... and in Other Football News

[Heimdallr]

It's an interesting debate and I'm broadly inline with Dennis, but at the same time, it's hard to control and legislate, especially when the vast majority of the wealth is in assets and company value.. not like it's sitting in a savings account. Although they've managed to freeze 6 billion of Abramovichs cash.

The UK really only has a handful of billionaires - those that won't leave like the Russian, Indian, Saudis and Jewish/Israeli citizens, and of those, the BetFred brothers, Coates family and Healeys are the highest tax payers in the country already.

Probably the best approach would be a holistic encouragement for billionaire wealth to be 'donated' and not passed on, but then donated to who??

 

[Ric Glasgow]

It's an interesting debate and I'm broadly inline with Dennis, but at the same time, it's hard to control and legislate, especially when the vast majority of the wealth is in assets and company value.. not like it's sitting in a savings account. Although they've managed to freeze 6 billion of Abramovichs cash.

The UK really only has a handful of billionaires - those that won't leave like the Russian, Indian, Saudis and Jewish/Israeli citizens, and of those, the BetFred brothers, Coates family and Healeys are the highest tax payers in the country already.

Probably the best approach would be a holistic encouragement for billionaire wealth to be 'donated' and not passed on, but then donated to who??

I've got a fairly simplistic view on those earning vast amounts of money,the millionaires,the billionaires.

In that...If they are paying their taxes and not engaged in any form of illegal tax avoidance then they can have as much wealth as they desire.Who am I to decide if a man is far richer than me he should be financially punished because of it?

 

[Gone For A Walk]

What surprises me is hearing working class people defend Billionaires tax avoidance but moan about people who might claim a benefit .
But I guess that's why the media push it that way .

That is an utterly ridiculous antagonistic generalisation and over simplication about people's (imo valid) concerns about benefits and the welfare bill more generally.
And most people would likely have concerns about both situations (appropriate taxing of billionaires & associated compaines) as well as the welfare bill.

 

[HHH]

I've got a fairly simplistic view on those earning vast amounts of money,the millionaires,the billionaires.

In that...If they are paying their taxes and not engaged in any form of illegal tax avoidance then they can have as much wealth as they desire.Who am I to decide if a man is far richer than me he should be financially punished because of it?

The issue is that they pay a lower effective tax rate on their income than cleaners, nurses, architects etc.

And that simply isn't fair.

 

[dennisboothstash]

I've got a fairly simplistic view on those earning vast amounts of money,the millionaires,the billionaires.

In that...If they are paying their taxes and not engaged in any form of illegal tax avoidance then they can have as much wealth as they desire.Who am I to decide if a man is far richer than me he should be financially punished because of it?

I’d agree if the tax laws were fairer.
For example if I worked for you, and no one else, and ran the entire company for you, and you paid me £100k a year I’d pay £31k a year in tax and NI.
If you took £100k out of the company as a dividend at the end of the year with no other income you’d only pay £22k in tax.
That can’t be right.

(I know this is a very simplified version, and you’d have paid tax when you inherited the company, but the principle remains that it ‘costs’ you more to work and create income than it does to have a company that you might have inherited from wealthy parents and take your income doing nothing at all but owning it)

 

[dennisboothstash]

That is an utterly ridiculous antagonistic generalisation and over simplication about people's (imo valid) concerns about benefits and the welfare bill more generally.
And most people would likely have concerns about both situations (appropriate taxing of billionaires & associated compaines) as well as the welfare bill.

It’s not ridiculous at all
I’ve heard loads of people defending billionaires ‘managing’ their taxes in the most effective way possible because it’s legal, but being critical of anyone on benefits, particularly if they smoke and own a phone.
Which is exactly what @Edelman said.
And of course the media push that narrative. The ones owning it and controlling the narrative are the ones with efficient tex lawyers and it’s far better to keep people moaning about people on benefits.

Not if that stops you having a genuine concern about the overall welfare bill etc, but that’s a different thing entirely

 

[Ernie Shackleton]

What surprises me is hearing working class people defend Billionaires tax avoidance but moan about people who might claim a benefit .
But I guess that's why the media push it that way .

It's almost like swathes of the population have been conned into believing a narrative which is undoubtedly against their own best interests by the paid lickspittles of said billionaires.


Remarkable.

 

[Ric Glasgow]

The issue is that they pay a lower effective tax rate on their income than cleaners, nurses, architects etc.

And that simply isn't fair.

Like I say,I've put a simplistic view across as I've never really thought about looking into what the super-rich do or don't contribute.If they're paying what they are legally bound to pay then I'm in no position to question it.

