Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Millions on PAYE and many others pay their dues in full , yet for those at the top taxes seem to be optional, why is this acceptable to anyone and particularly those in power.
Whatever your politics it can't be right that those with the least contribute more of their income than those whose tax avoidance is more to do with greed than need.
Surely any attempt at a fair society means those at the top should pay their share, why is it always those at the bottom that suffer from austerity and cuts yet nobody ever takes on those at the top.
Fairness demands that before anyone at the bottom is asked to accept less we should ensure those at the top are at least paying their dues, and until this happens we're never going to be, "all in this together"
Whatever your politics it can't be right that those with the least contribute more of their income than those whose tax avoidance is more to do with greed than need.
Surely any attempt at a fair society means those at the top should pay their share, why is it always those at the bottom that suffer from austerity and cuts yet nobody ever takes on those at the top.
Fairness demands that before anyone at the bottom is asked to accept less we should ensure those at the top are at least paying their dues, and until this happens we're never going to be, "all in this together"
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 44
|
By:
why is it always those at the bottom that suffer from austerity and cuts
who are these people at the bottom suffering austerity? the unwaged on means-tested benefits, the public sector pensioners and the genuinely disabled haven't been affected - it's the next group up, the working people just earning enough not to get benefits that are being hit by cuts, who are actually at the bottom now. nobody ever takes on those at the top the top rate of tax is to be increased from 40-45%. they are being pursued in other ways too now - i remember the last chancellor but one who said he would go after them and never did, he probably thought it wasn't that important to do so as he beleievd he'd abolished boom and bust, was able to pay for the extra borrowing from economic growth ( how wrong ) and got re-elected twice by us the gullible electorate In other words, the gullibility of the electorate is your answer |
|
By:
the UK has one of the most complex tax regimes in the world, and even when governments do attempt to 'crack down', they always seem to add MORE regulation, which just ends up making it even more complex
so what? well more complexity just means more advantage to those who can afford the best tax specialists to run rings around the system for the ordinary taxpayer, who has to keep on top of the crazy tax rules by him/herself without expensive expert advice, while risking big fines from HMRC if they get anything wrong, its a nightmare and dont forget that someone has to enforce this mess... and of course your average HMRC employee is far less skilled than the top tax lawyers on the 'opposing team', so the more complex the rules become, the bigger the disadvantage the HMRC has against the best lawyers devising ways exploit loopholes. i dont just blame government 'conspiracy' like some on here. i also blame good old fashioned government incompetence. |
|
By:
Bentley
Fundamentally we are at odds about what is fair. You wouldn't be happy until everyone who has is reduced to the ranks of those who don't. In your book that is fair. In my book any society which feels entitled to take more of what a man creates than he does himself is rancid at its core. Drop tax rates for all with the poorest being taken out of paying income tax altogether and reduce spending to provide essential services with the hangers on thrown out on their ear. Simplify the system then address the issue of evasion and avoidance with rigour. |
|
By:
Drop tax rates for all
Many of the very richest pay next to nothing now, we know that £billions in tax is legally avoided annualy and can only guess how much is evaded illegally but surely the way to fairness starts with those most able to pay being made to do so. |
|
By:
taxing hard worker to pay for scrounging losers isn't 'fair' either
oh well, maybe life isn't fair. boo-hoo. |
|
By:
Bentley
The point isn't mutually exclusive. Have a reasonable tax rate for all and then make them all pay it. Simple. |
|
By:
OP. There's a number of reasons why someone who is rich living in the UK might not pay income tax in a particular year. I'll give a few examples to help:
a) Someone might have a business that makes £10m one year, and loses £2m the next year. He'll still be richer than you or me, but won't pay any tax in the second year. b) Someone might give all their income except for £8000 to charity. c) Someone might have won the lottery on 15 March, with the numbers 5, 8, 32, 36, 38 and 45, and not had enough interest on the winnings by 5 April to pay tax in that year. d) Someone might have inherited a very valuable asset, perhaps a big farm from her parents who were farmers and were brutally murdered and is making a mess of running the farm because she is distressed about their murder e) A member of the Saudi royal family who is at a language school in Wimbledon and owns a fortune in Saudi Arabia, but is not domiciled here f) Someone has invested nearly all their money in woodlands, which are exempt from income tax since schedule B was abolished. |
|
By:
The rich needs a bribe to give money to charity
while the poor give money to charity out of the goodness of their heart same old tories  |
|
By:
Have a reasonable tax rate for all and then make them all pay it. Simple.
