Panama papers

[Orraloon]

19 minutes ago, jailender said:

Of course everybody that does "homers" is guilty of tax evasion, it's just on a slightly smaller scale.

A recent report estimated that the black economy represented about 10% of the entire UK GDP. The revenue lost to the treasury was estimated to be about £70 billion a year. That would be almost enough to pay for the entire UK deficit. It's fairly clear that the government have no intention trying to collect any of that tax when they have reduced the number of HMRC staff by about 50%. Of course they could never hope to collect tax from folk doing homers and we probably wouldn't want them to, but as you say, folk doing homers is only a tiny part of the black economy.

But that's mainly tax evasion which is illegal. The Cameron stuff is legal tax avoidance as far as we know so far. The main reason he seems to be in bother is that he has been trying to hide the level of avoidance he has been involved in. I think all politicians financial affairs should be open to scrutiny so that we know what sort of folk we are voting for.

[antidote]

58 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

I agree it should be taxed, less sure about at a higher rate. There has been a concerted campaign going on for a decade or so at least now against IHT by the Right, it has kicked up a gear again over the past few days. This has been discussed on here quite a few times now and the majority usually come down against the tax as being unfair. I've always been in the minority in believing that it is right to tax unearned income (which it is in reality, although technically it is the estate that is being taxed of course) although I also think that the allowance needs to be increased substantially now, as what was designed as a rich man's tax can now impact on people with not particularly high incomes if property is involved, especially in London and the SE of England. As has often been said there is a large voluntary element involved in IHT anyway, most people with real money can pay someone to arrange their finances in such a way that little or no tax is actually paid on considerable amounts of wealth, it's not difficult if you know it's coming and have the time to plan ahead. Again, the issue is with the family that doesn't really have all that much and never anticipated being hit by a 'rich' tax getting caught out. It happened to me and my brother when my father died, although the actual amounts were actually pretty low as the value of the estate wasn't hugely over the threshold. It would also apply to my father-in-law's estate as well, but as a retired accountant/management consultant he has that well and truly taken care of I suspect.

On the avoidance/evasion thing it is a fair point that we pretty much all indulge in tax avoidance of some sort, even if it is just using up the ISA allowance or the like. But there is, and always has been, a grey are in the middle and there is a widespread feeling that much of the offshore/tax haven stuff is in that grey area (what Osborne not long ago referred to as 'aggressive tax avoidance'). I think it is fair that elected representatives should have to declare any such interests that they have when they take office. I'm not really comfortable, if I'm honest, with Cameron being pilloried for something his father did, particularly as it appears that what his father did was entirely legal.

I can assure you that the savings I have in the bank is what I have had after it has been taxed.

I'm sure there are many like me who do not wish to get their savings taxed when we leave those savings to our next of kin.

[antidote]

3 hours ago, Lamia said:

You do realise you would just have to pay more income tax or maybe VAT to make up the difference?

Dead men don't pay taxes.

You really can't pay more tax than you do now as the UK has the highest tax burden on its citizens than any other developed country in the world.

[antidote]

22 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

A recent report estimated that the black economy represented about 10% of the entire UK GDP. The revenue lost to the treasury was estimated to be about £70 billion a year. That would be almost enough to pay for the entire UK deficit. It's fairly clear that the government have no intention trying to collect any of that tax when they have reduced the number of HMRC staff by about 50%. Of course they could never hope to collect tax from folk doing homers and we probably wouldn't want them to, but as you say, folk doing homers is only a tiny part of the black economy.

But that's mainly tax evasion which is illegal. The Cameron stuff is legal tax avoidance as far as we know so far. The main reason he seems to be in bother is that he has been trying to hide the level of avoidance he has been involved in. I think all politicians financial affairs should be open to scrutiny so that we know what sort of folk we are voting for.

No, the main reason is because the taxpayer pays his salary and he can't stand up and say that he is after tax avoiders/evaders when he and his chums in the government are doing just that.

Its called hypocrisy. 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by antidote

[Pool Q]

7 minutes ago, antidote said:

I can assure you that the savings I have in the bank is what I have had after it has been taxed.

I'm sure there are many like me who do not wish to get their savings taxed when we leave those savings to our next of kin.

I don't doubt any of that, and I may well find myself once again in the minority on here. I had no desire to pay any IHT on my father's estate, and nor do I really want those who may benefit from my estate when I go to be taxed either. Still, given that the allowance for IHT should be increased to genuinely make it a 'wealth tax' again, I think that the idea of taxing people on unearned income is broadly right.

[Orraloon]

14 minutes ago, antidote said:

No, the main reason is because the taxpayer pays his salary and he can't stand up and say that he is after tax avoiders/evaders when he and his chums in the government are doing just that.

Its called hypocrisy. 

 

Aye, that as well. 

 

[antidote]

13 minutes ago, Pool Q said:

I don't doubt any of that, and I may well find myself once again in the minority on here. I had no desire to pay any IHT on my father's estate, and nor do I really want those who may benefit from my estate when I go to be taxed either. Still, given that the allowance for IHT should be increased to genuinely make it a 'wealth tax' again, I think that the idea of taxing people on unearned income is broadly right.

I have no problem in taxing people on unearned income, but I do have a problem on income that has already been taxed before (after tax money) and I know what people will say that an inheritance is unearned income to those that are receiving it.

