Tax evaders cost country more than benefits

[taxman]

My dad's bigger than your dad.

 

I thought Civil Servants were being cut, not expanded.

 

They are. Cuts were announced last year but then £900million over 4 years was "given back" specifically to tackle evasion, avoidance and fraud.

 

The overall headcount will still be less but specific teams will see an increase.

[quisquose]

As well as the obvious avoid/evade error that the OP made, I would also like to take issue with the misuse of the word "cost" in the thread title.

 

Whilst I accept that some tax avoiders might actually cost the taxpayer money overall, most do not. They simply pay less than they should. The vast majority of tax avoiders still contribute, just less than they should.

 

Benefits are a cost.

 

I would not dream of defending tax avoidance schemes, and hope the employment of an additional 2000 tax inspectors proves to be a good investment, but the way the media likes to directly compare a reduced income with a cost is alarmist and misleading. It is simply another way to sort the population into "us" and "them".

[Bassman62]

By and large yes. If (if!) spending money to hire some new tax inspectors raises more in extra revenue than it cost to hire them, then it's a good move. If they don't, it isn't.

Well these 2000+ extra tax investigators won't cost more than the benefits bill will it.

[Bassman62]

As well as the obvious avoid/evade error that the OP made, I would also like to take issue with the misuse of the word "cost" in the thread title.

 

Rubbish, if you go on teletext this morning you'll see on BBC News and SKY News that one refers to tax avoidance and the other tax evasion.

 

Regarding the "cost" once again 'Rubbish', this tax evasion/avoidence is costing the country more than the benefits budget according to the claims made as to why this new action is to be taken.

[xenia]

I believe it is immoral for any govenment to tax any of its citizens 50% of their earnings.

 

The history of this country regarding taxation shows that governments are not fit to handle monies gathered. Invariably, particualrly with LABOUR, these monies are squandered on benefits, the NHS, armed services, emergency services and supporting bizarre initiatives.

 

Where taxation is low, and where governments interfere less, individuals become independent and self sufficient, genuine need is addressed by charity.

 

The feckless go without. As they should, until they work.

[Bassman62]

It is simply another way to sort the population into "us" and "them".

And you don't think that there is an 'Us & Them'? What world do you live in where top execs should get paid £millions for failure.

[Bassman62]

I believe it is immoral for any govenment to tax any of its citizens 50% of their earnings.

 

The history of this country regarding taxation shows that governments are not fit to handle monies gathered. Invariably, particualrly with LABOUR, these monies are squandered on benefits, the NHS, armed services, emergency services and supporting bizarre initiatives.

 

Where taxation is low, and where governments interfere less, individuals become independent and self sufficient, genuine need is addressed by charity.

 

The feckless go without. As they should, until they work.

 

When Harold Wilson was in office he came on TV and stated that just one nurse paid more tax per year than the whole of the Vesty (Dewhursts buthchers) family. And you don't think that it is us and them?

[Bassman62]

As a dictionary definition that would be accurate, but in the world of taxation law, they mean two very different things.

Well why don't you take this up with Sky and the BBC, they've both used the two different words for the same meaning (as does the Oxford Dictionary), only Schoolyard 'Nerds' and 'Anoraks' have to bleat about something that normal people understand.

 

Ps Ps Ps Sorry I foregot to put 'Concise' in front of Oxford Dictionary before some of the anoraks/nerds point this out.

[Tony]

You're really embarrassing yourself Bassman62.

 

On your last point, do you really think that the Vesty family paid more tax? Even if they never paid income tax, or corporation tax (doubtful) they would certainly have been paying purchase tax which would add up to significantly more than what a single nurse paid.

 

Do you not see that the weasel words of politicians and journalists are designed to mislead you into thinking something that suits their unspoken agenda? Wouldn't you rather listen, think about it for yourself, and then develop your own opinions instead of the ones handed to you?

[Cess Pitt]

I believe it is immoral for any govenment to tax any of its citizens 50% of their earnings.

 

 

Correct.

 

What this 50% tax rate does is penalise success. If someone goes out and works hard and earns for example £300k in a year ,they are penalised for their efforts and success. Its wrong .

 

Why should someone have to pay 50% for earning a lot of money ,when someone who also works hard ,but only earns ,say 30k only has to pay a lot less. High eraners should NOT have to pay more than average earners purely because they were in a position to earn more.