Are you right wing?

[Parsaregood]

Save even more if we got the priorities right!

“A report has revealed HMRC employ just 522 staff to tackle tens of billions of tax evasion by the super-rich but the DWP employ 4,045 to tackle benefit fraud.”
@Rachael_Swindon, 26 June 2018

Sometimes it's worthwhile researching who constructs these reports and how they interpret the data because sometimes it's not all as it seems or it's spun in s way which suits a narrative or viewpoint which they wish to put forward

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Sometimes it's worthwhile researching who constructs these reports and how they interpret the data because sometimes it's not all as it seems or it's spun in s way which suits a narrative or viewpoint which they wish to put forward

Or by ignoring the amount of unpaid tax and burying our head in the sand we can keep blaming societies most vulnerable.
2017, NAO figures, Benefit fraud amounts to less than 2% of the Benefits bill.
It would be far more beneficial to the Country if half the staff involved in Benefit fraud was switched to Tax evasion.

 

[Parsaregood]

Blaming societies most vulnerable? No I simply stated there is a culture out there of many people who do not wish to work or seek to better themselves, i come from a family of ' societies most vulnerable ' quite a few alcoholic uncles dieing in early 50'S and the such so I am quite aware of the poorer people in society and my mother and father are still unemployed so you cannot preach to me the point you try to make. The rich will always be able to legally or not so legally avoid paying tax, it would make economic sense for the risk to outweigh the cost and not the other way around.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Blaming societies most vulnerable? No I simply stated there is a culture out there of many people who do not wish to work or seek to better themselves, i come from a family of ' societies most vulnerable ' quite a few alcoholic uncles dieing in early 50'S and the such so I am quite aware of the poorer people in society and my mother and father are still unemployed so you cannot preach to me the point you try to make. The rich will always be able to legally or not so legally avoid paying tax, it would make economic sense for the risk to outweigh the cost and not the other way around.

Did you not read the words, our and we? The post was not aimed at you personally.
How often do we see TV programmes about “Benefit Scroungers” for example or newspaper headlines when the fraudsters appear in court?
When was the last TV programme made about the rich fiddling tax or headline in the paper.
Absolutely chase Benefit fraudsters, just chase the tax evaders and close the tax loopholes as well with the same vigour.

 

[Parsaregood]

Quite often you hear of tax evasion and it's simply often from the awfully left wing Labour party who seeks to make corporate companies and successful people in society out as scapegoats to further their own political careers. They make out these people are the cause of all your ills and if we can recoup this lost revenue an end to austerity and inequality will come - this is all targeted bull as you can never end these things and have a completely free nation. They are simply trying to appeal to an audience

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Quite often you hear of tax evasion and it's simply often from the awfully left wing Labour party who seeks to make corporate companies and successful people in society out as scapegoats to further their own political careers. They make out these people are the cause of all your ills and if we can recoup this lost revenue an end to austerity and inequality will come - this is all targeted bull as you can never end these things and have a completely free nation. They are simply trying to appeal to an audience

Rubbish, the figures I’ve quoted and others have, have come from the Government websites.
Labour or any other left wing groups aren’t making this up.

 

[Parsaregood]

You disagree the Labour party highlights tax avoidance by corporate companies/high profile individuals for it's own political gains ? You think if all tax evasion suddenly ceased we would have a fairer society with those on social welfare suddenly not facing the same issues they have at the moment?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You disagree the Labour party highlights tax avoidance by corporate companies/high profile individuals for it's own political gains ? You think if all tax evasion suddenly ceased we would have a fairer society with those on social welfare suddenly not facing the same issues they have at the moment?

The current Government has done more to tackle tax evasion and close loopholes than any previous Government, regardless of party.
No one has said if tax evasion ceased we’d have this utopia, but if you’re looking to help the Government finances I’d rather have the £30 Billion in unpaid taxes than the £2 Billion Benefit fraud.
Plus Tory Government figures reckon there is over £20 Billion owed in unclaimed Benefits and I can guarantee there isn’t ovet 4,000 people employed to pay those benefits out!

 

[Hobbit]

Rubbish, the figures I’ve quoted and others have, have come from the Government websites.
Labour or any other left wing groups aren’t making this up.

