|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2024 9:17:35 GMT
Yes they should have done that. But it won’t raise as much as the NI increase. So what would you have done to raise the £25bn instead? increase tax on dividends for a start - people running business pay themselves £12750 a year so they only pay 8.75% on their true income, if your income is dividends id take the tax allowance off them also close every other fucking tax loophole you can find and do more to collect this money - theres over 30 billion missing and the tories should have done more www.taxwatchuk.org/hmrc-tax-gap-2023/ but labour have been saying they will collect this money for years "Individuals classed by HMRC as wealthy – which covers around 800,000 people – are responsible for around 5% of the tax gap, while all other individuals combined are only responsible for around 6% of the gap. While wealthy taxpayers are dealt with by specialist teams and have a much greater level of scrutiny, it seems apparent that more could be done with this group of taxpayers to increase compliance. It’s also assumed that this group will be more likely to feature in the offshore tax gap, which is to be measured separately (see above), so the 5% figure may actually be an underestimate of their share of the tax gap." 5% of 35 billion is a start Error and carelessness account for around 45% of the tax gap, indicating that other, more serious, behaviours are involved for over 50% of the gap – a sum of nearly £20bn. Our whole tax system needs to be reformed to ensure its fair, progressive and unavoidable I agree with all of that. But closing loopholes for IHT for agricultural land, for non-doms and for VAT on private school fees has led to lots of criticism of Starmer. He can’t win it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 26, 2024 10:00:30 GMT
increase tax on dividends for a start - people running business pay themselves £12750 a year so they only pay 8.75% on their true income, if your income is dividends id take the tax allowance off them also
close every other fucking tax loophole you can find and do more to collect this money - theres over 30 billion missing and the tories should have done more www.taxwatchuk.org/hmrc-tax-gap-2023/ but labour have been saying they will collect this money for years "Individuals classed by HMRC as wealthy – which covers around 800,000 people – are responsible for around 5% of the tax gap, while all other individuals combined are only responsible for around 6% of the gap. While wealthy taxpayers are dealt with by specialist teams and have a much greater level of scrutiny, it seems apparent that more could be done with this group of taxpayers to increase compliance. It’s also assumed that this group will be more likely to feature in the offshore tax gap, which is to be measured separately (see above), so the 5% figure may actually be an underestimate of their share of the tax gap." 5% of 35 billion is a start Error and carelessness account for around 45% of the tax gap, indicating that other, more serious, behaviours are involved for over 50% of the gap – a sum of nearly £20bn. It's not that basic. Yes it's the tax effecient way of being paid because of the Employers NI charge but that 8.75% dividend tax rate you're not happy with is coming out of profits that have already had 19%/25% corporation tax charged on them. So no the buiness owner is not only paying 8.75 Tax rate overall, but it does still work out slightly less than being paid fully via PAYE. There really isn't much in it these days. I'd even hazard a guess that from next April small businesses will be better off not being limited anymore, especially when the added accountancy cost is taken into account. Our whole tax system needs to be reformed to ensure its fair, progressive and unavoidable |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 26, 2024 10:01:29 GMT
increase tax on dividends for a start - people running business pay themselves £12750 a year so they only pay 8.75% on their true income, if your income is dividends id take the tax allowance off them also close every other fucking tax loophole you can find and do more to collect this money - theres over 30 billion missing and the tories should have done more www.taxwatchuk.org/hmrc-tax-gap-2023/ but labour have been saying they will collect this money for years "Individuals classed by HMRC as wealthy – which covers around 800,000 people – are responsible for around 5% of the tax gap, while all other individuals combined are only responsible for around 6% of the gap. While wealthy taxpayers are dealt with by specialist teams and have a much greater level of scrutiny, it seems apparent that more could be done with this group of taxpayers to increase compliance. It’s also assumed that this group will be more likely to feature in the offshore tax gap, which is to be measured separately (see above), so the 5% figure may actually be an underestimate of their share of the tax gap." 5% of 35 billion is a start Error and carelessness account for around 45% of the tax gap, indicating that other, more serious, behaviours are involved for over 50% of the gap – a sum of nearly £20bn. Our whole tax system needs to be reformed to ensure its fair, progressive and unavoidable if there are so many loopholes to avoid IHT it suggests IHT isnt fit for purpose and there was no need to change the policy like i said, overhaul and modernise the system, close the loopholes and some of those may not even need to exist |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2024 10:28:11 GMT
I agree with all of that. But closing loopholes for IHT for agricultural land, for non-doms and for VAT on private school fees has led to lots of criticism of Starmer. He can’t win it seems. if there are so many loopholes to avoid IHT it suggests IHT isnt fit for purpose and there was no need to change the policy like i said, overhaul and modernise the system, close the loopholes and some of those may not even need to exist So you want him to close loopholes, but when he does you are critical. Right. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 26, 2024 10:45:55 GMT
