# hiding scrap metal



## Jacob (7 Apr 2016)

Just in case anybody is wondering; there are no offshore funds/trusts which I, my misses or the kids will benefit from in future. Though I occasionally tuck away a bit of scrap metal behind the shed.


----------



## sunnybob (7 Apr 2016)

Thats funny, I've got none of them too. Must be my working class upbringing.
Dont even get scrap now I'm retired. Oh well, the state pension will see me through.


----------



## Fitzroy (7 Apr 2016)

I consider myself a well educated and well paid individual but I still have absolutely do clue about all this offshore stuff. I have a bank account, a savings account and a credit card. How do you even get introduced to all this other stuff, and if you do the only reason you could possibly have for using them is surely to avoid fully paying your dues!


----------



## AJB Temple (7 Apr 2016)

Few people volunteer to pay tax. We pay an enormous amount in income taxes, national insurance, fuel duties, inheritance tax VAT and disguised taxes (such as the crazily excessive business rates).


----------



## lurker (7 Apr 2016)

AJB Temple":i58z6dkp said:


> Few people volunteer to pay tax. We pay an enormous amount in income taxes, national insurance, fuel duties, inheritance tax VAT and disguised taxes (such as the crazily excessive business rates).



Correction: 
"little people" pay a high proportion of their income in various taxes.
The reason is that folks like Dave's Dad avoid whats due.


----------



## RogerP (7 Apr 2016)

Fitzroy":18r6326d said:


> I consider myself a well educated and well paid individual but I still have absolutely do clue about all this offshore stuff. I have a bank account, a savings account and a credit card. How do you even get introduced to all this other stuff, and if you do the only reason you could possibly have for using them is surely to avoid fully paying your dues!


... by hiring the right accountant. :wink:


----------



## Rorschach (7 Apr 2016)

If the opportunity is there to legally avoid paying taxes I don't blame anyone for doing it. What needs to be changed is the law and the way we pay tax. For starters we need a flat rate for income tax.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Apr 2016)

lurker":2k5e3yaq said:


> AJB Temple":2k5e3yaq said:
> 
> 
> > Few people volunteer to pay tax. We pay an enormous amount in income taxes, national insurance, fuel duties, inheritance tax VAT and disguised taxes (such as the crazily excessive business rates).
> ...


That's the point though, isn't it? You make arrangements to make sure it's not due. It's perfectly legal. If someone said to you put your wages into Barclays and you'll pay tax, put them into HSBC and won't - what would you do? I know what I'd do. Why the moral outbursts about people doing things that are perfectly legal - the law needs changing so that they are not.


----------



## Wuffles (7 Apr 2016)

I offshored my scrap metal, was pretty easy. It sank.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Apr 2016)

Ironically, the best performing tax laws in the world are thought to be Hong Kong's - and they are also the world's shortest. HK's are 276 pages, ours are over 17,000. I did read a very interesting article once where the writer claimed that ours was deliberately too long and over complicated - so that clever people could always find ways of bulldozing holes through it.


----------



## Wuffles (7 Apr 2016)

phil.p":3sb51n4l said:


> Ironically, the best performing tax laws in the world are thought to be Hong Kong's - and they are also the world's shortest. HK's are 276 pages, ours are over 17,000. I did read a very interesting article once where the writer claimed that ours was deliberately too long and over complicated - so that clever people could always find ways of bulldozing holes through it.



Which may explain "China and Hong Kong were Mossack Fonseca’s biggest sources of business", from this Guardian article.


----------



## Eric The Viking (7 Apr 2016)

I have never understood either VAT or the objections to "flat" income tax.

I know where VAT came from, and that it offloads the cost of collection onto the business rather than the state, but it is horribly inefficient and wasteful, and very unfair.

Flat tax -- by which everyone pays the same percentage of their income -- seems straightforward and cheap to run. If the purpose of tax is to get money for public services, making taxation costly in itself is simply daft.

But we seem now to have government that seeks simply to exist for its own sake, rather than to serve as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Tax avoidance is the honest behaviour of a rational person to minmise the tax they pay; tax evasion is dishonesty. There is no reason to confuse the two, _unless_ you are a politician or bureaucrat trying to make a case that people should simply pay everything the government demands of them, no matter what and without question.

In the UK, roughly 40% of our GDP* is taken as tax by government[1]. But that doesn't reflect the fact that less than half the population are considered 'taxpayers' at all[2]. For those people, the total they give to government each year is well over half their total income.

It's time things changed.

E.

PS: more than 1/3 the total government budget now is spent on benefits (of various kinds).

*Gross Domestic Product - is an official attempt to put a value on ALL eonomic activity in the UK over each year. 
[1] Wikipedia.
[2] Institute for Fiscal Studies report, table 2.1, p.5.


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2016)

Eric The Viking":quhh6af8 said:


> I have never understood either VAT or the objections to "flat" income tax.


A flat tax wouldn't raise enough dosh. The rate couldn't be very high or people with low incomes would not have enough to live on. It's that simple. It hasn't worked anywhere else either, except in the usual exceptions of banana republics and poverty stricken dictatorships, etc.


> ..... more than 1/3 the total government budget now is spent on benefits (of various kinds).....


