snowychap Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I think the only one that could be defined would be the tax rate. That could be compared to other countries and what generally happened when tax rates were altered. You would think that would happen here Well, the C4 news story at the moment is just explaining how a number of companies (including A4E and Emma Harrison - formerly a government tsar/guru/advisor or summat) had paid unusually large dividends before the beginning of the tax year in order to avoid incurring the increased rate. Ignoring any debate on whether that ought to have been expected and so on, it would mean that any calculation on how much this tax increase raised is distorted by these kinds of transactions. To get some kind of picture (though for reasons mentioned earlier in the thread this would still be pretty finger in the air), one would need to run the rate for at least a couple of FYs so that these kinds of single transaction distortions could be taken out of that equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I do find it amazing how AJ Rimmer above seems to be talking proudly about stripping the assets of collapsing communist countries, and without batting an eyelid telling us what a pity it would have been to have to share the rewards with the people of Britain. I wouldn't be that amazed when you consider that a previous post from A.J.Rimmer said the following: As for the salaries and bonuses... if I were underwritten by the British taxpayer, I'd award myself bonuses of ten times what these boys are getting... only a fool would not. The point I was trying to make here was simply this... if the government decides to pay all the overseas holidays of someone who goes on holiday every 2 years... don't be surprised if you suddenly discover they are taking 5 holidays a year. Just in case you didn't know, people tend to be like that. One sees it every day... the government pays people for not working and now we have millions of people who don't work... another smegging surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 So no one is going to step up and answer my question? What do you mean by 'losing us the most money'? Well how much do you think the estimate is of government waste each year in comparison to the amount estimated is lost through tax avoidance in comparison to the amount estimated we lose (or someone might argue we gain) by having the top rate of at 40% as opposed to 50%? I would personally suspect that the government waste is the most, followed by tax avoidance, followed by the difference between 40% and 50%. I would further suspect that a lot of people who don’t pay the top rate do so through tax avoidance, both legal and illegal and those who do certainly have ways of minimising the total tax they pay If the government was say 1% more efficient how much would that save and how would that compare to the gain in revenue from a higher rate? I note for example that the second aircraft carrier is going to cost an extra £2 billion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 there is a huge difference between taxing in the interest of fairness, and asset stripping the wealthy for an ideological cause. to compare socialism with communism is as misjudged as calling the tories a bunch of uber fascists intent on destroying the lower classes through pricing them out of living. anyway, mansion tax ie london tax and a cut in vat will do nicely in the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I think the only one that could be defined would be the tax rate. That could be compared to other countries and what generally happened when tax rates were altered. You would think that would happen here Well, the C4 news story at the moment is just explaining how a number of companies (including A4E and Emma Harrison - formerly a government tsar/guru/advisor or summat) had paid unusually large dividends before the beginning of the tax year in order to avoid incurring the increased rate. Ignoring any debate on whether that ought to have been expected and so on, it would mean that any calculation on how much this tax increase raised is distorted by these kinds of transactions. To get some kind of picture (though for reasons mentioned earlier in the thread this would still be pretty finger in the air), one would need to run the rate for at least a couple of FYs so that these kinds of single transaction distortions could be taken out of that equation. I agree with that. However we always have to reinvent the wheel don't we I was just thinking on a historical level over the last 100 years, it should be relatively easy to compare what happened in comparable countries. And I know some people try to avoid tax, but I dont think thats a new thing, There must have been tax dodgers before the war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 19, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 19, 2012 Share dividends are taxed at 20%, Most 'rich' people i know have a salary of £7470, the rest of their income is paid as a dividend, no NI and no 40% tax rate, let alone 50%................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Well how much do you think the estimate is of government waste each year in comparison to the amount estimated is lost through tax avoidance in comparison to the amount estimated we lose (or someone might argue we gain) by having the top rate of at 40% as opposed to 50%? I'm not really sure there is much point in comparing the estimates of these three different things. Firstly, you'd have to try and assess the quality of the estimates and then you'd be in the territory that you went in to in your second para., i.e. 'I would personally suspect that'. On the 'waste' angle, does increased efficiency (or less 'waste') necessarily improve the overall economy? I suppose it would depend on how you measure it - GDP or under utilization of capacity or trade competitiveness and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I was just thinking on a historical level over the last 100 years, it should be relatively easy to compare what happened in comparable countries. What qualifies as a comparable country? I should imagine that it would be rather difficult, actually, and probably not too sensible to draw conclusions on that basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The point I was trying to make here was simply this... The point you made was that some people will quite happily take advantage of a situation to enrich themselves (with little or no thought as to the consequences to others), will try to justify it (often in a pretty puerlie manner) by claiming that no one else is any different and will sneer at those whose behaviour does not plumb the depths of indecent selfishness (I'd award myself bonuses of ten times what these boys are getting... only a fool would not) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Well how much do you think the estimate is of government waste each year in comparison to the amount estimated is lost through tax avoidance in comparison to the amount estimated we lose (or someone might argue we gain) by having the top rate of at 40% as opposed to 50%? I'm not really sure there is much point in comparing the estimates of these three different things. Firstly, you'd have to try and assess the quality of the estimates and then you'd be in the territory that you went in to in your second para., i.e. 