Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
He is still a politician chasing votes. Sadly we do need politicians but situations as our economy is in demonstrates a serious shortcoming in our democracy.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Ah the old poacher turned gamekeeper one.
In other words, I used to advise people how to avoid tax, now I need votes I've changed my mind.
You can be sure Ms Hawkins will bring that up at some stage
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
He is a tax lawyer, not an accountant, David. Not advising people on how to avoid tax, more in respect of taxation legalities, whether something is legal or not. He could be on either side..... It is an important distinction and his opponent would make a fool of herself if she were to do what you say.
Does anyone think that the legality of any particular tax matter should not be tested?
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Barry, the fact that Charlie is/was a tax lawyer now campaigning against tax dodging (its all dodging to some) is music to the ears of the opposition.
Amazed he's fallen into the trap tbh
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the next general election will see the reds bringing that up and the blues going on about clair being forced on the public. you won't see much about policies on the propaganda that comes through the door and the canvassers will be even worse.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Spot on Howard which is my point on the other thread.
Its yah boo politics and we deserve better.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
I think you will find charley's tuned his guns on the big multinationals that pay very little in percentage terms using legal loopholes in the system
If tax's could be collected equally, coupled with realistic government spending
Tax's across the board could be more in balance.
This happens to be a ukip policy well-done charley boy
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#34
"The present government has taken measure against avoidance ..."
Eye read...
"[B] Claims that something is at last being done about corporate tax avoidance are coming thick and fast... But what is happening, alas, is neutered by measures the coalition has taken to make tax dodging
easier. [/B]
When George Osborne tried to take the lead in the G20's efforts against corporate tax avoidance, telling the Observer that some multinationals "pay as little as 5% in corporate taxes while smaller businesses are paying up to 30%", he deftly avoided mentioning the relaxations he has made over the past two years to laws governing offshore tax schemes by multinationals which, for example, give tax haven based financing schemes like Vodafone's a 5% tax rate.
When he then emoted against corporate tax avoidance hitting the world's poor, he ignored the fact that one of these changes' other beggar-my-neighbour effects is that British multinationals can now send profits out of developing countries into tax havens with impunity.
Osborne's chief secretary Danny Alexander's announcement that companies that have unsuccessfully tried to avoid tax will be barred from Government contracts is pretty hopeless too. The narrow definition of tax avoidance used does not cover any of the schemes - those of Vodafone, Starbucks, Amazon, Accenture et al - that sparked public outrage and prompted the move in the first place. Alexander still had the nerve to call his latest measure a "significant tool" in the battle against tax avoidance. As tools go, it's as useful as a glass hammer."
Issue 1334...
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
And you believe Private Eye? more fool you.
There is nothing really new here.
Once again you go on at length ignoring the real problem, the big problem that enables tax avoidance schemes. The complexity of our tax system.
Why do you just ignore that point?
Why are you so against the idea of low flat simple taxes?
All the evidence supports them both for how they can boost economic performance and tax revenues as well as being fairer all around.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Barry #49
"... the real problem, the big problem that enables tax avoidance schemes. The complexity of our tax system."
Barry #31
"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)."
other than what is specifically allowed?
A thorough discussion of the 'specifics' is what I called for the other day;on the topic of who gets what benefit from the State.
Why not begin by a levelling of regard to the whole issue of benefits, a flood-light as opposed to the spot-light?
P.S.
"There is nothing really new here." So GO & DA are full of wind and piss? At last, something to agree upon.
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
Are you against a flat tax system Tom?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#50 Specifically allowed you question. A few examples of what I refer to
Pension tax relief, ISA interest and dividends free of tax, no CGT on these. Separate taxation for married couples, personal tax allowances, IHT nil band, CGT nil band, VCTs and EIS schemes, double taxation agreements....... I could carry on.
Would you do away with these? All of them or which of them? Do you know the consequences of that?
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#51
Lets go for it David. Let us begin by ensuring that Multinationals pay the same as SMEs ;say 30%
Now for the more difficult stuff..
Those on incomes between £7,592 and £42,484pa pay NI contributions of 12%. When incomes exceed £42,484, the rate on the excess falls to 2%.
What do you think might be fair David? 8% across the board, from £7,592 up?
