prehaps labour and snp should read this ?

[lame plumber]

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

 

[Nostrum]

I'm just hoping you were the tenth man :46:

 

[hammers4spanner]

The Scottish already pay less than us yet spend more 'alleged '

 

[Billy Bob Bob]

I'm just hoping you were the tenth man :46:

he was but they beat him up for having to many toes,not because he was rich

 

[Dotty]

he was but they beat him up for having to many toes,not because he was rich

And webbed fingers....

 

[WaterTight]

'Great fortunes are oft conceived in sin.'

And that's putting it mildly.

If people are going to be rich it has to follow that some people are going to have an awful lot less. And in a civil society great wealth should come with great responsibility. They axiomatically cannot be relied upon to be philanthropic themselves, more often jealously and aggressively defending their fortunes at any cost just as they seek to increase them.

An analogy involving ten fair-minded people trying to work out how best to serve each according to his needs and from each according to his means before the savage and ungrateful proles beat the poor rich man is as contemptable as it is laugable.

 

[village idiot]

The 'rich' should be taxed as much as possible. If they decide to drink overseas or choose not to show up, tough.
When I take a cab and I'm charged £8 at the end of my journey, I hand the cabbie £10 and walk away while he is ''pretending'' to look for my change.
When I go for a hair cut and the bill is say £8, I hand over £10, say thank you and walk away.
But in the Web Estate in Purley, I have a customer who is a fruit exporter. He supplies all the big supermarkets. He is 82 years old and walk with a walking stick and has a curved back (gravity is taking over, I think). When I attend to do a job for him and charge him £48, he says: 'it's a business expense, give me a receipt for £48'. He then actually waits for you to go to the van and bring back his change of £2. Pathetic.

 

[IDCHAPPY]

Still don't think the Tories are the best choice to be honest. A lot of less fortunate people than us will be in for a hard 5 years.
P.s I really don't believe how many (Tory biased) newspapers demonized us (SNP) and how many folk in England believed it. There was another option, people chose not to believe in it.
🙂

 

[Ray Stafford]

How much money do you have to have before you become officially "Rich" and therefore your belongings become the property of the state and every envious person who wants something for nothing, and the whole world is entitled to believe that you are evil without a shred of evidence, just because it panders to their prejudices?

I only ask so that I can stop short £1 short of that figure, and remain on the right side of humanity. 🙂

Its all relative. In global terms you need to earn just $34,000 (thats dollars, not pounds) to be in the top 1%. I guess most people on this site earn more than that. So be careful how you judge the guy on $40,000. Rich b@st@ard.

 

[village idiot]

Cameron will have a 'HardTime' with the SNP (believe you me). That Nicola Stugen - or summat - will be besides herself, thinking: I have all these seats in Parliament, but no power to go with it? She will be well frustrated. It is not whether she will be pushing for Scotland to go it alone. It is a question of WHEN? And we all thought the Scottish Referandum was all over and done with? Think again

 

[IDCHAPPY]

I've already seen many Labour supporters blaming Scotland for getting another 5 years, even though if Labour won all 59 Scottish seats it would have made no difference what so ever.

 

[village idiot]

How much money do you have to have before you become officially "Rich" and therefore your belongings become the property of the state and every envious person who wants something for nothing, and the whole world is entitled to believe that you are evil without a shred of evidence, just because it panders to their prejudices?

I only ask so that I can stop short £1 short of that figure, and remain on the right side of humanity. 🙂

Its all relative. In global terms you need to earn just $34,000 (thats dollars, not pounds) to be in the top 1%. I guess most people on this site earn more than that. So be careful how you judge the guy on $40,000. Rich b@st@ard.

I have no intention to be rich, and never go to bed at night praying to be rich. I also fail to understand why someone will win say £30m on the lottery, then broadcast it to the world????

Let us assume that a town is made up of just a street and 40 families live in that street. Also, let us assume that each family plays the lottery. Then one family scoops a £10m win while the others have nothing. Chances are the winning family's home will eventually be broken into as others look to get something from them. Except they take lame plumber's advice and move abroad. If they did, their absence will make no difference to the other families

 

[Ray Stafford]

If people are going to be rich it has to follow that some people are going to have an awful lot less.

This is the greatest misunderstanding in political economics.