'I would personally suspect that'. On the 'waste' angle, does increased efficiency (or less 'waste') necessarily improve the overall economy? I suppose it would depend on how you measure it - GDP or under utilization of capacity or trade competitiveness and so on. Well I would guess if you thought your tax were being used effectively, one might feel less likely to avoid and feel that its worth paying. Sure its hard to define efficiency, but if the government wasted less they would need to borrow less, have less need to tax highly, etc. If the government wastes money, its ultimately wasting our money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The point I was trying to make here was simply this... The point you made was that some people will quite happily take advantage of a situation to enrich themselves (with little or no thought as to the consequences to others), will try to justify it (often in a pretty puerlie manner) by claiming that no one else is any different and will sneer at those whose behaviour does not plumb the depths of indecent selfishness (I'd award myself bonuses of ten times what these boys are getting... only a fool would not) +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I was just thinking on a historical level over the last 100 years, it should be relatively easy to compare what happened in comparable countries. What qualifies as a comparable country? I should imagine that it would be rather difficult, actually, and probably not too sensible to draw conclusions on that basis. Oh i don't know if you just took the G8 countries and looked at the past 100 years, well I would think that generally if a tax reduction resulted in more / less revenue in most cases , then the same would apply here. Now I'm not trying to make it an exact science, and I don't know the outcome (more or less revenue). But In my mind anyway It would take away many of the arguments from both sides if you could just state that historically this is what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Well I would guess if you thought your tax were being used effectively, one might feel less likely to avoid and feel that its worth paying. I'm not sure that a survey of those who avoid tax would support that but intil we get one underway then we'll have to remain unsure (even if they took part, I'm not sure we could rely upon the answers of the respondents!). Sure its hard to define efficiency, but if the government wasted less they would need to borrow less, have less need to tax highly, etc. If the government wastes money, its ultimately wasting our money. It's not just about defining efficieny, though, Paulo. Beyond that, what are these wasted billions spent on and where do they go? Does this waste actually inflate the GDP figure, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Oh i don't know if you just took the G8 countries and looked at the past 100 years, well I would think that generally if a tax reduction resulted in more / less revenue in most cases , then the same would apply here. Why? Correlation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Share dividends are taxed at 20%, Most 'rich' people i know have a salary of £7470, the rest of their income is paid as a dividend, no NI and no 40% tax rate, let alone 50%................I'm not so sure that is strictly true ... In as much as share dividends are already taxed before they are paid out so although the company involved in effect pays the tax the individual still gets a lower dividended as a result then the individual is taxed via some complicated tax credit formula v rate of tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Oh i don't know if you just took the G8 countries and looked at the past 100 years, well I would think that generally if a tax reduction resulted in more / less revenue in most cases , then the same would apply here. Why? Correlation... why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 why not? Correlation does not imply causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 why not? Correlation does not imply causation. No, you are right. But it does provide a strong hint as to what may well happen and historically has happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 So no one is going to step up and answer my question? What do you mean by 'losing us the most money'? Well how much do you think the estimate is of government waste each year in comparison to the amount estimated is lost through tax avoidance in comparison to the amount estimated we lose (or someone might argue we gain) by having the top rate of at 40% as opposed to 50%? I would personally suspect that the government waste is the most, followed by tax avoidance, followed by the difference between 40% and 50%. I would further suspect that a lot of people who don’t pay the top rate do so through tax avoidance, both legal and illegal and those who do certainly have ways of minimising the total tax they pay If the government was say 1% more efficient how much would that save and how would that compare to the gain in revenue from a higher rate? I note for example that the second aircraft carrier is going to cost an extra £2 billion... It depends on how you define Goverment wastage. In any Large organisation you will be able to point out waste. However if waste equals wages then that never is a waste because its spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Share dividends are taxed at 20%, Most 'rich' people i know have a salary of £7470, the rest of their income is paid as a dividend, no NI and no 40% tax rate, let alone 50%................I'm not so sure that is strictly true ... In as much as share dividends are already taxed before they are paid out so although the company involved in effect pays the tax the individual still gets a lower dividended as a result then the individual is taxed via some complicated tax credit formula v rate of tax It's not even close to being true. Dividends are taxed at 10%, 32.5% and 42.5%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts