Hmmm. Isn't you last sentence completely contradictory to the first? So HMRC has nothing at all do do with it, but they are going out on a limb to reach such arrangements, perhaps above and beyond their brief?
Last edited:
Liechtenstein to give UK tax information
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Hmmm. Isn't you last sentence completely contradictory to the first? So HMRC has nothing at all do do with it, but they are going out on a limb to reach such arrangements, perhaps above and beyond their brief?
Except if labour stay in the will raise it to 20% anyway because they cockerel'd it up by lowering it. They lost £15bn doing it and it didn't stimulate spending at all. Spending is what got us into this mess in the first place. The money should have been invested in research and development. Science fields: physics, pharmaceuticals etc make up 10% of GDP (which is greater than the 7% the financial sector does) but only gets given 3% of government spending. If the figure was doubled to 6% then the UK would be the leading centre of scientific development.
Back on topic, the 50% tax band was only going to generate an estimated £3bn of tax revenue, which is like 1/20th of all income tax contribution. The government could have got rid of a whole level of middle managers and saved that much. Better yet sort out the benefit system so that it is a disincentive not to work.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
What a load of crap. If the UK Government didn't have insane tax rules then people would be happy to leave their money here. Why should anyone pay a higher rate of tax just because they earn more? It's ****.
Do you honestly think that if, by some miracle, Labour manage to get another term VAT won't go up anyway? We are going to see lots of taxes go up and lots of spending go down regardless of who is in power.
I'd have thought that when these bank accounts were originally set-up there was a contract signed that included something along the lines of a non-disclosure clause, otherwise why would people stick their money there. Perhaps somebody here with knowledge of the banking regulations over there would clarify it.
So, if that was the case, then how has our corrupt, Orwellian Government managed to gain access to the banking details? Surely there's some pretty solid ground for legal recourse.
So, if that was the case, then how has our corrupt, Orwellian Government managed to gain access to the banking details? Surely there's some pretty solid ground for legal recourse.
We know that VAT will go back up to 17.5% because the current 15% rate is only a temporary stimulus. I would certainly hope that a Labour government wouldn't raise a regressive tax like VAT any further.
I accept the need for tax rises and spending cuts. Personally I'd look at increasing income tax first though I'm afraid. Normal rate up 2% to 22% and the higher rate should also be increased 2% to 42% - I think personal allowances are coming down next year too? Shame we don't have the 10p tax rate anymore (which doesn't give me much confidence in this Labour government's tax priorities) but I'm afraid we're all going to have to do our bit at this time of economic crisis.
Not really, this demand for honesty shows hypocrisy by the government because they refuse to publish a full disclosure breakdown of exactly where the money they take from us goes. Until they do that, I don't see how they can ask other people to justify where their money has gone.
That's not a bad thing, the state is spending far too much and involved in far too many things it does not need to be involved in. The state does not (and indeed should not) be providing services, but ensuring access to them and letting the services be run on an efficent and non-monopolistic basis.
Labour have screwed our economy, this is not a surprise, the important thing is to reduce the chances of future governments being able to do the same thing.
That's not creating wealth, that's redistributing wealth inefficiently. Creating wealth can only be done through the market. Government spending cannot add value.
It's not proportional to earnings though, stepped bands ensure that. They ensure that high earners are expected to pay a bigger portion of earnings than lower earners, something which isn't fair.
No John, its not.
That is HMRC's remit. It has no choice other than to follow ministerial direction. If a minister turned round and said all HMRC staff have to knit jumpers, that would be our job.
Just because the department is working hard on its objective, does not mean that it has plucked the descision to do this out of thin air off its own back.
I cannot explain this any other way.
Well in you own words they're [HMRC} "really going out on a limb". If this isn't a suggestion that they have some discretion, not as to whether they do anything, but as to the extent that they are going after these agreements with various jurisdictions then I don't know what is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,436
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Contracts would have been between said person and said bank.
If international law changes, local laws change etc then they will superceed any contract.
Thats why most contracts have some legal lines in them about prevailing legislation at that time.
No individual be that an individual or a company (limited or non limited) can basically overrule legislation whether they did a personal contract or not.
Tax dodging annoys me but when you look at places like cayman islands and switzerland you can see why they are so loath to give it up. Problem is people have become more advanced at tax deception such as example quoted where they deliberately make losses in one country (and thereby profits in another) to try to reduce tax burden.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
While I agree our government wastes cash and possibly doesn't deserve it, if people on 12k can pay it then so should these people. if they don't like it move to Africa, probably pretty low tax there...
I was talking about resources applied to the task because of its importance decided at ministerial level - to me that is going out on a limb compaired to the hundreds of other functions not so well staffed/funded. Construct whatever the hell you like out my words, doesn't make you right. I will of course in future ensure I am using correct terminology with you.
Also, who are 'they'? People, ministers, staff, or ghosts? I love how the government from very bottom to very top becomes 'they', with all in sundry being nailed to a cross for it after.
Last edited:
Totally 100% agree. Do you think I like paying tax just like you and having little idea where it actually goes? Not really.
I don't agree with privatisation, its a myth - too many examples about. I don't want to get into a lengthy debate that I will not stand down from, and for me personally this is starting to verge away.
I know exactly who dragged this country down, both the conservatives and labour. But what I was asking you is how does YOUR master plan fit in when we are crippled with debt, regardless of who how and where it occurred? It doesn't and it cannot.
Look where wealth creation has got us. I would argue the toss about government expenditure adding value, but I really cba.
Aye neglected the 40% there sorry, I do agree with you with regards to that particular aspect however that to me is the only major hole in the system (Income Tax). I don't feel its right, but I'm not PM/Chancellor either.
Thanks. It would be appreciated.
We are certainly not the only country with this problem, far from it.
Do you think the hundreds of tax havens around the world only exist for the minority rich British?
Exactly right.
maybe - but there seems to be a crackdown on all tax havens at the moment
UBS is in a massive pile of poo with the US govt at the moment - already facing hundreds of millions in fines from the US authorities and if it refuses to hand over further details of US clients it will be properly screwed over - then again it could breach Swiss law if it complies with the US demands ....
As for Lichtenstein AFAIK the UK authorities already unofficially have lists of account holders from at least one of their major banks - MI6 and German intelligence agencies paid a nice sum of cash to an employee working in IT to copy data for them...
Lichtenstein is prob giving away a large portion of information that is already known unofficially by the UK authorities - only I guess they can make much better use of it this time - I'd presume that previously it could only really be used by intelligence agencies to look for accounts belonging to known Islamists etc.. - by "officially" getting it it can prob be used in court by the likes of HMRC
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
I'm with Dolph on all this 
What about having income tax as a fixed percentage? If it was 30% then someone on £20k would pay £6k, and someone on £100k would pay £30k.
That sounds more sensible and fair to me than the current varying percentages.
EDIT: Actually there's a name for that idea isn't there?
What about having income tax as a fixed percentage? If it was 30% then someone on £20k would pay £6k, and someone on £100k would pay £30k.
That sounds more sensible and fair to me than the current varying percentages.
EDIT: Actually there's a name for that idea isn't there?