hiding scrap metal

[Jacob]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

*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]

See Lavery made the 10.30pm news ...

 

[HappyHacker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

......

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.