truman Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Like to see flat rates of tax. no messing about, just a 2 or 3 tiered system for all. And a levy on business over a certain net profit. ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 13:33 ---------- Certain proviso for self employed the tax system is way too complex. How is a 2 or 3 tiered system a flat rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 How is a 2 or 3 tiered system a flat rate? You have to have lower rates for people on low incomes ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 14:08 ---------- But if you earn lots pay a flat rate. Non of this funneling through companies malarkey same in business. Flat rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 You have to have lower rates for people on low incomes ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 14:08 ---------- But if you earn lots pay a flat rate. Non of this funneling through companies malarkey same in business. Flat rates. That's a significant misuse of the term "flat rates". Usually it's used to mean that everybody pays the same percentage regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 That's a significant misuse of the term "flat rates". Usually it's used to mean that everybody pays the same percentage regardless. Flat rate across a section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Flat rate across a section What's a section in this context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 What's a section in this context? All people earning an amount pay a flat rate. So a celeb for instance cant get an accountant to pay 2%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Corrected for accuracy Well, yes, the 32.5% being the equivalent of the 40% tax rate, and there being a lower rate that is proportional to the 20% income tax rate, and of course your personal allowance applies just the same. Depends on the amount relative to the company profits, by comparison to an annualised salary equivalent subjected to NI, income tax bands, etc. As you mention the majority of the people you know, I can also mention that the majority of the people I know operate in this way, very few of which are one-man bands, all of whom are owner-directors with employees. And more than one has his or her partner as a salaried employee equally on minimum wage (or thereabouts) with the job definition of providing moral support from home If it's not that big a saving, why are they all doing it? There's no such thing as too small a saving It's a saving. But nowhere near the scale the sgtkate implied, claiming that 20% corporation tax was the ONLY thing paid, which is very far from the truth. ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 15:46 ---------- You have to have lower rates for people on low incomes ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 14:08 ---------- But if you earn lots pay a flat rate. Non of this funneling through companies malarkey same in business. Flat rates. How do you stop people owning a business and working for that business? That's what "funnelling" a payment means. Someone contracts the services of a business, the business charges them, the business sends out a person to do the work. The person who does the work happens to be the sole owner (or joint owner) of the company. On what basis would you or could you stop that being the case, how is it any different to a business where they send out someone who isn't the owner? And if that were the only criteria how difficult do you think it would be for me an another IT contractor friend to cross employee each other to supply services, thus never sending the owner to do the work? ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 15:46 ---------- Flat rate across a section Isn't that exactly the system that we already have? ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 15:47 ---------- All people earning an amount pay a flat rate. So a celeb for instance cant get an accountant to pay 2%. They can't now. Accountants don't have magic powers to ignore income tax laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 How do you stop people owning a business and working for that business? That's what "funnelling" a payment means. Someone contracts the services of a business, the business charges them, the business sends out a person to do the work. The person who does the work happens to be the sole owner (or joint owner) of the company. On what basis would you or could you stop that being the case, how is it any different to a business where they send out someone who isn't the owner? And if that were the only criteria how difficult do you think it would be for me an another IT contractor friend to cross employee each other to supply services, thus never sending the owner to do the work? ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 15:46 ---------- Isn't that exactly the system that we already have? ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 15:47 ---------- They can't now. Accountants don't have magic powers to ignore income tax laws. Lots of questions. Redefine business entities. First off. And I will just say not legitimate tax avoidance is wrong. And high income large business who limit tax exposure is also wrong e.g. amazon. ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 15:58 ---------- Isn't that exactly the system that we have now? Clearly the system doesnt work like this in practice. ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 16:02 ---------- Redesign hmrc. When hmrc cant respond in months and have to right off 890k in £100 penalties clearly its a system which doesnt work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 The system does work like that in practice in the main. There are cases where people invest money in dubious tax avoidance schemes, (like Jimmy Carr) and HMRC shut these schemes down. By and large though, it's nearly impossible to avoid paying tax in the UK except by lying about your income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 The system does work like that in practice in the main. There are cases where people invest money in dubious tax avoidance schemes, (like Jimmy Carr) and HMRC shut these schemes down. By and large though, it's nearly impossible to avoid paying tax in the UK except by lying about your income. If it works why do the treasury fail to collect enough taxes each year? http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2795899/treasury-sees-25billion-shortfall-income-tax-receipts-amid-low-wage-growth.html And what about money hidden in offshore accounts? http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 16:42 ---------- Jimmy Carr is just a small fish. ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 16:43 ---------- Not to mention the millions self employed it's hard to keep track of, ---------- Post added 29-07-2015 at 16:46 ---------- Assuming the £13tn mountain of assets earned an average 3% a year for its owners, and governments were able to tax that income at 30%, it would generate a bumper £121bn in revenues – more than rich countries spend on aid to the developing world each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now