It is absolutely, completely and comprehensively, untrue. It would be only be true if there was a finite amount of wealth in the world. Were that to be the case, then for Adam to have an extra £1, then Billy must have £1 less. But there is not a finite amount of wealth. The amount of wealth is a constantly shifting value, and is only very vaguely limited to population. It is much more affected by the abundance of natural resources, the skills and productivity of the labour force, the organisational ability of management, the innovation of entrepreneurs, the creativity of scientists and designers, the wise allocation of capital resources and the strength of the political, social and economic institutions. It is perfectly possible (and indeed likely) that a clever and hard-working Adam can get rich without Billy suffering in the least.

And in a civil society great wealth should come with great responsibility.

Why? Why should rich people have obligations and responsibilities that others don't have? We should all obey just laws, treat our neighbours with respect, and look after those who are genuinely unable to take care of themselves. No more, no less.

An analogy involving ten fair-minded people trying to work out how best to serve each according to his needs and from each according to his means before the savage and ungrateful proles beat the poor rich man is as contemptable as it is laugable.

I would agree with you, except that it absolutely nails the mis-representation of tax cuts. They are not "giving" the tax payer anything. The are merely taking less.

 

[Ray Stafford]

I have no intention to be rich, and never go to bed at night praying to be rich.

Nor me now VI.

Because now I realise that if we are successful in our business, that will automatically make me evil, and all my wealth will rightly become the prey of jealous neighbours.

And those of my colleagues who re-mortgaged their houses, sold their cars, borrowed more than they could afford or cashed in their life savings to participate in the MBO in the hope of a better life for their family? Are they all in danger of becoming evil too?

I just want to know where the threshold is.

And I feel really sorry for MickW, who after 43 years of building the business has now sold it, and apparently should be REQUIRED to give away the proceeds either through forced philanthropy or punitive taxation.

 

[gasmanrob]

I voted for the party that was best placed to represent me, my family and my needs. I've been called a snob, a c u next Tuesday, brainwashed, accused of not reading policies etc but interestingly by people I went to school with, people I considered fair minded friends. All had the same chances as me and all supposedly smarter then me when you look back at school. Yet if they placed as much time and effort on their cv as they do their Facebook status then they wouldn't need to worry so much about their benefits being cut which would leave money in the pot for those who truly need it.

I work damn hard! And often do a 100 hour week! To say I then should be paying more in tax to help those who choose not to is no incentive to succeed and counter productive to my aspirations and efforts.

I fail to see why the same principle shouldn't be applied to those whose earn more then I could comprehend so long as you pay what's due.

Hounding those driven by success and the desire to live out their dreams for the benefit of those too lazy to help themselves is just not on

 

[gasmanrob]

I've already seen many Labour supporters blaming Scotland for getting another 5 years, even though if Labour won all 59 Scottish seats it would have made no difference what so ever.

Here's the thing though the snp didn't win conservatives didn't win labour lost!conservative didn't gain that many votes but labour supporters just don't turn up. 15 million people didn't come out to vote and I'd say the majority of whom would be labour.

 

[hammers4spanner]

The voting system proved to be a joke approx 1.5 million voted the bigot /SNP party yet 5 million voted others and get no representation hmmmm ,.

Any one notice mrs fidget (nicola sturgeon) has no top lip

Wealthy or poor who cares we all end up dead

 

[Ray Stafford]

Wealthy or poor who cares we all end up dead

True enough.

The world of philosophy lost its brightest star when you decided to be a plumber! 🙂

Anyway, I had better get back to work.

Widows and orphans don't oppress themselves you know...,

 

[hammers4spanner]

I voted for the party that was best placed to represent me, my family and my needs. I've been called a snob, a c u next Tuesday, brainwashed, accused of not reading policies etc but interestingly by people I went to school with, people I considered fair minded friends. All had the same chances as me and all supposedly smarter then me when you look back at school. Yet if they placed as much time and effort on their cv as they do their Facebook status then they wouldn't need to worry so much about their benefits being cut which would leave money in the pot for those who truly need it.

I work damn hard! And often do a 100 hour week! To say I then should be paying more in tax to help those who choose not to is no incentive to succeed and counter productive to my aspirations and efforts.

I fail to see why the same principle shouldn't be applied to those whose earn more then I could comprehend so long as you pay what's due.

