[ess]

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.

Lol talk about being unable to read. I said people earning high amounts should be taxed at lease at the same rate on the higher portion of their income as people working full time on the min wage. If you stopped misinterpreting maybe I would stop repeating. Stats on tax are not relevant for a discussion on tax? haha. where is the ignore button, please do it back to me.

[ess]

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!!!

Emigrate or do something about the system if you don't like it.

[Boboff]

Taxing the rich has recently been very controversial.

The 50% additional rate, which affects the top slice of taxpayers who were already paying the higher rate, was introduced by the Labour government in 2010-11, as a temporary measure to raise more money in the aftermath of the recession.

However, in the Budget in March, the coalition's Chancellor George Osborne decided to cut the additional rate to 45% in the next tax year, 2013-14.

He argued that it had largely been a waste of time and effort and had not raised sufficient extra income for the Exchequer.

A few weeks later, he proclaimed himself to be "shocked" at HMRC evidence that some of the UK's wealthiest people were able to get away with paying little or no income tax at all, by arranging their affairs quite legally to avoid it.

He used this to justify another Budget decision, to limit the extent to which donations to charity - supposedly a favourite ploy of the tax-dodging rich - can be offset against their taxable incomes.

The additional rate itself applies to individuals whose taxable income is more than £150,000 a year.

HMRC figures show that 6,000 people are expected to be taxed on incomes of between £1m and £2m, with an average tax bill of £591,000 each.

Meanwhile, just 2,000 people will be taxed on incomes of more than £2m, with an average tax bill of £1.98m each.

Together, these highest paid individuals are expected to hand over income tax totalling £8.1bn.

Potentially there is more to be had.

The chancellor said the HMRC's research showed that the 20 biggest tax avoiders had legally reduced their income tax bills by a total of £145m in one year.

So most people who have to pay tax at the higher rate, the tax avoided was £145,000,000 out of £8,000,000,000 actually paid by the top earners, so an estimated legal avoidance of tax of less than 2% of the total tax due.

So Ess, drop the sig, as it's a non story mate.

[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!!!

Emigrate or do something about the system if you don't like it.

Emigrate, what an idea!!! Should I bring my child and ex-girlfriend with me?

[chrysostom]

I said people earning high amounts should be taxed at lease at the same rate on the higher portion of their income as people working full time on the min wage.

So people earning high amounts should pay the same rate of tax, as those working full time on the minimum wage.

I think I am misunderstanding, as surely that would be (at least) a flat rate of tax?

People working full time on minimum wage (£15k) pay 20% on their taxable income, so people who are high earners should pay at least 20% on the entirety of their taxable income?

I don't think anyone has disputed that on a moral or ethical level (again, I might be wrong so please feel free to show me what I've missed).

[Boboff]

Chrys.

Ess is extrapolating the very minor % or people who pay little or no tax, onto the total higher rate tax paying population.

Which is factually wrong and VERY VERY naive.

[ess]

Boboff you have it very wrong! Chyrs yes but the rate of tax is 20% income and 12% NI.

One last time.

3 people - earnings of 8k,15k and 100k.

8k - pays no tax.

15k - pays no tax on 8k and pays tax at 32% for 7k.

100k pays no tax on 8k and pays tax at 32% on 92k.

This is not how the system works, but is what i think is fair.

[DevilsDuck]

I think we should all pay 100% tax on £0

[bmstinton93]

I don't pay tax

[voiceofreason]

The funny thing is that Chris Moyles is oblivious to all this fuss about taxes.He's just having the time of his life on tour, partying with the Geordie Shore girls,and making lots more cash! (tax free or otherwise)

[Boboff]

Boboff you have it very wrong! Chyrs yes but the rate of tax is 20% income and 12% NI.

One last time.

3 people - earnings of 8k,15k and 100k.

8k - pays no tax.

15k - pays no tax on 8k and pays tax at 32% for 7k.

100k pays no tax on 8k and pays tax at 32% on 92k.

This is not how the system works, but is what i think is fair.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

Tax rates and allowances

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm

National Insurance rates

You will note Ess that if anything your "idea" is more generous to the higher tax payers than at the current time.

Once you get to 40k you don't pay anymore NI but you Tax goes from 20% to 40%, plus if you earn over £100k you loose the £8k tax free allowance as well.


In fairness though your idea is sound and I believe it in essence is the way we should go.

Personally though I would like to think that you get more like £12,500 tax free, abolish National Insurance then tax everything else at 40%, however earned, trouble is though that would make being a company with rates of 20% & 23% depending on profits a much more attractive option. They can't change these rates really as moving head office is so easy to benefit from lower rates in other EU countries.