Just like that! – lol. We’ve already got the first part in place, how do you reckon enforcing the second part without spending a fortune doing it and driving everybody away? You argue for less taxation to keep money in the private sector where it can be used to expand and create jobs in one place, then here you argue for more taxation so the government can p!ss it up the wall. You’re all over the place man. |
|
By:
who are these people at the bottom suffering austerity? the unwaged on means-tested benefits, the public sector pensioners and the genuinely disabled haven't been affected -
Wow. Someone from the Cameron school of congenital inability to relate to the poor. Of course they are suffering under austerity. The cost of living rises hit the very poorest disproportionately. The poor benefit suffer disproportionately from public sector expenditure. There are about a thousand other reasons. How on earth do you manage to remain so utterly clueless about this type of thing? |
|
By:
cheese
The cost of living rises hit the very poorest disproportionately. good to see you recognising an important reason for getting the finances under control and not treating the currency like toilet paper. well done. |
|
By:
Why are the rich allowed to avoid income tax?
Silly question BB. Look at the people paying £250k to have Beef Wellington and Spotted **** with Sam and Dave, and "influence" government policy. Are they campaigning for closure of tax havens, tighter rules on Trust Funds, end of charitable status for Public Schools? Are they campaigning for cuts in government expenditure by requesting tighter controls and stronger auditing of PFIs and Outsourcing contracts or by a clampdown on benefits? Between March 2010 and June 2011, Osborne and the Treasury Ministers were taken out for lunch 133 times. Once by a Union (HMRC) once by a consumer group 100> times by corporate bodies/ their "consultants" Who do you suppose is going to get their vested interests across? Lobbyists rule the roost. |
|
By:
The top 1% of income tax payers pay 28% of all income tax.
How much should they pay to make it fair? |
|
By:
'Why are the rich allowed to avoid income tax'
.......'cos the financial elite run the fecking country |
|
By:
How much should they pay to make it fair?
A good question MW. George Osborne reports himself shocked at how little some of the "rich" are paying; I suppose as the Chancellor his views on how much they "should" be paying is the most relevant. As yet he has not quantified it, It has been my criticism that his statement that Tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance are morally repugnant, while sounding "good"; is totally unspecific. His first step, the only indication to what he finds "repugnant", limiting relief on charitable donations, looks a pretty weak effort; and even that is going through modifications as we speak. |
|
By:
Crippen
Have you been on the magic mushrooms again? Anybody who thinks we currently have a fair tax system when some people have more of their income taken away than they get to keep is living in cloud cuckoo land. By the way I don't argue for more taxation. Mushrooms? |
|
By:
By the way I don't argue for more taxation.
EO, Yes you do if want to collect tax that is currently legally avoidable. What planet are you on? |
|
By:
Point taken but dropping rates would help offset that. However, I'm definitely in the camp which says that people should pay their tax in this country. After all we are in this together.
 |
|
By:
Wasn't it the multi billionairess HEMMINGS in USA, WHO SAID THAT only poor people pay tax, not sure about her name, but someone may remember her drivel?
|
|
By:
Maybe, but most of the rich pay more in duty on their wine than the moaners will pay in income tax in a lifetime.
|
|
By:
So they should, a revolution would not go amiss in GREAT BRITAIN.
Peeing in the wind with that opinion, though. |
|
By:
Leonne Helmsley. She was sent to prison for tax evasion.
|
|
By:
Thanks SIBARONI, she was the one, why with almost EVERY happening in America(no matter how stupid, we British follow), yet not one tax dodger has been imprisoned and not one criminal banker has met with the same DESERVED fate?