Hounding those driven by success and the desire to live out their dreams for the benefit of those too lazy to help themselves is just not on

I laughed at the Facebook status of the moaners on my page all moaning about cons getting in , and strangely it was all the ones that don't really contribute to society in any way except producing mass children.

 

[Masood]

I only ask so that I can stop short £1 short of that figure, and remain on the right side of humanity. 🙂

Ray, Ray, Ray. We've had this conversation before old chum. You are a merchant. You made that deal at the crossroads - your very first sale probably. You can't be human with no soul!

Anyway, I had better get back to work. Widows and orphans don't oppress themselves you know...,

That's better! 🙂

 

[Gray0689]

The problem with this country is if someone works hard builds a big business and becomes rich there automatically branded ******s and hated

Should it not be a lot of them people should be looked upto not demonised they have achieved great things not say on there bum and take money hand over fist from the tax payer why should someone who has done well for themselves get screwed and have to pay a lot more money for there hard work just because our welfare system is paying good money to s lot of scumbags

Of course there will be exceptions
No wonder people try and take there money out of Britain or try to avoid the huge tax they get charged

 

[Masood]

why should someone who has done well for themselves get screwed and have to pay a lot more money for there hard work just because our welfare system is paying good money to s lot of scumbags

What a lot of the loony left, the feckless and bone idle, the entitled, fail to grasp is the the rich DO pay a lot more.

20% of £1M per annum is a lot more than 20% of £10K p.a.

To then doubly penalise high earners by putting them into higher tax brackets will not improve the economy in the long term as it reduces or removes the incentive to work harder, innovate, invest and grow.

Additionally, as a percentage of their tax contribution higher earners are lower consumers from the common pot. A GP appointment or operation or policing costs basically the same whether you're a mega-rich plumbers' merchant or a poor plumber. Their relative tax contributions are worlds apart, however.

 

[Ray Stafford]

Additionally, as a percentage of their tax contribution higher earners are lower consumers from the common pot. A GP appointment or operation or policing costs basically the same whether you're a mega-rich plumber or a poor plumber's merchant without two brass farthings to rub together. Their relative tax contributions are worlds apart, however.

Fixed your typo Mas.

 

[stevetheplumber]

The problem with this country is if someone works hard builds a big business and becomes rich there automatically branded ******s and hated

there is another angle to that generally they are, as one of the requirements to get on in this world is a total disregard for how others see you and no desire to please anyone else but yourself. All stems from childhood i think we grow up to be pleasers or non pleasers and its usually the latter who are more succesfull
The classic scenario is tough background with little love becomes billionaire

 

[Masood]

there is another angle to that generally they are, as one of the requirements to get on in this world is a total disregard for how others see you and no desire to please anyone else but yourself. All stems from childhood i think we grow up to be pleasers or non pleasers and its usually the latter who are more succesfull
The classic scenario is tough background with little love becomes billionaire

Whilst there is some truth to that Steve, I don't think it's entirely true. There are a LOT of philanthropic millionaires. Some have built businesses by being ruthless, others being being visionaries and spotting a niche in the market.

I think you need a thick skin and extreme resilience to shrug off the doubters and bounce back from early failures. You need determination and a great deal of stubbornness but I don't think it's necessary to not care about others.

 

[Ray Stafford]

I don't think it's necessary to not care about others.

Just to illustrate that point, when MickW sold this company to the staff, he turned down a competing offer which was some £millions higher than we were able to pay.

His reasons?

Two main reasons were:

a) he wanted the business to keep its values, and

b) the other potential purchaser already had all the head office functions like accounts, HR, IT etc and he didn't want all our people in those departments to lose their jobs.

Viscious b@st@ards these millionaire businessmen.

 

[voivod]

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

maybe if the rich guy paid ALL his taxes aqnd didnt hide it overseas.....and also paid the bottom lot a fair wage and not peanuts...maybe they could ALL afford to go to pub n buy a round 😉

 

[voivod]

The Scottish already pay less than us yet spend more 'alleged '

We pay MORE fact.....has been reported many times...unfortunatly they dont tell you lot.
Was on news other day too .
We get a lot less back than we pay in...why the hell do you think they wanted us to stay??? because they were being nice?? 😉

quote form the papers :::
Not only do the latest figures destroy the last main argument against the suggestion that Scotland paid #27bn more than was received in public spending, they suggest that the actual figure was nearer to #31bn. Mr William Waldegrave, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been forced to concede figures in Commons questioning in recent months, which show that if Scotland's share of North Sea revenues had been allocated since 1979, then the net flow in favour of the Treasury from north of the Border ran to #27bn - a figure which the SNP used to refute previous claims that Scotland was subsidised.