#52
Carry on, you could. Of this there can be no doubt Barry.
"All of them or which of them?" That is the question. Where would all likely agree?
Worthwhile pursuing though, let us get the first two points above sorted first, eh?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"
Monitoring tax dodgers
SIR - While the Public Accounts Committee's intentions over tax avoidance are good, a loose name-and-shame approach is counterproductive (report, February 19). Tax avoidance is not illegal: naming and shaming would penalise individuals and business reputations when they had not broken the law.
There is also an issue over where you draw the line; there isn't a clear cliff edge between what you could say is acceptable tax planning and what is unacceptable tax avoidance. Individual Savings Accounts, which are used by many hard-working people as a savings vehicle, are a legitimate tax avoidance measure, as are certain trusts set up by parents to pay for their children's education.
Perhaps when the Government looks in detail at the proposals, it will consider (with a view to radical simplification) a quicker and wider review of the system than the Office of Tax Simplification is currently resourced to implement.
Chas Roy-Chowdhury
Head of Taxation, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
London WC2
SIR - David Cameron says there are "moral questions" regarding the control of aggressive tax avoidance in Britain (report, February 18). But moral compasses vary from person to person; where one may see an unacceptable cheating of the law, another may see a business opportunity.
Instead, a culture of strong business and professional ethics should be cultivated in Britain - with companies implementing, and sticking to, ethical principles.
Rebecca Doodson
Senior Conduct & Compliance Officer, Association of Accounting Technicians
London EC1
From...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9883680/David-Cameron-should-defy-European-directives-and-keep-our-coal-fired-power-stations-running.htmlIgnorance 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
I'd do away with NI altogether Tom, my rate would be 25% but 30% would be a start.
SMEs, multinationals, ltds, plcs, Uncle Tom Cobbley, everybody pays the same.
Until we start taxing less and spending less things will get worse.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tom - pie in the sky.
Don't you think that every Chancellor since Dennis Healy and every one before 'Mr Make the Pips Squeek' has wanted that for Multinationals? There are good reasons why it has never happened and never will happen.
I have given you ways of tidying up the tax system to make it farer, you have given nothing but blandishments and more of the same that got us into this position.
I might also say that varying international tax rates, competition in tax rates, is actually a good thing. The thought of governments being given monopoly power over what they can tax is truly a vision of hell reminiscent of the Soviet Union. Because that is the only way that you will be able to dictate tax rates to multinational companies and to everyone else.
You want governments in charge, all powerful, able to dictate all that we do, earn and live our lives. Hell on earth.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Tom, your point to the John Redwood article: "he is stuck way behind the times. Housing transactions and house price inflations were very much part and parcel of the crisis":
it is possible that the Chancellor, in 2010, calculated his visionary tax-intakes on the pre-financial crisis figures, as they stood prior to 2008, forgetting that there had been, meanwhile, a property bubble.
The problem is, this property bubble has not burst in the UK, where house prices and rent are still artificially high.
But perhaps Osborne banked on the property market rising in value even further, with even more hyped inflation on house prices.
George Osborne is the most extraordinary chancellor we have ever had, so no surprise should be too great!
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Are you but a one-trick pony Barry?
Why go back to Dennis Healy or the Soviet Union only. We can easily go much farther back, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."*
"In the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, each report the response of Jesus to a vexing question of whether we should be involved in politics. The trick questions about taxes had more meaning than this issue might hold for us today..."
http://www.slu.edu/mission-matters-109Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Talking of those living on Benefits, perhaps with a room to spare...
"The MPs who voted for this and have accommodation in London, also live in social housing since the taxpayer pays their rent. The same rules should apply to them, or is it a case of one rule for the rich and another for the poor?
Frank Clements
Manchester"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/21/room-home-poorest-studentsIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No one-tricks for me Tom.
I learn from experience and having seen the problems caused by governments since the early 1970's. Those who keep urging a repetition of the policies that got us into this mess are the ones who are not learning, stuck on 'one trick'. More of the same will just get us more of the same. We need to reverse the spend, spend, spend tendencies of government, we need to reverse the benefit society that is more about salving the conscience of those giving away other people's money, we need to make government trim its ambitions to what is affordable within the framework of a healthy economy. We need change and that change must be the direct opposite to what you want or third world status awaits us.