Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Pete on April 21, 2012, 07:16:26 PM
-
"David Cameron's father set up offshore investment funds which explicitly boasted of their ability to remain outside UK tax jurisdiction."
Why am I not surprised... >:(
http://bit.ly/J5L6kX (http://bit.ly/J5L6kX)
-
What a supreme two faced git he is!
Never mentioned the family fortune when slagging off Jimmy Carr. >:(
As usual, one rule for them, another for us...
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
This is a good read too:
http://bit.ly/MviVwg (http://bit.ly/MviVwg)
-
Can't blame Carr for playing the system, Cameron is in a position to close the loopholes
-
He'll upset too many of his kind if he did that.
I suspect Carr is at the small end of this - peanut money to some.
Shame he's been picked on if its apparently legal at this moment in time.
I'm sure there are far bigger names out there doing the same thing,earning billions,rather than millions, and if I were Jimmy Carr right now, I'd be suing the pants off whoever published his details.
Cameron needs to tread very carefully on this one. Don't like him anyway, and if it contributes in some way to his demise then I'll be happy :) :)
-
(http://i49.tinypic.com/2vt4djt.jpg)
-
Nice one Slackburger.
-
Can't blame Carr for playing the system, Cameron is in a position to close the loopholes
Blair and Brown were in a position to close them for about 13 years. They surely had more reason to close them than Cameron has (given that his natural supporters are the ones likely to be benefiting). So Comrade Slacker what went wrong?
-
Stay on topic please you hopeless fuckers
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Blair and Brown were in a position to close them for about 13 years. They surely had more reason to close them than Cameron has (given that his natural supporters are the ones likely to be benefiting). So Comrade Slacker what went wrong?
If it was an issue at that time there drdn't seem to be such high profile cases
-
:o
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tpsju1uJiws/T-L_Ebbwh0I/AAAAAAAAAXM/YQ4ffrSSYFw/s1600/Jimmy.gif (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tpsju1uJiws/T-L_Ebbwh0I/AAAAAAAAAXM/YQ4ffrSSYFw/s1600/Jimmy.gif)
-
:o
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tpsju1uJiws/T-L_Ebbwh0I/AAAAAAAAAXM/YQ4ffrSSYFw/s1600/Jimmy.gif (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tpsju1uJiws/T-L_Ebbwh0I/AAAAAAAAAXM/YQ4ffrSSYFw/s1600/Jimmy.gif)
Yep - even more angry now.
-
There in lies the difference. Legally Jimmy Carr has done nothing wrong. Argue morally if you wish. But he is an individual face who we can identify with so we can all get full of self righteous.
Vodafone are acting illegally but they are a faceless corporation who we figure will always get away with these things so we accept it with tired resignation.
Just as a curiosity.
Pete, K4 and I believe ChesterfieldChris.
You all own/run your own businesses.
I assume you all have accountants filing tax returns for you?
Can you all honestly say that you have never accepted perfectly legal advice from those accountants as to ways to keep your tax bill down and retain more of your income?
-
David Cameron has described tax avoidance as being morally repugnant. It's good to see that he learnt such a strong ethical awareness when he studied at Eton College, registered charity number 1139086.
-
>> Can you all honestly say that you have never accepted perfectly legal advice from those accountants as to ways to keep your tax bill down and retain more of your income?
Not me! I'm such a crap businessman I almost expect them to give me money... :(
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
We would all like to pay less. The majority of us on PAYE don't have that option. If the rich paid their fair share the basic rate could be reduced for the rest of us.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
If the world is on the verge of economic catastrophe as the powers that be keep telling us, then this is like two people arguing over a lifeboat as the Titanic gracefully slides under the sea.
-
This "fair share" line gets trotted out everywhere. As above - what would you consider "fair" for these rich? They already have an income tax bracket of 50% over a certain threshold. Even if I pay myself totally in dividends, put shares in my wifes name and use her tax allowance; after corporation tax, NI as an employer AND employee, my overall tax rate is over 50%.
Is it "fair" that some people have to hand over more than half their income, when people who earn less only hand over 20% or even zero?
Hows about everybody pay 50% of their income in tax, would that be "fair", or is this fairness that people seek only a one way street as long as its those that are "rich" being hit?
What about the ones who set themselves up as businesses and pay 1% ?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Isn't the idea that the company 'lends' money to its owners, safe in the knowledge of course that it never has to be paid back?
-
Something like that I believe. Jersey based, called K2 scheme.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Everyone needs so much to live on food, rent / mortgage / utilities etc. For some this is probably 90% of their take home pay for others it is probably only 20% of their take home pay. Would it hurt them to pay a bit more tax so the essentials cost them (say) 40% of their take home pay so the lower paid could have a bit more for a few luxuries?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
No disrespect Chris, but I generally refer to the disgustingly rich - those that have billions.
No need to be so defensive, I largely agree with you.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
I think a good starting point is a billion. If they objected, I'd have them taken outside and shot in front of their families...
-
I think a good starting point is a billion. If they objected, I'd have them taken outside and shot in front of their families...
