Want to know where all the money went?

[spoffle]

Tax avoidance is just being selfish though and causes harm to others.
I think it really should be tackled, no reason why the rich should get away with paying pretty much no tax.

The issue is that the government doesn't close up the loopholes that allow people to legally avoid tax. Take it up with them really.

I'm not rich and not even remotely close to it, so I'm not saying this to make myself feel better or anything.

People seem to have a hard time understanding that even on a flat rate percentage the rich will still be paying substantially more money than the lesser off people.

For example, 10% of £1,000,000 is significantly more than 10% of some one earning £10,000. The taxation system is hardly fair in that regard, and the government should look at the way they're spending money and sort themselves out instead of relying on money they know is coming in from an unfair system.

I don't blame anyone wanting to legally reduce their tax liability.

 

[dowie]

Property is theft !

Private wealth is robbery from the people !

LOL - in that case, do you mind if I pop round to your house and help myself to some of your property? Help alleviate that burden of guilt you must have from owning stuff.

Obviously you don't believe what I've just quoted - but I've wondered how people who do believe that justify their own possessions.

 

[Stretch]

You don't increase prosperity by increasing taxes. It's quite apt.

That depends entirely on what current tax levels are and what you're going to spend the additional tax revenue on.

There's whiff of large corporation/rich individuals wanting their cake and eating it. Off-shore subsidiaries are almost exclusively created for the purpose of collecting profits. All business and wealth creation is undertaken by those companies incorporated in the UK (or other meaningful country). That must tell you that there's something here that benefits their business. Educated work force, infrastructure, capital investment, security, stability, global political influence, bank bailouts etc. It's only fair they contribute in some way (beyond creating jobs etc) for the benefit (read profit) the receive.

If tax levels in this country are too high for companies/individuals to prosper then those taxes should be reduced for everyone. I don't see any justification for the current charade. It's not so much a tax loophole as an open invitation for tax avoidance where 98% of ftse 100 companies take part.

The real issue is the current tax regime doesn't work in a global economy.

 

[elmarko]

That depends entirely on what current tax levels are and what you're going to spend the additional tax revenue on.

There's whiff of large corporation/rich individuals wanting their cake and eating it. Off-shore subsidiaries are almost exclusively created for the purpose of collecting profits. All business and wealth creation is undertaken by those companies incorporated in the UK (or other meaningful country). That must tell you that there's something here that benefits their business. Educated work force, infrastructure, capital investment, security, stability, global political influence, bank bailouts etc. It's only fair they contribute in some way (beyond creating jobs etc) for the benefit (read profit) the receive.

If tax levels in this country are too high for companies/individuals to prosper then those taxes should be reduced for everyone. I don't see any justification for the current charade. It's not so much a tax loophole as an open invitation for tax avoidance where 98% of ftse 100 companies take part.

The real issue is the current tax regime doesn't work in a global economy.

This pretty much.

It amazes me how short sighted people are on economic issues, viewing global interlinked systems in isolation.

Sometimes I really do hope that they get what they want, which would ultimately result in the destruction of the entire global economy - half of the population is trying to progress towards a more egalitarian future, the other hell-bent on returning us to medieval times.

Some things never change.

LOL - in that case, do you mind if I pop round to your house and help myself to some of your property? Help alleviate that burden of guilt you must have from owning stuff.

Obviously you don't believe what I've just quoted - but I've wondered how people who do believe that justify their own possessions.

Nobody has said that, it was a straw man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[StriderX]

We need to void currencies and move on to a complete global credit system.

 

[thezakarum]

We need to void currencies and move on to a complete global credit system.

Isn't that what we have at the moment, with exchange rates?

 

[Basher]

Where has this idea that rich people create jobs come from? Demand creates jobs.

Demand goes unfulfilled without businesses. Businesses are set-up by the people we perceive as super rich which in-turn creates jobs.

Rich people DO create jobs.

 

[elmarko]

Demand goes unfulfilled without businesses. Businesses are set-up by the people we perceive as super rich which in-turn creates jobs.

Rich people DO create jobs.

No they do not.

Job creation is the last resort for businesses, as they aim to keep overheads as low as possible.

Are you implying that if person A invented a machine would could displace the workforce businesses would not use it (to keep people in jobs?).

A businesses entire purpose to to generate profit, it will ONLY create jobs if all other avenues have been exhausted - you seem to lack even a basic grasp of how the business world works.

Capitalism has no intrinsic interest in keep people employed (an an individual organisation level) - wealth distribution (through taxation) is required in capitalism to ensure the short-sighted businesses have customers to continue purchasing the goods they produce.

The natural end-game of any capitalist model (without government interference) is one entity owning everything, rampant price fixing or cartels - effectively destroying the customer base & destabilising the entire system.

Unfortunately it seems half of the population skipped basic economics & simply ignore this truth (as the consequences will not come into effect after they are dead) - the fact the people involved in this are able to protect their children from any long-term impact of this (via inheritance) allows them to avoid the negative consequences of this kind of short-term thinking.

 

[kinetic747]

You do realise that the money isn't just sitting there in vast piles in a bank vault? It is used by the bank to invest in stocks / shares / bonds and as loans etc.,

They will give the depositors a certain percentage of their profit for investing it in their bank and the rest will be profit for the bank itself. Fairly simplistic description but that is how all banks work.

As long as the initial money is legally gained and isn't as a result of illegal tax evasion rather than legal tax reduction then there isn't anything wrong with it.

