FairDooz Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Simple and fair taxes is not such a mad idea. The following paragraph comes from a Sunday Times article this weekend "When Does Tax Dodging Become Dodgy?" "What Britain really needs is a simpler tax system, say accountants. As long ago as 2005, Osbourne said Britain should investigate the merits of a flat tax - a single rate for all business and personal taxes that would preclude the need for reliefs and allowances." It's a pity that idea came to nothing! Maybe George Osbourne was subsequently "persuaded" by vested interests to leave the loopholes in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Simple and fair taxes is not such a mad idea. The following paragraph comes from a Sunday Times article this weekend "When Does Tax Dodging Become Dodgy?" "What Britain really needs is a simpler tax system, say accountants. As long ago as 2005, Osbourne said Britain should investigate the merits of a flat tax - a single rate for all business and personal taxes that would preclude the need for reliefs and allowances." It's a pity that idea came to nothing! Maybe George Osbourne was subsequently "persuaded" by vested interests to leave the loopholes in place? My thoughts exactly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 But they don't pay their accountants to administer aggressive tax avoidance schemes, most peoples' accountants just make sure the books are balanced and what taxes are due are paid over promptly. They don't indulge in expensive and blatant avoidance scams. Surely part of an accountants job is to minimise out goings including tax ? Accountants everywhere - let us know ! Company vans don't have to be replaced just because they aren't deductible anymore do they ? Now the average small business will pay wayyyyyy more tax than a super rich person but I'm sure most will ask there accountant "can I put that through?" or the accountant will say "you can put that through". Also worth mentioning that in jimmy carrs defense (I use the term loosley) is that he wouldn't have come up with this idea - it would have in all probability b been the beancounters idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 "The Rich" come in many varities - for example, those who have inherited wealth, those who became entrepreneurs and built successful businesses, and then there are the speculators i.e. those who gamble, often with other people's money, on the short term movement of share prices. We tax inheritance We tax personal income We tax corporations How about a financial transaction tax on the speculators who undermine the real economy? Nope, we're not going to get that ... David Cameron promises to fight financial transactions tax 'all the way' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9286541/David-Cameron-promises-to-fight-financial-transactions-tax-all-the-way.html We should stop having different names for income and tax it all at the same rate. You made money from an investment? That's an income and you should pay income tax. Individuals should not be allowed to abuse the tax system. Stars such as Jimmy Carr, Gary Lineker and Olly Murs have created subsidiary companies (of themselves!!!), and receive income as dividends to avoid income tax. (Because of these loopholes we have almost the highest number of accountants per capita in the world and more than the rest of the European Union put together. How does this help the real economy?) Make the rich pay? Yes, but not to be punitive, but to be fair. Make everyone pay income tax. It was an even more cynical scheme, where they give their money to a company in an offshore tax haven & then it gets loaned back to them. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-06-20/how-the-k2-tax-avoidance-scheme-works/ However, they don't set the rules, the accountants don't set the rules & they were working within the rules of the tax system. The individuals using the loopholes aren't really to blame, neither are the accountants, they're just doing their job. The government is entirely to blame, for leaving these big loopholes open. The rules are often that complex that you need a professional accountant to make sure you're paying the right amount of tax if you want to do any kind of business, or have an income from multiple sources. A financial transaction tax as has been proposed in Europe would hamper banks & traders, it'd be enough to make them all move to the USA or the far east. London would no longer be a large banking centre & they do generate a lot of money for the economy & pay a large proportion of taxes already. You should look at Land Tax, Negative Income Tax, Inheritance Tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Surely part of an accountants job is to minimise out goings including tax ? Accountants everywhere - let us know ! Company vans don't have to be replaced just because they aren't deductible anymore do they ? Now the average small business will pay wayyyyyy more tax than a super rich person but I'm sure most will ask there accountant "can I put that through?" or the accountant will say "you can put that through". Also worth mentioning that in jimmy carrs defense (I use the term loosley) is that he wouldn't have come up with this idea - it would have in all probability b been the beancounters idea. Why? Accountants are professionals. Surely they need to