Tax break imminent for those on high earnings?

[Cyclone]

Well, that all hinges on what you decide to pay yorself. Which you admit is nothing.

 

I didn't say it was nothing, I said less than minimum wage.

 

But as it happens I could pay myself nothing, that would be entirely legal as directors are not required to be paid.

 

What's wrong with that? The law says directors need not be paid (and they had to be it would be at minimum wage). The law also says that business owners can take dividends.

 

What's you're problem with that, apart from that it means they pay less tax than you?

[I1L2T3]

Define "fair" .. is it the amount you think they should pay or what?

 

I defined it many times. You start with paying a level of income tax commensurate with your income. Read back.

[truman]

I never said they broke the law. But sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed.

 

Your argument should be with the politicos then and not people complying with the law..

[truman]

I defined it many times. You start with paying a level of income tax commensurate with your income. Read back.

 

Which is what people do..they follow the rules laid out by our government..

[Cyclone]

I never said they broke the law. But sometimes the law is wrong and needs to be changed.

 

And why is it wrong? Why is the amount you pay fair and another amount not fair?

 

It would actually be pretty easy to make the argument that a) progressive taxation is unfair (ie a % of income) afterall just because you get paid more doesn't mean you use a public service more than someone on minimum wage, and further to make the argument that increasing tax bands (even more progressive) is even more unfair.

 

I propose that we all pay a flat rate. I'll say that this rate is 10k. That seems fair to me, it'll more than cover my share of what I use and it'll save me money to boot.

 

Someone who's only paid 12k might find it a bit awkward, but if we're all paying our share then it's fair right?

[truman]

afterall just because you get paid more doesn't mean you use a public service more than someone on minimum wage,

 

I wonder how much the opposite of that is true?

[I1L2T3]

I didn't say it was nothing, I said less than minimum wage.

 

But as it happens I could pay myself nothing, that would be entirely legal as directors are not required to be paid.

 

What's wrong with that? The law says directors need not be paid (and they had to be it would be at minimum wage). The law also says that business owners can take dividends.

 

What's you're problem with that, apart from that it means they pay less tax than you?

 

I haven't got any problem at all with the concept. But if you wind back a little bit this discussion started with the 50p tax rate and how individuals might chose to avoid it.

 

One of the options was setting up a limited company. Now I know all businesses need to start somewhere and they will be one man bands for a time. Most businesses will anticipate employing other people as time progresses. It's good that we have a system that can reward the directors of businesses that do wthat with dividends. But on the other hand we have limited companies set up with the intention of avoiding tax - they remain one man bands and the intention is to never, ever provide employment for anybody else. It's a tax wheeze in some cases, nothing more. I have a problem with that.

[Cyclone]

I defined it many times. You start with paying a level of income tax commensurate with your income. Read back.

 

That is what we all do. Which doesn't mean commensurate with your income if it were PAYE, which seems to be what you really mean.

[truman]

I haven't got any problem at all with the concept. But if you wind back a little bit this discussion started with the 50p tax rate and how individuals might chose to avoid it.

 

One of the options was setting up a limited company. Now I know all businesses need to start somewhere and they will be one man bands for a time. Most businesses will anticipate employing other people as time progresses. It's good that we have a system that can reward the directors of businesses that do wthat with dividends. But on the other hand we have limited companies set up with the intention of avoiding tax - they remain one man bands and the intention is to never, ever provide employment for anybody else. It's a tax wheeze in some cases, nothing more. I have a problem with that.

 

Speak to the government then...and ask them to stop tax relief on pension contributions while you're at it..

[I1L2T3]

And why is it wrong? Why is the amount you pay fair and another amount not fair?

 

It would actually be pretty easy to make the argument that a) progressive taxation is unfair (ie a % of income) afterall just because you get paid more doesn't mean you use a public service more than someone on minimum wage, and further to make the argument that increasing tax bands (even more progressive) is even more unfair.

 

I propose that we all pay a flat rate. I'll say that this rate is 10k. That seems fair to me, it'll more than cover my share of what I use and it'll save me money to boot.

 

Someone who's only paid 12k might find it a bit awkward, but if we're all paying our share then it's fair right?

 

There are lots of arguments about taxation. Many possible sytems. Some fairer than others. very rarely a perfect one. Ours is generally consided to be an arcane and horribly complex mess. The Tories themselves are touting the remove of the 50p rate as a simplification measure.