When Jeremy Clarkson makes jokes about shooting people in front of their families he gets pilloried by people like Slacker!!
-
So, nothing to worry about there then... :P
-
@Chris, I've tried to digest your posts, and agree with many of your points made.
I'll post this then read the replies. It's all supposition btw, and NOT a go at you ;)
I'm on £10,000 a year, I pay 10% tax. I get £9,000 a year
I'm on £25,000 a year, I pay 20% tax. I get £20,000 a year
I'm on £50,000 a year, I pay 30% tax. I get £35,000 a year
I'm on £100,000 a year, I pay 40% tax. I get £60,000 a year
I'm on £500,000 a year, I pay 50% tax. I get £250,000 a year.
I'm on £1,000,000 a year. I pay 60% tax. I get £400,000 a year.
If I don't want to pay 60% of my wages in tax, I don't go for a £1,000,000 job.
Should the tax % be more logrithmic, based on the country's highest earners through the populus worker.
My second query is about running your own, 1 man, company. This is where I am totally lost.
Do you pay yourself a wage, taking the above into account. If so, are the company profits then added to your wage ?
Therefore putting you on a higher income.
Doesn't this encourage larger businesses to pay higher wages. They pay less tax, but their employees do.
It all sounds catch 22 to me q?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
I'm on £10,000 a year, I pay 57% tax. I get £4,300 a year
I'd be better off on benefits :o
Cheers for the explanation ;)
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Why are so many people keen to demonise the rich, because they are just practising the politics of envy.
My personal view is that if someone earns some money they should have the right to keep as much as possible. If Fly takes me somewhere in his taxi and I pay him £100, then what right has someone else such as Pete, got to say, "I'll have £50.00 of that"
Thats what it all boils down to with taxes.
But the point of taxes is that we have to pay something to provide for those in need, so we provide free health, education, etc, etc, and so we allow the Govt to take some of what we earn.
However, when the Govt get greedy and lazy and inefficient, its hardly surprising that people want to do something to reduce that burden. For example, they might choose to use the democratic process to vote for someone who claims to be a Conservative, states that he believes in a smaller state, less intervention, lower taxes and so on, only to find that once elected, he turns out to be a two faced, cowardly prat.
So the rich people do what they can to protect what they have, which in turn, they will often use to build businesses, create jobs, etc, while often not using state schools or hospitals.
Meanwhile, the lazy scum who can't be bothered to get jobs, get everything they ask for from the state and contribute nothing, ( and does no one see that as immoral).
But stop demonising the rich, plenty of poor people avoid tax when ever they can. They buy their cheap fags from abroad, cheap booze, red diesel, dodgy DVD off the man at the pub....its not just the rich that robs the state, the poor do too. And the best way to deal with that is to reduce the tax burden so it becomes less of an issue. Reduce duty on fags, people won't buy them from abroad, reduce the top rate of tax and the rich will have less incentive to move their money about.
Cameron should grow some balls and learn what it means to be conservative instead of jumping on the latest bandwagon afraid of any bad publicity, and the silly Guardian reading lefies ought to learn a bit about human nature and/or economics.
-
And further to the above post:
I run my own business and work lots of hours, my wife works almost full time too.
To do this we need to rely on child care.
This wasn't the case originally, man went to work, woman raised the kids. But after many years of social engineering, to get anything like a decent lifestyle, both parties need to work. Child care costs in this country are far more than anywhere else, mostly due to red tape...and of course, the minimum wage, which over the past decade or more, has driven costs up too.
So to help women go out to work, Gordon Brown introduced tax credits, which helped with child care costs.
Now, my income this year has increased quite a bit, (no Pete, I'm not rich) so they take the tax credits off of us, which now means that overall, we are worse off as a family because we get no help with child care costs. Now my wife is seriously considering packing work in, which means she won't need to pay child care as she could do it all herself, and as our family income would be less, we would then get tax credits so no worse off overall. However, my wife doesn't want to as its not just financial reasons that means she works.
But how can it be morally right for the state to create a system where you end up better off by not working and contributing, than if you are working and paying your taxes. This Govt have said repeatedly that they want to make it pay to go to work and yet they do the exact opposite, and yet those who choose not to work or get a job, just keep getting more and more.
-
Some very good points there. More intune with my brain ;)
-
Just to add a little fuel to the fire - I read this today:
Barclays chief Bob Diamond gives up 2012 bonus over £290m fine
Top executives forgo bonuses after bank fined £290m for 'serious, widespread' role in manipulating crucial interest rates
The £59.5m fine from the Financial Services Authority is the largest penalty ever levied by the City regulator, which found that Barclays contravened its rules for a number of years and involved "a significant number of employees".
etc etc
Should the FSA have fined them less as per the taxation level arguments presented earlier?
-
Barclays implicates 'senior Whitehall officials'
Words fail me...
http://bit.ly/LMeXQu (http://bit.ly/LMeXQu)
-
It wasn't me, it was him ->
Bet they're all burrying their millions under the garden shed.
They don't trust the banks :P