[Pool Q]

21 minutes ago, antidote said:

I have no problem in taxing people on unearned income, but I do have a problem on income that has already been taxed before (after tax money) and I know what people will say that an inheritance is unearned income to those that are receiving it.

That is what I believe, and would say. But I would also reiterate that the IHT allowance should be looked at so that parents are be able to make reasonably generous provision for their children before IHT becomes an issue. It's not often I agree with the Tories on anything, but I think they had a point when they looked at this a few years back, although doing it in the midst of a financial meltdown was crass at best. And I meant to say that Aaid's points about the reasoning behind the various allowances behind IHT are all good ones too.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Pool Q

[Orraloon]

I would still like to know where Cameron has got all the rest of his dosh stashed away. He has got far, far more money than these reports have told us about so far.  

[antidote]

10 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I would still like to know where Cameron has got all the rest of his dosh stashed away. He has got far, far more money than these reports have told us about so far.  

You know the old saying; don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Probably the Cayman Islands etc.

[Orraloon]

11 minutes ago, antidote said:

You know the old saying; don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Probably the Cayman Islands etc.

Now, I think about it I'm not too bothered about Cameron. He is yesterday's news. I want somebody to dig up some dirt on Boris and Gideon.

[antidote]

George Osborne has now put his self on the ropes by refusing to publish past tax accounts to the public.

They're not that interesting apparently.

http://archive.is/ImBjR

Who'd actually vote for Corbyn if he cannot even get his tax return in on time.

http://archive.is/O3Mf0

[ParisInAKilt]

I'd vote for Corbyn. You'd hope most of the U.K. Would especially after all this 

[antidote]

47 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I'd vote for Corbyn. You'd hope most of the U.K. Would especially after all this 

You mean like there's been no tax evading by the red tories past or present.

[Lamia]

5 hours ago, antidote said:

Dead men don't pay taxes.

 

Not sure what relevance that has to my point

[Larky Masher]

5 hours ago, antidote said:

Dead men don't pay taxes.

You really can't pay more tax than you do now as the UK has the highest tax burden on its citizens than any other developed country in the world.

That is utter bollocks we don't even have the highest burden in Europe.

[Bristolhibby]

7 minutes ago, Larky Masher said:

That is utter bollocks we don't even have the highest burden in Europe.

Off the top of my head without Googling I'd say Norway and Sweden.

J

[antidote]

9 minutes ago, Larky Masher said:

That is utter bollocks we don't even have the highest burden in Europe.

I was wondering when you'd show up with your dismissive charm.

 

You've probably confused direct and indirect taxes.

[Larky Masher]

20 minutes ago, Bristolhibby said:

Off the top of my head without Googling I'd say Norway and Sweden.

J

And many, many more.

[antidote]

21 minutes ago, Bristolhibby said:

Off the top of my head without Googling I'd say Norway and Sweden.

J

Direct taxes?

 

Remember things like stamp duty, national insurance etc. etc. etc. can be considered a tax even though they don't have 'tax' in the title.

Edited April 11, 2016 by antidote

[Larky Masher]

6 minutes ago, antidote said:

I was wondering when you'd show up with your dismissive charm.

 

You've probably confused direct and indirect taxes.

You stated highest tax burden but if you want to go split hairs and prolong your embarrassment, our real tax rate (which factors in income tax, NI and VAT) is around 36%, Sweden is 47%, France is 57%, Germany is 54%, Belgium is 59%, Luxermbourgh is 40%. Ireland is 32% but they don't have the NHS.

[antidote]

13 minutes ago, Larky Masher said:

You stated highest tax burden but if you want to go split hairs and prolong your embarrassment, our real tax rate (which factors in income tax, NI and VAT) is around 36%, Sweden is 47%, France is 57%, Germany is 54%, Belgium is 59%, Luxermbourgh is 40%. Ireland is 32% but they don't have the NHS.

So corporation tax is not a tax? Inheritance tax is not a tax? road tax is not a tax? The list is quite extensive.

Even the bbc licence fee can be considered a tax, pay your licence fee and the beeb pays taxes to the uk gov.

How naive of you and if anybody is embarrassing themselves it is you.

Just because it is does not have tax in the title doesn't really mean its not a tax, NI for example.

Again you chose to only consider direct taxation, but not the indirect taxes.

[phart]

inheritance tax is an 18th century concept originally brought into redistribute wealth amongst classes. The issue has progressed in the last couple of centuries.

Since i'm not bothered about accumulating wealth it is something I never need to worry about, I can see people being annoyed at getting taxed loads.

[ParisInAKilt]

6 hours ago, antidote said:

You mean like there's been no tax evading by the red tories past or present.

No of course there is 

However A Corbyn led government is probably the best chance of creating a fairer society in the UK, which I'm guessing is the end game for all the tax evading outrage 

Edited April 12, 2016 by ParisInAKilt

[EddardStark]

Thresholds for IHT should be kept although not sure if the current levels are too high but the current Salem style witch hunt against a perfectly legitimate practice is concerning.

Second property tax is slightly different. Speculative buyers accumulating wealth at the expense of pushing up local house prices should be discouraged

Edited April 12, 2016 by EddardStark