More like 100%. The whole idea is that government raises tax and spends it to benefit the whole community, one way or another.
Historically, here and in USA, the economy grew fastest when marginal tax rates were in the 80 - 90%. Basically the money goes around and powers the economy. Taxation drives economies. Letting personal wealth accumulate in off shore banks or whatever, drains the economy.


----------



## Eric The Viking (7 Apr 2016)

Jacob":3obf99ce said:


> Taxation drives economies.



Actually, taxation and government spending drives _inflation_, unless it's done very carefully. Inflation can also be thought of as a "stealth" tax on the poor.

And you know very well what "benefits" means in that context: not the NHS, not education, not military spending, not infrastructure projects, not police...


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2016)

Eric The Viking":1n5wixil said:


> Jacob":1n5wixil said:
> 
> 
> > Taxation drives economies.
> ...


Exactly the opposite: inflation reduces the real value of money - those with a surplus are worse off, those with debts are better off. Can be used constructively - the only way to get house prices down without massive negative equity would be to devalue; house price stays same but value of money is reduced.


> And you know very well what "benefits" means in that context: not the NHS, not education, not military spending, not infrastructure projects, not police...


You mean I know what _you_ mean by benefits! 
I don't discriminate in the same way, as far as I'm concerned they are all privileges of living in a civilised high-tax society.


----------



## Fitzroy (7 Apr 2016)

Jacob":25h45qi7 said:


> You mean I know what _you_ mean by benefits!
> I don't discriminate in the same way, as far as I'm concerned they are all privileges of living in a civilised high-tax society.



I'm loving the debate between you folks. Jacob's point above is actually very thought provoking. I think the media do a great job at stirring up ill feeling (is hatred too strong) towards those in society who require direct monetary benefits, whilst in all reality these are the very people who require societies greatest support. I think I am a closet socialist as I'm actually not to bothered about paying tax so long as it is well spent; that's my issue that government spending is so opaque.

Also does the same sentiment regarding, tax avoidance (legal) not also apply to benefits? If you are entitled to them why would you not claim them! We should be upset/annoyed with the system not the individual.


----------



## Eric The Viking (7 Apr 2016)

Fitzroy":3pi5cdf1 said:


> We should be upset/annoyed with the system not the individual.


I agree. I am.


----------



## heimlaga (8 Apr 2016)

I am very much against flat tax.

If the welfare system and defence and police and everything are to be upheld on a reasonable level the flat tax rate would end up at such a high level that lots of poor people like me would be driven bankrupt and loose all our belongings and our homes and be forced to live on benefits for the rest our lives. Bankrupt due to tax debths. After that we would have to pay such a high percentage of the benefits in tax that we would be forced to steal and rob from the rich to afford enough food and heating and clothes to survive.

The most typical feature of the new class society is that the new gentry are utterly ignorant of the daily reality of the poor.

I think the great deficiensy in European government budgets gould be cured by making two changes:
-Make it possible for everyone to pay tax on our actual incomes
-Make an agreement that every business must pay tax in the country where the activity or production takes place. Otherwise they would be thrown out of the country on two days notice ant their remaining assets auctioned off.
-Chase the tax cheaters and have them punished severely.

Once that is done I think most Euriopean countries could have a surplus of money and be able to cut down certain taxes to stimulete the economy.


----------



## Jacob (8 Apr 2016)

heimlaga":19j50mvv said:


> ....
> The most typical feature of the new class society is that the new gentry are utterly ignorant of the daily reality of the poor.


Nothing new about that it's always been that way.
It was thought to be just a natural fact of life 
_The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate._
But we've moved on a bit since then - well some of us have!



> ......... I think most European countries could have a surplus of money and be able to cut down certain taxes to stimulete the economy.


Funny how people miss the point entirely on this - in fact cutting taxes stifles economies. Taxation stimulates economies - it's fed back into infrastructure etc. The state is the biggest employer and the biggest investor into many things including research and development, or education - investment in "human capital", or health, housing and welfare; investment into your community - or nationalised industries; keeping them in UK ownership and keeping jobs here.
Tax: what goes around comes around.


----------



## heimlaga (8 Apr 2016)

That is absolutely correct!
What I was thinking about was certain fields that are currently taxed to death. In Finland that is for instance one man businesses with small turnover and workers with low wages living in the country. I think thet certain tax cuts aimed at certain small areas would be beneficial. Fewer would end up living on benefits and that would stimulate economy.
General tax cuts for all would only send more money towards foreign tax havens when the rich have exess money.

By the way I was taught in school that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful because God rewards them for being better persons than the rest of us. I was also taght that all illesses and powerty are God's punishment to people who are born sinful and inferrior and hence deserve it. 
That was in the 1980-ies...... not the 1890-ies as one might think.

I wasn't very good at learning.......... fortunately. Instead I learned to never trust authorities and never obey stupidity.


----------



## Jacob (8 Apr 2016)

heimlaga":31cspuh7 said:


> ......
> General tax cuts for all would only send more money towards foreign tax havens when the rich have excess money.......


Yup.
Excessive wealth and widespread poverty are both typical signs of a failed state.