I will however read up on it and form an opinion based on it,though it's not likely to change anything for me or them.

 

[Edelman]

That is an utterly ridiculous antagonistic generalisation and over simplication about people's (imo valid) concerns about benefits and the welfare bill more generally.
And most people would likely have concerns about both situations (appropriate taxing of billionaires & associated compaines) as well as the welfare bill.

Ridiculous ?
Wow I'd like to know what you would call a post that was stronger than mine .

 

[Edelman]

It's almost like swathes of the population have been conned into believing a narrative which is undoubtedly against their own best interests by the paid lickspittles of said billionaires.


Remarkable.

We might very well see just how far the UK public are prepared to go in 3 years time to vote against their best interests.
Only got to look too this years WC hosts to see .

 

[Gone For A Walk]

I’d agree if the tax laws were fairer.
For example if I worked for you, and no one else, and ran the entire company for you, and you paid me £100k a year I’d pay £31k a year in tax and NI.
If you took £100k out of the company as a dividend at the end of the year with no other income you’d only pay £22k in tax.
That can’t be right.

(I know this is a very simplified version, and you’d have paid tax when you inherited the company, but the principle remains that it ‘costs’ you more to work and create income than it does to have a company that you might have inherited from wealthy parents and take your income doing nothing at all but owning it)

Build your own company then?
It could also be argued that the company owner has generated £53k tax & NI. And they'll be paying all sorts of other taxes, costs, duties, whatever to the government.
Did you see the social media post over the weekend using the example of the entrepreneurial person wanting to open a 'simple' coffee shop? It detailed all the taxes, costs, regulation, planning, legislation, hurdles, barriers, etc etc that they had to overcome just in order to open a coffee shop these days. When you see it all laid out, you do wonder why anyone bothers anymore.

 

[Kalman II]

This ‘no politics’ rule is more like an arbitrary guideline, innit?

 

[HHH]

This ‘no politics’ rule is more like an arbitrary guideline, innit?

We're having a civilised economics discussion.

 

[Kalman II]

We're having a civilised economics discussion.

Talking about the British public voting against their best interests in three years is obviously a political statement.

 

[originallambrettaman]

This ‘no politics’ rule is more like an arbitrary guideline, innit?

I wasn't on here at all yesterday, I'll delete it all when I have a minute, just for you.

 

[Ric Glasgow]

You just knew this was brewing up into a 'Left v Right' session.

It's even beginning to entrench itself into the World Cup that starts this week,wonder why?

Let's have Communism and those crying out for it can share some of their wealth with me

 

[Kalman II]

I wasn't on here at all yesterday, I'll delete it all when I have a minute, just for you.

Aw, you’d do that? Just for me?

 

[balkan tiger]

Anyone using the likes of Amazon need to take a close look at themselves and the company dropping all their needs on their own doorstep.

Online shopping killing the high Street, closed shops no longer paying business rates or employing local people. The warehouses built out in the country already causing disruption to the surrounding villages and local area. Often employing low skilled workers on or at minimum wage which then have to be topped up by tax payers funded benefits.

The company making millions or even billions and not paying their share of tax on that profit as the companies are often not UK based.

It's complicated.

 

[Kalman II]

Anyone using the likes of Amazon need to take a close look at themselves and the company dropping all their needs on their own doorstep.

Online shopping killing the high Street, closed shops no longer paying business rates or employing local people. The warehouses built out in the country already causing disruption to the surrounding villages and local area. Often employing low skilled workers on or at minimum wage which then have to be topped up by tax payers funded benefits.

The company making millions or even billions and not paying their share of tax on that profit as the companies are often not UK based.

It's complicated.

A land value tax would be ideal in this scenario. At the very least, they’d be paying tax on the land their warehouses and data centres are built on.

 

[Muffinthegoat]

Anyone using the likes of Amazon need to take a close look at themselves and the company dropping all their needs on their own doorstep.

Online shopping killing the high Street, closed shops no longer paying business rates or employing local people. The warehouses built out in the country already causing disruption to the surrounding villages and local area. Often employing low skilled workers on or at minimum wage which then have to be topped up by tax payers funded benefits.

The company making millions or even billions and not paying their share of tax on that profit as the companies are often not UK based.

It's complicated.

I ran a small business for over thirty years, most of that time the government made more money from it in VAT, NI, and income tax than I did. Tax and other rules meant it wasn’t worth the risk of trying to grow the business. My house was on the line for many years, looking back I can’t believe we got through it. For every business that makes someone a billionaire (creating jobs and paying taxes along the way) there are thousands of businesses that get nowhere except the dream of one day being a billionaire.