Do you want to discuss boring politics? (37 Viewers)

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But the rich can move their assets abroad, out of the jurisdiction of the tax man
They do this quite legally, where as the other examples I gave are clearly fraudulent.

What about those that claimed benefits legally but now aren't because of the changes? You change the legislation to make the behaviour illegal. Make it so that any business or individual making money in this country has to be set up in this country under these tax rules to trade. If they don't like it, call their bluff and let them leave. The demand is still there and there will be plenty of others willing to fill the gap in the market.

Isn't the argument always that the common man will be better off as this money will filter down (which it never actually does) so instead of letting a middlemen made up of the already rich people and businesses take an outrageous slice of that let's cut them out of it and give it to the common man to begin with. They have more disposable income now let the rich actually work to earn their share of that.

When you build you do it from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

---

[fatso]

What about those that claimed benefits legally but now aren't because of the changes? You change the legislation to make the behaviour illegal. Make it so that any business or individual making money in this country has to be set up in this country under these tax rules to trade. If they don't like it, call their bluff and let them leave. The demand is still there and there will be plenty of others willing to fill the gap in the market.

Isn't the argument always that the common man will be better off as this money will filter down (which it never actually does) so instead of letting a middlemen made up of the already rich people and businesses take an outrageous slice of that let's cut them out of it and give it to the common man to begin with. They have more disposable income now let the rich actually work to earn their share of that.

When you build you do it from the bottom up, not the top down.

I've no idea what benefit laws have been changed that now make some claims illegal.
But if that's the case those benefits will certainly stop if there's any kind of individual benefits claim review.
Have those benefits been replaced with something else?

The current benefits bill is unsustainable, and it has to be addressed, the situation is only going to get massively worse when all the asylum seekers get their asylum granted and get put straight into the 1.5 million new homes that are under construction.
The local authority are responsible for housing these people, and that will be done at tax payers expense.
That is a financial melt down that will inevitably bankrupt the country.

Our future pension liabilities are also unsustainable.
The whole system needs to be addressed, which is what Starmer tried to start doing this week. Unfortunately he is too weak to take on his own backbenchers despite having a huge majority.

It would be almost impossible to geographicaly tie business people down to only trade in the UK if that's what you mean.
Too many businesses are run across many many boarders. And stocks and shares and commodities as well as investment funds are global.

 

[StrettoBoy]

Make it so that any business or individual making money in this country has to be set up in this country under these tax rules to trade. If they don't like it, call their bluff and let them leave.

It's not that easy.

International conglomerates use transfer pricing and intellectual property licensing arrangements to ensure that significant chunks of their profits are booked in low tax jurisdiction. The classic example is the large US corporations that shift profits to Ireland, where they pay a low rate of tax. Whilst there is anti-avoidance legislation (see for example the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010) it is complex and clever advisers help to mitigate its effects.

If you drive such companies out of the UK you end up losing the Corporation Tax that they do pay (even though this may be less than you would like it to be), employer's and employee's National Insurance and VAT on sales. You also lose jobs and the knock-on effects of employees spending money in our economy and paying VAT and creating other jobs.

You have to consider the wider picture.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I've no idea what benefit laws have been changed that now make some claims illegal.
But if that's the case those benefits will certainly stop if there's any kind of individual benefits claim review.
Have those benefits been replaced with something else?

The current benefits bill is unsustainable, and it has to be addressed, the situation is only going to get massively worse when all the asylum seekers get their asylum granted and get put straight into the 1.5 million new homes that are under construction.
The local authority are responsible for housing these people, and that will be done at tax payers expense.
That is a financial melt down that will inevitably bankrupt the country.

Our future pension liabilities are also unsustainable.
The whole system needs to be addressed, which is what Starmer tried to start doing this week. Unfortunately he is too weak to take on his own backbenchers despite having a huge majority.

It would be almost impossible to geographicaly tie business people down to only trade in the UK if that's what you mean.
Too many businesses are run across many many boarders. And stocks and shares and commodities as well as investment funds are global.

The point with the benefits law is that rules have been changed so some claims that were legal before would be illegal now i.e. some people claiming PIP. So if you can change the law there you can change it elsewhere i.e. the rich.

