Welcome to Fortress Brighton

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Perry:
However, Mick does raise a point with regard to forcing people off-shore because of the risk of excessive taxation.

---

I don't mean to be petty but didn't I raise that point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexG:
Shame that the 90-odd% of pensioners that can barely afford to eat because they subsist on a declining state pension can't do the same, isn't it?

---

Yes of course it's a shame. Do you have any answers?

Steve

Alex

It will be the £100k+'s who will move and then you are worse off.

Maggie dropped tax to 40p from 83p under old Labour and tax revenues actually increased.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves: Perhaps do away with income tax and load VAT accordingly.

---

VAT is a consumption tax. The poor need to spend a far higher percentage of their income on consumption than the well-off. Your idea would have the exact opposite effect of what you are aiming for.

Markus

You rotten bugger.....I was saving that for the right strategic moment. With friends like Tom, the poor are stuffed.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlexG:
50% tax bracket for all those earning more than £100k, with all the proceeds going to pay higher pensions and into the NHS. Also bring forward the compulsory employer contributions to private pensions legislation.

... If it means a few of the more mobile are going to go abroad, then that's fine by me.

---

AlexG,

It is a nigh-on certainty that your '50%' proposals would result in less tax money coming into the kitty. 'All the proceeds' would therefore be negative. Would you take the resulting shortfalls from the NHS and pensions?

Your comment about the 'mobile' going abroad is either based on prejudice against the wealthy or it is just ill considered. In neither case does it do anything to help the poor.

Steve

"It is a nigh-on certainty that your '50%' proposals would result in less tax money coming into the kitty"

That's at best highly debatable and is from from any sort of certainty.

Matthew

PS To re-iterate, I think it's the very rich that the problem not the slightly rich.

Is hypothecation the answer?

People may well support an increase in tax rate (pick you rate and start point) and understand the idea of hypothecation but do they trust those in power to deliver exactly what is promised?

7V
I am happy to credit you with raising the point in question. Apologies. It was still quite early for me on a Saturday to be posting.
Simon

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
"It is a nigh-on certainty that your '50%' proposals would result in less tax money coming into the kitty"

That's at best highly debatable and is from from any sort of certainty.

---

No, the problem here is that it's not a matter that can be debated to any constructive purpose, at least not in the first instance.

For example, if the rate was reduced to 0%, less tax would be collected (clearly). If the rate was increased to 90% (for higher earners) few would argue that less would be collected overall. Mick gave the example earlier of Thatcher decreasing the tax rate from 80p to 43p and the overall revenue rising. Therefore, this is clearly not an issue that can be settled by debate.

A good idea of the effect of the income tax rate on the total tax collected may be obtained by looking back at historical consequences - both in the UK and overseas. Then start the debate.

Steve

Chaps

What we should do is increase tax thresholds to a sensible level. Making someone pay tax on £5000 is ludicrous.

Also 40p should only trigger in at at £50k.

VAT should be increased to make up for this with no zero VAT being allowed. This will encourage people to work harder and earn more and also spend less.

Maggie did it (what a woman) when she raised VAT from 8 to 17.5% in exchange for lower taxes.

It was a tremendous success which revitalised the economy.

Regards

Mick

Tom

I am covered by private medical insurance.

Regards

Mick

Matthew,

My uncle was a socialist, a wastrel and an idiot. In my experience the three are nearly always linked.

You are simply wrong regarding "avoided tax" belonging to us. It doesn't.

If you want to collect more tax, say so, and write the rules clearly, so that we know where we stand. If you make a mistake in drafting the rules, then draft them again.

There is no need to split hairs, as you seem inclined to do.

Cheers

Don

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:

You weight the VAT on luxury items and not on essentials. Mick often complains that the poor waste their money on "cigarettes and other frivolities with the money". Let them buy food and essential clothing hceaply and tax CDS3 and Bulgari Jewelery to the hilt.

---

Still won't work, even if you peg VAT on CDS3s and Bulgari at 100%. Besides, how would you want to make such a system workable. CD players below 100 quid = working man's necessity, VAT 0%; CD players over 1000 quid = rich man's toy; VAT 100%? Totally arbitrary.

FWIW, my own position on this: no income tax below a certain threshold determined by the basic cost of living; the German constitutional court ruled that taxation at a level where the state takes away from what you need for basic substistence is unconstitutional. The threshold is ca. 11.500 Euros for a single person in Germany; if you earn less than that, you are exempt from income tax.

Above the threshold, a flat income tax rate of 35-40%.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:

You weight the VAT on luxury items and not on essentials. Mick often complains that the poor waste their money on "cigarettes and other frivolities with the money". Let them buy food and essential clothing hceaply and tax CDS3 and Bulgari Jewelery to the hilt.

---

Why penalize the, generally small, companies that make luxury goods? Naim wouldn't survive it (and remain British) and most UK hi-fi companies would disappear overnight. Others, including my own little venture, would have to immediately relocate overseas.

In general, the UK should cushion its luxury goods manaufacturers. The high end is generally the only point of entry for start-up companies without vast financial backing and the mass market stuff won't be made in the UK, anyway.

"Let them buy food and essential clothing cheaply and tax CDS3 and Bulgari Jewelery to the hilt."
Sod that, Tom. Let them eat cake.

Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves: Perhaps do away with income tax and load VAT accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves: You weight the VAT on luxury items and not on essentials.

---

By the way, Tom. When they come knocking on the door of this forum, asking us if we would run the country, would you be awfully offended if we don't put you down for Chancellor?

Steve

Nicely ironic having the little weasel perpetually whinging about having to pay tax and subsidize spongers threatening to take off to socialist Spain. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Zapatero's popular socialist government have a top rate of greater than 40%?

