“Come clean about who funds you (or at least stop preaching to others about transparency until you do).”

Agreed

“Stop condoning corporate tax avoidance. ”

Dont’ see why, they’re not a left-wing think tank. They probably approve of individual tax avoidance too.

“Scrap your ridiculous commitment to “oppose all tax rises” (surely you can’t object to tax rises for some when balanced by cuts for others if it makes the system fairer? Can you?)”

If they believe the overall tax take is too high then there is some sense in their position. I doubt they would consider any taxes to be too low (obviously if they were a left-wing organisation they would have a very different position).

“Get rid of Tim Aker’s “Non Job Reports” (or at least bother to find out about the jobs before you trash them).”

The latter, nothing wrong with trashing non-jobs providing they are actually non-jobs.

“Sack your Academic Advisory Council and replace it with advisors whose only interest in the public sector isn’t to make it disappear. ”

If they have an ideological agenda to shrink the state I doubt they will.

I can’t believe Conservative Way Forward actually have a “one of us” award.

I can’t believe Conservative Way Forward actually have a “one of us” award.

Colloquially known as ‘The Maggies’

It’s the unthinking zombie allusion I can’t get past.

Very good post I thought. I’ve calmed down after my initial anger at the TPA and their awards. Very good work

“Stop condoning corporate tax avoidance.”

What’s wrong with tax avoidance ? It’s perfectly legal and all companys owe their shareholders a duty to maximise returns. When you get paid do you voulenteer to pay extra tax over and above what has been deducted ? Thought not.

If Nu lab hadn’t made the tax stystem so inepenetrably complicated (e.g I’ve yet to meet anyone who understands tax credits, including HMRC staff) there would be less scope for it.

What’s wrong with tax avoidance is that people with knowledge and expertise can circumvent the way things are supposed to work (as put in place by a succession of democratically-elected governments) whereas everyone else pays their fair share.

I expect capitalists to try and work their way round the tax system but the idea that just because it is expected it is moral is bizarre.

“It’s perfectly legal”

So is marrying your cousin. But, you know…

Not having the figures to hand, but wiping out tax avoidance will benefit the country by at least £100 billion. A year. By contrast, benefit fraud costs the country at most £800 million per annum. Guess which subject the TPA wants action on?

“Not having the figures to hand, but wiping out tax avoidance will benefit the country by at least £100 billion. A year. By contrast, benefit fraud costs the country at most £800 million per annum.”

Tax avoidance isn’t illegal, benefit fraud is. The former involves letting people keep money, the latter involves taking other peoples’. In any event they’re a right-wing think-tank, of course they’re going to call for a minimal state (which means low taxes and a privatised benefits system).

But a growing number of people believe tax avoidance should be made illegal. The difference between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion is Rizla-thin. As such, the comparison is valid. A crackdown on genuine benefit fraud is perfectly acceptable as long as it is in tandem with a crackdown on tax avoidance/evasion. I think £100 billion a year’s worth fighting for…

I pay more than enough to fund banker scum, illegal wars and Brown’s cronies, so why the fuck should people with vastly more money be exempt?

Bloggertarians can talk all the fucking shite they want about “going Galt”. If it weren’t for people like me, & people who are far more important than me, such as farmers, you wouldn’t have any fucking wealth in the first place, as it’s our taxes and our work that keep the boss class in place.

I agree completely with David Brough. Why should the rich get away with paying less than their due so the rest of us pay more? Destroy the tax havens and screw the corrupt cynical bastards for their contempt for the rest of us.

Let’s not forget that we pay a lot more in tax than it says on our wage slips. You’ve got piss like VAT (a classic Tory policy, which is why Blair/Brown love it) as well. I actually forget myself half the time. That’s why they levy it rather than taxing wealth.

I just avoided a large amount of tax by making a contribution to my pension fund.
Am I a corrupt cynical bastard?
(Well of course I am, but not for that reason…)

The size of the definitive “Tolley’s Tax Guide” has doubled under genius Brown.
He is pathologically incapable of not trying to micromanage behaviour.
Simplify, so the loopholes aren’t created in the first place.

And I’m struggling to understand the particular importance of farmers (who get huge subsidies and tax breaks by the way)!

They feed people who are incapable of providing their own food, that is the majority. Unless right-wing businessmen and chickenhawk thinktank fuckwits are going to forage in the wilderness once they’ve “gone Galt”.

it is odd how many of those who oppose society and restrictive laws are those who probably wouldn’t do very well if left to their own devices in a lawless world.

oh yeah, and the rich should pay more tax. Capital Gains being the prime example. The tax system should be much simpler, and i think more direct. I think a party could well stand on a ‘less stealth tax’ platform and do well, from either left or right. less stealth taxes, more direct taxes. Problem is that New Labour mentality has permeated so many strata that even NUS people are opposed to direct taxation!

The rich do pay more tax. Ten per cent of £1m is £100,000, while ten per cent of £40,000 is £4,000. So the rich guy pays more. Simple enough?