 

[lame plumber]

of course your subsidised, thats our oil.

 

[Masood]

maybe if the rich guy paid ALL his taxes aqnd didnt hide it overseas.....and also paid the bottom lot a fair wage and not peanuts...maybe they could ALL afford to go to pub n buy a round 😉

Maybe if the tax regime didn't punish higher earners with this double whammy of higher tax brackets, the rich guy wouldn't feel the need to indulge in tax avoidance?

Bear in mind that most of these avoidance schemes are actually legal due to loopholes in HMRC rules. And that whilst Cameron and Osborne made lots of noise about the popstars who were in these schemes, shedloads of politicians and their cronies were also part of them...

 

[voivod]

Maybe if the tax regime didn't punish higher earners with this double whammy of higher tax brackets, the rich guy wouldn't feel the need to indulge in tax avoidance?

Bear in mind that most of these avoidance schemes are actually legal due to loopholes in HMRC rules. And that whilst Cameron and Osborne made lots of noise about the popstars who were in these schemes, shedloads of politicians and their cronies were also part of them...

osborne was on tv ages ago telling HOW to avoid tax. grr
If the companies and mega rich paid their taxes , then it would filter down as less tax WE would need to pay for same services.
Think i read google or amazon should have paid enough to pay for that last big hospital that was completed ...imagine if they ALL paid how much better off we would be .
They go on about the poor and folks on benifits...but the BIGGEST scroungers are these tax avoiding scum. Sorry I think its sad how they can send someone to jail for 1k but these barstewards get smacked wrists and are free and they STEAL millions

 

[Gray0689]

osborne was on tv ages ago telling HOW to avoid tax. grr
If the companies and mega rich paid their taxes , then it would filter down as less tax WE would need to pay for same services.
Think i read google or amazon should have paid enough to pay for that last big hospital that was completed ...imagine if they ALL paid how much better off we would be .
They go on about the poor and folks on benifits...but the BIGGEST scroungers are these tax avoiding scum. Sorry I think its sad how they can send someone to jail for 1k but these barstewards get smacked wrists and are free and they STEAL millions

Lol your very wrong
It's the scum low life drunks druggies and just lazy that sponge off us If it wasn't for them we all would be far better off
We can't blame the rich for being rich that's called jealousy
I remember always visiting Glasgow and thinking s nuke would be good there
It's a disgrace the amount of tramps and wineos and druggies what we are all paying for so if you want to leave I'd open the door not a problem

 

[voivod]

dont understand how you can say that when the poor take nothing compared to what the rich steal.....sorry avoid paying.

 

[voivod]

ps tramps etc dont usually get any money frae you because no fixed abode...NO CASH 😉

 

[Gray0689]

There was plenty of what I call tramps in council property's

What your showing Is rubbish
You have your disillusioned beliefs I have mine

 

[voivod]

as long as our disillusioned beliefs make a better place...cool
ps those are governments OWN figures by the way ...makes me wonder why they keep going on about the poor and NOT going after the big guys....future jobs ..bonus's etc maybe 😉

 

[Gray0689]

Smoke and mirrors
The amount of benefit fraud if you believe it's as little as that your very disillusioned my friend

 

[voivod]

cant argue with GOVERNMENT figures......can we ? 😉

 

[lame plumber]

We pay MORE fact.....has been reported many times...unfortunatly they dont tell you lot.
Was on news other day too .
We get a lot less back than we pay in...why the hell do you think they wanted us to stay??? because they were being nice?? 😉

quote form the papers :::
Not only do the latest figures destroy the last main argument against the suggestion that Scotland paid #27bn more than was received in public spending, they suggest that the actual figure was nearer to #31bn. Mr William Waldegrave, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been forced to concede figures in Commons questioning in recent months, which show that if Scotland's share of North Sea revenues had been allocated since 1979, then the net flow in favour of the Treasury from north of the Border ran to #27bn - a figure which the SNP used to refute previous claims that Scotland was subsidised.

prehaps it would be good for the rest of us if Scotland were to go independant, best of all they can take on their banks debt of £133 billion themselves, I for one am ****ed off at having to support RBS.