Ah ,the good old days.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

If you don't know then go educate yourself on the waste

I'm well educated about it, thanks. My question still stands - what makes your tax part of the entire waste component, but not others? Simply a percentage of your tax element is wasted, and most of it goes to good use.

So it is disingenuous for you to be 'against tax' because some gets wasted.

 

[p1RATE]

I work with tax advisers daily and am very familiar with how tax avoidance ACTUALLY works.

I cant understand where this communist-like attitude has come from in the UK. Organizations and individuals are free to choose the most beneficial tax model that suits them. when you are in a position where 50-70% of the money you generate is tax you NEED to evaluate the way that you pay it.

I was at Glastonbury last year and a bunch of hippys started protesting about U2 avoiding tax... yet they have without a doubt paid more tax than the lot of them and are well known philanthropist that have given much of their fortune to the 3rd world.

there are a lot of people that need to start thinking about what they are generating and not expecting a minority of wealthy people to carry the load for them

 

[elmarko]

I work with tax advisers daily and am very familiar with how tax avoidance ACTUALLY works.

I cant understand where this communist-like attitude has come from in the UK. Organizations and individuals are free to choose the most beneficial tax model that suits them. when you are in a position where 50-70% of the money you generate is tax you NEED to evaluate the way that you pay it.

I was at Glastonbury last year and a bunch of hippys started protesting about U2 avoiding tax... yet they have without a doubt paid more tax than the lot of them and are well known philanthropist that have given much of their fortune to the 3rd world.

there are a lot of people that need to start thinking about what they are generating and not expecting a minority of wealthy people to carry the load for them

Ok.

communist-like attitude - A progressive tax system isn't communist, you clearly have no idea what communism is (you seem to know as much about economics also).

"when you are in a position where 50-70% of the money you generate is tax you NEED to evaluate the way that you pay it." - the money you generate, I assume you mean profit (for somebody who allegedly works with tax advisor's you seem to know very little about economics).

Finally, I'd like you to cite examples of the 70% tax rate which people are expected to pay & do in the UK please.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

communist-like attitude has come from in the UK

 

[elmarko]

<dog pic>

 

[Danthus]

So world GDP is $70 trillion yet these people have $21 trillion squirrelled away?

 

[jsmoke]

No they do not.

Job creation is the last resort for businesses, as they aim to keep overheads as low as possible.

Are you implying that if person A invented a machine would could displace the workforce businesses would not use it (to keep people in jobs?).

A businesses entire purpose to to generate profit, it will ONLY create jobs if all other avenues have been exhausted - you seem to lack even a basic grasp of how the business world works.

Capitalism has no intrinsic interest in keep people employed (an an individual organisation level) - wealth distribution (through taxation) is required in capitalism to ensure the short-sighted businesses have customers to continue purchasing the goods they produce.

The natural end-game of any capitalist model (without government interference) is one entity owning everything, rampant price fixing or cartels - effectively destroying the customer base & destabilising the entire system.

Unfortunately it seems half of the population skipped basic economics & simply ignore this truth (as the consequences will not come into effect after they are dead) - the fact the people involved in this are able to protect their children from any long-term impact of this (via inheritance) allows them to avoid the negative consequences of this kind of short-term thinking.

Interesting video, has this ever been tried, what kind of society would it lead too?

The America evangelical right wing and their sense of red blooded liberty and paranoia that control everything anyway.

 

[elmarko]

Interesting video, has this ever been tried, what kind of society would it lead too?

The America evangelical right wing and their sense of red blooded liberty and paranoia that control everything anyway.

Well, if you look across the globe, certain country's already have a smaller gap between the top & bottom earners (relative income differences) - those with smaller gaps (on average) tend to have far fewer social problems, ranging from theft, mental illness, poor health & violence.

According to studies on the subject relative poverty increases the propensity for negative social judgements (which according to the science greatly increase the production of cortisol (the stress hormone) - which instigates a myriad of other social problems.

The funny thing is, you don't actually need high taxes to achieve this - Japan has lower taxes but less difference between wages.

So a more cohesive society can be achieved through wage balancing, or forced redistribution via taxation.

Ideally I'd prefer the former.

 

[p1RATE]

Ok.

communist-like attitude - A progressive tax system isn't communist, you clearly have no idea what communism is (you seem to know as much about economics also).

"when you are in a position where 50-70% of the money you generate is tax you NEED to evaluate the way that you pay it." - the money you generate, I assume you mean profit (for somebody who allegedly works with tax advisor's you seem to know very little about economics).

Finally, I'd like you to cite examples of the 70% tax rate which people are expected to pay & do in the UK please.

wow... for the record i am a corporate finance journalist and write daily about global economics.

50-70% = 50% income tax + any additional taxes VAT, Fuel duty, stamp duty etc

and the communist attitude comes from those state dependent individuals that think they have the right to taking the incomes of other people.

 

[elmarko]

wow... for the record i am a corporate finance journalist and write daily about global economics.

50-70% = 50% income tax + any additional taxes VAT, Fuel duty, stamp duty etc

and the communist attitude comes from those state dependent individuals that think they have the right to taking the incomes of other people.

I would have thought a corporate finance journalist would have known that the people earning this amount of money would not be on PAYE.

Communism a system in which the workers have common ownership of the means of production, what I believe you meant was socialism (which is a completely different thing).

I'd also like to point out that implying anybody who supports a more egalitarian system is state dependant is not only patently false but also insulting to those who are not state dependant but would prefer to live in a system in which the population have a greater share of the reward of the labour.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

elmarko1234 - attacking posters and not the posts since Sep 2011.

Are you Arthur Scargill?