"on benefits and proud"

[AronSearle]

You wrote that the majority paid the correct tax.
That majority could be 51% meaning 49% don't.

Why don't you just check this stuff, instead of making **** up on the fly and looking stupid?

Well, of the 10,000 people who in 2010/11 declared an income in the range £1m to £5m, around 1,000 of these paid a tax rate of less than 30%, well below the top rate of 50%

So that's 90% paying over 30% tax, but still less than the full amount.

data shows that more than 73% of those earning over £250,000 were paying an average tax rate above 40% in 2010/11. And even among those earning between £5m and £10m and those earning over £10m, the proportion paying more than 40% in tax was 81% and 72% respectively.

70-80% paying nearly the full amount (nobody pays the full amount, as much will be put into pensions which get a tax allowance).

I hope your maths is good enough to recognise this as a clear majority?

But even so it is striking quite how many people paid tax greater than 40% - a proportion 10 times greater than those who succeeded in paying almost no tax.

And, as I said before, if they all paid the full amount, it's a few more billion, out of a £100 billion deficit.

THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING TO MUCH, nothing to do with "the rich not paying their fair share".

If avoidance is not illegal, as obviously it is not, then how do they know and why do they even record the amounts? It's like saying I avoided a thousand last year because I didn't have to pay it..

This is all elementary stuff, if you don't even know the answer to this, or can't be bothered to find out, you really should stop making yourself look ignorant.

Putting money in investments (which will be taxed anyway when the investment is withdrawn) is tax avoidance, using your partners tax allowance, is avoidance (but the tax allowance is only 12k, so the amount avoided in these situations is several hundred), putting money into pensions, is tax avoidance. But these avoidance allowances exist for a reason (we want people to invest, we want people to treat their partners equally, the tax allowance for partners goes back to allowing women to own property), these tax breaks exist for genuine good reasons, the same as your tax free allowance for the first 10k or whatever you own, tax free savings and isa's, tax breaks on pensions.

Now sometimes people abuse them, that's why they record it, so when they see abuse, they can close down the tax allowance.

How's it feel to be wrong about everything?

You don't need to ask.

No, I do, I'd genuinely like to know how you feel to have your opinion proven to just be based upon made up numbers and feelings rather than facts?

You've clearly bought into this hogwash that lefties push that all our ills will go away, if the rich just pay their fair share.

The number can't lie though, a few billion from a hundred billion, is not going to plug the deficit.

 

[EddieM]

IT contractors pay around about 10% tax on all billings, but then again we do take risks. Whoever told you life was fair was lying.

 

[AronSearle]

EFLImpudence, gone quiet have you?

Blimey, Aron, you have a pretty cast iron faith in government figures, don't you?

The tax gap in the 2010 to 2011 financial year was estimated to be £32 billion – 6.7% of the total tax that HMRC estimates was due – and tax evasion and avoidance together accounted for £9 billion of this.

Without wishing to trivialise such small sums could you please explain how the other £23 billion is accounted?

In short, Vat avoidance is a large chunk of it (black market, fag's booze, cash in hand etc), non payment (often bankruptcy), error (by the government), criminal activities.

 

[EFLImpudence]

EFLImpudence, gone quiet have you?

I thought your figures confirmed what I had been saying.

OOPS

 

[AronSearle]

I thought your figures confirmed what I had been saying.

somebody clearly failed maths at school

 

[Norcon]

Aron Searle wrote

THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING TO MUCH, nothing to do with "the rich not paying their fair share".

How very true. By the next general election they will have created more than £1.5 trillions worth of national debt.
Last year the government spent 120 billion more that it collected in taxes.

The debt just keeps rising and the militant socialists scream spend, spend, spend, spend!
With no clue as to how to pay back the loans. Soon the dominoes will start falling.

Google wrote

When interest rates rise – and they WILL rise – Britain will face the greatest crisis in generations.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just in case you didn't realise it was a link -

OOPS

 

[EFLImpudence]

You wrote that the majority paid the correct tax.
That majority could be 51% meaning 49% don't.

That was an example of the futility of stating that the majority pay their proper tax.
It was not the actual figure which may be anything from 51% to 99.999%.

Well, of the 10,000 people who in 2010/11 declared an income in the range £1m to £5m, around 1,000 of these paid a tax rate of less than 30%, well below the top rate of 50%

That's 10% paying well below (your words).
What percentage are paying 31% to 49% when it should be 50%?

So that's 90% paying over 30% tax, but still less than the full amount.

It is but how many of this 90% are paying what they should?

data shows that more than 73% of those earning over £250,000 were paying an average tax rate above 40% in 2010/11 and even among those earning between £5m and £10m and those earning over £10m, the proportion paying more than 40% in tax was 81% and 72% respectively.

So 19% and 28% respectively weren't.

70-80% paying nearly the full amount (nobody pays the full amount, as much will be put into pensions which get a tax allowance).

So 20% to 30% weren't
I am not quibbling about allowances.

