jasons gold Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 May be simplistic but.........I believe If everyone in this country paid say 15/20% of their total income (and I mean total income.......and everyone!) in tax, then assuming the money was managed properly? this country could pay of its debts and once done could easily balance the books, VAT and duty etc could be reduced and everyone would have a well resourced NHS, police, schools and social and public services and a better life! Billions of pounds in tax avoidance and other legal scams prevent this happening.........who's to blame? Some of us trades do this already then have to claim the over payment back. And all the while the treasury has been earning interest on that amount, until they give me back my own money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buze Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 That one is funny... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013 Of course he personally didn't want transparency for the trusts, we know why... The fact he uses his position as PM to protect his own 'private' arrangement is eyebrow rising... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotguneddy Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 Everyones in politics is out for themselves there all corupt don't give a **** about the working people like us they should all be given the boot, Cameron spent 9 million on voting leaflets 3/4 s of which people won't even vote money well spent lol. Tel the ***** to stop feeding migrants our houses, and put the money towards all these doctors striking the NHS. Rant over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 That one is funny... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013 Of course he personally didn't want transparency for the trusts, we know why... The fact he uses his position as PM to protect his own 'private' arrangement is eyebrow rising... And what's you view of the Guardians use of offshore corporate structures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buze Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 And what's you view of the Guardians use of offshore corporate structures? .. Not that I condone the gardian or anything. But cameron /personal intervention as PM/ is cheeky at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 .. Not that I condone the gardian or anything. But cameron /personal intervention as PM/ is cheeky at best. A hypothetical question for you. 50 years ago your grandfather set up an offshore trust so that his grandchildren can benefit from his inheritance. You are one of these grandchildren (a beneficiary of the trust). You revieve income from the trust that you pay full uk income tax on. How would you feel about being named in the paper and hounded for being a beneficiary of the trust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buze Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 A hypothetical question for you. 50 years ago your grandfather set up an offshore trust so that his grandchildren can benefit from his inheritance. You are one of these grandchildren (a beneficiary of the trust). You revieve income from the trust that you pay full uk income tax on. How would you feel about being named in the paper and hounded for being a beneficiary of the trust? Well, I would have to come clean about it/or not say anything, and I would NOT use my position of power to try to influence laws that might allow me to continue hiding that fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 A hypothetical question for you. 50 years ago your grandfather set up an offshore trust so that his grandchildren can benefit from his inheritance. You are one of these grandchildren (a beneficiary of the trust). You revieve income from the trust that you pay full uk income tax on. How would you feel about being named in the paper and hounded for being a beneficiary of the trust? ha ha.. It's easy to criticise people who have been more fortunate in life and say it's unfair.....unless it was yourself benefiting. It's just jealously at the end of the day. Unfortunately I just have to earn my own money and pay a lot of tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 Well, I would have to come clean about it/or not say anything, and I would NOT use my position of power to try to influence laws that might allow me to continue hiding that fact. Why should you have to defend your position at all? You recieve income and you pay tax. Why should you be hounded? And this isn't about Cameron. It's about you and being the beneficiary of an offshore trust. And what if that trust was onshore rather than offshore? Would you still accept being hounded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 Sorry probably should have made it clearer : tax avoidance noun noun: tax avoidance the arrangement of one's financial affairs to minimize tax liability within the law. tax evasion noun noun: tax evasion the illegal non-payment or underpayment of tax. The law doesn't change depending on the amount of money you have. All these companies and individuals (incl Cameron's father) are/were allegedly operating under the first definition. Unfortunately there is no legislation in there for morality - that is a whole different issue! And the independant source of your definition is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) The problem with the moral compas is that it is all relative. I pay 47% effective (the average) tax rate on my income. That works out to be a **** load of money. Now I could criticise anybody who pays a lower rate. But that would be jealousy kicking in. How much is morally acceptable? 0%, 10%, 20%, 50%? And none of you know how much tax David Cameron's father paid on his TOTAL income. The only people that know that are him (RIP) and HMRC. There is focus on what he didn't pay via the use of offshore structures but nothing on what he did pay. That doesn't sell newspapers. Morality is not relative, if it were about moral objectivity these sorts of legal scams wouldn't be kept under the carpet. Easy one to answer, the absolute minimum tax to be paid should be the same as the average earnings per whatever country (not what a part time working student pays). If corporations pay this sort of amount then there would be no pot holes in our roads, no need to chip £30 a week off the disabled, the NHS would function better, flood barriers would be erected, etc........... Edited April 7, 2016 by Hamster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrM Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) And the independant source of your definition is? HMRC for one, Oxford Dictionaries for another, (just type in "tax avoidance" at .http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ if you feel the need.) A report from HRMC in 2014 estimated that there is about £19bn lost through Tax Avoidance, and £82bn through Tax Evasion. Edited April 7, 2016 by MrM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 I'd love to pay 20% tax on my total earnings. Unfortunately it's closer to 50%. Until they ban cash I don't see how they can get everyone to pay. Atb But your only paying 50% because of tax evasion by others!....same as your car Insurance premium would be lower were it not for uninsured drivers and insurance fraud! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 HMRC for one HMRC is a tool of the government..............so hardly Independant are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 HMRC is a tool of the government..............so hardly Independant are they? there ain't no difference in avoidance and evasion.....only interpreted as different by the government to legalise one and criminalise another!...............Back to laws made by government influenced by the rich and powerful to facilitate them not paying their fair share of tax! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 Morality is not relative, if it were about moral objectivity these sorts of legal scams wouldn't be kept under the carpet. Easy one to answer, the absolute minimum tax to be paid should be the same as the average earnings per whatever country (not what a part time working student pays). If corporations pay this sort of amount then there would be no pot holes in our roads, no need to chip £30 a week off the disabled, the NHS would function better, flood barriers would be erected, etc........... So how much tax should I pay? I couldn't translate what you said into a definitive amount that is morally acceptable (to you at least). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrM Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 there ain't no difference in avoidance and evasion.....only interpreted as different by the government to legalise one and criminalise another!...............Back to laws made by government influenced by the rich and powerful to facilitate them not paying their fair share of tax! Ah ok. So I take it you advocate that we shouldn't have government? or just one that doesn't have tax rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 HMRC for one, Oxford Dictionaries for another, (just type in "tax avoidance" at .http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ if you feel the need.) A report from HRMC in 2014 estimated that there is about £19bn lost through Tax Avoidance, and £82bn through Tax Evasion. Rubbish! by its nature no one knows how much is lost through tax avoidance/evasion this is an attempt by HMRC (the government influenced by the rich and powerful) to use statistics to mislead the populous whilst protecting the establishment and the so called tax "avoiders" whilst demonising the so called tax "evaders" Disraeli once said................ "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".....very shrew man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrM Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 Rubbish! by its nature no one knows how much is lost through tax avoidance/evasion this is an attempt by HMRC (the government influenced by the rich and powerful) to use statistics to mislead the populous whilst protecting the establishment and the so called tax "avoiders" whilst demonising the so called tax "evaders" Disraeli once said................ "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".....very shrew man! I assume this only applies to a Tory government, and not to any previous ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 Ah ok. So I take it you advocate that we shouldn't have government? or just one that doesn't have tax rules? No I advocate an honest, truthful, moral and fair government that truly acts in the best interests and protects the freedoms of all UK citizens and treats everyone similarly and equally. I assume you are happy to continue to have one law for the rich and powerful and another law for the populace? I assume this only applies to a Tory government, and not to any previous ones? Nope! All of em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 The whole system is rigged, and untill people use there general election vote to vote someone in other than labour/conservative government nothing will change, nothing surprises me when I hear dirty little tricks played by politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrM Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 No I advocate an honest, truthful, moral and fair government that truly acts in the best interests and protects the freedoms of all UK citizens and treats everyone similarly and equally. I don't think anyone would argue with that - I take it you've never actually met a politician then..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 there ain't no difference in avoidance and evasion.....only interpreted as different by the government to legalise one and criminalise another!...............Back to laws made by government influenced by the rich and powerful to facilitate them not paying their fair share of tax! Correct. Rubbish! by its nature no one knows how much is lost through tax avoidance/evasion this is an attempt by HMRC (the government influenced by the rich and powerful) to use statistics to mislead the populous whilst protecting the establishment and the so called tax "avoiders" whilst demonising the so called tax "evaders" Disraeli once said................ "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".....very shrew man! Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) So how much tax should I pay? I couldn't translate what you said into a definitive amount that is morally acceptable (to you at least). You asked what should the minimum be and my answer is the basic rate applicable to the average earner, at least that way we don't have schemes designed to pilfer money out of the country without paying ANY tax, 20% is a whole lot better than nothing. You should pay whatever percentage your earnings fall into which for high earners can be as high as 50% after they have passed a certain threshold. Edited April 7, 2016 by Hamster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2016 Report Share Posted April 7, 2016 I don't think anyone would argue with that - I take it you've never actually met a politician then..... Oh yes I have! Plenty of em! I often feel I need a bath afterwards when I meet one!..........You asked what I wanted/advocated...........you didn't ask me to describe what we've got! Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.