What extra taxes would you volunteer to pay?

westernpromise

If you're in Scotland the likelihood of your ever acquiring an estate large enough to incur IHT is vanishingly small anyway. Since most of Scotland's economy is the public sector, what you acquire or accumulate is largely funded by English taxpayers anyway, so lowering the IHT ceiling to £0 and raising the rate to 100% on estates in Scotland would be fair provided the money collected is returned to south-east England, where it originated.

In reality what happens is that if you own a £1 million house in Scotland, you can gift it to your children through the generations. If you own the same house in south-east England, it will be worth £5 million meaning it will be confiscated by the IHT. This is grossly inequitable and the main home should simply be removed from the estate for IHT purposes to level the playing field.

Money_Muppet

westernpromise wrote: »

Since most of Scotland's economy is the public sector,

Source?

Or is this more trolling?

economic

Seems to me everyone just wants others to pay more taxes rather then themselves. Not surprising at all. I would want the exact same thing.

The main theme from all this is that life is just a game to be played. Game the system/economy/rules or whatever to your advantage. Adjust as things change. Simple really.

I personally will do whatever i can to reduce taxes i pay, either from what i have earnt or inherited. I have no shame in admitting this and am actually quite proud of it (i feel a sense of achievement when i reduce the amount of tax i pay).

Pixie5740

economic wrote: »

Seems to me everyone just wants others to pay more taxes rather then themselves. Not surprising at all. I would want the exact same thing.

The main theme from all this is that life is just a game to be played. Game the system/economy/rules or whatever to your advantage. Adjust as things change. Simple really.

I personally will do whatever i can to reduce taxes i pay, either from what i have earnt or inherited. I have no shame in admitting this and am actually quite proud of it (i feel a sense of achievement when i reduce the amount of tax i pay).

Increasing taxes isn't the answer though, at least not on its own. Increase income tax too much at whilst some people will be happy to pay more others will look at avoiding the increase by paying more into their pensions or making setting up a limited company more viable for those who were borderline before. The government would need to simplify the tax system to close the loopholes which allow people to legitimately avoid paying tax. Then you could feel an even greater sense of achievement when you manage to reduce your tax liability.

Lower taxes and a simpler tax system that's what I would like but if you're going to increase any taxes then wealth generated through HPI and/or IHT would be my choice(s).

It's just a shame that Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron spunked the money from oil revenues rather than setting up a soverign wealth fund like other oil rich countires. Then there's the £22 billion Brown [STRIKE]collected [/STRIKE] wasted from auctioning off 3G mobile licences

lisyloo

Money_Muppet wrote: »

Unfortunately I too am PAYE so don't have to opportunity to find or use loopholes to avoid paying my fair share.

I don;t know what qualifies as a loophole but salary sacrifice into a pension is very good. If your company doesnt do salary sacrifice you can still recover inc9me tax on pension contributions, both available under PAYE

I have asked what is a loophole and what is not and that has not been answered.

I would say that Lewis Hamilton setting up companies to lease back things he owns is a loophole, but salary sacrifice &/benefits have clear rules so I dont see how they can be loopholes (some people salary sacrifice and get i. Work benefits).

Is getting dividends from a limited company a loophole if so why hasnt it been closed?

Things that HMRC allow and actually encourage I would interpret NOT to be loopholes.
Salary sacrifice was changed in a very recent budget so I interpret salary sacrifice into a pension not to be a loophole but in fact incentivised.

Also I believe the dividen free tax allowance is changing so this has been reviewed recently, so Id take the governments position to be the one they want and therefore totally legit.

economic

why should people have to pay into their pension to reduce tax liability, money that wont be seen till they retire??

perhaps this is what government secretly want as maybe in future state pension will be reduced by how much private pension wealth one has.

economic

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Increasing taxes isn't the answer though, at least not on its own. Increase income tax too much at whilst some people will be happy to pay more others will look at avoiding the increase by paying more into their pensions or making setting up a limited company more viable for those who were borderline before. The government would need to simplify the tax system to close the loopholes which allow people to legitimately avoid paying tax. Then you could feel an even greater sense of achievement when you manage to reduce your tax liability.

Lower taxes and a simpler tax system that's what I would like but if you're going to increase any taxes then wealth generated through HPI and/or IHT would be my choice(s).

It's just a shame that Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron spunked the money from oil revenues rather than setting up a soverign wealth fund like other oil rich countires. Then there's the £22 billion Brown [STRIKE]collected [/STRIKE] wasted from auctioning off 3G mobile licences

Of course you would want to increase IHT and HPI tax. It would not affect you much would it?

Increasing IHT is stupid, it would just be spent or gifted away anyway. IHT should be abolished to save on bureaucracy and paperwork and debate time.

lisyloo

economic wrote: »

why should people have to pay into their pension to reduce tax liability, money that wont be seen till they retire.

They don;t HAVE to.
Im just refuting that there Are NO tax breaks for PAYE employees.
I get 45.8% relief on my contributions and I;m PAYE.

As an aside why would you want to make NO provision for retirement? I can only think of terminal illness which would be very much an exception, everyone else should be making provision unless they are on the bread-line.

Money_Muppet

economic wrote: »

Increasing IHT is stupid, it would just be spent or gifted away anyway. IHT should be abolished to save on bureaucracy and paperwork and debate time.

I agree IHT should be abolished. The person receiving any income from a deceased persons estate should be paying tax on that income at their marginal rate though imo.

economic

lisyloo wrote: »

They don;t HAVE to.
Im just refuting that there Are NO tax breaks for PAYE employees.
I get 45.8% relief on my contributions and I;m PAYE.

As an aside why would you want to make NO provision for retirement? I can only think of terminal illness which would be very much an exception, everyone else should be making provision unless they are on the bread-line.

Yes but the tax relief from pension contributions may not suit everyone. TBH it’s a weak tax relief. You can’t spend it till later in life. So there’s little flexibility. Some people prefer to have the tax relief so they can use the money now. Reduction in income tax is far far better.