"on benefits and proud"

[AronSearle]

Does no one realise that the wealthy pay relatively little tax because there are so many ways around it for them.

Rich people dodging tax, is as much of an issue as people doing cash in hand, they both avoid tax, but both are an overall minority of the workforce tax take, the top 10% still pay 50% of income tax.

The UK Uncut crowd make a big issue of these things (as well as simply making up inflated numbers), because they want to "fight the cuts", but tax evasion and avoidance only amounts to £9 billion, **** all when we have a +£100 billion deficit.

The government is simply spending to much, far FAR to many people in subsidzied housing, that earn as much, or more, as people without subsidized housing.

The cut in subsizes to spare bedrooms is just the first attempt to get this under control.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Rich people dodging tax,

I am not talking about dodging (avoidance), let alone evasion, I am referring to the fact that the rules are framed so that they don't have to pay it.

the top 10% still pay 50% of income tax.

How much more than 50% of the income do they 'earn'?

 

[AronSearle]

Rich people dodging tax,

I am not talking about dodging (avoidance), let alone evasion, I am referring to the fact that the rules are framed so that they don't have to pay it.

So your plain just talking **** then?

The vast majority who have to pay the top rate, pay the top rate, the 9 billion figure (a few % of income tax taken), IS the figure for avoided or evaded tax (aka the jimmy cars).

And using the rules as they are framed to avoid tax, is avoidence, you can't refer to something and say you are not referring to it.

How much more than 50% of the income do they 'earn'?

What are you even trying to say here?

 

[NickS601]

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.”

Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer!

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving). The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving). The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving). The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving). The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving). And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings...

"I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all! This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The vast majority who have to pay the top rate, pay the top rate,

Majority?, maybe; the wealthy, no.

the 9 billion figure (a few % of income tax taken), IS the figure for avoided or evaded tax (aka the jimmy cars).

No, it isn't.
What Jimmy Carr did was legal and therefore not evasion and only avoidance because he could afford to do it.
If you or the authorities call taking advantage of rules set up for this very purpose avoidance then you are misleading for political purposes.
I was just disappointed by his grovelling apology rather than saying "This is what wealthy people do".

And using the rules as they are framed to avoid tax, is avoidence, you can't refer to something and say you are not referring to it.

No, it isn't. It is taking advantage of the rules when able to afford it.

How much more than 50% of the income do they 'earn'?

What are you even trying to say here?

If this top 10% (put together) 'earn' more than the other 90% (put together) then clearly they are paying a smaller percentage of tax than the 90%.

Simple example for you -
Nine people each earn £25,000p.a. - total £225,000
One person earns £1,000,000
Therefore if this one person pays the same amount in tax as the nine combined (50% of the total as in the pub analogy) clearly he is paying a much smaller proportion of tax to income (fifth as much) compared to the nine.

 

[Big Tone]

Hmmmm....

So should all walks of life be like our tax system I wonder?

Anyone remember the case, in Switzerland I think, where a wealthy driver got done for speeding and his fine was something crazy like €200,000!!! (Proportionate to income).

Again, you can try and pull a stunt like that on the rich but I can't see people, good people we need, sticking around for long to get shafted - no matter how patriotic they are.

 

[NickS601]

Simple example for you -
Nine people each earn £25,000p.a. - total £225,000
One person earns £1,000,000
Therefore if this one person pays the same amount in tax as the nine combined (50% of the total as in the pub analogy) clearly he is paying a much smaller proportion of tax to income (fifth as much) compared to the nine.

Not quite the pub scenario if nine pay the same tax

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

 

[AronSearle]

The vast majority who have to pay the top rate, pay the top rate,

Majority?, maybe; the wealthy, no.

What are you basing this on, how is it that HM revenue say the majority of high earners pay their tax, how can they not be doing so, whilst simoutanously their tax take is the largest amount of tax income?

Are you basing your opinion on any facts?

If you or the authorities call taking advantage of rules set up for this very purpose avoidance then you are misleading for political purposes.

Political purposues, how about rule of law?

What are you even trying to say, avoidance is the legal term for legally avoiding tax, and HM revenue say tax evasion AND avoidance amounts to approx 9 billion (a few % of total tax).

If this top 10% (put together) 'earn' more than the other 90% (put together) then clearly they are paying a smaller percentage of tax than the 90%.

What kind of maths is that?

The top 10% pay a higher rate of tax, how on earth do you conclude this means they then pay a lower rate of tax

See this below, the top 10% are paying 53% of all income tax collected.

Simple example for you -
Nine people each earn £25,000p.a. - total £225,000
One person earns £1,000,000
Therefore if this one person pays the same amount in tax as the nine combined (50% of the total as in the pub analogy) clearly he is paying a much smaller proportion of tax to income (fifth as much) compared to the nine.

Lol, you simpleton.

He'll be paying £430,000 in income tax approx (45% rate), almost twice as much as the other 9 people even earn.

The 9 people will be paying approx 25k (22% rate - 12k allowance or whatever) in income tax.

Now you can whine about how "yes, but the rich don't actually pay that", well the evidence shows otherwise.

 

[jeds]

Simple example for you -
Nine people each earn £25,000p.a. - total £225,000
One person earns £1,000,000
Therefore if this one person pays the same amount in tax as the nine combined (50% of the total as in the pub analogy) clearly he is paying a much smaller proportion of tax to income (fifth as much) compared to the nine.