This TOTALLY dishonest coalition blames the last government for everything, whilst I believe that Labour should accept some of the blame for deliberately allowing the bankers too much leeway in their dishonest endeavours, the bankers are the real criminals and should be behind bars in their droves!!!!!!! |
|
By:
For once I agree. It is a stain on our country that there hasn't even been one banker investigated for the possibility of wrong doing and yet woe betide a single mum over claims a fiver.
|
|
By:
But the heart of the problem lies with the politicians who egged the bankers on. Investigate the bankers and who knows who else may become ensnared in the legal proceedings? After all we know how our legal system works. The vast majority of MP's were bang at it and only a handful were prosecuted over the expenses scandal. Just enough to placate the mob but not nearly enough to clean out the stench from the rotten stable.
|
|
By:
But the heart of the problem lies with the politicians who egged the bankers on. Investigate the bankers and who knows who else may become ensnared in the legal proceedings? After all we know how our legal system works. The vast majority of MP's were bang at it and only a handful were prosecuted over the expenses scandal. Just enough to placate the mob but not nearly enough to clean out the stench from the rotten stable.
|
|
By:
But the heart of the problem lies with the politicians who egged the bankers on. Investigate the bankers and who knows who else may become ensnared in the legal proceedings?
In a nutshell eo. One of the major culprits received a knighthood for services to banking while this was carrying on. |
|
By:
It is a stain on our country that there hasn't even been one banker investigated for the possibility of wrong doing
There have been three or four I think, EO. |
|
By:
v4
Not that I'd doubt your word for one minute but have you any evidence for that assertion? By the way is that thousand?  |
|
By:
Depends what you call an investigation EO.
In the US there was a proper Senate Inquiry, at least five "bankers" were charged, and four were found not guilty. Justice was seen to be done, and four people were able to clear their name. Over here more gravity, effort, and parliamentary time has been allotted to investigating Ulrika, Hugh Grant, Alan Partridge's etc. phone tapping, than the near collapse of our banking system. The decision to "remove" Fred Goodwin's knighthood, was a piece of pathetic gesture politics aimed to placate the people. IMO it should have been investigated fully, publicly, under courtroom conditions; if he has done something charge him.If not leave him as Sir fred. Perhaps the title "Sir" served as an embarrassment to those who recommended him for a knighthood. Good. The reason the UK have treated the debacle so lightly is because of the involvement of the idiot politicians, senior civil servants, etc. Fred could quite rightly point out that he was being praised, encouraged, and recommended for a knighthood by Blair/Brown while overseeing RBS; somebody might also mention that when the FSA were having trouble getting their correspondence acknowledged, our then PM wrote a letter accusing them of "inhibiting" good businesses. What of the Senior Civil servants who advised/failed to advise BandB? What of the highly paid fund managers who ploughed the public's money into the banks? With all of their knowledge did they have any doubts, or did meeting Jackie Stewart for a round of golf answer those doubts? The removal of Fred's knighthood was as inane a piece of gesture politics as you will see. The political establishment would not allow a proper investigation because they equally culpable. |
|
By:
Well, here's one:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/14/big-man-train-passenger-to-be-quizzed-by-police-after-alleged-fare-dodger-makes-official-complaint-86908-23633758/ |
|
By:
Here's another I'm sure was investigated for wrong doing:
http://news.yahoo.com/morgan-stanley-banker-pleads-not-guilty-cab-driver-000220736.html |
|
By:
I thought so. None then. |
|
By:
Eh? Lots of investigations.
|
|
By:
Sure but none in this country about the matter we are discussing. I hardly think the big man throwing a fare dodger off a train constitutes. With that level of sophistry I'll be wondering if you aren't plundering Karla's jewels and she has logged onto your account to run amok.
|
|
By:
If you`d told me I would be paying income tax at a rate 5p less than Richard Branson a few years ago, I`d have imagined I`d have a flash car, foreign holidays etc etc. It seems to me that the middle is being squeezed bigtime. In my opinion 20% to 40% is too big a jump. Maybe 30% up to 100k would be more equitable, Then 40% and reinstate 50%. If you`re not paying the tax at 50% you arent going to pay at 45% its the rich lookaing after their own...dont know why we expect anything else.
|
|
By:
There is an issue with getting them to pay any rate. Once that is sorted it is truly obscene, yes obscene, that you are anybody should think it is right that any government should take more from a persons endeveaours than he himself does. Shame on you.
|
|
By:
And if they are or were paying any rate on all earnings their contribution would dwarf your own. Yours would amount to little more than a drop in a cup compared to theirs. Some of you have a most peculiar view of what is equitable.
|
|
By:
Eeternaloptimist
Sure but none in this country about the matter we are discussing No, because no one did anything criminal. |