Depends on the size of turnover of the company, but the main rate of CT is 28%
I've heard plenty of people claim that anyone earning more than £30k a year are 'rich'. Although I agree that it's not just the very rich that prop up those who contribute nothing, it's also people with very little spare cash - which is even more unfair.
Yes, I'm sure most of us remember that article. I'd file it under the same category as the recent one about the guy claiming Incapacity Benefit whilst doing dancing showcases at the same time, ie, not the norm.
In what way would the size of turnover change the rate?
I don't think those earning over £30k are rich, it's a bit arbitrary to set a figure on earnings and not take anything else into account either. A person may only earn £30k pa but have no mortgage or rent to pay because they were given a house by their parents... as opposed to a person earning £30k and having to run a house and support a family.
The article may not be the norm but it does make one wonder how many of these anaomlies exist... just as when one reads about the dancing incapcity benefit claiming person they do the same. It raises an issue that requires addressing.
Why is that one article will stoke the fire so much that a war is waged by the PM yet the other doesn't even raise a whimper.
Does anyone 40 or under actually think they'll be getting a State pension when they retire? Really??
Thanks for the link OP, that article was a very good read. Just a shame it'll be ignored and, no doubt, falsely discredited by its hard copy readership.
The Welfare State, as is, has failed. Once we wake up to this, maybe the country can move forward and progress. As long as we continue to flog an unworkable arrangement, we'll continue to falter.
I'm 40 and damn sure I'll get a state pension, by the time I retire a quarter of the population will be pensioners, any political party that threatens to take pensions away will never get elected.
In what way would the size of turnover change the rate?
The article may not be the norm but it does make one wonder how many of these anaomlies exist... just as when one reads about the dancing incapcity benefit claiming person they do the same. It raises an issue that requires addressing.
Why is that one article will stoke the fire so much that a war is waged by the PM yet the other doesn't even raise a whimper.
I'm 40 and damn sure I'll get a state pension, by the time I retire a quarter of the population will be pensioners, any political party that threatens to take pensions away will never get elected.
If there isn't any money, it won't make any difference who you vote for. No party can raise taxes that much, because people will just leave.
I don't think those earning over £30k are rich, it's a bit arbitrary to set a figure on earnings and not take anything else into account either. A person may only earn £30k pa but have no mortgage or rent to pay because they were given a house by their parents... as opposed to a person earning £30k and having to run a house and support a family.
I know, me neither. Thing is, I've heard people I've worked with say that colleagues on £25k were 'rich'. I guess when you earn £13k, £25k does seem rich.
I'm saying that 'rich' is relative and I tend to find that the unemployed/benefit reliant seem to think anyone with a job is 'rich'.
The article may not be the norm but it does make one wonder how many of these anaomlies exist... just as when one reads about the dancing incapcity benefit claiming person they do the same. It raises an issue that requires addressing.
Indeed, there will always be loopholes, somewhere, just as there will always be illegal behaviour. But to believe that those who are extremely rich all sit around laughing at how they pay less tax than their maids is as asinine as thinking all Incapacity Benefit recipients do triathlons in their spare time.
Why is that one article will stoke the fire so much that a war is waged by the PM yet the other doesn't even raise a whimper.
That's merely your perception. As I said, the vast majority of rich people pay their taxes to the very penny. I know company directors ('rich' and not so rich) who don't actually claim everything that they could legally claim, simply because they feel it would be churlish to do so.
It seems you simply have a problem with Accountants doing their job.
BTW, you also seem to confuse perfectly legal tax avoidance with illegal benefit cheating.
I'm 40 and damn sure I'll get a state pension, by the time I retire a quarter of the population will be pensioners, any political party that threatens to take pensions away will never get elected.
It will if 50% of the remainder of the population feel differently.
It will if 50% of the remainder of the population feel differently.
And in that scenario how many of the 50% will have aging parents they will probably feel obliged to support in the event of the abolition of the pension.:D
If there isn't any money, it won't make any difference who you vote for. No party can raise taxes that much, because people will just leave.
The pressure to cut other spending will be much higher than on pensions if 1/4 of the electorate demand it, imagine Britain with an armed forces like Ireland.