Not quite the pub scenario if nine pay the same tax

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

Bit confused. Your pub scenario looks like a straight repeat. Is it the same as BTs or did I miss something?

 

[EFLImpudence]

What are you basing this on, how is it that HM revenue say the majority of high earners pay their tax, how can they not be doing so, whilst simoutanously their tax take is the largest amount of tax income?

So, not vast majority as you said - 51%?

What are you even trying to say, avoidance is the legal term for legally avoiding tax, and HM revenue say tax evasion AND avoidance amounts to approx 9 billion (a few % of total tax).

As there are so few prosecuted for evasion then most of this must be legal avoidance by taking advantage of the rules set up for the purpose.

The top 10% pay a higher rate of tax, how on earth do you conclude this means they then pay a lower rate of tax

Because this rate will be after placing assets in spouse's name, setting up trust funds, investments in long term projects, living in Jersey, The Isle of Man, Monaco etc.

See this below, the top 10% are paying 53% of all income tax collected.

The chart is meaningless unless you know the actual earnings.

Now you can whine about how "yes, but the rich don't actually pay that", well the evidence shows otherwise.

No, it doesn't.
50% of the population are taller than average but you can't tell how tall is the tallest 10%.
The vast majority of people have a higher than average number of limbs.


Keep cycling.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Simple example for you -
Nine people each earn £25,000p.a. - total £225,000
One person earns £1,000,000
Therefore if this one person pays the same amount in tax as the nine combined (50% of the total as in the pub analogy) clearly he is paying a much smaller proportion of tax to income (fifth as much) compared to the nine.

Not quite the pub scenario if nine pay the same tax

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

No, but in relation to the tenth it is comparable.

His actual income is not known.

 

[AronSearle]

So, not vast majority as you said - 51%?

53%

That's 10% paying 53% of the tax, you don't consider that a significant majority in context?

Because this rate will be after placing assets in spouse's name, setting up trust funds, investments in long term projects, living in Jersey, The Isle of Man, Monaco etc.

The 9 billion figure (a few % of tax) is for avoidance and evasion, which includes your scenarios, as those are avoidance, as provided by HM revenue.

Stop making **** up or just getting things plain wrong.

The chart is meaningless unless you know the actual earnings.

Says you?

You are advocating they don't pay their 45% tax, the chart proves you wrong on the latter, as well as HMR itself saying only a small amount is avoided.

It's only meaningless because you can't understand a simple bar chart, or you don't think paying 45% of tax is enough (but you never said that, you claimed they don't pay it)

Here, read it for yourself

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-tax-evasion-and-avoidance

The vast majority of UK individuals and businesses pay the tax that is due. (some dont)

and tax evasion and avoidance together accounted for £9 billion of this.

We are increasing the number of specialist personal tax inspectors to prevent evasion and avoidance of inheritance tax, using offshore trusts, bank accounts and other entities.

I'm not sure how much plainer I can make this for you?

The evidence is clear, they mostly pay their due, some don't.

"taxing the rich more" is a smokescreen, it would barely dent the deficit.

And Bearing in mind that 9 billion is everything, not just rich people, but corporations, black market (think fags/booze), and cash in hand.

How's it feel to be wrong about everything?

 

[Big Tone]

I liked your chart Aron; very revealing and informative.

Bit confused. Your pub scenario looks like a straight repeat. Is it the same as BTs or did I miss something?

x2

To lighten the mood, if I may, regarding comedians and tax Dodding, (You'll see what I did here)

Dodd was represented by George Carman, who in court famously quipped, "Some accountants are comedians, but comedians are never accountants".

Can't believe that was 89. I remember it like yesterday

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

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?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Last post - you don't seem able to understand.

So, not vast majority as you said - 51%?

53%

That's 10% paying 53% of the tax, you don't consider that a significant majority in context?

No, not the percentage of tax paid.
You wrote that the majority paid the correct tax.
That majority could be 51% meaning 49% don't.

The 9 billion figure (a few % of tax) is for avoidance and evasion, which includes your scenarios, as those are avoidance, as provided by HM revenue.

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..

The chart is meaningless unless you know the actual earnings.

Says you?

True.

You are advocating they don't pay their 45% tax, the chart proves you wrong on the latter,

No, it doesn't.

as well as HMR itself saying only a small amount is avoided.

You/they mean only a small amount didn't have to be paid.

It's only meaningless because you can't understand a simple bar chart,

I can understand it but without figures you don't know if it should be more.

or you don't think paying 45% of tax is enough (but you never said that, you claimed they don't pay it)

You got one right.
Yes, because they don't have to because rules/schemes/methods are set up for that purpose - Jimmy Carr.

The vast majority of UK individuals and businesses pay the tax that is due. (some dont)

Maybe but is that figure reduced (less than 45%) because of above methods.

We are increasing the number of specialist personal tax inspectors to prevent evasion and avoidance of inheritance tax, using offshore trusts, bank accounts and other entities.

Why would that be?

I'm not sure how much plainer I can make this for you?

The evidence is clear, they mostly pay their due, some don't.

There you go.

How's it feel to be wrong about everything?

You don't need to ask.