Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
You are, as I said how many not how much and where is your proof ?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
More than 85% of public tips on benefit 'frauds' are false
- Thread starter spring hall convert
- Start date
You are, as I said how many not how much and where is your proof ?
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,555
You can agree or disagree with the £120bn figure as you wish- but if you think it incudes subsidies to support steel workers then i think you've comprehensively undermined your argument by displaying your own lack of understanding.
The methodology behind the £120bn tax gap is summarized here: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PCSTaxGap2014Full.pdf
But what should be made clear is that only a % of this could be realistically recaptured through government actions. John McDonnell made a mistake in assuming that figure was all there for the taking. It isn't that easy. but shouldn't stop us trying!
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,093
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ment_data/file/371459/Statistical_Release.pdf
Benefit fraud is wrong, tax evasion is very wrong. I have no ideas of the exact numbers, but I would hazard a guess that there are far more individuals claiming relatively small sums in fraudulent benefit than there are seriously wealthy individuals and companies evading tax even though the ratio of benefit fraud to tax evasion is in the order of 1:30.
Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms
King of Sussex
You implied that your payment of income tax was not of any benefit to you at all, which is clearly false.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,555
And £10 billion of that on to Bermuda where it won't get taxed at all. Double irish and all that.
The wonder of free movement of capital indeed.
FT stated that Google has an effective Corporate income tax rate of 8% on profits outside the US (the same profits will be heavily taxed if they bring it back to the US, so don't expect that to happen any time soon unless Trump becomes president and they reach a 'settlement')
You sure you want to start defending Google's tax affairs? Really?
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,093
Of course paying income tax is of benefit to me and my family. I was replying to another poster, simply stating that I am not entitled to any benefits nor have I ever claimed any. OK?
Out of interest, why are you so keen to point out you have not claimed any (direct) benefits? So what if you had?
Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms
King of Sussex
Oh I get that, genuinely. It just strikes me that this argument of "I never get anything from this" simply isn't relevant to the debate - in a cosmopolitan society there'll always be people who benefit from certain things and not others. And the same will be true in reverse. But yet it always seems to come up.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,029
like, i said things like supporting the steel industry. the point being that this is a subsidy and you cant maintain an economic policy that says you'll cut tax breaks and subsidy to businesses while simultaneously calling for tax breaks and subsidy for ailing industries (you could and should subsidise some where there is strategic benefits to do so). the paper you link to is one that i refered as a source. its been pulled apart by economist (some questionable source materials and assumptions), but anyone can tell there's something iffy about conjuring up £46bn from the "shadow economy" and proceeds of crime: you're not going to recover that supposed tax gap. its fine to make a target of some number of billions might be found by changing the tax system, quite another to claim a specific figure that unobtainable. it leads to poor economic policy. cf Osborne's last 5 years of missing targets based on wild targets.
Perfidious Albion
Well-known member
If one compares the eligibility criterion on the Govt websites, I would like to know why my in- law relatives get Disability income when they still enjoy long country walks? He is a working builder but claims to be partially sighted... Another acquaintance has a mobility paid car, a disability parking space , but takes the dog on walks, and I have seen her ( and helped) carry heavy objects..
If these are within the rules... The rules need changing
If these are within the rules... The rules need changing
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
You won't answer the question so you're just another bullshitter jumping on the band wagon, you state a 'FACT' but you can't back it up
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,093
Have you ever considered anger management classes? You seem to be full of hate and bile, directing insults towards anyone who doesn't share your personal opinions.
Megazone
On his last warning
Have you ever considered giving up watching channel 5?
spring hall convert
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #74
He could probably buy Channel 5.
Megazone
On his last warning
Sweet FA genuine answer. To be fair they only had 13 years to try
New Labour/Blair were Tory-lite, and were in thrall to big business and corporate elites just as much as the Tories.
Of course, if they had tried to clamp down on tax avoidance by Google and their ilk, you'd have moaned about Labour being anti-business, anti-enterprise and anti-wealth creation!
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,093
Is it for sale?
spring hall convert
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #78
Not any more. The Express owning/ UKIP loving, gangster/porn-baron sold it not so long ago.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Have you ever considered answering the question ? I shall put you on the NEW ignore FUNCTION where you are NOT permitted to VIEW any of my posts in the future
