[ess]

Everyone pays a different rate of tax. If people at the bottom pay less why shouldn't people at the top pay more?

[chrysostom]

You should read the thread for some of the counter arguments to your point, rather than making the same point again and again as if nobody has replied to your original opinion. Otherwise it just goes round in circles.

[ess]

I think my opinion of this was forged from seeing my dad work 2 jobs (a day and a night) and overall getting taxed around 45%, even though he worked incredibly hard in a deserving field (no farmer jokes please).

Not even if you earn over 200'000 a year would you get taxed overall at 45%!

[MK Chris]

Toph, I think that being forced to pay a higher proportion of your income to benefit society than everyone else just because people think you can do without the money is immoral. Make the 40% tax voluntary and I think you'll see the true morality of society as a whole (there would always be good people like Batman's parents who want to do the right thing).

I think my opinion of this was forged from seeing my dad work 2 jobs (a day and a night) and overall getting taxed around 45%, even though he worked incredibly hard in a deserving field (no farmer jokes please).

I think we shall have to agree to disagree. I understand where you're coming from, it's just my view is slightly (quite a bit) to the left of yours! Your dad wouldn't have been taxed 45% on the full amount though (I know you know this - just pointing it out for others).

An interesting one about fraud. My friend who is a teaching assistant was paid over the summer months, as were her colleagues - but her contract meant she wasn't due to be paid during that time (which she didn't know), but her colleagues were. She was made to pay all the excess back and (whilst being very annoyed) understood she had to. But had to work out a payment plan.

Whereas my mum - who also works for a school (sorry, 'academy') has relatively recently discovered that since she started, she hasn't been paid for the full day - every day they have missed off a (albeit small) portion of the day over a couple of years - it adds up. She asked the school to repay it, they refused. She is not pursuing it because she doesn't want to upset the apple cart and is worried about how much hell they could potentially make her life if she did pursue it.

[The Deadly]

On a different note I'm annoyed that Chris isn't making a statement on the issue. It's not going to go away until he provides some information directly.

[chrysostom]

Not even if you earn over 200'000 a year would you get taxed overall at 45%!

You're right, it would be 43.8% with one job (inc. national insurance contributions) - but the second job wouldn't include the untaxable allowance - so would probably bump it up a tiny bit . Unfortunately I didn't do my dad's accounts so just had to go on anecdotal things I heard. Working it out now, based on how much I think he earned and the tax codes associated with having 2 jobs, as well as excess NIC contributions - he would have only kept 61.5% of his overall salary, while he worked 16 hour days, whereas I keep 80.1% of my salary while working 9 hour days.

She asked the school to repay it, they refused. She is not pursuing it because she doesn't want to upset the apple cart and is worried about how much hell they could potentially make her life if she did pursue it.

That's really outrageous that they refused - especially considering that she's a permanent employee and her employers know she's been short changed.

[Badger Mark]

On a different note I'm annoyed that Chris isn't making a statement on the issue. It's not going to go away until he provides some information directly.

Maybe he's been advised by his lawyer not to? I think you're right though - I think he should make some kind of statement. Back when Jimmy Carr was going through this (is he still going through it?) I had thought Chris might make SOME mention of it. Maybe this is why he never did.

[The Deadly]

On a different note I'm annoyed that Chris isn't making a statement on the issue. It's not going to go away until he provides some information directly.

Maybe he's been advised by his lawyer not to? I think you're right though - I think he should make some kind of statement. Back when Jimmy Carr was going through this (is he still going through it?) I had thought Chris might make SOME mention of it. Maybe this is why he never did.

When Jimmy's tax avoidance came to light he confronted it and apologised. He did his tv show as normal and got the piss taken out of him for 45 minutes about it. It's hardly ever mentioned now.

[neilt0]

When Jimmy's tax avoidance came to light he confronted it and apologised. He did his tv show as normal and got the piss taken out of him for 45 minutes about it. It's hardly ever mentioned now.

It's called "getting in front of the problem" in the PR world, and it's the only way to do things nowadays IMO.

You can't just "ignore it and hope it goes away". Nothing goes away.

[Yudster]

There should be a differential in the rate at which people pay tax, determined by their income. This much I am sure of. I do not however believe that this should, or needs to be, disproportionately detrimental to the people described by Boboff and Chrysostom - ie the people with scarce skills, high responsibilities etc. There definitely is a means to achieve a system which is fair and reasonable for all, I'm confident of that even if I am not clever enough to be able to devise it myself.

However, even if we did have a system which was fair in everyone's eyes, there would still be people trying to cheat it - and more of them would be the high-end earners than the toilet cleaners. I fear that's just life.

Its interesting in this thread - on the one hand you have Deadly maintaining with aggressive vigour that if he had the means and opportunity he would shaft anyone and everyone if it meant he could put more money in his pocket. At the other end we have ess declaring that s/he would never consider doing any such thing and coming across equally agressively. Deadly looks like a complete bastard and ess looks like a self righteous prig - I'm sure neither of those things is actually true.

I think - like Topher - that if I was lucky enough to be in a position to consider a scheme like this, I wouldn't do so. I think - again like Topher - that having slogged my guts out for most of my life for relatively little material reward (cue violins - sorry but you know what I mean) if I did find myself wealthy, I would be revelling in that rather than trying to find ways of getting wealthier. But that would probably be a direct result of having gone from one to the other fairly abruptly (which it would have to be for me - there's not enough time left for it to be gradual!). If I had been in that top earning bracket my whole life, if I had always been wealthy and wealthy was normal for me, I can understand how I might look at ways to get wealthier.