if there are so many loopholes to avoid IHT it suggests IHT isnt fit for purpose and there was no need to change the policy like i said, overhaul and modernise the system, close the loopholes and some of those may not even need to exist So you want him to close loopholes, but when he does you are critical. Right. again you take a small point out of contect changing IHT and explaining to people how they can use clever inheritance planning to avoid it suggests its not fit for purpose if our tax system was changed to close the loopholes that mainly the wealthy use and collect the revenue being avoided/evaded then other taxes could be massively reduced or binned. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 26, 2024 10:53:54 GMT
There are also deeper structural problems with the UK tax system. Wealth is desperately under-taxed. People who can take their earnings as capital gains pay significantly lower effective tax rates meaning that the average tax rate for someone earning £10m is just 21%, which is lower than the rate paid by an average worker. This entrenches inequality, stifles social mobility and undermines the life chances of those who do not have access to significant financial resources. taxjustice.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/tax_justice_uk_2022-24_strategy_-_published_version.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2024 10:55:14 GMT
So you want him to close loopholes, but when he does you are critical. Right. again you take a small point out of contect changing IHT and explaining to people how they can use clever inheritance planning to avoid it suggests its not fit for purpose if our tax system was changed to close the loopholes that mainly the wealthy use and collect the revenue being avoided/evaded then other taxes could be massively reduced or binned. Absolutely. And that is what Starmer has done to the loopholes for agricultural land, non-doms and VAT on school fees, yet he has been criticised for closing those loopholes. So he cannot win. Remember, to simplify our tax code, agricultural land would be treated like anything else. Subject to 40% IHT payable within 6 months. If he did that, imagine the backlash! |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 26, 2024 11:06:38 GMT
again you take a small point out of contect changing IHT and explaining to people how they can use clever inheritance planning to avoid it suggests its not fit for purpose if our tax system was changed to close the loopholes that mainly the wealthy use and collect the revenue being avoided/evaded then other taxes could be massively reduced or binned. Absolutely. And that is what Starmer has done to the loopholes for agricultural land, non-doms and VAT on school fees, yet he has been criticised for closing those loopholes. So he cannot win. Remember, to simplify our tax code, agricultural land would be treated like anything else. Subject to 40% IHT payable within 6 months. If he did that, imagine the backlash! if firms and the wealthy were paying fair and correct cgs and other taxes they could massively increase the thresholds for agriculture land meaning it would hit the massive landowners purchasing only to avoid IHT for the smaller farmers. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 26, 2024 11:24:38 GMT
Tax lawyers' at 97.5%. Afterall they: - Add nothing to the economy
- Shift peoples hard earned from (poorer) pockets to (wealthy) ones as the richest get the "best"
- Have the mobility to 'fuck off abroad' with the millionaire (pensioners) if they don't like it
Should raise a couple of billion in the first year. Sorted. |
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Nov 26, 2024 11:44:56 GMT
It's not that basic. Yes it's the tax effecient way of being paid because of the Employers NI charge but that 8.75% dividend tax rate you're not happy with is coming out of profits that have already had 19%/25% corporation tax charged on them. So no the buiness owner is not only paying 8.75 Tax rate overall, but it does still work out slightly less than being paid fully via PAYE. There really isn't much in it these days. I'd even hazard a guess that from next April small businesses will be better off not being limited anymore, especially when the added accountancy cost is taken into account. Our whole tax system needs to be reformed to ensure its fair, progressive and unavoidable It probably does I was just pointing out most loopholes have already been closed with regards Limited companies. For eg and this was a very rough calc I've done. If you want to have taxable earnings/profits of 120K a year As an employee it costs you £39,432.00 in Tax & NI (The sting is the £17,250 Employers NI but that's your bosses problem) As a Self employed person you'll pay £43,000 in Tax and NI As a limited company paying yourself 5k tax and NI free and the rest dividends would cost a total of £44,500 in Corp & Divi Tax. Get ready for an increase in IR35 problems. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2024 11:49:20 GMT
Tax lawyers' at 97.5%. Afterall they: - Add nothing to the economy
- Shift peoples hard earned from (poorer) pockets to (wealthy) ones as the richest get the "best"
- Have the mobility to 'fuck off abroad' with the millionaire (pensioners) if they don't like it
Should raise a couple of billion in the first year. Sorted. And instantly end law and order in the country. I still think there should be a Brexit tax where everyone who voted leave pays an extra 10% tax until reparations are fully paid up! |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2024 11:51:29 GMT
