[Boboff]

Ehh?

Get a living wage tax free and then tax all income at a flat rate above this.

If you earn say £40k a year on Paye then with Tax and NI you pay 37% "tax"

If you earn £400k a year on PAYE you pay 37% on the first 40k, then some at 40% then some at 45%.

Scenario 1 you pay 18k in tax, scenario 2 £190,000, and you think that they should pay more than this?

High earners may be able to afford it, but why the * should they have to pay it? It's their bloody money, not yours, mine or anyone else's

That whole working hard shite is bollocks too Topher, what about qualifications, risk, talent, ability, anyone can scrub a * Toilet, but you try strategic planning in a Global market place, whilst recruiting the best new talent, motivating a team of 1000's, reading financial data, networking with customers, suppliers, funding institutions, politicians etc etc These people have been promoted to these positions, which means they have had to work hard, and produce RESULTS, they don't get those jobs without a proven track record. Setting the bar at the Lowest common denominator just DOES NOT WORK.

[dimtimjim]

Ehh?

Get a living wage tax free and then tax all income at a flat rate above this.

If you earn say £40k a year on Paye then with Tax and NI you pay 37% "tax"

If you earn £400k a year on PAYE you pay 37% on the first 40k, then some at 40% then some at 45%.

Scenario 1 you pay 18k in tax, scenario 2 £190,000, and you think that they should pay more than this?

High earners may be able to afford it, but why the * should they have to pay it? It's their bloody money, not yours, mine or anyone else's

That whole working hard shite is bollocks too Topher, what about qualifications, risk, talent, ability, anyone can scrub a * Toilet, but you try strategic planning in a Global market place, whilst recruiting the best new talent, motivating a team of 1000's, reading financial data, networking with customers, suppliers, funding institutions, politicians etc etc These people have been promoted to these positions, which means they have had to work hard, and produce RESULTS, they don't get those jobs without a proven track record. Setting the bar at the Lowest common denominator just DOES NOT WORK.

+1. I know Neil provided a lovely graph to show the negative impact of a flat rate tax, but that doesn't take into account all these people/companies which avoid paying tax (pretty much altogether) due to the fact they are suddenly expected to hand over HALF of every £1 they earn, which to me is jus' wrong. As Bob points out, if you have managed to elevate yourself to the point wherby you do earn £______ (fill in the blank with a big figure) why should you be penalised! I really mean no offence to those who do clean toilets for a living, but "Shoulda tried harder at school" does spring to mind... (yes, I know thats a sweeping statement, but it ain't far off).

[voiceofreason]

This pretty much ends any realistic chance of Moyles returning to Radio One. The BBC won't want to go anywhere near him when he's attracting this amount of negative publicity,especially when the BBC are in as much trouble as they are right now over the Savile thing. Personally I didn't think there was much chance of him coming back anyway. He doesn't really fit in anymore and I'd be amazed if he even wanted to work for them anymore with all the changes going on

[The Deadly]

This pretty much ends any realistic chance of Moyles returning to Radio One. The BBC won't want to go anywhere near him when he's attracting this amount of negative publicity,especially when the BBC are in as much trouble as they are right now over the Savile thing. Personally I didn't think there was much chance of him coming back anyway. He doesn't really fit in anymore and I'd be amazed if he even wanted to work for them anymore with all the changes going on

Chris hasn't done anything illegal and with the Savile abuse case in full swing now would be the ideal time to brush this under the carpet.

Chris does look like an idiot for trying to block the story from coming out. I have no issue with avoiding tax but if you wish to do that then be prepared to take the flak. He or anyone else who goes down the tax avoidance road should be transparent with the public.

[R94N]

(yes, I know thats a sweeping statement, but it ain't far off).

Cleaning pun detected!

[ess]

Chris hasn't done anything illegal and with the Savile abuse case in full swing now would be the ideal time to brush this under the carpet.

Chris does look like an idiot for trying to block the story from coming out. I have no issue with avoiding tax but if you wish to do that then be prepared to take the flak. He or anyone else who goes down the tax avoidance road should be transparent with the public.

He has broken his BBC contract if he put any of his BBC earnings into tax avoidance schemes.