----------



## deema (8 Apr 2016)

A couple of years ago, a chap with a stout house, psychopathic tendencies, pumped up with testosterone yielding all manner of offensive weapons went around stealing, raping and pilerging young damsels. The chap did well. Built a castle, created serfdom for these without his particular skills and the world looked good for him.

The world moved on, that same chap today has no longer a trade of value, the openings for his skills have dried up and he finds himself on the opposite end of the spectrum. Rejected, unemployed and beholden to those for whom the world now values their skills.

I have three sons, genuinely if I give £100 to each of them on Monday, one by Tuesday will have spent every penny, one will have not spent a penny by Sunday and the other will have spent half and have kept half. I love them all dearly but accept that the world today will favour the tendencies of perhaps two of them whist the other will probably struggle all of his life. 

The world will always favour particular attributes and these change with time. We are all different and by chance of birth some will do well and others will not. I don't believe the world is fair, nor do I think it should be, Darwinism selects and benefits those with the right attributes to flourish in a particular environment. In order that humanity has the required skills to survive, we need a mix of skills, that by definition means that some will prosper whilst some will not at any given time.

Taxtion and social responsibility is more I think about keeping civilisation civilised. It's not the inequality of say the top 10% versus the bottom 10% that counts, it's the fairness that the bottom 10% feel compared to the majority of those they see around them. Should the inequality grow to large civil unrest erupts. 

If we discourage those who can excel we risk the lethargic society that communism seems to foster, where advancement is stifled and in many cases famine and deprivation follows. If we tax too high, we can create a barrier to development that affects society as a whole.

The problem is where ever the balance is struck, no one feels that it's fair, those with less feel and are deserving of more, those who are successful feel that their rewards for their labour are unjustly taken away from them. 

I feel we pay taxes to allow us to live a safe and productive life, but with one constant, it will never be fair.


----------



## rafezetter (9 Apr 2016)

deema":mli3k3e9 said:


> A couple of years ago, a chap with a stout house, psychopathic tendencies, pumped up with testosterone yielding all manner of offensive weapons went around stealing, raping and pilerging young damsels. The chap did well. Built a castle, created serfdom for these without his particular skills and the world looked good for him.
> 
> The world moved on, that same chap today has no longer a trade of value, the openings for his skills have dried up and he finds himself on the opposite end of the spectrum. Rejected, unemployed and beholden to those for whom the world now values their skills.
> 
> ...



Bravo - an excellent post. =D> =D> 

I have the somewhat unique perspective of currently living off benefits while being a member of a family that most would consider wealthy and has been so for the majority of my life; not just my father but a younger brother who also makes a considerable sum working in USA in finance. I currently live off benefits for reasons that I will not divulge suffice to say a large portion of my life has had a very dark undercurrent from multiple events in my childhood that forever damaged my ability to function "normally" in society, and I can say that if it were not for the help of the benefit system I would very likely have taken my own life some 20 years past, (although I have not been on benefits all that time, far from it) and although the minority nowadays, this is exactly the sort of situation the benefits system was set up to cater for.

Having said all that and having been witness to some of the events of my childhood, my father still moans to me repeatedly how "the benefits system is costing him money" even knowing it has been quite literally my lifeline. I have also many times in the past and as recently as a few weeks ago had the fact that the benefit system comes from taxes paid by others thrown in my face, by someone who has two disabled, non working parents no less; so even within those people who get or have otherwise benefitted from benefits, the whole topic is a difficult one.

I guess the whole issue of taxes and how they are (mis)spent will be bemoaned until the end of time.


----------



## Jacob (9 Apr 2016)

deema":1a71wfsr said:


> ......
> I feel we pay taxes to allow us to live a safe and productive life, but with one constant, it will never be fair.


It's not about fairness it's about running society in a practical way for the benefit of all. 
The world as a lifeboat; fairness isn't an issue in a lifeboat and raising issues of privilege would be utterly deprecated and you'd risk being thrown over the side!.



> the whole topic is a difficult one.


Is it? In principle don't think so. The details are complicated of course.



> the benefits system ...... has been quite literally my lifeline.


And everybody else, one way or another, at one time or another in their lives. To each according to their needs.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Apr 2016)

"To each according to their needs"
That reminds me of the old prayer - Please God give me what I need and not what I want. When you live in an extremely poor area and see people picking up three times as much for not working as they do working, it's not surprising that you think the system stinks. As said before, there's no point in blaming the people taking advantage of it, any more that there is blaming people for taking money abroad perfectly legally.
I do find the opinion that some people seem to hold - that it's someone's moral duty to pay as much tax as possible - a bit strange though.


----------



## heimlaga (9 Apr 2016)

The most highly valued skills in modern society is wealthy parents.
I have been turned down at job interwiews many times not because I didn't have the correct qualifications for the job as construction engineer but because I wasn't financially independent of my salary and that made me unsuitable. 
Being financially independent of your pay before age 35 implies rich parents. There is just not any other way of getting there.