Labour aren't making it up but they are making best use of the headline grabbing emotive issue that it is. The current government is lousy at highlighting the good things it has done.

Two things spring to mind as an indicator of how things have improved in recent years. Even though there's hardly been a dent in immigration, and this isn't a pop at immigration, employment is at its lowest level in over 40 years. Over 300,000 increase year on year of people coming into the country, yet unemployment has fallen significantly.

Not doubt someone will be along shortly to shout about all the zero hours contracts that are masking the 'truth.'

Secondly, tax revenue is at an all time high of over £730bn. Which begs the question, if the Tories are the party of tax reduction, especially for the wealthiest why is tax revenue going up? Direct taxation of individuals, right across the demographic has gone down. So why are the Tories seen as the baddies?

Benefits fraud and austerity; why do the Tories appear to chase benefit fraud more vigorously than tax evasion? The simple reason is easily answered by asking a question. Which is the easiest to chase? The tax man doesn't know every income a person might have that is liable for tax but the benefits agency knows who its paying benefits to. The benefits agency already has people claiming benefits that have to pass various tests. Just who does the tax man chase?

Tax avoidance... honestly, what is wrong with legally avoiding paying tax? If the law says you can do 'x' and avoid paying tax, just what is wrong with that? Ah but morally... If someone isn't breaking the law, they're not doing anything wrong. Its up to the government of the day to ensure there aren't loopholes in the tax system. Its not up to individuals to pay more than they are legally obliged to do.

Austerity; it's now a dirty word, thanks to Labour and the media. It was needed 10 years ago but not now, and definitely not to the level its been used. If you look at the annual spend, year on year, in the last 10 years its barely risen, and certainly hasn't kept pace with inflation. Cropping benefits, as the Tories have done, is just morally wrong. There is no plausible reason to reduce benefits for the most needy. I can't think of one reason why anyone would take money off someone that needed it. Its disgusting!

How much have various blue chip companies paid in Corporation Tax? Amazon? Google? Apple? Starbucks? Costa Coffee? There's your answer to lost tax revenue. And there's where the EU, and the individual countries, are turning a blind eye to the law. EU law clearly states that a company that makes a profit in one country can't declare that profit in another country to offset taxes. It can't mitigate the losses in one country by the profits in another country. I know first hand having worked for a company that showed its costs in the UK but the profit in Germany = €10m fine.

The Right(Tories) might have put the UK on a business footing but its the Left(Labour and LibDems) that appears to be the conscience for the people.

 

[Parsaregood]

The point is the rich are always going to have ways to legally avoid, it is mostly the rich and successful who have the most clout when it comes to policies/laws being passed through parliament. Almost a bit like planning passing through a local council, it's not corrupt but it is, if you have enough of something and are friendly with the right people. However these people still pay huge amounts in tax and also bring huge benefits to the economy in way of hard cash and jobs.

I guarantee the true cost of people who work cash jobs and claim things they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to is quite high. Working people can have a job and claim housing or child benefit though they might and a lot do have 2nd jobs on the side that never see the light of day. To take the moral high ground of being for the working class/unemployed is a fools game because given the opportunity the same or a higher proportion would evade paying taxes just as the wealthy do.
There is a frightening number of people who have never worked a day in their lives (I personally know several) they all think of the rich with disdain yet they are all to some degrees dishonest and cunning people in one way or another themselves.

The government will never recover book figures on taxes unpaid to the revenue, there are always loopholes and given a lot of lawmakers themselves come from wealth and are surrounded by it you can see why. If I earned £1 million and could avoid paying the revenue £400,000 i definitely would and so would most people, it's a lot of money. Id rather have these companies employing thousands of people in this country than not have them. I'm not so sure I'd rather have so many people who have never worked being able to have their own council house and get by without any real hardship, they should be given the choice of education courses or voluntary work if they wish to claim as long as they are capable of.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Labour aren't making it up but they are making best use of the headline grabbing emotive issue that it is. The current government is lousy at highlighting the good things it has done.