It will if 50% of the remainder of the population feel differently.
True, but highly unlikely, pensioners tend to vote far more than any other age group so it would require a huge %age of the population under 65 (68, 70, etc) to vote for the same party, there's as much chance of the BNP getting elected. Plus politicians are power hungry they'll see pensioners as a way to power and actively garner their support.
I know, me neither. Thing is, I've heard people I've worked with say that colleagues on £25k were 'rich'. I guess when you earn £13k, £25k does seem rich.
I'm saying that 'rich' is relative and I tend to find that the unemployed/benefit reliant seem to think anyone with a job is 'rich'.
I don't agree with that sentiment (in bold) while I do agree with the rest, it is all relative.
Indeed, there will always be loopholes, somewhere, just as there will always be illegal behaviour. But to believe that those who are extremely rich all sit around laughing at how they pay less tax than their maids is as asinine as thinking all Incapacity Benefit recipients do triathlons in their spare time.
I don't believe they all sit around laughing. I do believe that it has become 'the way of the world' in certain circles and is not viewed as wrong with like-minded folk 'it's just the way it is' is another I've heard. A form of acceptance if you like.
That's merely your perception. As I said, the vast majority of rich people pay their taxes to the very penny. I know company directors ('rich' and not so rich) who don't actually claim everything that they could legally claim, simply because they feel it would be churlish to do so.
It seems you simply have a problem with Accountants doing their job.
BTW, you also seem to confuse perfectly legal tax avoidance with illegal benefit cheating
.
Why would I have a problem with accountants doing their job? You gloss over the bigger picture to hone in on the minutae of what I was saying, that's your choice.
'Perfectly legal tax avoidance' is a matter of perception, much more than any Tory would admit. There has always been a fine line, although the momentum against the 'tax man' increased when the idea of entrepeneural skill and the like was encouraged... there was a feeling of all being in it together because the self-employed joiner felt he was in the financial ranks with the director of Markies or Tesco.
I don't agree with that sentiment (in bold) while I do agree with the rest, it is all relative.
Unfortunately, my ex-partner's father lived on a Council estate where people would routinely shout 'Rich c**t' at me when I drove my car through the estate, apparently because it was less than 10 years old.
I don't believe they all sit around laughing. I do believe that it has become 'the way of the world' in certain circles and is not viewed as wrong with like-minded folk 'it's just the way it is' is another I've heard. A form of acceptance if you like.
Well, the law is the law. People are unlikely to go out of their way to pay tax that they do not owe, just as those on benefits are unlikely to claim less should their shopping bill decrease by £5 a week for some reason.
Why would I have a problem with accountants doing their job? You gloss over the bigger picture to hone in on the minutae of what I was saying, that's your choice.
Accountants are paid to tell their clients what tax they owe - it's neither the fault of the accountant or their client if that figure isn't one that suits you.
'Perfectly legal tax avoidance' is a matter of perception, much more than any Tory would admit.
No. Perfectly legal tax avoidance is perfectly legal. There is no perception involved. The law is the law and it's quite clear, you either stay within it, or operate outside it.
There has always been a fine line, although the momentum against the 'tax man' increased when the idea of entrepeneural skill and the like was encouraged... there was a feeling of all being in it together because the self-employed joiner felt he was in the financial ranks with the director of Markies or Tesco.
Generally speaking, momentum against the tax man gathers pace when people reach a point where they feel the odds are stacked against them, or where they're paying far too much.
I am a Director. I know full well I pay more tax than I legally have to pay, but I don't mind because I feel that what I do pay is about right. If, say, the CT rate went up 1%, I might indeed claim back some things that I'm entitled to that I currently don't bother with.
There is a point of diminishing returns where taxation is concerned.
Unfortunately, my ex-partner's father lived on a Council estate where people would routinely shout 'Rich c**t' at me when I drove my car through the estate, apparently because it was less than 10 years old.
Like you pointed out earlier about the article, that is not the norm.
Well, the law is the law. People are unlikely to go out of their way to pay tax that they do not owe, just as those on benefits are unlikely to claim less should their shopping bill decrease by £5 a week for some reason.
