I1L2T3 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I think you might just be a bit jealous that you haven't bothered to optimise your own tax affairs... isn't it true that the top 10% of earners pay 50% of the tax revenue... But it's not enough, they should have to pay more? I'm not jealous of anything. I have a good income and I pay the tax due on it. And I have ample money to live on. And yes, they should have to pay more. All that proves is that they are getting richer, and that we have a transfer of income away from people (i.e. the rest of us) who are likely to meet their tax obligations without question to people who are more likely to try and avoid their tax obligations. I can't see how that is a positive thing in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I am PAYE and have been paying for many years. I never even see my own money as it is stolen from me before I can even see it in my bank account. Unfortunately I cannot fiddle anything, although I would love to as society owes me. How does society owe you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 If they run a company then they're self employed for part of there time, if not then IR 35 kicks in and they pay the extra tax anyway... Incorrect. Have a look at how footballers manage image rights and how their contacts with their clubs are structured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 The weird thing about this is, if say the top 10% earn 50% of the money then why doesn't a tax on the top earners bring in a lot of tax receipts? The answer is they avoid much of their tax liability. Anybody who thinks this move would lead high earners to suddenly start playing ball and drop their myriad tax avoidance scams is naive in the extreme. The real problem is not with the rate, it's about how it gets enforced and it's about all the little loopholes that are allowed to remain in place to help the high earners. They don't need even more help with a rate cut. As always the real story is behind the headline. What it may do is encourage more businesses to move their headquarters here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I have paid in far more than I have ever got out, so it owes me a huge amount. Are you taking into account your education,health services,police.fire brigade,transport etc etc? I doubt you have paid in more than the value of service you've received... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I remember when I used to do compliance visits to Ltd companies. We would always ask the directors if they'd taken any remuneration in Persian carpets, fine wines or platinum sponge. It was a way to avoid National Insurance but the loophole has, I believe been closed now. But it just shows the lengths some people will go to to avoid paying their fair share. The real question is how and why on earth did these loopholes ever get into the tax legislation in the first place. It must have been purely down to politicians sneaking them in to help their wealthy friends and patrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 The real question is how and why on earth did these loopholes ever get into the tax legislation in the first place. It must have been purely down to politicians sneaking them in to help their wealthy friends and patrons. Nah,I suspect it's just poorly written legislation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I have paid far more in as I have to pay for the upkeep of the elderly and the sick, lame and lazy. I have to pay a fortune towards other peoples children. I don't owe them anything so why should I? You might yet need expensive hospital treatment when you are in the last years of your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I have paid far more in as I have to pay for the upkeep of the elderly and the sick, lame and lazy. I have to pay a fortune towards other peoples children. I don't owe them anything so why should I? Who paid for your education? Don't you use any of the services I mentioned in my previous post? Do you think you've paid enough in to cover your use them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Nah,I suspect it's just poorly written legislation... It must be more than that when there are very precisely written exceptions designed to allow tax avoidence for those in the know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.