Two things spring to mind as an indicator of how things have improved in recent years. Even though there's hardly been a dent in immigration, and this isn't a pop at immigration, employment is at its lowest level in over 40 years. Over 300,000 increase year on year of people coming into the country, yet unemployment has fallen significantly.

Not doubt someone will be along shortly to shout about all the zero hours contracts that are masking the 'truth.'

Secondly, tax revenue is at an all time high of over £730bn. Which begs the question, if the Tories are the party of tax reduction, especially for the wealthiest why is tax revenue going up? Direct taxation of individuals, right across the demographic has gone down. So why are the Tories seen as the baddies?

Benefits fraud and austerity; why do the Tories appear to chase benefit fraud more vigorously than tax evasion? The simple reason is easily answered by asking a question. Which is the easiest to chase? The tax man doesn't know every income a person might have that is liable for tax but the benefits agency knows who its paying benefits to. The benefits agency already has people claiming benefits that have to pass various tests. Just who does the tax man chase?

Tax avoidance... honestly, what is wrong with legally avoiding paying tax? If the law says you can do 'x' and avoid paying tax, just what is wrong with that? Ah but morally... If someone isn't breaking the law, they're not doing anything wrong. Its up to the government of the day to ensure there aren't loopholes in the tax system. Its not up to individuals to pay more than they are legally obliged to do.

Austerity; it's now a dirty word, thanks to Labour and the media. It was needed 10 years ago but not now, and definitely not to the level its been used. If you look at the annual spend, year on year, in the last 10 years its barely risen, and certainly hasn't kept pace with inflation. Cropping benefits, as the Tories have done, is just morally wrong. There is no plausible reason to reduce benefits for the most needy. I can't think of one reason why anyone would take money off someone that needed it. Its disgusting!

How much have various blue chip companies paid in Corporation Tax? Amazon? Google? Apple? Starbucks? Costa Coffee? There's your answer to lost tax revenue. And there's where the EU, and the individual countries, are turning a blind eye to the law. EU law clearly states that a company that makes a profit in one country can't declare that profit in another country to offset taxes. It can't mitigate the losses in one country by the profits in another country. I know first hand having worked for a company that showed its costs in the UK but the profit in Germany = €10m fine.

The Right(Tories) might have put the UK on a business footing but its the Left(Labour and LibDems) that appears to be the conscience for the people.

I never made the discussion political Bri, I’ve praised the current Government on its tax stance.
Opposition parties will always highlight the bad and promise the world.
That still doesn’t mean the argument that the more money the rich have the less tax they should pay and that’s ok.
We should all be paying our fair taxes, what ever form that takes and it should be from the richest to the poorest.

 

[Hobbit]

I never made the discussion political Bri, I’ve praised the current Government on its tax stance.
Opposition parties will always highlight the bad and promise the world.
That still doesn’t mean the argument that the more money the rich have the less tax they should pay and that’s ok.
We should all be paying our fair taxes, what ever form that takes and it should be from the richest to the poorest.

Its a tough circle to square, i.e. should the rich pay more? A simple maths exercise would, to me, suggest the rich pay too much tax by a long, long way.

A guy on £100,000 pays £36k in tax, after his allowances. He then pays £10k NI.

A guy on £20k pays £2k + NI after allowances.

Should the rich be taxed even more? In the example above, they are already paying £46k. They could afford to pay more but is it fair? Is it morally right to take so much more off one person? You'll never convince me it is.

However, I'd like to see the allowances raised by quite a lump and the tax levels changed. Picking a figure out of the air, how about no one pays any tax up to £35k but everyone after that pays 30%? I'm sure someone better versed in numbers could come up with a better number to start from. Or, alternatively, raise NI contributions but have zero tax but tax at point of purchase. If someone has a home they pay the going rate, irrespective of the size of their house. If someone has a car its zero road tax but taxed through fuel duty. Then the more you drive, the more fuel you buy, the more tax you pay. Is it fair that granny who does 3,000 miles a year pays the same road tax as someone that does 40,000 miles a year?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Its a tough circle to square, i.e. should the rich pay more? A simple maths exercise would, to me, suggest the rich pay too much tax by a long, long way.

A guy on £100,000 pays £36k in tax, after his allowances. He then pays £10k NI.

