MSE News: Mega rich tax bill 'under 10%', while millions pay 22%

Paul_Herring

Froggitt wrote: »

But surely they must still pay the relevant tax on those other sources of income.

Of course they do. HMRC, however, aren't including it in their figures though. All they're doing is counting "Income Tax," as a percentage of totals income not (a) total tax on income or (b) income tax on income taxable as such.

Something else that stinks of political meddling in this is using the tax bands as bands in their table as if that's what people should be paying in total.

For example if you earn £1 over the lower rate band, you'll pay 40% on that extra £1, not on the whole amount. Quick question - as a percentage of your gross wage of £42,476, how much income tax would you pay?

Highlight to find out: 16.48% (£7,000.40)</answer>

Credit-Crunched

I also agree on the journalism skills on this web site as of late, pure unitlaretal, non reserached opininon. No arguements have any substance to them, or if challenged hold up. They rely on the old bash the bankers and rich headliners that are running a little bit tired now.

I personally would be happy for 10% of £4,000,000 than to drive the eaner to a tax have and have 40% of nothing.

Maybe this web site should provide us some numbers on the obescene amount of money wasted on erroneus and fraudlent beenfits claimants which would eclipse the content of this article significantly!

AirlieBird

Q1: What has this got to do with this site's purpose?

Q2: I prefer to see the information from the horse's mouth, but I cannot find anything other than newspaper reports. Can anyone provide a link? I suspect the source is a written parliamentary answer. I also question how this information can be released when HMRC have not released National Statistics for tax year 2010-11 yet. To do so would a breach of the Official Statistics and Registration Act 2008.

Edit: Q3: Why on earth has this thread been put in the "Small Biz & Charities" board? What has it got to do with Small Business and Charities?

Paul_Herring

AirlieBird wrote: »

I prefer to see the information from the horse's mouth, but I cannot find anything other than newspaper reports. Can anyone provide a link?

Nope.

Seems it was a 'press release' to some mailing list on which 'jornalists' and other interested parties can subscribe. The closest you'll get is probably Tim Worstall's page which I linked to earlier. Paul Lewis got a copy as well.

AirlieBird

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Nope.

Seems it was a 'press release' to some mailing list on which 'jornalists' and other interested parties can subscribe. The closest you'll get is probably Tim Worstall's page which I linked to earlier. Paul Lewis got a copy as well.

Thanks. If it has been sent to a select group of journalists and not released in publically in an easily accessible way, this is very naughty of HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs and I hope that Andrew Dilnot, the new Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, comes down on them heavily for breaching the Code of Coduct for Official Statistics and the Official Statistics and Registration Act 2008.

Paul_Herring

AirlieBird wrote: »

Edit: Q3: Why on earth has this thread been put in the "Small Biz & Charities" board? What has it got to do with Small Business and Charities?

Good point - didn't even notice that; followed it from the 'news' article when it appeared in my RSS feed. Feel free to report the first post as 'the thread is on the wrong board' - I just have.

rpb

It makes sense to me that if the income tax rate is x% then people should pay that and not "avoid" tax by devious means. As income increases the bands increase and people should pay the relevant tax on income in that band. Those with huge incomes should therefore be paying tax on most of their income at the rate of the highest band. This is how it works for the rest of us and I see no reason it shouldn't also work for the super-rich.

I imagine most people don't have a problem with people paying less tax if they give huge amounts to charity, as long as they still pay tax at the appropriate bands for their remaining income.

However, there were some rumours that quite a bit of this "philanthropic charitable giving" was in fact a cover to donate money that the giver or the giver's family or friends then indirectly benefits from, either at the time or later on (e.g. donations to educational trusts that their children can then use). It seems to me that this is what should be absolutely stopped, whereas gifts to "genuine charities" from which the giver receives no benefit (apart from a sense of pride) should not be limited.

danothy

AirlieBird wrote: »

Edit: Q3: Why on earth has this thread been put in the "Small Biz & Charities" board? What has it got to do with Small Business and Charities?

I suspect it is because of the recent charities/tax relief guff. That either implies that someone at MSE just put it in the wrong place on the forum because they had it in their head or that the overall meaning of the press release is intended to back up the cap on tax relief from charitable donation.

So either MSE know something about it we don't or someone was half asleep when they copy/pasted it. Seeing as the editorial content doesn't have any evidence of being checked before it was pasted I suspect the latter.

Paul_Herring

danothy wrote: »

I suspect it is because of the recent charities/tax relief guff. That either implies that someone at MSE just put it in the wrong place on the forum because they had it in their head or that the overall meaning of the press release is intended to back up the cap on tax relief from charitable donation.

Well it appears that's the light that Mr Osborne wants it to be seen in.

Wot? Cynical? Me?

Pincher

Even if everobody pays 22%, the high income earners will still be paying more.

£10k, pays about £440

£100k, pays about £20k

£1million, pays £218k

Since the rich don't get more services from the nation,
and in fact tend to pay for private medicine, it's really unfair for them to pay through the nose.

What about use their money but give it back after five years?
Road and rail infrastructure, Hospital and schools venture capital trusts. If they invest their pre-tax income for five years, they get their money back plus dividend at 20% tax, instead of 35% (or even 40%).