[Finance] Tax Rates Going Forward

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I will happily pay more tax after this is all over - with a few provisos - mainly to try and help get people back to work - after all once they're working again they will be paying tax again and the vast majority will have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

(1) As others have said the likes of Amazon/Starbucks etc. have to be made to pay tax on the profits they make in this Country - even if that means what they sell (most of which we don't need) to us goes up in price.

(2) The Public Sector needs a complete total makeover - and I speak as someone whose wife works in the Public Sector.

The WASTE is unbelievable - both in terms of people/management (some of whom do little/nothing - shown in the fact they are currently NOT working and nobody notices the difference) and also what is spent/wasted on physical equipment (Computers/IT etc.)

There are STILL some ridiculous pensions being dolled out - completely unsustainable.

It will never happen of course because the Civil Servants wouldn't allow the changes to be made. Turkeys and Christmas.

 

[Bulldog]

Apart from the redevelopment of London Bridge Station, the Brighton Main Line Improvement and the Gatwick Airport Station Upgrade, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Well, London bridge wasn't in Sussex last time i looked.

My point was, a lot of northern areas complain about the investment per head in the south east when what they really mean is London. Take London spending out of the calculation and I doubt there is much difference between us and the North.

And their road network, especially the motorway network, is far more extensive that our tiny number of motorway miles.

 

[Silverhatch]

This country (and indeed the post industrial age world following our example) has had an uneasy relationship with Tax ever since King John tried to impose extortionate taxes on Medieval Barons (and therefore Britons) back in the early 13th century (Robin Hood etc.). Tax is seen as something to rail against and to minimise by whatever legal means are available. First thing to do is to have a grown up ****ing discussion about what Tax (or even have a new word e.g. contribution) means to Britain in the 21st century and beyond.

There's nothing wrong with paying (more tax) a bigger contribution if you're confident that the money is going to be used in the right way e.g. (for starters) having a fifteen year, trillion pound plan, to create a new, fit-for-the-22nd century, cradle to grave healthcare system - with associated industries - that is the envy of the world and a model to follow. Ditch Trident and HS2 and put physical and digital infrastructure to work re imagining an integrated National Care Service to include hospitals, care homes, GP surgeries, laboratories, big pharma, and IT provision. And the first billions would go toward paying Nurses, Teachers and other public sector workers properly - because when the SHIT HITS THE FAN - that's where the value is in society - much more so than various CEOs/entrepreneurs and PL footballers.

Someone/anyone comes up with a plan like that and I'd happily contribute more of my hard-earned.

 

[Bad Ash]

I've always been paye so i've no idea why individuals would do this other than avoid a tax of some kind.

I was reading an article about Laura Whitmore, and apparently she has no idea how much she is paid, she was quoted as saying ' To be honest, I don’t actually know (how much she earned last year). Money goes into my limited company and I pay myself from there.'

Im sure many do it but why would you set up a company that gets paid on the work you do only to then pay yourself from the said company, shirly it's a form of tax dodge is it not ? Thanks

I'd think it's valid where you don't have a single employer, or are working short term contracts. Given it's the employer who processes the payroll they are doing the tax calculations, which would be almost impossible if 2 or more companies were doing it in parallel. Similarly when you change company, the new company needs your P45 for all the prior tax info, and frequently the fist month might be wrong if they don't have that info in time.

 

[NooBHA]

.
Yes, I know that - but it's not universal - there are different rates for various types of occupancty, reduced rates for single occupancy, and is often paid by housing benefit. Too may ways for people to use lawyers to reduce it. Where there's a loophole there's a way and all that..................


I get rather tired of the argument about not taxing poor little old ladies living in mansions.
1). The likelihood is that the house has already been paid for - no rent or mortgage to pay;
2). There is always an option to downsize - I'd love to be rolling about in a £1M house, so I could easily find half that for a very nice smaller property!
3). They can take out a lifetime mortgage to help pay the bills; that might also help them to get below the level at which they have to pay for care if they need it.
4). They can always approach the children - "Do you want to inherit my lovely big house when I pop my clogs? If so, perhaps you can help Mummy out a bit now".

I have no qualms in taxing them either but I am quite happy with doing it via IHT on their Estate when they pass away - Although I would be reducing the Exemptions levels down to no higher that say £100K max

I also have no qualms about property values being used to fund later life healthcare. I don't give them a free ride on this matter. You can receive the same end goal, without causing hardship.

 

[GT49er]

I have no qualms in taxing them either but I am quite happy with doing it via IHT on their Estate when they pass away - Although I would be reducing the Exemptions levels down to no higher that say £100K max

I also have no qualms about property values being used to fund later life healthcare. I don't give them a free ride on this matter. You can receive the same end goal, without causing hardship.

