Thats what the rich want you to believe, if thats true why not reduce the tax to 10% and get more income that way.
The post explained that.
There are two factors at work here. The total amount that could be paid v. the amount that actually is paid. As the official rate increases people find more and more ways to avoid it. So at 10% tax no-one can be bothered to try and avoid paying it however 10% is too low for the country to survive(*). At 60% everyone would try to avoid it and the country might only get a third of that - equal to a tax rate at 20%. However at a rate of 50% it's possible that avoidance is still fairly low and the government might get most of it - equivalent to a rate of 40% perhaps.
(*)Bearing in mind that 'the rich' contribute something like 90% of all income tax that the state receives.
What about all the cash in hand lower paid workers, shouldn't the same be said for them? Or benefit bashes?
As long as there's cash, that will always happen. Just as tradesmen will give a discount for cash payments ....and their customers will go along with that as it saves them money.....
,, and cleaners will be paid in cash left for them in their client's houses, whilst the client is at work
At that level, there is little the government can do to prevent it.
As long as there's cash, that will always happen. Just as tradesmen will give a discount for cash payments.
....and their customers will go along with that as it saves them money.....
Yes, I agree, but I don't see why that's ok to many fms but those that do it legally are out of order simply because they are seen as rich.
That scrounges programme was on the other day and they found a guy with something like 5 hours, 2million in income and he was claiming benefits as he was putting it all in different names. That's who should be getting the wrath of ds, not those acting within the law.
Yes, I agree, but I don't see why that's ok to many fms but those that do it legally are out of order simply because they are seen as rich.
If it's legal, then criticism is a waste of breath. The parties concerned won't give a damn.
That scrounges programme was on the other day and they found a guy with something like 5 hours, 2million in income and he was claiming benefits as he was putting it all in different names. That's who should be getting the wrath of ds, not those acting within the law.
100% agree. What's more I can't understand the mentality of an otherwise wealthy person illegally claiming benefits.
If it's legal, then criticism is a waste of breath. The parties concerned won't give a damn.
100% agree. What's more I can't understand the mentality of an otherwise wealthy person illegally claiming benefits.
Me either, I think it's just a case of greed. This guy had family set up in his houses so they were getting he too. It was a right scam that he'd been at for years. Sadly I doubt he's the only one.
If it's legal, then criticism is a waste of breath. The parties concerned won't give a damn.
And that's how it should be. That's why we have laws. It'd be a helluva world if we could be prosecuted by the authorities just because the press or 'popular opinion' said we'd done something wrong. Anyway you can still get the politicians to act. They are, after all, lawmakers so get them to amend the law. Of course it's then difficult to retrospectively apply the law but that also is a good thing.
Laws are the rules of the game of civilisation. You shouldn't be able to punish someone unless they contravene a law at the time they act.
If the tax rate was 0% then the income would be zero but if the tax rate was 100% then the income would also be close to zero as there would be no incentive to do work legally and a lot of incentive to cheat the system.
It follows that somewhere between 0% and 100% there is an optimum level of tax which raises the most money. 10% is probably too low to raise enough money but 60-70% is too high as it encourages a black market and tax evasion.
Ironically, I think the attitude of "all our tax goes on benefit scroungers" that the entire media world is pushing, is going to make more people avoid tax than a reduction.
Also, people who are avoiding tax aren't going to suddenly think, you know what? I think I'll start paying now it's 5% cheaper. They're going to continue avoiding it, because they don't want to share any of their money.
Don't try and trick people with flawed mathematics, the cut is only to benefit the rich. Nothing more. There will be no more tax generated by this.
Of course the real answer would be to clamp down on tax avoiders, the way they clamp down on benefit cheats. But we don't want to hurt the rich do we? I love how tax avoiders don't get on the front page of every paper every day, even though they cost the state for more than benefit cheats.
We also need to change the attitude that tax is a really bad thing to have to pay. Tax covers so many things that we need to survive, I hate the resentment people have to paying it.
Could someone explain to me how a 45% rate gets more in Tax than the 50% rate, if im a rich person, explain how I would happy to pay more tax if it was lower? Why would I be suddenly declaring more money for tax just because its lowered by 5%.?
