Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#21
"This is written by a Dover boy on the state of the economy"
Well, we now know that this was not written by a Dover boy, and has nothing much to say on the state of the economy either. We can therefore only conclude that this was written by a Conservative.
What he calls estimates were the rosy forecasts of his own party. Surely by now we all know that it was this folly, of the Chancellor's own making, that has left us with zero growth and a drop in income from taxation.
Where SMEs pay through the nose at about 30%, it is reasonable to state that this is high enough. That corporations that claim to have profits set in the mi££ions and bi££ions pay only, and (incredibly) are only asked to pay in the region of 5% max, he says nothing.
Why on Earth should it be of concern that some sort of gleefully successful Financial Fly-boy working in the back of beyond is not working in the UK when they are never asked to pay their fair share, or anywhere near the share dragged out of static SMEs?
" Housing transactions have been well down on pre crisis levels..." As is to be expected from such a source, he is stuck way behind the times. Housing transactions and house price inflations were very much part and parcel of the crisis.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#22
Tom, how much does the City of London contribute to the treasury?
I appreciate your immediate thought is "not enough" but that isn't the answer. Its worth remembering the highest tax rate currently is higher than the one under the previous govt. Raising the tax % does not raise the tax collected, Barry has explained that to you often enough.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#23
I made not the slightest mention of raising taxation rates David. Until such times that the HMRC collects what it is due from all sources there can be no real idea of where the levels of taxation should or could be.
It might very well be easier to to squeeze SMEs until the pips squeak, and condemn the less fortunate for their predicament.
Two questions remain:Easier for who? For the benefit of who?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#24
agree tom until all the loopholes are closed and the egp's pay their whack, a rate of tax cannot be calculated. the current public mood will force a lot of corporations to play the game in future in my view.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#25
Its interesting that you say collecting what is due. Barry has also explained the difference between evasion and avoidance, I suspect your definition of what is due is different to others.
Its perfectly possible and legal to minimise your tax obligation
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#26
"Its perfectly possible and legal to minimise your tax obligation"
Can we assume then David that you take full advantage of this? Yet you still complain. Just how tasty is that cake you have that is still whole after you have consumed so much?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#27
the argument has moved on from evasion/avoidance, people are up in arms over avoidance schemes and our local mp is leading the charge to stamp them out.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#28
Tom, I complain about what I pay, not other people, that's entirely their business.
You talk about fair share, I've no idea how you define that
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#29
"...are never asked to pay their fair share, or anywhere near the share dragged out of static SMEs"
What is so, so special about the pound spent in Starbucks compared to the pound spent at your business?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#30
Nothing at all. But Starbucks are operating within the law, until a flat tax is introduced nothing will change, but you would resist that too. As the original post shows, countries with low tax seem far more prosperous.
The Starbucks scenario is a good example of an unthinking general public, plenty want to boycott Starbucks which is a franchise operation, thereby penalising the SMEs that are already struggling.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#31
Some of you people really are out there chasing fairies....
All this nonsense about 'ending avoidance' is a pipe dream. Governments since time immemorial have been trying to do that and each time make the tax rules longer and more complex - still it does not work.
I have told you time and time again how to get a fairer tax system with less opportunity for avoidance (other than what is specifically allowed).
That is low flat and simple taxes. Face reality for a change and stop living in some cloud cuckoo land and remember, the government should be our servant not our master and that means we can and should use all legal measures to protect our assets from the grasp of the taxman.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#32
Constant rot, is no better form of rot, Barry.
We certainly do not have a Government today that is making the least attempt at ending tax avoidance.
Your third paragraph, "I have told you..." Is parenthetically infested with the seed of it's own destruction.
The, any, Government should be our servant, but neither should lucre be our Deity.
You are wrong Barry, but as I say at the top of this post you are at least consistently wrong.
In no sense whatsoever does any business pay over it's money in tax. All those, individuals or corporations, who pay tax pay with their customers money, their customers get their money from their own customers (less that portion that they too pay in tax).
The folly at the root of your own wrong-headedness lies within this lie:Prices are set to meet costs plus a reasonable profit, but once the price has been paid extra profit is sought by then revisiting the original costings with an eye to reducing them by any means, fair or foul. This is where you get the idea that tax payments come from the company's coffers, because any and all such payment that can be avoided count as company money.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#33
So Tom, for all that, why won't a flat tax, no loopholes, of 25% on all earnings over £10k work?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#34
You have never run a business Tom and have no idea about how to set prices in a competitive market. It is all so simple to you, the fact is you hate private property, you hate the idea of people owning assets and you really do want everyone down the the lowest common denominator.
You take the view that the demands of government should take precedence over us as individuals and our needs. I take the opposite view entirely. Government should not have the freedom to pick our pockets at will. I run a business and provide a service for a fee - the proceeds are mine for the delivery of that service. Not my client's money (I do not hold client money - a clear legal & regulatory distinction) and most certainly the products of my efforts do not belong to the government.
The present government has taken measure against avoidance though, as usual, you choose to ignore the reality in favour of the fairy chasing to which I referred. One power, in particular, is a 'general power over avoidance' in an effort to place more retrospective power in the hands of HMRC. I find this quite disturbing and when the first case reaches the Courts it is to be hoped that judges will throw it out to protect individuals against over mighty government. Retrospectively applied law is tyranny and judges are supposed to be a balance against that.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#35
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#36
Wow - a good article there David, thanks. Just had a glance and will read it properly when I get some time.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#37
Tom owns property eh? There was me thinking property was theft, it all belongs to the people etc.
Well well Tom, hardly a sin of Starbucks proportions but I'm glad we agree that however worthy it may be, socialism is for other people
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#38
someone had best tell charlie he is chasing fairies otherwise he will just carry on.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#39
Interesting looking at Charlie's campaign considering he's a tax lawyer.
I assume he didn't advise his clients to pay more than they needed
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#40
it may be a case of being an ex tax lawyer from now on .