By the way I have also been turned down because I "must understand that I am too old to employ" at age 28 or 29...... and because I came to the interwiew in an old yet well kept car that did not befit an empoyee in that office........ and because I have worked as a carpenter before and "must understand that a former worker is unsuitable as foreman"........and because I had refused to pay 950 euros in cash without any reciept to a former employer and sued him to court when he withheld 5000 euros of my pay and fired me as punishment for not paying my mandatory "fees". Bribes that is.

Many many times I have been offered jobs with wages below subsistance level. To hold up a job you must be able to afford food and clothes and somewhere to live plus all costs caused by the employment such as commuting and work clothes and tools. 
Many many times I have had to turn down job offers that were paid below that minimum level. I am a batchelor and I am famous in the whole parish for my frugality and ability to make do with little money so a pay that doesn't cover my minimum living costs cannot cover the living costs for anyone else. 
To take such a job you must be financially independent that is have an inherited fortune working for you in the stock exchange.

Therefore I think the upper crust people who critisise me for turning down those jobs while living on benefits should take those jobs themselves. They can apparently afford to work under those conditions. I cannot.


----------



## Lons (9 Apr 2016)

phil.p":261c4j1h said:


> "To each according to their needs"
> That reminds me of the old prayer - Please God give me what I need and not what I want. When you live in an extremely poor area and see people picking up three times as much for not working as they do working, it's not surprising that you think the system stinks. As said before, there's no point in blaming the people taking advantage of it, any more that there is blaming people for taking money abroad perfectly legally.
> I do find the opinion that some people seem to hold - that it's someone's moral duty to pay as much tax as possible - a bit strange though.



+1 =D> 

There's a lot of clap trap around. We don't live in an equal or fair society and never will. The benefits system was not designed to be a lifelong way of life which many benefit claimants are now deeply entrenched in and why economic migrants are still bursting a gut to be a part of. It was formulated as a short term safety net to catch those who needed support only until they could support themselves. I have no issues with genuine claimants only the ones and there are many if my local experience is a fair representation, who additionally work in the black economy and defraud the rest of us.

Neither do I have a problem with those who use perfectly legal means of reducing their tax liability, it's their money not mine and their decision to do with it what they will just as we have the choice of buying our machinery, tools and cars, wherever in the world they're manufactured.. If it means so much to you Jacob then trade in your smart car which was made in France with profit going back to Germany and buy a Sunderland made Nissan or a Mini which at least keep British workers in employment.

I don't have enough savings to put offshore but I do use a tax avoidance scheme called ISA to maximize my hard earned cash. I guess those who've spent theirs on cigs, booze, gambling etc. might view that as immoral as well. :roll:


----------



## NickWelford (9 Apr 2016)

Why can't we have a system of graduated tax nbut absolutely no allowances or concessions? Therefore no loopholes. I'm somewhat right of centre but I still think people who can afford it should pay lot more. The super rich, earning 7 figures a year coulee easily pay a lot more and not suffer at all. I also object to bankers on huge salaries and bonuses and any government employee, local or national, on huge salaries and bonuses. In all businesses, the senior execs should get no more than say, arbitrarily, 20 times the FTE of the lowest paid in the business.


----------



## RogerS (9 Apr 2016)

Jacob":19u4ez1p said:


> heimlaga":19u4ez1p said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Yup....

China

USSR (and now Russia)

and now Venezeula.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Apr 2016)

NickWelford":3fsj49bn said:


> Why can't we have a system of graduated tax nbut absolutely no allowances or concessions? Therefore no loopholes. I'm somewhat right of centre but I still think people who can afford it should pay lot more. The super rich, earning 7 figures a year coulee easily pay a lot more and not suffer at all. I also object to bankers on huge salaries and bonuses and any government employee, local or national, on huge salaries and bonuses. In all businesses, the senior execs should get no more than say, arbitrarily, 20 times the FTE of the lowest paid in the business.


This is the thing - people who earn more should pay more ...but they do, in a system that has a fair level of inescapable tax. If you earn £500 and you pay 20% tax you pay £100. If you earn £50,000 a week, you pay £10,000 tax - simple. The problem comes when people earning that sort of money don't pay anything, or very little. 28% of tax comes from 1% of the population, apparently - so yes actually they do pay more. It would help if people differentiated between more as a larger amount, or more as in a larger percentage. Years ago I met Swedes who had been paying more in combined taxes than they were earning so emigrated - and that made their old socialist utopia a fortune, didn't it? Reasonable taxes at least encourage people to stay and keep their money in the Country and pay them.


----------



## Jacob (9 Apr 2016)

phil.p":3m8od6hy said:


> .... Years ago I met Swedes who had been paying more in combined taxes than they were earning so emigrated - ......


Probably the only ones ever! By and large immigrants move FROM low tax areas TO high tax areas - not because they are keen on tax but because high tax countries are also high employment, higher wages, higher public services and generally more civilised. Sweden would be high on the list for many.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Apr 2016)

Not the only ones ever. It was the main reason so many Swedes emigrated, especially to the USA (which had a low flat rate of tax). I met Swedes in NZ (which also has a low rate of tax) who had emigrated there for the same reason.
"By and large immigrants move FROM low tax areas TO high tax areas ... " Yes. Most are leaving Countries where if they know how to work the system they pay no taxes at all, or have no income anyway. I'd emigrate to a Country where the basic rate of tax was 90% - providing I was paid a million quid a year. Slightly different argument.