act with integrity and ethically. Or at least they should aim to. There will always be accountants out there who will compete for business on the basis that they can minimise the tax of their client. No doubt there are clients that want that too and if they can't get it from one accountant they will go to another. It takes two to tango. Going back to the original point about integrity and ethics. This cuts both ways. We were treated over the weekend to the news that 81% of people earning between £500k and £10m pay at least 40% in income tax. They will most likely have accountants but ask yourself this question. Why aren't that 81% paying 1% tax like Jimmy Carr? You will probably come up with a surprising answer about the taxpayers and their accountants. And it won't fit at all wiith what the media would have you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The government is entirely to blame, for leaving these big loopholes open. Agreed. If there's a legal way not to pay tax, why wouldn't an individual take advantage? According to the Sunday Times this weekend, some dodges are so simple, so lucrative, it has left accountants puzzled by the politicians' naivety. In trying to be nice to their friends, politicians have created a tax system so complex that payment of tax has become an option for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Why? Accountants are professionals. Surely they need to act with integrity and ethically. Or at least they should aim to. There will always be accountants out there who will compete for business on the basis that they can minimise the tax of their client. No doubt there are clients that want that too and if they can't get it from one accountant they will go to another. It takes two to tango. Going back to the original point about integrity and ethics. This cuts both ways. We were treated over the weekend to the news that 81% of people earning between £500k and £10m pay at least 40% in income tax. They will most likely have accountants but ask yourself this question. Why aren't that 81% paying 1% tax like Jimmy Carr? You will probably come up with a surprising answer about the taxpayers and their accountants. And it won't fit at all wiith what the media would have you believe. What about the other 19%? It's still quite high, even if true & those are only the ones they know aren't paying enough tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 What about the other 19%? It's still quite high, even if true & those are only the ones they know aren't paying enough tax. It is still high but surprisingly low at the same time. Well it surprised me. Yes there will be a lot of people earning below £500k who avoid tax too. I think the point is that accountants aren't quite the amoral mob we would all believe them to be. And the vast majority of their clients aren't either. It makes me wonder what people are trying to defend on here when they work so hard to justify what Jimmy Carr did. He's more the exception than the norm, well at the extreme end of the tax avoidance spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 It is still high but surprisingly low at the same time. Well it surprised me. Yes there will be a lot of people earning below £500k who avoid tax too. I think the point is that accountants aren't quite the amoral mob we would all believe them to be. And the vast majority of their clients aren't either. It makes me wonder what people are trying to defend on here when they work so hard to justify what Jimmy Carr did. He's more the exception than the norm, well at the extreme end of the tax avoidance spectrum. It can't be a truly accurate figure, you should probably take it as a minimum of 19% aren't paying their income taxes. There are people evading tax that haven't been caught yet, nobody knows how many. Jimmy Carr hasn't done anything illegal, as far as I'm aware. He's paid the minimum amount of tax that the government has asked him to pay, that's all. The fact that these schemes are allowed to exist is the real scandal, not the people taking advantage of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 A financial transaction tax as has been proposed in Europe would hamper banks & traders, it'd be enough to make them all move to the USA or the far east. London would no longer be a large banking centre & they do generate a lot of money for the economy & pay a large proportion of taxes already. I'm not so sure we shouldn't be encouraging more long term investment and less short term speculation. Shouldn't we be weaning ourselves off the gambling economy and doing much more for the tangible real economy that drives exports and creates more jobs in a more balanced economy and a more equal society? It's not just European markets that have concerns over trends in the stock market: "By late 2011 regulators in the United States and overseas were cracking down on computerized high-speed trading, worried that as it spreads around the globe it is making market swings worse." http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/high_frequency_algorithmic_trading/index.html What is the value to society when traders are buying and selling shares in milliseconds? It seems to me that the activities of the stock market have very little to do with investment in companies any more and I don't see that as a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.