Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
1.3bn vs 34bn p
And all we hear is about benefits fraud . Why not the other ??
And all we hear is about benefits fraud . Why not the other ??
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 49
|
By:
Because your figures are totally made up bollox?
|
|
By:
because the tax dodgers own the media to report the benefits fraud, innit
|
|
By:
Yep, fraud costs around £2bn a year and the 34 is the lower mid range of most estimates - even those on the right (that accept tax should be paid) accept it’s at least 10 and some (not nec on the left) say as much as £100bn. In reality it’s prob something like £50-60bn, google it and take your pick.
|
|
By:
in 2015/16
2 billion in benefit fraud 7.9 billion in Tax evasion and avoidence. |
|
By:
Google it again and find another figure, and then again and then............that's the thing with tax EVASION innit?
|
|
By:
I'll do that if you google anger management lessons.
|
|
By:
everyone bucks both,if you are unemployed and a friend asks you to paint his front door and he will give you £30 .you is going to the tell the benefit department or the tax man ,"i painted my mates door last TUESDAY and he give me £30 .
 |
|
By:
the tax man will get his cut when the £30 is spent anyhow.
 |
|
By:
Always makes me laugh these stats.
If they have a figure they must know who the fraudsters are and how they do it? I'd say that anecdotally the figure for benefit fraud is massive. Just depends on the sort of people you know, I suppose. How can you lump together tax evasion and avoidance? One is legal and what most sensible people would do and the other is illegal. |
|
By:
How can you lump together tax evasion and avoidance? One is legal and what most sensible people would do and the other is illegal.
That is the point isn't it - those on one extreme lump everything together (hence the £100bn and on the other (presuming they actually accept that taxes are needed )anything goes hence the silly fig that Scandy posted. It's why most sensible people take the middle ground. Some avoidance schemes are legal when implemented but 2 looks would show they are dodgy and then made illegal - the film investment scheme that caught up footballers et al being one. It comes down to whether you think because someone is rich and can afford a savvy accountant (if 1 of the 'big 4' they have often drawn up the laws for the gov) should be allowed to not pay tax that the ordinary man does. Some loopholes have worth but many do not and are basically used simply to avoid paying tax to the Uk taxman - the owner of the Daily Mail being domiciled in France for instance. It amazes me how those on the right that claim to bespeaking for the working man do everything they can to make sure the working man stays in his place by taking all his money off him yet keeping most of theirs by 'clever' and well trodden avoidance means. Scandy I'm not angry just amused at those on here that can google, find something that they agree with and post that as fact without even bothering to look for other answers. It works with 'such team won whatever in 1980' but not so good for real world things. Keeps googling though, there's a good feller. |
|
By:
Sorry I'm sitting too comfortably, could someone else walk to the other end of the room and pick Spyker's dummy up
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
The problem with this government is that we just want people to do business in this country
Paying their taxes seems secondary...in fact some would be encouraged here...because they will not pay tax I still think there is a moral duty for people to pay their taxes Still I have never been rich enough to be tempted into tax evasion  |
|
By:
There is a lot to be said of a system where people and corporations don't pay tax on what they earn, but on what they spend.
Less evasion of taxes, less time and money dreaming up ways to avoid paying corporation and personal taxes. Fewer accountants and tax inspectors. It would simplify a lot. Get rid of red tape. Google and Amazon wouldn't be able to avoid paying tax in this country. We already pay tax on nearly everything we spend anyway....it would just be a matter of increasing the rate. I'd probably incorporate it with a complete review of VAT and all other taxes. This could help mitigate the regressive nature of the above and ensure that the poor are not disadvantaged. So, all staples would be free of any tax. Housing, utilities, food, etc. Probably also take the opportunity of 'nudging' people by taxing 'bad' stuff more highly. For example, gym memberships etc and push bikes could be free of tax. I'd take IPT tax off private health insurance - that would help take the pressure off the NHS. |
|
By:
The bigger organisations who don't pay their share of tax are able to use the money they don't have to pay to undercut opposition - who DO have to pay theirs.
Then the smaller companies end up broke, putting their staff onto benefits. So it costs us twice! Once opposition is gone, prices go up, because there's little or no opposition, so it costs us again. Letting big corporations, and there are loads who do it, use their tax avoiding as profit helps no-one much. Amazon comes to mind, Jeff Bezos is worth $160 BILLION and I'd guess there are a few people on decent wedge, yet Amazon pay hardly any tax, in the US as well as here. The revenue "do deals" with them. As stated elsewhere in the thread, at least benefit fraud money gets spent and goes round the economy and is eligible for various taxes along the way. Tax gains don't get spent, in fact if anything the money leaves the country and contributes towards our being less well off as a nation. |
|
By:
A lot of made up figures.