I agree that we have massive spending priorities that are and will continue to be a burden but we've seen time and again that if you cut them you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face because you end up with even bigger costs and problems.

I don't mean for firms to only trade in the UK. I mean that any income they make in the UK has to be done through a UK registered entity and thus subject to UK tax laws.

This is where the other poster talking about transfer pricing etc comes in as I have got a bit ahead of myself. Tax should not be determined on profit - it's a bullshit metric that doesn't exist and just allows companies to avoid tax. So get them to pay just 1-2% on revenue (after a tax free allowance) and all that shenanigans disappears and they can also save themselves a fortune paying these financial brains to reduce their tax bills because they've got the simplified tax system they supposedly want. Still has potential loopholes but fewer than the current system.

 

[Captain Dart]

Absolutely.

This has been a problem with every Labour government that I can remember, going back to Harold Wilson in the 1960s. They calculate the likely revenue from new or increased taxes on the assumption that there is no change in the behaviour of the affected taxpayers.

What usually happens is that behaviour changes, to minimise the additional tax burden. We are now seeing the rich fleeing the country and taking their tax pounds with them. The take from CGT is forecast to fall in future years as those with eligible assets hold on to them, rather than selling and triggering a tax charge, in the hope that a future government will reduce the tax rate.

George Harrison's reaction to learning he was in a 90% tax band under Harold Wilson.

Around that same time there were constant mentions on TV of the 'brain drain' as there was considerable emigration of scientists and engineers to the USA for financial reasons.

 

[StrettoBoy]

Tax should not be determined on profit - it's a bullshit metric that doesn't exist and just allows companies to avoid tax. So get them to pay just 1-2% on revenue (after a tax free allowance) and all that shenanigans disappears

So you would tax loss-making companies?

That runs the risk of denying them the opportunity of recovering and driving them into insolvency.

 

[shmmeee]

Absolutely.

This has been a problem with every Labour government that I can remember, going back to Harold Wilson in the 1960s. They calculate the likely revenue from new or increased taxes on the assumption that there is no change in the behaviour of the affected taxpayers.

What usually happens is that behaviour changes, to minimise the additional tax burden. We are now seeing the rich fleeing the country and taking their tax pounds with them. The take from CGT is forecast to fall in future years as those with eligible assets hold on to them, rather than selling and triggering a tax charge, in the hope that a future government will reduce the tax rate.

I think you need to stop reading fantasy papers like the telegraph. There no exodus of the rich, and tax planning takes into account behavioural change, this isn’t the civil services or OBRs first day FFS

 

[shmmeee]

So you would tax loss-making companies?

That runs the risk of denying them the opportunity of recovering and driving them into insolvency.

Not saying I agree but we tax loss making people.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So you would tax loss-making companies?

That runs the risk of denying them the opportunity of recovering and driving them into insolvency.

Yes. Having worked in accountancy I know for a fact you can get very different figures from exactly the same set of books, depending on what the business owner wants. I know of plenty of businesses that were doing well yet registering little or no profits. And as I said there'd be a tax-free allowance to offset some of that risk.

Plus you have the other nonsense where you can carry back/forward losses so basically have a 'big bath' every so often and then use the loss from that year to offset profits for tax purposes for years to come. Complete bollocks.

People don't get taxed like that, so why should companies?

 

[StrettoBoy]

I think you need to stop reading fantasy papers like the telegraph. There no exodus of the rich, and tax planning takes into account behavioural change, this isn’t the civil services or OBRs first day FFS

10,000 millionaires left the country last year and 16,500 are predicted to do so this year. It's what you would expect and what has happened in the past.

It's why Polly Toynbee has suggested an exit tax to force people to stay, which is a despicable approach. Reeves is apparently thinking of backtracking on her non-domiciled changes because, as with VAT on school fees and CGT, the predictions of behavioural change were wrong.

 

[StrettoBoy]

Yes. Having worked in accountancy I know for a fact you can get very different figures from exactly the same set of books, depending on what the business owner wants. I know of plenty of businesses that were doing well yet registering little or no profits. And as I said there'd be a tax-free allowance to offset some of that risk.

Plus you have the other nonsense where you can carry back/forward losses so basically have a 'big bath' every so often and then use the loss from that year to offset profits for tax purposes for years to come. Complete bollocks.

