Off Topic Great Britain General Election May 7th 2015.

Do you think that successive governments and administrations have not looked at this problem? . This has been an issue for always. How do you get the very rich to pay their taxes according to the prevailing rules? The paradox has always been the much richer you are the less you pay. It happens with big corporations (Google, Starbucks, Amazon etc) and multimillionaires - they pay less than a highly paid civil servant. The multimillionaires have an army of accountants and can reside abroad (for tax purposes) whereas the civil servant has PAYE and cannot escape.

This is about pragmatism. No matter how much effeort you put in, the very rich will always have find a way. Just because they can. It is really about titrating the top tax rate so that it is at a point where it is not worthwhile for them to employ their army of accountants and do all their avoidance schemes.

Is it logical to say have a top tax rate of 50% which will halve the overall revenue from this group of people??

 

Total load of bollocks.

 

Pragmatism? No mate, it's called avoiding tackling the issue. Maybe we should start by not getting some of the biggest accountancy firms to advise on taxation loopholes, whilst at the same time keeping their clients 1 step ahead of any policy shift

We need to close the back door before increasing the tax burden on the top 1%

 

Labour's Jim Murphy has said opinion polls "are there to be confounded" as the latest one put his party well behind the SNP in the General Election contest in Scotland.
As campaigning entered its second week, a YouGov poll for the Scottish Sun suggested 46% of voters north of the border will back Nicola Sturgeon's party, compared to 29% who are planning on voting Labour.

But Mr Murphy, the Scottish Labour leader, told party activists: "The polls are there to be confounded."

 

VOTE COMMUNIST

 

WTF you doing here? Pissoff!

PS...how you doing fella, not seen you about much and you hardly posted on the last Mafia game you signed up to?

 

At least you know what communist are going to do: others you cannot vouch for them

 

I thought once I was dead that was the end of my involvement in the Mafia game

 

Can you see beyond your grave?.

 

I'm going to start haunting you

 

Please go for RHC.

 

Another Tory win and we are ****ed. Labour must win for anyone who is not a multi millionaire......ukip are nothing more than Tory racists and the Lib dems are a nonentity now after jumping into bed with the Tories and abandoning all they promised.......Only London and the leafy suburbs will ever benefit from the Tory toffs as they have more than one house there and you wont find any of then paying the bedroom tax.......

 

Bedroom tax is one of the best things to be introduced in years!!! There should have been stipulations and a introduction period attached though as it's not right that old folks that have lived in the same house they brought their kids up in for fifty years are being forced to move because their state pension doesn't cover the extra bill.

 

Ed Milliband has announced he will abolish "non dom" status for tax payers

 

Roman to leave the UK and sell Chelsea if Labour get elected into government?


Labour Would Abolish 'Non-Dom' Tax Status
Ed Miliband wants to end the scheme that allows helps rich like Lakshmi Mittal and Roman Abramovich avoid tax on foreign earnings.


Labour leader Ed Miliband is to say he will abolish "non-domiciled" status if he wins the General Election.

"Non-dom" residency allows around 116,000 individuals to exempt their offshore income from UK tax for an annual charge.

In a speech in Warwickshire, Mr Miliband will say that the rich should not be allowed to "operate under different rules".

"The next Labour government will abolish the non-dom rule. And we will replace it with a clear principle - anyone permanently resident in the UK will pay tax in the same way," he is expected to tell his audience.

The party expects the move to raise "hundreds of millions of pounds" which will be used to reduce the deficit.

please log in to view this image

Play video "Election In 60 Seconds: Europe Row"

please log in to view this image

Video: Election In 60 Seconds: Europe Row
There are an estimated 116,000 non-doms living in the UK who only have to pay UK taxes on money they bring into the country.

Their income from overseas investments does not have to be declared.

The 200-year-old rule has been criticised for being open to exploitation by a jet-set elite looking to minimise their tax liabilities.

However, it is argued that the tax law encourages skilled workers and large investors from abroad to locate here and contribute to the UK economy.

Mr Miliband will say: "The problem is, it isn't true. It is a recipe that doesn't work for most working people, doesn't work for business and doesn't work for Britain.

"It works against every business and working person in this country who has to pay more as a result, everybody who relies on public services like the NHS, everybody who believes in Britain and a fair and modern country.

please log in to view this image

Play video "The Faisal Files: Day 9"

please log in to view this image

Video: The Faisal Files: Day 9
"The United States doesn't do it. No other major country in the developed world does it. No one would propose doing it now if didn't already exist. One rule for some and another for others? It is unjust, it does not work, it holds Britain back and we will stop it."

In 2008, Labour announced plans to charge non-doms £30,000 a year if they had been resident in the UK for seven of the previous 10 years.

George Osborne increased this to £90,000 for those who have lived here for 17 out of the past 20 years.

But a spokesman for Ed Miliband said: "UK citizens should pay tax on all gains, anywhere in the world."

He added: "There should be no different rules between rich and poor."

Famous "non-doms" include some of Britain's richest individuals, such as Indian steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal and Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich.


Londons Only will be out at dawn canvassing for the Conservatives.

 

My wife works in the social housing sector and some people are ****ed because there are no homes with less bedrooms for them to move into

 

Which is why I said it should have been slowly introduced so people had time to adjust and plan. Plus if people have care needs then its different although they still don't need a extra couple of bedrooms for comfort though.

It may sound harsh but if people aren't paying for the house then why should they have a house bigger than what they need? Especially when there are people out there willing to work their knuckles off to see them only being able to afford a house that isn't big enough? Want a bigger house, fine, pay for it. Nothing in life is free.

And I know people that have had to move as a result, one of which (the mrs' mother) raised her family there is hasn't been able to work (on sick benefits) for about eight years. She was settled in a four bedroom house (been there about fourteen years) despite four of her five kids having left home. Tough **** as far as I'm concerned. She's now in a two bedroom house with that remaining child still living with her.

 

Most people would be willing to move house if there were any smaller houses for them to move in to.

 

please log in to view this image

 

True and again, it should have been part of the introduction process. People shouldn't be charged if alternative housing isn't available. However, should they refuse appropriate housing then they should then incur the extra charge. again, I refer to the mrs' (nm) mother; she was offered about half a dozen before taking one and the one she took she only did so because she'd fell out with the neighbours and they'd become threatening towards her, I don't think she would have moved yet otherwise.