I doubt all those who've found ways to avoid paying tax at 50% are suddenly going to become honest now.
And that's how it should be. That's why we have laws. It'd be a helluva world if we could be prosecuted by the authorities just because the press or 'popular opinion' said we'd done something wrong. Anyway you can still get the politicians to act. They are, after all, lawmakers so get them to amend the law. Of course it's then difficult to retrospectively apply the law but that also is a good thing.
Laws are the rules of the game of civilisation. You shouldn't be able to punish someone unless they contravene a law at the time they act.
The press and the Government did exactly that by vilifying Starbucks for legally avoiding tax according the rules of the day, until they were forced to hand over some money.
And that's how it should be. That's why we have laws. It'd be a helluva world if we could be prosecuted by the authorities just because the press or 'popular opinion' said we'd done something wrong. Anyway you can still get the politicians to act. They are, after all, lawmakers so get them to amend the law. Of course it's then difficult to retrospectively apply the law but that also is a good thing.
Laws are the rules of the game of civilisation. You shouldn't be able to punish someone unless they contravene a law at the time they act.
Indeed. Shame they don't all abide by existing laws.
Comments
You can't blame people for legally exploiting tax rules.
And avoiding paying half (or almost half) thier earnings in tax.
There are two factors at work here. The total amount that could be paid v. the amount that actually is paid. As the official rate increases people find more and more ways to avoid it. So at 10% tax no-one can be bothered to try and avoid paying it however 10% is too low for the country to survive(*). At 60% everyone would try to avoid it and the country might only get a third of that - equal to a tax rate at 20%. However at a rate of 50% it's possible that avoidance is still fairly low and the government might get most of it - equivalent to a rate of 40% perhaps.
(*)Bearing in mind that 'the rich' contribute something like 90% of all income tax that the state receives.
That doesn't really make sense.
If they're not doing anything illegal, then by definition they're paying what they're supposed to.
As long as there's cash, that will always happen. Just as tradesmen will give a discount for cash payments ....and their customers will go along with that as it saves them money.....
,, and cleaners will be paid in cash left for them in their client's houses, whilst the client is at work
At that level, there is little the government can do to prevent it.
Yes, I agree, but I don't see why that's ok to many fms but those that do it legally are out of order simply because they are seen as rich.
That scrounges programme was on the other day and they found a guy with something like 5 hours, 2million in income and he was claiming benefits as he was putting it all in different names. That's who should be getting the wrath of ds, not those acting within the law.
If it's legal, then criticism is a waste of breath. The parties concerned won't give a damn.
100% agree. What's more I can't understand the mentality of an otherwise wealthy person illegally claiming benefits.
Me either, I think it's just a case of greed. This guy had family set up in his houses so they were getting he too. It was a right scam that he'd been at for years. Sadly I doubt he's the only one.
Laws are the rules of the game of civilisation. You shouldn't be able to punish someone unless they contravene a law at the time they act.
Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
If the tax rate was 0% then the income would be zero but if the tax rate was 100% then the income would also be close to zero as there would be no incentive to do work legally and a lot of incentive to cheat the system.
It follows that somewhere between 0% and 100% there is an optimum level of tax which raises the most money. 10% is probably too low to raise enough money but 60-70% is too high as it encourages a black market and tax evasion.
Also, people who are avoiding tax aren't going to suddenly think, you know what? I think I'll start paying now it's 5% cheaper. They're going to continue avoiding it, because they don't want to share any of their money.
Don't try and trick people with flawed mathematics, the cut is only to benefit the rich. Nothing more. There will be no more tax generated by this.
Of course the real answer would be to clamp down on tax avoiders, the way they clamp down on benefit cheats. But we don't want to hurt the rich do we? I love how tax avoiders don't get on the front page of every paper every day, even though they cost the state for more than benefit cheats.
We also need to change the attitude that tax is a really bad thing to have to pay. Tax covers so many things that we need to survive, I hate the resentment people have to paying it.
The press and the Government did exactly that by vilifying Starbucks for legally avoiding tax according the rules of the day, until they were forced to hand over some money.
Indeed. Shame they don't all abide by existing laws.