 

[voivod]

prehaps it would be good for the rest of us if Scotland were to go independant, best of all they can take on their banks debt of £133 billion themselves, I for one am ****ed off at having to support RBS.

might be worth a read sir 😉
Why did the banks only become Scottish ? after they failed? : Business for Scotland.

 

[lame plumber]

least you got the Sir bit right......... 🙂

 

[bright spark]

Over in Ireland, d minister for finance was saying about when d country would get back to full employment. He said that'd never would cos some on d dole are allergic to work.
He got loads of grief over it, but fair play to him he didn't apologise.
There's still people coming to Ireland from elsewhere picking up jobs.
It's too cushy on d dole here. I say if ye worked and lost work ye should get loadsa help. Otherwise yer dole should be cut. I think it's about €200 dole for a single lad in Ireland a week. That doesn't include rent allowance.
To b honest, I've worked every day of me life, but sometimes I feel work is for mugs

 

[village idiot]

To b honest, I've worked every day of me life, but sometimes I feel work is for mugs

Work is not for mugs. Work is for peeps who take pride in themselves and want to make something of their lives. As for politicians not taking action against big companies that operate tax avoidance schemes, there is a good reason for that. Imagine if some big company says to the government: 'If you insist we pay this tax, our shareholders dividends will be down by 90%. We will just go ahead and close 300 stores leading to 5,000 staff being laid off work'.
Politician realises that these 5,000 laid off staff will have to claim some sort of benefit from the government. Unemployment figures will soar. That, is what no politician wants to be able to explain to it's people why they are out of work. Infact, governments have been known to pay ''investors'' to take on a supposedly failing company just so staff can be in employment. Eventually, the said investors strip the assets making as much money as they can for themselves and run off.

 

[bright spark]

I agree with ye village. Hav worked all my life. Wouldn't change it but ye must get a pain in your rocks paying all d taxes going while some sit on their hands and it all comes to them

 

[voivod]

are you talking about the rich or poor scroungers 😉

 

[Gray0689]

are you talking about the rich or poor scroungers 😉

Have you ever taken any cash for a job and not declared it?

 

[voivod]

Nope...all goes through the books 🙂

 

[Gray0689]

See your the same only on a smaller scale

 

[voivod]

because all goes through the books??

 

[Gray0689]

because all goes through the books??

No because now I know your a liar
You have a good day

 

[Nostrum]

As much as I thought this conversation was dead and buried weeks ago, I agree with voivid.

Companies like Starbucks avoid paying tax by over charging themselves for royalties in the UK business from countries with lower tax systems. The result is they make a loss on paper in the UK, but massive profits in other regions with a lower tax bill.

That's just wrong and sees us out of pocket by millions of pounds.

There's so much of it going on it is unreal.

 

[lame plumber]

so those in office need to sortr it out, they made a start just need to finish it off now

 

[Masood]

As much as I thought this conversation was dead and buried weeks ago, I agree with voivid.

Companies like Starbucks avoid paying tax by over charging themselves for royalties in the UK business from countries with lower tax systems. The result is they make a loss on paper in the UK, but massive profits in other regions with a lower tax bill.

That's just wrong and sees us out of pocket by millions of pounds.

There's so much of it going on it is unreal.

The fact is that what they are doing is actually legal. What we need is for the government to close those loopholes. As for the companies' threats to leave the UK, well we need to call their bluff. They would not disappear, as they make money here and making money is the reason companies exist...

 

[Best]

The true cost of people that are being described as "poor" that are on unemployment or disability benefits, etc, are surely much higher than imagined.
Okay, some are on a couple of thousand in a year of extra money, but then there's the other extreme of families getting tens of thousands on benefits.
Got to remember that benefits can include free dental treatment, one off payments for essential items, free legal costs (often massive!) etc. Many of these real costs are invisible in government figures.
It would be no exaggeration for one individual to cost the UK a few hundred thousand in a year. Drugs, booze, laziness, violence, other criminal behaviour such as theft, vandalism, child issues - (custody, contact orders, social worker involvement, courts, barristers, judges, solicitors letters, etc), police costs. Take your pick.
Multiply all these "poor" people's real benefits up & it will amount to several of the big companies supposed tax dodges.