Absolutely. And that is what Starmer has done to the loopholes for agricultural land, non-doms and VAT on school fees, yet he has been criticised for closing those loopholes. So he cannot win. Remember, to simplify our tax code, agricultural land would be treated like anything else. Subject to 40% IHT payable within 6 months. If he did that, imagine the backlash! if firms and the wealthy were paying fair and correct cgs and other taxes they could massively increase the thresholds for agriculture land meaning it would hit the massive landowners purchasing only to avoid IHT for the smaller farmers. It isn’t just massive landowners. Farage owns £3m worth of agricultural and to avoid tax. And he is a man of the people remember! |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 26, 2024 12:00:49 GMT
I struggle to understand that we borrow to pay the interest on our national debt, but then we proceed to give money away to foreign countries or international entities, rather than tackling our own immediate issues to reduce the need to borrow in the first place and eventually pay the debt down. I'm sure I'm just being thick and Wannabee will explain it. In 1970 it was adopted as a UN Resolution that Developed Countries would work towards contributing 0.7% of Gross National Income GNI in Overseas Development Aid ODA to support low and middle income Countries It was actually signed into UK Law in 2015 but there is a get-out clause as it was only a target Only Norway, Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg and Denmark ever reach and exceed the target but to be fair UK gets closer than most. In 2023/24 the UK ODA Budget was £15.37bn or 0.58% of GNI. For 2024/25 Reeves reduced the ODA Budget to £13.3bn and for 2025/26 to £13.7Bn which is forecasted to be 0.5% of GNI Like most things with Government there's a catch and a sleight of hand, approximately one-third of ODA Budget is currently being spent in UK on Asylum Seekers and Ukrainians. So we hear/read in the Media about hotels costs for Asylum Seekers and the Gross ODA Budget but nobody ever puts it together. Those are the nuts and bolts of the rationale it's up to each person to decide whether UK should be part or not This link from OECD gives more detail on contributions and purpose www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/official-development-assistance-oda.html |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 26, 2024 12:38:39 GMT
I struggle to understand that we borrow to pay the interest on our national debt, but then we proceed to give money away to foreign countries or international entities, rather than tackling our own immediate issues to reduce the need to borrow in the first place and eventually pay the debt down. I'm sure I'm just being thick and Wannabee will explain it. In 1970 it was adopted as a UN Resolution that Developed Countries would work towards contributing 0.7% of Gross National Income GNI in Overseas Development Aid ODA to support low and middle income Countries It was actually signed into UK Law in 2015 but there is a get-out clause as it was only a target Only Norway, Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg and Denmark ever reach and exceed the target but to be fair UK gets closer than most. In 2023/24 the UK ODA Budget was £15.37bn or 0.58% of GNI. For 2024/25 Reeves reduced the ODA Budget to £13.3bn and for 2025/26 to £13.7Bn which is forecasted to be 0.5% of GNI Like most things with Government there's a catch and a sleight of hand, approximately one-third of ODA Budget is currently being spent in UK on Asylum Seekers and Ukrainians. So we hear/read in the Media about hotels costs for Asylum Seekers and the Gross ODA Budget but nobody ever puts it together. Those are the nuts and bolts of the rationale it's up to each person to decide whether UK should be part or not This link from OECD gives more detail on contributions and purpose www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/official-development-assistance-oda.htmlI'm still voting Felonious for most intelligent poster. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 26, 2024 12:53:26 GMT
The whole subject of overseas aid is complex and a minefield. Much aid has strings attached. This may be be "good" such as conditional on improving human rights, but it is also often conditional on money being spent on products from the doner. In other words the aid is coming back to the donor, and not truly giving. The last figures I saw are old and the average tied aid was c.15%, but this is a range from many countries having no ties, and other a very high proportion. Or aid may be just to court influence : www.dw.com/en/how-unconditional-is-chinas-foreign-aid/a-43499703I'm given to understand all UK aid is unconditional but I may be wrong or out of date as the pandemic has turned the world upside down. Some aid is long term commitments so some posters will sorry to read that the UK still gives aid to China and India. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 26, 2024 13:34:24 GMT
if firms and the wealthy were paying fair and correct cgs and other taxes they could massively increase the thresholds for agriculture land meaning it would hit the massive landowners purchasing only to avoid IHT for the smaller farmers. It isn’t just massive landowners. Farage owns £3m worth of agricultural and to avoid tax. And he is a man of the people remember! im not a farage sycophant but can you send me the link to all that, google just brings up twitter posts no real reports |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 26, 2024 13:34:44 GMT
Tax lawyers' at 97.5%. Afterall they: - Add nothing to the economy
- Shift peoples hard earned from (poorer) pockets to (wealthy) ones as the richest get the "best"
- Have the mobility to 'fuck off abroad' with the millionaire (pensioners) if they don't like it
