Fat Cat Wednesday

BillJones

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Income tax being the operative word. Indirect taxes have replaced them.

You were talking about tax on a FFTSE boss's pay, so income tax is of course the right tax to discuss.

As I predicted just up above, when being shown the facts, you've moved the goalposts.

As to your claim that you have done what I am doing "and more", can you clarify, please? I've a marginal rate of tax of 47%, and a net tax of over 40%, on 100% of my income (I have no personal allowance). Have you genuinely paid this rate of tax yourself? Have you really done ot on a 60+ hour working week?

Where do you get the "and more" part from?

And no, senior bankers are paid via PAYE. You dont just get to make up lies that we all avoid tax, and then castigate us for these lies.

grizzly1911

BillJones wrote: »

You were talking about tax on a FFTSE boss's pay, so income tax is of course the right tax to discuss.

As I predicted just up above, when being shown the facts, you've moved the goalposts.

As to your claim that you have done what I am doing "and more", can you clarify, please? I've a marginal rate of tax of 47%, and a net tax of over 40%, on 100% of my income (I have no personal allowance). Have you genuinely paid this rate of tax yourself? Have you really done ot on a 60+ hour working week?

Where do you get the "and more" part from?

And no, senior bankers are paid via PAYE. You dont just get to make up lies that we all avoid tax, and then castigate us for these lies.

If you think £6 million is fine just say it. There is no need to bluster I am not really interested in your pay.

As stated:-

I have always paid tax on my share as determined by an elected government and the rules laid down by the HMRC.

What I earn and how much tax I pay is nothing to do with you.

60+ hours isn't that far off the mark perhaps 5 months. Had I have had the obligation of paying more tax so be it. It is part of living in the society we do.

You are right you did relate 1% and ncome tax at 30%. VAT and Duty are regressive tax impacting those on low pay disproportionately even though they may not make the sacrifices you do personally through income tax.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If you think £6 million is fine just say it. There is no need to bluster I am not really interested in your pay.

I think people should be able to earn any amount and have no issue at all with people earning £6 million or more. I'm very much in favour of making it much harder, and increasing the penalties, for tax evasion.

We need to stop looking at high earning individuals who pay vast amounts in taxation (assuming they are evading/avoiding tax) as though it is a problem and instead focus on the best way to improve things for the lower paid.

If limiting wages to £1 million really was the best way to make the low paid better off then I'd be far more inclined to support it. I am not however remotely persuaded that it wouldn't do more harm than good to the economy.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What I earn and how much tax I pay is nothing to do with you.

..but the pay of a director in a private company that happens to be listed in the FTSE 100 is something to do with you?

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

..but the pay of a director in a private company that happens to be listed in the FTSE 100 is something to do with you?

I quoted remuneration details from an article. Somebody else brought up detailed tax revelations.

If you believe someone at that level seeks to maximise the tax they pay and doesn't take every opportunity to mitigate their liability that is up to you. I am sure my window cleaner, plumber and gardener seek to maximise their liabilities too.

Hundreds of thousands of people would love to suffer the problem of coping with the tax liabilities.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If you believe someone at that level seeks to maximise the tax they pay and doesn't take every opportunity to mitigate their liability that is up to you. I am sure my window cleaner, plumber and gardener seek to maximise their liabilities too.

I doubt they're seeking to maximise their tax but I also doubt they take every opportunity to minimise it.

There comes a point where the returns don't justify the effort and it's better to make more effort to increase income rather than reduce outgoings. I wouldn't judge a rich person for trying to reduce their tax liability nor would I judge a poor person for trying to reduce their own outgoings.

The fact of the matter is that it takes a surprising amount of money to make someone a net taxpayer and nominally the better off will be subsidising the less well off (and will be paying a higher proportion of income tax too). That's not really a problem but the less well off can be so ungrateful and the government insist on being free and easy with other people's money such that the pressure on taxes is always up.

wotsthat

Heard Cliff Richard on the radio over Christmas talking about his homes in Barbados and the Algarve. He was saying that he already spent quite a lot of time away from the UK but his accountant advised him that if he stayed away longer he wouldn't be liable for UK tax. So he's now no longer resident in the UK.

Quite refreshing to hear someone saying they were trying to reduce their tax liability rather than the BS you expect about living abroad for the weather.

Loughton_Monkey

wotsthat wrote: »

Heard Cliff Richard on the radio over Christmas talking about his homes in Barbados and the Algarve. He was saying that he already spent quite a lot of time away from the UK but his accountant advised him that if he stayed away longer he wouldn't be liable for UK tax. So he's now no longer resident in the UK.

Quite refreshing to hear someone saying they were trying to reduce their tax liability rather than the BS you expect about living abroad for the weather.

Took him a long time to work that one out!

I worked for a year in Chicago 1983/4. As long as the start date/end date were 365 days apart, then no UK income tax was required. That allowed 6 weeks 'visit' back to UK. So my 'work' eventually only took 9 months or so, so we both came home. Then I went back to 'finish' the 12 months and then returned.

It seems that had I been in USA for a whole calender year, then I would have been liable to tax over there. But because it was mid year, I got away legally scott-free in both countries. Just as well, since the £/$ rate went extremely wobbly and I lost out a bit in the latter half....

For 6 years in Asia, I was clearly exempt from UK Income tax but had to pay Korean, and then Chinese tax. Actually not dissimilar to UK rates. The bug bear was the absence of any ISA or Pension tax relief. I could earn interest 'offshore' and didn't have to declare that anywhere, though.

The strangest thing, though, in Korea, was that I could deduct credit card spending, since this was tax free. I think it's because Koreans save so hard, it's difficult to get the blighters spending. This was one way to encourage it. Very strange, since there were more Gucci/Rolex/Burberry shops per square mile than you could shake a stick at, and boy! do Korean girls love splashing out in them. However, there's not a 25/30 year old slip of a girl with a lowly clerking job who couldn't show you £35K in savings! [I was reliably informed. I didn't go around perusing their bank books!]