 

[voivod]

No because now I know your a liar
You have a good day

nope.....think you are wrong. All our business is electronically billed and paid for . So think you might be wrong ....again 😉

 

[Gray0689]

nope.....think you are wrong. All our business is electronically billed and paid for . So think you might be wrong ....again 😉

You didn't always do it like that
Don't think there is anyone on us can say we haven't

 

[Nostrum]

The fact is that what they are doing is actually legal. What we need is for the government to close those loopholes. As for the companies' threats to leave the UK, well we need to call their bluff. They would not disappear, as they make money here and making money is the reason companies exist...

Absolutely agree. But then when the prime minister himself benefits from off shore accounts what incentive is there for change?

Both ends of the social scale are an equal burden on the average joe, the rich and the lazy.

Maybe the solution is a nationwide working mans (and women) strike and see the country grind to a halt?

 

[Millsy 82]

The fact is that what they are doing is actually legal. What we need is for the government to close those loopholes. As for the companies' threats to leave the UK, well we need to call their bluff. They would not disappear, as they make money here and making money is the reason companies exist...

Agreed. The likes of Amazon and Starbucks should be hit for more tax. The threat of leaving the UK is not really a problem in my eyes as they are usually the companies that employ people on minimum wage and zero hour contracts. They also take a lot of money from smaller companies (I know it is only business) but if they were to leave people would still shop on the internet but use a company that may treat their employees like human beings, and coffee shops wouldn't vanish forever little chains will start opening up.

 

[hammers4spanner]

I hate Starbucks

 

[Ray Stafford]

A few points.

1) Tackling tax evasion and reforming the benefit system are not mutually exclusive. We have HMRC working on the former and the DWP working on the latter. We should not defend abusers of one system by seeking to divert attention to abusers of the other.

2) The overall scale of illegal tax evasion is wildly overstated by many commentators. [DLMURL="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf"]HMRC figures[/DLMURL] produced to the same rules under both colour governments show the total tax gap (the difference between what they think is genuinely due, and what is actually collected) steady at about £34billion plus or minus £3billion for every year since fiscal year 2005/6. As a proportion of the total, it has fallen slightly from around 8.5% to about 6.8%.

3) Of that total, HMRC estimate that large businesses are responsible for £9.3bn, substantially less than the £15bn attributed to small and medium sized businesses. The balance is made up of criminal activity and individuals.

4) A powerful force in reducing corporate tax avoidance (thats the legal kind) is not aggressive enforcement, but the steady reduction in UK corporation tax rates. Most corporate tax schemes do not seek to avoid tax altogether, but to move it from a high tax jurisdiction to a low tax jurisdiction. Back in 2010, the UK corporation tax was 28% - one of the highest of the developed countries. (The US is nominally high, but so riddled with exemptions that the effective rate is much lower). As the UK rate has been progressively lowered to 20% (now one of the lowest), the incentive to create tax avoidance schemes has reduced, and indeed may even have reversed, so multinationals may be moving profits into the UK to take advantage of the lower rate. As corporate structures move at least a year (and often 2 or 3 years) behind the tax changes, we may not yet have seen the full scale of the benefits of this. However, it is entirely possible (even probable) that in the long run, the total tax take from the lower rate may exceed the take from the previous higher rate - bearing in mind the incentives to avoid the latter.

5) The directors of companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to take all legal measures to maximise long term shareholder value. This includes taking professional accountancy advice to minimise tax liabilities, so long as this is within the law.

This last point resonates particularly strongly with me, as the director of a £multi-million company. Unlike many companies, my shareholders are not wealthy individuals, hedge-funds or any of the other political bogey-men. My shareholders are all either current employees, or recently retired employees of the business. And I can absolutely assure you that the lad in the warehouse who sold his motorbike to buy £1000 worth of shares, or the girl in the accounts team paying for her shares out of salary deductions, no more wants to share dividend income or capital gain with the chancellor than anyone else. Which is why they hold their shares in a government approved scheme which reduces their tax liability.

Does that make them part of the problem? Or part of the solution?

🙂

 

[village idiot]

The directors of companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to take all legal measures to maximise long term shareholder value. This includes taking professional accountancy advice to minimise tax liabilities, so long as this is within the law.

