I paid taxes in the UK for 20 years, when I retired I received a pension of 24 pounds a week , this amount is not indexed and will never change
I was amazed to find that I will qualify for a pension of 61quid a week based on only paying full NI contributions for 7years and class 3 contributions since then. Should be enough to get me a season ticket and finally buy some beers for the boys in the Earl.
So, if you have a house does that mean you don't have to pay the flat tax? If so, I'm all for it. Make the scum who live in flats pay for everyone. PS They were wrong about the Earth as well. #flattistsunite No Obi it's not a dig at you. I said "flattists, not fattists.
From what I've read and seen, the whole point of this is admittedly a bit Utopian. It's a bit like thinking scroungers or immigrants are the biggest drain on this country - UKIP/BNP-inspired ideas at best. The biggest problem we have is the rich and super rich simply not paying their way and moving money to various other outlets. By creating something so hugely beneficial in terms of corporation and income tax, the goal is to have a much greater amount of money coming from the top where it's all so avidly avoided because of the kind of punishment-for-success mentality. It's also, as far as I'm aware, trying to create a system that continues to encourage investment in the UK. It may be all very pie in the sky, but it's supposed to be about gains and the ability to spend more on infrastructure than the opposite. Seeing it as "cut tax = less money = less spending on those that need it" is really missing the point entirely.
It's one of those ideas that i think works great in theory but i don't think it would make any difference to how much tax the current evaders pay. I think they would find a way of avoiding 1% tax if it was possible. They see tax avoidance as a genuine business strategy, and what sets them apart as great businessmen/women. One thing that always bugs me is that these same people say they shouldn't be punished for being the wealth creators. Very few of them are wealth creators. The majority are wealth horders. I would be all for a system that gave massive tax breaks for genuine wealth creation. If someone genuinely wants to use their wealth to create jobs, improve infrastructure or improve the quality of life then we should do all we can to encourage them - and nothing wrong with them making money in the process. Let's encourage people who want to build houses and factories and create jobs. But let's make sure that those who just want a Van Gogh stuck on their bedroom wall where nobody sees it are forced to pay their fair share.
Wealth creation and income creation are two different things. Increases in income across the board lead to increased spending, more production and more capacity for innovation. Increases in wealth lead for the most part to more money sitting in bricks and mortar, inflating the housing market, and in some cases being shifted overseas or 'invested' in political campaigning which favours the wealthy. This country needs people to be paid more, not have more in the bank. There's a lovely article from the States about what happens when we forget about the concept of 'punishing' the wealthy, and focus instead on pushing more money to low paid workers: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/02...eo-says-minimum-wage-increase-boosts-business
There would be a comparatively simple method to greatly reduce tax avoidance: insist on the abolition of tax havens that are dependant for high tax jurisdictions for their infrastructure and security. It is fairly simple to ensure that the member of a corporate group which earns the profits is resident in a foreign jurisdiction. The trouble is that most major economies tacitly sanction low tax client jurisdictions which exist specifically to facilitate tax evasion: the UK has the Channel Islands, the US has the various carribean havens, the EU has Switzerland, etc. All these jurisdictions are dependant on the high tax "parent" jurisdictions for access to banking systems, acess to markets, security etc. They are allowed to exist so that the tax avoider can enjoy all of the regulatory and other security provided by the parent jurisdiction while avoiding paying any significant tax. They could be eliminated at any time. If the UK told the Channel Islands that they had to harmonise their tax rates to the UK or have no access to the UK banking system or markets, they would have to comply. The same with the carribean and Switzerland. There would, no doubt, be some truly rogue states that would offer tax freedom but they could not offer First World regulatory standards while doing it. If the only way to achieve tax freedom were to trust your assets to the probity of the Togo or Macau regulators, a lot of evaders would think twice. All of this is well known. The reason that the first world allows the continued existence of havens is because they do not, at the end of the day, want to stop tax avoidance.
We have possibly the most corrupt approach to tax havens of any country in the world. It's not just the channel islands, We probably have jurisdiction over more caribbean tax havens than the US. We allow them to continue doing what they do because it suits too many people who have the power to change things. On top of that, we actively encourage corrupt institutions and individuals to invest in our property market and financial institutions. We moan about the corrupt regimes in Africa - but where do these corrupt leaders invest their money? The ridiculous overpricing of property in London probably has just as much to do with dubious foreign investment as it has to do with overcrowding.
I'm thinking of quitting my job and becoming a labour supporter and getting a giro at the expense of those who choose to work. My grandmother was Jewish so naturally I won't be popular amongst a large section in the party but I'm beginning to see the problem with the inequality of those who work and those who don't.
I'm thinking of becoming a Tory supporter so I can provide tax cuts for millionaires at the expense of free healthcare and education. I'll have to work till I'm 80, but the Mail said it's all the fault of scroungers and skivers. I'm alright being exploited as long as someone else is worse off than me.
I had a read of the IEA article, when you do a basic sum what they are advocating is a 46.9% cut in tax revenue for the government, one little piece of the article follows this up by saying "Spending is too high", shortage of funds for everyone in the public sector. There is no way with the level of cuts proposed that the lost revenue can be made up through increased output or personal expenditure cause you have some extra money in your pocket.
It was a decent comeback. Gov't are governing us all whether we're earning 20k a year or 20m a year so if they're cutting taxes for us all then they're doing their job efficiently but unfortunately it doesn't often work that way.
We are building towards selling the NHS well done you BNP UKIP flag waving idiots I hope you can afford your anusol
What's happened to the happy go lucky Captain with positivity brimming. There seems to be traits of Mr T returning.