Why do so many people not have an issue with highly paid people paying rates like 1% tax while the plebes pay 20-30%?

Good on Dave for disliking greedy bottom feeders.

[chrysostom]

High earners may be able to afford it, but why the * should they have to pay it? It's their bloody money, not yours, mine or anyone else's

That whole working hard shite is bollocks too Topher, what about qualifications, risk, talent, ability, anyone can scrub a * Toilet, but you try strategic planning in a Global market place, whilst recruiting the best new talent, motivating a team of 1000's, reading financial data, networking with customers, suppliers, funding institutions, politicians etc etc These people have been promoted to these positions, which means they have had to work hard, and produce RESULTS, they don't get those jobs without a proven track record. Setting the bar at the Lowest common denominator just DOES NOT WORK.

Boboff has summed up exactly how I feel about this. Wages shouldn't be determined just by how hard you work - high earners are usually either workers with scarce skill sets, qualifications, in niche areas or entrepreneurial. In short, they've probably planned their lives a lot better than most. If that's due to a better off upbringing, or good parenting or just luck - it's still the case.

As a low income earner, I could probably live on a slightly lower wage, but that doesn't mean I feel that I should - it all just seems a bit 'steal from the rich because their success means they deserve to lose their money'.

He has broken his BBC contract if he put any of his BBC earnings into tax avoidance schemes.

ess - the master of Daily Mail spin.

If he put any of his BBC earnings into tax avoidance schemes, then he will have broken his BBC contract .

Much less weighted.

[The Deadly]

Chris hasn't done anything illegal and with the Savile abuse case in full swing now would be the ideal time to brush this under the carpet.

Chris does look like an idiot for trying to block the story from coming out. I have no issue with avoiding tax but if you wish to do that then be prepared to take the flak. He or anyone else who goes down the tax avoidance road should be transparent with the public.

He has broken his BBC contract if he put any of his BBC earnings into tax avoidance schemes.

Why do so many people not have an issue with highly paid people paying rates like 1% tax while the plebes pay 20-30%?

Good on Dave for disliking greedy bottom feeders.

I don't have an issue with it because I'd do exactly the same thing. You would too and if you say otherwise you are a bloody liar.

[ess]

I don't have an issue with it because I'd do exactly the same thing. You would too and if you say otherwise you are a bloody liar.

Some people have morals and would not like to be a leech on society.

[dimtimjim]

^^!!!!!!!

Treading on thin ice there Ess.

[The Deadly]

I don't have an issue with it because I'd do exactly the same thing. You would too and if you say otherwise you are a bloody liar.

Some people have morals and would not like to be a leech on society.

Oh well done you! Make sure you tie your white horse up properly when you dismount.

[chrysostom]

Some people have morals and would not like to be a leech on society.

But an overwhelming proportion of people don't. Well at least not to the extent that you're asserting.

[Chris]

I don't have an issue with it because I'd do exactly the same thing. You would too and if you say otherwise you are a bloody liar.

There is (slight) risk to these tax schemes due to how they are managed and executed, and so it's not as simple as 'do you want to pay less money'. Everyone would like to earn more - that I'd agree with ... however I don't think you can generalise and say that everyone wouldn't be prepared to pay standard tax on those earnings. I think you'll actually find that most people DO.

If someone received a £500K pay-rise then I don't think the first thing on everyone's mind would be to rush to an accountant and find a way to pay less tax.

[ess]

I don't have an issue with it because I'd do exactly the same thing. You would too and if you say otherwise you are a bloody liar.

Some people have morals and would not like to be a leech on society.

Oh well done you! Make sure you tie your white horse up properly when you dismount.

Paying for services used, what a novel concept.

[dimtimjim]

As a low income earner, I could probably live on a slightly lower wage, but that doesn't mean I feel that I should - it all just seems a bit 'steal from the rich because their success means they deserve to lose their money'.

Exactly. I could live on less money, but I've worked damn hard to get to where I am today, so why the feck should I give up more of my hard earned?!! Some of my friends earn over £50,000, some of them earn just under £20,000. And as an outsider who knows their past, I can say its directly related to what they have done over the last 10/15 years. the higher earners made more sacrifices in their younger years (like, sitting at home studying instead of drinking Cider on the park or going to Uni instead of dropping out of school first chance they got) and I believe they shouldn't be penalised for the efforts they made.