----------



## Jacob (10 Apr 2016)

phil.p":2c1tl3kk said:


> Not the only ones ever. It was the main reason so many Swedes emigrated, especially to the USA (which had a low flat rate of tax). I met Swedes in NZ (which also has a low rate of tax) who had emigrated there for the same reason.
> "By and large immigrants move FROM low tax areas TO high tax areas ... " Yes. Most are leaving Countries where if they know how to work the system they pay no taxes at all, or have no income anyway. I'd emigrate to a Country where the basic rate of tax was 90% - providing I was paid a million quid a year. Slightly different argument.


Nobody is suggesting 90% as a base rate - it'd be impossible. But 90% as a top marginal rate is quite possible and has been applied at various times - during war and the recovery thereafter, though rates on unearned incomes were high until relatively recently
USA is a very highly taxed state overall. It'd have to be if you look at the scale of their state spending.


----------



## Alexam (10 Apr 2016)

If someone with loads of assets and capital would benefit from offshore funds, then their advisers would suggest it as an option. They would be advising on tax allowances that various governments over the years have sanctioned. If the wealthy were not given all the options to select from, then any adviser would not be doing his/her job.

The fact that someone has invested offshore in the past, does not make them dishonest, but if the flavour of the month is now to avoid offshore funds, then the wealthy may look for other legal ways to save tax, even to the extent of setting up Trusts where they can borrow money from to reduce income tax and save on inheritance tax over time. Even people's Wills can be worded in such a way to save tax that woulkd otherwise be paid to the goverenment rather that the surviving families.

Unfortunetely many people never hear about these tax advantages as they are not appropriate to them, but those tax breaks will continue to be legal until such time as there is a change in the law on that particular tax saving opportunity.

Many years ago (old pounds shillings and pence), there was 'Super Tax' and in old money, that was 19/6 in every 20s ( £1 ) over and above other taxed levels. Not much left from the final level, but it was still a challenge and a target to aim for, but I don't know when that tax was removed. The harder you worked the more tax you paid.

Malcolm


----------



## Lons (10 Apr 2016)

What is perhaps missed here as well is that whilst those with wealth use all legal methods to reduce their tax liability it's pretty difficult to avoid the other taxes we all pay on a day to day basis and those people spend a lot more on consumables than the rest of us when compared as individuals. 

I know a local footballer (their earnings are another argument), who's paid more in just a few years in VAT on his cars and household goods than I have in everything over a lifetime and I've bought a lot of stuff in my time.

It keeps people in work though.


----------



## heimlaga (14 Apr 2016)

We poor cannot use legal means to reduce our taxes and tax like fees of various kinds. We are forced to go either illegal or bankrupt.

They say it is fair........ I don't think so. If it is punishable for me to drive my 45 years old farm tractor at work without all those new additional licenses which I cannot afford and punishable for me to weld at work without all those new unaffordable licenses......... then the rich should face exactly the same dilemma. Either pay a tax they "cannot" afford or be punished for avoinding it.
That would be fair.


----------



## Lons (15 Apr 2016)

heimlaga":2f6dc07b said:


> We poor cannot use legal means to reduce our taxes and tax like fees of various kinds. We are forced to go either illegal or bankrupt.
> 
> They say it is fair........ I don't think so. If it is punishable for me to drive my 45 years old farm tractor at work without all those new additional licenses which I cannot afford and punishable for me to weld at work without all those new unaffordable licenses......... then the rich should face exactly the same dilemma. Either pay a tax they "cannot" afford or be punished for avoinding it.
> That would be fair.



Clearly you're in a different country with different laws and cultures so difficult to compare directly with the UK, however in your case it seems that your problems are with the regulations and cost of meeting them that is the issue. The officials making those laws are elected and your power to change is I assume through the ballot box.

If someone is acting within the law and therefore completely legal then it is unjust to punish that person as they have done nothing wrong. The unjust thing is the law that allows those actions to take place and therefore should be changed.

It's a fact of life that there will always be people that "have" and those that don't and just because people have more money than you ( and I for that matter ) doesn't mean that they should be vilified for that unless of course their wealth has been obtained via criminal activities. 
Unfortunately the green eyed monster will always rear its' head whatever the circumstances.
cheers
Bob


----------



## Alexam (15 Apr 2016)

heimlaga":1m1ie9ry said:


> We poor cannot use legal means to reduce our taxes and tax like fees of various kinds. We are forced to go either illegal or bankrupt.
> 
> They say it is fair........ I don't think so. If it is punishable for me to drive my 45 years old farm tractor at work without all those new additional licenses which I cannot afford and punishable for me to weld at work without all those new unaffordable licenses......... then the rich should face exactly the same dilemma. Either pay a tax they "cannot" afford or be punished for avoinding it.
> That would be fair.



Lons makes very good points, but all farmers all get a rotten deal, more so than most. 

However, all these additional rules and regulations that have been forced upon us by the EU since it's formation, have not helped. If the UK exits the EU, I believes we will see many changes for the better.