Should raise a couple of billion in the first year. Sorted. And instantly end law and order in the country. I still think there should be a Brexit tax where everyone who voted leave pays an extra 10% tax until reparations are fully paid up! In England & Wales Outstanding payments to the EU (0.6%) of PAYE is already collected. Must be a hell of a contribution on a 6 figure salary mind. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 26, 2024 13:54:18 GMT
So you want him to close loopholes, but when he does you are critical. Right. again you take a small point out of contect changing IHT and explaining to people how they can use clever inheritance planning to avoid it suggests its not fit for purpose if our tax system was changed to close the loopholes that mainly the wealthy use and collect the revenue being avoided/evaded then other taxes could be massively reduced or binned. It's just plain silly to describe them as loopholes they are, cough, Political Choices In 1984 Thatcher/Major decided that Inherited Farmland would pay no Tax no matter how valuable. Which voting Bloc do you think this benefitted? In 2015 Caneron/Osborne decided to create a special allowance of £175K per parent in addition to the £325K general allowance so that they could hoover up more votes the Family Home of up to £1M could be passed on Tax Free. Which voting Bloc do you think this benefitted? Business Property Relief BPR on inheritance of a business has been in place for decades and is currently £1M Tax Free Starmer/Reeves have introduced an Agricultural Property Relief APR of £1M to align with BPR. The additional concession to Farmers is that if the total Allowances available which can be up to £3M the Tax Rate is 20% not 40%. The introduction of APR is to create an equality but not to penalise the average working farmer who can pass Farmland to the next generation. So APR is to close a loophole and treat Tax payers equally which you have been calling for. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 26, 2024 16:17:38 GMT
In 1970 it was adopted as a UN Resolution that Developed Countries would work towards contributing 0.7% of Gross National Income GNI in Overseas Development Aid ODA to support low and middle income Countries It was actually signed into UK Law in 2015 but there is a get-out clause as it was only a target Only Norway, Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg and Denmark ever reach and exceed the target but to be fair UK gets closer than most. In 2023/24 the UK ODA Budget was £15.37bn or 0.58% of GNI. For 2024/25 Reeves reduced the ODA Budget to £13.3bn and for 2025/26 to £13.7Bn which is forecasted to be 0.5% of GNI Like most things with Government there's a catch and a sleight of hand, approximately one-third of ODA Budget is currently being spent in UK on Asylum Seekers and Ukrainians. So we hear/read in the Media about hotels costs for Asylum Seekers and the Gross ODA Budget but nobody ever puts it together. Those are the nuts and bolts of the rationale it's up to each person to decide whether UK should be part or not This link from OECD gives more detail on contributions and purpose www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/official-development-assistance-oda.htmlI'm still voting Felonious for most intelligent poster. But he's not posted for 6 months. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 26, 2024 16:53:49 GMT
It isn’t just massive landowners. Farage owns £3m worth of agricultural and to avoid tax. And he is a man of the people remember! im not a farage sycophant but can you send me the link to all that, google just brings up twitter posts no real reports If Farage isn't a Landowner he should consider it as he has an inexhaustible supply of Bullshit to spread. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 26, 2024 17:02:25 GMT
I'm still voting Felonious for most intelligent poster. But he's not posted for 6 months. And that's why he's the most intelligent poster registered on here. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 26, 2024 18:07:17 GMT
In 1970 it was adopted as a UN Resolution that Developed Countries would work towards contributing 0.7% of Gross National Income GNI in Overseas Development Aid ODA to support low and middle income Countries It was actually signed into UK Law in 2015 but there is a get-out clause as it was only a target Only Norway, Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg and Denmark ever reach and exceed the target but to be fair UK gets closer than most. In 2023/24 the UK ODA Budget was £15.37bn or 0.58% of GNI. For 2024/25 Reeves reduced the ODA Budget to £13.3bn and for 2025/26 to £13.7Bn which is forecasted to be 0.5% of GNI Like most things with Government there's a catch and a sleight of hand, approximately one-third of ODA Budget is currently being spent in UK on Asylum Seekers and Ukrainians. So we hear/read in the Media about hotels costs for Asylum Seekers and the Gross ODA Budget but nobody ever puts it together. Those are the nuts and bolts of the rationale it's up to each person to decide whether UK should be part or not This link from OECD gives more detail on contributions and purpose www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/official-development-assistance-oda.htmlI'm still voting Felonious for most intelligent poster. After reading that I’m absolutely certain my reply to your question was more nuanced and of course factual |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 26, 2024 18:11:25 GMT
I'm still voting Felonious for most intelligent poster. After reading that I’m absolutely certain my reply to your question was more nuanced and of course factual Thank you, you're most discerning. I don't believe everything they say about you. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 26, 2024 18:11:59 GMT
After reading that I’m absolutely certain my reply to your question was more nuanced and of course factual Thank you, you're most discerning. I don't believe everything they say about you. Neither do I |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 26, 2024 22:12:12 GMT
|
|
