Who is Most Evil?

[lee_av]

Tony, I'm not saying that Income Tax is entirely fair. As a someone that regularly pays 40%, maybe that should be addressed. However, I would state that the Tax bands that we have at present, I believe are also better than those that were produced by the previous Tory Government.

I can also point out that if we had the Poll Tax now, I would also be considerably better off.

[Gringo]

Would Levi's suggestion be a personal wealth tax or a wealth tax for any legal entity?

If there is no taxation on income then why would a wealthy person not just set up an offshore company which holds the assets which effectively are the assets of the individual and then an income stream comes from that offshore company to the individual?

Surely someone owns that asset - either through shares, controlling companies or other arrangements - ie there is a final beneficial owner. So wherever it is held in the world, it should be accounted for as part of that persons wealth.

[snowychap]

Tony, I'm not saying that Income Tax is entirely fair. As a someone that regularly pays 40%, maybe that should be addressed. However, I would state that the Tax bands that we have at present, I believe are also better than those that were produced by the previous Tory Government.

I can also point out that if we had the Poll Tax now, I would also be considerably better off.

Those tax bands which change in 11 days time and penalise those income tax payers with income less than c£18k?

[lee_av]

Tony, I'm not saying that Income Tax is entirely fair. As a someone that regularly pays 40%, maybe that should be addressed. However, I would state that the Tax bands that we have at present, I believe are also better than those that were produced by the previous Tory Government.

I can also point out that if we had the Poll Tax now, I would also be considerably better off.

Those tax bands which change in 11 days time and penalise those income tax payers with income less than c£18k?

I have no idea. Explain

[snowychap]

Would Levi's suggestion be a personal wealth tax or a wealth tax for any legal entity?

If there is no taxation on income then why would a wealthy person not just set up an offshore company which holds the assets which effectively are the assets of the individual and then an income stream comes from that offshore company to the individual?

Surely someone owns that asset - either through shares, controlling companies or other arrangements - ie there is a final beneficial owner. So wherever it is held in the world, it should be accounted for as part of that persons wealth.

Well the company would own the asset.

Maybe the single share of that company would be held by another offshore company 'in trust' and the profits of that company or dividends from it be spent by those trustees to the advantage of the individual who is the de facto but not de jure owner of those assets?

I'm not agin the concept of a wealth tax but I'm not sure that it would necessarily be an easier tax to administer or that it is necessarily fairer (especially if that wealth is just paper wealth?).

[snowychap]

Tony, I'm not saying that Income Tax is entirely fair. As a someone that regularly pays 40%, maybe that should be addressed. However, I would state that the Tax bands that we have at present, I believe are also better than those that were produced by the previous Tory Government.

I can also point out that if we had the Poll Tax now, I would also be considerably better off.

Those tax bands which change in 11 days time and penalise those income tax payers with income less than c£18k?

I have no idea. Explain

As of next tax year (i.e. from 5th April), the 10% starting rate band of income tax is going and the lower rate of income tax is being reduced from 22% to 20%.

This actually means that those income tax payers on incomes below around £18k will pay more in income tax next year under the revised system than the previous system.

[lee_av]

Tony, I'm not saying that Income Tax is entirely fair. As a someone that regularly pays 40%, maybe that should be addressed. However, I would state that the Tax bands that we have at present, I believe are also better than those that were produced by the previous Tory Government.

I can also point out that if we had the Poll Tax now, I would also be considerably better off.

Those tax bands which change in 11 days time and penalise those income tax payers with income less than c£18k?

I have no idea. Explain

As of next tax year (i.e. from 5th April), the 10% starting rate band of income tax is going and the lower rate of income tax is being reduced from 22% to 20%.

This actually means that those income tax payers on incomes below around £18k will pay more in income tax next year under the revised system than the previous system.

Which I agree sounds a bit shit doesn't it. But the Poll Tax it ain't

[snowychap]

Which I agree sounds a bit shit doesn't it. But the Poll Tax it ain't

Very true.

[Gringo]

Would Levi's suggestion be a personal wealth tax or a wealth tax for any legal entity?

If there is no taxation on income then why would a wealthy person not just set up an offshore company which holds the assets which effectively are the assets of the individual and then an income stream comes from that offshore company to the individual?

Surely someone owns that asset - either through shares, controlling companies or other arrangements - ie there is a final beneficial owner. So wherever it is held in the world, it should be accounted for as part of that persons wealth.

Well the company would own the asset.

Maybe the single share of that company would be held by another offshore company 'in trust' and the profits of that company or dividends from it be spent by those trustees to the advantage of the individual who is the de facto but not de jure owner of those assets?