[Chris]

Once you get to 40k you don't pay anymore NI but you Tax goes from 20% to 40%, plus if you earn over £100k you loose the £8k tax free allowance as well.

NI is now uncapped, they changed it a year or two ago in the budget. You now pay a percentage no matter how much you earn.

You pay Class 1 National Insurance contributions. The rates are:

if you earn between £107 and £146 you’re automatically covered for State Pension and benefits
12% on your weekly earnings between £146 and £817
an extra 2% on any earnings over £817

The tax-free allowance is gradually reduced over 100K. You actually need to be earning 116K for it to vanish completely

If you earn above £100,000 it is progressively withdrawn, at the rate of £1 for every £2 above £100,000 you earn.

[Boboff]

Thanks Chris, didn't realize that!

I think some CPD is in order!

[ess]

erm boboff thats the idea with a fixed rate tax with a minimum threshold. anyway my calculation were what I thought was the minimum that someone should contribute to society.

Income tax is paid at 40% after 42.475k not 40k.

Its not me that needs to brush up on my tax knowledge

[chrysostom]

I think I'm getting confused as to where you stand because of contradicting statements.

If people at the bottom pay less why shouldn't people at the top pay more?

15k - pays no tax on 8k and pays tax at 32% for 7k.
100k pays no tax on 8k and pays tax at 32% on 92k.

This is not how the system works, but is what i think is fair.

[dimtimjim]

**walks in**

Wow, my head hurts.

**walks out**

[The Deadly]

It's a great thread. It's what forums are all about.

[ess]

I think I'm getting confused as to where you stand because of contradicting statements.

If people at the bottom pay less why shouldn't people at the top pay more?

15k - pays no tax on 8k and pays tax at 32% for 7k.
100k pays no tax on 8k and pays tax at 32% on 92k.

This is not how the system works, but is what i think is fair.

One is a question not a statement!

The other is the minimum tax i feel someone living in the UK should pay.

Whats the point of discussing something if we all agree? (this is also a question, but a rhetorical one)

[Boboff]

Yes Ess you are right, I do agree with your proposals BUT

1. As I said this is more generous than the current system and would leave the country in more debt.
2. You couldn't increase the flat rate "%" as this would make corporation more probable.

So we all find ourselves in the same position as chancellors for the last 30 years

"We need to crack down on Tax Evasion"

* me if it was easy, Gordon Brown would have had it sorted.

[northernsteve]

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.

It's fairly common in schools for people who only work term time to have their pro-rata salary averaged over 12 months. So by being paid a bit less in November you still get paid in August when you're not contracted to work.

Not sure if that's the situation with your mum.

[northernsteve]

Can I point out an important quote in the Telegraph article

There is no suggestion Mr Moyles has avoided tax.

That said, as I understand it, being freelance is, in many ways, one big tax efficiency scheme.

You set up a company, and arrange to have your fee paid to it as a business to business transaction - the "employer" is buying a service from your company rather than employing you. You then get paid via a combination of dividends from the company and salary from the company.

Your company can then claim tax relief on various expenses such as running a car, equipment etc.

If your accountant isn't making sure you don't pay excessive amounts of tax, they're not doing their job. But there is a balance between being tax efficient and taking the piss.

[neilt0]

Tax avoiders to get warning shot from HMRC

Hundreds of suspected tax avoiders are to receive letters in the coming weeks warning them that their financial affairs are facing special scrutiny.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is sending letters directly to 1,500 people who it believes have signed up to one particular avoidance scheme.

...It goes on to suggest that people who use the scheme could find that they have to pay the outstanding tax, plus interest, and - in certain circumstances - could face a financial penalty...

[chrysostom]

You acted within the law, so we're going to fine you and ask for lots of money.

Wonder if they'll apply the same to companies.

[neilt0]

You created a fake company with 500 "directors", which was clearly for the sole purpose of fraudulently evading tax, so we're going to fine you and ask for lots of money.

Wonder if they'll apply the same to companies.

Fixed.

[chrysostom]

Retrospective financial punishment for something that was within the rules at the time is contrary to the rule of law.

If anything it's an action by the HMRC that they know can't be applied, in order to make it look like they're doing something to appease all of the outraged folk, despite the fact they knew that most of these operations were in effect (given that all of these accounts will have been going to them - and they would have access to many people's earnings and their tax contributions, but didn't do anything at the time.