Obelix Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 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. That presumes that all your money is as PAYE - you will find that those who set up and run companies will not just earn on a wage - it'll be made up of investment income, stock income etc for a start. They dont fit neatly into your pigeion hole of a tax band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 What percentage of the UK public pay the 50% bracket, aren't those type of people in tax exile anyway? And tax exile is another problem which needs to be roped in. On top of that, I think he'll save any tax break to bribe the majority of people with at the General Election to be honest; specifically the marriage tax reduction type thingy. These A holes are nothing but predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 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. If people want to take their chances overseas let them go. There are plenty willing to take their place. 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. Really? Ill-gotten gains? The poliics of envy seem to pervade your post. I'm quite happy to state that I'm a higher rate tax payer, and that I managed to reduce my tax bill last year by around £1000. I did nothing illegal, I simply made choices that would reduce my PAYE (Changed my company car). I'm quite happy to pay the amount of tax I legally have to; i'm just fed up of it being wasted on oxygen thieves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 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. I doubt that he's making that statement out of a sense of morality... Unless it's something that only comes to you after a lifetime of being fabulously rich and at the age of 81. He also said "the mega rich", which I don't think would include people earning 150k a year, or even those earning 250k or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 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.......' You'd best stop paying into your pension then I suppose. A technically legal means of avoiding tax through a complex way of saving money for the future when you won't work. Or do you just mean technically legal ways that you can't take advantage of? What is the criteria that you use to determine that one is morally acceptable and another isn't? You mentioned share schemes earlier and how you couldn't afford to participate, millions do of course, but maybe that's not right because you don't get to play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 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. You've got it all confused, for a start you keep looking at the US, we live in the UK. Secondly, I don't have any feelings for those guys at all, or for anyone else based on how much tax they pay. Make an overpayment yourself if you like (seen as how you're so keen), I will neither like nor dislike you for it. (Although I may consider you to be a little bit silly). Thirdly we're talking about people who earn 150k+ a year. The income curve will be heavily weighted towards the bottom of that range, and most of those people will be at best paper millionaires and in reality probably not millionaires at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 You'd best stop paying into your pension then I suppose. A technically legal means of avoiding tax through a complex way of saving money for the future when you won't work. Or do you just mean technically legal ways that you can't take advantage of? What is the criteria that you use to determine that one is morally acceptable and another isn't? You mentioned share schemes earlier and how you couldn't afford to participate, millions do of course, but maybe that's not right because you don't get to play? But that isn't avoidance as it doesn't run counter to the spirit and purpose of the law. "In general terms, tax avoidance can be said to be activity that a person or business may undertake to reduce their tax in a way that runs counter to the spirit and purpose of the law." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 In which case I'll go right back to my original question and ask for an example of a tax avoidance scheme. The ones given, which included pension saving, share schemes, running a limited company are not avoidance as you've just defined it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 This is an interesting article, and particularly relevant to I1L2T3's argument I think http://www.open2.net/money/briefs_20060302_tax.html If your income comes from employment, there is very little scope for avoidance. HM Revenue has it pretty well pinned down. Even if your employer might be prepared to go along with a complex scheme, they might find themselves having to pay your tax themselves, and this discourages them! Since we're discussing exactly those people, the ones who work for a salary of 150k+ it would seem that his dreams of them avoiding tax are just that, dreams. Tax avoidance is a subject about which many people have fantasies, but most are a long way from reality. It's like they've interviewed him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 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. I wasn't aware that there was a limit on the number of entreprenuers a country could have...you make it seem as though some people are waiting for their place in line to come up..if there are "many other people" who could take these places then why aren't they doing it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.