People don't get taxed like that, so why should companies?

Tax turnover and you will be taxing genuine loss-making companies.

As a retired tax lawyer I am well aware of some of the wheezes used to massage profits. HMRC need to get some top brains on board and stamp it out to a greater degree than they presently seem capable of.

 

[StrettoBoy]

I think you need to stop reading fantasy papers like the telegraph.

I subscribe to the Telegraph and the Guardian in order to get a balanced perspective on things.

 

[Captain Dart]

I subscribe to the Telegraph and the Guardian in order to get a balanced perspective on things.

Or 2 inbalanced and carefully curated points of view.

 

[PVA]

10,000 millionaires left the country last year and 16,500 are predicted to do so this year. It's what you would expect and what has happened in the past.

0.35% of millionaires left the country last year. To describe it as an 'exodus' as the right wing would have you believe is absurd.

The global millionaire migration rate was 0.22%, so it was only just a tick over that.

The overall UK emigration rate was 0.75%. So non millionaires were twice as likely to leave.

 

[David O'Day]

Tax turnover and you will be taxing genuine loss-making companies.

As a retired tax lawyer I am well aware of some of the wheezes used to massage profits. HMRC need to get some top brains on board and stamp it out to a greater degree than they presently seem capable of.

why do you talk such bollocks then?

which start with your nonsense about Harold Wilson, the economist with a first in economics from Cambridge not understanding tax and economics. It's a lazy old tory trope.

 

[David O'Day]

0.35% of millionaires left the country last year. To describe it as an 'exodus' as the right wing would have you believe is absurd.

The global millionaire migration rate was 0.22%, so it was only just a tick over that.

The overall UK emigration rate was 0.75%. So non millionaires were twice as likely to leave.

Exodus indeed.

i've pointed out that the departure rate is a actually less than the OBR factored into their calculations and strangely silence was what I got.

 

[chiefdave]

does make me laugh the uproar anytime there's any suggestion that the 1% should pay more. whatever is suggested its always 'the economy will crash' or 'they'll all leave the country'.

but people are quite happy for those at the bottom to be hit with a bigger tax bill or benefits to be taken off the disabled.

 

[shmmeee]

10,000 millionaires left the country last year and 16,500 are predicted to do so this year. It's what you would expect and what has happened in the past.

It's why Polly Toynbee has suggested an exit tax to force people to stay, which is a despicable approach. Reeves is apparently thinking of backtracking on her non-domiciled changes because, as with VAT on school fees and CGT, the predictions of behavioural change were wrong.

Out of how many?

What’s the baseline?

The private school predictions were fine.

 

[shmmeee]

does make me laugh the uproar anytime there's any suggestion that the 1% should pay more. whatever is suggested its always 'the economy will crash' or 'they'll all leave the country'.

but people are quite happy for those at the bottom to be hit with a bigger tax bill or benefits to be taken off the disabled.

Everyone should pay more. We are woefully undertaxed as a country for what we expect from our public services.

 

[wingy]

How hard is millionaire status now, not particularly difficult down south!

 

[wingy]

What's the ratio for Monaco?
What's their back streets like?

 

[shmmeee]

For anyone curious about the millionaires leaving stories in the Telegraph.

Millionaire exodus did not occur, study reveals - Tax Justice Network

The number of millionaires widely reported in the news to be leaving countries in "exodus" represented near-0% of all millionaires.

taxjustice.net

 

[shmmeee]

How hard is millionaire status now, not particularly difficult down south!

There are 3m millionaires. So just under 5% of the population. Which is why 10,000 doing something is an insignificant number.

 

[chiefdave]

Everyone should pay more. We are woefully undertaxed as a country for what we expect from our public services.

I would happily pay more tax if a) I thought everyone was paying their fair share and b) I thought it would actually make any difference to services and not just disappear off into some donors pocket

My experience of speaking to people in high tax countries is that it really doesn't bother them. Obviously every person on the planet would like to pay less tax but the prevailing attitude seems to be we pay but if something needs doing it gets gone. If roads needs repairing its done straight away, if a school or hospital is needed its built etc etc

That's very different to what we experience here while we're told we are paying more tax than ever in this country.