, whether they pay a 40p or 50p rate on their earnings over £150k - back to the original argument.

 

As for it being legal you're using the same basic argument that has been used to justify the actions of the banking sector. 'It was legal.......'

[I1L2T3]

Now you're just off in la la land. Are you sure you're not a socialist.

No, there aren't. If the high earners leave then that's it, we can't magic them back up, they'll take their tax revenue elsewhere and we'll all be poorer. But you can try to claim it's morally justified because they're well paid through some sort of 'ill-gotten' gains apparently...

The figures will show whether the 50% rate worked or not in increasing tax revenue, that's the only criteria that should be used to decide whether to keep it or not.

 

I'm not a socialist. It's clear that all was not well in the finance sector for example.

 

The current high earners do not have a monopoly on entrepreneurship, innovation etc... That's an insult to the rest of us. There are many other people who could take their place. Seriously, let them go if they want.

 

The indications are that the rate has led to a £750m+ increase in tax receipts. "Only" £750m say the Tories :hihi: Oh well, we won't miss it will we.

[I1L2T3]

Nobody gets to make a subjective assessment, the government publish a set of rules, they're called laws, we all have to work within that and organise our finance however we chose. At the end of it all the rules will allow you to work out the correct amount of tax to pay, that's called the minimum you can get away if, if you like, or alternatively, the correct amount.

 

The minimum is not necessarily the correct amount. There are many ways to get to the minimum amount, some of which might leave you without access to sufficient liquid funds to maintain your lifestyle or meet your personal goals. Like I said above - it's subjective.

 

For income tax the correct amount is what your tax band indicates you should pay. IMO. It's up to the individual what they do after that.

[I1L2T3]

When I said nobody volunteers to pay extra taxes I was wrong:

 

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/

 

I guess you hate these guys Cyclone. What a bunch of fools.

[Guest sibon]

You seem to be missing the point...

 

The minimum you can possibly get away with is the correct amount.

Warren Buffett doesn't seem to share your moral code.

 

It is about time that some of the wealthier members of society made a moral stand.

[Obelix]

Why should I pay extra money beyond the large amounts I do, when it's going to people who are convinced that I got it by ill gotten means?

 

As someone said up the thread - if you beat up on the guying paying for most of your beer, he will go and you will have to pay more for your beer....