This last point resonates particularly strongly with me, as the director of a £multi-million company. Unlike many companies, my shareholders are not wealthy individuals, hedge-funds or any of the other political bogey-men. My shareholders are all either current employees, or recently retired employees of the business. And I can absolutely assure you that the lad in the warehouse who sold his motorbike to buy £1000 worth of shares, or the girl in the accounts team paying for her shares out of salary deductions, no more wants to share dividend income or capital gain with the chancellor than anyone else. Which is why they hold their shares in a government approved scheme which reduces their tax liability.

Does that make them part of the problem? Or part of the solution?

🙂

That makes them part of the solution.
BTW, try and get some sleep Ray. What are you doing up so late? Trying to avoid keeping the missus warm are we?😉

 

[Ray Stafford]

Does that make them part of the problem? Or part of the solution?
🙂

That makes them part of the solution.

The trouble is that you can't have "good tax avoiders" and "bad tax avoiders". You can only have "tax avoiders" (legal) and "tax evaders" (illegal). An attempt to create an additional class of businesses that are correctly doing their legal duty to shareholders, but are excoriated by commentators and the general public is just a return to the politics of envy.

BTW, try and get some sleep Ray. What are you doing up so late? Trying to avoid keeping the missus warm are we?😉

Working late VI, and taking a few minutes to unwind. 🙂

 

[Masood]

Does that make them part of the problem? Or part of the solution?🙂

It makes them capitalist fat cat scum, of course. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, wanting to better themselves by working hard and investing in their future. Wanting to create financial security for themselves! How very dare they!

 

[gasmanrob]

Throughout time since taxes began it has always hit the people willing to take a risk and invest in themselves.

Thus tax avoidance has been around just as long

When poll tax was introduced back when we were fighting the French. It was 12 shillings per head but the average wage was 4 shillings per day so in order to make it fairer the poorest would be financially helped by there slightly more affluent neighbours. All fine when it's one or two people but it wasn't you were looking at upto 100 people needing your financial aid. At the time it was the Lord of the land responsible for collecting these taxes and being part of the community and friends with many would help to hide villagers. One village in Essex had 38000 residents on one census but by the second poll tax dropped to around 20000. First example of tax avoidance.

Then came the window tax, as windows were easier to count then people.9 windows was the maximum you could have on the lower threshold each window above that was a shilling each. Guess what? People started blocking their windows up! The window tax was actually the start of the tax system as we know it. It sore the introduction of official tax collectors and the banding of windows definition of what was a window etc a huge fines if you were found to be unblocking windows after your inspection.

But the best example of fair taxing across the board being beneficial for everyone involved is the tea tax!

Originally set at 112% no one could afford it. And no tax was raised from it. An illegal trade started and people were hung for it.

Twinings successfully argued the case that if the tax was reduced to 12% although the income would be less per purchase the quantity of purchasing would be higher thus increasing revenue. The king agreed at tea went from next to no sales to 1,000,000 pounds (weight) in about 2 years.

 

[kirkgas]

Plenty voters realised they don't want wee nippy holding labour by the balls, so they voted tactically to keep her out of power, shows you how much they are hated that some people would rather the Tories were in charge haha
Snp want Independance and will do whatever they think will get it, disappointing the majority who voted NO to independance are being ignored, bit it's not a surprise

 

[voivod]

Plenty voters realised they don't want wee nippy holding labour by the balls, so they voted tactically to keep her out of power, shows you how much they are hated that some people would rather the Tories were in charge haha
Snp want Independance and will do whatever they think will get it, disappointing the majority who voted NO to independance are being ignored, bit it's not a surprise

Was no mention EVER of independence in this campaign....apart frae the other parties.
If labour had got in...snp were trying to end this dumb bum austerity con. It wasnt a way to stop paying back the money...it was to make it pay back at a lower rate over a longer time ..so that services wouldnt be cut so bad...heyho some people fell for the con .
ps wonder why Georgie boy is saying hes gona have an emergency budget soon.....prepare for the BIG CUTS to start .
stop bailing out all the big companies ...you say they employ...true ...most on pish wages.
but the tax they should be paying is more of the issue..
If they paid people a bigger wage...in turn they would spend more...in turn we all would make more money.
Just my way off thinking anyway 😉
pps see the Icelanders have just jailed some of the 'B'ankers who caused their crash...wonder if they will do thjat here....and dont get me started on the 'libor theives either 😉
Hae a guid nicht all ...tomorrows a new day 🙂

 

[Gray0689]

I wish there was I dislike button lol