I agree, they are likely, however, to go out of their way to pay less tax than they do owe.
Accountants are paid to tell their clients what tax they owe - it's neither the fault of the accountant or their client if that figure isn't one that suits you.
It may be the fault of their being a question placed over the transactions in the first place. The difference between avoidance and evasion is a fine one, so fine that there have been many a court case in which the outcome would decide whether the person was a legitimate tax payer within any legal boundary or an illegal tax evader.
Why is this possible if it is so clear cut and my protests are simply a personal axe to grind?
No. Perfectly legal tax avoidance is perfectly legal. There is no perception involved. The law is the law and it's quite clear, you either stay within it, or operate outside it.
As before, I'll repeat the difference is such a fine one that controversy arises in regards to what is avoidance and what is evasion.
Generally speaking, momentum against the tax man gathers pace when people reach a point where they feel the odds are stacked against them, or where they're paying far too much.
I am a Director. I know full well I pay more tax than I legally have to pay, but I don't mind because I feel that what I do pay is about right. If, say, the CT rate went up 1%, I might indeed claim back some things that I'm entitled to that I currently don't bother with.
There is a point of diminishing returns where taxation is concerned.
Where they are paying far too much? Dare I say for some directors and this is not aimed at you personally but anything is too much.
I didn't say it was only rich people who support those who contribute nothing - however, the rich do contribute significantly more, in general, than others. Higher tax rates and the fact that contributions are percentage based sees to that.
It's funny but when I read this comment I thought you were very explicit also
Remember, without those 'rich' people, the poor people wouldn't have anything to be able to claim
I got the impression that you meant that it is only rich people who contribute to benefits, if that isn't what you meant then I suppose that's a good example of how easy it is to misunderstand another persons post and when they're actually saying one thing you think they're saying something else
BTW the 'you' was meant to imply people in general
It may be the fault of their being a question placed over the transactions in the first place. The difference between avoidance and evasion is a fine one, so fine that there have been many a court case in which the outcome would decide whether the person was a legitimate tax payer within any legal boundary or an illegal tax evader.
Why is this possible if it is so clear cut and my protests are simply a personal axe to grind?
Again, there may have been a few high profile cases where the lines are blurred, but anyone and everyone knows what avoidance and evasion are. I would suggest that those who end up in court probably have been involved in evasion but have very smart laywers (and other friends) who see to it that they get away with it. Just like plenty of other criminals escape on technicalities - it doesn't mean they're innocent of the crime, just that the court found them not guilty.
My belief is that anyone involved in illegal evasion knows what they're doing but has a means to cover their tracks. That's not the same as avoidance being indistinguishable from evasion - in fact, it goes to prove the opposite.
Where they are paying far too much? Dare I say for some directors and this is not aimed at you personally but anything is too much.
Some might argue that 28% of all profits, NI contributions plus a higher rate of tax on salary is quite a significant chunk. Some feel it's too much, some even leave the country because of it. Others seek to make sure they only pay what they legally owe.
As I say, I know I pay more than I legally have to pay. As it stands, that's fine with me. Should the burden increase for me, I may feel the need to stop paying tax that I simply do not owe.
if that isn't what you meant then I suppose that's a good example of how easy it is to misunderstand another persons post and when they're actually saying one thing you think they're saying something else
I know. Luckily, you also very clearly posted exactly what you meant - that you think people who 'don't need' the child benefit money, but who claim it perfectly legally, are 'selfish'.
Yet you think people who don't need children and have no means of supporting them (and therefore rely on taking money away from everyone else in order to do so) are definitely not selfish.
As I said initially, it's an interesting opposing view for one person to hold.
No, if I'd have meant that, then that's what I would have posted
I know. Luckily, you also very clearly posted exactly what you meant - that you think people who 'don't need' the child benefit money, but who claim it perfectly legally, are 'selfish'.
Yet you think people who don't need children and have no means of supporting them (and therefore rely on taking money away from everyone else in order to do so) are definitely not selfish.
Actually I'm sure that if you had bothered to read between the lines you would see I was on about people who call the unemployed scroungers while at the same time they are quite okay with the people with enough money that they don't need to claim for Child Benefit but do.