[ess]

As a low income earner, I could probably live on a slightly lower wage, but that doesn't mean I feel that I should - it all just seems a bit 'steal from the rich because their success means they deserve to lose their money'.

Exactly. I could live on less money, but I've worked damn hard to get to where I am today, so why the feck should I give up more of my hard earned?!! Some of my friends earn over £50,000, some of them earn just under £20,000. And as an outsider who knows their past, I can say its directly related to what they have done over the last 10/15 years. the higher earners made more sacrifices in their younger years (like, sitting at home studying instead of drinking Cider on the park or going to Uni instead of dropping out of school first chance they got) and I believe they shouldn't be penalised for the efforts they made.

Sure the system could do with some improvements but I don't think its that bad.

Earn 20k pay 19% tax and take home 1'344 a month.
Earn 50k pay 28% tax and take home 2'982 a month.

I think its right that people are taxed nothing on the first 8'000 a year, a flat rate tax should not apply to low earners.

But even if you think the tax amount is too high, I don't think this ever justifies paying a minimal amount like 1%.

[chrysostom]

But even if you think the tax amount is too high, I don't think this ever justifies paying a minimal amount like 1%.

Surely that's an over simplification of the whole matter, designed to put people in a position where they have to agree with you.

Especially bizarre as noone has argued that specific point

[dimtimjim]

I think its right that people are taxed nothing on the first 8'000 a year, a flat rate tax should not apply to low earners.

Sorry for not being more specific, yes I agree the first few thou should be tax free. Our eldest daughter has a saturday job which earns her £22 per week. Which to her, is loads. I'd hate to think given she only earns around £1,000 per year that she'd also get taxed on that.

[ess]

But even if you think the tax amount is too high, I don't think this ever justifies paying a minimal amount like 1%.

Surely that's an over simplification of the whole matter, designed to put people in a position where they have to agree with you.

Especially bizarre as noone has argued that specific point

Ok I'll bite, it's not a simplification - people of these schemes do get away with paying normal tax on a small lump and 1% on the rest. Anyone supporting users of these schemes should be aware that they are likely to pay about 1% tax on the majority.

[DevilsDuck]

I don’t think anyone thinks its "right" to pay 1% tax, I think the point is...

Ess, if you could pay 1% tax and not be breaking the law...would you do it, not taking into account your exemplary morals, would you pay a huge amount of tax if you didn’t have to?

[ess]

I don' t think i would, similarly if i could steal from a shop and there is a good chance I would get away with it then i don't think I would.

Pensions and Benefits, NHS, Education, Defence, Police, Prisons, Roads and Railways all get funding from income tax.

Avoiding paying tax is pretty similar to fraudulently claiming benefits. One is not contributing one is taking when you shouldn't, from the same pot of money.

[DevilsDuck]

Stealing from a shop would be breaking the law. Fraudulently claiming benefits...is breaking the law.

Using a loophole(its not right), but it isnt breaking the law.

Thats the point...its not right, but its not against the law, its using the laws

So once again, would you pay a huge amount of tax if you didn’t have to?

[The Deadly]

I don' t think i would, similarly if i could steal from a shop and there is a good chance I would get away with it then i don't think I would.

Pensions and Benefits, NHS, Education, Defence, Police, Prisons, Roads and Railways all get funding from income tax.

Avoiding paying tax is pretty similar to fraudulently claiming benefits. One is not contributing one is taking when you shouldn't, from the same pot of money.

It's not theft. Theft is illegal and certain tax avoidance schemes are not. Your comparison is ridiculous.

Edit: young Mr Duck beat me to it. And he has a bigger penis than me.

[chrysostom]

Avoiding paying tax isn't similar to fraudulently claiming benefits. One is legal and one is illegal

Fundamentally, if Law doesn't dictate social morality - what's the point of it?

[dimtimjim]

And he has a bigger penis than me.

He doesn't. They don't call him 'little ducky' for nothing, y'know.

i know this 'cos I once tried to compliment him on his dong dimensions and he didn't take it well. think I hit a nerve...