This does not change the taxation laws in different countries, which have been set up over the years offering tax breaks that are only beneficial for those who are already wealthy enough to take advantage, but is not suitable to those who do not.

The recent press articles about certain people screwing the country by not paying so much of the higher taxation to the UK is not illegal, as has already been said, but unless the 'rules' are changed, they will always have that advantage.

Many of the wealthiest families in this country have most of their money in Trusts, set up years ago to avoid some taxation, but only governments can change laws. If the benefits are available by simply filling in a few forms, then most of the people with enough money will fill them in and that will never change unless the laws change. Even if you won the Lottery next week, you would be looking at ways to protect that money as best you can and financial advisers would be suggesting tax advantages that you could take.

The worst tax avoidance is the large companies who operate over here but set up taxation in another country. That has lost the UK Billions and will continue to do so unless the rules change, which they should if they benefit from being in the UK. I believe that some changes will be taking place soon, but we still have our hands tied tightly by the rules that the EU lay down. WE cannot do anything without their approval on anything. If we are out of the EU, then more changes can be made as we will be talking for ourselves and not gagged by those elsewhere.

Malcolm


----------



## DiscoStu (15 Apr 2016)

There does seem to have been an under current on this thread with regards to benefits. I'll be open, I'm a higher rate tax payer and earn more than average, I have a nice house and do ok. Well I consider it ok others would say I do very well, some others would say not so well. It's all about perspective. Anyway I don't claim any benefits, however I have no issue with benefits, in fact I'm very pro benefits. 

The trouble is that (and it's probably a media thing) people hear the word benefit and they visualise a 20 something bloke, drinking cans of larger, smoking a fag and watching Jeremy Kyle on his 50" LED TV that we are paying for. He could work but he can't be bothered because he's happy for the system to pay for him. 

Now I'm sure that some of that is reality but it's a tiny tiny percentage of the population and when we talk about benefits we also need to visualise those who are physically and mentally disabled, those people who have worked for a large portion of their life paying into the system but now have some illness etc and need to benefit from the system. 

I know two people of the same age who both became single mothers around the same time. One continued to work and did all she could to support herself and her daughter the other claimed every benefit under the sun. The one who claimed benefit then started to work (cash in hand type stuff) and continued to claim benefits etc. I told her that I would report her and she ignored me (called me a few names). I did report her and her benefits stopped, guess what happened then? She miraculously became well enough to work and got a job. She still hates me but I can't stand people who scam the system I always see it as them taking from those who do need it. 

The other thing that annoys me is that someone's "wealth" is taken into account when working out what they can obtain, on the face of it the principal is fine, you don't want to be giving housing benefit to a retired millionaire just because he has no job (extreme and flawed example) however I do remember that my Grandmother couldn't get some payments that most pensioners were getting because she had savings. She had £10k in the bank and that had been saved throughout her entire life. She didn't drink, smoke or gamble, she went on coach holidays in the uk and she lived in a mobile home, yet she'd been careful and saved and was then penalised. 

I've got a mate who earns good money but spends it all, his view is that he doesn't want to die with any money in the bank so might as well spend it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lons (15 Apr 2016)

Hi Stu

I agree with all that you said and I'm in a similar situation though now finally retired I worked 7 days a week and often well into the night to get what I have. We didn't drink or smoke and rarely ate out, didn't have a holiday, not even a weekend for 10 years and my wife held down a responsible full time job so every penny was hard earned.
We saved and put money into pensions which of course now means we couldn't claim benefits even if we wanted to.

I have family and friends who enviously look at us as well off and pass sarcastic remarks but those same relatives have earned a lot of money during their lives and just pi**ed it away which is very often the case. We make choices and succeed or fail, whether we get up and try again is down to character and determination and it's often the ones who can't be bothered who do all the whinging.
I'd add that we grew up in a council house, I'm one of 9 kids and my father was a miner who had a second job as well, he needed that to put food on the table.

I'm a firm supporter of the benefits system but there are areas here as all over the country where generations have never worked and don't see the need to, I know some of these people very well and they're perfectly open about that and milk the system for all it's worth. The areas are rife with dodgy cash in hand work, drugs and crime. They defraud the benefits system and deprive the country of tax and national insurance revenue. These people should definitely not be in receipt of the benefits they claim and are reducing the amount available for genuine claimants who really need help. As I've said before, the benefits system was always intended as short term help for those who need it, not a lifetime "salary" and way of life!

As an aside, my daughter lives in an area where there is an ex miner MP who's been there forever 'cos "labour is for the people" and if they put a monkey up for election it would win. :roll: He's just written an article in her local rag condemning in very strong language "this government" and Camerons investment issue. Strange that this is the same MP who pays his family at our expense for doing nothing, until recently had a council house whilst owning others and in the MP expenses scandal not so long ago had to scramble and pay back thousands £s to avoid action being taken against him. Makes you think doesn't it? (hammer) 

Bob


----------



## Jacob (15 Apr 2016)

Well yes just because he's labour doesn't mean he's a saint! Which MP was this?* It wouldn't be Dennis Skinner unless I'm much mistaken.