As I said initially, it's an interesting opposing view for one person to hold.
If I really did hold the view that 'rich people are selfish' then I would disagree with you and say that far from it being an interesting view it is a totally ignorant view.
As they say 'don't judge a book by it's colours' I may vote Labour but I'm certainly not a stranger to how 'well off folk' live and I have every respect for the majority them
Labour needs to shift its focus in terms of policy to helping those who need help, not on silly idealistic nonsense of universality.
I personally think child benefit is the root cause of the dependency culture. Its the soft drug that leads the unemployed and poor onto the hard drug of benefit scrounging.
That's why I advocate ditching communist nonsense such as child benefit and pensions. Instead of preaching some do-gooding twaddle about "cakes and XBox for everyone", point to problems such as deprivation, lack of social mobility, housing, transport, NHS, etc, and propose targeted solutions.
Labour must ditch the communist "same for everyone" BS if it is to succeed.
Remember, idealism always fails, but pragmatism will always triumph.
As I've only driven my car around that particular Council estate, I can't say. I only know it happened pretty much every time I went there.
I find it rather saddening that you base your conclusion of a huge chunk of the population on one council estate. There's not council estates full of people shouting 'rich c**t' - certainly not in my experience anyway.
You can't pay less tax than you legally owe - that would be evasion. Avoidance means paying only the legal minimum, ie, what you legally owe.
Are you choosing to ignore that what you legally owe can be easily amended by choosing to opt for a more favourable arrangement.
Again, there may have been a few high profile cases where the lines are blurred, but anyone and everyone knows what avoidance and evasion are. I would suggest that those who end up in court probably have been involved in evasion but have very smart laywers (and other friends) who see to it that they get away with it. Just like plenty of other criminals escape on technicalities - it doesn't mean they're innocent of the crime, just that the court found them not guilty
My belief is that anyone involved in illegal evasion knows what they're doing but has a means to cover their tracks. That's not the same as avoidance being indistinguishable from evasion - in fact, it goes to prove the opposite..
It doesn't prove the opposite, the case is decided one way and it's illegal and the other and it's perfectly legal. I'm not talking about high profile cases either, I'm talking about the less known ones too which are quite frequent.
Nah, all involved know the reality, certainly in most cases anyway.
They may know the reality and take a caluclated risk... it's known as 'doing business' these days.
Some might argue that 28% of all profits, NI contributions plus a higher rate of tax on salary is quite a significant chunk. Some feel it's too much, some even leave the country because of it. Others seek to make sure they only pay what they legally owe.
As I say, I know I pay more than I legally have to pay. As it stands, that's fine with me. Should the burden increase for me, I may feel the need to stop paying tax that I simply do not owe.
Would that be avoidance or evasion, in your opinion?
I find it rather saddening that you base your conclusion of a huge chunk of the population on one council estate. There's not council estates full of people shouting 'rich c**t' - certainly not in my experience
Or mine .
On the estate where I live most of the houses were council houses but were taken over by a housing association about 6 years ago , some are council houses that have been bought and some newly built houses that are about 2 years old ( Barrett Homes) and are privately owned and I have never seen anything like Lucem Ferre has experienced thankfully.
I find it rather saddening that you base your conclusion of a huge chunk of the population on one council estate. There's not council estates full of people shouting 'rich c**t' - certainly not in my experience anyway.
Glad to hear it. I don't believe it happens everywhere, but in the experience I have had, it happened all the time. I'm afraid I can't base my experience on things I've not actually done.
There are plenty of people here at DS that routinely take a pop at anyone they consider to have plenty of money, so I don't think such attitudes are confined to one Council estate.
Are you choosing to ignore that what you legally owe can be easily amended by choosing to opt for a more favourable arrangement.
There's nothing to 'ignore'. You legally owe what you legally owe. Yes, people can opt to overlook things and then pay more than they have to (as I do) but I do not go out of my way to pay more than I owe - that's what charities are for.
It doesn't prove the opposite, the case is decided one way and it's illegal and the other and it's perfectly legal. I'm not talking about high profile cases either, I'm talking about the less known ones too which are quite frequent.