I hope your maths is good enough to recognise this as a clear majority?

I hope your maths is good enough to recognise the a substantial minority are not paying what they should.
Much more than your hallowed top 10% of earners.

But even so it is striking quite how many people paid tax greater than 40% - a proportion 10 times greater than those who succeeded in paying almost no tax.

Is that relevant?

And, as I said before, if they all paid the full amount, it's a few more billion, out of a £100 billion deficit.

It is you who brought in the deficit.

THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING TO MUCH, nothing to do with "the rich not paying their fair share".

I never said it was.
Are you saying it is acceptable for the wealthy to avoid/evade tax because of schemes implemented for that purpose by the wealthy who make the rules because it would make no difference?

If avoidance is not illegal, as obviously it is not, then how do they know and why do they even record the amounts? It's like saying I avoided a thousand last year because I didn't have to pay it..

This is all elementary stuff, if you don't even know the answer to this, or can't be bothered to find out, you really should stop making yourself look ignorant.

Are you saying that the shortfall in expected revenue is calculated and just called avoidance?

Putting money in investments (which will be taxed anyway when the investment is withdrawn) is tax avoidance, using your partners tax allowance, is avoidance (but the tax allowance is only 12k, so the amount avoided in these situations is several hundred), putting money into pensions, is tax avoidance. But these avoidance allowances exist for a reason (we want people to invest, we want people to treat their partners equally, the tax allowance for partners goes back to allowing women to own property), these tax breaks exist for genuine good reasons, the same as your tax free allowance for the first 10k or whatever you own, tax free savings and isa's, tax breaks on pensions.

But the less well off cannot take advantage of these methods.

Now sometimes people abuse them, that's why they record it, so when they see abuse, they can close down the tax allowance.

Some have been talked about.
I shall not hold my breath until they are forgotten.

How's it feel to be wrong about everything?

You don't need to ask.

No, I do, I'd genuinely like to know how you feel to have your opinion proven to just be based upon made up numbers and feelings rather than facts?

See above for your figures.

You've clearly bought into this hogwash that lefties push that all our ills will go away, if the rich just pay their fair share.
The number can't lie though, a few billion from a hundred billion, is not going to plug the deficit.

I have never mentioned ills or the deficit merely that schemes exist and were introduced for the very purpose of the wealthy paying less or very little tax.

 

[AronSearle]

What percentage are paying 31% to 49% when it should be 50%?

Err, 45%.

And that's only 45% on earnings over 150k, so someone paying 151k will only pay 45% on 1k , so overall tax will be nearer 38%, and that’s before tax breaks on pensions.

It is but how many of this 90% are paying what they should?

Well, feel free to prove otherwise, with evidence, rather than conjecture and prejudice, then you won't so badly lose the argument.

As it stands, I’ve provided you clear numbers that the majority pay substantial amounts of tax, and what they should be paying.

You have provided hyperbole and assumptions, based upon prejudice.

a substantial minority are not paying what they should.

A substantial minority? If that’s the kind of convoluted oxymoron you have to come up with, you really are talking nonsense.

Are you saying that the shortfall in expected revenue is calculated and just called avoidance?

You obviously know nothing about avoidance, what it is, and why it is recorded, and are just speaking in ignorant sound bites fed to you by the likes of UK uncut.

It may suit your little conspiracy theorist mind that "tax allowances are all just created for the rich by paying politicians backhanders", but that's generally just rubbish.

So let me give you an analogy (so forget accuracy).

Farmer Giles needs a new 4x4, his old one is battered, and he needs it to do his job. But he doesn’t want to take out a loan, and has little money. What he can do though is write it off as a business expense, so that the 10k he was to pay in tax, can now be used to buy his 4x4.

This is avoidance, and this is perfectly acceptable. The government allows this because it means farmer Giles can buy what he needs to stay in business, the 4x4 company get's a sale, keeping it's employees in business, the government ultimately wins because such measures mean the economy runs well, and a healthy economy produces lot's of tax.

Sometimes however, someone finds a loophole in such a system to abuse it (like buying multiple 4x4's and giving them to family members), it's still tax avoidance, but it's a little more *questionable*, and even more rarely someone will find an ultra loophole that lets them buy the 4x4 then get a tax rebate (the jimmy cars), and that’s when the tax loopholes are spotted and closed down.

 

[EddieM]

EFLImpudence, gone quiet have you?

Blimey, Aron, you have a pretty cast iron faith in government figures, don't you?

The tax gap in the 2010 to 2011 financial year was estimated to be £32 billion – 6.7% of the total tax that HMRC estimates was due – and tax evasion and avoidance together accounted for £9 billion of this.

Without wishing to trivialise such small sums could you please explain how the other £23 billion is accounted?

In short, Vat avoidance is a large chunk of it (black market, fag's booze, cash in hand etc), non payment (often bankruptcy), error (by the government), criminal activities.

That's tax evasion not tax aviodance very different things.

 

[AronSearle]

You say tomato I say tomato.