I'm not agin the concept of a wealth tax but I'm not sure that it would necessarily be an easier tax to administer or that it is necessarily fairer (especially if that wealth is just paper wealth?).

As per my previous post - the ultimate beneficial owner of the asset. This is not a unique concept, one already used within stockmarkets and existing tax regimes. So if a company owns an assset, someone eventually owns the company, The tax and/or financial regulatory regimes can force companies to explain and account for who the ultimate benefical owner is. And they would pay.

[snowychap]

As per my previous post - the ultimate beneficial owner of the asset. This is not a unique concept, one already used within stockmarkets and existing tax regimes. So if a company owns an assset, someone eventually owns the company, The tax and/or financial regulatory regimes can force companies to explain and account for who the ultimate benefical owner is. And they would pay.

How is an individual's wealth measured?

Market value for each asset?

Will the home in which someone lives be annually taxable?

Suppose I am an artist whose work is well sought after by the 'we saw you coming' brigade in South Ken - is the artwork which I have just painted considered an asset and independently valued by some mucker from the revenue?

I know I'm being particularly contrary here but I foresee difficulties. :winkold:

[paddy]

Got to be Stalin, good to see most people agree.

[Pelle]

VT at it's best. A poll about who the most evil person in the history (maybe after Hitler) goes into a discussion about the taxes in England. I too voted Stalin, btw.

[claret+blue_watch]

And as if by magic: Treasury reveals tax burden is heaviest on poor

An excerpt:

BRITAIN’S richest people are paying 4p in the pound less in tax than any other section of the population, according to new figures released by the Treasury.

The data show the top 1% of households hand over 31% of their income when all direct and indirect taxes are accounted for, compared with an average of 35% for everyone else.

Much of the gap has opened up because, while the rich pay a higher rate of income tax, they pay a smaller proportion of their income in indirect levies such as television licences and Vat on goods and services.

The Treasury analysis .. covers figures for 2005-6, the latest available.....

During the summer there was public controversy about the low rates of tax enjoyed by private equity tycoons, some of whom can pay as little as 10% on their earnings.

The controversy was stoked in June when Nicholas Ferguson, chairman of SVG Capital, admitted in an interview that he felt uncomfortable paying lower taxes than his cleaner.

“Any commonsense person would say that a highly paid private equity executive paying less tax than a cleaning lady or other low-paid workers . . . can’t be right,” he said.

.....

For the lowest 10% of earners, the average annual income per household is £8,366, of which 44.2% is paid as tax.

At the other end of the spectrum, the top 10% of households receive an average £88,334 and pay 35% in tax. The highest-earning 1% have an income of more than £92,300. Households on the median income of £24,700 pay 35.3% in tax.

....

(more on link)

Everyday until the next general election a little bit more of me is ashamed that I voted for these charlatans, not once, but twice.NuLabour, party of the working class .

And before any of the Brownites start, I have never voted Conservative and probably never will, and in their current guise I will never vote Labour again either.

I voted Thatcher because of personal reasons regarding Wapping, and I detested her and her Government, much as I do this current shower of shite.

[Gringo]

As per my previous post - the ultimate beneficial owner of the asset. This is not a unique concept, one already used within stockmarkets and existing tax regimes. So if a company owns an assset, someone eventually owns the company, The tax and/or financial regulatory regimes can force companies to explain and account for who the ultimate benefical owner is. And they would pay.

How is an individual's wealth measured?

Market value for each asset?

Will the home in which someone lives be annually taxable?

Suppose I am an artist whose work is well sought after by the 'we saw you coming' brigade in South Ken - is the artwork which I have just painted considered an asset and independently valued by some mucker from the revenue?

I know I'm being particularly contrary here but I foresee difficulties. :winkold:

Properties are already valued for council tax purposes, just that the valuations are not updated due to a fear of upsetting the electorate. Shares are easy to value if they have a market price, or some other balance sheet/p&l calculation could be used to determine a nominal value. Artitsts will be put on the bonfire as subversives so your last point becomes null and void.

[snowychap]

Artitsts will be put on the bonfire as subversives so your last point becomes null and void.

[thetrees]

Properties are already valued for council tax purposes, just that the valuations are not updated due to a fear of upsetting the electorate.

They don't really need to be updated, do they?

As long as the respective councils get their annual percentage increase, they can leave things as they are, as proportionally the definition between property size remains the same.

[TrentVilla]

Why is there no option for the evil bird from the last series of The Apprentice? I'm going to boycott this vote in protest.

[mjmooney]

Anyway, it should be "who is the MOST evil?" as there are more than two choices.