Tens of thousands face 'bully boy' investigations in new crackdown - The DM

bendix

It's not a slur. It is a statement of fact that said rumours are circulating at the moment.

Clegg would be very wise to issue a clarifying statement as to his wife's tax status as soon as possible if he is to pursue this policy.

chewmylegoff

so they're going to investigate half of all the people who pay 50% tax ever year?

erm... the people who file tax returns and declare sufficient income to pay 50% tax are not the ones you want to be investigating. if you investigate half of all of those tax returns you are likely, in my view, to lose revenue as the cost of investigation will outweigh any additional tax take.

the real issue is people who should be paying 50% tax but aren't pay any because their salary is paid into a trust in Jersey or some such other nonsense.

simplify the tax system and close the loopholes. and then investigate hedge fund staff who pay less tax than their office cleaners. don't throw all your resources at investigation the ones who are actually paying their tax. duh!

torontoboy45

bendix wrote: »

It's not a slur. It is a statement of fact that said rumours are circulating at the moment.

Clegg would be very wise to issue a clarifying statement as to his wife's tax status as soon as possible if he is to pursue this policy.

you're personalising this in the same way as the mail (danny).

I assume ms clegg is in charge of her own tax affairs, so perhaps she should make a statement (if there's anything to state).

away from the tax avoidance schemes most of us are involved in: ISA's private pensions,etc (already mentioned and mostly peanuts anyway) how many ordinary people do you know who tax plan?

I guess that most people simply PAYE which to my mind makes them even more ordinary.

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

simplify the tax system and close the loopholes. and then investigate hedge fund staff who pay less tax than their office cleaners. don't throw all your resources at investigation the ones who are actually paying their tax. duh!

I think the thinking maybe that those in the 50%+ bracket also employ schemes like bonus payment through offshore trusts.

Can anyone here explain the benefits we taxpayers gain from the widespread use of offshore companies, in all their forms?

They just seem an excuse to pay less tax, or hide your earnings.

Do they have a beneficial purpose to the economy?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

kabayiri wrote: »

I think the thinking maybe that those in the 50%+ bracket also employ schemes like bonus payment through offshore trusts.

Through additional income sources possibly.


But I bet you find most of those offshore trusts etc are owned by standard rate taxpayers.

Why would you set one of them up & not milk it for every single penny?

Spartacus_Mills

bendix wrote: »

It's not a slur. It is a statement of fact that said rumours are circulating at the moment.

Clegg would be very wise to issue a clarifying statement as to his wife's tax status as soon as possible if he is to pursue this policy.

Nonsense, the way you wrote it was intended as a slur. Indeed how do we know there is any truth in what you say and you have not just pulled it out of your butt.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Nonsense, the way you wrote it was intended as a slur. Indeed how do we know there is any truth in what you say and you have not just pulled it out of your butt.

You would know about butts wouldn't you Sparti!!!!.

ninky_2

surely the big issues with tax avoidance are big business not small. they should be going after the big guys first. much easier to pick on the little people though.

bendix

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Nonsense, the way you wrote it was intended as a slur. Indeed how do we know there is any truth in what you say and you have not just pulled it out of your butt.

We don't know there is any truth in what I say, because if you deconstruct what I said you will see I don't make any claims about her tax status. That is because it is . . wait for it . . a rumour.

But it is a fact that there is a rumour - and one that has gained increasing momentum in the last month or so.

I know what the rumours are, but I can't comment on their veracity or otherwise.

I can state categorically that they exist.

chewmylegoff

kabayiri wrote: »

I think the thinking maybe that those in the 50%+ bracket also employ schemes like bonus payment through offshore trusts.

Can anyone here explain the benefits we taxpayers gain from the widespread use of offshore companies, in all their forms?

They just seem an excuse to pay less tax, or hide your earnings.

Do they have a beneficial purpose to the economy?

i'm sure there are some people declaring income sufficient to pay 50% tax who are also hiding income through offshore routes, but i rather doubt there is systematic evasion by 50% tax payers on a scale which would make it worth investigating half of all related tax returns. further, anyone who is known to the tax system is going to be very careful about what they don't declare so any additional income is unlikely to be detectable anyway.

re: offshore companies, they do not exist in order to benefit the onshore UK economy, quite the opposite. the UK has no control over them, but it can control (by means of taxation) payments to them.