The benefits class

[JoeP]

Totally agree. Our tax system, and the hideous tax-avoidance measures that are available to those with a good accountant, are abysmal. Flat tax is the way ahead.

 

Both ends of the scale, as you rightly say, are totally unacceptable.

 

I totally agree with you on this. I've come to the conclusion that a flat tax system is the only way to make progress out of the pit successive Governments have dropped us in.

[Dungbeetle]

I totally agree with you on this. I've come to the conclusion that a flat tax system is the only way to make progress out of the pit successive Governments have dropped us in.

The speculative figures I've seen for a flat tax system in UK suggest a rate of around 25%, with a higher zero tax threshold than we currently have, would be required to maintain the current UK tax catch.

Those in low paid jobs would benefit.

The tax-burdened middle incomers would see more reward for their hard work, and the high income tax-avoidance specialists would be stuffed. Unlucky - the way we currently do business is badly wrong, ridiculously over-complex, and horribly inefficient.

 

I don't suppose you can blame tax accountants for their profession, but they's have to take up landscaping or something else to make ends meet.

[JoeP]

The speculative figures I've seen for a flat tax system in UK suggest a rate of around 25%, with a higher zero tax threshold than we currently have, would be required to maintain the current UK tax catch.

Those in low paid jobs would benefit.

The tax-burdened middle incomers would see more reward for their hard work, and the high income tax-avoidance specialists would be stuffed. Unlucky - the way we currently do business is badly wrong, ridiculously over-complex, and horribly inefficient.

 

I don't suppose you can blame tax accountants for their profession, but they's have to take up landscaping or something else to make ends meet.

 

25% is the sort of figure I've heard in the past and 'feels' right as well. I don't know what the savings would be in terms of the INland Revenue processing requirements, either - certainly some of my tax returns over the years must have provided bean counters with plenty of scope for over time.

[Cyclone]

Except the tax avoidance people would continue to deposit monies offshore, work through off shore corporations and employ legal tax avoidance to avoid paying the flat rate.

If they already avoid a rate of 40% on most of their earnings, what makes you think that they can't avoid any other rate?

 

Not that I'd be against a flat rate scheme, I've never quite understood why you have to contribute not just more, but proportionally more just because you happen to earn a bit more than average.

[Dungbeetle]

Except the tax avoidance people would continue to deposit monies offshore, work through off shore corporations and employ legal tax avoidance to avoid paying the flat rate.

If they already avoid a rate of 40% on most of their earnings, what makes you think that they can't avoid any other rate?

 

Not that I'd be against a flat rate scheme, I've never quite understood why you have to contribute not just more, but proportionally more just because you happen to earn a bit more than average.

There will still be avoidance, and offshore fiddles, but losing 25% of your cash sounds a lot more palatable than losing 40% of it, and is a figure that I suspect many would be prepared to swallow.

[Cyclone]

The extremely rich would continue as they currently do. Wasn't it the beatles who in their last year of recording paid between 1 and 2 % tax... Would they be likely to swallow another 23%, or continue to 'work' for offshore registered corporations.

Avoidance is legal of course, it's evasion that's naughty.

[willman]

why should the rich pay more than they are currently paying.

 

is it fair to work hard, better one self just to be penalised by people who are envious?

 

richard branson wasn't born a billionaire.benefit "cheats" not claimants aren't born fraudulent .you make your choices and pay the price.

 

but in fairness ,why not levy a fixed minimum 25% taxation on self employed people on all earnings, including builders,market traders, web designers etc who manage to adjust their earnings through "cash" or non receipted work and pay no tax whilst earning better incomes that the norm.

i know a plasterer who earned £750 a week,and paid very little tax at year end.all legit and above board - allegedly.

[mr contrite]

some people have no choice to be on benefits, some people get laid off and never hired again, through no real fault off their own, some people are lazy and don't want to work,

some people like you seem to think that there's only one type of claimant, the stereotype you so clearly believe in does not apply to all.

 

 

Considering earlier i mentoned what i class as the 3 types of claimant, the genuinely needy, the legal but lazy, and the thief, how is that thinking there is only one type of claimant?

[mr contrite]

Please forgive Mr Contrite, he reads the Daily Mail and thus hates the world and everyone in it who doesn't conform to his idealised view of what is "normal"

 

And i thought you were a well balanced person i.e a chip on each shoulder.

[SUPERTYKE]

Please forgive Mr Contrite, he reads the Daily Mail and thus hates the world and everyone in it who doesn't conform to his idealised view of what is "normal"

 

Indeed Rich; In truth, he has very little idea of the nature of economics.

He is a petty minded and embittered person, (instant kharma's gonna get him).