Frequent? Really? I've been in a business to business service industry that operates across the country for the past 10 years and have never met a single person that's been to court over an avoidance/evasion case. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but 'frequent'?
As I understand it, HMIT only prosecutes around 1000 people a year for evasion, that's such a small percentage of the total number of businesses as to be statistically irrelevant.
Would that be avoidance or evasion, in your opinion?
It would be avoidance. As I've stated before, I do not claim for certain expenses that I am fully entitled to claim against tax. I could have reduced my CT payment for the last financial year by around £2500, very, very easily. In fact, my accountant got annoyed when I said not to bother. Should the CT rate rise and I find myself £2500 down because of it then, yes, I would probably start to claim those expenses - all of which are entirely legal and genuine.
In fact, the more I read this thread, the more I believe I was a mug not to claim last year!
I bought the paper, first time in ages with this article in it, I couldn't be bothered to read it, I could tell what he was gonna go on about just by the headline.
Simon, the MP's are on holiday, nothing gets in the way of MP's and their summer holidays, not even a leadership election.
I do think though, labour have made a mistake. They should have key MP's on "duty" on a rota system, ready to attack and rebutt the outragous stuff the Tories are sneaking in/announcing just before Parliament brole up or during these holidays.
Glad to hear it. I don't believe it happens everywhere, but in the experience I have had, it happened all the time. I'm afraid I can't base my experience on things I've not actually done.
There are plenty of people here at DS that routinely take a pop at anyone they consider to have plenty of money, so I don't think such attitudes are confined to one Council estate.
That's true we can only go on what we know personally. "take a pop at anyone they consider to have money" - I don't think that's an accurate analysis but it's your conclusion.
There's nothing to 'ignore'. You legally owe what you legally owe. Yes, people can opt to overlook things and then pay more than they have to (as I do) but I do not go out of my way to pay more than I owe - that's what charities are for.
No-one would go out their way to pay more, we've established that. They do, however, go out of their way to pay less. We're not just talking about you - there are thousands of other people running businesses too.
Just last night I read an article saying that Philip Green (famous for paying very little tax on his little empire) has been enlisted to go over the spending review of the government. While he may have incredible business nous I'm not so sure if those skills are so easily transferrable to the public sector.
Frequent? Really? I've been in a business to business service industry that operates across the country for the past 10 years and have never met a single person that's been to court over an avoidance/evasion case. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but 'frequent'
As I understand it, HMIT only prosecutes around 1000 people a year for evasion, that's such a small percentage of the total number of businesses as to be statistically irrelevant.
As is the portion of benefits which have been illegally claimed - that doesn't stop the government making it the 'first and deepest' cut. (estimated at around 1% of £87bn - they will most likely be paying Experian more than that just to prevent adminstrative error or fraud)
No, that's unfair. As I said, those who engage in evasion do so knowingly. It's not part of 'doing business' at all, it's part of 'tax evasion'.
Nobody evades tax by accident or without realising it.
No not by accident or not realising, it's a calculated risk - I think we are in agreement here. If a person can save £5000 a year for 5 years and if apprehended he's only required to pay back £2000 - it was a risk that paid off.
A study earlier this year described the results of a tax-audit experiment in Denmark, which showed that rates of evasion shot up when Danes reported their own income.
It would be avoidance. As I've stated before, I do not claim for certain expenses that I am fully entitled to claim against tax. I could have reduced my CT payment for the last financial year by around £2500, very, very easily. In fact, my accountant got annoyed when I said not to bother. Should the CT rate rise and I find myself £2500 down because of it then, yes, I would probably start to claim those expenses - all of which are entirely legal and genuine.
In fact, the more I read this thread, the more I believe I was a mug not to claim last year!
I'm not having a go, I think it's pretty amazing that there are still genuine folk out there - when you study tax laws you tend to become a bit cycnical and think the worst - simply because it's so open to abuse, imo.
Comments
In what way would the size of turnover change the rate?