One of the things said about benefits is that it "saps initiative" etc etc. 
There is a poverty trap whereby it's difficult to move from benefit to temporary job to self employed without getting locked into massive form filling and long delays over benefits and this is a big factor. 
But basically cash doesn't sap initiative - it does exactly the opposite; it empowers people; to take control of their own lives, to prepare for work, to buy tools even. There's a strong argument for a universal living wage to get around this and save massive bureaucracy and inefficiency. Like family allowance but for all.
Benefits are an investment in "human capital" and a huge benefit to the community as a whole.

*PS It's Ian Lavery MP http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36046675


----------



## petermillard (15 Apr 2016)

Jacob":19skl7h1 said:


> There's a strong argument for a universal living wage to get around this and save massive bureaucracy and inefficiency. Like family allowance but for all...


Have you been reading The Guardian by any chance Jacob?


----------



## Jacob (15 Apr 2016)

petermillard":1axb4ix1 said:


> Jacob":1axb4ix1 said:
> 
> 
> > There's a strong argument for a universal living wage to get around this and save massive bureaucracy and inefficiency. Like family allowance but for all...
> ...


  It's an ancient idea, talked about by many, not just from the The Guardian!
But it's becoming more relevant as we look at the issue of redundancy due to ever higher levels of automation - accelerated by the digital revolution. What do we do with large numbers of people who have no purposeful work to do, but no livelihood?


----------



## mind_the_goat (15 Apr 2016)

I think it's easier for people to judge their peers or near peers than it is to judge those who live in circumstances so far removed from us that we can't really comprehend their lives at all. Hence it's easier to get upset at someone we perceive to be living a lifestyle they have not earned than it is to get annoyed at someone 'clever' enough to set up tax reduction schemes. In fact I would suggest many of us may be a little envious of those people. On that basis it's easy to see why hammering people on benefits is seen as a good thing, whereas closing tax loopholes registers less on our collective minds. Also the relative complexities of the two issues comes into play, reducing benefits is easy to understand, fixing the tax system is horrendously complex and few of us can even start to understand it. No point in dedicating many column inches to something few can understand.

I actually think the focus on Cameron's personal tax affairs is misplaced, as others have said, the law allows, and possibly encourages it. There should be some changes in law to make things more transparent and to prevent blatant tax avoidance but MP's are human and many will not support an action that could have a direct impact on their own circumstances. We should keep that in mind at election time if we want real change there. I do believe that the rules related to operating businesses in the UK, and Europe need tightening up, and this may be a more palatable area for MP's to work on, barring large donations from owners. When I spend money in the hight street, or even on-line I do expect a certain proportion of that money to recycle back round the UK economy, so when the likes of Boots and Starbucks set up schemes to whisk off as much of my cash as possible to foreign shores I get really upset. No, it's not okay to do this because it's not against the law, It's not fine for anyone to do something just because there is no law explicitly forbidding it. There are many more things holding our society together than the statute books. 

There was another comment about excessive EU regulation of the agricultural industry, I believe that farming is an area where the EU has played a big part, not just in providing subsidies to ensure Europe maintains it's own food production, but in maintaining food standards, pesticide use, animal welfare. Not perfect of course and it's very easy to pick holes in such a complex system but I do strongly suspect that many of the specific examples of bad EU policy impacting our farms are not related the EU at all. Supermarkets paying low prices to prop up their own profits, refusing to commit to contacts, refusing to sell produce that doesn't fit the appearance standards that the supermarkets themselves have taught people to expect. Be interested to know what your examples of bad EU farming policy are? There will be some of course but I think without the EU support over the last 20 years we would be reliant of far more of our food being imported.


----------



## Lons (15 Apr 2016)

Jacob":165waf10 said:


> *PS It's Ian Lavery MP http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36046675



Actually it isn't Jacob, it's his close mate Ronnie Campbell.

I have actually had dealings with that b*****d Lavery however and it left a nasty taste in the mouth. I'm still angry even though it was a long time ago.

My dad suffered from emphysema caused by coal dust while working in the mines and was one of thousands accepted for compensation which took years to be sorted out. He was chairbound almost permanently connected to an oxygen tank and nebuliser and dying when Lavery in his capacity as Union General Secretary (or something like that as it was before he became an MP) sent him a letter saying that when payment was eventually made there would be a deduction of 5% "voluntary contribution" to Union funds. The solicitors handling the cases, a well known company affiliated to the unions were being paid buy the government and old NCB.

Dad was furious as he had paid union dues all hi life and asked me to 'phone them which I did. Lavery was in his office but refused to speak to me instead relaying answers to my questions through his secretary who I believe was his wife. The silly cow didn't realise I could hear what he was saying and when he said the "contribution" was mandatory I said we would have to look at the possibility of changing solicitors. His reply was "Do that and all his records and files will disappear"!

I was all for challenging that but dad wouldn't allow me as he really didn't have the heart for a fight and sadly he died before he could get the money he desperately needed to make life a little more comfortable. A couple of years later, mum got a miserable few grand from which they took their 5%. :evil: :evil:

EDIT:

I've just read that article and not only is he a b*****d but a lying thieving one as well !!!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Apr 2016)

See Lavery made the 10.30pm news ...


