Tax evaders cost country more than benefits

[Sarkysod]

Sooner or later, many working people - especially those earning under 20k per annum will have to take steps to avoid paying tax. Unless of course, you want to hand over every penny you earn in tax

 

Or gain self employed status declaring minimum income, whilst driving a Range Rover to their £250K house.

[taxman]

wheres the taxman on here when you want him to give you a helping hand :suspect:

 

Did someone mention my name?

 

If people paid what they should rather than evade and avoid then there would be no need for people like me.

 

Looks like I've got a job for life.

[Tony]

Well that is what the government minister stated,

 

Reference please.

 

 

You just made all this stuff up didn't you?

[I1L2T3]

Or gain self employed status declaring minimum income, whilst driving a Range Rover to their £250K house.

 

Indeed, on another thread we discussed mechanisms where IT contractors for example could avoid tax.

 

Consider this:

 

http://www.contractoruk.com/bn66/it_contractors_offshore_scheme_born_to_avoid_tax.html

 

People were basically paying 3.5% income tax but no doubt expecting everybody else to pay for the public services they were using.

 

What makes me curious is how, when anybody questions on here why that kind of thing might be wrong the reaction is usually very hostile.

[L00b]

Well that is what the government minister stated, you believe what you want but at the end of the day x amount of extra revenue is better than zero amount.

Would it ever occur to you not to believe everything you read/hear? Especially from a political animal with countless hidden agendas like a Minister? Think for yourself, you'll be doing yourself a favour.

What makes me curious is how, when anybody questions on here why that kind of thing might be wrong the reaction is usually very hostile.

To answer that one, it might be interesting to determine the average SF poster's income (manofstrad's data excluded, as he would introduce too large a statistical error )

 

Also, to correct Mr Bojangles (only a little bit ), people on £300k p.a. pay

• 40% tax up to the £150k threshold (= £60k)
  
• 50% tax for the remaining £150k (= £75k)

I've left out the earlier thresholds (sub-£50k) but, in summary, that's more-or-less £135k to the taxman, out of £300k earned gross. That buys you a lot of benefits, I'd like to think.

 

Makes you wonder why they bother trying to earn that much, really. And makes rather a convincing case for high earners making sure that they only pay what they must.

[I1L2T3]

Would it ever occur to you not to believe everything you read/hear? Especially from a political animal with countless hidden agendas like a Minister? Think for yourself, you'll be doing yourself a favour.

To answer that one, it might be interesting to do a correlation analysis between the average poster's income and the poster's stance on high earners. I.e. how many posters show strong potential to have a chip the size of an aircraft carrier on their shoulder, à la Bassman

 

I think the problem is many think this argument can be boiled down to the have-nots being jealous of the haves. Ok, in a society where we've been taught we should be greedy and individualistic I can see how that kind of view is quite strong. It also provides a simplistic and perhaps moronic way to attack people who question the tax regime of the higher earners - it's a convenient fallback argument when people make very valid points that can't be easily countered.

 

But the simplistic 'jealousy' response misses the point and that is despite this country losing its way and becoming driven by greed and consumerism we still have a strong sense of fairness and a dislike of cheats. And as I posted on the link above, tax avoidance schemes are not always within the law. Many of them are not - we should be tracking down those cheats as vigoourously as benefit cheats IMO.

[love_rat]

How much would we save if we capped benefits to £10,000 per annum regardless of the claimants circumstance? it would still leave the claimant with an after tax income of £192 a week .........or around £225 a week gross (which, if you earned the min wage you would need to be on the factory floor for 37 hours)

 

Its not bad, If you have a couple of kids its still a liveable sum of money a week.

 

Perhaps if the tax evaders felt that their money wasn't being wasted on the undeserving, they may feel more inclined to be honest.

 

So someone earns £240 a week, and they do a cash in hand job at the weekend for £30. Can you blame someone for sticking that £30 under the carpet when they see people coming into the country and being homed in mansions because they have so many children to feed?

[skinz]

And you're obviously not on £300k per annum.

 

That really seems to upset you.

 

 

Yes it does and I'm not afraid to admit that

 

 

Poor bassman..you must feel such an underachiever. Not many years to go and you'll be able to rest in peace.

[skinz]

I think the problem is many think this argument can be boiled down to the have-nots being jealous of the haves. Ok, in a society where we've been taught we should be greedy and individualistic I can see how that kind of view is quite strong. It also provides a simplistic and perhaps moronic way to attack people who question the tax regime of the higher earners - it's a convenient fallback argument when people make very valid points that can't be easily countered.

 

But the simplistic 'jealousy' response misses the point and that is despite this country losing its way and becoming driven by greed and consumerism we still have a strong sense of fairness and a dislike of cheats. And as I posted on the link above, tax avoidance schemes are not always within the law. Many of them are not - we should be tracking down those cheats as vigoourously as benefit cheats IMO.

 

Apart from the ones made up by the individually corrupt which ones do you have in mind?

[Bassman62]

Plenty of earners at that level are on PAYE and pay the full whack.

 

Others will be self-employed or on directors' fees to pay less - legally. Some will fiddle, that's inevitable, but the amount of the UK's income that comes from income tax is quite low compared to our national spend on benefits.

The government is taking steps because their research/investigations through striking agreements with several offshore tax havens has brought to light that the lost revenue to HMRC is more than the UK benefits bill.