Other things to note. More people pay tax than claim benefits so more people should evade tax It's much easier to evade tax than it is to get away with benefit fraud Some people evade tax and commit benefit fraud The amount you can claim in benefit is limited, whereas with tax evasion it isn't Final point. What world does the OP live in? In the real world I hear much more about tax avoidance (not the same thing, but dressed up as the same thing by the media) than I do about benefit fraud. Final final point. Benefit fraud is less acceptable because you haven't actually earned the money in the first place. I reckon 90% of self employed people earning enough to pay tax have committed tax evasion to some degree. |
|
By:
Shmevation/Shmavoidence. It IS pretty much the same thing, separated by legal loopholes.
The point is, surely, that smaller tax payers - people without much coming in or companies that barely scrape by, cannot escape any of their tax. In my experience, the ones who can afford it most, who still have more money than they can spend, avoid/evade paying tax the most. It is, imo, not a good idea to confuse a self employed worker not claiming against a bill or 2 and saving a few quid, with people earning millions and paying virtually zero. These are the people/businesses who cost US. They are using OUR money. |
|
By:
There is a lot to be said of a system where people and corporations don't pay tax on what they earn, but on what they spend.
That would benefit the rich….I am not rich, so would not get my support It has to be on earnings so the rich pay more than the poor |
|
By:
STUDY you are talking about large scale tax avoidnace by very big companies ... legal but considered unacceptable.
Small scale tax evasion committed by the self employed masses ... illegal but considered acceptable. The OP is talking about tax evasion literally and I'm taking a literal inerpretation as the made up figures mean even less if he is talking about someat else. |
|
By:
I wrote that before I read your previous post
|
|
By:
"There is a lot to be said of a system where people and corporations don't pay tax on what they earn, but on what they spend"
It's called VAT |
|
By:
Lots of different issues here being lumped together.
Not sure tax 'avoidance' is actually a thing! Claiming legitimate expenses....saving in an ISA.....taking out a private pension... |
|
By:
|
|
By:
As I have said before. Tax evaders need to be treated like drug dealers. They are parasites destroying society. They should face the same sequestration penalties as drug dealers and have all their assets confiscated if found guilty. We should start with the Panama papers!
Add to this those that do not pay their fair share have huge influence with our law makers and get the laws changed to suit them. Labour has missed a trick here. There is plenty of money to pay for free University Education for all! |
|
By:
VAT is spent by the end user.
US. WE PAY THE VAT!!!!! Companies pay VAT on their purchases, then claim it back, then pay 20% on vatable sales, so the only VAT paid by corporations is 20% on vatable profit! All tax evaders/avoiders are bad - it isn't acceptable. But the ones who do it for the biggest amounts should be sorted 1st. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Do you think the rich pay a lot of taxes at the moment?
no jack I don't that is my complaint In the 70's I rember the rich paid up to 99% tax....which was too hight So tax avoicance or evasion was legitimate....although a few pop stars did it and then died and their money was never found, it was too well hidden so those supposed to inherit it never did |
|
By:
Cayman Islands anybody?
|
|
By:
very popular terry
|
|
By:
Yes indeed,Jersey and the Isle of Man too
|
|
By:
Just as Marx explained when he said 'profit derives from child labour', so too today as companies profit when people are forced to offer up work for ill reward.
Productivity is all that matters to economies, and until suchtime when robots displace all labour humans will be farmed for that pursuit, hence anyone cheating the system at the bottom becomes public enemy number 1. It will be very interesting if and when we reach the point where human labour is not required, no company employs people for the good of the community.....so they perhaps wont even pretend to, quite how labour will be treated however will be a major problem, because giving money away for nothing is toxic since people with money want to feel superior. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Join the dots with 5G there Dusty, AI doing most of the work,so what are humans good for??
|
|
By:
Not Checking is right when he says its b0llocks,the evasion figure is much,much higher,in fact proberly the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
By:
You knew this thread would be a bit of a train wreck.
People who don't understand the difference between evasion and avoidance .. it's not a difficult, a child can understand it. No surprise however SF is in there with "All tax evaders/avoiders are bad - it isn't acceptable.". |
|
By:
And Terry is off with his usual "the facts available are wrong, the mysterious conspiracy ones I just made up are surely the TRUTH".
Got a David Icke article on it Cptn Tin Foil? |
|
By:
What is a Trust?
Why do we have them? What purpose do they serve? They have their uses sure but they are just a way for the rich who get their lackeys to pass laws to make it legal to avoid them paying their fair share! |
|
By:
JC, letting his obsession get in the way of any common sense.
It's ony a "train wreck" because, as ever, it isn't the way of truth and fact as only YOU know it - so everyone else is therefore wrong. You don't even know what it is you're arguing against, other than there's a danger asking for people to pay tax might be a bit "leftie". I don't imagine for a second there is any personal gain for you for your argument, just so long as you're making it. And, yes - avoidance is just legal evasion - particularly when big money non-payers are concerned. It's just semantics. |
|
By:
No it's a train wreck as it's full of people mouthing off with things that aren't true, they don't understand, or both, as expected. You ignorantly trying to pigeon hole me and ignoring what I said is just par for the SF course.
|