Carryfast:
Yep but as usual taxation in a way which hits the highest paid elites least such as VAT,Council tax and a tax net with a smaller mesh and spread wider than before.But obviously no change for the highest earners.
What you on about? They’re paying more tax than they ever have done. The top 1% contribute almost 30% of all income tax receipts. The bottom 50% of earners contribute less than 10%.
Carryfast:
Yep but as usual taxation in a way which hits the highest paid elites least such as VAT,Council tax and a tax net with a smaller mesh and spread wider than before.But obviously no change for the highest earners.
What you on about? They’re paying more tax than they ever have done. The top 1% contribute almost 30% of all income tax receipts. The bottom 50% of earners contribute less than 10%.
I wont argue yet about the amounts of tax paid, but CF does have a valid point: the tax rate applied to the top earners has fallen over the past few decades. In the 1950s and 60s it was 90%. The 79 Thatcher gov dropped it to 60% and the basic rate to 30%.
2019 it is 20% basic and 40% over £50k, 45% over £150k.
So, CF is quite correct that the tax rate for the highest paid has fallen considerably.
But, why then are the rich paying more, if their tax rate is falling?
Because of income disparity: an increasing wealth gap between the rich and the poor.
The rich are giving a smaller percentage, but of their even bigger income.
It stands out like a sore thumb once again, hammer the working man with tax grabs whilst leaving certain big businesses to avoid paying tax on a massive scale and also allow tax avoidance scheme providers to walk away untouched to come up with another scam and go around in a full circle once again.
Carryfast:
Yep but as usual taxation in a way which hits the highest paid elites least such as VAT,Council tax and a tax net with a smaller mesh and spread wider than before.But obviously no change for the highest earners.
What you on about? They’re paying more tax than they ever have done. The top 1% contribute almost 30% of all income tax receipts. The bottom 50% of earners contribute less than 10%.
I wont argue yet about the amounts of tax paid, but CF does have a valid point: the tax rate applied to the top earners has fallen over the past few decades. In the 1950s and 60s it was 90%. The 79 Thatcher gov dropped it to 60% and the basic rate to 30%.
2019 it is 20% basic and 40% over £50k, 45% over £150k.
So, CF is quite correct that the tax rate for the highest paid has fallen considerably.
But, why then are the rich paying more, if their tax rate is falling?
Because of income disparity: an increasing wealth gap between the rich and the poor.
The rich are giving a smaller percentage, but of their even bigger income.
So the situation now is that the parasitical agencies are pushing workers to use umbrella schemes, HMRC’s own definition on the rules regarding these schemes are ambiguous to say the least. So a future big tax grab in years to come, I reckon, will be on workers using umbrella schemes, probably one minor breach of the ambiguous rules will land workers hefty tax bills and following the predictable pattern, the umbrella scheme providers will walk away untouched. The circle just keeps on turning.
robbo99.:
So the situation now is that the parasitical agencies are pushing workers to use umbrella schemes, HMRC’s own definition on the rules regarding these schemes are ambiguous to say the least. So a future big tax grab in years to come, I reckon, will be on workers using umbrella schemes, probably one minor breach of the ambiguous rules will land workers hefty tax bills and following the predictable pattern, the umbrella scheme providers will walk away untouched. The circle just keeps on turning.
As other posters have said, if an agency says “umbrella only” then walk away. They will often, it seems, change their minds rapidly.
“A tax grab in years to come”? Or taking what was previously underpaid?
I totally agree that there is a problem here. Those pushing schemes, and assuring others it is all legit should be chased too.
robbo99.:
So the situation now is that the parasitical agencies are pushing workers to use umbrella schemes, HMRC’s own definition on the rules regarding these schemes are ambiguous to say the least. So a future big tax grab in years to come, I reckon, will be on workers using umbrella schemes, probably one minor breach of the ambiguous rules will land workers hefty tax bills and following the predictable pattern, the umbrella scheme providers will walk away untouched. The circle just keeps on turning.
As other posters have said, if an agency says “umbrella only” then walk away. They will often, it seems, change their minds rapidly.
“A tax grab in years to come”? Or taking what was previously underpaid?
I totally agree that there is a problem here. Those pushing schemes, and assuring others it is all legit should be chased too.
But in the real world, how does your average Joe know all about tax legislation and its implications? Unfortunately agencies exploit the ignorance of people, so your average Joe gets railroaded without even knowing.
It’s certainly a tax grab when HMRC move the goalposts, as they so often do, no information in place for their “customers” to keep up to date, oh sorry they have something called spotlight…yes I hear people saying “what’s spotlight”!!! HMRC interpret legislation as they wish, leave many grey areas, so yes a tax grab.
Franglais:
I wont argue yet about the amounts of tax paid, but CF does have a valid point: the tax rate applied to the top earners has fallen over the past few decades. In the 1950s and 60s it was 90%. The 79 Thatcher gov dropped it to 60% and the basic rate to 30%.
2019 it is 20% basic and 40% over £50k, 45% over £150k.
So, CF is quite correct that the tax rate for the highest paid has fallen considerably.
But, why then are the rich paying more, if their tax rate is falling?
Because due to the lower tax rate the cost of avoiding paying is no longer worth doing it. Remember that if someone uses a tax avoidance scheme they won’t just avoid paying the additional 20%, 30%, 70% over the basic rate on the stuff taxed at higher rate, they’ll pay absolutely no tax on that income in that scheme at all. By reducing the higher rate of tax then the tax bill starts to become comparable to the costs of avoiding it and given HMRC’s propensity for investigation avoidance schemes and deciding they’re not legit it becomes more attractive to said high earner to pay the tax than to pay to try to avoid it along with the risk that comes with that. You then end up with the situation where the tax rate is lower but HMRC are receiving more in tax.
alamcculloch:
We need a level playing field here. Google and Amazon etc. ought to be paying their fair share along with the rest of us.