----------



## HappyHacker (16 Apr 2016)

The problem in my opinion is that the UK tax system is too complex. No one including HMRC can understand how it works so there is an army of highly paid advisors who, if you can afford them, will legally reduce your tax bill. The problem is that unless you have lots of money you cannot afford them and if you, like me, do not have lots of money you would be unlikely to save much anyway. Both Gordon Brown and George Osbourne have added lots of new rules and allowances without getting rid of any. 

The international companies who set up complex schemes to avoid tax are doing it legally and the company directors are leaglly bound to achieve the best returns they can for their shareholders. The fact that not paying tax is morally wrong is an issue for us to take up by not buying their products. I do not buy from Amazon, Starbucks etc as my protest, if we all did not use them they would have to change their policies.


----------



## Lons (16 Apr 2016)

HappyHacker":1pvxstbd said:


> The problem in my opinion is that the UK tax system is too complex. No one including HMRC can understand how it works so there is an army of highly paid advisors who, if you can afford them, will legally reduce your tax bill. The problem is that unless you have lots of money you cannot afford them and if you, like me, do not have lots of money you would be unlikely to save much anyway. Both Gordon Brown and George Osbourne have added lots of new rules and allowances without getting rid of any.
> 
> The international companies who set up complex schemes to avoid tax are doing it legally and the company directors are leaglly bound to achieve the best returns they can for their shareholders. The fact that not paying tax is morally wrong is an issue for us to take up by not buying their products. I do not buy from Amazon, Starbucks etc as my protest, if we all did not use them they would have to change their policies.




Well said that man =D>


----------



## Benchwayze (16 Apr 2016)

sunnybob":v0ujex7l said:


> Thats funny, I've got none of them too. Must be my working class upbringing.
> Dont even get scrap now I'm retired. Oh well, the state pension will see me through.



My pension sees me through; the weekend! :evil:


----------



## mind_the_goat (17 Apr 2016)

HappyHacker":1fz5ed7p said:


> I do not buy from Amazon, Starbucks etc as my protest, if we all did not use them they would have to change their policies.



I did cancel my Amazon account a few years ago, and told them why, which I think is important to do. Last year I read that they had revised how they booked UK sales and as a result, should have been liable to pay a more realistic tax bill in the UK. However this thread prompted me to check that again and it seems likely they are now going to offset profit against a large investment in business expansion, keeping the bill low once more. This really does highlight one of the main issues here in that it's really hard to work out what a 'fair' tax bill actually is.


----------



## CHJ (18 Apr 2016)

The last post was removed from this thread because of the blatant party political comment about a member of the government, there have been some reasoned comments and responses discussing the subject of rules and regulations and it is accepted that politics influences them but UKW is not the platform for folks to start making comments that are likely to be seen as inflammatory or defamatory by some and lead to a party political slanging match.



> (6a.) Politics.
> Over the years there has been one subject that has caused heated debates on the forums and that is politics. For that reason political discussion, in particular party political comments in a thread are not regarded as acceptable, please remember this is a woodworking forum after all. We do however understand that politics effects everyday life which is why some topics may be allowed depending on the circumstances.


----------



## DennisCA (20 Apr 2016)

Alexam":1r3t3eqt said:


> heimlaga":1r3t3eqt said:
> 
> 
> > We poor cannot use legal means to reduce our taxes and tax like fees of various kinds. We are forced to go either illegal or bankrupt.
> ...



I do not believe this outcome since the british are generally to the right of the rest of europe and would likely pursue policies even more friendly towards the rich and large corporations than before. Infact in my view Britain is probably acting as a force of "pro-tax evasion" in the EU and stopping reforms to deal with this threat (I consider it a threat to the very foundations of the modern western state and the concept of a middle class in the long run). So I support brexit but for a totally different reason.


----------



## RogerS (20 Apr 2016)

DennisCA":2umrrtu9 said:


> ......
> 
> I do not believe this outcome since the british are generally to the right of the rest of europe ....



Not sure how you reach the conclusion....at the last General Election the voting was split pretty evenly.


----------



## DennisCA (20 Apr 2016)

The whole political spectrum is generally shifted rightwards. So even though the US has voted for a left-wing president twice now, they are still shifted rightwards of both the UK and europes political spectrums.


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2016)

In UK it's more that the left is divided. The Tories won the last election with only 37% of the vote. Even if you added the whole of the UKIP vote it's still less than 50%


----------



## mind_the_goat (20 Apr 2016)

There is plenty of evidence that the UK government has hindered EU attempts to unite against tax avoidance, fortunately they are finding it a little harder to do so at the moment. 
It's hard to use the last election results to conclude anything about the UK populations general political leanings, there was very little choice for anyone left of centre.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Apr 2016)

If you discount UKIP, which is a pointless irrelevance in a national election, there was very little choice for anyone right of centre.


----------



## mind_the_goat (20 Apr 2016)

phil.p":3meqyng4 said:


> If you discount UKIP, which is a pointless irrelevance in a national election, there was very little choice for anyone right of centre.



Well you had Conservatives and Labour on the right, on the left there was the Green party and the SNP, If you discount UKIP then You would also discount the Greens, and it was geographically challenging for many people to vote SNP.


----------