A guy on £20k pays £2k + NI after allowances.

Should the rich be taxed even more? In the example above, they are already paying £46k. They could afford to pay more but is it fair? Is it morally right to take so much more off one person? You'll never convince me it is.

However, I'd like to see the allowances raised by quite a lump and the tax levels changed. Picking a figure out of the air, how about no one pays any tax up to £35k but everyone after that pays 30%? I'm sure someone better versed in numbers could come up with a better number to start from. Or, alternatively, raise NI contributions but have zero tax but tax at point of purchase. If someone has a home they pay the going rate, irrespective of the size of their house. If someone has a car its zero road tax but taxed through fuel duty. Then the more you drive, the more fuel you buy, the more tax you pay. Is it fair that granny who does 3,000 miles a year pays the same road tax as someone that does 40,000 miles a year?

No issue with any fair system, but the argument of let the rich get richer and blame the poor does nothing for me.
It’s the rich fiddling more than the poor at the moment and those doing it illegally at both ends of the scale need chasing.
Not from you, but arguing the rich pay too much tax so not blaming them for fiddling is disgusting and immoral.

 

[Hobbit]

No issue with any fair system, but the argument of let the rich get richer and blame the poor does nothing for me.
It’s the rich fiddling more than the poor at the moment and those doing it illegally at both ends of the scale need chasing.
Not from you, but arguing the rich pay too much tax so not blaming them for fiddling is disgusting and immoral.

I think we both agree on the fiddlers. I'm on about people playing by the rules but at one extreme getting taxed to hell. And if the rich get richer by earning it, I've no problem with that, they've earned it.

But how do you define the cut-off for being rich? At what point do you say, you earn way too much, we're going to tax you to hell and back. That's arbitrary and vindictive. I don't care that Elton John earns squillions. He's earned it through what he has done/does. If he's fiddling his taxes, screws him to the wall till he squeals. But if he earns £10m he gets taxed over half of it. One person paying over £5m, just wrong. Corporation Tax is different, and I don't agree with the loop holes used by the likes of Amazon on Corp Tax.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Save even more if we got the priorities right!

“A report has revealed HMRC employ just 522 staff to tackle tens of billions of tax evasion by the super-rich but the DWP employ 4,045 to tackle benefit fraud.”
@Rachael_Swindon, 26 June 2018

Do you not find yourself questioning what you quoted ? Only ask as how many people do you think in the UK would be classed as super rich (the above says tens of billion evasion divided by this number, is a big number that each super rich person is evading each and every year based on illegal activities not avoided taxes)

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Do you not find yourself questioning what you quoted ? Only ask as how many people do you think in the UK would be classed as super rich (the above says tens of billion evasion divided by this number, is a big number that each super rich person is evading each and every year based on illegal activities not avoided taxes)

No as I read the report the post came from.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I am correct then, you dont read my posts. Although you dont actually accuse me of being a rabid no deal peddler you do tend to use a generic form of address that suggests it. I have made it clear that my preferred option is to have a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU but without being restricted by them in any other way. I dont know another way to explain that we should look after our genuinely vunerable people after Brexit but you seem to have the all brexiteers are nasty people filters on again.
Still waitiing for you to show some evidence.

You are right - I try to not make things personal...to try and not aim comments at an individual. Sometimes it's not always possible. However if you wish to take a general observation I might make on board as being representative of your point of view then - of course - feel free.

I do not lump all of those who voted to leave as 'nasty' - there is a small minority on the very far right who hold views that I would consider nasty - but I couldn't call them nasty as individuals as I don't know them - I am sure there are some out there.

And I am afraid that the attitudes of many in respect of wishing for a No Deal does IMO suggest a callous disregard for the risk that poses towards the most vulnerable and poorer of society, and I am not alone in thinking that because the evidence is there that such as 'austerity' have hurt the poorer most - and the poorer it seems are those who get targetted most by the harshest policies...

I have personal experience of what benefit sanctions mean and how crippling and devastating they can be to those to whom they are applied - sometimes for the merest discretion or mistake. And using your qualification in respect of the vulnerable - many of those that get sanctioned are 'genuinely' vulnerable, but the system does not seem to care about that.