Bottom line - neither Deadly nor ess is making me want to be like them.

[The Deadly]

I must stress I wouldn't sell my own mother to make a quick buck. I meant more in a business sense. Dodgy stock dealings, loopholes, conning people etc. Purely in a business sense not personal life.

[MDarlin]

I just want him back on the radio!!!!!!!

[Boboff]

Well I think I have the answer to all your issues.

You are confusing what you get paid, and what you have, and what you can afford to spend each month with these people.

There comes a point when what you earn is not just simply "wages" I know bear with me.

Money changes from being a means to and end, to a means in itself.

Most of these schemes deal with "hammy Hamstering" away blocks of cash without paying cash tax dollars man.

The way the system works really is that when this money does eventually have to get spent, then we do get our tax back anyway, either through taxation of unearned income or pensions, plus then they spend it on cars etc which have VAT and duty applied to them.

These schemes are just like really exclusively, possibly illegal ISA products from clever twat accountant lawyers at the post office.

When you do earn more than you possibly want to spend, it gets boring, and screwing a few quid off of the Dope Smoking, baby making, Kyle watching, white cider drinking scrounging ass holes may actually give a small semblance of hope, especially as most of these people have paid more tax during the year in question than you useless 9 - 5 ers who wouldn't know a business opportunity if it came up and smacked you in the face with a wet hamster. (opinions expressed not those of the author)

[ess]

He is probably being quiet as it’s more complex than the Carr tax avoidance as he could be in breach of an active contract with the BBC.

To be taxed at a total rate of around 40% you would still have to earn about 150k and be in the very top earners of the country. You are taxed on your total income regardless of how many jobs / hours you do. If someone overpays tax it is up to them to claim a rebate.

I said that I would not participate in a grey scheme that is set up purely to avoid tax as I feel everyone in society should pay a fair amount of tax and I have some mortals. As the BBC press office stated using these schemes does not pay an appropriate rate of tax. If wanting everyone to pay a fair amount of tax is ‘self-righteous’, that reflects very badly on society imo. Calling people that avoid paying a fair amount of tax 'leaches' and 'bottom feeders' is certainly not pleasant but that doesn't make any less accurate. I venomously disagree that just because something is (currently) legal it would be 'ridiculous' not to take advantage of it.

[Sidders]

An interesting one about fraud. My friend who is a teaching assistant was paid over the summer months, as were her colleagues - but her contract meant she wasn't due to be paid during that time (which she didn't know), but her colleagues were. She was made to pay all the excess back and (whilst being very annoyed) understood she had to. But had to work out a payment plan.

Are you sure that's right? Because normally when you work in a school, you still do get paid during the summer months. If you're only entitled to 40 weeks a year they'll normally average it out over 12 months. I've never known a school not do it like this.

I always hate it when people ask me 'do you still get paid during the summer holidays?' I always answer yes, because technically I do. The question should be, 'do you get paid for the summer holidays?' Then my answer would be no.

[Boboff]

Ess the whole thing comes down to what you might consider to be fair.

The BBC is NOT whiter than white, as I said before most of it's high earners are contracted through a company, which based on the test of badges of trade IS NOT LEGAL.

[ess]

Yes your right different people have a different opinion of what is fair.

This is mine:

Anyone highly paid and paying any less than 32% tax on the higher portion of their earnings is not paying a fair amount of tax imo.

32% is the minimum that anyone earning over £8'150 on PAYE is paying on earnings over £8'150. Tax year 2012/13 -20% Tax & 12% NI.

People on these schemes are paying rates like 1% on their higher earnings, over 30 times less than the average person on the lowest wage in full time employment. This is immoral.

[a-moron]

My opinion -

Ess is boring the * out of me with this now.
Same shit, different day.
Imo you understand.

[Boboff]

But your lack of intelligence and short attention span shouldn't really effect the grown up debate we are having so * off, ya prick.

IMO I understand

[SAV1OUR]

BOOOM.

[a-moron]

But your lack of intelligence and short attention span shouldn't really effect the grown up debate we are having so * off, ya prick.

IMO I understand

Now, now bobblehead. Personal insults and all that bollocks. I do have some degree of intelligence and have found most of the debate interesting. My point was purely to acknowledge ess' contribution in said debate was now becoming repetitive.

What the * it's got to do with you, however, is confusing me.

[chrysostom]

Ess keeps on reiterating his point that people who earn more deserve to have more money taken away from them by saying that's his morality -a very easy morality to have if you're not a high earner (I'm just assuming here ess - feel free to correct me). Ess also offers unrelated stats as his rationale, and then banging on that paying 1% tax is immoral (which noone has disputed once).

I'm glad I started this thread. It's definitely not going round in circles.

[The Deadly]

Is it a confirmed fact that Chris is in breach of contract by investing in a tax avoidance scheme? Ess has said it about 3 times now and it's an important thing if indeed true.

[chrysostom]

Nope. Nothing has been disclosed about amounts of, or the source of the money.

[pajo_burke]

Here's a point - I'm from Ireland and we are being taxed up to our arses because of the bankers * up and the austerity package our government has agreed with those pricks in europe. I'm basically working for nothing at the end of each month and there is no end in sight. Why would you want to give those * in government money when they dont even help the ordinary man and let the banks away with everything?

If I could "avoid" paying tax, I certainly would. Fair play Moyles!!!