I don't think those earning over £30k are rich, it's a bit arbitrary to set a figure on earnings and not take anything else into account either. A person may only earn £30k pa but have no mortgage or rent to pay because they were given a house by their parents... as opposed to a person earning £30k and having to run a house and support a family.
The article may not be the norm but it does make one wonder how many of these anaomlies exist... just as when one reads about the dancing incapcity benefit claiming person they do the same. It raises an issue that requires addressing.
Why is that one article will stoke the fire so much that a war is waged by the PM yet the other doesn't even raise a whimper.
I'm 40 and damn sure I'll get a state pension, by the time I retire a quarter of the population will be pensioners, any political party that threatens to take pensions away will never get elected.
See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/corp.htm
The last budget increased the CGT rate to address the issue of some who were using that route to derive their income and pay low tax rates on it.
Small Profits Rate is 21% (up to £300,000)
I know, me neither. Thing is, I've heard people I've worked with say that colleagues on £25k were 'rich'. I guess when you earn £13k, £25k does seem rich.
I'm saying that 'rich' is relative and I tend to find that the unemployed/benefit reliant seem to think anyone with a job is 'rich'.
Indeed, there will always be loopholes, somewhere, just as there will always be illegal behaviour. But to believe that those who are extremely rich all sit around laughing at how they pay less tax than their maids is as asinine as thinking all Incapacity Benefit recipients do triathlons in their spare time.
That's merely your perception. As I said, the vast majority of rich people pay their taxes to the very penny. I know company directors ('rich' and not so rich) who don't actually claim everything that they could legally claim, simply because they feel it would be churlish to do so.
It seems you simply have a problem with Accountants doing their job.
BTW, you also seem to confuse perfectly legal tax avoidance with illegal benefit cheating.
It will if 50% of the remainder of the population feel differently.
And in that scenario how many of the 50% will have aging parents they will probably feel obliged to support in the event of the abolition of the pension.:D
The pressure to cut other spending will be much higher than on pensions if 1/4 of the electorate demand it, imagine Britain with an armed forces like Ireland.
True, but highly unlikely, pensioners tend to vote far more than any other age group so it would require a huge %age of the population under 65 (68, 70, etc) to vote for the same party, there's as much chance of the BNP getting elected. Plus politicians are power hungry they'll see pensioners as a way to power and actively garner their support.
Unfortunately, my ex-partner's father lived on a Council estate where people would routinely shout 'Rich c**t' at me when I drove my car through the estate, apparently because it was less than 10 years old.
Well, the law is the law. People are unlikely to go out of their way to pay tax that they do not owe, just as those on benefits are unlikely to claim less should their shopping bill decrease by £5 a week for some reason.
Accountants are paid to tell their clients what tax they owe - it's neither the fault of the accountant or their client if that figure isn't one that suits you.
No. Perfectly legal tax avoidance is perfectly legal. There is no perception involved. The law is the law and it's quite clear, you either stay within it, or operate outside it.
Generally speaking, momentum against the tax man gathers pace when people reach a point where they feel the odds are stacked against them, or where they're paying far too much.
I am a Director. I know full well I pay more tax than I legally have to pay, but I don't mind because I feel that what I do pay is about right. If, say, the CT rate went up 1%, I might indeed claim back some things that I'm entitled to that I currently don't bother with.
There is a point of diminishing returns where taxation is concerned.
Was I really :cool:
It's funny but when I read this comment I thought you were very explicit also
I got the impression that you meant that it is only rich people who contribute to benefits, if that isn't what you meant then I suppose that's a good example of how easy it is to misunderstand another persons post and when they're actually saying one thing you think they're saying something else
BTW the 'you' was meant to imply people in general
As I've only driven my car around that particular Council estate, I can't say. I only know it happened pretty much every time I went there.
You can't pay less tax than you legally owe - that would be evasion. Avoidance means paying only the legal minimum, ie, what you legally owe.
Again, there may have been a few high profile cases where the lines are blurred, but anyone and everyone knows what avoidance and evasion are. I would suggest that those who end up in court probably have been involved in evasion but have very smart laywers (and other friends) who see to it that they get away with it. Just like plenty of other criminals escape on technicalities - it doesn't mean they're innocent of the crime, just that the court found them not guilty.
