MrSmith Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Gold zero VAT, savings zero VAT, houses & property zero VAT, most shares & investments zero VAT, money spent abroad zero VAT. The rich can save most of their money & they don't need to pay VAT on any of that. You are assuming that any VAT system would remain the same, clearly if we wanted to use VAT to collect all tax’s then VAT would be applied to everything that isn't an essential item, and would be at the highest rate for items that only the rich can buy. They save money to spend at a later date, but they do eventually spend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Back to the topic, anyway, it isn't immoral to pay the least amount of tax that the government says you need to pay. What is immoral is the rules that allow rich people to pay 1% tax, not people taking advantage of those rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 You are assuming that any VAT system would remain the same, clearly if we wanted to use VAT to collect all tax’s then VAT would be applied to everything that isn't an essential item, and would be at the highest rate for items that only the rich can buy. They save money to spend at a later date, but they do eventually spend it. So you'd put VAT on savings & investments? What about investments in foreign companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 So you'd put VAT on savings & investments? What about investments in foreign companies? Why would I need to put VAT on savings, people save so they can spend at alter date, investments in companies are what keep the world going round, without such investments, companies couldn’t expand and employ people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 so how would you feel if your employees turned round on monday and told you they were now wanting to be paid through one of these schemes ? you really havent got an idea of how it works do you? 1. an employee is paid on a PAYE scheme, there are no options 2. if they did want to be paid gross as a self employed person they would need to prove to the Revenue that they were actually self employed i.e risked their own funds and did not work for one company or person. 3. if they were allowed to do this i would be overjoyed as i would no longer be liable for employers tax and Ni contributions, employment red tape etc etc etc. so in answer to your question .......very happy....but it will never happen:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 He'd probably feel like they were being stupid. If they are employed then their legal options for how they are paid are severely restricted, and going from employment to self employment whilst staying at the same company is generally a red flag to HMRC. correct:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Of course they are, they employee's who are pretending to be self employed. If they were genuinely self employed then whoever was currently paying them wouldn't give a fig where the money went. For example I will be invoicing my current client at the end of the month, if I give him new bank account details he will just make the payment to that account. He doesn't know whether I use a scheme or not and he doesn't care, but that's because being truly self employed he's not liable for what I do with the money. In the case of allowing employees to pretend to be self employed the employer will get stung for the NI and tax that hasn't been paid while the employees are taken to court under IR35 legislation. they wouldnt be employees thou under this new scheme they would be self employed and afforded the same tax evasion dodges as jc so whats the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 they wouldnt be employees thou under this new scheme they would be self employed and afforded the same tax evasion dodges as jc so whats the problem If you only work for one company you can only be an employee, not self employed. Mr carr works for channel 4, various promoters when touring etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 they wouldnt be employees thou under this new scheme they would be self employed and afforded the same tax evasion dodges as jc so whats the problem what part of "employees cant be self employed" dont you understand:huh: and again these schemes are NOT evasion....they are AVOIDENCE:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 If you only work for one company you can only be an employee, not self employed. Mr carr works for channel 4, various promoters when touring etc etc. correct! and he is probably a LTD co as well:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.