Except your solutions don't reel in the Ex-pats, the dodgy offshore trusts in the Seychelles or the Cayman Islands, or the obfustications of well paid lawyers and accountants such as those used by multi-national tax avoiders to make sure that tax doesn't get paid.

The house is there. It is on UK soil. The tax is £Xgbp per annum. Pay it, or lose the house. End of.

 

[blue-shifted]

it is VAT. Starbucks isnt any cheaper than the cafe next door (that ive ever seen, usually more expensive) and the both shops will pay the same taxes. the issue you have is where the parent company avoids taxes from their franchise fees because they funnel it through Swiss company, changed lower tax there, and not realising a profit on their UK accounts. followed the rules on transfer pricing. would be good to change, and we gain taxes from foreign business that produce overseas and sell here, like Sony or VW. Ireland offers companies rule to not tax on revenues made overseas, to encourage them to set up there. i say we have no business setting their tax rules. next thing we'll be telling them how to spend their money, set their laws and so on.

I think we're saying the same thing? If blue-shifted coffee shop ltd makes £100k profit per year, then pays 20%ish tax on that, whereas starbucks next door doesn't pay any tax on profit, meaning that to make the same profit on any given cup of tea, blue-shifted café ltd has to charge 20% extra?

The fact that starbucks is in the real world still expensive doesn't matter. They are either inefficient, or more likely making huge profits.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Sorry, but who in the public sector are not working?

Nurses, Drs, Teachers, Policemen, Firemen, bin men, border force, DWP staff, HMRC staff. Those not on front line are working from home, as required by the Government. rather than simply trot out populous view, please add some evidence.

As for pensions - again look at the facts. Public sector workers pay into a pension pot...……..and believe me its not paved with gold. Vast majority of Civil Servants earn around £28 per year. To receive half pay i.e 14k per year someone would need to work 40 years. Most don't put in that length of service, so the end pension is a lot lot less.

rather than single out average joe employees, perhaps time would be better spent on wondering why some very wealthy individuals pay no tax

I will happily pay more tax after this is all over - with a few provisos - mainly to try and help get people back to work - after all once they're working again they will be paying tax again and the vast majority will have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

(1) As others have said the likes of Amazon/Starbucks etc. have to be made to pay tax on the profits they make in this Country - even if that means what they sell (most of which we don't need) to us goes up in price.

(2) The Public Sector needs a complete total makeover - and I speak as someone whose wife works in the Public Sector.

The WASTE is unbelievable - both in terms of people/management (some of whom do little/nothing - shown in the fact they are currently NOT working and nobody notices the difference) and also what is spent/wasted on physical equipment (Computers/IT etc.)

There are STILL some ridiculous pensions being dolled out - completely unsustainable.

It will never happen of course because the Civil Servants wouldn't allow the changes to be made. Turkeys and Christmas.

 

[blue-shifted]

I have no qualms in taxing them either but I am quite happy with doing it via IHT on their Estate when they pass away - Although I would be reducing the Exemptions levels down to no higher that say £100K max

I also have no qualms about property values being used to fund later life healthcare. I don't give them a free ride on this matter. You can receive the same end goal, without causing hardship.

IHT is pretty optional though isn't it

 

[NooBHA]

Except your solutions don't reel in the Ex-pats, the dodgy offshore trusts in the Seychelles or the Cayman Islands, or the obfustications of well paid lawyers and accountants such as those used by multi-national tax avoiders to make sure that tax doesn't get paid.

The house is there. It is on UK soil. The tax is £Xgbp per annum. Pay it, or lose the house. End of.

I cover that in a separate post above

 

[NooBHA]

IHT is pretty optional though isn't it

In what way is it Optional ?

 

[Martlet]

Oh yes, don't you think this corporation tax percentage should be increased? It would be if the multinationals paid their share.

I disagree with you about the nice headlines as well. If we're going to ask people to pay more to pay off debts and rebuild the economy, which clearly we are, it's inconceivable that we could do this without finding ways to make the super-rich and Silicon Valley pay their share. It's not about any kind of class war. It's about a principle and it's about basic fairness.

It's a question of balance - there's no point making yourself so unattractive for major corporations to be based, that they relocate their HQs to Dublin or Paris, and all the income tax with them. I don't disagree that some of the structures look morally wrong, but Amazon employs 22,000 people in the UK, all of whom will be paying income tax on earnings and VAT on purchases.

Would we really want American Express to decide Brighton is a ridiculous place to have their European HQ? Because they would, if it became much cheaper to relocate...

 

[blue-shifted]

In what way is it Optional ?

I think one example has already been pointed out to you by another poster

Elderly people "giving" property away in the hope of living 7 years is pretty widespread.

Sticking things which contribute to it, like life assurance would be a big one, in trust.