I think you’ll find that most farmers are right-wing businessmen!

“I expect capitalists to try and work their way round the tax system but the idea that just because it is expected it is moral is bizarre.”

Whether it’s “moral” or not is a completely separate issue. Morality is subjective. You could equally easily argue that the entire principle or taxation (take the fruits of one persons labour and give it to someone else) is immoral.

Big companies pay tax on profit, they employ people who also pay tax on their salaries and purchases, and they provide employment which means fewer people are dependent on the state. They are net contributors to the exchequer.

How do you wipe out something that’s legal ? You gonna make tax avoiders – which incidentally includes any LC reader who ever paid cash, no receipt to a tradesman – stand outside like smokers ?

Cicero, someone making £40,000 a year is rich actually, as only one in ten earn such a high salary. Anyone who views this as a modest income obviously only ever associates with other members of the middle classes.

The rich do pay more tax. Ten per cent of £1m is £100,000, while ten per cent of £40,000 is £4,000. So the rich guy pays more. Simple enough?

Uh-oh: flat-taxation alert!

But a growing number of people believe tax avoidance should be made illegal.

How exactly do they plan to make it illegal to obey the letter of the law?

Paying cash to a trader is tax evasion, not tax avoidance. (See the second series of “I’m Alan Partridge” for an in-depth explanation of tax law, particularly relating to gifts from former Goodies).

#24 That’s confused ’em!

How exactly do they plan to make it illegal to obey the letter of the law?

You’ll see soon enough.

You’ll see soon enough.

(@ 2.34am – no wonder you can’t get up in time for a morning demo!!)

That sounds threatening!

I would hope that the liberal approach to this would be to, erm, change the rules, rather than going after people who are actually following the rules, however tortuously.
Indeed, for the most part these schemes are cleared with HMRC first, aren’t they?
They’re certainly put together by teams which include ex senior HMRC people.

Brown created the mess of rules. Let him clear the mess up.

“I just avoided a large amount of tax by making a contribution to my pension fund.”

Hmm, a pension fund. That’s a good place to put your money. What could possibly go wrong?

That depends what you invest it in!

@ 22: “the middle class” should read “the upper middle class”. We’re talking about £40,000 for Christ’s sake.

I think, though, that there’s a certain amount of talking at cross purposes here, possibly deliberate on the part of the right-wingers. Is anybody actually suggesting anything as absurd as that people should be prosecuted for avoidance *within the law*? Surely “make it illegal” means, y’know, make it illegal? As in, change the law so this behaviour is no longer within the letter? We seem to be agreed on closing the loopholes.

And shut down the crime havens, which is what “tax havens” are. Their principal purpose is not saving money, but laundering it. They exist to serve the needs of fraudsters, gangsters, terrorists and pirates. Why do you think the thugs who seized the Sirius Star had an accountant? They still bury their loot on desert islands, they just don’t need a shovel and a map any more.

Shut down the crime havens

How, precisely, to you propose to “shut down” sovereign states?

Regime change!

31, I define “middle class” as anyone who is very well off. I view the majority of office employees, for example, as working-class. This also includes the rank and file who work for the state.

What I’m saying is that Cicero, back at the beginning, seems to be describing £40,000 as quite a modest salary. I pointed out that this is completely untrue as far as the average person is concerned. But then, it’s all I’d expect from a right-winger.

I’m sorry but £40k, in my book does not even qualify as middle class these days. On 40k you only just scrape into the top tax bracket, and to put it into perspective it would just about get you a mortage on a small one bed roomed flat in the less salubrious parts of a provincial city. It wouldn’t even buy you a parking space in most of London. In our high tax, high cost of living nu labour economy you need 25K just to exist, as a household income £40K its very modest.

modest?! ah ha ha ha.
As part of my job I try to ensure that people get paid the MINIMUM wage, which works about at just below £12k a year.
Matt Munro sounds like that businessman who killed his family because he couldn’t stand the ‘shame’ of living a ‘normal’ life i.e. not being millionaries.
Honestly you are full of rubbish

“I think, though, that there’s a certain amount of talking at cross purposes here, possibly deliberate on the part of the right-wingers. Is anybody actually suggesting anything as absurd as that people should be prosecuted for avoidance *within the law*? Surely “make it illegal” means, y’know, make it illegal? As in, change the law so this behaviour is no longer within the letter? We seem to be agreed on closing the loopholes.”

“Avoidance” iswithin the law, so by definition is legal
“Evasion” is outside the law and is already illegal

You are either doing one, or the other, you can’t do both.

What many including me are questioning is how to prosecute people for avoidance when it’s not illegal

Martin – I’m sorry but you are the one talking rubbish. If you have children, own a modest house and need to run a car, I can assure you £40k does not go very far, given that is’s actually around 25K once you have paid all the taxes, it certainly does not make you “rich”.
Ok you are not going to starve or be clad in rags, but on 40K you are unlikely to be able to afford private education for your kids (a hallmark of the middle class), sending your kids to uni will involve serious sacrifices, one cheapo holiday a year, a 5 year old car, high street clothes, and a meal out once a week is your £40K “middle class” lifestyle.
Would you be surprised to hear that the due to the wonders of our tax recycling scheme (aka tax credits) a working parent on £40k is entitled to what amounts to benefits ?

