poppins Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Millionaire Warren Buffett says his secretary pays more tax than he does. I mean a higher tax rate of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidecut Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 Originally Posted by Sidecut So if the Employers pay for all these benefits why does the low paid have to pay income tax? Because the law requires them to pay and in many cases the lowest paid don't contribute because they take out more than the pay in. So where does all the money/taxes from these low paid earners go if it is not needed due to the rich who hardly pay any tax somehow paying for all the things you mentioned ie "clearly most employers and rich people pay tax, if they didn't there wouldn't be a benefits system, an NHS, police force, schools."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidecut Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 They should pat what the law requires them to pay and the law is set by the elected government. Then the law is an ass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 No, many people look for work whilst working full time, my son has just been made redundant, he looked for work during his notice period, his employer allowed him to take time off to go to interviews and he starts his new job 3 days after is old one finished, As part of the work for benefits program they would be given time to go to interviews and opportunities to get help from the jobcentre staff, and any of the other agencies that are currently paid to help people back to work. The only thing it would interfere with is their ability to fiddle the system, they wouldn’t have as much time to work a fiddle job and claim, and they would have less time to sit doing nothing. It would give them back some pride and experience which would make them more employable. No one would be forced to do it, they could spend all their available time looking for work, but they would be required to put some hours in if they want an hand out. I suppose one could argue that if someone as worked and contributed you several years they should be allowed some benefits without working for it. But that should apply to anyone that has never worked and it should last indefinably. I think the administrive costs of managing the balance between job seeking activity and mandatory work would be substantial. It'd need a minefield of rules to cover all kinds of situations. And the projects wouldn't be worth doing if it the resource levels were unknown in advance or on a day to day basis. Ever tried to manange a project when you didn't know how many staff you would get and whether they would actually turn up from day to day? So, what are the types of work you would envisage people doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 27, 2012 Author Share Posted May 27, 2012 I think the administrive costs of managing the balance between job seeking activity and mandatory work would be substantial. It'd need a minefield of rules to cover all kinds of situations. And the projects wouldn't be worth doing if it the resource levels were unknown in advance or on a day to day basis. Ever tried to manange a project when you didn't know how many staff you would get and whether they would actually turn up from day to day? So, what are the types of work you would envisage people doing? Most of the administrate costs would be borne by the people that already administer the benefits system and police it; there would also be plenty of unemployed people that couldn’t do any labouring but could do administration. For the work that needs doing just go outside and walk the streets, the country is dump, there are plenty of jobs that need doing which councils can’t afford to do. At various times of the year farmers are desperate for labour, the police use volunteers, the public sector should be used to give work to those people claiming, charities need volunteers, I’m sure schools could use the right kind of volunteers. Do it volantiering made easy Lifewise Volunteer. Volunteering while looking for work. There are around 914,000 volunteering opportunities available online in England. Volunteering With Your Local Young Offenders Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 You will have to provide me with some figures and a source because I haven't seen anything that suggests the rich pay a lower persentage of the income in tax than the poor. heres one report i just found http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9194558/George-Osborne-Im-going-after-the-wealthy-tax-dodgers.html# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 27, 2012 Author Share Posted May 27, 2012 heres one report i just found http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9194558/George-Osborne-Im-going-after-the-wealthy-tax-dodgers.html# The report found that Britain’s 20 biggest tax avoiders have used three main loopholes to legally reduce their income tax bills by a total of £145 million in a year. Two thirds of them wrote off business losses in one of their companies against their income tax bill, reducing it by as much as half . Several of them offset the cost of business mortgages or borrowing on buy-to-let properties against their income tax bill, while others took advantage of relief on donations to charity. From your link it would appear that they are claiming for legitimate business expenses, if a business made a loss, the loss is offset against your tax, that applies to everyone including your window cleaner, if at the end of the year the business made a loss they wouldn't pay tax. If a billionaire starts a business venture and the business loses money over the year, the billionaire shouldn’t have any tax to pay because tax is payable on profits and not turnover. That applies to anyone starting a business even you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 It can be abused though, set up a subsidiary in luxembourg, have that subsidiary charge the UK business for services such that the UK business makes a loss and the Luxembourg business makes a profit. Pay no tax on that profit. Google "google and the irish double", wish I could reduce my corporation tax in the UK down to around 2%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 From your link it would appear that they are claiming for legitimate business expenses, if a business made a loss, the loss is offset against your tax, that applies to everyone including your window cleaner, if at the end of the year the business made a loss they wouldn't pay tax. If a billionaire starts a business venture and the business loses money over the year, the billionaire shouldn’t have any tax to pay because tax is payable on profits and not turnover. That applies to anyone starting a business even you. you never fail to amaze me of how stupid you are .even cyclone in the post after yours admits its happening ( i dont usually agree with him but on this ocassion i have to ) take the blinkers off and look around you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 27, 2012 Author Share Posted May 27, 2012 It can be abused though, set up a subsidiary in luxembourg, have that subsidiary charge the UK business for services such that the UK business makes a loss and the Luxembourg business makes a profit. Pay no tax on that profit. Google "google and the irish double", wish I could reduce my corporation tax in the UK down to around 2%. I agree it can be and is abused but within the law which was set up by government, which was elected by the people. It doesn't alter the fact that without the business we would have more unemployment and less people paying tax, so given the choice which is better a business that employs people but legally lowers their tax burden or an individual that contributes nothing and refuses to work, just because the millionaire that owns the business avoids paying some tax, and still contributes substantially more to society that the workshy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.