There's a whole industry around minimising/eliminating IHT. You also have to remember that whilst there are rules in place to prevent gifting etc, they are widely flouted, often by convenience omissions on the relevant HMRC forms. Everyone knows the HMRC don't have the manpower to carry out checks.

 

[blue-shifted]

It's a question of balance - there's no point making yourself so unattractive for major corporations to be based, that they relocate their HQs to Dublin or Paris, and all the income tax with them. I don't disagree that some of the structures look morally wrong, but Amazon employs 22,000 people in the UK, all of whom will be paying income tax on earnings and VAT on purchases.

Would we really want American Express to decide Brighton is a ridiculous place to have their European HQ? Because they would, if it became much cheaper to relocate...

Countries need to work together. We need to be closer to supranational organisations for very reasons like these. At the moment it's all too easy for individual counties to be played off against each other. This means grown up politicians prepared to make a more complex argument to their people.

It's still completely unfair that Amazon et al can out-compete onshore companies who pay tax to their employees, VAT on products and corporation tax on profits (as well as town centre floor space etc)

 

[Martlet]

Countries need to work together. We need to be closer to supranational organisations for very reasons like these. At the moment it's all too easy for individual counties to be played off against each other. This means grown up politicians prepared to make a more complex argument to their people.

It's still completely unfair that Amazon et al can out-compete onshore companies who pay tax to their employees, VAT on products and corporation tax on profits (as well as town centre floor space etc)

Yep, but then we voted for Brexit....

 

[rippleman]

I've always been paye so i've no idea why individuals would do this other than avoid a tax of some kind.

I was reading an article about Laura Whitmore, and apparently she has no idea how much she is paid, she was quoted as saying ' To be honest, I don’t actually know (how much she earned last year). Money goes into my limited company and I pay myself from there.'

Im sure many do it but why would you set up a company that gets paid on the work you do only to then pay yourself from the said company, shirly it's a form of tax dodge is it not ? Thanks

Well....the use of personal service companies mainly came about because of the tax burden that was being placed on corporations and the tax advantages those companies had.

Today the rate of Corporation Tax is (for most companies) 19%. So a company making a profit of £100K would pay £19K in tax.

If that business had been a sole trader making the same level of profit, tax would be £27,500 PLUS National Insurance of >£4.5K

Hope I have demonstrated why business have set up Personal Services Companies! It is all down to successive governments favouring the big corporates over individuals.

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue" [Lord Clyde Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] ]

 

[beorhthelm]

Countries need to work together. We need to be closer to supranational organisations for very reasons like these. At the moment it's all too easy for individual counties to be played off against each other. This means grown up politicians prepared to make a more complex argument to their people.

It's still completely unfair that Amazon et al can out-compete onshore companies who pay tax to their employees, VAT on products and corporation tax on profits (as well as town centre floor space etc)

i find a great irony to this post (and the reponse), it was supranational organisations that allowed Amazon and others to avoid UK VAT in the first place. thats in the past though, rules changed and most goods are shipped out UK so VAT (and employment taxes) is paid at UK rates now.

 

[blue-shifted]

i find a great irony to this post (and the reponse), it was supranational organisations that allowed Amazon and others to avoid UK VAT in the first place. thats in the past though, rules changed and most goods are shipped out UK so VAT (and employment taxes) is paid at UK rates now.

Well yes, what's past is past and now entirely irrelevant, but thanks for the history lesson.

What matters is how we rebuild our public finances now so that everyone pays a fair amount. Going back to how things were before won't be an option, the poor and middling don't have enough money to pay back this colossal debt and everything the state did before is now going to be vastly more expensive and inefficient whilst there is any sort of social distancing in place.

 

[Stat Brother]

Would be nice if the likes of Amazon, Starbucks, Google, Vodaphone etc were compelled to pay their fair share of tax on UK profits.

Not going to happen, obvs, so the burden will fall on those of us lucky enough to still be in jobs and our children thereafter.

You never know, they might join humanity

[tweet]1260684991274442752[/tweet]



Oh.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Well, London bridge wasn't in Sussex last time i looked.

My point was, a lot of northern areas complain about the investment per head in the south east when what they really mean is London. Take London spending out of the calculation and I doubt there is much difference between us and the North.

And their road network, especially the motorway network, is far more extensive that our tiny number of motorway miles.

Having lived up North for 28 years, and as a regular visitor to Brighton, I completely agree with the jist. The rail / bus / tram / road network up here pisses all over the shambles that you guys have to endure. Leeds, Manchester and even the moneyed backwaters of North Yorkshire are similarly decent for the most part.

But, as I said, I've not heard one Northerner whining about transport links and wanting HS2. It's a total fallacy.

Plenty of them justifiably complaining that London is basically a separate state with the laws of the country applied to suit. But then that's true.