1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Labour Party: Where do we go from here?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by q974739, Nov 25, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. VincentHanna

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2013

    Posts: 19,393

    There has to be some leeway though.

    I need an inexpensive laptop for work, it's not a gaming PC, no games will be played on it. It will be used 100% for work except if I'm on a flight and my work is up to date. Am I not allowed to use it to watch Netflix shows until we land?
     
  2. Pudney

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2005

    Posts: 5,433

    Location: Essex

    Some do, but the actual issue has a lot less to do with the tax rules and far more to do with HMRC not having enough funding to employ the staff to pursue and attack the aggressive schemes.
     
  3. Trusty

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 12, 2006

    Posts: 10,685

    Location: On A Rocket

    Yea, but it's small minority that evade tax.

    HMRC are going to be able to pursue tax evaders much more efficiently in the future with technology, especially when the financial system is replaced by DLT systems.
     
  4. Trusty

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 12, 2006

    Posts: 10,685

    Location: On A Rocket

    Just looked at the total tax gap..

    About 5.7%, a little bit more than i expected tbh, i thought it might ~3%/4%
     
  5. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,265

    Location: Cornwall

    We're not talking about evasion.

    Where's *your* evidence that only a small % of those who can use such schemes are choosing to?

    The C4 documentary (not the only source, of course, but one I remember distinctly) indicated that many, many well-payed exec, personalities, etc, were signed up to such schemes. And as such, could reduce their tax liability to less than 10%.

    They interviewed a firm that specialises in such schemes. All totally legal.
     
  6. Pudney

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2005

    Posts: 5,433

    Location: Essex

    They're not totally legal. They're abusive and HMRC has the rules to counter them.
     
  7. Trusty

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 12, 2006

    Posts: 10,685

    Location: On A Rocket

    Where is the evidence that the majority of wealthy people are only paying 10%? Surely there must be an article or two?
     
  8. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,265

    Location: Cornwall

    Well to close the loop, Trusty's argument was that reducing the tax burden on the wealthy leads to more jobs and more money used to benefit society.

    Essentially saying, "Make their contribution to society (more) optional instead of mandatory through taxation."

    Yet when you look at how these people treat their mandatory tax obligation, they try time and again to avoid paying it.

    So who honestly believes that making more contributions voluntary instead of obligatory through taxation, will result in more money being used to benefit society?

    It's patently nonsense. But nobody has to take my word for it, or even just consider human nature.

    We've had over a decade of this kind of "trickle down" model, and there is a ream of analysis all pointing to the same conclusion: it's "trickle up" not "trickle down" in effect. Reducing the tax burden on the rich either has no effect because they're avoiding it to start with, or it just leads to the rich getting richer.

    But as said previously, I don't think income taxation is the be-all end-all. The wealthy should be taxed on their land; on their assets. Esp if they hoard housing, which is in finite supply.
     
  9. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,265

    Location: Cornwall

    Right next to your evidence that only a small minority do it.

    The fact is it is done, and according to the firms that provide such services, business is booming.
     
  10. Pudney

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2005

    Posts: 5,433

    Location: Essex

    Public (including your) perception of taxation is far removed from the actual reality of the situation. A political party that truly wants to improve tax receipts shouldn't be thinking about radical changes to the tax system as quite frankly it isn't really needed right now. What is needed is getting HMRC the ability to clear its backlog, challenge and defeat abusive arrangements and get to a position where they can stand back, take stock, and properly assess what are the flaws in the tax system. Sensational reporting such as the Dispatches programme doesn't really help. I'm fairly sure I know one of the schemes they went to see, and the actual reality doesn't bear any resemblance to what they said.

    Although if someone were to raise tax rates it would make my job easier. Right now our tax system is probably at a sweet spot for the differentiation between the different types of direct taxes.

    I've said this before, but that idea is a great way to destroy the UK farming industry who are asset rich but cash poor.

    You do realise that's a sales pitch? Who in their right mind agrees to a tax scheme where the salesman tells you they're struggling to sell their product.
     
  11. Trusty

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 12, 2006

    Posts: 10,685

    Location: On A Rocket

    I don't disagree that some people evade tax. I have an issue with your statement that people who've made a bit of money themselves are all paying 10% tax, that's what you've been insinuating, that it's the norm and widespread.
     
  12. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,265

    Location: Cornwall

    Except that's not what I said. I said that in my experience self-employed people mostly were engaged in VAT avoidance (to a greater or lesser degree), and that the genuinely wealthy (a lot of them) were using tricks to avoid income tax, including reducing their tax to less than 10% in well documented cases. As evidenced by a C4 Dispatches programme and other sources.

    I don't think it's all that controversial. We're used to tax avoidance. Sure we're not quite Greece, but the underlying theme is: people don't want to contribute. The self-employed builder doesn't want to contribute. The CEO doesn't want to contribute.

    Your idea that reducing tax leads to a better society where money flows down from the top to the bottom has been thoroughly debunked over the years. Not by me, of course. By experts.
     
  13. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,265

    Location: Cornwall

    I'm quite sick of people who say, "You're wrong - I know better", and think that everyone else should just shut up and believe that the user of this tactic is some kind of authority.

    What's your expertise in taxation then? You work as an accountant? You work for HMRC?

    You've not listed any credentials that suggest I should disregard everything I've read over the years, in favour of your opinion.
     
  14. Trusty

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 12, 2006

    Posts: 10,685

    Location: On A Rocket

    It's still not anywhere near the truth. 5.7% is the tax gap.

    90% of income tax is paid by the 50% of taxpayers with the highest incomes, while 25% of tax receipts is paid by the richest 1%. 50% of taxpayers don't contribute anything to government coffers basically.

    I assume you can work out from those stats that the rich by in large pull their weight dramatically. Taking money off the richest won't solve the bottom 50% problems with regards to productive work.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2019
  15. Pudney

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2005

    Posts: 5,433

    Location: Essex

    Amusingly in my public profile on OCUK my profession is listed as Tax Advisor.
     
  16. Threepwood

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 29, 2011

    Posts: 4,889

    Location: Monkey Island

    xD
     
  17. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,265

    Location: Cornwall

    I can genuinely say I've never looked at anyone's profile page on here (maybe once?). So I'm glad you took the time to inform us all, for the benefit of those like me who don't read profile pages ;)
     
  18. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 43,270

    To be fair his posts in just this thread do seem to illustrate that he knows what he's talking about on the subject of taxation without needing to look at his profile... and this isn't the first thread where he's discussed the subject either.
     
  19. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,265

    Location: Cornwall

    Remember Castiel?

    Frankly I'm always more inclined to believe something I read or hear from a recognised source (like Dispatches), rather than what anyone here says.

    Because anybody here can be anything. Castiel is a good example ;)
     
  20. Pudney

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2005

    Posts: 5,433

    Location: Essex

    If that's your preference then so be it. Unfortunately you will continue to be misinformed.

    I have strong opinions about one of the schemes discussed, and the narrative given by the programme (as evidenced by your view that it is "legal") is fundamentally incorrect.

    Edit:

    I like talking about tax too much :(:eek:
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.