I think you are confusing “middle class” (six figure household incomes, doctors, lawyers, bankers, senior executives etc) with “middle income” (office workers, skilled manual workers, teachers, nurses etc)

Would the middle-income people not call themselves middle class though??

Your definition of midde class would better be called “elite” (given that we don’t use upper class any more) – though the bien-pensants amongst them would love to consider themselves (and their 6 fig incomes etc) “ordinary”

To be middle class you need to be on twice national average income, so a household with 2 middle class incomes is on £100k min. I wouldn’t consider my GP, my bank manager or my lawyer to be elite, they still have to work, could lose it all almost overnight, yes they are well paid and confortable, but not in any sense rich. I think a lot of people believe they are middle class because they have degrees, office jobs and mortages, but as those things are now near universal they are almost meaningless as class indicators

Your definition of rich seems to be “anyone who isn’t actively poor”. In other words the nu lab social stratification model, which says that unless you are either completely state dependent or super rich, you have more money than you “need” and should have most of it taken away as tax to be redistributed as benefits or bail outs to the other 2 groups.

“but on 40K you are unlikely to be able to afford private education for your kids (a hallmark of the middle class), sending your kids to uni will involve serious sacrifices, one cheapo holiday a year, a 5 year old car, high street clothes, and a meal out once a week is your £40K “middle class” lifestyle.”

I’m fucking crying. Sitting here in floods of tears.

Why don’t you tell us what percentage of the population earns over 40K? How many people are middle-class?

Fuck off out of London and go up north. Actually don’t, you wouldn’t be welcome.

Mr Munro, I’m sorry but compared to someone living on minimum wage (like me), someone worrying about sending their children to private school, or eating out once a week is a VERY long way away.
I’m sure that having children would take up a lot of your budget, but being a single, white male with no children i’ve actually done relatively badly out of this government.

Overall, what i’m saying is that it is possible to survive on less than £25k, which is what you said was not possible at 12:16 pm on April 6, 2009.
I AM saying that private education, meals out, holidays, fashion clothing (as opposed to mere highstreet clothes as you say) are LUXURIES, not necessities and are therefore open to being taxed out of existence

Look I don’t mean to be rude and I don’t know your circumstances but it isn’t my fault that you are on min wage. I’ve been on the dole and done shite jobs a plenty, but I didn’t react by just demonising anyone who earned more than me. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who earns more than a pittance is “open to being taxed out of existence”. I work because I want a reasonable life for me and my kids, no other reason. Would you prefer that I give up work altogther and me, the misses and the kids will all go on benefits, perhaps I could move out of the marital home, she could pretend to be a single parent and then we could really screw all those rich mothers with their elitist Next clothes, Ford cars and holidays in the Costas. Would that make you feel better about yourself ? Give me a break.

And Dave Brough. I hate london (full of latte sipping tossers who think they are anarchists because they gave up their weeky visit to Starbucks to shout nasty things about bankers), and the North is even worse (STILLwhining about Thatchers 30 years on) so Ill stay put thanks all the same.

I myself did not advocate punitive taxation on high incomes as Martin did. I am just pointing out that they ARE high incomes, not average or low incomes.

The fact that you have little despite earning a lot means that you live in an expensive area or have too high demands, for example, viewing yourself as entitled to a holiday (I generally don’t bother) or private education (most parents don’t bother, and I myself and millions like myself and my wife have chosen not to have children at all).

This all goes back to the assertion that those who live on what the rest of the country views as a great salary are representative, normal, or even hard-up, none of which are true.

You should ask yourself why London is expensive in the first place, anyway. It is a result of ludicrous salaries being paid to those who often can’t even pretend that they deserve them, such as Fred Goodwin and his fellow scum.

I AM saying that private education, meals out, holidays, fashion clothing (as opposed to mere highstreet clothes as you say) are LUXURIES, not necessities and are therefore open to being taxed out of existence

Blimey. Juche here we come. And all presumably in the name of good old-fashioned class war. Aux timbrales!

The reality is that until you get into the very upper echelons of income, everybody feels as if they’re struggling to make ends meet. When I was a grad student a few years ago, it was amazing how little money I actually needed to get by – a pay check of a few hundred quid for a term’s teaching lasted for months. Now I have a full time job and a mortgage and live in London and have a baby on the way, it’s astonishing how my paycheck vanishes, seemingly regardless of how much is in it.

Thank you Tim J, that was my point!!
Dear Mr Munro seems to have missed my point. I was saying that his list of things are luxuries, not necessities.
I was not advocating class war (for once) just saying that not all these things are NECESSARY for life and your lad bit my head off

Apparently they didn’t give up the lattes…

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6035809.ece