My belief is that anyone involved in illegal evasion knows what they're doing but has a means to cover their tracks. That's not the same as avoidance being indistinguishable from evasion - in fact, it goes to prove the opposite.
Nah, all involved know the reality, certainly in most cases anyway.
Some might argue that 28% of all profits, NI contributions plus a higher rate of tax on salary is quite a significant chunk. Some feel it's too much, some even leave the country because of it. Others seek to make sure they only pay what they legally owe.
As I say, I know I pay more than I legally have to pay. As it stands, that's fine with me. Should the burden increase for me, I may feel the need to stop paying tax that I simply do not owe.
No, if I'd have meant that, then that's what I would have posted
I know. Luckily, you also very clearly posted exactly what you meant - that you think people who 'don't need' the child benefit money, but who claim it perfectly legally, are 'selfish'.
Yet you think people who don't need children and have no means of supporting them (and therefore rely on taking money away from everyone else in order to do so) are definitely not selfish.
As I said initially, it's an interesting opposing view for one person to hold.
Actually I'm sure that if you had bothered to read between the lines you would see I was on about people who call the unemployed scroungers while at the same time they are quite okay with the people with enough money that they don't need to claim for Child Benefit but do.
If I really did hold the view that 'rich people are selfish' then I would disagree with you and say that far from it being an interesting view it is a totally ignorant view.
As they say 'don't judge a book by it's colours' I may vote Labour but I'm certainly not a stranger to how 'well off folk' live and I have every respect for the majority them
I personally think child benefit is the root cause of the dependency culture. Its the soft drug that leads the unemployed and poor onto the hard drug of benefit scrounging.
That's why I advocate ditching communist nonsense such as child benefit and pensions. Instead of preaching some do-gooding twaddle about "cakes and XBox for everyone", point to problems such as deprivation, lack of social mobility, housing, transport, NHS, etc, and propose targeted solutions.
Labour must ditch the communist "same for everyone" BS if it is to succeed.
Remember, idealism always fails, but pragmatism will always triumph.
That doesn't mean we don't have the assets to sustain a welfare state.
Or mine .
On the estate where I live most of the houses were council houses but were taken over by a housing association about 6 years ago , some are council houses that have been bought and some newly built houses that are about 2 years old ( Barrett Homes) and are privately owned and I have never seen anything like Lucem Ferre has experienced thankfully.
Glad to hear it. I don't believe it happens everywhere, but in the experience I have had, it happened all the time. I'm afraid I can't base my experience on things I've not actually done.
There are plenty of people here at DS that routinely take a pop at anyone they consider to have plenty of money, so I don't think such attitudes are confined to one Council estate.
There's nothing to 'ignore'. You legally owe what you legally owe. Yes, people can opt to overlook things and then pay more than they have to (as I do) but I do not go out of my way to pay more than I owe - that's what charities are for.
Frequent? Really? I've been in a business to business service industry that operates across the country for the past 10 years and have never met a single person that's been to court over an avoidance/evasion case. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but 'frequent'?
As I understand it, HMIT only prosecutes around 1000 people a year for evasion, that's such a small percentage of the total number of businesses as to be statistically irrelevant.
No, that's unfair. As I said, those who engage in evasion do so knowingly. It's not part of 'doing business' at all, it's part of 'tax evasion'.
Nobody evades tax by accident or without realising it.
It would be avoidance. As I've stated before, I do not claim for certain expenses that I am fully entitled to claim against tax. I could have reduced my CT payment for the last financial year by around £2500, very, very easily. In fact, my accountant got annoyed when I said not to bother. Should the CT rate rise and I find myself £2500 down because of it then, yes, I would probably start to claim those expenses - all of which are entirely legal and genuine.
In fact, the more I read this thread, the more I believe I was a mug not to claim last year!
Simon, the MP's are on holiday, nothing gets in the way of MP's and their summer holidays, not even a leadership election.
I do think though, labour have made a mistake. They should have key MP's on "duty" on a rota system, ready to attack and rebutt the outragous stuff the Tories are sneaking in/announcing just before Parliament brole up or during these holidays.