They are. They’re doing nothing that the rest of us can’t do. I’ll refer you to a clearly forgotten story about Crickhowell, a town where every single business did what the Amazons, Googles etc are doing and went offshore.
Franglais:
I wont argue yet about the amounts of tax paid, but CF does have a valid point: the tax rate applied to the top earners has fallen over the past few decades. In the 1950s and 60s it was 90%. The 79 Thatcher gov dropped it to 60% and the basic rate to 30%.
2019 it is 20% basic and 40% over £50k, 45% over £150k.
So, CF is quite correct that the tax rate for the highest paid has fallen considerably.
But, why then are the rich paying more, if their tax rate is falling?
Because due to the lower tax rate the cost of avoiding paying is no longer worth doing it. Remember that if someone uses a tax avoidance scheme they won’t just avoid paying the additional 20%, 30%, 70% over the basic rate on the stuff taxed at higher rate, they’ll pay absolutely no tax on that income in that scheme at all. By reducing the higher rate of tax then the tax bill starts to become comparable to the costs of avoiding it and given HMRC’s propensity for investigation avoidance schemes and deciding they’re not legit it becomes more attractive to said high earner to pay the tax than to pay to try to avoid it along with the risk that comes with that. You then end up with the situation where the tax rate is lower but HMRC are receiving more in tax.
Are you suggesting that someone with a hefty tax bill, won`t look at ways to reduce it?
Any warm feelings some might have when their bill is recently reduced, might evaporate after a few years I would guess.
As stated before, tax avoidance is not illegal, indeed any accountant reducing ones tax bill is performing tax avoidance…totally legal. Government and HMRC then go down the road of people’s moral duty to pay their taxes, I always find using moral in the same sentence as government and HMRC is a contradiction in terms.
robbo99.:
As stated before, tax avoidance is not illegal, indeed any accountant reducing ones tax bill is performing tax avoidance…totally legal. Government and HMRC then go down the road of people’s moral duty to pay their taxes, I always find using moral in the same sentence as government and HMRC is a contradiction in terms.
I enjoy taking a swipe at the government as much as anyone…
But without government and taxes we`d have no hospitals, schools and roads.
Society needs governance.
.
Look at those societies with a smaller wealth gap than here, with higher tax rates, and I reckon many of them will have a less avaricious and a more content populace.
I can`t prove that, but reckon it may have some merit as a theory.
Yes, slag off HMRC when they get it wrong, but don`t go too far, mate.
robbo99.:
As stated before, tax avoidance is not illegal, indeed any accountant reducing ones tax bill is performing tax avoidance…totally legal. Government and HMRC then go down the road of people’s moral duty to pay their taxes, I always find using moral in the same sentence as government and HMRC is a contradiction in terms.
I enjoy taking a swipe at the government as much as anyone…
But without government and taxes we`d have no hospitals, schools and roads.
Society needs governance.
.
Look at those societies with a smaller wealth gap than here, with higher tax rates, and I reckon many of them will have a less avaricious and a more content populace.
I can`t prove that, but reckon it may have some merit as a theory.
Yes, slag off HMRC when they get it wrong, but don`t go too far, mate.
Don’t go too far? I aren’t even in second gear yet lol
robbo99.:
As stated before, tax avoidance is not illegal, indeed any accountant reducing ones tax bill is performing tax avoidance…totally legal. Government and HMRC then go down the road of people’s moral duty to pay their taxes, I always find using moral in the same sentence as government and HMRC is a contradiction in terms.
I enjoy taking a swipe at the government as much as anyone…
But without government and taxes we`d have no hospitals, schools and roads.
Society needs governance.
.
Look at those societies with a smaller wealth gap than here, with higher tax rates, and I reckon many of them will have a less avaricious and a more content populace.
I can`t prove that, but reckon it may have some merit as a theory.
Yes, slag off HMRC when they get it wrong, but don`t go too far, mate.
Don’t go too far? I aren’t even in second gear yet lol
robbo99.:
As stated before, tax avoidance is not illegal, indeed any accountant reducing ones tax bill is performing tax avoidance…totally legal. Government and HMRC then go down the road of people’s moral duty to pay their taxes, I always find using moral in the same sentence as government and HMRC is a contradiction in terms.
I enjoy taking a swipe at the government as much as anyone…
But without government and taxes we`d have no hospitals, schools and roads.
Society needs governance.
.
Look at those societies with a smaller wealth gap than here, with higher tax rates, and I reckon many of them will have a less avaricious and a more content populace.
I can`t prove that, but reckon it may have some merit as a theory.
Yes, slag off HMRC when they get it wrong, but don`t go too far, mate.
Don’t go too far? I aren’t even in second gear yet lol
Once upon a time it was pretty much OK to have a drink or two, then drive home from the pub. Pretty much unacceptable today.
Having a ciggie indoors was common and widespread. Less so now.
Maybe one day tax avoidance will gain the same social reputation? Maybe we will stop saying “Ah, well, so long as it ain`t totally illegal”?
Having a bit of a social conscience looks like being a wimp, to too many in my book.
No pride in being a selfish git I reckon. Although the media sites owned by rich selfish gits try to tell us otherwise…
