How long will Cameron stay at No.10

HornetSaver

Gone within three months.

Far easier to accuse Gideon of a conflict of interest than Dave - which unsurprisingly is exactly what the left-leaning press have done. In fairness they were critical of the policies at the time, so it's not as if they're being inconsistent.

I actually think the rich pay far too much tax. A flat rate of tax would be much fairer. Why should the rich have to pay a marginal tax rate of 45% when people with modest incomes are only taxed at 20%?

Perhaps - and I am not attempting to be sarcastic - because the rich, who generally self assess, can far more easily lower their marginal tax rate that those on modest incomes, even when not attempting to aggressively do so.

Besides which, the structure is the same for everyone. Someone with a salary of £250,000 a year will pay 20% on the same amount as everyone else up to the £45,000 threshold, pay 40% on anything between the lower and upper threshold for that band, and 45% from that point onwards. It would of course be outrageous if that person had to pay 45% from penny one.

The only difference is that as I understand it, if your income is over ~£125,000 you lose your personal allowance. Would be interested to know when this situation came into being - it might very well be that this peculiarity was brought in at the same time as a tax change which would generally benefit a high-earner?

EDIT: I should add that I do think the difference between the basic and top rate of tax is too high. I would even go as far as to use the word "unfair" in relation to those who earn high incomes through salaries and therefore pay through PAYE.

Though almost all governments left, centre and right since 1980 (the Conservative and coalition ones consistently, and Labour from May 1997 until February 2010) have taken the view that a Government's job is to optimise tax bands to ensure maximum revenue for minimum treasury/economic cost (at the lower end, not bothering to collect tax simply to end up having to pay that much more in benefits to achieve the same standard of subsistence, or setting upper tax rates too high and therefore losing money to tax avoidance), rather than to be fair.

DiggerUK

Nick_C wrote: »

........ A flat rate of tax would be much fairer...........

I would have no problem with a flat rate of tax, nor the same tax free allowance for everyone.
So long as all the tax avoidance loopholes were shut down, or made equally accessible. The loopholes only benefit the tax shy rich..._

Nick_C

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

DiggerUK wrote: »

I would have no problem with a flat rate of tax, nor the same tax free allowance for everyone.
So long as all the tax avoidance loopholes were shut down, or made equally accessible. The loopholes only benefit the tax shy rich..._

There are plenty of tax avoidance "loopholes" available to all. More than 20% of my modest income comes from tax free sources.

I have always taken advantage of every possible means of reducing my tax liability.

If you let the Government take money from you, they will only waste it.

DiggerUK

Nick_C wrote: »

.......I have always taken advantage of every possible means of reducing my tax liability........

So has Digger Mansions, but these schemes are designed to be of benefit to only the wealthiest percentile. The costs ensure that.
Nobody from Digger Mansions is abusing their position in parliament to ensure that laws stay in place to benefit from..._

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/11/smash-uk-!!!!!-elite-treat-offshore-wealth-terrorist-finance-perugia

The MSE language police have !!!!! were the word m@fi@ should be in the link.
The article is by Paul Mason in the Guardian headed "Smash the m!!!a elite: we should treat offshore wealth as terrorist finance"

Generali

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

DiggerUK wrote: »

So has Digger Mansions, but these schemes are designed to be of benefit to only the wealthiest percentile. The costs ensure that.
Nobody from Digger Mansions is abusing their position in parliament to ensure that laws stay in place to benefit from..._

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/11/smash-uk-!!!!!-elite-treat-offshore-wealth-terrorist-finance-perugia

Your link is broken.

Mr Cameron still hasn't done anything wrong despite the jibes thrown at him by those still fighting the Class War.

Nick_C

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

Generali wrote: »

Mr Cameron still hasn't done anything wrong ...

The only thing Cameron has done wrong is mismanage the affair, which he always seems to do. How such an inept politician rose to the top is beyond me (of course you could say that of JC as well).

Cameron should have stuck to his original response, "this is a private matter", perhaps adding that he had made full and honest returns to HMRC and paid all taxes due.

Any investigation into anyone's tax affairs should be carried out in private by HMRC.

wolvoman

Safe until a new leader elected in time for next election.

westernpromise wrote: »

I have to say that following Cameron 's retrospective tax on BTL mortgages and the moves to increase tax on estates by charging a £20k probate fee, after he promised to reduce tax on estates, I'm gurgling with joy to see him skewered over tax arrangements entered into years ago, and attempts at dodging the IHT the rest of us have to pay.

Karma is, as the saying goes, a !!!!!.

You can dodge IHT too?
That method of tax planning is open to all.

HornetSaver

Gone within three months.

Random bump.

DiggerUK

HornetSaver wrote: »

Random bump.

His tax affairs aren't the reason for him to offer his resignation, as yet I don't think it has been officially accepted by anyone outside of Buckingham Palace.
He may last the three months, or he may do a Farage; who's to say what happens next..._