Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
PaulB - own up... do you pay more tax than you really have to?
Is anyone foolish enough to do so?
I certainly will not pay a penny more than I can legally avoid.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
Fairness and morals disappear when it comes to tax, law and politics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Spot on Jan.
Audere est facere.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
brian;
my comment refer was to barryw not you
jan;
your last posting sounded a little more in general terms
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Define fairness - are you being fair by paying more tax than you have to? Do you pay tax voluntarily Jan, more than you don't need to? I bet you don't Martin.
The easiest thing to do is to moralise.
I have £10k tax to pay in a couple of weeks and another £7k in July - I pay a lot more than my fair share and if I could legally avoid paying every penny I would. I would bet any amount that so would any of you.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
You do not know what fairness is and that is a social statement, NOT a political one.
If there were legal loopholes in the benefits system and the unemployed were coining it in, you would call to have them plugged.
That would be fair.
But only fair , if All loopholes were plugged.
Why have these legal loopholes not been plugged before now?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Barry I pay income tax taken at source from my wages as defined by the powers that be, fairness would be that every tax payer paid the same amount pro rata to their income, or is that wrong?
Audere est facere.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - the problem of so-called loopholes is down to the complexity of the tax system. Simpler flatter and lower taxes means it is harder to avoid and there is less incentive to do so. The battle between revenue and accountants over tax is an age old one and it is one that revenue cannot win ultimately as those with a lot of resources ultimately can remove themselves from HMRC jurisdiction if they want to.
Personally I am caught in between - the squeezed middle. On one hand I earn enough to pay far too much tax and on the other hand not enough for it to be worth the more expensive schemes to legally avoid tax, though I take what advantage I can of those schemes that I am able, pensions and ISA for instance and the way I manage certain savings/investments.
Tghe difference in attitude between you and I is that you seem to think that HMRC can dip their sticky fingers into our income as much as they like and should have first call on it. Its almost as if we should be grateful for what money HMRC allow us to keep.
I take the opposite view. The money I earn in mine, all of it. HMRC can have the taxes that the law requires them to have but I have the right to keep as much of it as I can legally retain.
The difference really is between those, like me - who considers the State to be a necessary evil who should have a little power and role in our lives as possible and you, from a left facing perspective who sees the State as a positive good thing, all wise, that should dictate our lives.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Martin. But you can still reduce that tax burden through those means available to you by organising your affairs in the best way possible. You do not have to be rich to do that.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
you! you! you! you! you! you! you!
Why should you have a scheme to "legally avoid paying Tax" when many others do not have that option?
Prey tell who " OUR" you are referring to in your incorrect statement?
"HMRC can dip their sticky fingers into "OUR" income as much as they like"
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
We all have exactly the same options GaryC so get off your high horse. Our income means ours, all of us - read it in the context. If you pay more tax than you need to then more fool you.
Income also includes the financial support people are entitled to if they are vulnerable (that bloody word again!) or in need, aka benefits. And I do believe Gary has a valid point: if it was people using that social support who were looking for loopholes you might have a different view on it............
No comments, just an observation!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Not talking about any kind of loopholes here Bern, only simple financial planning open to all. The very wealthy have the means and incentive to do more and I cannot blame them at all.
There is of course a difference between those paying in to the system and those taking out. The complexities of the system is a problem both ways - complexities create the means for those with large liabilities (bigger than mine) to get out of them and complexities deter some valid claims for benefits.
That is true too. Keep it simple I say! I guess it depends on your definition of "loophole"........I wouldn't judge someone for protecting their income, far from it, but there is a basic inequity about access to information and the tools to maximise and protect income and reduce expenditure.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This is my point about a simple, lower, flat tax - you will get rid on the anomalies that seem to upset some people. While the complexities exist and specially while taxes are at daylight robbery rates I cannot blame anyone for doing whatever they can do legally to reduce their tax bills.
The claims system need simplifying too so those genuinely in need are not put off claiming while the scroungers lose out.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Mitt Romney is looking rather beleagured right now about him paying this miserable 15% tax...looking squeemish, looking embarassed, as well he might. Its the voters out there who dont like it. Romney knows in his heart he is not one of those poor honest sods out there, one of those guys he is asking to vote for him right now, and the wider poor honest sods of the non Republican persuasion who he will be asking to vote for him in the time ahead.
Here's the odd thing...the worker on the shop floor pays out 35%..and across the US right now home grown economics are in a bad way, so the 35% is needed. What in theory if they all had acces to slick lawyers and all paid the 15%..what mess then?
Of course that wont happen, Im just pipe-dreaming there for a minute. Romney, he of the super- rich, can afford the slick lawyers that enables him to pay just 15%, but he certainly has not captured the moral high ground on this. The guys on the factory floor are paying his share of taxes to help keep the nation running....not the guy who wants to be President. He chooses not to.
BarryW would argue that thats fine. But ...but ..its not a good thing to have on your CV if you are running for high office. 'One thing for the people, another for me'...sayeth Romney when he tucks in under the duvet in the wee hours.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I say again PaulB - a simpler flatter tax system would solve the problem alongside lower taxes. No-one can be blamed for minimising their tax as long as it is done legally.
Romney, I have to say, does not inspire me. In fact non of the Republican candidates do and with that third rater Obama in the White House that is quite sad.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Nothing 'political' in this thread, not why I posted it, it is the system that is seriously flawed if people can legally get away with such a think when taxing us to the hilt.... !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
PaulB I don't know where your facts come from but the top rate of income tax in the US is currently 28%. Someone earning $100k pays 22.3% overall.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
No good arguing with BarryW, he is the expert after all.
According to him" We all have exactly the same options" to utilize these legal tax avoidance schemes.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"