MSE News: Over half would do a Jimmy Carr on tax, or worse

lulabelle1

Maybe if the government had a flat rate of tax for everyone regardless of income, then people would not take advantage of legal tax avoidance schemes....

IMO if someone earning £20k pays 20% tax and contributes say £4k in tax (not exact figure, just using for simple demonstration), then I see no reason why someone earning £150K shouldn't just pay the same 20% tax - they would be contributing £30k in tax which is a huge amount of money... I really don't understand why their percentage should be increased to 40% and 45%....

Fact is, if the tax system was fairer with a flat rate, people wouldn't look elsewhere to save money.

The stupid thing is that someone like Jimmy Carr probably paid circa 18% in fees to the company that he did the scheme with. If the government were being fair with a flat rate, then they could have collected the 20% in tax rather than the avoidance company collecting the 18%....

A flat rate of tax would make the avoidance companies schemes far less attractive and I'm sure that the number of people using them would drop massively.

Anyway, just my opinion for what it's worth. I'm all for a fair society where everyone contributes a fair share, hence why I don't personally think that 40% and 45% rates of tax are fair at all. In fact, I oppose them more than I do the avoidance schemes....

m5rcc

Jimmy Carr would not have paid 18% in fees at all. These fees are usually 2.5% of account size.

m5rcc

business_man wrote: »

I don't want to pay taxes where a working couple has less money to spend than drunk benefit scroungers.

Absolutely!

lkate

lulabelle1 wrote: »

Maybe if the government had a flat rate of tax for everyone regardless of income, then people would not take advantage of legal tax avoidance schemes....

IMO if someone earning £20k pays 20% tax and contributes say £4k in tax (not exact figure, just using for simple demonstration), then I see no reason why someone earning £150K shouldn't just pay the same 20% tax - they would be contributing £30k in tax which is a huge amount of money... I really don't understand why their percentage should be increased to 40% and 45%....

Fact is, if the tax system was fairer with a flat rate, people wouldn't look elsewhere to save money.

The stupid thing is that someone like Jimmy Carr probably paid circa 18% in fees to the company that he did the scheme with. If the government were being fair with a flat rate, then they could have collected the 20% in tax rather than the avoidance company collecting the 18%....

A flat rate of tax would make the avoidance companies schemes far less attractive and I'm sure that the number of people using them would drop massively.

Anyway, just my opinion for what it's worth. I'm all for a fair society where everyone contributes a fair share, hence why I don't personally think that 40% and 45% rates of tax are fair at all. In fact, I oppose them more than I do the avoidance schemes....

I honestly could not agree with you more!!! I just don't get this whole "TAX THE RICH" crap.
Just because someone has worked hard and is rich doesn't mean the government should take more and more money from them. Unfortunately you will get people that will never look at that side of the argument..... Now.. Outlandish bonuses and massive retirement pay for doing a bad job and committing what I would class as Freud... That i do not agree with!!

System

lulabelle1 wrote: »

Maybe if the government had a flat rate of tax for everyone regardless of income, then people would not take advantage of legal tax avoidance schemes....

IMO if someone earning £20k pays 20% tax and contributes say £4k in tax (not exact figure, just using for simple demonstration), then I see no reason why someone earning £150K shouldn't just pay the same 20% tax - they would be contributing £30k in tax which is a huge amount of money... I really don't understand why their percentage should be increased to 40% and 45%....

Fact is, if the tax system was fairer with a flat rate, people wouldn't look elsewhere to save money.

The stupid thing is that someone like Jimmy Carr probably paid circa 18% in fees to the company that he did the scheme with. If the government were being fair with a flat rate, then they could have collected the 20% in tax rather than the avoidance company collecting the 18%....

A flat rate of tax would make the avoidance companies schemes far less attractive and I'm sure that the number of people using them would drop massively.

Anyway, just my opinion for what it's worth. I'm all for a fair society where everyone contributes a fair share, hence why I don't personally think that 40% and 45% rates of tax are fair at all. In fact, I oppose them more than I do the avoidance schemes....

Not talking specifically about JC, more about the relevations that came out regarding these schemes in general. With some participants allegedly paying as little as 1% surely that suggests no matter how low tax rates go, for some people it'll never be low enough and they'll always try to pay less.

I can see the logic of a flat tax system, but progressive systems like ours intentionally take ability to pay into account. For a flat system to collect the same amount of tax overall, rates would need to rise for those at the bottom as they fall for those at the top. To put that into perspective about 10% of earners (including a small % of pensioners) pay tax at 40%. A flat tax system would benefit this 10%, leaving the remaining 90% to pay more than at present.

Of course that assumes the purpose of the system would be to collect the same cash amount as at present.

rogerblack

It would be extremely interesting to re-run this poll, but include details of actual earnings.
I suspect essentially all 'high net worth' individuals, and most MPs would think it quite right to pay the minimal amount of tax that is legal.

lulabelle1

m5rcc wrote: »

Jimmy Carr would not have paid 18% in fees at all. These fees are usually 2.5% of account size.

If he was on a scheme as detailed in the Times whereby he was paid in interest fee loans as appose to an investment fund, then it would be 18%

prowla

Every taxpayer has a duty to pay the tax they are legally required to.

dtsazza

BTwhistleblower wrote: »

:mad:

Ethical? what about all the 'global' and 'multinationals' that avoid paying billions by registering outside the UK?

What about you?

You're avoiding paying billions, by having zero UK profits just like these multinationals are. If you had tens of billions of pounds in UK profits, you'd be paying the Treasury a lot more.

What about a successful carpenter in San Francisco? He also has zero UK profits and so doesn't have to pay any tax.


There is value to your point, but I don't think it's expressed very well. These companies are paying all the tax they are required to pay. If you think that they ought to be required to pay more, on the basis of what they do/are, then what you're really saying is that the current method to calculate tax liabilities is flawed.

Identifying exactly what it is that you think should form the basis of the tax calculation, and proposing that this be implemented, would be a much more effective way of expressing your displeasure.

thewad

Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is not illegal and in fact everyone should do it.
Why is everyone making a fuss over someone who's managed to maximise his profits and minimise his tax bill legally.
First rule of business I thought.
All this has done is bring it to the mind of the general public so now more people will be looking to do it who didn't know about it before.

John