Do you know what, I think that Parry and similarly like-minded newly moneyed oiks such as Paul Daniels, Jim Davidson, and Bruno should make good on their threats, clear off together and live on an island. We wouldn’t have to listen to the constant crying and bleating on about having to endure the burden of helping the poor, disadvantaged and frail in society.

If his comments on this forum are a genuine representation of his morality and public spirit then I’m sure that there’ll be no great loss to the long-suffering people of Swindon.

One of the main problems with the tax system in this country at the moment,that is apart from its general inherent unfairness with the way it's opperated,is that the Inland Revenue Staff have been reduced in number and given other tasks to carry out by such a extent that they are now no longer able carry out their jobs of implementing the Tax Laws. Any one now caught evading taxation is extremely unlucky,Submissions now only have a cursory scan rate of about 10%or I,M INFORMED GENERALLY LESS and a further in depth check of about 10% of what is left.
"ALLEGEDLY" they/some have also been informed, that if the return on their efforts is not more than £15,000 collectable,then not to bother, if the Tax Laws of this country were implemented fairly I think a considerable number of people "could" if goverments wished be a lot better off but It does suit the system to collect from thoses that give little trouble ie PAYE, or it's easyer to collect from, I have two very small pensions and a small amount of sickness benifit based on what my pensions return, and on this I am taxed FAIR?? I DON'T THINK SO.

Mick,
Yes I remember the way Thatch modified the tax laws, remember the Vesty organisation [ Butchers shops in every town huge meat processing plants all over the world] and they paid £6 tax on mult million profits, yes thats correct £6 and Thatcher answered the out cry over it by saying that it would be to difficult to change the law to close the loop hole they were using. Yes a real fair system!
ps The Vesty organisation supported Thatcher Supprise Supprise.
oldie.

Bigmick,
Dont you think your being a little hard ,as without the constant reminder from Mick of how we could end up if we are not careful with our thoughts and actions we might just end up replicateing him, No it's far better to have the example of how one could end up, constantly held up in front of us when "money replaces humanity".
Apart from that, Spain is now a allie
oldie

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
Yes I remember the way Thatch modified the tax laws, remember the Vesty organisation [ Butchers shops in every town huge meat processing plants all over the world] and they paid £6 tax on mult million profits, yes thats correct £6 and Thatcher answered the out cry over it by saying that it would be to difficult to change the law to close the loop hole they were using. Yes a real fair system!
ps The Vesty organisation supported Thatcher Supprise Supprise.

---

Of course the loop hole's been closed since.

Hasn't it?

Steve

Steve"7"
Apparently one of the latest whizzes is for a Company to make all it's employees, Self Employed Company Directors thus saving its self thousands of pounds and them some also,but in doing so increasing the workload of the Inland Revinue beond it's capability rumour has it ,that they have had to open and staff a building somewhere to cope with the increase.It would also seem someone has worked out that they can now also claim the premium for submitting these claims on line, a sum I'm assured that runs to several hundred pounds per submition,it would seem this has clocked up quite a few million pounds
I would think that this has caused a bit of head scratching in Whitehall. Or NOT as the case may be.
oldie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
We'd lose 1.25% of the population. I reckon we could take the hit

---

Definitely NOT chancellor material.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
I would think that this has caused a bit of head scratching in Whitehall. Or NOT as the case may be.

---

Tee hee! Some reorganization needed down at the old IR, methinks.

Steve "99" (deffo not in the 1%)

Tom

You are definately not Chancellor material.

Yes you would lose 1.25% of the population and at a guess about 20% of the taxes.

This countries amenities are paid for by the tax payers and to let them go is plain madness.

Regards

Mick

Alex

I did say it was a guess.

Reagan and Thatcher both reduced tax levels and both of them enjoyed an overall increased tax revenue as more people returned from tax exile.

The newspapers of the day were full of it at the time.

To look at it from the opposite side of the coin, if the chavs emigrated, we would spend less on welfare.

Regards

Mick



Regards

Mick

Tom

I will agree with you on that.

Mick

I hear that G Brown is actually a rubbish economist. I have to confess, shamefacedly, to employing a very good accountant who exploits, on my behalf, some of the "loopholes".
I could not afford to work for myself otherwise.

One such "loophole" and I use inverted commas because I am not sure of the exact definition, cropped up last year. I was advised to switch from self-employment to becoming a limited company. This to take advantage of, rather than exploit, a system the Chancellor had created and made a fanfare about in his budget (to wit: the first £10,000 tax free and thereafter @ 19% corporation tax {a reduction}, also saving on National Insurance contributions which only PAYE people pay at 11%) A big reduction for me that year and this last, although the set up and accountancy fees are greater.
Mr Brown then realised his "mistake" and closed this generous opening, although thousands of people had been encouraged to do as I had. I have a year's grace, as it were, not least because G & TB do not want lots of "small businesses" apparently going to the wall simultaneously.

I hope I have not upset Alex G with my paraphrasing!!! But I think this is the gist of it. This has created the need for the extra office space referred to above, and hardly constitutes "iron chancellorship".

I have been told that the whole tax credit thing is also a bit of a farrago soon to explode. Similarly, where, one wonders, did the billions that the treasury received from the sale of radio frequencies to the mobile phone companies disappear to?

Mind you, this is far from a first. I seem to remember that the last increase in VAT (Lamont?) was from 15 to 17½% specifically, only, and temporarily, to make up for a shortfall in revenue from the ill-fated community charge.
No-one seems to have been in a hurry to reduce it again.

I don't think we can trust any of 'em.
If Private Eye is to be believed (and let's face it a pinch of salt is needed) one of the biggest tax avoiders is the Inland Revenue itself - whose buildings are now owned off-shore and leased back. Gamekeeper turned poacher...