It was 98%. Top rate of 83% and a 15% supertax surcharge.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Finance] If you were given a totally legal way of paying less tax would you take it?
- Thread starter Giraffe
- Start date
It was 98%. Top rate of 83% and a 15% supertax surcharge.
I completely agree, the government needs to change the rules to stop this sort of crap. That may be a tough ask, as no doubt plenty in the government make use of the schemes themselves.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,582
I answered yes, but would agree with other comments about the poll not offering enough choices.
If there is a legitimate way of reducing tax, I would use it.
If a way of tax reduction is illegal but questionable/immoral/not in the spirit of the law, I would at least think twice about it and probably not do it.
But I think the point of most of what was in the Panorama programme last night was about the legality of what was being done, and I hope the people doing it all get clobbered.
If there is a legitimate way of reducing tax, I would use it.
If a way of tax reduction is illegal but questionable/immoral/not in the spirit of the law, I would at least think twice about it and probably not do it.
But I think the point of most of what was in the Panorama programme last night was about the legality of what was being done, and I hope the people doing it all get clobbered.
Wrong-Direction
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2013
- 13,417
I was just telling my dad, benefit cheats are a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of billions avoided by the rich, still ********s though..
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
Sheep like you are the reason why Governments of all persuasions can piss other peoples money up the wall time and time again with no recourse.
I earn my money, I should get to decide how it is spent. I take care of my money, Governments do not.
If the rich don't like paying so much tax the answer is simple. Stop paying yourselves such huge amounts and the tax bill will amazingly drop with no need to dodge or avoid.
And while your at it, use the money you are not paying yourselves, and give it to the low paid people in the company, they pay far more tax, you pay less. more money circulates in the economy instead of hiding in the Bahamas and everyone is a winner, simples.
And while your at it, use the money you are not paying yourselves, and give it to the low paid people in the company, they pay far more tax, you pay less. more money circulates in the economy instead of hiding in the Bahamas and everyone is a winner, simples.
A couple of points from me:
1. The ignorance of some of the political commentary in relation to the monarchy is astonishing. I am Irish so have not axe to grind. The monarchy is tax exempt and since 1993 in lieu of income and capital gains tax the Sovereign has made a private voluntary donation to HMRC from the royal purse and from the relevant Duchey based on income and capital gains and an exchange of information with HRH (where HMRC get full disclosure). Specifically in relation to the Duchey of Lancaster, it is a perpetual fund held in trust for all monarch's and no monarch is entitled to any of the capital or has any control over its management. Therefore am not sure why the arrangements of HRH are relevant at all to this debate, irrespective of where the funds are domiciled
2. By way of example the Hong Kong tax code (deemed one of the most efficient in the world) is just over 300 pages long.The UK yellow and orange book is 17,000 long (including c6,000 of legislation). It doubled in size under Mr G Brown with his attempts to close corporation tax loopholes. Given the size of the UK tax code nobody should be surprised that there is a cottage industry in tax avoidance (which again is entirely legal)
1. The ignorance of some of the political commentary in relation to the monarchy is astonishing. I am Irish so have not axe to grind. The monarchy is tax exempt and since 1993 in lieu of income and capital gains tax the Sovereign has made a private voluntary donation to HMRC from the royal purse and from the relevant Duchey based on income and capital gains and an exchange of information with HRH (where HMRC get full disclosure). Specifically in relation to the Duchey of Lancaster, it is a perpetual fund held in trust for all monarch's and no monarch is entitled to any of the capital or has any control over its management. Therefore am not sure why the arrangements of HRH are relevant at all to this debate, irrespective of where the funds are domiciled
2. By way of example the Hong Kong tax code (deemed one of the most efficient in the world) is just over 300 pages long.The UK yellow and orange book is 17,000 long (including c6,000 of legislation). It doubled in size under Mr G Brown with his attempts to close corporation tax loopholes. Given the size of the UK tax code nobody should be surprised that there is a cottage industry in tax avoidance (which again is entirely legal)
GreersElbow
New member
Then you're opening up the issue of gauging what is morally acceptable, morality is subjective and harder to enforce. You would literally need to engineer how people perceive right and wrong for it to work.
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
I avoid tax. I pay additional pension contributions every month and it comes out of my pre-tax salary so for every £100 I put in I'm only £60 down. It's locked in until I take my pension.
That, in my opinion, is a world away from finding a loophole and moving money round the world to dodge paying any tax.
What the government should do is appoint a "Tax Czar" to look into and plug all these loopholes.
That, in my opinion, is a world away from finding a loophole and moving money round the world to dodge paying any tax.
What the government should do is appoint a "Tax Czar" to look into and plug all these loopholes.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,161
This. There's no grey area. OP's 'totally legal way of paying less tax' is what anybody and everybody would opt for shirley? Or if you're THAT keen on paying more tax than you legally need to, just make stuff up on your tax form. Tell them your wages are higher than they actually are, declare income from a fictitious property, I'm pretty sure HMRC won't ask too many questions and will gladly accept your public-spirited donation
Eh? My point is I don't agree with the argument of "It's legally fine, so it's fine" as that leads to a monumentally shit and depressing society where no one does anything out of pure kindness, we'd just do "what we can get away with". My point is not specifically about Tax at all, not about how to enforce laws.
GreersElbow
New member
This. There's no grey area. OP's 'totally legal way of paying less tax' is what anybody and everybody would opt for shirley? Or if you're THAT keen on paying more tax than you legally need to, just make stuff up on your tax form. Tell them your wages are higher than they actually are, declare income from a fictitious property, I'm pretty sure HMRC won't ask too many questions and will gladly accept your public-spirited donation
I'm almost certain you can ask to pay more, though I suspect those who want higher taxes don't take up this option...
My solution is massive tax reform. Rewrite tax law. Give everyone a 1-2% break, then tighten loopholes so tax avoidance becomes tax evasion. The issue is that the risk-reward ratio is greatly skewed towards lower risk and higher rewards. Efficient tax collection comes from a system that's easy to understand and difficult to argue against. Unfortunately, the complexity of the tax system is what enables legal tax avoidance.
We may hate the idea of these people paying less than they can, but really they aren't doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law and those who think this isn't right, well - in the wise words of Your Mum. Your mum.
GreersElbow
New member
Except that's wrong, isn't it? Charity wouldn't exist if people didn't do anything out of kindness. Your point "It's legally fine, so it's fine" leading to a "monumentally shit and depressing society" doesn't really stack up against what actually goes on. Your argument is surrounding morality. That's my point, you can't enforce morality.
I think some people are misunderstanding each other's point in this thread.
If you go travelling in a country where the age of consent is 14, does that mean that the second you set foot in that country, your views on whether it is acceptable for a 44 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl IMMEDIATELY change?
Of course not.
I just don't like the argument of "it's legal, therefore it's fine". It's just monumentally depressing and selfish. My point isn't really about individual laws, pay whatever level of tax is fair enough, just don't be a selfish ****, basically.
If you go travelling in a country where the age of consent is 14, does that mean that the second you set foot in that country, your views on whether it is acceptable for a 44 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl IMMEDIATELY change?
Of course not.
I just don't like the argument of "it's legal, therefore it's fine". It's just monumentally depressing and selfish. My point isn't really about individual laws, pay whatever level of tax is fair enough, just don't be a selfish ****, basically.
My point is, if everyone took the view of "well, it's legal, so it's fine", then we WOULD have a shit and depressing society. Fortunately, we still have lots of thoroughly decent people who don't have such a self-centred view of the world, and will go above and beyond to help their fellow man in all areas of society, rather than sticking just to what they can get away with legally.
I know you can't. Where have I said you can? I've given my view, I'm not proposing a law!
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,161
Yup, Ball's in the taxman's court. Most of us are happy to play by the rules. Up to the taxman to raise their game considerably as regards the rules,because there's clearly individuals and companies finding their way round the existing rules. That's why they pay their accountants handsome fees.
McTavish
Well-known member
- Nov 5, 2014
- 1,562
I expect he was too busy going off to war, arresting drug dealers and curing cancer.
It's the "tax is theft" mantra that makes the Libertarian position so hard to defend. They're basically saying we don't need society. You don't meet too many old aged libertarians.
Brighton Mod
Its All Too Beautiful
And of course its this money that is driving house prices beyond the reach of the average worker.I also believe that CGT is not paid by those who have bought in London for an investment only and then sell on, if they are from overseas. More evidence of weak willed politicians on both sides of the house, they are driven by greed and avarice not the 'I came into politics to help people'. If any British government truly wanted to sort out this tax mess they could, but they don't have the will.